I actually saw where he was coming from on that. Now I feel dumb. What did I miss that makes it not funny?
.NET is an open language like Flash is. It's free for anyone to implement, but the design of.NET is not free, it is controlled by Microsoft. At the end of the day there is nothing stopping Microsoft from taking it in any direction they want, including making it dependent on Microsoft only dll's. This is what they did with their Java implementation, they made it attractive to developers to write apps that would only run on windows, when they thought what they were writing was platform independent code. It wasn't difficult to screw Sun over, just illegal.
You trust them to NOT do that when it's their language and no one can sue them? The argument for.NET being open is that there is a port to UNIX called Mono. But at the end of the day, you have another possible Java screw over.
I don't trust MS and I won't use.NET.
Note that MS is dropping support for plugins in their upcoming browser. They think that people should use HTML5, not Flash. Why? Because Flash is owned and controlled by Adobe. Personally I agree that it's a good reason not to use it. Same thing goes for.NET.
There is nothing funny about training kids to work for a Microsoft monopoly in the public school system. I don't like Java much myself, but it's cross platform. (Since the anti-trust hearings, remember those?)
Why not teach them how to construct geometric proofs instead? And this is a serious question.
The issue I have with teaching computer programing at such a young age is that programing languages tend to be transient. C or JAVA? A few years go it was BASIC vs. Fortran. I have had good C class that taught me theory which I use today – even though I know longer work in C. But if the kids are just learning how to hack – in the bad sense or the word – twisty rabbit warren logic type of code – then I would think more harm than good was done.
I think at that young age there is better ways to beef up their Cognitive skills (Chess, math - Heck – even a Jesuit priest teaching theology)
You had be agreeing with you right up to the point where you suggested exposing children to a priest.
I wonder what they'll be teaching them on. There must be some lightweight youngster friendly languages out there that teach you all the logic basics, and then extend out further.
Probably.NET or whatever the corporate favorite of the day is:-(
Most people don't become programmers by choice. Why force the 99% of kids that would not otherwise have an interest in computers to suffer through some poorly-thought-out introduction to Java?
Actually one in four people has the intrinsic required to become a professional programmer. I took auto mechanics in high school. I'm not an auto mechanic, but it is a useful knowledge set for driving a car. As programming is a useful knowledge set for using a computer.
As for poorly thought out "anything", well, it's poorly thought out, not really relevant to the point you seem to be making.
As for becoming a programmer by choice, I didn't have the opportunity to study computers until university, I found it a terrific and exciting application of logic. I guess I'm not most people in your book, nor are many of the people I've worked with over the years. In fact, I've run into a very few people who program for the money, but don't like it. But anyone who follows a discipline taht they don't really like deserves to be miserable.
I guess in summary, I'd have to say that you haven't got a fsking clue what you are talking about.
Even then, who am I to judge them if it makes them happy? They could eat a steady diet of lettuce leaves for the next 80 years and die miserable, or they could eat what they like for 40 years and die happy. Is the end goal to live a happy life or a long life? I know it's not that black and white, there are all kinds of other considerations like poor health, strain on the public purse, etc. I guess my real point is maybe it's better to educate people about what's better rather than outright bash what they like (they're far more likely to listen if they think you're not looking down on their choices).
The arguments are real, I agree that it is better to educate people. Notice that that is never done by the US administration, or big media. Lobbyists and big media make a lot of money seeing to that.
As for strain on the public purse, in the US the health care system is out to make money.
Hate to break it to you... but all mainstream music and film does suck, fast food is disgusting at best, unhealthy at worse, and there hasn't been more than a handful of games released in the last ten years that I've bothered to keep installed after playing through once.:P
Blasphemer!
Talk like that is unpatriotic.
You must be one of those commie reds my intelligent design teacher was telling me about.
bashing fast food even though people obviously like the taste
I know this isn't your point, but there are better reasons to bash fast food than the taste. For instance: people who live on it are unhealthy and live shorter lives.
LOL! Not what I meant exactly. I spend a significant amount of time helping others, I get much satisfaction from it.
What I meant was, life is too short to spend it swearing at viruses &etc. that I don't know how to fix. The only help I am qualified to offer now is to install Linux for them. If that's what they want.
Regardless of what government panels think, it isn't logical to say that a scientist isn't serious if he doesn't advocate nuclear energy. Different argument altogether. Certainly far from a logical assertion as you present it.
Since that is the basis for your argument, I reject it.
Please, Wall Street and companies like Goldman Sachs are far greater National Security Risks than any conglomeration of people in their basements DDoSing websites.
How do you figure? I don't see Anonymous on the list of big campaign donors.
You don't see Goldman Sachs either, they are anonymous.
Let me ask you this, why should the Chinese restrict themselves to "save the planet" when we are brutally raping our own landscape and polluting everything in sight to serve our rampant industrial conquest of the world?
As my mother would say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
If all these scientists and government panels are serious and truly believe we face a crises, then they would be advocating for nuclear power.
The fact that they don't and instead embrace politically attractive, yet ineffective technology leads the casual observer to doubt the veracity of their urgency.
Yes of course. That certainly makes sense. Perhaps in the future we will have them fill out forms that have a tick box asking them if they support nuclear power in their totally unrelated studies, and then throw out the ones that aren't ticked.
That should solve the matter once and for all. We'll only listen to scientists that advocate nuclear power.
Why should WE be restricting ourselves to "save the planet", when the Chinese are brutally raping their own landscape and polluting everything in sight to serve their rampant industrial conquest of the world...
And if the Chinese jumped off a building, you would too?
"If you're not a scientist, then you can't possibly disagree with what a scientist says" mantra is getting really old. It's wrong. Regardless where I stand on man-made global warming, no matter what, scientists and science are not infallible.
Nope, you don't have to agree with the scientists, the people who spend their lives studying a discipline and almost unanimously agree. You can agree with whomever you want.
Or you could open your eyes and look at what is happening to the climate. Outside. Now.
global warming mongers are abusing science to create an atmosphere of urgency in order to pass legislation to satisfy a leftist agenda. Sorry to say, but that's the truth
I'll repost a link that I found above listing the complete agreement between virtually all countries academies of science that global warming is real...
No one sounds dumber than an AC. The fact that you won't stand behind what you say drops 90% of your credibility before anyone even reads what you said.
Certainly, insulting people anonymously puts the 'C' in AC.
Slashdot Mirror
You've been able to replicate a four course dinner (from the article) on the USS Enterprise for, like, ever man!
I actually saw where he was coming from on that. Now I feel dumb. What did I miss that makes it not funny?
.NET is an open language like Flash is. It's free for anyone to implement, but the design of .NET is not free, it is controlled by Microsoft. At the end of the day there is nothing stopping Microsoft from taking it in any direction they want, including making it dependent on Microsoft only dll's. This is what they did with their Java implementation, they made it attractive to developers to write apps that would only run on windows, when they thought what they were writing was platform independent code. It wasn't difficult to screw Sun over, just illegal.
You trust them to NOT do that when it's their language and no one can sue them? The argument for .NET being open is that there is a port to UNIX called Mono. But at the end of the day, you have another possible Java screw over.
I don't trust MS and I won't use .NET.
Note that MS is dropping support for plugins in their upcoming browser. They think that people should use HTML5, not Flash. Why? Because Flash is owned and controlled by Adobe. Personally I agree that it's a good reason not to use it. Same thing goes for .NET.
There is nothing funny about training kids to work for a Microsoft monopoly in the public school system. I don't like Java much myself, but it's cross platform. (Since the anti-trust hearings, remember those?)
Why not teach them how to construct geometric proofs instead? And this is a serious question.
The issue I have with teaching computer programing at such a young age is that programing languages tend to be transient. C or JAVA? A few years go it was BASIC vs. Fortran. I have had good C class that taught me theory which I use today – even though I know longer work in C. But if the kids are just learning how to hack – in the bad sense or the word – twisty rabbit warren logic type of code – then I would think more harm than good was done.
I think at that young age there is better ways to beef up their Cognitive skills (Chess, math - Heck – even a Jesuit priest teaching theology)
You had be agreeing with you right up to the point where you suggested exposing children to a priest.
Force every class in existence on them because it might teach them other skills.
I doubt they will make everyone take it, although virtually everyone will have to use a computer, so maybe they should.
I wonder what they'll be teaching them on. There must be some lightweight youngster friendly languages out there that teach you all the logic basics, and then extend out further.
Probably .NET or whatever the corporate favorite of the day is :-(
Someone mod this NOT Funny.
Most people don't become programmers by choice. Why force the 99% of kids that would not otherwise have an interest in computers to suffer through some poorly-thought-out introduction to Java?
Actually one in four people has the intrinsic required to become a professional programmer. I took auto mechanics in high school. I'm not an auto mechanic, but it is a useful knowledge set for driving a car. As programming is a useful knowledge set for using a computer.
As for poorly thought out "anything", well, it's poorly thought out, not really relevant to the point you seem to be making.
As for becoming a programmer by choice, I didn't have the opportunity to study computers until university, I found it a terrific and exciting application of logic. I guess I'm not most people in your book, nor are many of the people I've worked with over the years. In fact, I've run into a very few people who program for the money, but don't like it. But anyone who follows a discipline taht they don't really like deserves to be miserable.
I guess in summary, I'd have to say that you haven't got a fsking clue what you are talking about.
Even then, who am I to judge them if it makes them happy? They could eat a steady diet of lettuce leaves for the next 80 years and die miserable, or they could eat what they like for 40 years and die happy. Is the end goal to live a happy life or a long life? I know it's not that black and white, there are all kinds of other considerations like poor health, strain on the public purse, etc. I guess my real point is maybe it's better to educate people about what's better rather than outright bash what they like (they're far more likely to listen if they think you're not looking down on their choices).
The arguments are real, I agree that it is better to educate people. Notice that that is never done by the US administration, or big media. Lobbyists and big media make a lot of money seeing to that.
As for strain on the public purse, in the US the health care system is out to make money.
Hate to break it to you... but all mainstream music and film does suck, fast food is disgusting at best, unhealthy at worse, and there hasn't been more than a handful of games released in the last ten years that I've bothered to keep installed after playing through once. :P
Blasphemer!
Talk like that is unpatriotic.
You must be one of those commie reds my intelligent design teacher was telling me about.
bashing fast food even though people obviously like the taste
I know this isn't your point, but there are better reasons to bash fast food than the taste. For instance: people who live on it are unhealthy and live shorter lives.
What that's silly. You should say "Show me the money" :) The problem is many people will
I make enough money doing things I want to do.
That is precisely what I thought of when I read this. Not just the test, the tortoise.
How do you figure? I don't see Anonymous on the list of big campaign donors.
You don't see Goldman Sachs either, they are anonymous.
You mean Goldman Sachs hacked Sony? That's really wild.
I couldn't say, I doubt it. I mean you don't see Goldman Sachs campaign contributions.
Yeah, helping others is just a waste of time.
LOL! Not what I meant exactly. I spend a significant amount of time helping others, I get much satisfaction from it.
What I meant was, life is too short to spend it swearing at viruses &etc. that I don't know how to fix. The only help I am qualified to offer now is to install Linux for them. If that's what they want.
I can now say 'I don't know, I don't use it anymore'.
Me too. I just shrug my shoulders and say it's not something I'm prepared to help them with. Life is too short.
Since that is the basis for your argument, I reject it.
Please, Wall Street and companies like Goldman Sachs are far greater National Security Risks than any conglomeration of people in their basements DDoSing websites.
How do you figure? I don't see Anonymous on the list of big campaign donors.
You don't see Goldman Sachs either, they are anonymous.
Let me ask you this, why should the Chinese restrict themselves to "save the planet" when we are brutally raping our own landscape and polluting everything in sight to serve our rampant industrial conquest of the world?
As my mother would say, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander."
Expect a significant jump in alien abduction and anal probing reports
This is no joking matter. Have you ever had your ass probed by an alien? I suspect not, or you would temper your remarks.
If all these scientists and government panels are serious and truly believe we face a crises, then they would be advocating for nuclear power.
The fact that they don't and instead embrace politically attractive, yet ineffective technology leads the casual observer to doubt the veracity of their urgency.
Yes of course. That certainly makes sense. Perhaps in the future we will have them fill out forms that have a tick box asking them if they support nuclear power in their totally unrelated studies, and then throw out the ones that aren't ticked.
That should solve the matter once and for all. We'll only listen to scientists that advocate nuclear power.
Brilliant.
Really? Who pays for the computers and routers and such? How about the electricity?
I suspect the people that own them, relevance?
How does its content differ from the public internet?
That's a secret. No one tells secrets to AC's. But the rest of us know. It's all a conspiracy to keep you in the dark.
How many people are on this secret Free internet?
Everyone but you.
Looking outside. Now. I see above average rain and I feel below average temperatures.
So obviously we should be concerned about global cooling and increased rain- so no water shortages. Right?
The problem with you half-witted advocates of a dubious pseudo-science is that you seem completely incapable of coherent argument.
Precisely the insulting answer I expected. Go look out the window in Texas, then read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations
Why should WE be restricting ourselves to "save the planet", when the Chinese are brutally raping their own landscape and polluting everything in sight to serve their rampant industrial conquest of the world...
And if the Chinese jumped off a building, you would too?
-- My Mother
"If you're not a scientist, then you can't possibly disagree with what a scientist says" mantra is getting really old. It's wrong. Regardless where I stand on man-made global warming, no matter what, scientists and science are not infallible.
Nope, you don't have to agree with the scientists, the people who spend their lives studying a discipline and almost unanimously agree. You can agree with whomever you want.
Or you could open your eyes and look at what is happening to the climate. Outside. Now.
global warming mongers are abusing science to create an atmosphere of urgency in order to pass legislation to satisfy a leftist agenda. Sorry to say, but that's the truth
I'll repost a link that I found above listing the complete agreement between virtually all countries academies of science that global warming is real...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations
Then ask you: Where do you get your "truth"?
"They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
Rather than truth as the authority."
-G. Massey, Egyptologist
No one sounds dumber than an AC. The fact that you won't stand behind what you say drops 90% of your credibility before anyone even reads what you said.
Certainly, insulting people anonymously puts the 'C' in AC.