Every "choice" we make is nothing more than a cascade of logic (in the electronics/programming sense) based on running recent perceptions through a network of previously conceived notions and instinctual prewiring. It's all completely deterministic.
Your argument is based on the assumption that we already know exactly how the brain takes any/all stimuli and uses this to generate a response. This assumption is far from true.
We simply do not know whether free will exists. You can't say that it does not exist just as no one else can say that it does.
This, to me, doesn't show that e-voting can't work. This simply means that all e-voting hardware and software needs to be completely open. If anyone can pick up the specs to the hardware, build their own, and verify that the actual e-voting hardware works exactly the same or pick up the source code, compile it, and test it, it would be very difficult to hide any bugs (deliberately placed or not).
Sure, it isn't perfect. But I don't think that it would be any less secure than the paper-only voting system.
It is printed by the government. Remember that a dollar essentially represents a dollar's worth of work (which is obviously subjective). As more work is done, more money needs to be printed to represent that work. That new money is injected into the economy via loans. This thread offers a pretty good explanation of how this works. It also links to this article which also describes how money is created and injected into the economy.
I recently had to see a doctor and was given this two-page contract that I assumed had to be signed before I could see him. It included both the ban on patient reviews and the section that you mentioned (stating that you agree to waive your right to a trial by jury). I sat there for a couple of minutes staring at the thing trying to decide whether I really wanted to sign it. I thought about asking whether I had to sign it in order to see the doctor, but I was pretty sick at the time and didn't want to put up with the hassle that could have followed. So, against my better judgment, I signed it.
Now I wish that I had at least asked. But at the time, I probably would have been willing to sign away other rights as well for a cure. I wonder, is it fair to ask someone to sign that kind of contract under those conditions?
I'm not an economist, but here is the way I see it:
Extra work (cooking) was done using the food as raw materials. The chef valued the service at $1 plus the cost of materials ($1). The chef provided a service (cooking) to the lender in exchange for his service (lending $1).
But I see what you're getting at. I think you're asking: Money that goes toward interest doesn't seem to represent any work done, so why is it worth anything?
Honestly, I don't know the answer to that (which is why I avoid anything with interest payments attached). In the end, the initial amount of money loaned to the borrower is returned to the lender. From the time that the money is loaned to the time that it is repaid, the lender loses a few things:
1. The money loaned loses value due to inflation, so it is not worth as much when it is repaid as it was when it was loaned. 2. Time. The lender could have used the money to buy raw materials to produce something to sell.
So as long as inflation exists, (1) should be repaid by the borrower. This could be in the form of an interest rate that matches the rate of inflation. So some interest rate is required just to repay the full value of what was borrowed. Most interest rates are much higher than this though.
(2) is harder to calculate. Did the lender have any free time that could have been used to produce something? Was the loan large enough that it left the lender with too little money to buy raw materials? I think that the answer to both of these questions would be "no" in most cases. But even if the answer is "yes", does the lender really deserve to be paid for this? The borrower wouldn't be paying the lender to do any work. It doesn't take any effort for the lender to sit around and wait for his money to be repaid.
Exactly. Which is probably why health care and free market capitalism don't seem to play nicely.
In free market capitalism, consumers have the choice to consume goods and services from the individual/company that best provides them at the most reasonable cost. If the consumer feels that no one does this, they can choose not to consume.
That last part seems to be the problem with the current US health care system. Every part of the industry is over priced, but consumers can't choose not to consume in order to drive prices down. If a person is sick and needs to see a doctor, most will choose to see one no matter what the cost is because avoiding the alternative (long term suffering or death) is worth any cost to most. So the price continues to go up until many can't afford it.
This creates two classes: some who can afford health care and many who can't. Many who go through preventable pain, suffering, and death, and some who can afford not to. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a society where those two classes exist.
As far as I'm concerned, people who pay for a copy of their game software have *every* right to opt to use said software with other, alternate servers, if they so desire. They also have every right to run any manner of automated script or "bot" in lieu of physically sitting in front of their screen and hand-manipulating the character they've paid for the subscription to use on Blizzard's servers!
I agree, to some extent. These extra limitations described in the EULA were not known to the user until after they purchased the software, so I don't think that it is fair to hold them to its terms.
I think it should be possible for a company to limit the way in which a service that they provide is used, but those limitations should be listed upfront before the user makes any purchases. Most software EULAs do not. The user does not know that the software contains these limitations until after the software has been purchased and opened, at which point the store that sold the software usually will not allow a refund. I think that the EULA should be printed on the box so that its terms are known before the software is purchased, with the added benefit that the EULA will be short enough that more people would actually read it.
Apparently you missed the disclaimer at the end. My post was not about whether I believe that the LHC will create a black hole or whether I believe that a black hole created by the LHC would destroy the planet. I only said that if it cannot be shown that both of these events are impossible, then I don't believe it is worthwhile to run the experiment.
That said, no, I have not heard of any black holes created by any other particle accelerators. Links?
Exactly. But you can't assume that it is smaller either. The calculations need to be fixed before we know one way or the other. I think that was the GP's point.
But, since it's impossible to predict the likelihood of something we don't know anything about, at some point one just has to throw the switch and see what happens.
I disagree. There is always the option to forgo the experiment. Sure, the knowledge gained from the outcome of the experiment could lead to great things. But if there is even a small possibility that the experiment could destroy the planet (along with us and all of the knowledge that we have gained until now), is it really worth it to just "throw the switch and see what happens"?
Besides, forgoing this one experiment does not mean that we will never learn what was meant to be learned through this experiment. In the future, a similar experiment could be designed to protect the planet from any potential risks (for example, building something similar to the LHC but far enough away from the planet that it does not pose any danger to the planet). Also, what is considered "impossible to predict" today may become possible to predict in the future.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying whether I believe that the LHC poses any significant risk to the planet or that we should shut it down. I am definitely not qualified to make that decision. I'm only saying that if there is some possibility, however small, that it could destroy the planet, then forgoing this experiment is an option that should be considered.
You also need to take into account the amount of energy required for distribution. i.e. How much does it cost to distribute electricity over power lines vs. distributing gasoline? And how does this compare to distributing other forms of energy storage? I imagine less energy would be consumed by distributing electricity over power lines than hauling gasoline in our current gasoline distribution network. Although I haven't done/seen the calculations for any of this, just noting that it needs to be taken into account.
I guess that depends on your definition of "freedom". Personally, I would rather enjoy my freedom to breathe cleaner air and avoid having to listen to unnecessarily loud exhaust systems.
I'm curious as to whether annoying the crap out of everyone around you is a constitutionally protected right. I'm thinking no. Which is why I'm surprised there's not more of a police crack-down on such behavior.
Something is not illegal simply because it is not defined in the Constitution as a right.
That said, there are laws that define the acceptable noise level that an exhaust system may produce, but they vary from state to state. In California, the limit on motorcycles varies between 80 and 88 dbA depending on the date of manufacture. California law also states that the exhaust can't be modified to exceed that level.
This is not true. Every financial institution in the US must collect a SS number as part of its Customer Identification Program.
According to provisions of the USA Patriot Act, all financial institutions must verify the identity of individuals wishing to conduct financial transactions.
A SS number must be obtained as part of the Customer Identification Program.
The CIP Rules establish the minimum identification information a financial institution must collect from you before opening a new account. Beyond this, financial institutions have flexibility to adopt CIP procedures appropriate to the business operations of each.
Four data items are required for all new accounts. These are:
* Name.
* Date of birth (for an individual).
* Address.
* Identification number.
Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Indisputably. If you don't like the temperature fact, try the size of the ice cover over the north pole.
I think you missed the GP's point. His point is that we have been taking direct measurements of temperature, CO2 levels, polar ice coverage, etc. for a very short (in the geologic sense) period of time. We can't use this data alone because the time frame that it represents is too short to draw any meaningful conclusions. It would be like trying to determine yearly trends in the stock market by looking at a couple of seconds of trade data.
So to extend our observation time frame, we add data from indirect measurements which are not as accurate. One problem with these measurements is that they can lump hundreds of years worth of data into a single data point. Ice cores, for example, show yearly data near the top, but deeper sections combine data over 10s then 100s of years. In the past, there may have been a rise in temperature similar to the one we are seeing today followed by a period of falling temperatures, but we would see this as only a single data point in an ice core unless it happened very recently.
But that is only one example. There are many other potential problems with the methods used to indirectly obtain past climate data. You're right that the evidence we currently have shows a global rise in temperature, but that is based on a lot of assumptions. I think saying that a global rise in temperature is indisputably happening is going a little too far.
Most of my clients know me only via phone number, email address, or chat alias. I still produce work and they still pay me.
I'm sure you have enough of their info to find them in case they ever fail to pay you for the work that you do. And I'm sure that they would have a fairly easy time finding you if they paid you and you failed to do the work promised (follow the money trail).
My bank and my credit cards knows me by a made up user name. They still let me move my money around.
If you're in the US, they have your SS number. They probably also have a lot of other info like address, phone number, birth certificate, etc. If by "made up user name" you mean your online banking username or your credit card/account number, these are all linked to that other info so they can find you if they need to.
Amazon only knows me by a made up name and they trust me enough to take my money and ship goods to some address I just gave them.
They take the money before they ship the goods. As long as they receive money before they release their goods, they are happy.
The online presence becomes "real" when the owner must be found for legal purposes. A Facebook account obviously was not designed so that it could be traced to the owner/creator of the account. The author's point was that these anonymous accounts should not be allowed to be used for legal purposes.
CRA really had very little affect on this whole situation. Here is a good argument against the "Blame-CRA" theory. To summarize, from the link:
...half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves... Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending.
I don't think that your description of the whole mortgage securities buying/selling process is entirely accurate. My understanding is that it is like a game of musical chairs. Banks bought and sold securities for ($loan_amount + $loan_future_interest). As the interest rate went up on adjustable rates, people were no longer able to pay the loans off and the loans defaulted. So a large percentage of $loan_future_interest was immediately lost by whoever was stuck holding the securities when the music stopped. And a significant percentage of $loan_amount also could not be recovered by taking possession of and selling the property because the property had lost value due to the housing bubble.
...they should be prosecuted for making (and winning) the bet that tens of thousands of people would lose their livelihoods, their houses.
I think prosecution goes a little too far. In most cases, everything was legal. Although I don't think that they deserve to be bailed out either. They made a bad decision, both borrower and lender (the people who took those unaffordable loans are as much at fault as the banks who gave them). Suffering monetarily is punishment enough. Personally, I think that the banks should lose the money (no bank bailouts) and the borrowers should lose their homes (no homeowner bailouts). Why should anyone else (the taxpayers) have to pay for the banks' or the homeowners' bad decisions? Sure, many banks would go under, but is that really such a bad thing? The only decent argument I've heard against letting these banks fail is that it will reduce the amount of available credit. But isn't credit (the idea that property can be obtained now while the money is paid later) what got us into this mess in the first place? Personally, I think the sooner our country loses its addiction to credit the better.
I agree, although I would pick only one of these languages assuming this will be only a single quarter/semester course. I think Java (using Eclipse for the IDE) would be a great place for a young programmer to start. Both are free, very easy to install/use, and will run on whatever operating system is installed on their parents' computers.
Many universities and businesses use Java. I believe that an early introduction to Java would best prepare them for a wider range of future university courses or business opportunities.
Understood. Although I believe that this business practice is unethical and possibly illegal. Their plan effectively locks out any competition in Xbox 360 hardware and software. Microsoft has already been fined for similar licensing practices.
So you don't agree with their plan... you could get something else..
I see what you're saying. In a free market we can choose not to buy the system that locks you into buying the vendor's own after-market items and go for the slightly more expensive system without the vendor lock-in. In reality, most will buy the cheaper system without realizing that they have been locked into buying the more expensive add-ons from the same vendor. Competing companies will be forced to lower their prices to stay competitive. But without the extra add-on revenue, they will eventually go under. So in the end, you don't have a choice.
Imagine if car manufacturers tried to pull this same stunt. You buy a Ford because it is the cheapest. But, Ford has designed their car so that it doesn't start unless it is using Ford-licensed tires, which sell for a lot more than competing tires. There is already proposed legislation to stop this type of business practice in the automobile industry. I think that the software industry should be held to the same standards.
I didn't mean "general purpose computer" in the "grandma's email box" sense. I meant "general purpose computer" -- as in something that will compute the output of any given input. I don't care whether any of those applications work. As long as GCC works, I'm happy. And if it takes some modification to get that to work, I would be OK with that too. My problem is that this thing refuses to compute the output of anything except Microsoft-approved input.
I seriously doubt that censorship would be a problem. But I agree that high-bandwidth users will probably be charged more in the end. It will probably work a lot like over-the-air vs. cable TV. Commercial internet providers will begin offering the "basic cable" equivalent of internet service at a relatively low price. Those users who require more bandwidth could go for the "premium" service which, as you pointed out, will likely cost more without other users (paying for more than they actually use) picking up the extra cost. As for censorship, I doubt it would be censored any more than broadcast TV.
Slashdot Mirror
In Soviet Russia, incomplete code is rearranged at random?
Every "choice" we make is nothing more than a cascade of logic (in the electronics/programming sense) based on running recent perceptions through a network of previously conceived notions and instinctual prewiring. It's all completely deterministic.
Your argument is based on the assumption that we already know exactly how the brain takes any/all stimuli and uses this to generate a response. This assumption is far from true.
We simply do not know whether free will exists. You can't say that it does not exist just as no one else can say that it does.
I didn't realise we had self replicating, self repairing solar panels now.
We do. They're called plants.
This, to me, doesn't show that e-voting can't work. This simply means that all e-voting hardware and software needs to be completely open. If anyone can pick up the specs to the hardware, build their own, and verify that the actual e-voting hardware works exactly the same or pick up the source code, compile it, and test it, it would be very difficult to hide any bugs (deliberately placed or not).
Sure, it isn't perfect. But I don't think that it would be any less secure than the paper-only voting system.
It is printed by the government. Remember that a dollar essentially represents a dollar's worth of work (which is obviously subjective). As more work is done, more money needs to be printed to represent that work. That new money is injected into the economy via loans. This thread offers a pretty good explanation of how this works. It also links to this article which also describes how money is created and injected into the economy.
Man, do I feel stupid now.
I recently had to see a doctor and was given this two-page contract that I assumed had to be signed before I could see him. It included both the ban on patient reviews and the section that you mentioned (stating that you agree to waive your right to a trial by jury). I sat there for a couple of minutes staring at the thing trying to decide whether I really wanted to sign it. I thought about asking whether I had to sign it in order to see the doctor, but I was pretty sick at the time and didn't want to put up with the hassle that could have followed. So, against my better judgment, I signed it.
Now I wish that I had at least asked. But at the time, I probably would have been willing to sign away other rights as well for a cure. I wonder, is it fair to ask someone to sign that kind of contract under those conditions?
I'm not an economist, but here is the way I see it:
Extra work (cooking) was done using the food as raw materials. The chef valued the service at $1 plus the cost of materials ($1). The chef provided a service (cooking) to the lender in exchange for his service (lending $1).
But I see what you're getting at. I think you're asking: Money that goes toward interest doesn't seem to represent any work done, so why is it worth anything?
Honestly, I don't know the answer to that (which is why I avoid anything with interest payments attached). In the end, the initial amount of money loaned to the borrower is returned to the lender. From the time that the money is loaned to the time that it is repaid, the lender loses a few things:
1. The money loaned loses value due to inflation, so it is not worth as much when it is repaid as it was when it was loaned.
2. Time. The lender could have used the money to buy raw materials to produce something to sell.
So as long as inflation exists, (1) should be repaid by the borrower. This could be in the form of an interest rate that matches the rate of inflation. So some interest rate is required just to repay the full value of what was borrowed. Most interest rates are much higher than this though.
(2) is harder to calculate. Did the lender have any free time that could have been used to produce something? Was the loan large enough that it left the lender with too little money to buy raw materials? I think that the answer to both of these questions would be "no" in most cases. But even if the answer is "yes", does the lender really deserve to be paid for this? The borrower wouldn't be paying the lender to do any work. It doesn't take any effort for the lender to sit around and wait for his money to be repaid.
Rigged? Isn't that what capitalism is all about?
Exactly. Which is probably why health care and free market capitalism don't seem to play nicely.
In free market capitalism, consumers have the choice to consume goods and services from the individual/company that best provides them at the most reasonable cost. If the consumer feels that no one does this, they can choose not to consume.
That last part seems to be the problem with the current US health care system. Every part of the industry is over priced, but consumers can't choose not to consume in order to drive prices down. If a person is sick and needs to see a doctor, most will choose to see one no matter what the cost is because avoiding the alternative (long term suffering or death) is worth any cost to most. So the price continues to go up until many can't afford it.
This creates two classes: some who can afford health care and many who can't. Many who go through preventable pain, suffering, and death, and some who can afford not to. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a society where those two classes exist.
As far as I'm concerned, people who pay for a copy of their game software have *every* right to opt to use said software with other, alternate servers, if they so desire. They also have every right to run any manner of automated script or "bot" in lieu of physically sitting in front of their screen and hand-manipulating the character they've paid for the subscription to use on Blizzard's servers!
I agree, to some extent. These extra limitations described in the EULA were not known to the user until after they purchased the software, so I don't think that it is fair to hold them to its terms.
I think it should be possible for a company to limit the way in which a service that they provide is used, but those limitations should be listed upfront before the user makes any purchases. Most software EULAs do not. The user does not know that the software contains these limitations until after the software has been purchased and opened, at which point the store that sold the software usually will not allow a refund. I think that the EULA should be printed on the box so that its terms are known before the software is purchased, with the added benefit that the EULA will be short enough that more people would actually read it.
Apparently you missed the disclaimer at the end. My post was not about whether I believe that the LHC will create a black hole or whether I believe that a black hole created by the LHC would destroy the planet. I only said that if it cannot be shown that both of these events are impossible, then I don't believe it is worthwhile to run the experiment.
That said, no, I have not heard of any black holes created by any other particle accelerators. Links?
Exactly. But you can't assume that it is smaller either. The calculations need to be fixed before we know one way or the other. I think that was the GP's point.
But, since it's impossible to predict the likelihood of something we don't know anything about, at some point one just has to throw the switch and see what happens.
I disagree. There is always the option to forgo the experiment. Sure, the knowledge gained from the outcome of the experiment could lead to great things. But if there is even a small possibility that the experiment could destroy the planet (along with us and all of the knowledge that we have gained until now), is it really worth it to just "throw the switch and see what happens"?
Besides, forgoing this one experiment does not mean that we will never learn what was meant to be learned through this experiment. In the future, a similar experiment could be designed to protect the planet from any potential risks (for example, building something similar to the LHC but far enough away from the planet that it does not pose any danger to the planet). Also, what is considered "impossible to predict" today may become possible to predict in the future.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying whether I believe that the LHC poses any significant risk to the planet or that we should shut it down. I am definitely not qualified to make that decision. I'm only saying that if there is some possibility, however small, that it could destroy the planet, then forgoing this experiment is an option that should be considered.
You also need to take into account the amount of energy required for distribution. i.e. How much does it cost to distribute electricity over power lines vs. distributing gasoline? And how does this compare to distributing other forms of energy storage? I imagine less energy would be consumed by distributing electricity over power lines than hauling gasoline in our current gasoline distribution network. Although I haven't done/seen the calculations for any of this, just noting that it needs to be taken into account.
Right, and in most states it has been defined similar to this. Here is California's definition, measured "50 feet from the centerline of travel".
I guess WE truly believe in freedom :).
I guess that depends on your definition of "freedom". Personally, I would rather enjoy my freedom to breathe cleaner air and avoid having to listen to unnecessarily loud exhaust systems.
I'm curious as to whether annoying the crap out of everyone around you is a constitutionally protected right. I'm thinking no. Which is why I'm surprised there's not more of a police crack-down on such behavior.
Something is not illegal simply because it is not defined in the Constitution as a right.
That said, there are laws that define the acceptable noise level that an exhaust system may produce, but they vary from state to state. In California, the limit on motorcycles varies between 80 and 88 dbA depending on the date of manufacture. California law also states that the exhaust can't be modified to exceed that level.
This is not true. Every financial institution in the US must collect a SS number as part of its Customer Identification Program.
According to provisions of the USA Patriot Act, all financial institutions must verify the identity of individuals wishing to conduct financial transactions.
A SS number must be obtained as part of the Customer Identification Program.
The CIP Rules establish the minimum identification information a financial institution must collect from you before opening a new account. Beyond this, financial institutions have flexibility to adopt CIP procedures appropriate to the business operations of each.
Four data items are required for all new accounts. These are:
* Name.
* Date of birth (for an individual).
* Address.
* Identification number.
Different definition of "real". Of course the account exists. I believe the OP meant "real" as in "recognized by the court".
Has it been shown that it is definitely happening? Indisputably. If you don't like the temperature fact, try the size of the ice cover over the north pole.
I think you missed the GP's point. His point is that we have been taking direct measurements of temperature, CO2 levels, polar ice coverage, etc. for a very short (in the geologic sense) period of time. We can't use this data alone because the time frame that it represents is too short to draw any meaningful conclusions. It would be like trying to determine yearly trends in the stock market by looking at a couple of seconds of trade data.
So to extend our observation time frame, we add data from indirect measurements which are not as accurate. One problem with these measurements is that they can lump hundreds of years worth of data into a single data point. Ice cores, for example, show yearly data near the top, but deeper sections combine data over 10s then 100s of years. In the past, there may have been a rise in temperature similar to the one we are seeing today followed by a period of falling temperatures, but we would see this as only a single data point in an ice core unless it happened very recently.
But that is only one example. There are many other potential problems with the methods used to indirectly obtain past climate data. You're right that the evidence we currently have shows a global rise in temperature, but that is based on a lot of assumptions. I think saying that a global rise in temperature is indisputably happening is going a little too far.
Most of my clients know me only via phone number, email address, or chat alias. I still produce work and they still pay me.
I'm sure you have enough of their info to find them in case they ever fail to pay you for the work that you do. And I'm sure that they would have a fairly easy time finding you if they paid you and you failed to do the work promised (follow the money trail).
My bank and my credit cards knows me by a made up user name. They still let me move my money around.
If you're in the US, they have your SS number. They probably also have a lot of other info like address, phone number, birth certificate, etc. If by "made up user name" you mean your online banking username or your credit card/account number, these are all linked to that other info so they can find you if they need to.
Amazon only knows me by a made up name and they trust me enough to take my money and ship goods to some address I just gave them.
They take the money before they ship the goods. As long as they receive money before they release their goods, they are happy.
The online presence becomes "real" when the owner must be found for legal purposes. A Facebook account obviously was not designed so that it could be traced to the owner/creator of the account. The author's point was that these anonymous accounts should not be allowed to be used for legal purposes.
...thanks to the CRA...
CRA really had very little affect on this whole situation. Here is a good argument against the "Blame-CRA" theory. To summarize, from the link:
...half of sub-prime loans came from those mortgage companies beyond the reach of CRA. A further 25 to 30 percent came from bank subsidiaries and affiliates, which come under CRA to varying degrees but not as fully as banks themselves... Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending.
I don't think that your description of the whole mortgage securities buying/selling process is entirely accurate. My understanding is that it is like a game of musical chairs. Banks bought and sold securities for ($loan_amount + $loan_future_interest). As the interest rate went up on adjustable rates, people were no longer able to pay the loans off and the loans defaulted. So a large percentage of $loan_future_interest was immediately lost by whoever was stuck holding the securities when the music stopped. And a significant percentage of $loan_amount also could not be recovered by taking possession of and selling the property because the property had lost value due to the housing bubble.
...they should be prosecuted for making (and winning) the bet that tens of thousands of people would lose their livelihoods, their houses.
I think prosecution goes a little too far. In most cases, everything was legal. Although I don't think that they deserve to be bailed out either. They made a bad decision, both borrower and lender (the people who took those unaffordable loans are as much at fault as the banks who gave them). Suffering monetarily is punishment enough. Personally, I think that the banks should lose the money (no bank bailouts) and the borrowers should lose their homes (no homeowner bailouts). Why should anyone else (the taxpayers) have to pay for the banks' or the homeowners' bad decisions? Sure, many banks would go under, but is that really such a bad thing? The only decent argument I've heard against letting these banks fail is that it will reduce the amount of available credit. But isn't credit (the idea that property can be obtained now while the money is paid later) what got us into this mess in the first place? Personally, I think the sooner our country loses its addiction to credit the better.
I agree, although I would pick only one of these languages assuming this will be only a single quarter/semester course. I think Java (using Eclipse for the IDE) would be a great place for a young programmer to start. Both are free, very easy to install/use, and will run on whatever operating system is installed on their parents' computers.
Many universities and businesses use Java. I believe that an early introduction to Java would best prepare them for a wider range of future university courses or business opportunities.
Understood. Although I believe that this business practice is unethical and possibly illegal. Their plan effectively locks out any competition in Xbox 360 hardware and software. Microsoft has already been fined for similar licensing practices.
So you don't agree with their plan... you could get something else..
I see what you're saying. In a free market we can choose not to buy the system that locks you into buying the vendor's own after-market items and go for the slightly more expensive system without the vendor lock-in. In reality, most will buy the cheaper system without realizing that they have been locked into buying the more expensive add-ons from the same vendor. Competing companies will be forced to lower their prices to stay competitive. But without the extra add-on revenue, they will eventually go under. So in the end, you don't have a choice.
Imagine if car manufacturers tried to pull this same stunt. You buy a Ford because it is the cheapest. But, Ford has designed their car so that it doesn't start unless it is using Ford-licensed tires, which sell for a lot more than competing tires. There is already proposed legislation to stop this type of business practice in the automobile industry. I think that the software industry should be held to the same standards.
I didn't mean "general purpose computer" in the "grandma's email box" sense. I meant "general purpose computer" -- as in something that will compute the output of any given input. I don't care whether any of those applications work. As long as GCC works, I'm happy. And if it takes some modification to get that to work, I would be OK with that too. My problem is that this thing refuses to compute the output of anything except Microsoft-approved input.
I seriously doubt that censorship would be a problem. But I agree that high-bandwidth users will probably be charged more in the end. It will probably work a lot like over-the-air vs. cable TV. Commercial internet providers will begin offering the "basic cable" equivalent of internet service at a relatively low price. Those users who require more bandwidth could go for the "premium" service which, as you pointed out, will likely cost more without other users (paying for more than they actually use) picking up the extra cost. As for censorship, I doubt it would be censored any more than broadcast TV.