Pangloss

I'm running out the door, but just a quick reply: I think that's a good point, and I imagine that works well for computer science majors. But one of the big changes in the computer industry the last few years has been that now only a small percentage of people who learn programming today are going into computer science. Even those who plan to program full time often (mostly?) have no need to learn fundamentals of memory management or machine code. Let's put it this way: If your goal is to write web applications or business programs, such as a typical client/server program with a database back end, you really have no need for C/C++. It's just not something you will ever use, and it won't teach you anything you need to know. If you look around at what the schools are teaching today, it's all Java, all the time. Nobody gets C/C++ except in pure computer science majors (and not always there either). IT, CIS, IS, any kind of applied major, they're going to learn Java. Anyway, yeah I see your point though.

Got any evidence for that, or are you just casting random doubt-bombs today?

I'm not sure why you'd ever want to learn C/C++, unless you happen to be writing operating systems or high-performance video games. I really don't understand why so many people recommend it for a first-time programmer. That just strikes me as a really horrible idea, unless of course you want them to run away from the computer as fast as they possibly can and never touch it again in their lifetimes. ;-)

I think he might have meant "fast to learn". But in terms of performance, C++ is the generally-acknowledged speed champion. It gives you almost direct access to hardware, whereas other popular languages (such as VB) tend to make calls to a "managed" code base (the .NET Framework) or an interpreter (Java in web pages), which slows things down but provides support aimed at avoiding and managing bugs. Believe it or not, execution speed is often (some would say "most of the time") the least important factor in good programming. It makes no difference if it takes 0.2 seconds to execute a command instead of 0.4 seconds if you're going to sit there idle for several seconds anyway while you wait on information to be transmitted over the Internet or culled from the DBMS. So the extra benefits of managed code are much more valuable than the difference in execution speed.

Sounds like spin to me. The statement I made was factually indisputable. There is, of course, one (and only one) way you can render it "incorrect". Your interpretation of the poll, on the other hand, is your own, and only your own. I have no evidence that you speak for anyone else.

I think the results of this poll are interesting. 60% favor "staying the course". A bigger statistical sample would be cool. Come on, folks!

So far 100% of the poll respondants feel they were terrorists. Still, you have some interesting points there, and I appreciate the background input on Leeds. One brief correction: I was referring to the media in general with that comment, not the BBC specifically. My fault for not being clear. I haven't made up my mind about bias at the BBC yet. That's why I ask questions about it, and I appreciate your input on the subject.

I think this is really more about people than governments, but yes, that seems to be the gist of it. Another good resource on this, by the way, is Frontline's recent episode about West Bank settlers, entitled "Israel's Next War?", which is available entirely online at this URL. That program is highly recommended. I think the key here is that the reason Sharon's position on settlers has changed is because of the change in public opinion amongst his people. That's an amazing thing, really -- Sharon arguably instigated the intefada, and his name has been synonymous with the right side of Israeli politics for decades, but now he leads the way toward a peace that actually involves the Israelis giving something up. Phrases involving "cows", "flight" and human hindquarters don't even begin to cover it.

I agree, but I think that the judge's only options were (a) "comply with the statute" or (b) "challenge the validity of the statute". Judicial review exists for a reason, but he could not simply decide that it doesn't apply to this man. One of the point that I think is being overlooked here is that not only did the judge uphold the validity of the statute, he actually defended its validity in a hypothetical scenario not involving sexual context. Talk about chilling effects. Equal justice under law means equal justice under law, not politically correct legal advantages for women.

Well I appreciate that you're just speculating, but if that's true, then it's a justification for bias. Their job to report the news, not figure out "social connotations". That's a perfect example of trying to use two wrongs to make a right. In other words, what you're saying is that they feel that "real people" are too stupid to figure out that they're being unduly influenced by words like "terrorism", so they're going to try to influence them with other words, chosen specifically for their social context. Here would be the hypothetical proof: I imagine that if you actually asked a BBC official if that were the case, they would deny it. If what you say is true, wouldn't that be something they would stand behind? But they won't -- they'll deny it, because they know that there's a massive logical flaw in that reasoning. (And yet they wonder why critics call them "elite".)

Could be. But it's worth noting that they're not just talking about gangs of street thugs when they say something like that. The definition of "witch hunt" by many liberal ideologues includes people like Blair and Bush, their legislation, and their police actions. When an organization that claims to be objective refuses to use an appropriate, objectively-accepted definition for political/ideological reasons, then it really doesn't matter what their rationale is. But I don't feel that the BBC or NYT are supporting or justifying terrorists.

Here's a link: http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/13/news/newsmakers/ebbers_sentence/index.htm?cnn=yes Yet another victory for the Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department, IMO, closing the last chapter on the largest case of accounting fraud in US history.

What's in a name? The BBC has allegedly ordered its reporters not to use the word "terrorist" when referring to the London bombers. Here in the States, the New York Times does the same with Iraq, calling it an "insurgency" and calling the Al Qaida people there "fighters". The Wikipedia defines terrorism as this: "Terrorism refers to the use of violence for the purpose of achieving a political, religious, or ideological goal." The poll question is simply this: Do you feel that the London bombers were "terrorists"?

Interesting column by Thomas Friedman in the Wednesday New York Times. He's mainly talking about how moderate Israelis have come to recognize that the settlers are not their friends. But he draws a fascinating parallel with the Arab-Muslim world that I have not read before -- he suggests that the path that Sharon and moderate Israelis are taking, in terms of trying to reign-in the settlers (and the radical right of Israeli politics) is exactly the approach that the Arab-Muslim world needs to take with regard to Islamic terrorism. What an excellent suggestion. Of course, the Palestinian Authority has been trying to do this for some time now, but an important point here would be that the PA doesn't always or often have the widespread support of the Palestinian people. Israeli moderates, on the other hand, seem to comprise the majority of the Israeli people. And they are not happy with the settlers, who are looking more like the classic, textbook definition of "terrorist" every day. Anyway, here's a link to the column: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/13/opinion/13friedman.html?ex=1278907200&en=5313c56e20689384&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Unfortunately registration is required, but here's an interesting quote to whet your appetite. (Registration is free, is not email-confirmed, and if you read the politics subforum of SFN on a regular basis, well worth the ten seconds it takes to set it up.) Fascinating stuff.

No, but if you hum a few bars I can fake it.

I recommend downloading JBuilder or Eclipse and grabbing a book the most recent book about Java you can find at the library. It's the best general-purpose language around, and it covers all the programming fundamentals just fine, so you really can't go wrong, and you haven't spent a dime. And you can find a bazillion web pages over the Internet to help you if you run into trouble.

Winston Churchill.

Seems like a reasonable point to me. FWIW, the jury trial I was supposed to be in started today but they settled (or "plea bargained", I guess) before we started hearing testimony.

Don't interrupt me while I'm adjusting my tin foil hat!

Wait, wait, I can debunk that scientifically! I also wanted to see piles of cash, and they did not appear. Explain... IF YOU CAN!

(Psst, Phi, you double-clicked the quote button there....)

Interesting points. (For a good "flip side" of the prejudicial problem, see "12 Angry Men".)

Right. In fact we had eight ballot referendums in Florida in November, and some of you may recall the discussion we locals had in this forum about them. They were immediate amendments to the state constitution, without any further consultation or consession from legislature, executive or judicial branches of government. They were examples of direct democracy. The issue has come up here recently because one of the referendums called for slot machines to be allowed in my county. The law passed, but the legislature failed to set guidelines for the regulation of the slot machines, and now the county is suing the state for the right to set its own regulatory laws on slots. Businesses want to proceed with installation, but they would violate various regulatory statutes in doing so, and create a legal nightmare. This points to a flaw in direct democracy -- if you think legislature is bad at making laws, just watch what happens when they're made by popular vote.

I was wrong above, he was working for the White House at the time. My postings keep getting OBE'd. I'm gonna step back from this for a while and wait for developments.