You would be hard pressed to find any job in just about any country and especially in the more industrialization nations that does not involve having basic computer knowledge.
Most farming is highly automated at this point. Tractors and combines can pilot them selves keeping them in a straight line on a row. When spraying each nozzle can report to the computer its output to make sure and get the most even spread. If some nozzles happen to go over an area already sprayed they can be shutoff.Even ignoring that part of it keeping track of seed pricing to know when to sell. To keep spreadsheets of costs and income.
Lets say a Librarian well all book systems are automated keeping track of patrons automated. Need to have a basic working knowledge of computers to do that. Before we moved systems I had to teach the Librarian how to rebuild a raid array not exactly hard. Why because she had the chance to use basic computers in her education.
It was not until 2008 that an ISP was finally move in to provide any type of internet service that was not dial up that home users could afford. The only two places before that with a non dial up connection was the local school and the public library.
I consider both schools and libraries key in the education especially in a rural area that did not get proper internet until the past 4 years. If it was not for the school having a computer and the public library I would not have had access to the internet and a home computer until about 2006-2007.
You'd be hard pressed to find any school in the United States that has a legitimate computer course offered as a core class or even an elective class.
For anecdotes, my school didn't get any computers until my sophomore year. The biggest school in our district (has ~5k students) only has computers in the library, and there are probably about twenty or so of them.
I'm not at all saying that computers are unnecessary knowledge, or how things set up now are a good ideas. But computers are not needed for education.
That's idiotic. Moving CS to a core class alongside subjects like Math, English, etc. is not a good idea.
For most Jobs, activities, and purposes, Computers are appliances. And while there is no doubt being better at using an appliance that is used for a specific purpose can make you better at what you are doing, that doesn't mean they should offer courses on that appliance.
Schools do not offer Advanced Placement Oven use, after all.
A Farmer will not know how to farm better if they take a CS course. The computers used in the previous example on a farm (which is almost entirely fictitious, we don't have robots combines and tractors on typical farms), don't run a conventional OS and a farmer is not going to be better at their Job by having learned to be a crack Java coder.
At it's core the entire thing is part of the "everybody should know how to program" movement.
That movement is wrong. It's wrong because it false equates the ability to program with essential life skills like reading, writing, and mathematics. But that's not the only reason. It also implies that more code in the world is somehow desirable. This is simply not the case. Most programmers (myself included) make efforts to write less code, and ideally none at all to achieve a given task. It also presents programming itself as a end, rather than a means to an end. Software developers (myself included!) tend to be software addicts who think their job is to write programming code- but that's a lie. My job is not to program, nor is my job to write code. My job is to provide a piece of software that meets the needs of our customers. The fact that it requires programming is a means to an end in the same way that constructing a building requires carpenters. Carpenters job isn't to "carpent" it's to mesh their skills into those of other workers to create a building. In the same way that my job isn't to "program" it's to use my skills in combination with those of other departments to make the product do what is desired. Sales/Marketing knows better what customers want than I do. and I know better the best way to program to provide that capability. I don't celebrate the fact that I write programming code. I celebrate the fact that it contributes to something that solves real-world problems for real-world companies and people.
it's practically the same as if they were to create a core class about Plumbing. The same arguments apply. we all use water, hot water, toilets, showers, bathtubs, and sinks. So the same logic applies that everybody should know how to be a plumber. The reason the entire thing breaks down is because It's focussing on the method, before the problem. Programming without direction doesn't solve any problems.
The biggest thing is that it implies it's an almost trivial line between learning to program and getting paid to program professionally. While it's true that software development is typically far more egalitarian than other fields, and degrees and certifications are often irrelevant in the face of experience- you still have to put in the hours like everybody else.
And thing is, people that would put those hours only do so because they are impassioned. And those that are impassioned already know what they want to do, so making it a required course is only going to get in the way of people who's passions have nothing to do with computers. Computers are involved in a lot of things.
However, I don't need to know how to program to use a digital scale at the supermarket. And knowing how to program doesn't make me able to use it better.
A Farmer will not know how to farm better if they take a CS course. The computers used in the previous example on a farm (which is almost entirely fictitious, we don't have robots combines and tractors on typical farms), don't run a conventional OS and a farmer is not going to be better at their Job by having learned to be a crack Java coder.
I realize this is such a small part of your post but I felt I would address it. Humans are still required to handle turning and really any maneuvering beyond keeping it going straight. I really can't comment on world wide availability we worked with John Deere during some early roll out in this area and have been using these semi automated systems sense about 2009.
Also the conversation really has not been about programming. More of this is what a computer is and using Microsoft office, how to type ect.
Also the conversation really has not been about programming. More of this is what a computer is and using Microsoft office, how to type ect.
The post I was responding to cites a article that indicates CS classes are being made a core class in some locations. using Microsoft Office is not "Computer Science".
Eh, everyone who has been in high school?
It's not "Oxygen Gas", oxygen is a gas.
That's a bit like saying a Ferrari isn't a car because no one calls it a "Ferrari car".
Well, just calling it oxygen could refer to a single atom of oxygen, which is not the same thing in the air, since it is a diatomic molecule. I could say oxygen is bonded to a molecule. Saying oxygen gas is simply specifying that you mean O2.
Well, just calling it oxygen could refer to a single atom of oxygen, which is not the same thing in the air, since it is a diatomic molecule. I could say oxygen is bonded to a molecule. Saying oxygen gas is simply specifying that you mean O2.
Same thing would go for diatomic Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and the like.
It's not nitpicking when one specifically says "No gas that is remotely safe"- quite frankly, you cannot make stupid statements like that, and then pretend they meant something else when questioned.
If I said "I've never heard of any metal that's safe to digest", would it be nitpicking when someone points out that a lot of essential elements that help our body function are metals? Certainly not- it would only be pointing out the obvious ignorance behind such a statement.
who ever describes oxygen as "oxygen gas"?, who?, i've certainly never heard them used like that.
Technically, it's referred to as O2 gas commercially- so in effect- a lot of people.
as a general rule, anyone who hears *insert word here* gas will assume it is unhealthy at first
Stupid people, perhaps. "dihydrogen monoxide gas". Ethylene gas. (In fact most hydrocarbons are safe, their flammability and ability to displace oxygen notwithstanding).
Gases that do have dangerous effects on living matter dissipate quickly and are typically not present in nature.
if a new gas was discovered, "warblgog gas" or whatever
Gasses are typically not 'discovered'. in any such manner.
but what exactly it does is not known, but you also know that a new kind of apparently very fast and efficient, as well as very low price air conditioner emits this gas, would you buy that air conditioner?, until the gas was proven to be safe, i know i wouldn't go near it.
Your first part precludes the latter. If what the gas did wasn't known, than first, it wouldn't be approved for any industrial use in consumer appliances, and second, there would be no reason for it to be emitted from the air conditioner., and it it was emitted from the air conditioner, it would already be known... because it's emitted by the air conditioner which means that something has to be happening chemically to create that by product. OF course it's an obtuse example since air conditioners don't work via an endothermic reaction at all and if they did it would be by design and their by products would be well known, not assigned some random name and newly discovered to be emitted by them.
i don't give a about what they call pluto, it's mostly round, it's very large and has an orbit, i call it a planet, i don't tie definitions to things as often or as excessively as you seem to, and i can read people, only reading words will just make you incapable of common sense and putting two and two together, and also generally leads to people becoming grammer naziz. *yes, i spelt it like that on purpose*
.... wow, that is incredible, my point sailed right over your head, way over.
to everyone i've quoted here, your nitpickyness reminds me of Sheldon from the big bang theory, only thing is, he's only an actor pretending to be incapable of common sense and who thinks his knowledge makes him smart.
Your rebuttals are amazing, and the sources you have cited make me wonder why I didn't find them myself.
i don't give a about what they call pluto, it's mostly round, it's very large and has an orbit, i call it a planet
You can call it a Sally if you want. Nobody else is going to know what you are talking about.
i don't tie definitions to things as often or as excessively as you seem to
Words EXIST for their definitions. If you aren't using a word for it's definition, you are just inserting random garbage into your sentences.
and i can read people
This is irrelevant. Entirely. And again, only a rather dumb individual would attach a negative connotation to the word "gas".
only reading words will just make you incapable of common sense and putting two and two together, and also generally leads to people becoming grammer naziz.
This makes no sense- common or otherwise.
In regards to Mustard gas, you didn't talk about people. You didn't read people. You made up fictitious people- you said 'just the name alone is a massive hint at what it does'. It's not. That's garbage. Your idea is garbage and the argument you're trying to present to support it is incoherent garbage, supported only by your own ignorance.
.... wow, that is incredible, my point sailed right over your head, way over.
You had no point. Refer again to how it's incoherent garbage.
to everyone i've quoted here, your nitpickyness reminds me of Sheldon from the big bang theory, only thing is, he's only an actor pretending to be incapable of common sense and who thinks his knowledge makes him smart.
Well, Garbage in, garbage out, I suppose, if you watch that programme. It's not "nitpickyness" to ask that you speak coherently and not make handdwavey, idiotic assumptions about "what people think" or suggest that people will read certain words and thing they mean something just because you do. The fact that you then turn around and effectively say it is everybody else who is not socially aware is almost comedic, because you are simply projecting your own ideas on everybody else. You, in your scientific ignorance, think that the word "gas" has a negative connotation. Instead of realizing "hey, maybe there are people who aren't entirely ignorant on this subject who think different" instead it's "nope, everybody thinks the name is bad, and everybody who is telling me otherwise, they simply lack common sense, which I will also say but use a completely different definition of that nobody else is using so everything I say is an incoherent word salad".
I think I somewhat understand why some of you were talking about taking laptops to school and all that odd stuff. I think your'e imagining an American high school environment. You see I'm only 13 and turning 14 in March, so I don't go to high school until grade 9 next year. Is it bad that most of all but 1 of my PCs are older than me, and that I know so much about DOS, Windows XP - 95 and about how to use it? Not even my friend, who's dad owns Antech knew Windows 95 existed!
I think I somewhat understand why some of you were talking about taking laptops to school and all that odd stuff. I think your'e imagining an American high school environment.
No, we are talking about ALL schools in ALL countries that have computers available.
These simple facts and guidelines are nowhere near US-centric.
You see I'm only 13 and turning 14 in March, so I don't go to high school until grade 9 next year.
This information only really goes to prove the points made in this thread.
Is it bad that most of all but 1 of my PCs are older than me,
Not really, considering you don't need the PCs to be very powerful for simple "intro to typing".
and that I know so much about DOS, Windows XP - 95 and about how to use it?
I doubt this highly. Just because you know a few commands, or know where paint is in windows 95 does not mean you know how to use them.
If you really do, please, do tell me, how do I mount a CD drive in DOS?
Not even my friend, who's dad owns Antech knew Windows 95 existed!
There are so many companies with this generic name, I don't really care enough whether or not you are lying.
Is it bad that most of all but 1 of my PCs are older than me, and that I know so much about DOS, Windows XP - 95 and about how to use it? Not even my friend, who's dad owns Antech knew Windows 95 existed!
Other threads have been a clear indicator that you don't know much about them at all.
You'd be hard pressed to find any school in the United States that has a legitimate computer course offered as a core class or even an elective class.
For anecdotes, my school didn't get any computers until my sophomore year. The biggest school in our district (has ~5k students) only has computers in the library, and there are probably about twenty or so of them.
I'm not at all saying that computers are unnecessary knowledge, or how things set up now are a good ideas. But computers are not needed for education.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-12-10/news/ct-cps-computer-science-plan-met-1210-20131210_1_computer-science-ceo-barbara-byrd-bennett-code-org
fm87!I have never, ever, ever, ever heard such an ignorant statement.
It really depends on the school and area, it varies too much to say either way.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThat's idiotic. Moving CS to a core class alongside subjects like Math, English, etc. is not a good idea.
For most Jobs, activities, and purposes, Computers are appliances. And while there is no doubt being better at using an appliance that is used for a specific purpose can make you better at what you are doing, that doesn't mean they should offer courses on that appliance.
Schools do not offer Advanced Placement Oven use, after all.
A Farmer will not know how to farm better if they take a CS course. The computers used in the previous example on a farm (which is almost entirely fictitious, we don't have robots combines and tractors on typical farms), don't run a conventional OS and a farmer is not going to be better at their Job by having learned to be a crack Java coder.
At it's core the entire thing is part of the "everybody should know how to program" movement.
That movement is wrong. It's wrong because it false equates the ability to program with essential life skills like reading, writing, and mathematics. But that's not the only reason. It also implies that more code in the world is somehow desirable. This is simply not the case. Most programmers (myself included) make efforts to write less code, and ideally none at all to achieve a given task. It also presents programming itself as a end, rather than a means to an end. Software developers (myself included!) tend to be software addicts who think their job is to write programming code- but that's a lie. My job is not to program, nor is my job to write code. My job is to provide a piece of software that meets the needs of our customers. The fact that it requires programming is a means to an end in the same way that constructing a building requires carpenters. Carpenters job isn't to "carpent" it's to mesh their skills into those of other workers to create a building. In the same way that my job isn't to "program" it's to use my skills in combination with those of other departments to make the product do what is desired. Sales/Marketing knows better what customers want than I do. and I know better the best way to program to provide that capability. I don't celebrate the fact that I write programming code. I celebrate the fact that it contributes to something that solves real-world problems for real-world companies and people.
it's practically the same as if they were to create a core class about Plumbing. The same arguments apply. we all use water, hot water, toilets, showers, bathtubs, and sinks. So the same logic applies that everybody should know how to be a plumber. The reason the entire thing breaks down is because It's focussing on the method, before the problem. Programming without direction doesn't solve any problems.
The biggest thing is that it implies it's an almost trivial line between learning to program and getting paid to program professionally. While it's true that software development is typically far more egalitarian than other fields, and degrees and certifications are often irrelevant in the face of experience- you still have to put in the hours like everybody else.
And thing is, people that would put those hours only do so because they are impassioned. And those that are impassioned already know what they want to do, so making it a required course is only going to get in the way of people who's passions have nothing to do with computers. Computers are involved in a lot of things.
However, I don't need to know how to program to use a digital scale at the supermarket. And knowing how to program doesn't make me able to use it better.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI realize this is such a small part of your post but I felt I would address it. Humans are still required to handle turning and really any maneuvering beyond keeping it going straight. I really can't comment on world wide availability we worked with John Deere during some early roll out in this area and have been using these semi automated systems sense about 2009.
Also the conversation really has not been about programming. More of this is what a computer is and using Microsoft office, how to type ect.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe post I was responding to cites a article that indicates CS classes are being made a core class in some locations. using Microsoft Office is not "Computer Science".
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumWell, just calling it oxygen could refer to a single atom of oxygen, which is not the same thing in the air, since it is a diatomic molecule. I could say oxygen is bonded to a molecule. Saying oxygen gas is simply specifying that you mean O2.
Thinking about coming a mod to simply not moderate.
Same thing would go for diatomic Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and the like.
It's not nitpicking when one specifically says "No gas that is remotely safe"- quite frankly, you cannot make stupid statements like that, and then pretend they meant something else when questioned.
If I said "I've never heard of any metal that's safe to digest", would it be nitpicking when someone points out that a lot of essential elements that help our body function are metals? Certainly not- it would only be pointing out the obvious ignorance behind such a statement.
Unless you are saying laughing gas is dangerous and should never be used.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumTechnically, it's referred to as O2 gas commercially- so in effect- a lot of people.
Stupid people, perhaps. "dihydrogen monoxide gas". Ethylene gas. (In fact most hydrocarbons are safe, their flammability and ability to displace oxygen notwithstanding).
Gases that do have dangerous effects on living matter dissipate quickly and are typically not present in nature.
Gasses are typically not 'discovered'. in any such manner.
Your first part precludes the latter. If what the gas did wasn't known, than first, it wouldn't be approved for any industrial use in consumer appliances, and second, there would be no reason for it to be emitted from the air conditioner., and it it was emitted from the air conditioner, it would already be known... because it's emitted by the air conditioner which means that something has to be happening chemically to create that by product. OF course it's an obtuse example since air conditioners don't work via an endothermic reaction at all and if they did it would be by design and their by products would be well known, not assigned some random name and newly discovered to be emitted by them.
Your rebuttals are amazing, and the sources you have cited make me wonder why I didn't find them myself.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYou can call it a Sally if you want. Nobody else is going to know what you are talking about.
Words EXIST for their definitions. If you aren't using a word for it's definition, you are just inserting random garbage into your sentences.
This is irrelevant. Entirely. And again, only a rather dumb individual would attach a negative connotation to the word "gas".
This makes no sense- common or otherwise.
In regards to Mustard gas, you didn't talk about people. You didn't read people. You made up fictitious people- you said 'just the name alone is a massive hint at what it does'. It's not. That's garbage. Your idea is garbage and the argument you're trying to present to support it is incoherent garbage, supported only by your own ignorance.
You had no point. Refer again to how it's incoherent garbage.
Well, Garbage in, garbage out, I suppose, if you watch that programme. It's not "nitpickyness" to ask that you speak coherently and not make handdwavey, idiotic assumptions about "what people think" or suggest that people will read certain words and thing they mean something just because you do. The fact that you then turn around and effectively say it is everybody else who is not socially aware is almost comedic, because you are simply projecting your own ideas on everybody else. You, in your scientific ignorance, think that the word "gas" has a negative connotation. Instead of realizing "hey, maybe there are people who aren't entirely ignorant on this subject who think different" instead it's "nope, everybody thinks the name is bad, and everybody who is telling me otherwise, they simply lack common sense, which I will also say but use a completely different definition of that nobody else is using so everything I say is an incoherent word salad".
Though, depending on the age range here, they might just not want results for animal porn coming up.
Not really. Why can't you just accept you said something really stupid?
My YouTube Channel --->https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM70mQPHXT9RC8skS5pK6Vg
HAHA THAT'S SO A FUNNY AND CLEVER!
Should have named it "Stormworm botnet node controller".
std::vector<Signature> forumSignatures; Signature signature("Fred2000789"); forumSignatures.push_back(signature);most ofall but 1 of my PCs are older than me, and that I know so much about DOS, Windows XP - 95 and about how to use it? Not even my friend, who's dad owns Antech knew Windows 95 existed!At least 86% of what I say is always correct.
These simple facts and guidelines are nowhere near US-centric.
This information only really goes to prove the points made in this thread.
Not really, considering you don't need the PCs to be very powerful for simple "intro to typing".
I doubt this highly. Just because you know a few commands, or know where paint is in windows 95 does not mean you know how to use them.
If you really do, please, do tell me, how do I mount a CD drive in DOS?
There are so many companies with this generic name, I don't really care enough whether or not you are lying.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumOther threads have been a clear indicator that you don't know much about them at all.