Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 27th Dec 2012 10:19 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Thread beginning with comment 546553
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: What is vs what could be vs what will be
by TM99 on Sat 29th Dec 2012 03:52
in reply to "RE[4]: What is vs what could be vs what will be"
You are attempting to mix economic arguments with political idealism, education reform, and predictions about events 50 years into the future concerning programming.
You want to predict the future? Look at the past in that particular field or arena and conservatively estimate probabilities no more than five years out.
Otherwise you are just in a fucking fantasy world.
Obviously you were not trained well in critical thinking or in argumentation as you have not addressed any of the replies that address various flaws in your ideas, your logic, or your arguments.
I did address your points so this discussion with you is at a close. Enjoy your day.
RE[6]: What is vs what could be vs what will be
by kwan_e on Sat 29th Dec 2012 10:39
in reply to "RE[5]: What is vs what could be vs what will be"
Otherwise you are just in a fucking fantasy world.
Grow up. This argument is not that important.
You complain about me not addressing your points, but neither have you. You and the other one just throws around words like "naive" or "idealism" or "fantasy" as if they're arguments.
CASE IN POINT:
Admiral Grace Hopper invented the concept of human readable programming languages when the top scientists at the time were convinced it was impossible.
You and the other one are making the same kind of arguments those old fogeys have. You cannot deny this. Human readable languages were "naive", "idealistic" or "fantasy".
History is on my side.





Member since:
2007-02-18
No you didn't. You said exactly what other commenters have already said, which I have already addressed, which continued to be ignored.
You have made the exact same flawed point that another commenter already has over and over again. Don't be so up yourself to think you had an original point that I didn't already address.
Address my points or piss off.