bryze

Is it time to break up tech monopolies? I think the writing is on the wall.

I wonder what proportion would be willing to relocate either direction, or is that not the idea? Long distance never worked out for me.

Maybe I'm just old, but I still think wearing headphones conveys a detached air. My reaction isn't as strong as the 1981 interview, but it's there. Anyone else feel that way?

Yeah, I was wondering if a virtual machine is safe from malicious attacks, though. Can anyone comment on the feasibility of this method as fail-safe?

You beat me to it. It seems especially ironic right now.

An excellent summary. Trying to get everyone in China to speak Mandarin would be like getting everyone in Europe to speak English. It will never be 100% unless you obliterate other languages.

Should public figures be held responsible for the actions of their fanatics?

Is that the only character you tried? Try writing "論" and see what happens..

Well argued, by far the clearest rebuttal I've read so far and I concede. I just hope that the rules of thumb they listed for "good science" are prioritized as listed, because I really believe content should be the key consideration.

Yes it does, but that doesn't make their arguments valid. My whole point is not to keep experts out, but to judge the content on its scientific merit alone.

To clarify. The bullet points are listed under "Marks of Good Science". Holding a degree does not mean your publications or claims are good science. It's fine if Ted wants to only have degree holders as speakers, but they should be clear that it's a bias they've chosen, not "good science".

Along the same vein: "The proposed speaker works for a university and/or has a phD or other bona fide high level scientific qualification". Many of the points they list are valid, but this conspicuous appeal to authority makes me much less inclined to watch the talks.

Amen. About the only thing I learned is that if I want to read flamboyant editorial I'll go to Dan Lyons.

Does anyone else think that this article is a Satire? I think it's actually an appeal to common sense. What I read is the author is sad that programming is not moving in the direction of an emergent engineering discipline, sad that popularity, not reason, drives the acceptance of languages.