Ignoring all of that, giving kids a group they can belong to in school means they are less likely to seek one outside of school.

The at-risk kids will have a better chance at belonging with more opportunities.

That makes sense, and doesnt require people to buy in to the benefits of particular programs. Well known does not mean widely accepted, or we would not be having this conversation.

How in the fuck is someone going to fix their site without the help of the guilty party?

Option 1: Delete all, start over
Option 2: Oracle fixes whatever went wrong in the other states

One option is really obvious, the other is expensive. We should all shit down Chris Kanaracus's neck for this.

More than more likely response: Figure out how to get us compliant so our sales guys can use that ASAP.

Also, don't delay our shipment because those schmucks paid for non-compliant widgets. Delays for no revenue or no value add in the next rounds of sales hurt my bottom line.

It's like you ascribe the next-to-worst attributes to a CEO but don't go all the way and see it realistically the way a CEO would.

"Who cares" has to be the most useless argument on this page.

The businesses with the most money will obviously attempt to get certification for a bullet point. The people who make decisions based on bullet points care. The people at those companies who have to implement those bullet points care.

More importantly, the customers who have to spend more money care. If it is spread across enough customers that the financial impact is negligible, the customers don't care and the business doesn't care. It all works out okay and the answer is: those who care, care, and those who don't, don't. The answer is that the people who care will care. If you don't, it's out of ignorance.

Is ISO 9001 incompatible with this?

Are you arguing for CS or against?

1) Not taught in CS
2) Barely taught in CS
3) Not taught in CS
4) Not taught in CS
5) Maths are often required, but poorly understood, and as you said not required

So CS will give you the fundamentals, as you claim. Are the fundamentals enough? By your post, you assert yes.

Also, by your own post you are an idiot, since waterfall development was described by Royce only as an example of something to avoid. Trick question? Most coders don't get to choose, so the joke's on you.

"Solid technical professional" really needs description. You may have a different experience from, like, 6 million other people on the planet.

And we are left with "real experience", which many people can gain through open source collaboration or other avenues.

A personal portfolio goes a long way for me, regardless of a CS degree. Especially if the examples are ground-up implementations instead of adhering to a stylistic convention imposed on a particular project. It demonstrates that "real experience" you say is helpful. And if student jobs, interning, and co-op provide that, then I cast doubt on your assertion that CS is in any way important.

If you would have never landed your job without co-op, are you really defending pure CS education? Or is there a personal experience to this that makes you favor one side or the other? What if you had the co-op opportunities without the CS education? What if you had the CS without the co-op?

I'm pretty sure you are, if you are being honest, clearly on one side or the other, and are better able to articulate your position now.

Given that the current curriculae attempt to teach basic algorithms and fundamentals, how are you going to fit this in?

If you provide more practice, does that mean more 3 hour labs with 1 hour credit? Or do you take away existing courses to make room?

This sounds like whining - I want to read about solutions.

"An employer" is vague. as is your generalization. Some employers need a warm body to fill a position, and need that body to have the necessary pedigree to justify spending money. Other employers need someone who is competent and worth their salary.

You will find these graduated, for example having a Programmer I through Programmer IV job title.

Would you hire someone with a CS degree just out of university for the Programmer IV position? If you said anything other than "Yes, instantaneously" then you undercut your own point.

And if you're not smart enough to say how colleges could be improved, and you only got the basics and learned the rest while getting paid, your argument just shite its pants and you'll find it in the toilets wishing it could be home right now.

I spent time in fourth level undergraduate classes with some of the most idiotic classmates you can imagine. Some of them graduated.

If nothing else, the way colleges could be improved is to offer a beginner's degree and an advanced degree. Not "Master" advanced, rather just a way to distinguish "came to class and didn't fail most tests" with "was an avid student and learned a crap ton."

That differentiates the barely educated from the truly educated. By the end of second year, the university can have a private meeting with each student and say you are going into basic or advanced track, and here's why. This will never happen, but I can at least list a way to improve on the current system.

If they are of no real value, why did GP comment?

If the first paragraph is a wall of text, why would I think the functions/methods would be smaller?

If the whole post looks like it was dictated but not edited, why would I expect any thing more than type-and-commit?

Here is the complete post to which GP replied:

Let me rephrase that question: "does knowing how to do a job outweigh knowing abstract theory about that job?" I think the answer there is pretty obvious: *of course* coders who actually know what they are doing are more valuable to an employer than some kid with a CS degree and no idea how to actually do a programmer's job.

Here's the reply in question, paraphrased:

Self-taught people, in my experience, have missed important concepts. Most of the ones I can list have to do with things most coders won't encounter. I have rarely met people who know everything they should, because either the courses I think are necessary really don't teach what they should, or most people are stupid. Either way, a CS degree won't help. And it seems like I agree with OP, because the 2 people in 15 years are those "of course" people. Also, things I don't know anything about, and lots of homophone type spelling mistakes.

And here's the part I really like.

On a selfish note, I will never, ever have to compete for a job with someone that does not have a bachelors degree. So this is good for me and it's not good for our country but hey you're going to do what you want to do dummy.

First, we were talking about the importance of a CS degree vs. not a CS degree. AC definitely has to fight for a job with people who have a degree in something other than CS, making that completely irrelevant. Stream of consciousness poster has forgotten the point, making most of this gibberish irrelevant. Defend irrelevant points if you want - oh wait, you did, so ignore that.

More importantly, if it's not good for the country, then learning to code outweighs getting a CS degree. That defeats whatever point he/she might have had.

There is no logic, and code requires logic. There is no attention to detail, and code requires attention to detail. Communication skills in code are not obvious, but if you cannot communicate your intent, either by code or comments, then you have failed to communicate the importance of your implementation, or other details.

There is nothing good about the post you are defending, in the context in which I found it. That you defended it, seemingly without truly considering your defense, makes me question your competence. Note, I am not personally attacking you, merely evaluating your response on its merits. And it has none.

Considering the post is about design and usability, being closed source is not what the GP was looking for in terms of an answer.

So yes, we're going to need more than that. Specifically, Linux seems to be moving more towards the design of Windows, at least according to this retarded article. Is that bad, and if so explain yourself.

Otherwise, you're just not helping here.

I buy a phone, and I'm an idiot. Specifically, I'm a very attractive hollywood star/let.

I want to share my tits with some person I'm dating. How do I know anything about what you have said? I want my tit pics to go across the water, and only to the person that I sent them to, or allowed to see them.

Talk to me like I'm an idiot, because by the lists I am an idiot. I'm a very ignorant fool, and I don't understand how the pictures I took, for a specific person, are now appearing for every person on the planet to see.

What did I do wrong? I took pictures of my vagina. That's on my phone. I texted them to you, and you are on my carrier, which I would expect is private. If you support the non-pprivacy of anything I upload to my phone (which is not an upload), then you are a contrarian and deserve to die.

I text to a private device, or upload to a private account. How do I share something "by default" that people, right now, are jerking off to, by reports, "repeatedly and thoroughly"? I bought a phone, I texted it to someone I trust, and now my "junk" is everywhere.

I was prompted for an Apple Id, I guess, but did it tell me that my vagina would be on the internet?

Did I upload something to the cloud? Because I don't know what a cloud is. I wanted to prove to this really cute and awesome guy that I missed him and wanted him to come back after shooting his movie or show or whatever, I'm not being specific.

Was it in a ToS agreement that I upload everything to everyone ever? If not, your description of default whatever holds no water. I don't know the defaults. I don't know what I have to turn on or off to enable or disable defaults. I want pictures of my pussy on my pohone, and wherever I send them. That's it.

Go ahead, and be technically superior. I'm going to need a stupid-user-level explanation of what I missed because I'm dumb.

But once spending is enabled, is it somehow bad to provide convenience services that cost very little? Especially if the person is happy to pay for them?

Because otherwise your post is irrelevant. Posting something true in a limited context but not relevant where it is posted is not insightful.

You trusted the summary instead of reading the article. It's relatively brief, and it took me less than 10 seconds to roughly grasp the confusion.

Node.js is a very tiny part of the whole explanation.

Fuck it, you're not going to click so here's the relevant bits. I'm assuming Node.js injects script into the pages it creates, meaning those developers don't need script libraries (other than Node.js)

The emergence of Node.JS has allowed JavaScript to be used on the server side, opening the door to creating isomorphic single page applications. New package managers (npm, bower) have spurred the rise of an ecosystem of 3rd party, open source, single-purpose tools that complement each other, embracing the UNIX philosophy and enabling very complex development use cases. New build tools (Grunt and its ecosystem of plugins, Broccoli, Gulp) have made it easier to assemble those tiny modules into large, cohesive applications. New application frameworks (Backbone, React, Ember, Polymer, Angular, etc.) have helped architect web applications in a more scalable and maintainable way. New testing tools (Mocha, Casper, Karma, etc.) have lowered the barrier of entry to building a solid continuous delivery pipeline. Standard bodies (W3C, Ecma) are standardizing what the large JavaScript frameworks have brought to the table over the years, making them available natively to a larger number of devices. Finally, browser vendors are now committed to making continuous improvements to their web browsers while aligning more closely with standards. With so called âoeevergreen web browsersâ, which are making it easier for users to run the latest stable version of a web browser, we can expect a significant reduction in the amount of variance across user agents.

</first post>

You cited counter examples, but failed to demonstrate how frequent these are, or how important they are compared to the topics that this administration has been forthcoming on.

I can explain all day why WWII was a poor decision, with great statistics and all kinds of stuff, but without the kind of context that almost every adult on the planet has given some fraction of an education, it means nothing.

Support your rage with information, not 2 random examples. Or if you must, tell us how no administration in history has ever been so secret. Because wow, do I have some really nice pyramids you can have for a reasonable price!

Right-click, Properties, select "hidden", and OK.

What, you thought that was general knowledge?

Great, you get to run the country, because you are obviously smarter than 80% of the population. Or better yet, you get to be the editor for every technical article ever.

Here's the catch.

Every journalist at every newspaper or website writes for a slightly different audience. Every story has to be tuned for that audience. You have to find a way to describe "hidden files" to every target audience. If you type what I typed above and ask, "was that so hard?" then you failed. Because for the bottom 50%, they have no idea what you are talking about.

The last paragraph is maybe relevant, but redundant. If you spent less time being retarded, maybe your comment would be the relevant one.

Allow me to paraphrase on your behalf: "HAHAHA, things I know that most of the world doesn't. So obvious, cretin. Allow me to care by pointing out how obvious it should be to everyone who is not me! There, I cared."