The fact you think you suck already means you have drastically higher potential than a large number (perhaps even a majority) of developers

Far better to think you suck and know that you can improve than to think you're awesome and stay shit forever.

Humility is the number one most important defining trait shared by the world's genuinely great developers. I've met plenty of developers who think they're great, claim they're great, but repeatedly prove their development ignorance when they start talking about the subject. In contrast, I've never met a humble programmer that isn't either awesome, or well on their way to being awesome.

Well I'm glad we have you here to arbitrarily define intelligence. It's about time, the human race has been struggling to define it precisely for hundreds of years.

Where have you been all this time of self-declared definer of terms?

But just to clarify, basically, what you're saying, is that intelligence is a form of magic that we have inside us? Where inside us does this magic exist? Where does it come from? Are you saying it's a special undetectable thing? Your comment seems to imply it disappears in adults, but we can't detect it in babies either.

We can't do any of the things you suggest because we don't have computers even remotely as powerful and capable of rapid complex processing as the human brain. I also can't teach a dog to do any of the things you suggest, so are you declaring dogs as being unintelligent? Your examples seem to suggest that intelligence is unique to human beings and nothing else has the capacity for intelligence.

Based on launch trajectories calculated via a macro in an Excel 95 spreadsheet that is sent from personal Hotmail addresses?

Probably more worrying is the fact that much of our military are still using IE6.

That sounds like something a leftist loon would say if you ask me.

Still no facts, still no evidence that all of Sky's blocking is part of the legal ruling.

It's not so much redefining STEM as redefining societal good. Much of the things they mention are certainly forms of engineering and so fit firmly under STEM, but the problem is they're a tiny subset of engineering, and similarly a tiny subset of useful engineering that the world needs.

The premise of the argument in the summary seems to be that medicine, healthcare and so forth are all in this arbitrary societal good category, but things like building houses, power grids, bridges, phones, video games, operating systems and so on and so forth are not.

So the argument seems to be that if we give disproportionate focus to certain areas of engineering application we can increase the number of female engineers. I'm not terribly sure that that helps though as it means the majority of engineering areas are still woefully underfilled, and still have a woeful lack of gender balance.

So what if we have an increase in the number of female engineers figuring out how to do large scale deployments of some new technology like low power computing devices and methods of charging them and connecting them into poor communities if we've done nothing to solve the electronic engineering shortage which is required to develop the low powered devices in the first place? Both things are necessary, but the summary seems to imply only the former does societal good even though the former necessarily depends on the latter. It's ill conceived nonsense.

So yes you could do something like that and pretend you've fixed it, but all you've really done is fix it in a very contrived and niche circumstance without addressing any of the underlying reasons for trying to fix it in the first place, like trying to fix gender imbalance across all aspects of the field, trying to fix pay imbalance, or solve the STEM shortage in general. A bunch of females doing low paid engineering work for charities in Africa, isn't going to sort out the pay or gender imbalance when back in Silicon Valley you have a male dominated engineering industry holding all the money. So they've fudged the engineering graduate numbers to look slightly more fair, great, then what? what about the actual problems we're trying to solve in doing that in the first place? Do they not matter providing we've pulled off an adequate fudging of numbers to whitewash the problem?

And so Julian's tears continue because he was wrong about something on the internet as another moment in which he fails to follow the conversation passes. Asking for things that are long irrelevant based on points already made, like a stuck cassette that just can't get past a certain very whiny point because to do so would still require the upsetting idea that he might actually have to confront his inability to consider anything outside of the comfort zone The Daily Mail provides to him.

Life goes on. Julian continues to cry because the world wouldn't conform to his minority hard right viewpoint.

The Story of Julian: A day in the life of a man-child who acts tough, but is just another failed internet tough guy.

Still, there's one upside to your latest post, you've dropped the overly dramatic cries of "leftist". I guess I'm making progress then, I guess my last point about being neither firmly left nor firmly right had an impact and forced you to realise there are in fact shades of grey between the black and white. That's enough progress for now. I wouldn't want to push you too far out of your comfort zone in case you do something drastic, like, start considering alternate viewpoints whether you agree with them or not. Maybe one day you'll get there.

"Perhaps if you had any facts or evidence to hand you might not have needed the evasions and colourful insults?"

Insults? you mean like those things that you lunged into from the very start and ran with? Oh never mind, you're one of those classic UKIP types aren't you "Wah wah wah, he hurted me, it's not far, only I'm allowed to hurt him, he can't throw anything back at me because it makes me cry to mummy and I have to play the victim". Yeah okay, if you have a problem with insults and they make you cry like your typical Daily Mail play the victim card holder you should maybe try not to use them yourself from the outset. I'm sure playing the victim makes you feel like you're somehow making me out to be the bad guy, but in reality all it does when folks like you to Farage do it is show how utterly weak your arguments are in that you can't stand by and defend them and instead cry about being bullied even though you attempt the exact same thing. You call everyone else weak, but as soon as the tables turn, your tears start flowing.

"despite there patently not being one as some of the biggest ISPs don't clearly aren't in on the big secret."

Well, you know, except the great net neutrality whitewash known as the Open Internet Code that doesn't actually protect net neutrality because it explicitly allows for ISPs to ignore it. The fact that TalkTalk's old boss became a member of government, and the fact that a number of ISPs have started blocking over and above the court order - PlusNet and Sky being the existing examples.

Of course, you ignored this because it doesn't fit your One True World View TM. It's just way too inconvenient, and it wasn't in The Daily Mail so it can't be true!

You still seem to be intent on calling me a leftist, which is quite funny given that last time I defended the right of Israelis to retaliate to military attacks on their state I was called a rightist. This only really further proves my point that wingnuts like you are lost causes, you can't see shades of grey in the middle, it's all or nothing, either you lean wholly in one direction, or wholly in the other. It can't possibly be the case that both sides have good points, and both have bad, and that the best solution is a form of centrism that selects the best of both worlds. But no, The Daily Mail has told you it must be all in hard right wingnuttery, so that's that.

Regardless, I said it doesn't really matter does it? The whole reason you replied so aggressively to my posts is because I've wound you up by pointing out that some of the blocking is not simply a limitation of the law but goes above and beyond that. The fact I got such a response from you is good, because there's nothing better than shaking wingnuts out of their comfort zone. Especially The Daily Mail crowd - you need a little slap of reality now and again, not because it does any good, no, as I pointed out, people like you are unthinking and have crystalised unchangeable views, but simply because you deserve to pay the price of that ignorance - the price of having to face reality once in a while.

I can see you don't post much with this account, so the fact that I have gained so many responses from you shows that you know full well that I've got a point, hence why you're so desperately trying to shut it down. I guess I really touched a nerve, you wouldn't have flown off the handle so easily otherwise, so, well, mission accomplished.

You're not hear to learn something, you're hear to dictate, only you have no power to dictate, and so you just get laughed at and then end up crying like a baby.

Let's be honest, even if I had a recording of a meeting between ISPs, government and the music industry all agreeing to it and admitting it you would still write it off as a fake, or "leftist propaganda" or a "liberal conspiracy".

When someone like you blasts off a reply about left, or right, or insert whatever inherent hate target you have here it says one thing, it says that that persons views cannot be fluid, it says their views are crystalised. Your outrage, your bile spewing to your chosen hate target occurs because you cannot cope with the idea that the world does not bend to your whims, you detest the idea that someone might think differently to you, you want everything to be as you want it. In short, you have the mind of a dictator, albeit thankfully without any of the power, so you're left spewing bile.

But I'll leave you with this, this isn't a scientific publication, I don't profess that everything I say is guaranteed to be 100% correct, I don't post with a warranty on the validity of it, I post ideas based on what we do know about the world. So yes, it's possible that I'm way off the mark, it's possible that I'm completely wrong, but here's the thing. It's also entirely possible that you're completely wrong too- the difference is I'm open to other views and that's how I get to avoid being a flagrant wing nut, you however, are not, and that's why you are a flagrant bile spewing wingnut with nothing useful to say.

If you would like to know why I've put forward the possibility that ISPs, government and the music industry might well have gotten a little too cosy, then I'd gladly give you some links. But frankly, for that to be even worth my time you'd have to display some semblance of rationality, and get past your wingnut bile spewing. Given your post history I'm not convinced you can do that, you appear too mentally immature to engage in rational debate.

Yeah tell me about it, as I say I was struggling at first and figured maybe it was a snobbish reference to the use of artifact rather than the British English but basically never used artefact.

It wasn't until I literally parsed it word by word taking a pause in between that I caught it. It's a rather fantastic example of inbuilt human brain automatic error detection and correction though :) Judging by the replies it caught quite a few people - I think there's a psychological study in there somewhere!

Here is what they said, followed by what you just said they said.

they a found trove of strange artifacts
they found a trove of strange artifacts

Hopefully side by side you can more easily spot the blatant illiteracy :)

Have you ever stopped to read one of your own posts? It's just you like to cry that everyone else is crying, which means that you're basically always crying that the world apparently doesn't adhere to your Daily Mail led world view after all.

I know it must suck being lied to all your life, to find out that you've in fact been consistently fed a crock of shit when reality comes shining through, but I'm afraid that's something you'll have to get used to.

Don't worry, you can go and vote Farage soon, and when your ilk get a mere 15% at most you can pretend that you're somehow in a majority and we should do everything you say, even though the reality is you're still a pointless little squeak in the corner that no one gives the slightest shit about.

There's always someone that gets a lemon though, you can't judge an entire range with a single anecdote, you need a larger data set. To highlight the point that you can't judge the whole on one case I can simply counteract with my anecdote; I've knocked my Nexus 7 off a table directly onto a solid stone floor. I expected a smashed screen and broken innards, but it didn't even get a scratch and still works fine one year on.

My partner's iPad (also an iPad 2, though doesn't go back to 2009, I don't think they were out then) in contrast just started randomly freezing recently, though it is at least about 3 or 4 years old now I believe so I don't really feel too bad about it given it's age (and the fact she won it so didn't cost us anything anyway).

I'm not here to defend Google, god only knows they cut off support for my Galaxy Nexus after less than 15 months of it being available in the UK market which is a wholly unacceptable way to treat customers, and as such I too wouldn't buy another Google branded device. But I don't think it's fair to say the Nexus 7 is an inherently unreliable device as mine has been sturdy and reliable since I got it (I got mine in 2012, no idea where the 2013 in the summary comes from, maybe the version refresh?).

Er, the simple fact that the British government has greenlighted the abandonment of net neutrality, coupled with the fact that ISPs have stopped fighting the ban and instead are voluntarily banning IS the evidence that something is going on. Given that we've seen the link between people like Jeremy Hunt (who have publicly sided against net neutrality) and Rupert Murdoch and so forth first hand, coupled with the fact the Digital Economy Act was put in place after a bit of boat based lobbying from Geffen to Mandelson it's not entirely rocket science to see there is a strong link between the music/movie industry and government efforts to block piracy websites. It's also established fact that government has greenlighted the industry's net neutrality whitewash.

But it's not surprising you're a bit dumb, you're on TalkTalk after all, it's not exactly an ISP that's designed for intelligent people, mostly targetting the dregs of society who don't know any better and are happy to pay for an overly contended ISP that anyone with a clue wouldn't use even if it was completely free.

You know what gave it away? The fact you had to jump straight into some random, nonsensical left vs. right rant. It gave it away because that's the sort of nonsense I'd expect from someone as dumb as Sarah Palin, which you apparently are as dumb as. So well done on broadcasting your stupidity and your black vs. white "I'm too dumb to understand shades of grey" mentality to the whole internet.

Angry un-thinking Daily Mail reader 0 - 1 Reality

I'm pretty sure it's not a perfectly well constructed bit of English.

But honestly, I don't blame you for claiming it's not, I read it correctly 3 times before I realised it's actually incredibly broken.

It seems I have the capacity to automatically filter out terrible English unless I'm really trying hard to look for it. I'd wager you do too :)