For all the people saying "C++ is bad", I'm curious: what would you consider a _good_ programming language?

So where does one get that knowledge, then?

So what should one do if one is one of those people who are "bad for society" in the way you mention?

In which case, EVERYONE on this site who is complaining about the DRM is utterly irrelevant and should all shut up, eh?

Why are only the biggest problems in the world worth attention? Somebody getting mugged on the street is a darn SMALL problem, and there are a ton of things FAR more severe, but if I just casually strolled by and did nothing at all about it, what would I be? Not sure if that is analogous to this or not but the point is that the "size" of the problem doesn't necessarily matter. And furthermore, isn't this another victory for DRM and another loss for "freedom" -- isn't that freedom something _you_ support, considering your sig?

Why is it wrong and "huge ego" to feel upset if something that may have been a lot of hard work for you seems trashed? Why do you have to be a "celebrity"?

Though, even WITHOUT these devices, we have still engaged in many, many, many, many brutal wars. What do you propose to do about _that_? To not only not _increase_ the level of war, but actually _decrease_ it below the levels it's been at? That'll obviously take _more_ than just "banning robots". What do you think it'll take?

"In the case of the server I have zero pity for anyone who kept data only on the servers that were seized. Yes it is there data, but they also had responsibility if that data was important to keep it somewhere they controlled." So are you saying it was OK for the government to do what they did?

How do you propose the poor should be helped?

And what's the "something better"? And does this mean you're an "immature two-year-old" if you think there may be something wrong with the facts in the posts you're reading? That if you question it, or are curious about the facts, etc. then you're an "immature two-year-old"?

However, fact of the matter is that "lot-of-internet-users arrogance" and "arrogance of the person with the power to create" are _still_ _both_ bad, if the latter kind of "arrogance" involves an inflated sense of self-importance. What does that latter kind of "arrogance" involve, anyway?

(ARGH!) ...long as you had the right "social skills". Fact is, both are bad: arrogance and improper social skills.

Which goes to better augment my counterpoint to the one AC above who was seeming to say that "arrogance" was OK as

The problem with this is that, as you mention, there's a difference between arrogance and "confidence", for one. I'd say that it's not arrogant to champion a well-supported position. E.g. in your music analogy (I don't have much knowledge/experience in this area so I'm not really qualified to comment on just what kind of speakers are "best"), if it's indeed well-supportable that brand X of speakers are indeed better than Bose, then it's not arrogant to have and state that opinion, especially if you can back it up. One can be "confident" in it without being "arrogant" in it, though, as you say, it's easy for one to spill into the other. As mentioned, though, it takes the right social skills to say it in a non-offensive way. But on the other hand, if arrogance is present, this can make one more likely to say something offensive, regardless of social skills. So the nerd needs to deal with the arrogance _too_. Arrogance involves feeling superior. Confidence involves feeling sure or secure. One can have the latter without the former. If one feels secure in something but that something is false, it was not arrogance, rather misplaced confidence. The problem here is that you mention a difference between arrogance and confidence, but then seem to confuse them again.

I find this strange, that they can "work hard" in high school, yet then have trouble "working hard" in college and beyond ("you'll actually need to *try* in order to get that A")... Why would this be?