Wait, that's your argument? Fewer keystrokes?

How incredibly stupid.

To all autodidacts: Imagine if YOU were to make a statement this absurd, without even a hint of self doubt. Worse, what if this is the kind of thing you actually believe as a result of your online "learning" adventures?

This is why a formal education is important. On your own, you could very well end up the the AC above -- so deeply misinformed that there's little hope for recovery.

No one buys a mobile phone to replace a laptop. They're fundamentally different.

I hadn't considered that, though I can see how that's seemingly inescapable.

But they will. Look at all the impotent whining above over an insignificant change made to Firefox more than a year ago.

People will cry, and cry loudly, over any stupid little thing.

During periods of social change where there is a clear divide between groups over an issue, the side that ultimately loses is said to have been on the "wrong side of history". People who supported segregation, for example, would have been on the "wrong side of history" as segregation is no longer socially acceptable and few can image that there would have ever been a debate! A more modern example would be gay rights. While it's not over yet, it's pretty clear which side will ultimately "win" and which side will fall on the "wrong side of history".

On women's equality, I expect the outcome to ultimately fall in favor of the feminists. My predictions may be a bit premature, but that's what I expect none-the-less.

No one thinks that now. It's like saying "The corn market has overtaken the office furniture market!" They don't compete in the same space.

Well, in a way he's right. It's not possible to persuade the ideologically driven. Facts don't matter to them.

Not that that has anything to do with your name, but I suspect that was just a joke to soften the sentiment.

Either way, welcome to the wrong side of history.

Well, this is Slashdot...

How's that insightful?

A real reference, please, not anecdotes repeated on a few blogs. The unpublished paper, lacking peer-review, you cite does assert some figures from which the author makes an inference from some uncited figures.

In the real world, where research is conducted and papers are peer-reviewed and published:

You'll quickly discover that these mysterious "just can't do it" students are mentioned nowhere in the literature. (The closest thing you could find was that some students have a higher aptitude!) It's a myth, promulgated by people who (inexplicably) have make their ability to program a significant part of their identity.

What a load of nonsense!

I've yet to have a student who simply "didn't get it". No study that I've encountered mentions these "just can't do it" students.

You just want to believe that you're somehow special because you can write computer programs. Odd, as even children can, and often do, successfully teach themselves!

Bigots aren't the victims.

Well, I can see how they'd think they're the victims. That's often the perspective of those on the losing side of history.

You're deeply confused.

Evidence? Because I don't see any.