OTOH, I think that the ease of expressing structure in functional, OO, and procedural languages makes any of those models better than old-school BASIC for teaching introductory programming in a context where the intent is to focus on designing solutions to problems.

I disagree. I think the beginner does not want to design anything, much less a complex software system. I think the beginner wants to learn how to make the computer follow some instructions, like add some numbers, or move a square from one part of the screen to another.

The rest of CS is very important, but they are only important for big programs. Just as bubble sort is perfectly adequate for an array of 10 items, splitting a program into functions only really helps when you're in the hundreds of lines of code, and OO really only begins to make sense in the thousands of lines of code. IOW, I think there's something in letting beginners make the same mistakes that our pioneers did, just before teaching them methods to avoid those mistakes.

When making an important decision, it is natural to desire as much information as possible in order to make the best possible decision.

The information given to a jury is carefully and deliberately controlled for a reason. The withheld information may be prejudicial or even illegally-obtained, and therefore should not be considered. Since humans are not very good at mentally excluding such evidence, we don't tell juries about them at all.

Skepticism is good, but it must also be temporary. We will generally not have all the evidence needed for a complex problem before we must act to try to solve it. Skepticism cannot be an excuse for permanent inaction.

Yeah, that's usually why there is more crime and more concentration of police departments in poor neighborhoods.

Now, consider where those poor criminals would be living if there was no police protection at all. :)

Because, for example, although somebody like Karzai can't be too surprised that the US doesn't really like or trust him, knowing exactly how much is extremely important. Enough to topple him? Enough to abandon him? Enough to assassinate him? Do you actually propose telling him if any of the three are true?

Understand this: patriotism in the US now means supporting the government, not the constitution.

Which is why even Republicans, who just won the House of Representatives and can effective block action in the Senate, support the Obama government in most of its policies.

I fear you fail to understand the reason behind the "demotion." What we call it has never made any real difference in what Pluto does or does not do. The only use of these names is to help us understand them better. As such, the terrestrial planets share much in common, the gas giants share much in common, and Pluto shares little with either group. Thus, if you're saying that all Pluto-like objects should be called "planets", it would make some sense except that there are lots of them. If you're saying that Pluto alone should be a planet while similar objects are not, then that's a far less defensible position.

Seriously, you're going to say that there's a simple answer to millions of people with no opportunities in life outside of crime? We've locked up lots of minorities and lots of drug users, how's that working so far?

What I'm trying to point out is that the kind of country we have in the future depends on far more than just your well-educated kids. It requires millions and millions of well-educated kids.

How about we start with not taxing capital gains (which I think we can agree is not the hardest work) at a lower rate than, say, salary for digging a ditch or running into burning buildings?

No, you're coming from a position of moral fairness, which is a fine viewpoint, but not the only valid one. I'm sure you can raise fine children, but did you ever consider that the children you refuse to help educate today can grow up to become criminals who prey on your hardworking and successful children? How do you suppose your children will thrive in a country where most voters are illiterate and bad at math anyway?

I wouldn't recommend BASIC or LISP for someone wanting to learn modern object-oriented programming today.

I don't completely agree. A true beginner doesn't really need to understand how to structure a large program, which is what the modern principles are for. The first goal should be to write "linear" programs of the input-process-output model, learn the basic control structures and operators, and how to debug. From that foundation, you could go one way and learn how things work "under the hood" and try C or even assembly, or the other direction to learn how to build large programs (such as OO, patterns, etc).

Thus, I actually think BASIC (not line-numbered BASIC, the modernized ones) sweeps enough of both under the rug so that the beginner can concentrate on dealing with the code logic itself.

Every iPod came with a Firewire connector until 2005, and every Macintosh produced between 1995 and 2008 included a firewire port.

Which is because we're talking about USB 1.1 in those days, when the 400 Mbps that Firewire provided exceeded both USB and Ethernet. Today, in a world of USB 2.0 and gigabit ethernet, Firewire has mostly outlived its uniqueness.

We do have a choice, and you could decide not to use expensive medical treatments.

That isn't a solution to the problem. That is the very problem we're trying to solve.

Even in the event that everyone has insurance, that money will be used to treat a small percentage of the population. If you think that in your magical solution everyone will be afforded equal or even competent care you are fooling yourself.

Equal treatment is a pipe dream. The rich will always get better medical care, and I'm okay with that. What's at stake is the level of minimal medical care. The level that most of us can individually afford is dismal.

It's one thing to fix the problem on one iPhone, quite another to ensure that you can do it cheaply enough, in an assembly line for millions of units.

My solution is consistent with my objection. I do not use insurance companies, I do not visit traditional doctors, and I do not go to the hospital for care.

Hardly. If you, hypothetically speaking, have an accident and becomes unconscious, you will hopefully be brought to the hospital where the doctors we pay will treat you. At that point, if you are unable to afford the care provided, we'd be stuck with the bill.

Now, if it's just you, we can absorb it easily. The problem is that millions of people have to do this, and when they fall sick they're not going to be so principled as you to choose death.

My statement that "if no one had health insurance the medical industry would find a way" comes from experience and seeing health care adapt and find a way. Of course this excludes MRIs and TomoTherapy and numerous other treatments that are highly specialized.

You cannot just avoid the hard part of the problem. The objective is to provide even specialized treatments to people who cannot afford them. Otherwise, of course health care can be made cheaper.

Let me put this more directly: the solution consistent with your objection requires not using expensive medical equipment. How is that a solution worth discussing?

Your choosing to support it even though you want something else will never lead to change.

I don't see how supporting partial solutions preclude me from advocating its improvement.