I've no problem with that from a strategic standpoint. I just think free VBA is like free broccoli. Potentially valuable but not at all enticing to most kids.

I have a 10 year old and a 14 year old. They are far more likely to poke around the Internet or an app store for something interesting than they are to try something already on the computer or the tablet they've never opened before. An app store has pictures, descriptions, ratings, etc. A list of installed software is just that. A list. There are apps on our home computers that they've never opened, - programming apps. Even if they did, they'd have no idea what to do with them. The interest has to come first. That's a far bigger hurdle to get over than downloading something.

It's interesting. Somebody else complained that today a teenaged Bill Gates would be too absorbed with Xbox Live to do any programming. You know what got my son interested in programming? He saw a youtube video of Arduino wired to a Nintendo 3DS which automated some of the game playing. He asked me if we could make it, - so we did.

90% of the apps that my kids try are apps they heard about from somebody else.

A list of all installed programs doesn't tell you what they do.

Searching (not browsing) the Windows Store, Android Marketplace, Mac App store or iTunes store for programming apps would quickly show lots of options.

You realize that a Mac + an iPad is probably much cheaper in today's dollars than your TI-99 was in 1984 right? A new Mac Mini costs $600 and and iPad $400. Plenty of money left over for a keyboard (which would work on the iPad too) and mouse. Hook it up to a TV just like your TI.

Besides, there are kid friendly programming tools for the iPad like Hopscotch. Scratch is rumored to be coming as well. For more advanced programmers there's Python. An iPad plus bluetooth keyboard is a far less expensive and much more pleasant to work on than your TI-99 could ever hope to be. In fact, I would guess even with the on screen keyboard plus built-in storage, portability, Internet connectivity, much nicer display, an iPad is a much more welcoming programming environment than a TI-99.

I think you're nostalgic for something that wasn't really there. Yes, computers came with BASIC 25 to 30 years ago. But that was before Windows 3.1. I don't think computers sold with Windows 3.1 or later came with BASIC.

Computers of that era were also incredibly expensive by today's standards and relatively few households had them. Sharing code is SOOOO much easier today than it was when Gates was a kid and there are a ton more people to share it with.

Compare that with today where the majority of US households have some sort of computing device and access to the internet. In 1984 less than 10% of US households had a home computer. Today almost 80% do and 75% have Internet access. Free compilers and Interpreters are a download away. Maybe that's not as convenient as having it built into ROM but think of the inconvenience of doing anything on a computer back in the 70s or 80s. When's the last time you had to swap a floppy or save something to a cassette tape?

As for Xbox live, there are plenty of kids who grew up with video games that have nevertheless become great programmers.

There are lots of free programming languages and tools out there that I think would be a lot more interesting to kids. If Microsoft wants more programming/engineering kids coming out of schools why don't they donate a bunch of Raspberry Pis, BeagleBones, Arduinos, or Lego Mindstorms?

VBA has got to be one of the least engaging programming tools out there. I'm not saying there's anything in particular wrong with it and it can be very useful to businesses but it's hardly going to inspire any kid who might be so inclined to get into programming.

Gift or curse he was able to use it to his advantage, - at least in the business world. Whether he was a happy person or not is another question. I suspect not. In either case I don't think the Olivia Fox Cabane would necessarily see Jobs as someone to emulate even though most people would agree that he did have some charisma.

For what it's worth I managed to read most of the unreadable article. As much as I could justify setting time aside for anyway. For some people it will strike a chord, others not. The topic is timely for me. I might go to a party, but host one? And while I'm content to join a group of people for lunch or happy hour, I'm almost never the one who suggests it or the one who will make the arrangements. I'm far from a complete social klutz, but I find many social situations tiring and I'm more likely to avoid social interaction than go out of my way to create it.

At various times in my life it becomes apparent how much of a liability that habit is.

While nothing in the article itself nor what she likely teaches is rocket science, many people in technical careers (and others) can benefit from really working on their social skills. We often downplay the importance of it and we do so at our own risk. For me it's kind of like running. We all know how to do it, but some of us can only do it short bursts while others can seem to run forever. The vast majority of us can run longer, farther, and faster with training, - and especially with coaching.

Case in point for the IT people. I fought for quite awhile to get IT a spot at the table when major decisions are being made in this organization about what sorts of projects to pursue. What I failed to adequately recognize is that being at the table isn't enough. I need to be actively engaged. I need to make my presence felt and not just be an observer who only speaks when spoken to.

I think one his "gifts" is that he could switch between being charismatic and an asshole in the blink of an eye. And I think a key to his success is that over time he mostly figured out when he could get benefit from being an asshole (or at least get away with it) vs when he needed to be more charismatic.

Being charismatic is not the same as being a good guy. In fact, lots of history's most notorious villains were seen as quite charismatic. They relied on that for much of their success. It has nothing to do with cheating on one's spouse other than the fact that a charismatic person will find themselves with more opportunities to cheat.

Someone like Steve Jobs was selectively charismatic.

And just like technical skills, charisma can be used for good or bad purposes. As the article states, it's a tool. A skill.

Unique technical skills and luck can get you places. So can charisma and luck. Having both charisma and technical skills will allow you to achieve more than having just one or the other. The nice thing about charisma is that it can help you with so many aspects of your life beyond just your career.

I can see your point but I don't think getting waited on is the primary reason most people go out to eat at a basic sit down restaurant. Sometimes interaction with the staff is a bright spot in the experience, but there's plenty of times it's relatively inconsequential, and other times it detracts from the overall experience rather than adds to it. In other words, I don't think people would quit going out to eat just because there's no wait staff at lower end restaurants, especially if it meant they could go out more often.

Don't get me wrong. I would see this as a sad development.

I'd like to think that were true, but if most people's wages are falling and they have a choice of going out to eat at an automated restaurant or not going out to eat at all, they'll eat at the automated restaurant. Or they'll go to the restaurant with real wait staff on very special occasions but that's it.

I'm sure many people felt that way about gas station attendants and for awhile lots of stations still had full service pumps. Over time though, people got used to pumping their own gas and saw the attendants as an unnecessary luxury. I'm sure there are still stations with full service pumps but it's been many many years since I've seen one.

Note on the above comment about unions. I do believe that part of the reason that unions in this country have fallen so hard is due to their own corruption (in some case) and over-reaching. However, we now have a situation where many full time jobs for unskilled workers don't pay a living wage. These people are the modern version of share-croppers. Companies profit from their labor, yet the workers themselves never make enough money to improve their own circumstances.

Because automation in the past created as many unskilled jobs as it destroyed. I'm not sure that is still true.
Because our economy is dependent on a continuously growing population and that is not a sustainable model in the long run.
Because companies are willing to spend less and less on training.
Because there is no longer a social contract. Companies making money will still lay off workers to satisfy Wallstreet
Because higher education is becoming an enormous financial burden
Because the unions that used to protect workers in the past have been decimated
Because more and more of the money companies earn goes to the C-level executives
Because a larger percentage of our population is too old to work
Because it's has become cheaper and cheaper to move jobs and manufacturing overseas

It is a bad thing if the jobs that disappear as a result are not being replaced by other jobs. I think that is becoming increasingly true.I feel we are in serious trouble in the long run unless the adaptation you're talking basically means socialization of the economy - which has pitfalls of its own.

Not only will the poor have fewer options, but so will kids trying to find part time jobs, - part time jobs they use to help pay for their expenses while going to college. So now they can graduate in even more debt than the graduates are today.

The other thing that people often forget is that money paid to human beings ends up back in the economy. That $8 your paying to operate a robot is going to go a company that itself only has a few employees. The robot isn't going to use the money to buy food or take its significant other out to a movie.

People think that the Arab Spring was about people overthrowing their oppressive governments. It's more nuanced than that. Many of people protesting in Egypt were highly educated, - and unemployed. The jobs they were promised for getting their educations never materialized. The government(s) that have been in power since haven't solved that problem, nor are they likely to.