My point is that it is hard to test for 'math potential'. In no small part because high school teachers (and before) have so little of it.

For the record: There are a very few remaining swamps that are putting down future coal. The Okifanoki is one.

We can't possibly burn all the coal. Not even all the high grade coal, to say nothing of brown coal.

So was AOL in it's day. Those people should be kept off the general net if at all possible.

People that already know how to code test out of COBOL. The syntax is butt simple and being an introductory course the coding is also simple.

It's directed at the students that use salary surveys to pick majors. We are doing them a favor by showing them the worst CS environment early.

These days people have far less excuse for not learning a couple of programming languages in middle school then going from there. I had to wash dishes for a summer to pay for my first 'microcomputer'. These days you get better ones in cereal boxes.

I've never met a 'talented programmer' born after 1960 who learned to code in school. Not one.

They did pay attention in school and learn to code to standards, but already knew how to code. Coding just comes natural to some of us.

'What programming languages did you know when you started your professional education?' is one of my goto interview questions for the degreed. For the no-degree type I just find out if they can code worth shit.

Consensus: Perky nipples a cool and brighten any day.

The worst corporations in history have been as you describe (e.g The Dutch East India Company, etc).

With the government hanging over them they just become extensions of it. Do you like Fascism? Because that is what you propose. Exactly what I'd expect from Nader.

Mussolini's oft quoted line about corporations is actually about these types of corporations.

If you don't love programming COBOL will drive you out. But it's no worse than the project planning of the average PHB or the average codebase in service.

On residential streets, 'better than the shitty drivers' is still a dream for Google engineers. Highways are easy, residential is difficult.

Absent a major breakthrough in AI AND a couple more decades of Moore's law, fully automated cars won't be legal on the streets, in the lifetime of all /.ers reading.

If and when they do become legal they will be ubiquitous because people will never learn to be good drivers. They will never get their first 1000 hours in control.

Taxi's/Rental cars don't get loss of revenue, because it is known that the vehicles are INXS, the limit is passengers. Fleets are simply expected to keep a reserve.

There reasoning is such: The gas tax brings in money. It then becomes the governments money. When they spend it on roads it becomes an oil subsidy.

That's not the definition that started this thread. All it has to do is be replenished fast enough that there is no chance of it running out in the foreseeable future.

I know better. Absent strong AI there will be no truly autonomous cars.

We don't even have a working theory for making a strong AI.

All we will have is driver assists, which will make people so much worse drivers the overall safety situation won't change. Just like slushboxes, they should have more focus for driving, but in reality automatic drivers are the worst on the road.

That's the argument for teaching the first course in COBOL. Strictly as a weed out.

+1 for honors, +2 for AP is common.

Most universities have more than 50% of their freshman taking some sort of remedial coursework.