>>But you can't craft code that reads like simple English in any other language.

O but I disagree. Python "real" code is as close to "pseudo code" as you can get. It is amazing how little you actually have to do to pseudo code to translate it into Python working code. Python also works as a procedural and an OO language. I came from a background of Basic, Fortran, Pascal, Cobol, etc. (35+ years at this point) and moving into Python was VERY easy. I just kept writing procedural code and it worked fine. When I discovered OO in Python, I was really impressed.

I taught in the Computer Honors program at my local University for several years and would have loved to have taught my students Python instead of BASIC and Fortran (but that was a long time ago). It has the power of being interpreted (which is really important for learning), but the power of an industrial strength OO language to build non-trivial real world applications.

Other reasons to teach Python is that it is EVERYWHERE and free. You can get a consistent Python runtime on virtually all platforms, but not a consistent BASIC or for that matter a consistent version of virtually any other language except maybe C (which would be a TERRIBLE teaching language). Using Python I can write to a web framework (Django, Zope) in the morning, write a Windows Service or COM object in the afternoon, and write a Linux/Macintosh GUI app or daemon in the evening. I dare you to do that in any other language. You can't begin to do that with BASIC, Java, or C#.

Only if you are setting up one firewall or editing one rule. Try that on 50 firewalls for 50 remote offices and you will notice that this doesn't work well any longer. You will want a script that you can apply to all 50 quickly and with confidence that all of them are EXACTLY alike.

Too expensive to rent Windows servers? You can get Amazon EC2 Windows instance for less than $100/month for 24 x 7 uptime. Pretty hard to run a Windows Server in-house for that amount of money (remember you have hardware, Windows 2008 license, cooling, electricity to consider).

Amazon and Google going "belly up". You REALLY have other things to worry about that have a much higher probability of actually happening.

I don't watch ads now. I DVR everything and use the "skip 30 seconds" button as needed.

Market momentum is a "real" thing. I watched as Lotus kept riding that momentum for years, then, Novell, then WordPerfect, etc.

One thing that has made an impression on me recently is that my daughter started University last year and I noticed that fully 3/4 of the kids on campus were using Mac laptops. They all loved iPods, then iPhones, and Mac laptop made complete sense to them. I suspect that this is true on most University campuses. They are not afraid of "change". They casually boot Windows XP/Vista in a Parallels or VMware virtual machine when necessary. They use Safari, iPhoto, iChat, etc. and marvel at how antiquated the equivalent applications are on Windows. So just wait a few years until those kids are calling some of the shots on what gets purchased in businesses. I think Jobs got it right by getting entrenched in their lives via iPods and iPhones and then getting their laptop and desktop purchases. Sometimes the indirect approach is best.

I agree with most of your post. I also agree that we are out here with money, but just don't like what we see. I just looked at new Apple TV and was severely disappointed: 720p only, no DVR, HDMI w/HDCP only, etc. Crap my 65" HDTV, that is only a few years old, doesn't even have 720p or HDMI (component only).

Another gripe is that I ABSOLUTELY refuse to rent movies for $3.99, $4.99 or more and be constrained to something like 24.48 hours. Sorry, but you should be selling most of them for $1.99-$2.99 because most of them really aren't worth watching more than once. I started purchasing DVDs when they became popular and then just stopped. It wasn't worth the cost to "own" a copy of the movie. Since they aren't HD, I find re-runs on HBO/Starz and record them on my HD DVR. Not that is something that actually works pretty well. .99 for a TV re-run is also, as you put it, straight-up funny. Maybe I'm the only one that thinks that the cost to ship me some bits down the Internet should be a LOT lower a'la Hulu or Netflix. Come on guys, do the math. There are hundreds of millions of potential customers out here. Didn't you learn anything from iTunes. Get the price down low enough and people will purchase 10 times as much stuff, but we have to be able to keep it and to play it on whatever we want.

Another reason that I haven't seen mentioned for wanting younger programmers that are paid less is because the person that is doing the hiring is building their departments by hiring more people. Would you rather have one $100K superstar or two $60K barely adequate programmers? The manager learns quickly that having more lower paying employees under their direct responsibility results in more pay. This isn't just true in IT, it is basically true across the board. People who manage more people get paid more. Build your kingdom (and your salary), by just hiring more people. Eventually you will have built a department and have a good salary. Now if you could have solved the problem with the $100K superstar and yourself, you won't get rewarded for that.

You might want to take a look at these IP connected video cameras:

http://www.axis.com/products/video/camera/ptz/index.htm

They have pan/zoom so you can control them remotely.

While I think that teacher's unions are "part" of the problem, I'm convinced that the bigger problem is that there is a lack of discipline and kids aren't afraid of anything that a teacher or principal can currently do to them. "Time out" just doesn't motivate a teenager to change their behavior. Parents just are not supporting teachers in this area. We have a complete generation of children that "can do no wrong" in the eyes of their parents. Until parents quit thinking their child is a complete "angel" and always blindly takes their side against teachers and administrators we will continue down this path. How things have changed in the last 30 years.

No I will admit that teachers and administrators could be wrong, but parents have got to go into this with the assumption that the child is probably wrong until proven otherwise. Assuming that the children are always right hasn't and won't work. They are children after all. While there may be times when the child is right, it is extremely important that they learn to work within the power structure that exists. The real world just isn't going to change to accommodate them even if they are right, they must find a way to adapt or we are setting them up for a lifetime of disappointment. The workplace is just not going to put up with the lack of discipline that teachers are forced to endure today and it is the children that are in for a rude awakening.

In return for this support, parents should expect teachers to be accountable. Asking teachers to be accountable for their student's proficiency without discipline or any ability to modify the student's behavior can't work.

Ah, now you are on to something. We are in agreement on at least one thing. I said earlier that either Jesus was who He said He was or He was a lunatic. The proof that Jesus was who He said he was is in His crucifixion/resurrection. If you would seriously investigate this event, you will find that that it stands up to your test of "extraordinary proof". Hundreds of people were eyewitnesses this miraculous event. You can, of course, discount it because it doesn't "seem plausible to you" or "you just don't believe in miracles" but given the magnitude of that decision, you should at least make certain that you make an informed decision about it. Either way, you are an eternal being and like it or not, God will continue to purse a personal relationship with you as long as you live.

Confusion abounds: Who said we were talking about science here? I certainly didn't.

I beg to differ that historical writers aren't trusted. I believe you will find that if they are not, we have VERY little history because there isn't much external evidence (other writings) for most of the history we "accept". This is the "double standard" people employ when it comes to historical writings in the Bible. They want "proof", but accept other historical writings with little or no proof whatsoever.

Science projects and accepts "theories" as facts all the time. Prove what many accept as evolution to me. Not the evolution of species when subjected to different environments, but the evolution that teaches that sperm whales and butterflies evolved from the same single celled organism. You accept lots of "science" that can't truly be proven. You have faith in the scientists until proven otherwise.

You see I believe that we have and can observe God and He has given us a clear set of guidlines. I also stated very clearly (earlier) that I believe strongly that God doesn't send anyone to hell. They choose to go there themselves. Works like this: You are in a burning building and I tell you that all the ways out are blocked except for one. You don't like that answer because you are a smart guy and there must be more than one way and I'm being completely intolerant of your belief that there is more than one way out. So you don't take the exit that leads to safety...

Nothing wrong with questions. Questions are good. Discounting any answers that don't fit in your "view of the universe" doesn't seem to fit you either.

Now I think the REAL question comes down to this hypothetical question: If God came to you right now and convinced you that I'm correct, how could you possibly document it so that it could be shared with others? The only "proof" is your word and others belief in what you say.

Like a said earlier, this is God's universe so we play by His rules not ours. Creating hypothetical alternate god's and then using them as a basis for not believing in any god isn't going to get you any closer to the truth, and that is what we are discussing isn't it? The fact that other gods "could exist" doesn't mean that they do. If you use this same logic on all other knowledge that you "believe" you possess, you would find that you would not be able to be sure about anything that you didn't personally observe. All history would be discounted (not sure I can trust the historical writers and I can think of a bunch of alternative histories that I like better). All science would be discounted (I don't trust the scientists and much of what they tell me is so far fetched it is virtually impossible to believe). This approach would guarantee confusion because there are an infinite number of alternate (and false) histories or scientific theories that can be fabricated.

Christianity believes that there is one true God, that He loves His creation so much that He would sacrifice his Son on a cross to redeem them. Jesus didn't die on the cross for those that love Him. He died for everyone, even those that hated Him. Jesus was either who He said He was or He was a lunatic. If He was who He said He was, then what He said to us it true "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." Note: He didn't say I am one of many different ways. Apparently it is this "one way" solution that bothers many people. If there is only one way (the truth) it is extremely important that people know what that one way is. If you were sick and your doctor told you there was only one way to get well, you would be fine with that (assuming it were true). You wouldn't create hypothetical alternative ways of getting well and find yourself unable to make a decision about the correct treatment and let yourself die would you?

Writers like Josh McDowell and C.S. Lewis started out believing much as you and set out to disprove Jesus testimony, but in the end both were convinced that Jesus was who He said He was (you might want to read some of their books as a basis for testing your beliefs against theirs). With eternity in the balance, that decision has, one might say, far-reaching consequences.

God is perfectly just. There's no contradiction in how He deals with mankind. Many men try to convince themselves that God "grades on a scale" (if I'm more good than bad I'll be OK). He doesn't. It is completely pass/fail. If you are perfect (which is impossible), you will spend eternity with Him. If you sin without redemption, it is impossible for you to be in His presence. Holiness (God) cannot be in the presence of sin. The two are incompatible. We may not like the rules, but then you and I aren't God. Ignoring them isn't an option. As much as we my try, we cannot replace his rules with ours. When we create a universe out of nothing, we can set the rules for our universe. In His universe, we are subject to His rules (some I don't understand, but then I'm not God). He knew that it would be impossible for us to lead a sinless life so He provided a second way, the redemptive blood of a sinless Jesus. This is a gift (available to all), but like any gift it comes with a requirement: it must be opened and accepted to be enjoyed. You are free to refuse the gift, but the cost will be separation from God for eternity (Hell). Many people believe that God's judgement is what sends people to Hell, but they aren't reading scripture correctly. God doesn't send anyone to Hell, everyone that goes to Hell is choosing to go there against God's wishes. God's judgement (in Revelation) will be for those that are redeemed. Those that are lost (i.e. those that choose not to spend eternity with God) judge themselves. Without free will there cannot be true love. God wanted to spend eternity with beings that love Him and that is impossible if He: 1) Doesn't give them the opportunity NOT to love Him, and 2) if He reveals so much of Himself that our free will is taken away. Faith requires just a little of "not knowing" or it wouldn't be faith at all. He believed in free will/love so strongly that He even gave free will to heavenly beings (some of which chose to reject God).

Use your intellect to investigate God's plan for humankind and you won't need to "trust your gut", you will have assurance. Don't let others tell you what God has said (many of them are VERY wrong), investigate it yourself. Christianity isn't as much a religion, as it is a relationship (with God). That is what He wants.