Coding and music (particularly composition) are excellent for the mind, but not every student has the aptitude. It's not a case of some kids being too dumb, but just that not every mind works that way.

I do think that students should be given the option though.

If you actually have a talent for writing software, you'll find out automatically.

Bullshit. Kids have no way of recognising that aptitude in themselves. How could they? I find that people who haven't been introduced to computer programming previously have no idea what it entails.

Also, I'd like to point out that programming in school is mostly about structuring your thoughts logically and a feel for how computers work, not professional coding etiquette.

When did "keeping us safe" become the primary function of government?

I'm not sure. When did we invent the military?

Is that not enough to convince you?

Ahhh, if it's all the same to you, I'm not quite done with my critical reasoning skills yet. But, I promise, the moment I'm done with them, I'll come chase shadows with you on your imaginary demon hunt.

Obvious bias is indeed obvious, but, to be fair, it only points out that the reason is stupid, and does not comment on the law itself. It doesn't really need to either, since the /. groupthink will tell 95% of us what to think about it anyway.

but just check out TV forums and see how many posters refer to actors by their characters' names. For a lot of people, TV is real-life

That might be a bit of a leap there.

When I read a novel, I say/think $CHARACTER did something, even though I know that they don't exist, and I find I do the same in all sorts of entertainment, television included. Also, the names of the characters are a great way to refer to the person without having to memorise their names, or expect others to do so as well.

In fact, come to think about it, I don't know a single person who is even close to thinking that TV is real. I don't even know anyone who thinks it's plausible. Do you?

Sometimes I wonder if "Remember the dumb people" is /.'s "Think of the children".

No, the worst possible thing already happened, thats the content of the letter.

A slight exaggeration perhaps, but it's beside the point. It's not a competition of who can be more wrong; the fact of the matter is that it's possible for two parties to be in the wrong. And in principle, how wrong one party is should not affect how wrong the other party is.

Think about all those legal penalties for spying, warrantless searches, torture, and all those other illegal methods for obtaining potentially valuable information. Not only do we punish people who use them, we refuse to acknowledge, in court, the information obtained using them. Why? Because if we did, then people would continue to do them, regardless of the penalties. It's not enough to say, "Whoops, my bad, but at least you caught the serial kiddie-fiddler due to my illegal search!", and walk out scot-free. Regardless of how useful the information exposed, we know that the methods to obtain said information are evil, and we do our best to ensure they don't happen, even if it means ignoring valuable information. Basically, as far as the courts' are concerned, the ends never justify the means.

(Now, I don't mean to suggest we should ignore what Snowden turned up, just that we shouldn't allow the magnitude of NSA's crimes to blind us to the issue of whether Snowden himself has done wrong or not.)

Only when "propaganda spin-meisters" are crowing away to all who will still listen.

So, your reason for ignoring this part of the debate is because the other side are smelly poopy-faces? These may not be your exact words, but it's certainly the gist that I take from it.

It is not a debate when discourse limited and narrowed to concentrate on the messenger rather than the much more important message.

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I was not even remotely suggesting this. There's nuance here. No, the debate is not entirely the way you want it. No, by debating all of the issues raised, that does not mean we only debate the ones you don't want to. It does not mean we are deflecting the real issues, just addressing the other ones that you don't want to address, which is fine, because the "other side" doesn't necessarily want to address the issues you want to address. That's why you address them all.

Seriously modders, shame on you! I would think directly discussing the topic "The Death of Nuance" would be illuminating enough to stop you modding such dreck up, at least on this story!

What do you think this is, a site for techies?

What you're describing is the use of implicit meaning in language in order to convince people of a point. Such a technique is known as rhetoric, and it's been around roughly as long as language itself.

I disagree. A large part of the debate is about Snowden's conduct; whether it's right to share state secrets, given what the NSA is doing. Note that this is an issue not entirely dependent on whether the NSA is justified in their actions or not.

Focus in the message that is by far the important thing.

The message is extremely important, yes, but so is his conduct. That's what half the debate is about. He may be the mailman, but if he's opening the mail and delivering it deliberately to the wrong hands, the message itself is not the only relevant factor.

I wanted to dislike this movie

That's an odd attitude with which to approach a movie.

Actually come to think about it, I do have one concern, which is the problems it could create with third party upgrades. Something to keep an eye on, I guess.

This isn't like software where you're not shipping some bits, or even if you ship them and selectively enable or disable. These are physically manufactured components. The parts have to be physically manufactured and installed.

This reminds me of the furore there is every time a game company releases day 1 DLC, sometimes included on the physical media no less (Bioshock 2, IIRC). In the latter case, this is pretty much directly analogous.

Look, you have to remember that, in a capitalist system, the question of physical presence is hardly the point: they charge a price, you decide if it's fair. If the cost of the base model is inflated, compared to the competition, due to the extra hardware, then just buy the competition instead. If the price is comparable, then how exactly is it skin off your nose if they include disabled extras?

TFS takes the right attitude, IMHO. What I see here is a convenient and instantaneous way to deliver extras, with very low time and money costs, if it is indeed feasible. I don't see what there is to dislike.