Unless you are one of those people who passionately hated the Start Screen, it probably doesn't fix many of the things you don't like about it. Judging from the discussions about it, Microsoft has done very little outside of improving the integration between the Modern UI and the traditional desktop. Yet it is still a schisophrenic UI (which is easily bumped into when you try configuring yours system, as one example) and Microsoft is still pushing their online services.
If you're talking about a condition that will not become progressively worse if left untreated, then sure, go for a placebo. If you're looking for a cure because you're paranoid of conventional methods, either because you don't trust the motives of pharmaceutical companies or are scared of the side-effects, for a condition that will deteriorate if left untreated -- well, let's just say that is downright foolish.
These people (a) don't know what computer science means or (b) don't understand a thing about child development.
Even allowing for an incredibly overly generously broad definition of computer science, one that stops just short of clicking a mouse button or tapping on a screen, they're going to have an awfully hard time teaching pre-K children computer science. These people really ought to know that since there's a reason why schooling starts at age 5 or 6: very few children have reached a stage cognitive development to support structured learning by that age.
Of course there's a lot of people who are highly paid. Chances are that those people are highly skilled, or at least have highly specialized skills as well.
Put another way: if you get a degree in computer science, or you are self-taught using common resources, you probably have a skill set that reflects that reflects the bare minimum that a company will accept and you have a skill set that the market is flooded with. Either way, you are unlikely to receive a good salary and you are probably going to face a lot of competition to get a job.
On the other hand, those who specialize may enter disciplines with less demand but they are also entering disciplines with far less competition for jobs. If that discipline offers a good return for the investment for a business, those people will frequently garner better salaries. Likewise, if you have that computer science degree but consistently put in the effort to perform beyond expectations chances are that you'll have more opportunities and reap better rewards.
I'm not going to say that it'll work for everyone. Motivation in the workplace and soft skills count too. Too many people hold themselves back due to psychological rather than intellectual reasons. On the other hand, if you prepare yourself to be a low paid cog you will almost certainly end up being a low paid cog.
Presentation software has it's uses. Do you need to present something visual that contributes to the discussion? This may be a graph or a diagram. If yes, then you probably need presentation software. Do you want to provide a visual representation of something that backs up your point? This may be an excerpt from a report, an equation, or a block of code? Presentation software may be useful here. (I'm not suggesting that it should be used for instruction. Writing things out is probably better in that case to pace the instruction.) Do you want to show where you are in a presentation? You have to be careful with how you use presentation software in this case, but it can be useful.
There are definitely poor uses of presentation software. "Reading slides" and serving as "notes" are among those poor uses. Yet those are failures of the person giving the presentation. That person would probably give a poor presentation even if the presentation software was removed.
I enjoyed SimCity 4 more than Skylines, but I'll take Skylines for what it is because SimCity 4 did not age well. It's difficult to get running on modern hardware, and it is full of quirks if you do get it running.
As for the latest iteration of SimCity, no thank-you. It may be a good game, but it wasn't designed with people like me in mind.
The big problem with minimum wage is that it is usually set, then left alone for many years on end. This create a problem for people earning minimum wage, since their wages are not adjusted to reflect the cost of living. This is beneficial to businesses in the short term, because wages decrease in relation to other expenses. This is also detrimental to businesses in the long term, since it means that increases to the minimum wage tend to be large and create a correspondingly large jumps in expenses. It is much more sensible to link the minimum wage to the cost of living.
If ads were just annoying, he would have a point. The terms are you get the content at zero cost, but it is being funded by advertising. Violating those terms is a bit immoral.
The flip side is the immoral behaviour of advertising: they track behaviour the reader's behaviour across multiple websites (which is dangerously close to stalking). They behave irresponsibly by not vetting their advertising clients (which can pose security risks). They also don't consider the bandwidth costs for the recipient of the advertising (which is especially relevant for users of mobile devices).
I honestly don't think that they should be talking about morality given the nature of their behaviour.
This kid needs serious help. If serious help fails, they need to face punishment for their crime.
Consider: this is a premeditated crime, committed to accomplish a certain objective. It also reflects a series of mistakes, not a singular one, in order to reach that objective. It is not a prank to relieve boredom. It is not a singular mistake to get what they want. It is not a kid being a kid.
I'm not normally a fan of a heavy handed approach to punishing kids. Yet when a kid isn't acting like a kid, they do need to face the consequences.
As the investigation reveals that someone in mission control loaded KSP onto the Progress computers to make piloting the craft for a bit of fun
The problem with that is Google needs to provide consistent results across all devices.
Of of course, the real problem is that Google has a vested interest in mobile.
If you set the threshold that high, new users will probably be turned off by the price of entry. That's particularly true of people who buy indie games or wait for sales, since that $50 can easily buy a couple of dozen games.
Whether it is surveillance by the state, corporations, or individuals, the issue (in my opinion) is not with the collection of data. It is with how the data is used.
Let's say that you were at a party and did something unbecoming, albeit still legal. Someone got a video of it, but no harm is done because the act and the video fade into a distant memory. Except that it doesn't disappear. Perhaps someone digs it up as a funny story, or because they're bitter about something you've done, or because there is some sort of way for them to benefit from the situation. Now you have people looking at something that is a snapshot in time that doesn't reflect who you are, or even who you were. Perhaps the video didn't capture the context, or maybe the context was removed from it. It has the potential to be damaging.
Actually, it can be more damaging than a video captured by a police or business surveillance camera. In many countries, the police have restrictions on how data is collected and handled. If it isn't being used for an investigation, they simply cannot disclose that information. If a case goes to court, you have an independent judiciary body examining it as evidence. Businesses don't have the same restrictions, but they can get themselves into legal hot water if they use or disclose data in an inappropriate manner. Contrast that to individuals, who are much less likely to be conscious of the boundaries between private and public information or who may not be thinking of the consequences of their actions. Unlike institutions, a lot of what they observe will simply end up as gossip.
The girls get a school which emphasizes a broad range of subjects, most of which are geared towards targeting gender inequality by creating a safe learning environment. Even if one of those emphasized subjects doesn't appeal to a particular girl, one of the others may. In other words, it will be labelled as an enrichment program.
The boys get a school which emphasizes a singular subject, most of which are geared towards targeting gender inequality by addressing low test scores. While English will appeal to some boys, it will not appeal to the majority of boys. That is true even if those boys are interested in fields that are traditionally dominated by women. In other words, it will be labelled as a remedial program.
I fail to see how this addresses gender inequality in any meaningful way. If the boys were offered a school geared towards the humanities and the arts, it may be possible to make such an argument. But that's not what's happening here.
Yes, there are pitfalls to using the Wikipedia. Many of those pitfalls can be avoided if you know how to use it. Examples include examining the history page, which is available for each article. It will give you an idea of the maturity of the article, if certain details are under contention, and whether something is likely to be a hoax or agenda driven. In many cases, sources are provided. Examine those sources. Determine whether the sources are reliable, and have been interpreted in a reasonable manner.
Oddly enough, people question the Wikipedia when it gives more information about the providence of the writing and content than virtually any other source, yet people insist upon making blanket statements about how unreliable it is. All that really says is that people want an authoritative source rather than a verifiable source. They want someone to tell them what is "true" rather than giving them the tools to assess what they are reading. That is dangerous, because it is far too easy to put yourself in a bubble of misinformation by choosing inaccurate sources that cannot be assessed.