Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
In spite of all this, Centers continues to insist that Branstad does not use e-mail. But checking your e-mail on your phone counts as using e-mail. Receiving e-mails from your staff counts as using e-mail. Sending accidental e-mails with your Blackberry counts as using e-mail.
Checking a group distribution list because that's how you get news is not really "using" e-mail.
Checking a group mail is not checking "your" e-mail.
Sending e-mails which demonstrate that you have no idea what you are doing does certainly not count as "using" "e-mail".
Obviously, this craptastically ignorant fuckstain is not tech savvy.
I was with you until you said he "obviously" is not "tech savvy". So we know from reading the article that he recognizes that his Blackberry is "old-fashioned". And he apparently doesn't waste a lot of time digging into how the company that makes Blackberry markets them (they call them "smart phones" but there are much smarter phones our there these days).
"Presently, only one in 10 schools nationwide offer computer science classes."
From 1992-1996 I went to a tiny high school in the middle of nowhere surrounded by corn fields, and even I had 4 computer programming courses - granted only like 5-6 kids were in the 4th class, they almost canceled it on us.
Maybe they teach programming and computers in the Midwest but not elsewhere?
Let's force everyone to learn how to code! We need more bad programmers!
After all, people who think they know something without really knowing anything are the best!
We need people who understand what computers are and what they are capable of. This is similar to how we teach biology to everyone even though most will never become doctors (or even bad doctors). We teach chemistry to everyone although most will never become physics. We teach literature to everyone even though many will never work at McDonald's or Starbucks.
Most people will never be doctors, but they will visit doctors, take medicines, deal with minor injuries at home, vote on issues related to impacts of chemicals on humans and animals, etc.
Most people will never be programmers, but they will use computers for a growing number of things throughout their lives and be affected by policies like net-nuetrality, big data mining, data retention, computerized vote fraud, etc.
But better would be to start with Pascal-like syntax where ":=" can be read as "becomes equal to" with the colon standing in for "becomes".
For the really high IQ kids it may not matter, but the average student who has trouble grasping the full implication of mathematical "equal", introducing a new meaning for the sign will cause trouble.
but banning basic scientific fact?
Even if there were such a thing as "basic scientific fact" this wouldn't come anywhere close to it. This is complex theory based on many diverse data points with no possibility of controlled testing. I'm not saying it's wrong. But it isn't basic and unfortunately it may not be fact until it is too late.
As for beyond work, you might be surprised. I believe there are laws restricting federal employees from doing things like doing campaign work for candidates for federal office.