When I took statistics in college my didn't put so much emphasis on whether we knew the formulas our not, he cared more whether we were able to argue our interpretation of the numbers. He told us that computers and calculators will do a better job of crunching the numbers for us, but it will never be able to do what a human does best: interpret that data based on facts, morals and experience. Most important is the moral judgement. I believe that the market failed because of the lack of moral fortitude of enough people in the market sector.

As Abraham Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg address, that the US government is "[a] government of the people, by the people, for the people". In order for Mr. Lincoln's vision to truly happen, we Americans, need to use the grey matter sitting on the top of our heads. I agree that it's a shame when people who would be expected to use their intellect--such as slashdot readers--are simply echoing conspiracy theories that cannot be categorically proven beyond reasonable doubt. I would say that we the people have a right to question the motivation of the White House in proposing NSTIC; and I would expect it to come from my fellow slashdotters. However, questioning alone doesn't solve the problem; we should also provide solutions. That, I feel, is what makes a healthy debate. Questioning alone makes you sound like a toddler asking "why" questions because they are learning about the world around them. My challenge to everyone who would question the motivation of all the players for and against the NSTIC is this: formulate specific questions based on the documents available about the proposed "national online security system". If your question is based on what's not in the document then say so. The government is capable of doing really well, and miserably failing, and it's up to us "the people" to keep them accountable for the activity of the government.

I agree this does sound like an ad for Bjarnne's book and C++. However, he does make a good point about the importance of "know how...to read & write English." I think a first programming course that focuses more on write design documents (I know that's not a popular thing), instead of diving into a programming language; because in my personal experience the people who write awful code are just as bad at expressing themselves (forget language barrier), and those who write good code are also very good at expressing themselves (I know of one person who on a couple of occasion had to ask another person to translate what he's trying to say).