Ah, I see. You just don't understand what you posted.

Give it another go. You'll figure it out. (Hint: It does support your claim. Quite the opposite, in fact.)

Let's review:

This is true.

This is false.

Your earlier post supports my assertion, as it makes it very clear that the State of New York does not "forbid" "both kinds of weapons".

So ... you wanted to tell me that I was right?

Well, it works acceptably on my BlackBerry Z10. Way better than jQuery Mobile at least, but that's not exactly a high-bar.

It works wonderfully on my bargain-basement Windows 7 netbook in Chrome 31, but doesn't work at all in FireFox 25 or IE 11.

I figure by that time it works acceptably in enough places, it'll be useless -- solving a problem no one has any more.

That's not true.

auto_ptr has been depricated

That's my point entirely. :)

I guess you missed this part: "he's right for the wrong reasons."

I don't know why you're so defensive of the language. C++ hasn't exactly improved over the years.

I don't even know why anyone would even bother with c++. If it's a good fit, just use c.

Torvalds is right about the language; even though he's right for the wrong reasons.

It's good because it has an interactive mode?

There are better beginner languages with an interactive mode, like BASIC and Logo.

There's tons of research. No, they can't write code. (See Jean Piaget)

They can do some code-writing like things. Papert, who had worked with Piaget, worked with Feurzeig's team to developed the logo programming language. There was some research done in the late 1970's- early 1980's with young students (and a bit more done with young deaf students).

The point is that we've got a perfectly good, well researched, language for teaching computer programming concepts to very young children. Why piss around with javascript or ruby?

Well, they are magicians. Cut 'em some slack.

Just look at this:

It's pretty clear that we're not dealing with rational people here. Which is fine, as they're entertainers, selling to an audience composed of irrational people.

This bit is particularly telling:

The amateur, outsider, the autodidact -- if they're only smart and clever enough -- can outwit or otherwise make a major contribution to a field they're interested in. It's their very standing as an uneducated amateur that imbibes them with insight far beyond that of the average expert.

It seems silly at first, but there's a lot of money to be made pandering to the egos of the scientifically illiterate science cheerleaders.

So relax. Their viewers don't care about silly details. The magicians don't care either. The audience doesn't want to question what they're told, and the performers don't want to bother fact-checking everything. It's just not that important to them.

Well, I can't argue with that. The first thing you learn in grad schools is that when an uneducated autodidact boldly asserts, in direct contradiction to all evidence, that you're wrong, you're clearly wrong. When faced with a wikipedia polymath, just bow humbly to their superiority.

Yes, as an example. A fairly good one, I thought.

You've clearly forgotten the entire point of that discussion! Go back and read. You'll puzzle it out.

Oh, yes there is. Your posts are positively loaded with jref nonsense!

There you are. Now the point:

YES. That actually IS an ad-hominem argument. I made it explicitly for you to point out.

See? It's not that complicated.