I think programming would be a good thing to teach elementary aged kids, but not as a means toward making them programmers or software engineers. Rather it should be a tool used to teach general problem solving techniques. I haven't used any seriously, but I have seen some clever learning 'languages' that involve dragging and dropping images of procedures or actions, and then connecting them up to make a program that does something.(Scratch, I believe is a popular example). I think this is good stuff. Kids that find it particularly satisfying, should be given the option to move on to more traditional programming languages and follow that course of study.

Personally, I love programming. I get a huge kick out of it, and even when it's going badly, I'm still enjoying myself despite the frustration. I think of it as "building machines out of ideas," which is awesome. This is hardly true of everyone (even among many of my former Computer Engineering classmates who were just there because it's a solid-choice, job-prospect wise), and I definitely don't think it should be pushed as some sort of curriculum requirement.

Probably like most people in the field, I started out when I was 11 or 12 wanting to write video games, so taught myself C and assembler(which was necessary at the time). The desire to write video games faded before too long, but my love of programming continued on. This was all extra-curricicular, though, and actually in many ways was detrimental to my other studies, which I found tremendously boring. Had I been given the option earlier to follow a CS/SE/CE type curriculum primarily, I probably would have had a much happier early-schooling experience.

I understand schools in the UK tend to follow a more vocational educational arc, whereby you specialize earlier. I find the pigeonholing nature of that a little concerning (so far as I understand it), but it's better than everybody getting the same bland, little-bit-of-everything approach US public schools use.

I might get lost in the storm here but this is a bit too evangelical.

I appreciate they're trying to drum up support but when you go from this, to the mundanity of bugs, testing etc, the allure will wear off very quickly for those not actually interested in the field.

The step from those plug and play applications to introduce programming is vastly different in "fun" if you will, than actual programming. While it helps to reduce the dog moving to "moveLeft()" as a conceptualisation, the insides of the moveLeft() are deeply involved.

This may seem like a necessary skill for all people but it really isn't. This is the wrong way of looking at, the right way is for programmers now to better understand the needs of the public and provide software that reflects those needs in an approachable way.

There is divide between programmer logic and human logic and I feel resources are better spent teaching people not how to code but to have a level of understanding in the subject simply to communicate their ideas better to programmers.

That to me seems more productive than a slew of amateur work ducted tape together. What we need is abstract software that lets people do whatever they want, easily, simply and without repetition of 10million people solving the same problem for themselves simply to learn programming.

Time is better spent solving the issue of females entering Computer Science type degrees, it is still ridiculously out of a whack and if you solve that, there's your new work force.

The will.i.am comment is just ludicrous. Why should everyone know how to code? It's like saying everyone who drives a car should be able to strip an engine or everyone who lives in a house should know how to design one. Not everyone knows how to code because honestly coding is not a useful skill for daily life and it requires years of hard work and experience to master. If you're not planning on being a programmer, there are countless other more useful things to do with your time than learn to code.

That's just the point! There's too many programmers that don't know diddly about computer science, wouldn't know how to analyze an algorithm. So, instead of coming up with a useful algorithm that works on real world inputs, too often they'll devise something way more complicated to handle worst case scenarios or give only marginally improved performance (or none at all in the real world). Pre-optimization is a horribly Bad Thing. But so is not knowing how to use the algorithms that have already been written and optimized.

The quote is from a presentation by Sedgewick titled "Algorithms for the Masses." The whole point of it is to start teaching the fundamentals of computer science to everyone (that needs to do programming). I'd love to find a video of it somewhere, but all I've been able to come up with is the presentation slides (which themselves are worth a read through).

I first learned programming concepts in 4th grade (LOGO), but I didn't know that's what it was at the time.

In 9th grade I took an intro to programming course (QuickBasic) and from that point on, that was what I wanted to do with my life.

Unfortunately, back then, there was no path to employment that didn't involve college and I couldn't get into college (or graduate, even if I could have).

Today I work closely with programmers and constantly wish I could be doing it, but I feel like I'm too old to start all over now.

If you're interested in learning some programming basics, I can tell you it's really not that difficult. It's almost all algebra and logical statements.

What is religion anyway? Many of them exude the same principles of which I believe have some truth in all of them. Hinduism and Buddhism probably moreso than others but that is just me and what I have seen and learned.

Though there is definitely more verifiable truth to Math and Science. We were built and evolved in this intergalactic system, a system largely devoted to geometry... and an intergalactic system that we do not know much about.

We hardly even know how our brain functions and even less about the subconscious or what happens when we sleep, we know these aspects of our own being impact us, we can study the brain waves, we can hypnotize, we can slip in different molecules into our serotonin receptors, but we still do not understand why. It is a mystery yet to be solved. Much like this phenomenon we might believe as God. Eventually, I believe that we can figure out the science and it will be mindbogglingly simple creating much complexity. Akin to a simple formula as x=abs(x) or y=abs(y) or m=x*x+y*y or x=x/m+cx or y=y/m+cy. But, math will not contain the science of all of the states of being, spirit realms, and matter that do not relate to us on Earth. In my opinion this is only one life. The science of the next could be completely different.

Is God a deity or a they? The programmers of a gigantic reaction that occurs probably in many more places than we can imagine. Who are connected to everything. Maybe, it was a blob of energy that never knew it could create consciousness and the Earth evolved us to be conscious to protect it. Yeah, great job guys.

No one has that great of an idea because if it is real, it would be absolutely mind blowing and beyond all human comprehension, yet probably very simple once we understood it. There is only one way I know to reach out and touch a little bit of it on Earth and it is absolutely amazing and terrifying all at the same time and beyond human linguistics. Science so far is hardly trying to figure it out but it is science, because if all living things ingest this molecule that resides in everything and then is able to see through dimensional portals, into afterlife, through the universe, think it is dead because it is impossible otherwise... well that is Spirit Science something of which is only beginning to come to fruition.

I just think everyone is somewhat right, even Christianity, hehe, as long as they are teaching compassion and love; there is something to it be it group therapeutic, psychological, or really there is something much bigger going on that science has no way of quantifying. Again, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong but that there are truths in everything and to completely disregard them might not be the best approach, even if it is an amalgamation of prior knowledge so very twisted by imperialists throughout these two thousand plus years.

Science is what we need to get behind to begin unraveling these mysteries, even though it is a slow process. I bet that science will eventually grapple to learn that these mystical underpinnings of religions, cults and ancient sacraments... these things Christians call holy light, prayer, God, resurrection, afterlife, angels... fit into the coding of the universe. If string theory and quantum mechanics did not already open that can of worms up. But, I also doubt that whoever created this thing that we are, wants to be seen and would have put up many barriers, knowing full well that its creations would seek them or it out. Or maybe it is the exact opposite....

Programming could've be done better. It's now repeating the same pattern, no real finale. Which of course would've been seemingly random placements that resolves back to order.. Makes a lot more wau-factor when humanbeing can't keep up with the order of things that is a breeze for programmable arm.

Your ideals, his politics, WTF? What you are saying is that you chose an extreme example (like this news organization did) as your offering, inserting through the filter of your experiences in your society as described, what? You obviously have no desire to see anyone with guns, or any society in which this could possibly happen, and you'd be interested in selling a wondrous adjustment or replacement based upon what? Your personal experiences and world view?? Your own country's model for how to get along?? It's sounds just as pontificous any passionate nut job, right left or center.

Now focus on some lobbies wanting to make money, describe their motivations using crude imagery to make what point ??(knowing fuck-all about the gun lobbies in the U.S. I'd hasten to guess you are pulling shit out of your own ass??)?

A point everyone seems to miss is lost in endless banter over this gun issue in a country whose real problems dwarf how many and what type of boomsticks people have.

The people who control policy, who have worked hard to bankrupt this country and rape her human resources, drug them, offer them more laws to create an illusion of safety and fairness? Fuck you.

Problem isn't guns, mine or yours, or the ones you poor fucks in countries who have decided for you that guns are bad for you. The problem is that the world is full of the most part, of ineffectual, programmable, inept automotons when it comes to exercising their rights under natural laws, AS evidenced for me, in the up-voting of grinter's little passionate episode here...

My country is full of broken people, desperate people, seasoned with an inordinate amount of total fuck-ups, and I have to watch the shit in slow-motion while it gets even more fun...with guns, with a political system totally fucking retarded holding her citizens an economic hostage to special interests dwarfing any gun lobby's.

Is YOUR country broken grinter, or have you decided that you are satisfied with elected officials. we don;t have elected officials anymore. We have criminals.

WORLDWIDE, we're headed for a radical democracy or some comfortable, tolerable, illusory freedoms under a Nuevo-Fascist Global Cuntfest at this point.
Fuuuuck! Get a clue!? all I have to do is watch how utterly retarded these hearings are(kangaroo-court-style) to gauge the breakdown of this motherfucker...

That's because of programmers.

Source: I'm a programmer. We're awesome.

This is from a comedy sketch show in Ireland called Irish Pictorial Weekly
http://www.rte.ie/tv/programmes/irishpictorialweekly.html

@rebuilder

There's very good data showing test scores correlate with all socially valued outcomes.

That includes professional development, health outcomes (managing our personal health in the 21st century is complicated), lower divorce rates, lower rates of out-of-wedlock births, lower crime rates, etc.

I agree, however, that school is mostly useless. I encourage young people to get their highschool equivalency at age 12-16. Get a 4 year degree if you absolutely must, but do it as fast as possible. Aim to move to a tech hub like Silicon Valley or Austin, Texas to become a programmer, designer, marketer, bizdev guy etc.

Send me links to both and I'll fix it for you tonight after work... or (equally likely) someone else will see your comment and do it before I get near it.

The restrictions on hosts make more sense to me than the restriction on updating thumbnail images on your own posts before you're bronze... but really, these are small things. Come for the cool videos, the entertaining comments... stay for the petty restrictions and occasional bouts of bitter in-fighting. Hang on, that didn't come out right....
In reply to this comment by Retroboy:
Here's an example of restrictions limiting "newbies": I have a dead video as one of my 3 submissions that I've found a replacement for and easily could fix, but I'm not at the right level so it's verboten. This makes me feel a little as if I'm a lower-class sifter even though all I want to do is correct one of my own posts.

Pretty sure a spambot would never self-repair a broken link that they submitted.

Likely one of those "special cases" that the VideoSift programmers didn't consider, and perfectly understandable if so. But it, and all the other grayed-out options, are a little limiting for "genuine" new members.

Here's an example of restrictions limiting "newbies": I have a dead video as one of my 3 submissions that I've found a replacement for and easily could fix, but I'm not at the right level so it's verboten. This makes me feel a little as if I'm a lower-class sifter even though all I want to do is correct one of my own posts.

Pretty sure a spambot would never self-repair a broken link that they submitted.

Likely one of those "special cases" that the VideoSift programmers didn't consider, and perfectly understandable if so. But it, and all the other grayed-out options, are a little limiting for "genuine" new members.

So I finally got around to watching this fine television programme. *quality

>> ^fritzo9602:

Not real. This is from a comedy sketch.


I was gonna call this out as a blatant rip-off of Countdown - thanks for saving me from a red-faced moment