You haven't proven that it can't be proven that 2 + 2 = 5. All you have proven is that if 2 + 2 = 5, then mathematics are inconsistent. Which they could be; you can't just assume math and logic are consistent.
Of course people will need to be informed on security and privacy on computers, but that doesn't require an understanding of coding. I know how to safely drive a car, for example, but I have no idea how it works under the hood (and frankly, I don't have the time or energy to learn this).
Coding really is a specialized job. For sure, some people would be better off learning it because it can be useful, but everyday people don't need to know how to code just like they don't need to know how a car works. All they need to know is how to drive safely, or use the computer securely.
And really, I don't get this whole "learn to code, learn how your computer works" idea. When I first learned ruby, I didn't magically gain an understanding of filesystems and networks and all those other things. My dad, on the other hand, who doesn't know how to code, in fact he didn't even know what a kernel was, can fix your computer up in a jiffy (hardware and software both, particularly windows). He's in fact still better than me at this, because he knows all the intimate little details of the windows UI and what each thing does, what each error probably means.
So the point is, you don't need to learn how to code to know how to use a computer well, and learning javascript won't really help you with that either. If all you want is to know how to protect your computer from the powers that be, don't learn to code; just listen to what the experts have to say on the subject.
back up 200 years and replace plumbing with reading...
Your argument isn't evidence for anything at all. There's a big difference between reading and coding: reading is a very useful method of communication. Everyone should be literate just like everyone should be able to speak. Coding, on the other hand, is much more along the lines of plumbing than language.
I don't think the example about the zombie is good evidence for children noticing things more than adults. As he says, the kids' favourite plant was The Chomper. Why would that be their favorite plant? The only explanation I can think of is that they like the fact that it eats zombies. So it goes without saying that they would pay attention to the moment The Chomper eats the zombie and all the little details of the event.
Also, we all pay attention to different things, and ignore different things. So even though children notice a lot of things we don't, we probably notice a lot of things they don't. In fact, I'd bet that us adults could notice more things than kids, if we tried. The problem is that what we notice is biased by our expectations which have evolved over the years (for example, we've learned to ignore the zombie arm sticking out of the plant because it isn't important), whereas children look at everything with fresh eyes, which forces them to pay attention, which in turn makes them notice things we've stopped looking for long ago. So in the end, maybe kids do tend to notice things more than us, but it's just because they have yet to learn to close their eyes.
Looks interesting, but you've got a contradiction on your signup page: the email is obligatory (which I personally don't like), but it says optional inside the text field.
I agree, but I think that with a great IDE for stack languages which would track the stack and the stack effects of functions, and display it all in a convenient way, most of the problem would be solved. It would be hard to read code without it, but I'll argue that the same could be said about syntax highlighting. And honestly, I think reading this kind of code can become natural with practice.
I mostly agree with what you're saying, but I also mostly agree with what the post is saying.
The point is that you can learn to control your reactions to things, and it's a good thing. I used to be extremely stressed out by any social situation. I eventually stopped being so through lots of practice at controlling myself and telling myself "who cares what other people think of me?". And I'm all the better for it. I also have learned to ignore insults and failure (well, ignore them emotionally, though I still try to analyze them rationally), because they give negative emotions that I don't enjoy. However, I still feel nostalgia when I realize "oh shit, that happened seven years ago?!!", and I still feel a rush of excitement when I succeed at getting everything done in a limited amount of time.
Also, the fact that I'm a tiny speck in the universe is the reason I focus on myself. If nothing really matters, you get to choose what does. And I choose myself.
I've been through a process of changing my emotional reactions, and I think my experiences are interesting enough to share. Just to situate you, I'm in secondary 5 (I'm 16), and back when I was in elementary school, I was super shy (I rarely ever said a word, and I hated talking because I would always notice some imperfection in what I would say which would make me feel stupid), and I was quite empathic (if another kid would cry, so would I). Also, I'm much happier now than back in elementary school.
In grade 5, I realized that life was meaningless and I might as well stop caring and just enjoy myself. So I started a long process of emotional change. The easiest thing to get rid of was my empathy, which I got rid of in grade 6. I can still feel sad or happy for others, but it's by choice. I can easily stop myself from emulating their emotions, and in fact I don't anymore by default. Then there was the huge stress that came up whenever I had to get into a social situation. That took a much longer time to remove. For years I would tell myself "who cares what other people think of me?", and try to get myself to do something which would put me into a social situation, but it had very slow results. It wasn't until secondary 4 that I had (mostly) gotten rid of my shyness. And interestingly enough, the first thing to go was the emotion, and then the physical reaction. At some point in secondary 4, someone insulting me would not make me feel a thing, but it would make my eyes a bit waterry, and it would make me gulp.
Though I am now mostly not emotionally affected by bad situations, I have not been able to get rid of the effects of emotion that come from physical things, like pain or being tired. Being tired just zaps the joy out of me. Perhaps you can learn to withstand pain by trying to replace it by better emotions (for example, by cracking jokes), though I haven't experimented with that.
Piracy is just copying information. The only "harm" it might do is make the person selling the information lose a sale that might never have taken place (I, for one, would not have bought the things I have pirated if I couldn't have pirated them). Basically, I don't think that I should be less free just because someone wants to make more money.
If I was in charge, laws would only restrict the freedom of the people for the safety of others (and even then it would only do so by making harmful acts illegal, not by spying on them or other crazy things). Intellectual property would only outlaw copying for commercial use, which would allow artists to make money from movie theaters, concerts, etc.
I'm sure many problems would arise from such a world, but I doubt that they'll be worse than the problems from the current system, and I'm sure that given time and actually implementing it, the kinks could be worked out.
What I'm trying to say (and what I think jayzee was trying to convey) is that rbanffy's logic is flawed, and that just because pirating things is easy doesn't make it right. What we call pirating might be okay, but the idea that because something is easy to do it shouldn't be illegal is flawed. Attempting murder is arguably just as easy as downloading a pirated version of a game, but it's not okay. The only difference between the two is that it feels obvious that murder is harmful, but downloading that song instead of paying for it doesn't feel quite as bad.
That being said, I agree that copying things should be legal, but not because doing so is easy. I think that it should be legal to copy things because I don't think people should be allowed to restrict what I do just because they want more money.
I think his point was that just because a crime is easy to commit, it doesn't mean that it's okay to do it.
Just because pirating things is easy, doesn't mean that it should be okay, in the same way that if getting guns and killing people was easy, it wouldn't mean that doing so is okay.