Teach yourself Computer Science for Free

How would you like to teach yourself computer science? I'm not just talking about programming - that's easy.* I'm talking about getting a firm grasp of the concepts and methods that you need to actually think like a computer scientist.

If this is your goal - and you feel up to a bit of a challenge - you might consider starting off with "The Structure and Implementation of Computer Programs (pdf - html version here)." This is how MIT taught Computer programming for years and how many other universities still teach it. It uses Scheme as its computer language of choice because it's minimalist nature allows students to explore concepts in program design without spending the vast majority of your time on learning the language. There are several implementations of Scheme around and MIT has instructions on installing it. If, however, you have trouble, simply don't want to put it on your computer or, like me, don't have admin rights on your work computer, you can use an online version implemented in Javascript that is impressively well put together! Check it out here.

You can also get online lectures and, if you feel up to them, lecture notes with exercises. That should round off the study nicely. Of course, this one course doesn't cover everything. Specifically, you would most likely want to get into something that covers object oriented programming in depth, learn a C style language like Java (which can assist in the previous point - see here) and find out something about the needs of an operating system. Still, this is a great place to start!

*If you are just beginning to learn programming, I would recommend learning Python - it has a very easy to understand, intuitive syntax and supports multiple paradigms. It is also currently used in industry, has good support, plenty of online tutorials and is open source, so you can implement it for free!

If you are just beginning and are a kid, I would recommend Scratch or StarLogo tng. It's like programming with legos!

If you have some knowledge of a language or two and want to expand your repertoire, you can try out a lot of them at zamples.com (you can find the languages on the left side under the heading "Create Sample". Here is java, Groovy and, if you are considering my previous recommendation, Python ).

Will DTV Kill Public Television?

Our family is starting on the second week of an all digital Television age. The initial report follows:

DTV still sucks.

We DID get a new channel - a weather channel, in fact. Of course, even on the best days it is choppy, halts and goes out constantly. Throw in bad weather (you know, those times when you might actually NEED a weather channel) and it becomes completely worthless.

There are a couple of channels that come in reasonably well, but they don't make up for the channels I lost. Those channels include channel 9 - my city's public television channel. And I'm not alone on this either.

My wife found a site on the internet that lists the kinds of antennas you might need to receive a given channel in a given area. It goes from straight rabbit ears on up the line in receptive capability. The two channels I consistently get, for example, are actually in rabbit ears range for us.

We would need a rooftop amplified directional antenna to get the public television channels (according to this guide, there are FOUR possibilities) that are supposedly in our area. Anything more sensitive is most likely already in use searching for cohesive signals coming from space.

The problem is power and the equipment upgrades needed to boost the signals to our neighborhood. The commercial television stations have the money to make this happen. This means we will likely get the Fox network soon, since they are making those upgrades. Donation driven public television, however, doesn't quite have the same financial resources to draw upon. Public television, of course, lives on donations - which means it lives on the edge all the time, depending on the generosity of its audience.

It's considerably SMALLER audience now, thanks to DTV.

People like me no longer have access to public television. More importantly, many older people who don't care for cable television and live outside the easy viewing area, as well as those who just watch a few channels and who don't really want to deal with new, flaky, unreliable technologies like DTV at all no longer have access to public television.

These people are the ones who make BIG donations for the specific shows they watch. These are the ones who leave public television in their wills and who make the BIG single contributions you see celebrated during those fund drives. What do you think the chances are of those staying around when they can't see the channel any more.

Of course, the funds won't dry up completely. At least SOMEWHERE the signal is strong enough to be picked up by normal means and some people may need their programming enough to actually shell out for the NASA type receivers and, of course, cable and satellite users are fine. However, there WILL be an impact. And, especially in an economic downturn like the one we are in, any impact could be fatal.

Of course, if it does fail, the Government could simply take it over.

Maybe PBS will get an office in the White House Next to ABC.

Defining Obama's Job

President Barack Obama's job approval rating is sitting comfortably at 63%. However, none of his policies have broken the 60% approval mark - in fact, 60% of the population don't feel he even HAS a coherent plan to reduce the deficit, a majority believe we should not be spending money to "stimulate" the economy and more people disapprove of his handling of the auto industry problems than approve. This suggests that the President's job is NOT primarily about his policies.

But then, what IS it about?

Is it about inspiring confidence? I don't see how. If you don't agree with the direction this country is going, how can you be confident when the driver doesn't have the same destination in mind as you?

Is it about giving speeches? At first blush, this sounds like the, now aging, ongoing teleprompter gag. However, it does go in line with his current popularity - it may be related...

Is it about promises and faith in those promises? Obama's ability to deliver on his promises seems shaky at best. Certainly those who expected him to overthrow "don't ask, don't tell," those who expected him to release information on Guantanamo interrogations and a host of others would say at least as much.

Currently, I'm thinking Obama's job is mostly about distraction and entertainment. He's certainly on TV often enough and that seems to be what he's best at. My thoughts on this are still evolving though, so it remains to be seen how close to this mark my ultimate choice is.

Palin Should Accept Letterman's Apology

I have long advised people not to apologize to liberals. They are incapable of forgiveness and, in fact, react to apologies like sharks react to blood in the water. Hopefully, Sarah Palin will prove the corollary to be true by accepting David Letterman's apology and attempting to start anew.

Yes, that means I think she should accept his invitation to go on his show.

For one thing, I believe that Letterman is actually sorry he made those statements. I think he realizes he actually offended a lot of people and I believe he will modify his behavior as a result.

For another, he gave a real apology. He acknowledged what he did, admitted that it was wrong and showed that he is willing to make amends. That needs to be acknowledged because it sets a good example. Failing to accept now leads to where I am with liberals. If an apology can't make things better, there is no reason to give one.

Of course, accepting the apology is the Christian thing to do as well - at least presuming Letterman hasn't hit the "Seventy times seven" limit. Turning the other cheek may not be popular these days, but it IS still right.

And it doesn't hurt that showing you can be an adult and accepting the apology makes Palin look good and very likely improves her popularity with the voting public.

Now, it is entirely within Sarah Palin's right not to accept the apology. An apology isn't a get out of jail free card - it is an appeal for forgiveness that you don't necessarily deserve. If forgiveness were mandatory, it would be worthless. So Sarah has every right to hold a grudge.

She would, however, lose some of my respect if she did.

No, You Can NOT Blame Christianity for the Holocaust Museum Shooting.

James Von Brunn, a wacko by any measure, entered the Washington DC Holocaust Museum, shot a guard and then got shot by the rest of the guards in return - a turn of events that, for some reason, he hadn't planned on.

His actions, and more importantly his intention, were condemned by everyone with even a scrap of sanity. And if the repercussions of his actions ended there, it would still be a tragedy.

However, some people have chosen to use this as an excuse to bash right wingers and Christian Fundamentalists by claiming that this is where his views must have arisen from - after all, only fundies and dittoheads hate, right?

Unfortunately, Von Brunn's own writing puts the lie to that view pretty thoroughly - as Francis Beckwith helpfully points out.

Here's an excerpt from one of the works of this pathetic loser:

As duped Aryan sheep begin to understand the "Holocaust" they also begin to better understand Christianity. Both have similar origins. Both have identical objectives.... The New Testament was written in Greek. Paul - who believed the World was flat, that Joshua made the sun stand still, and Jehovah spoke from a burning bush -- wrote one-third of it, perhaps more. The events described in the 24 Books are often contradictory, fail the time-line, defy both archaeology's and nature's immutable laws, and are suicidal if practiced. Nevertheless, the shamans bought it, taught it, and the illiterate public was coerced, brainwashed, threatened, tortured, murdered, and enthralled. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that over 6,000 major redactions exist between the Septuagint (translation of Aramaic into Greek) and its St. James biblical translation.

The Gospels profess that only Christians may enter Yahweh's Kingdom of Heaven. To qualify, among other demands, Christians must LOVE THEIR ENEMIES (Jews); give away their personal belongings; eschew knowledge; judge not, despise nature, abandon earthly pleasures, acknowledge that all YHWH's children are equal; and above all else worship YHWH, the jealous, wrathful, vengeful, unforgiving, genocidal, anthropomorphic tribal god (Jesus' father) created by Hebrews in their image and likeness. Omnipotent, omniscient YHWH promises Hebrews that they alone shall inherit the earth, that it is commendable to steal from Gentiles, better yet -- kill them. Whereas Gentiles, if they fail to worship YHWH, are transported straight to Hell. And it is written, "A little child shall lead them."

These dangerous, imbecilic, concepts, tenets, and teachings, often treasonous, DESTROYED the Roman Empire and drenched the soil of Europe with Aryan blood for almost 2000 years!

The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION ... CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES.

"Christianity" destroyed Roman Civilization. The "Holocaust" Religion is destroying Western Civilization. The Aryan gene-pool dies, "unwept, unhonored and unsung."

I apologize if this makes you ill, for it makes me ill as well. But sometimes we have to see evil for what it is, and that anti-Semitism is ultimately anti-Christian (even when it is embraced by those who claim to follow Christ).

You'll note that Von Brunn's words came from the website www.antichrist.net - somehow I doubt that this is a site Jerry Falwell would endorse...

Happenstance, of the Daily Kos confirms this here:

CNN reports the following

Nor did von Brunn attend church. "He didn't believe in God," Aulbach said. "I think he made a statement one time -- 'You're the only person you can count on -- you and your family. You can't count on the government, you can't count on God.'

And Ben Johnson of Opposing Views gives us further confirmation here:

Although the hate crimes industry lumps neo-Nazis and White Nationalists in with the “Religious Right” – and occasionally, FrontPage Magazine, the better to smear you with – few Americans realize the true believers are not merely non-Christian but anti-Christian. Like their predecessors, they trace Aryan downfall to “culture distorters” (guess who?) – and among the largest “distortion” is the replacement of warlike Germanic gods with Jesus Christ, the Messiah promised by the Jewish Scriptures. Von Brunn dedicated Kill the Best Gentiles to the late professor Revilo P. Oliver. Typical of Nazis, past and present, Oliver branded Christianity a “Jewish cult” and “spiritual syphilis.” Brunn’s follows suit. He shuns the words of the Bible, exhorting his readers:

“Remember, these delusions of grandeur were written by HEBREWS about themselves. Megalomaniacs of such magnitude generally are manic-depressives confined to insane asylums.” (p. 31.) His distaste for their Deity could hardly be more evident:

JEHOVAH, like Alley Oop, says whatever the scriptwriters print in the blurbs. Those who find it compelling to believe Yahweh created a flat earth, circa 5000 B.C., spoke from a burning bush, bared his buttocks, parted the Red Sea, and loves JEWS above all other nations, share a childish credulity with those who believe millions of JEWS died in German gas-chambers. It also confirms JEWISH conviction that Gentiles are stupid sheep. It makes one want to puke. (p. 32.)

Having vilified the Father, he turns his focus to the Son. “Jesus (if he did exist),” Von Brunn wrote, “was born in Galilee (‘Unclean Land of the Gentiles’).” (p. 57.) In a post on the appropriately named website Antichrist.net, Von Brunn expanded on the reason Saul of Tarsus, a former rabbi, would become the chief apostle of this religion to the Gentiles:

Saul -- a Roman citizen -- suddenly realized how he could destroy Rome! Saul trembled uncontrollably with fear and joy. He would simply promulgate the insane teachings of Jesus! What better way to destroy a Nation -- any Nation -- than to undermine her hubris; her gods, ethics, mores, history, her gene-pool -- in short, Saul would DESTROY ROMAN CULTURE. Then, as night follows day, with her foundations rotted, the Roman Empire would FALL. Saul decided to begin the HOAX by inventing a miraculous encounter on the road to Damascus with the reincarnated Jesus the Christ!

Toward that end -- no different than Hollywood script-writers today -- Saul created a bogus a la Spielberg docu-drama stuffed with lies, miracles, guilt trips, betrayal, virgin birth, eternal damnation, salvation -- a scenario appealing to the superstitious, vulnerable, ignorant yearning sheep -- he named his hoax "Christianity." …

The Gospels profess that only Christians may enter Yahweh's Kingdom of Heaven. To qualify, among other demands, Christians must LOVE THEIR ENEMIES (Jews); give away their personal belongings; eschew knowledge; judge not, despise nature, abandon earthly pleasures, acknowledge that all YHWH's children are equal; and above all else worship YHWH, the jealous, wrathful, vengeful, unforgiving, genocidal, anthropomorphic tribal god (Jesus' father) created by Hebrews in their image and likeness….The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION ... CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES.

"Christianity" destroyed Roman Civilization. The "Holocaust" Religion is destroying Western Civilization. The Aryan gene-pool dies, "unwept, unhonored and unsung."

So, aside from the obvious fact that murdering people is not a Christian act, you can see he's not a Christian by his own, very emphatic and in no way unclear or hesitant words.