I agree that plain form is important. Also your thinking on how children is learning. But, grammar is important. Memorising phrases only get me to be able to use phrases in a very specific situation. Once I am able to dissect a sentence and analyse how it's constructed, I am able to make similar form of sentences for a different purpose.
Hmm... I probably didn't explain this very well. You are correct that memorising phrases is not enough. That gets you a kind of grammar dictionary in your head, where you have a single example of that grammar. It will allow you to recognise the grammar, but not use it fluently.
After that, you need to be exposed to many, many different examples of that grammar so that you can understand the context in which it's used and the variety of shapes that it takes. The easiest way to do that is to read (and when I was "studying" Japanese I would read 2-3 hours a day).
In my experience, you need this exposure anyway, because memorising grammar rules allows you to construct sentences, but it does not allow you to understand how to use it properly in context. You have that awkward situation where you know you've said something correctly, but people are staring at you in confusion anyway -- because nobody says it that way.
I'm certainly not against learning grammar, if you enjoy it, but my experience has been that memorising a single exemplar and exposing yourself to countless examples (that you can understand) will bring you to fluency faster. There are an infinite number of ways to make grammatically correct sentences, but the idiomatically correct sentences is a very small subset of that (and actually disjoint since quite a lot of idiomatically correct language is not grammatically correct). Learning by example allows you to reduce the problem space dramatically.
Having said that, I know a lot of people really enjoy the process of learning languages by using grammar rules. If it works for you, then that's obviously the way to go!
Actually the way it goes is, the application code makes some HTTP calls through common libraries and Packetzoom framework, if linked in the app, can intercept these requests and reroute them to our proxy through packetzoom's own protocol. So we're not intercepting any particular wire protocol as such... the interception happens at a higher level. So your existing stack shouldn't matter.
Sometimes I look down on them, but sometimes I'm not. This is also the case for most entrepreneurs. Of course, an entrepreneur won't look down on his/her own employees.
The only factor that influences my view is what kind of employment the resigned entrepreneur is switching to. If it's a great job, then I would respect him/her.
It's a false perception to compare entrepreneur to employee. We should compare "What are we contributing to the society?", instead of merely "How do we contribute to the society?".
We should consider what profession we are in.
I'm a software developer, and the opportunity for me to gain more and more luxurious or easy opportunities are slim. No matter which path I will take (entrepreneur or employment).
If you're an MBA or PhD from an Ivy League school, you maybe able to do that. But, what if you're just some dirt in your employer's shoe?
I disagree... There are people with blue collar jobs in mines (my step dad for instance) who has a very comfortable life. Two kids, gets to vacation regularly, works hard, skis every weekend.
There are many people in the world who do not aspire to have EVERYTHING, and really just want as I said, a good life, a wife, maybe a cold beer when they get home from work.
Good point. But, what if in the "imaginary case", Google starts to become the one and only internet service?
They will have the largest capital, the best human resources, and they could control the market. I mean factually nobody could compete with Google. Because of a reality that nobody could make money if they want to compete with Google.
Let's also imagine that they start venturing into non-internet service, and they were able to do that too because of the large amount of capital that they have amassed from a long time.
I understand that government should not break companies just because of their political power, but in this imaginary Googlism society. How do people who are upset with Google or at least not satisfied, start to find or build another provider?
(I know this is quite impossible, given the amount of competing internet services, but just imagine).
Exactly. I assume telephone was in the nearly every house in US in seventies, but not everyone became Woz and Jobs. Now computers are in the every home, and phones are in everyone's pocket. Should we expect everyone to become a hacker all of the sudden? I'd argue that now we have a lot lot more hackers
than 40 years ago—and just the number of them makes them "invisible".
