Universities teach something valuable to the development of new concepts of programming and thoroughly understanding the ones they have: they teach how to think about programming. Professors study the mathematics and abstractions of information technology, and they teach what they study. But, they do not teach how to program. Most would argue that it's not even their job.

HR managers routinely require CS degrees, but they should not, because the Universities never accepted the responsibility of training programmers. It would be like if I would only hire brain surgeons if they took a class on it from you, without your consent, and without your knowledge of brain surgery. It's not your fault, it's mine for making a dumb requirement based on nothing you advertised.

What we need to make better programmers in the future is not CS degrees, but Programming Apprenticeships. It's an old concept – masters working with learners and both profiting from it. It actually happens in the workplace, but without any formality. The apprentice is a new hire, and probably a newly minted BA holder who thinks they know everything – they need the humility of being called apprentice, but they don't get it, complicating the apprenticeship process. But the master/apprentice relationship is so valuable that it hasn't gone away even though we, as a society, no longer explicitly recognize it, much to our detriment (because programming apprenticeships could start much earlier than 22 years old after getting a 4 year degree, if we recognized their value).

Or WAIT… HERE's a thought… starting from the assumption that the job of a professor is to teach students a skill set. What if we demand that professors go through the hiring process for the job that requires that skill set before they are permitted to teach it to students?

You give an intelligent perspective . . . I wish more people could present their thoughts as clearly.

I’m not a Biblical Law Scholar but if one reads the entire Bible there is no way around reading The Laws and id hope coming to some understanding The Laws impact upon ourselves- that we are sinners.

My guess is that, nudity was not intended to be a sin; else even Adam and Eve would have been created clothed.

One only has to grow up near live stock to understand that Gods Creatures have the same biological happenings; defecation, urination, procreation . . . It wouldn't even surprise me to find out that a-sexual organisms have these same functions; but I’m not a biologist.

The sin we are confident about in your examples is our own lust, not someone else’s behavior we happen to witness. Some people are offended because they believe they can protect others from their own weakness of engaging in sin and the curse that goes along with sin.

If I go horseback riding and the horse ahead of mine defecates or urinates and I see it (yuck), I don't fear Gods wrath. Same thing if two sheep in the barn are at work in breading (again yuck).

I’m not suggesting we should seek out these sights -believe me. But when they appear; in the acts of people, before us, in media we can be mindful of our own failings and, like you say ‘ . . . don't be afraid to unplug.'

The thing we might want to re-consider is; can we really protect others or even ourselves against sin? If one of your readers believes so, if anyone believes so, they are more then arrogant, and they need at least one more read through The Bible. Our only hope is to set up methods to direct and re-direct attention, even our own, back to how we receive The Gift of Atonement.

I would be interested, however, if you or someone you know could document, using The Bible, that nudity itself is a sin.