Just back from WWDC17 and I have this takeaway: leave the creating/training/designing/refining machine learning models to the academics and companies with deep pockets. You're not going to catch up with the PhDs that have a head start on you, especially without a unique authentic problem at hand that nobody else is working on yet.
Instead, USE the models that exist. Maybe train 'em with new/different data if you feel compelled, but mainly learn what models exist (natural language processing? Sentiment analysis? Image recognition? Speech recognition? Real-time identification of objects in video?). Learn how to use those models to solve the problems you're working with, or another team is dealing with, or that isn't even being considered for technology and humans are still doing it. The PhDs will keep creating new and better building blocks, just like we started out with basic web tools and now we have WebRTC. Our jobs will be to apply them. And that requires a lot less linear algebra. I think we can all say amen to that.
I agree with Kozz. I would also add that while a comment submission form or the like might not need or even benefit much from the use of JavaScript, there's plenty of other things that do.
Putting out a request such as "we're launching a campaign to demand that companies, governments, and organizations make their sites work without proprietary JavaScript" seems so baseless and ill-conceived that when I first read it I checked the date on the post to see if it was April 1st.
What's the proposal for the alternative? The web platform is built on open standards, the majority of which (more than in any other ecosystem), is driven by open source implementations. For those hackers among us, the web is our oyster and it has fostered a great deal of innovation in the exact way that the FSF has worked to foster it in other ecosystems (e.g. Linux).
Assuming that there is a noble and sane goal behind this call to action (which I'm still having a hard time believing), the way this article is written does it no justice. I imagine that this article has become the laughing stock in offices across the country and the world this morning. Presumably not the effect the FSF was looking for...
While we can certainly take issue with those that voted Yea on either side of the aisle, it should be noted that not a single Republican voted Nay on this bill, in the Senate.
How do you like that?
Not going to work. Whereas ethanol and biodiesel can be produced without infringing on patents, apparently Swift Fuel cannot. So, to this, I say that if Swift Enterprises were truly concerned about our dependence on oil, environment, etc. - they'd offer up the patent w/o licensing fees. I don't see that happening.
The biofuel initiative is also creating a giant dead zone in the gulf of Mexico due to fertilizer runoff. But don't try to tell any of this to the cult of global warming. They don't like facts interfering in their religion. This has little to do with biofuels and more to do with the farming practices. It is certainly possible and economical to farm raw material for biofuels sustainably, without further harm to the environment. So, few people that actually *care* about the environment, global warming, etc. are really so clueless as to say that these practices are a good thing. But, there's plenty of media out there that's towing the corporate line. That said, Time has reported a few times on the problems with Ethanol production and the compounded harm its causing. That said, most true progressives that are informed recommend reduction above all else... not alternatives, but simply reducing the gross amount of energy being consumed.
Probably more accurately, an effort to profit from seeming to offer the same product that others devised to offset global warming hasn't actually helped. Once you factor big business and profit into it, indeed, its not surprising.
Now, if I get biodiesel from my _local_ coop, which reuses the waste oil from _local_ businesses, instead of having biodiesel trucked from Louisiana, made from source materials shipped from Venezuela, using energy from fossil fuels -- yeah, I think my _local_ biodiesel probably is offsetting greenhouse gases.
And am I surprised that the biodiesel or ethanol mix at the local BP or Mobil station isn't actually helping the environment? No. Its actually been well known that big-business ethanol production is extremely harmful. Now, supposedly GM has partnered with a company in Illinois (I think) that can produce ethanol with 80% less energy and 66-75% less water. That's a step in the right direction. It can also use any cellulosic src, not just corn, and that's really good, too (corn production in the US is extremely bad for the environment and uses a tremendous amount of fossil fuels, especially for fertilizer).
And biodiesel can be produced locally in ways that don't have the impact described. Its also fairly easy to synthesize rurally with a comparatively small amount of land for src matter production.
In the end, though, we need to stop looking for the *one* answer to our fossil fuel dependence. We need to balance, mix, diversify... a heterogeneous fuel economy is what we need, and that won't be easy to achieve. Humans are not predisposed to this type of system/behavior.
You would have other information from your customer (payment?), and it wouldn't have to be automated, you could use a support email address, so really, security is a non-issue for that.
And read your post again... you're still talking about everything except that OpenID is a benefit to your customer.
Really? How about a simple email to support, or a form in your app that allows them to setup a username/password in the event that happens? Doesn't seem like that's a big deal. And you've determined its undesirable for your users, assuming that its more desirable for them to setup yet another login that they need to store/remember for your site.
Adding yet another account to the difficulty of keeping all their accounts secure. If a user wants to be security conscious and change their account passwords regularly, you've made it that much more difficult for them to do that.
But, its your site, your app, that's cool. This is going to become a bigger deal, though... I think so at least (and we're all entitled to our opinions, eh?:)
No, listen. You're wrong. This has nothing to do with sharing users, it has everything to do with YOU not having to create YET ANOTHER LOGIN. OpenID is about YOU not about the companies implementing it sharing users.
This isn't a trivial thing to understand and I encourage you to read up on OpenID.
Here's, in a nutshell, what it means. You have a Yahoo! or AOL account (so, you have a login & password, that you can remember). When you want to start using a product at 37signals, like basecamp or highrise, or whatever - you can CHOOSE to use your OpenID. You still have to sign up with 37signals, you still have to PAY 37signals, but you don't get another login & password.
When you provide your OpenID to 37signals, the APIs they use will ask your OpenID provider (e.g. Yahoo! or AOL) if you're authorized, your OpenID provider will ask YOU if you want to authorize 37signals, and you'll say YES.
That's it. Trust is setup, you've been in control the whole time, and now you can access your 37signals account without ever having created a new username & password.
It really, really is powerful. And it really, really is not trivial or necessarily easy to understand. But it works, and folks are getting on board with it.
Been running Leopard seeds since ~6 wks before release, installed Leopard GM the day after release. MacBook (pre-November rev) and no crashes. My biggest beef has been the lack of Airport Disk mounting that was provided in Tiger. But, reading through the discussion forums on Apple, and you can find workarounds to get the one CoreService from Tiger's Airport Disk and it runs like a charm in Leopard.
Even being a Java developer and not having Java 6 on Leopard (yet), this still doesn't come close to Vista. Literally, I've seen 0 productivity loss, and Quick Look/Time Machine has already paid dividends. Was able to use Time Machine to restore an accidentally overwritten mod_dav_svn.so last night in/usr/libexec/apache2. That was sweet: realized I overwrote mod_dav_svn.so with a non-64 bit compiled version, navigated in Finder to/usr/libexec/apache2 (cmd+G), hit Time Machine, selected mod_dav_svn.so, hit the back arrow once, hit restore, provided credentials for restoring a system file, done. I *think* that all may have taken one minute.
Remember to put on your suspicious hat when reading "public" stories such as this. If the U.S. wanted to make China believe they couldn't detect their "new" sub, they could easily "allow" something like this, and let the media pick it up, so a bunch of folks get their backs patted publicly in China for making such a wonderful technological marvel.
Don't think for a second there isn't more than meets the eye here. The U.S. rarely carries its capabilities, especially for sub warfare, on its sleeve, and I'd be surprised if that were the case with this story.
It is actually fairly common in sub tactics to *not* let the adversary know that you can detect them. The less they know of your true capabilities, the less they can factor those capabilities into an attack or defense strategy. Even in times of conflict, its common to concoct situations to mask your true capabilities from an adversary... like being able to track a sub, but instead of firing on it directly, call in a strike from an airborne platform and make it look like a random search (happy coincidence) turned up the sub, or forced them into a maneuver that another sub could easily detect, again masking your true detection capabilities.
How is that book "one side of the story"?? And even if it is "one" side - I believe what the poster above would consider the "other" side has been adequately bombarding the media with "their" side. I am not promoting any "side" - just read the book. Don't even pay for it, if you don't want to (hence the reference to your local library).
Of course, I get the sense that the poster above may not have actually seen the book... there's a lot of information provided in the book - and while there's the running narrative, even ignoring the potentially "biased" narrative, the remaining data points provide an unbiased and consequential amount of information to draw ones own conclusion.
The data in the book were extensively fact-checked (many times over, if I recall) - so you can rest assured that the data is accurate. Whether the conclusions drawn by the book are accurate - that's up to the reader to determine, isn't it? The book happens to be one of the most comprehensive resources for then & now type of comparisons, with appropriate statistical data, visuals when possible, etc.
So, ignore the narrative, absorb the data - cross reference, fact-check, do the math - whatever you need to do. And draw your own conclusion.
Decide for yourself. Just drop in at your local library and pick up: An Inconvenient Truth. I'm not saying its right, I'm not saying its wrong. Pick it up, read it through, draw your own conclusions. I did the same, and I've drawn my conclusions. Cheers.
I've heard of this system in the German news a couple times and its really not as bad as it sounds. For a long time, Germans have paid a "tax" on radios and TVs to subsidize the various public stations (I think that's why). So, this law just indicates that any device which can stream TV/radio online will also have the tax, but only if there is no other device in the household (TV / radio) that is already paying the tax. That's pretty unlikely, so most won't be affected. The news I've heard hasn't discussed businesses, per se.. not sure how the TV/radio tax is handled there in general.
I'm an environmentalist, too. I vote green, both politically and economically. But, I also know when folks are spreading myths. Did you actually READ the referenced article? Did you find any flaw in the actual scientific method applied to test the theory? The referenced article DID THE EXPERIMENT. And they proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the myth is wrong.
Go read it, c'mon - you owe yourself that. You're not the type of environmentalist that walks around with your hands covering your ears, right? I know bad science when I see it.
And let's not get into a who's more green/progressive/liberal pissing match. Trust me, let's not.
the products will likely not be branded as such and there is no way to know if we're currently consuming products from cloned animals
While this is unfortunately true, there are products branded in such a way that you know you are not consuming products from cloned animals. Whole Foods sells meats that will most certainly not be from cloned animals (FDA hasn't approved it yet, so the linked text doesn't refer to it). USDA Organic standards will also certainly be amended (or are currently written) to preclude any meat originating from cloned animals.
So, in short, if, as a consumer, you're interested or concerned about meat from cloned animals, or want to make a statement for ethical, moral, scientific, technical, or whatever concerns - you can write a letter AND speak with your wallet.
If meat or derivative products from cloned animals isn't a concern to you, its a free country!
Organic food companies make organic food not because they believe in environmental responsibility, but because it's a great way to carve a niche in an otherwise saturated market. Similarly, companies phase out toxic chemicals not because they are trying to protect the environment, but because it either saves money, reduces potential liability, or ensures compliance with the law.
In principle, I agree. But, as in practically any other context, blanket statements are rarely correct 100% and in fact, a number of companies do take on responsibility for what they're doing, though many of those things don't always see the light of day in a PR statement.
That said, regulations to push the more reluctant companies in the right direction is good in my book, especially in instances where there's ample scientific and empirical evidence to support the regulation.
Certainly, having multiple peering arrangements means that no one provider can squeeze you too much, at least not your "basic" connection costs. As I understand it, though, this isn't so much about who you're buying your OC48 from, but rather, what backbone does your traffic travel over. So, for Google, since their traffic traverses every major backbone (Spring, BellSouth, AT&T, Verizon, etc.), they'd basically need to pay extortion fees for each of 'em... otherwise, their traffic might be optimized on Sprint, but once it hits the AT&T network, its back to normal traffic. Kinda sucks, eh?
Anyways, even with their peering arrangements, they're still paying Speakeasy, AT&T, etc. the cost of an OC12 or whatever connection they have... maybe its a little less than if Fortune 500 company X just orders an OC12 for their HQ building, but its still a lot of $$.
I am not an expert (IANAE) - but I would guess, off hand, that the "peering" you refer to is costing Google a pretty dime, especially if they peer with everyone. Google peering with Speakeasy is not the same as Sprint peering with BellSouth - the latter peering is saying "I'll carry your traffic, if you carry my traffic, deal?" - the former (Google's "peering") is saying "I'm going to put this router right here, please direct any traffic to these Google IPs to this router, instead of into the 'cloud'. Then Google routes it over its own network (I guess, from what you indicated from your trace). Google would still need to be paying for that.
Actually, things like traction control are allowed in F1 - used all the time. Having a malfunctioning traction control unit is likely to force you out of the race. Happened to the American F1 driver Scott Speed during the Canadian Grand Prix a couple weeks ago, I think. Not during the race, if I recall, but during Saturday practice/qualifying (maybe?). I don't remember the details.
Actually, most businesses don't care about portability either. They probably care more about ease of development, adequate tools and frameworks, and time to deployment. Most of the apps I've seen deploy to Windows.
If its OS integration you're most concerned with, you'll be happy to hear that Mustang is taking numerous steps in that direction (systray, integration with native app handlers (mail, browse, etc.))
And personally, if I were doing a complex app, I'd probably do it in the language that has the most mindshare and the most deveopers, Java - last I heard. I certainly wouldn't use C++ (or C#).
Slashdot Mirror
Just back from WWDC17 and I have this takeaway: leave the creating/training/designing/refining machine learning models to the academics and companies with deep pockets. You're not going to catch up with the PhDs that have a head start on you, especially without a unique authentic problem at hand that nobody else is working on yet. Instead, USE the models that exist. Maybe train 'em with new/different data if you feel compelled, but mainly learn what models exist (natural language processing? Sentiment analysis? Image recognition? Speech recognition? Real-time identification of objects in video?). Learn how to use those models to solve the problems you're working with, or another team is dealing with, or that isn't even being considered for technology and humans are still doing it. The PhDs will keep creating new and better building blocks, just like we started out with basic web tools and now we have WebRTC. Our jobs will be to apply them. And that requires a lot less linear algebra. I think we can all say amen to that.
I agree with Kozz. I would also add that while a comment submission form or the like might not need or even benefit much from the use of JavaScript, there's plenty of other things that do. Putting out a request such as "we're launching a campaign to demand that companies, governments, and organizations make their sites work without proprietary JavaScript" seems so baseless and ill-conceived that when I first read it I checked the date on the post to see if it was April 1st. What's the proposal for the alternative? The web platform is built on open standards, the majority of which (more than in any other ecosystem), is driven by open source implementations. For those hackers among us, the web is our oyster and it has fostered a great deal of innovation in the exact way that the FSF has worked to foster it in other ecosystems (e.g. Linux). Assuming that there is a noble and sane goal behind this call to action (which I'm still having a hard time believing), the way this article is written does it no justice. I imagine that this article has become the laughing stock in offices across the country and the world this morning. Presumably not the effect the FSF was looking for ...
While we can certainly take issue with those that voted Yea on either side of the aisle, it should be noted that not a single Republican voted Nay on this bill, in the Senate. How do you like that?
Not going to work. Whereas ethanol and biodiesel can be produced without infringing on patents, apparently Swift Fuel cannot. So, to this, I say that if Swift Enterprises were truly concerned about our dependence on oil, environment, etc. - they'd offer up the patent w/o licensing fees. I don't see that happening.
Probably more accurately, an effort to profit from seeming to offer the same product that others devised to offset global warming hasn't actually helped. Once you factor big business and profit into it, indeed, its not surprising.
... a heterogeneous fuel economy is what we need, and that won't be easy to achieve. Humans are not predisposed to this type of system/behavior.
Now, if I get biodiesel from my _local_ coop, which reuses the waste oil from _local_ businesses, instead of having biodiesel trucked from Louisiana, made from source materials shipped from Venezuela, using energy from fossil fuels -- yeah, I think my _local_ biodiesel probably is offsetting greenhouse gases.
And am I surprised that the biodiesel or ethanol mix at the local BP or Mobil station isn't actually helping the environment? No. Its actually been well known that big-business ethanol production is extremely harmful. Now, supposedly GM has partnered with a company in Illinois (I think) that can produce ethanol with 80% less energy and 66-75% less water. That's a step in the right direction. It can also use any cellulosic src, not just corn, and that's really good, too (corn production in the US is extremely bad for the environment and uses a tremendous amount of fossil fuels, especially for fertilizer).
And biodiesel can be produced locally in ways that don't have the impact described. Its also fairly easy to synthesize rurally with a comparatively small amount of land for src matter production.
In the end, though, we need to stop looking for the *one* answer to our fossil fuel dependence. We need to balance, mix, diversify
Cheers.
You would have other information from your customer (payment?), and it wouldn't have to be automated, you could use a support email address, so really, security is a non-issue for that.
... you're still talking about everything except that OpenID is a benefit to your customer.
And read your post again
Really? How about a simple email to support, or a form in your app that allows them to setup a username/password in the event that happens? Doesn't seem like that's a big deal. And you've determined its undesirable for your users, assuming that its more desirable for them to setup yet another login that they need to store/remember for your site.
Adding yet another account to the difficulty of keeping all their accounts secure. If a user wants to be security conscious and change their account passwords regularly, you've made it that much more difficult for them to do that.
But, its your site, your app, that's cool. This is going to become a bigger deal, though
Cheers and thanks for responding!
No, listen. You're wrong. This has nothing to do with sharing users, it has everything to do with YOU not having to create YET ANOTHER LOGIN. OpenID is about YOU not about the companies implementing it sharing users.
This isn't a trivial thing to understand and I encourage you to read up on OpenID.
Here's, in a nutshell, what it means. You have a Yahoo! or AOL account (so, you have a login & password, that you can remember). When you want to start using a product at 37signals, like basecamp or highrise, or whatever - you can CHOOSE to use your OpenID. You still have to sign up with 37signals, you still have to PAY 37signals, but you don't get another login & password.
When you provide your OpenID to 37signals, the APIs they use will ask your OpenID provider (e.g. Yahoo! or AOL) if you're authorized, your OpenID provider will ask YOU if you want to authorize 37signals, and you'll say YES.
That's it. Trust is setup, you've been in control the whole time, and now you can access your 37signals account without ever having created a new username & password.
It really, really is powerful. And it really, really is not trivial or necessarily easy to understand. But it works, and folks are getting on board with it.
Cheers,
[/rant]
Been running Leopard seeds since ~6 wks before release, installed Leopard GM the day after release. MacBook (pre-November rev) and no crashes. My biggest beef has been the lack of Airport Disk mounting that was provided in Tiger. But, reading through the discussion forums on Apple, and you can find workarounds to get the one CoreService from Tiger's Airport Disk and it runs like a charm in Leopard.
/usr/libexec/apache2. That was sweet: realized I overwrote mod_dav_svn.so with a non-64 bit compiled version, navigated in Finder to /usr/libexec/apache2 (cmd+G), hit Time Machine, selected mod_dav_svn.so, hit the back arrow once, hit restore, provided credentials for restoring a system file, done. I *think* that all may have taken one minute.
Even being a Java developer and not having Java 6 on Leopard (yet), this still doesn't come close to Vista. Literally, I've seen 0 productivity loss, and Quick Look/Time Machine has already paid dividends. Was able to use Time Machine to restore an accidentally overwritten mod_dav_svn.so last night in
Yeah, that's a productivity gain.
Remember to put on your suspicious hat when reading "public" stories such as this. If the U.S. wanted to make China believe they couldn't detect their "new" sub, they could easily "allow" something like this, and let the media pick it up, so a bunch of folks get their backs patted publicly in China for making such a wonderful technological marvel.
... like being able to track a sub, but instead of firing on it directly, call in a strike from an airborne platform and make it look like a random search (happy coincidence) turned up the sub, or forced them into a maneuver that another sub could easily detect, again masking your true detection capabilities.
Don't think for a second there isn't more than meets the eye here. The U.S. rarely carries its capabilities, especially for sub warfare, on its sleeve, and I'd be surprised if that were the case with this story.
It is actually fairly common in sub tactics to *not* let the adversary know that you can detect them. The less they know of your true capabilities, the less they can factor those capabilities into an attack or defense strategy. Even in times of conflict, its common to concoct situations to mask your true capabilities from an adversary
More than meets the eye.
Did you read the book? If the answer is no, don't bother posting again.
How is that book "one side of the story"?? And even if it is "one" side - I believe what the poster above would consider the "other" side has been adequately bombarding the media with "their" side. I am not promoting any "side" - just read the book. Don't even pay for it, if you don't want to (hence the reference to your local library).
... there's a lot of information provided in the book - and while there's the running narrative, even ignoring the potentially "biased" narrative, the remaining data points provide an unbiased and consequential amount of information to draw ones own conclusion.
Of course, I get the sense that the poster above may not have actually seen the book
The data in the book were extensively fact-checked (many times over, if I recall) - so you can rest assured that the data is accurate. Whether the conclusions drawn by the book are accurate - that's up to the reader to determine, isn't it? The book happens to be one of the most comprehensive resources for then & now type of comparisons, with appropriate statistical data, visuals when possible, etc.
So, ignore the narrative, absorb the data - cross reference, fact-check, do the math - whatever you need to do. And draw your own conclusion.
Decide for yourself. Just drop in at your local library and pick up: An Inconvenient Truth. I'm not saying its right, I'm not saying its wrong. Pick it up, read it through, draw your own conclusions. I did the same, and I've drawn my conclusions. Cheers.
Good to know, thanks for the information. That seems to support my thought that this isn't really that big a deal, right?
I've heard of this system in the German news a couple times and its really not as bad as it sounds. For a long time, Germans have paid a "tax" on radios and TVs to subsidize the various public stations (I think that's why). So, this law just indicates that any device which can stream TV/radio online will also have the tax, but only if there is no other device in the household (TV / radio) that is already paying the tax. That's pretty unlikely, so most won't be affected. The news I've heard hasn't discussed businesses, per se .. not sure how the TV/radio tax is handled there in general.
Dude, chill.
I'm an environmentalist, too. I vote green, both politically and economically. But, I also know when folks are spreading myths. Did you actually READ the referenced article? Did you find any flaw in the actual scientific method applied to test the theory? The referenced article DID THE EXPERIMENT. And they proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the myth is wrong.
Go read it, c'mon - you owe yourself that. You're not the type of environmentalist that walks around with your hands covering your ears, right? I know bad science when I see it.
And let's not get into a who's more green/progressive/liberal pissing match. Trust me, let's not.
From the original story post:
While this is unfortunately true, there are products branded in such a way that you know you are not consuming products from cloned animals. Whole Foods sells meats that will most certainly not be from cloned animals (FDA hasn't approved it yet, so the linked text doesn't refer to it). USDA Organic standards will also certainly be amended (or are currently written) to preclude any meat originating from cloned animals.
So, in short, if, as a consumer, you're interested or concerned about meat from cloned animals, or want to make a statement for ethical, moral, scientific, technical, or whatever concerns - you can write a letter AND speak with your wallet.
If meat or derivative products from cloned animals isn't a concern to you, its a free country!
I hate to contradict you blatantly, but this is a myth.
p
http://www.snopes.com/science/microwave/plants.as
Documented, scientifically disproven.
I can't say much more than ... amen.
In principle, I agree. But, as in practically any other context, blanket statements are rarely correct 100% and in fact, a number of companies do take on responsibility for what they're doing, though many of those things don't always see the light of day in a PR statement.
That said, regulations to push the more reluctant companies in the right direction is good in my book, especially in instances where there's ample scientific and empirical evidence to support the regulation.
Certainly, having multiple peering arrangements means that no one provider can squeeze you too much, at least not your "basic" connection costs. As I understand it, though, this isn't so much about who you're buying your OC48 from, but rather, what backbone does your traffic travel over. So, for Google, since their traffic traverses every major backbone (Spring, BellSouth, AT&T, Verizon, etc.), they'd basically need to pay extortion fees for each of 'em ... otherwise, their traffic might be optimized on Sprint, but once it hits the AT&T network, its back to normal traffic. Kinda sucks, eh?
... maybe its a little less than if Fortune 500 company X just orders an OC12 for their HQ building, but its still a lot of $$.
Anyways, even with their peering arrangements, they're still paying Speakeasy, AT&T, etc. the cost of an OC12 or whatever connection they have
Cheers.
I am not an expert (IANAE) - but I would guess, off hand, that the "peering" you refer to is costing Google a pretty dime, especially if they peer with everyone. Google peering with Speakeasy is not the same as Sprint peering with BellSouth - the latter peering is saying "I'll carry your traffic, if you carry my traffic, deal?" - the former (Google's "peering") is saying "I'm going to put this router right here, please direct any traffic to these Google IPs to this router, instead of into the 'cloud'. Then Google routes it over its own network (I guess, from what you indicated from your trace). Google would still need to be paying for that.
Cheers.
Actually, things like traction control are allowed in F1 - used all the time. Having a malfunctioning traction control unit is likely to force you out of the race. Happened to the American F1 driver Scott Speed during the Canadian Grand Prix a couple weeks ago, I think. Not during the race, if I recall, but during Saturday practice/qualifying (maybe?). I don't remember the details.
Actually, most businesses don't care about portability either. They probably care more about ease of development, adequate tools and frameworks, and time to deployment. Most of the apps I've seen deploy to Windows.
If its OS integration you're most concerned with, you'll be happy to hear that Mustang is taking numerous steps in that direction (systray, integration with native app handlers (mail, browse, etc.))
And personally, if I were doing a complex app, I'd probably do it in the language that has the most mindshare and the most deveopers, Java - last I heard. I certainly wouldn't use C++ (or C#).