and if you're on something other than a desktop, those lines might wrap. HTML is designed to have the view rendered by the browser. Arbitrary forced line lengths destroys this ability. Are we geeks or not?
MS may be in the same position, but they have this nice stack of "Get out of jail free" cards (bank) that has kept them at least appearing to be a player in the phone/tablet space.
I am not that sure about MS's future
No one gets too many second chances. No one. Not even Microsoft.
I agree, Win8 is a make or break for the company (and Nokia too). I predict Nokia will fail, and Win8 will largely end MS as the dominant OS. MS peaked in 2001 with XP and has been falling ever since, however slowly, Win 7 not withstanding. If organizations move to *nix systems, which honestly can serve as excellent desktops for most uses in the enterprise these days and be relatively easily managed, the end will come even more quickly as the lucrative licensing contracts MS currently holds disappear like vapor.
You may not like it, but the Japanese themselves set the precedent for "mass-murder" and going "full savage".
And it's still wrong to follow such examples if you call yourself civilized, however my point is, those acts were performed by Americans over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than dick-waving.
Perhaps if you read the rest of the post and enlightened yourself, you'd see why what was done was done. It was to break the spirit of the Japanese, to remove any semblance of saving face, to destroy possibilities of repeated attempts to further their empire. But, just keep waving.
It's too late when the last bus has left the station and you're looking up at the incoming tidal wave. RIM may actually be under the shadow of a breaking tidal wave - it's a matter of months before they're gone, they don't have the resources to try again.
MS may be in the same position, but they have this nice stack of "Get out of jail free" cards (bank) that has kept them at least appearing to be a player in the phone/tablet space. That too, may run out finally, we'll see. They could barely give away tablets last time around before those tablets had Android installed on them instead. Probably why ARM / Win8 has locked down UEFI.
I will disagree with the absolute statement about there being no "before" the big bang. We don't know, we have nothing to measure or even really speculate against. The only thing we can say with certainty is that time existed after the big bang in our universe (defined as that volume containing the energy of the big bang). Other than that - all sorts of fantastical things as you mention might or might not exist. We simply don't know and have no way to prove or disprove any of the conjectures. Logical reasoning and current scientific knowledge allow us to speculate on various possibilities, but that's all it is. If you consider that space within the universe is vast, think about the "space" holding the universe....
My point was we have no idea what's closer to the edge. Dark matter/energy are recent theories to support recent observations that didn't fit the original model, nor could explain the newly observed accelerating expansion of the universe. (Until just the last couple of decades, it was assumed that the universe was decelerating, and the question was would it contract) But, IANA(A)P, so I might have my dates and prevalent theories off by a little bit, it still highlights that they are theories and still changing.
I'm not confusing space and time, I'm saying that we have no frame of reference to hang time on outside of the existence of our universe. To me, logically, it seems ludicrous to state that time started with our universe. But neither you nor I can point to anything that predates our universe. We can speculate, however.
Knowing what happened early in the universe might be extremely relevant, or it might not. We don't know. We assume space is isotropic beyond the time/space edge of the big bang, but we have absolutely no way of knowing. It may be that there are other areas just like ours, or we (our universe) may be alone, or it may be far more interesting than we can fathom at this stage.
Theories of things untestable will remain theories, and we should be open to change them when evidence presents itself. Flying spaghetti monsters and giant turtles not excepted.
Trust me in this, I think we've only scratched the surface of things we've looked for. There will be many "surprises" over the next few decades at least.
There is much wrong with everything else you say. First, black holes can't be only at the edge of the universe. There is no edge - the universe is isotropic, as far as we know. Unless you suggest that the black holes were in the early universe but have somehow vanished over time. But in any case, that is totally irrelevant. We see dark matter effects IN galaxies NEAR us that we can see ALL of. If all the black holes are at the edge of the universe, they aren't affecting the dynamics of the galaxies we can see, and thus can't be cause of the dark matter effect.
Much wrong? Let's start with yours:
Black holes at the edge of the universe - you've been there? You purport to know what happened in the first ms, seconds, minutes, and hours of the universe? Please do enlighten the rest of us. We have absolutely no idea what's further out from the prototype galaxies. We've seen very little if any evidence of the monster stars that gave us all our higher order elements. Each one of those was truly massive, existed for a very short time, and went super nova for lack of a better description, leaving behind... we think, a black hole. Provided of course that the universe started out as a hydrogen plasma as the popular theory has it today and everything was built up through nuclear fusion. I personally am not willing to put a stake in the ground and state that black holes cannot exist beyond the furthest observable galaxies. You may, and you might or might not join a long line of other stake holders (flat earth, earth center of the universe, sun center of the universe, solid earth, etc)
The universe is nearly isotropic. There are variations. This is not the only reference stating so.
No edge (well, surface actually)? Do you define the universe by the limits of the radiation of the big bang? Or is the universe everything, including things 100 quadrillion light years away, should they exist? I'm curious, because the common definition is everything inside the "edge" (or surface) describing the extent of the big bang, although there are theories that describe things outside our "known" universe. I know the answer to that one is more philosophical at this point, since there is absolutely nothing we can say today about what's even at the limits light has traveled since the big bang. It would all be mere speculation with no way to prove it.
It makes me wonder how much of the 'missing mass' that we lump into the dark matter bucket is actually contained in bodies like this; bodies so massive that we can barely fathom their 'size'.
I'm gonna guess 'not much'. If there were a lot of them, every once in a while something would run into one, and believe me, we'd notice.
If there were lots of them then we'd also see them because of the gravitational lens effect they'd impart.
That would only apply if there were stars on the other side of them (from us) to generate light so that we could see the lens effect. What if these super massive black holes are on the edge of the universe or between the edge and the first lit stars, how would we know? (since the universe is defined by the shockwave expanding outward from the big bang, the other side is considered "nothing" since we have no known measurement or indications of what lies on the other side - think of the universe as a bubble) Heck, while we're pondering, they could be on the other side of the edge, from a previous universe, one that collapsed in on itself and created a new big bang, perhaps even ours. We are just neophytes in understanding our universe, and we certainly do not begin to understand anything outside of it or what was before, we barely think we know what was soon after "the beginning". We cannot even succinctly state if time existed before then, we simply have nothing to observe or measure against.
You do not get to dictate, but you may get to negotiate them. Unless the enemy goes full savage and starts mass-murdering your civilian population, to force you out of negotiations and into unconditional surrender.
You may not like it, but the Japanese themselves set the precedent for "mass-murder" and going "full savage". I also recall them giving no quarter more than once. Perhaps learning a little about the war, the atrocities committed, and some of the cultural pressures that drove those attrocities might be enlightening. Or you can continue to make baseless claims about the evil Americans. After all, they were the ones that did a sneak attack killing over 2400, sinking or damaging at least 18 warships and destroying over 180 aircraft, or basically decimating an entire theater's fleet. They were also those evil callous folks that mistreated POWs, tortured and arbitrarily executed them while force marching them through Bataan. And that only starts the list of eye-pokings. Full savage was already in full swing on one side before the war started.
No, they did not. By then, Japanese were already trying to find a way to surrender. Americans wanted to be the ones who dictated the condition for surrender, even though the conditions they imposed were exactly the same as ones Japanesed proposed to begin with. In other words, the whole thing was entirely to humiliate Japanese (and to threaten the rest of the world).
Unconditional surrender. (I don't recall the Japanese agreeing to that until bomb #2) The terms the US imposed after that are irrelevant.
As the loser in war, you do not get to dictate your surrender terms. Perhaps earlier, when a loss wasn't evident or still a long way away, but not when the last wood door blocking the invaders from your home turf is about to crumble making all your defenses useless....
Interestingly enough: this article on sugar addiction states that most scientists are not yet convinced that sugar addiction exists. However, this published research paper, which could have been the source for your link, makes a pretty eye opening case, at the least worthy of more research.
Having stated my skepticism on sugar addiction, I personally have cut my consumption of excess sugar, don't eat much prepared or fast food, and probably am 90% on the way to the "sugar free diet" that some articles profess has all sorts of good health effects. I'd agree that not consuming an extra 3500+ calories a week really does result in not gaining that extra pound. I can concur on one item listed in one article - I no longer eat nearly as much pasta and other starches. However, that may due be as much to the aging process and its associated metabolic slowdown as anything else. Unfortunately, my personal experiences are related directly to rational scientific cause and effect or are inconclusive and do not support any type of argument for "sugar addiction". Also, I don't use sugar substitutes (something about artificial chemicals tasting sweet doesn't ring true to me, just like GM food with customized genes that do not naturally occur in at least the same order or class, but that's a different topic).
Lastly, I've also seen what happens when Type II diabetics finally take their condition seriously and change their diet: the effect of a low to moderate sugar diet is not small. Refined sugar, in moderation is fine for most people. Unfortunately, "moderation" as most perceive it is really consumption on an excessive scale to their bodies. Just one of those 48 ounce cokes is massively excessive. The soda companies had the proportions right originally when they came in 8-10 oz containers, and were expensive enough to be a luxury item enjoyed on rare occasions. They were also made with sucrose, not high fructose corn syrup, the latter which is pretty much like main-lining sugar into your bloodstream.
You shouldn't have posted anon... these are some good points. I'd go further - most software components should be designed with no more than 4 basic patterns in them - this allows for maintenance folks and others to come along later and understand what's going on without 6 months of due process. Note - these are components, not solutions. Components themselves generally should have very little internal abstraction - this means that a component should be testable and verifiable. If you abstract things within it, this becomes a much more difficult process. Lastly, components should follow functional boundaries as much as possible, again, this eases testing and makes for "complete" units.
Minus the gov only stores and the ridiculous recreational taxes people want to lump onto these things I agree.
The entire bit on the gov only stores is that there's a single supplier, with no potential of pushers. I don't see the supermarket carrying a 5lb bag of refined cocaine, for example. Also, it would be no different from the state sponsored alcohol stores in many areas. NH has a great distribution system, near as I can tell from my few visits there. Then again, CA has everything in the supermarket. I don't see CA having more or less problems than anywhere else.
It's amazing how much less of a big deal it is to have a gram a day habit when the substance is $1-2 for a 10lb bag at the local grocer. Sugar is one of the most addictive substances known to man.
I'd disagree with sugar being addictive. Desired, yes, addictive, not so much. More harmful? We're still on the upswing of finding out how harmful that switch to high fructose corn syrup and soda/sweet tea really is, but there's no arguing more people have died from sugar than at least one Class I Schedule drug, even due to side effects like stepping into the path of a bus. And the general health costs are tremendous.
No the only way I see FB going down is if they decide they need to "monetize the users more" and basically crap all over the network but I haven't seen any signs so far they are THAT stupid.
You didn't read the EULA. Not only can they share it with your contacts, they can use it for any purpose they desire, including ads for Facebook, etc. Even if you delete said content, as long as even one of the original people you shared it with has a copy (or link) then they will still have rights to it. In short, until all copies are deleted off FB, including the ones that you shared (and perhaps they shared....), your content is not yours. You see how you've lost control?
True, the players would be left behind, and being organized criminals, they most likely would attempt to enter or expand alternative lines of business that were also criminal. But, with the cash cow gone, you'd start seeing defections and a shrinking of these organizations. Money is what makes them go around, and losing $13-40B of income a year (estimates from various sources on the cartels' annual income of the drug trade) would alter the landscape radically. Short of taking over banks wholesale, there's not a lot of places to capture anywhere close to that amount revenue.
Just more stupidity all because the government refuses to legalize a plant that grows wild all over the damn world.
If the government legalized it and even limited to purchase in gov only stores, they could at least kill off most of the issues related to the drug trade, in one fell swoop removing pushers, drug runners, mules, and cartels. Granted, at this point they'd also have to sell cocaine, LSD, ecstasy and heroin for less than street value, but that's purely attributable to the stubbornness of the "war on drug" folks who've now created this entire underworld subculture. Apparently those "war on drugs" people were incapable of learning from history and what occurred the last time they declared "war" on a common and highly desired item (prohibition). At least they seem to have learned their lesson with tobacco.
those options are not worst than the way other platforms offer to interact with native calls. e.g. Python ctypes or as mentioned jni. Most of the times you dont even need to go that far, and if you find repeatedly far from the runtime, then you are using the wrong tool.
I didn't say there were. What I did say was that MS claimed C# was the way of windows programming for the future. And then they failed to deliver by delivering a half-ass language.
.NET's primary feature is multi-language support. C# was supposed to bring the wonders of Java managed memory to Windows developers, and of course better it. MS itself originally stated that C# (.NET, C# with C++/CLI were the only two languages really supported at that time) was to be the one and future language for programming in windows, including the system. Recall Longhorn?
Since VS2002 vb.net was also included but I give you that the focus was really on C#. The OS team never delivered on the bindings and structure to do real system programming with.Net that has been quite obvious for years now and.Net found its place being very popular on other kinds of applications.
Yes, it serves fine as a Java competitor, if it could only get to be a little faster. At least it's faster than Ruby, Grails, et al.
Maybe not everyone wants to use C# to do system programming and the language fits their needs? It seems a bit far fetched to call the whole thing misguided because it does not fulfill your expectations on a specific area that pretty much everyone knows by now is not its main target.
Ah - there's the rub. Systems programming was one of C#'s original purposes. I never said when the systems coding took place. It was years ago. I would not try it today, it'd be pointless,and quite possibly easier and faster to do in Java, Ruby, Scala, or Lisp, which should say everything you need to know or hear about the state of systems programming in C#, at least on Windows. It's also an indictment of the language itself.
MS's.NET languages are all hamstrung by the CLR they're running on. Yes, it's relatively easy to drop into the "unsafe" native calls, but that's not a feature that makes it better - it's a feature required by short comings of the CLR
No, it's a feature required for those circumstances where the base class library does not yet provide certain functionality. I'm not aware of any limitations in the CLR itself (i.e. the VM) which preclude from adding some functionality. It would be pretty surprising, anyway, given that its bytecode and execution model are flexible enough to support the entirety of ISO C++.
And amazingly enough that need is not decreasing with time.
I prefer my address bar to, well, work with addresses, and search to do search. Surprise. I especially hate chrome doing a search on localhost when I want to go to http://localhost./
But that's just me, and I guess according to your opinion mine's worth less than yours. Consider this though - Until Chrome, I don't believe anyone had combined the two. Ever wonder why an ad company that serves ads on searches created a browser with this default?
Slashdot Mirror
and if you're on something other than a desktop, those lines might wrap. HTML is designed to have the view rendered by the browser. Arbitrary forced line lengths destroys this ability. Are we geeks or not?
MS may be in the same position, but they have this nice stack of "Get out of jail free" cards (bank) that has kept them at least appearing to be a player in the phone/tablet space.
I am not that sure about MS's future
No one gets too many second chances. No one. Not even Microsoft.
I agree, Win8 is a make or break for the company (and Nokia too). I predict Nokia will fail, and Win8 will largely end MS as the dominant OS. MS peaked in 2001 with XP and has been falling ever since, however slowly, Win 7 not withstanding. If organizations move to *nix systems, which honestly can serve as excellent desktops for most uses in the enterprise these days and be relatively easily managed, the end will come even more quickly as the lucrative licensing contracts MS currently holds disappear like vapor.
You may not like it, but the Japanese themselves set the precedent for "mass-murder" and going "full savage".
And it's still wrong to follow such examples if you call yourself civilized, however my point is, those acts were performed by Americans over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than dick-waving.
Perhaps if you read the rest of the post and enlightened yourself, you'd see why what was done was done. It was to break the spirit of the Japanese, to remove any semblance of saving face, to destroy possibilities of repeated attempts to further their empire. But, just keep waving.
It's too late when the last bus has left the station and you're looking up at the incoming tidal wave. RIM may actually be under the shadow of a breaking tidal wave - it's a matter of months before they're gone, they don't have the resources to try again.
MS may be in the same position, but they have this nice stack of "Get out of jail free" cards (bank) that has kept them at least appearing to be a player in the phone/tablet space. That too, may run out finally, we'll see. They could barely give away tablets last time around before those tablets had Android installed on them instead. Probably why ARM / Win8 has locked down UEFI.
I will disagree with the absolute statement about there being no "before" the big bang. We don't know, we have nothing to measure or even really speculate against. The only thing we can say with certainty is that time existed after the big bang in our universe (defined as that volume containing the energy of the big bang). Other than that - all sorts of fantastical things as you mention might or might not exist. We simply don't know and have no way to prove or disprove any of the conjectures. Logical reasoning and current scientific knowledge allow us to speculate on various possibilities, but that's all it is. If you consider that space within the universe is vast, think about the "space" holding the universe....
IANAP, but as far as I know the theories cover everything back to the first 10e-43 seconds.
Just remember - they are theories.
My point was we have no idea what's closer to the edge. Dark matter/energy are recent theories to support recent observations that didn't fit the original model, nor could explain the newly observed accelerating expansion of the universe. (Until just the last couple of decades, it was assumed that the universe was decelerating, and the question was would it contract) But, IANA(A)P, so I might have my dates and prevalent theories off by a little bit, it still highlights that they are theories and still changing.
I'm not confusing space and time, I'm saying that we have no frame of reference to hang time on outside of the existence of our universe. To me, logically, it seems ludicrous to state that time started with our universe. But neither you nor I can point to anything that predates our universe. We can speculate, however.
Knowing what happened early in the universe might be extremely relevant, or it might not. We don't know. We assume space is isotropic beyond the time/space edge of the big bang, but we have absolutely no way of knowing. It may be that there are other areas just like ours, or we (our universe) may be alone, or it may be far more interesting than we can fathom at this stage.
Theories of things untestable will remain theories, and we should be open to change them when evidence presents itself. Flying spaghetti monsters and giant turtles not excepted.
Trust me in this, I think we've only scratched the surface of things we've looked for. There will be many "surprises" over the next few decades at least.
There is much wrong with everything else you say. First, black holes can't be only at the edge of the universe. There is no edge - the universe is isotropic, as far as we know. Unless you suggest that the black holes were in the early universe but have somehow vanished over time. But in any case, that is totally irrelevant. We see dark matter effects IN galaxies NEAR us that we can see ALL of. If all the black holes are at the edge of the universe, they aren't affecting the dynamics of the galaxies we can see, and thus can't be cause of the dark matter effect.
Much wrong? Let's start with yours:
Black holes at the edge of the universe - you've been there? You purport to know what happened in the first ms, seconds, minutes, and hours of the universe? Please do enlighten the rest of us. We have absolutely no idea what's further out from the prototype galaxies. We've seen very little if any evidence of the monster stars that gave us all our higher order elements. Each one of those was truly massive, existed for a very short time, and went super nova for lack of a better description, leaving behind... we think, a black hole. Provided of course that the universe started out as a hydrogen plasma as the popular theory has it today and everything was built up through nuclear fusion. I personally am not willing to put a stake in the ground and state that black holes cannot exist beyond the furthest observable galaxies. You may, and you might or might not join a long line of other stake holders (flat earth, earth center of the universe, sun center of the universe, solid earth, etc)
The universe is nearly isotropic. There are variations. This is not the only reference stating so.
No edge (well, surface actually)? Do you define the universe by the limits of the radiation of the big bang? Or is the universe everything, including things 100 quadrillion light years away, should they exist? I'm curious, because the common definition is everything inside the "edge" (or surface) describing the extent of the big bang, although there are theories that describe things outside our "known" universe. I know the answer to that one is more philosophical at this point, since there is absolutely nothing we can say today about what's even at the limits light has traveled since the big bang. It would all be mere speculation with no way to prove it.
But Chrome will helpfully run that search on google.com if you don't preface it with http:/// first.
There is no reason not to think that a black hole could have the same close orbit. Just much much, rarer.
Why do you think they're rarer?
It makes me wonder how much of the 'missing mass' that we lump into the dark matter bucket is actually contained in bodies like this; bodies so massive that we can barely fathom their 'size'.
I'm gonna guess 'not much'. If there were a lot of them, every once in a while something would run into one, and believe me, we'd notice.
If there were lots of them then we'd also see them because of the gravitational lens effect they'd impart.
That would only apply if there were stars on the other side of them (from us) to generate light so that we could see the lens effect. What if these super massive black holes are on the edge of the universe or between the edge and the first lit stars, how would we know? (since the universe is defined by the shockwave expanding outward from the big bang, the other side is considered "nothing" since we have no known measurement or indications of what lies on the other side - think of the universe as a bubble) Heck, while we're pondering, they could be on the other side of the edge, from a previous universe, one that collapsed in on itself and created a new big bang, perhaps even ours. We are just neophytes in understanding our universe, and we certainly do not begin to understand anything outside of it or what was before, we barely think we know what was soon after "the beginning". We cannot even succinctly state if time existed before then, we simply have nothing to observe or measure against.
You do not get to dictate, but you may get to negotiate them. Unless the enemy goes full savage and starts mass-murdering your civilian population, to force you out of negotiations and into unconditional surrender.
You may not like it, but the Japanese themselves set the precedent for "mass-murder" and going "full savage". I also recall them giving no quarter more than once. Perhaps learning a little about the war, the atrocities committed, and some of the cultural pressures that drove those attrocities might be enlightening. Or you can continue to make baseless claims about the evil Americans. After all, they were the ones that did a sneak attack killing over 2400, sinking or damaging at least 18 warships and destroying over 180 aircraft, or basically decimating an entire theater's fleet. They were also those evil callous folks that mistreated POWs, tortured and arbitrarily executed them while force marching them through Bataan. And that only starts the list of eye-pokings. Full savage was already in full swing on one side before the war started.
Those bombs ended the war over there
No, they did not. By then, Japanese were already trying to find a way to surrender. Americans wanted to be the ones who dictated the condition for surrender, even though the conditions they imposed were exactly the same as ones Japanesed proposed to begin with. In other words, the whole thing was entirely to humiliate Japanese (and to threaten the rest of the world).
Unconditional surrender. (I don't recall the Japanese agreeing to that until bomb #2) The terms the US imposed after that are irrelevant.
As the loser in war, you do not get to dictate your surrender terms. Perhaps earlier, when a loss wasn't evident or still a long way away, but not when the last wood door blocking the invaders from your home turf is about to crumble making all your defenses useless....
For instance, OPT employers aren't subject to the same rules governing H-1B workers, who must be paid the prevailing wage.
The U.S. has approved about 35,274 OPT extensions and denied only 613 since the program was started.
Interestingly enough: this article on sugar addiction states that most scientists are not yet convinced that sugar addiction exists. However, this published research paper, which could have been the source for your link, makes a pretty eye opening case, at the least worthy of more research.
Having stated my skepticism on sugar addiction, I personally have cut my consumption of excess sugar, don't eat much prepared or fast food, and probably am 90% on the way to the "sugar free diet" that some articles profess has all sorts of good health effects. I'd agree that not consuming an extra 3500+ calories a week really does result in not gaining that extra pound. I can concur on one item listed in one article - I no longer eat nearly as much pasta and other starches. However, that may due be as much to the aging process and its associated metabolic slowdown as anything else. Unfortunately, my personal experiences are related directly to rational scientific cause and effect or are inconclusive and do not support any type of argument for "sugar addiction". Also, I don't use sugar substitutes (something about artificial chemicals tasting sweet doesn't ring true to me, just like GM food with customized genes that do not naturally occur in at least the same order or class, but that's a different topic).
Lastly, I've also seen what happens when Type II diabetics finally take their condition seriously and change their diet: the effect of a low to moderate sugar diet is not small. Refined sugar, in moderation is fine for most people. Unfortunately, "moderation" as most perceive it is really consumption on an excessive scale to their bodies. Just one of those 48 ounce cokes is massively excessive. The soda companies had the proportions right originally when they came in 8-10 oz containers, and were expensive enough to be a luxury item enjoyed on rare occasions. They were also made with sucrose, not high fructose corn syrup, the latter which is pretty much like main-lining sugar into your bloodstream.
You shouldn't have posted anon... these are some good points. I'd go further - most software components should be designed with no more than 4 basic patterns in them - this allows for maintenance folks and others to come along later and understand what's going on without 6 months of due process. Note - these are components, not solutions. Components themselves generally should have very little internal abstraction - this means that a component should be testable and verifiable. If you abstract things within it, this becomes a much more difficult process. Lastly, components should follow functional boundaries as much as possible, again, this eases testing and makes for "complete" units.
Minus the gov only stores and the ridiculous recreational taxes people want to lump onto these things I agree.
The entire bit on the gov only stores is that there's a single supplier, with no potential of pushers. I don't see the supermarket carrying a 5lb bag of refined cocaine, for example. Also, it would be no different from the state sponsored alcohol stores in many areas. NH has a great distribution system, near as I can tell from my few visits there. Then again, CA has everything in the supermarket. I don't see CA having more or less problems than anywhere else.
It's amazing how much less of a big deal it is to have a gram a day habit when the substance is $1-2 for a 10lb bag at the local grocer. Sugar is one of the most addictive substances known to man.
I'd disagree with sugar being addictive. Desired, yes, addictive, not so much. More harmful? We're still on the upswing of finding out how harmful that switch to high fructose corn syrup and soda/sweet tea really is, but there's no arguing more people have died from sugar than at least one Class I Schedule drug, even due to side effects like stepping into the path of a bus. And the general health costs are tremendous.
No the only way I see FB going down is if they decide they need to "monetize the users more" and basically crap all over the network but I haven't seen any signs so far they are THAT stupid.
Just like Google wasn't going to be evil?
You didn't read the EULA. Not only can they share it with your contacts, they can use it for any purpose they desire, including ads for Facebook, etc. Even if you delete said content, as long as even one of the original people you shared it with has a copy (or link) then they will still have rights to it. In short, until all copies are deleted off FB, including the ones that you shared (and perhaps they shared....), your content is not yours. You see how you've lost control?
True, the players would be left behind, and being organized criminals, they most likely would attempt to enter or expand alternative lines of business that were also criminal. But, with the cash cow gone, you'd start seeing defections and a shrinking of these organizations. Money is what makes them go around, and losing $13-40B of income a year (estimates from various sources on the cartels' annual income of the drug trade) would alter the landscape radically. Short of taking over banks wholesale, there's not a lot of places to capture anywhere close to that amount revenue.
Just more stupidity all because the government refuses to legalize a plant that grows wild all over the damn world.
If the government legalized it and even limited to purchase in gov only stores, they could at least kill off most of the issues related to the drug trade, in one fell swoop removing pushers, drug runners, mules, and cartels. Granted, at this point they'd also have to sell cocaine, LSD, ecstasy and heroin for less than street value, but that's purely attributable to the stubbornness of the "war on drug" folks who've now created this entire underworld subculture. Apparently those "war on drugs" people were incapable of learning from history and what occurred the last time they declared "war" on a common and highly desired item (prohibition). At least they seem to have learned their lesson with tobacco.
those options are not worst than the way other platforms offer to interact with native calls. e.g. Python ctypes or as mentioned jni. Most of the times you dont even need to go that far, and if you find repeatedly far from the runtime, then you are using the wrong tool.
I didn't say there were. What I did say was that MS claimed C# was the way of windows programming for the future. And then they failed to deliver by delivering a half-ass language.
.NET's primary feature is multi-language support. C# was supposed to bring the wonders of Java managed memory to Windows developers, and of course better it. MS itself originally stated that C# (.NET, C# with C++/CLI were the only two languages really supported at that time) was to be the one and future language for programming in windows, including the system. Recall Longhorn?
Since VS2002 vb .net was also included but I give you that the focus was really on C#. The OS team never delivered on the bindings and structure to do real system programming with .Net that has been quite obvious for years now and .Net found its place being very popular on other kinds of applications.
Yes, it serves fine as a Java competitor, if it could only get to be a little faster. At least it's faster than Ruby, Grails, et al.
Maybe not everyone wants to use C# to do system programming and the language fits their needs? It seems a bit far fetched to call the whole thing misguided because it does not fulfill your expectations on a specific area that pretty much everyone knows by now is not its main target.
Ah - there's the rub. Systems programming was one of C#'s original purposes. I never said when the systems coding took place. It was years ago. I would not try it today, it'd be pointless,and quite possibly easier and faster to do in Java, Ruby, Scala, or Lisp, which should say everything you need to know or hear about the state of systems programming in C#, at least on Windows. It's also an indictment of the language itself.
MS's .NET languages are all hamstrung by the CLR they're running on. Yes, it's relatively easy to drop into the "unsafe" native calls, but that's not a feature that makes it better - it's a feature required by short comings of the CLR
No, it's a feature required for those circumstances where the base class library does not yet provide certain functionality. I'm not aware of any limitations in the CLR itself (i.e. the VM) which preclude from adding some functionality. It would be pretty surprising, anyway, given that its bytecode and execution model are flexible enough to support the entirety of ISO C++.
And amazingly enough that need is not decreasing with time.
I prefer my address bar to, well, work with addresses, and search to do search. Surprise. I especially hate chrome doing a search on localhost when I want to go to http://localhost./
But that's just me, and I guess according to your opinion mine's worth less than yours. Consider this though - Until Chrome, I don't believe anyone had combined the two. Ever wonder why an ad company that serves ads on searches created a browser with this default?