There is NO Posix userspace on Android.
Posix kernel land is locked/limited.
Why does it take 16 GB RAM to compile the Android tarball? That's some BEAUTIFUL community inclusion!
You realize linux is _just_ a kernel right? There is roughly the same amount of linux in an android handset than in say an ubuntu pc.
Whether you put some GNU components on top, Dalvik, or busybox, it is the exact same kernel: linux. In fact this is the reason why some people advocate calling most distributions GNU/Linux
Thank you for the article, but it does not really address my question.
In that article he tries to convince people to chose GPL over LGPL for libraries. At most, the consequence here is that someone is unable to use the library in question because he does not agree with the terms.
What I am asking is different: I would like to know if he would make it a crime to use a proprietary license.
You argue that it is unethical for someone to distribute software in a way that limits any one of the 4 freedoms to users.
If you had the option, would you make it illegal to do so?
In other words, if you had the option would you make it so that software developers were forced by law to use a free software license? or would you leave the option to the developers and try to convince them (without coercion) that it is the right thing to do?
I am a mobile app developer. I have ios, android and win surface tablets. I have nothing against any of these companies as I want my apps to work on all of them. But the surface is my least favorite one, and one I would never use for me. The usability is just bad over all. Here are some examples:
I want to get a game, so I click on the store, and it prompts me to create an account. I spend 5 minutes setting up an account, and then it just goes to my account page with no obvious way to install the game, or even go back to the store. Go back to the start screen and click on the store again, and it just reopens the window in your account.
Scrolling up and down with 2 fingers on the touchpad is hit and miss, Sometimes it registers as a scroll, but often It thinks I moved my first finger and registers as a moving the cursor ignoring the second finger.
The default keyboard that comes with the surface has keys that you don't press, but touch. This means it has a full size keyboard that you cannot touch type in because you cannot feel the keys, WTF?
There are essentially 3 desktops: the metro interface, the traditional win 7 desktop, and the full list of applications. It is not obvious how to switch between them, and much less how to move the apps between them. The slide from the borders thing is something you should not rely on, because someone needs to show it to you, there is no way a person would figure it out by himself.
Say I want to uninstall an app, well, I would expect to tap and hold an app and click uninstall. I would expect to right click on an app and click uninstall. I would expect to drag it into some garbage can. But no, there is no obvious way to uninstall apps, it turns out you need to open settings and look for the installed apps, and then uninstall it from there.
I am not a huge fan of the changing tiles, because sometimes you no longer recognize what they are. Say I am looking for the store, but the tile is currently displaying some information about some app in the store, then it takes longer for me to find the darned store.
I am a software developer (and darned good at it), I design my games with usability in mind, and constantly change them based on usability testing and feedback from users. People underestimate how hard it is to make interfaces that won't confuse people, bad developers will actually think the users are dumb and blame them. Microsoft desperately needs to do some usability testing on these tablets. They did a great job at making the UI look simple and beautiful, only to kill the magic with some really bad UI design problems.
No. The executive does not have the power until the legislative passes a veto-proof law banning the power. It is supposed to work the opposite way, where a law needs to be approved by both the executive, legislative, and even then the judicial can still strike it down if it deems it unconstitutional.
OK, what is the remedy, and is that remedy provided for in the Constitution?
According to Jefferson, the states have the responsibility of defending themselves from abuses from the federal government by using nullification. This is what the 9th and 10th amendment are for.
The Constitution provides a remedy for the Executive Branch violating laws, and it's not having the Legislative Branch go to the Judicial Branch. Congress should pass a veto-proof law clarifying its intention that universal wiretapping is against the law, and then if the Executive Branch persists, then start impeachment proceedings, where members of Congress act as judge and jury. Rand Paul's lawsuit is nothing but grandstanding -- similar to the conservative all-talk-no-results Republicans have been feeding their constituents for the past half-century, but this time it's libertarian all-talk-no-results. And unconstitutional to boot.
No. The executive does not have the power until the legislative passes a veto-proof law banning the power. It is supposed to work the opposite way, where a law needs to be approved by both the executive, legislative, and even then the judicial can still strike it down if it deems it unconstitutional. But that still fails because as the patriot act and many other laws demonstrate, the legislative branch passes (purposely) very vague laws that allow the executive to interpret whatever he wants out of it.
As it is, Boehner is Obama's puppet and might as well be on the same party. He even worked with Obama to kill a bill banning of the mass surveillance already. Trying to do _anything_ at all through the legislative branch would be truly pointless. This may not go anywhere, but it still has a much better shot than expecting both Boehner and Reid to even bring a bill to the floor.
but it is still ironic that the people that gave him the power, and started the surveillance state are not suing Obama for continuing it.
This makes no sense. Are you saying that you expect Bush to sue Obama for continuing the mass surveillance?
Perhaps you did not mean to put that "not" in there. In that case, you are confusing Bush with Rand Paul simply because they are republicans. In reality they are as far apart ideologically as can be. Not only that, but Rand Paul was not a senator when the mass surveillance started, and both him and his father opposed the patriot act from the very beginning.
It's not difficult to see which approach works best: Which OS has more contributors, *BSD or GNU/Linux?
All else being equal, you could argue that GPL encourages more contributions than BSD.
But there are a lot more forces at play here, that I suspect are having a bigger impact than the license:
LLVM design is more modular and easier to develop for. The barrier to entry for a developer is simply lower
GCC requires CLA (Contribution License Agreement). Linus Torvalds recently pointed out how broken CLA's are, and why they discourage contributions
While I would not be disappointed if this were true, the whole thing seems to be predicated on a dubious analogy. What is playing the role of the immune system here? In the case of MySpace, Facebook seems to have played that role.
The whole premise is just ridiculous nonsense. They are comparing a product that people voluntarily get and continue using willingly, to an infectious disease that people actively try to avoid and cure.
Just because the two prosper due to social interaction does not make them follow the same patterns, especially since everything else about them is completely different.
Facebook might die one day, sure, but it won't be because people develop immunity, it will die because something better will come along, whether that follows the same pattern as an infectious disease would be coincidental at best.
I am guessing this department is located next to the Astrology department at Princeton
You mistake "state" for "government" (that's a very usual fallacy, though).
I did not even mention the word "state"
You suggest that spying would be better if performed by privates (?!?)
No. I don't even disagree with the parent, spying is wrong either by government or private entities. However Capitalism is not about government spending money in research instead of spying as the GP implies. Capitalism is about the government not spending money at all. That was the point of my post.
China is more capitalist than the US? The Chinese State has total or partial ownership of every business in China. You just completely contradict your own initial point!
I would not say china is full fledge capitalist. And I agree the government still owns a lot of enterprises. However, in the past 20 years, China has been privitizing a lot of them, and have deregulated the economy to the point that it is easier to start a business in China than in the US. As a result, go to walmart, pick up any random item and see where it is made. The US turned its back on capitalism a long time ago, to the point that _even_ China is more capitalist than the US.
Then next time try to compete on the grounds of merit, not by spying of your customers and competitors. Spend more money in research and less in espionage. Isn't that what "capitalism" is all about?
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital. Ownership means control, and capital means anything that can be used for production.
When government spends money, it takes public control of capital. Spending money on research, welfare, spying, bailouts, printing money and stimulus are anti-capitalist when done by governments. At this point in time, even China is more capitalist than the US (thus why they are growing and we are sinking)
Even the CEO of Toyota admitted publicly that GM being liquidated would have hurt Toyota badly because they depend on many of the same suppliers. My company would have been out of business entirely and we are a Tier 3 supplier to GM. And we would have been just one of thousands of firms that would have collapsed. Even Tesla would likely have collapsed because the supply chain would have imploded. Tesla depends on many of the same suppliers who would now be bankrupt.
There is essentially 0 chance that it would have been liquidated. GM would have gone through bankruptcy, restructured and come out of it a stronger, healthier and leaner company than it is today. If you want recent examples of this look at all major airlines.
The main beneficiaries of a bailout are the unions, by avoiding a bankruptcy they protect their (sometimes outrageous) contracts. But make no mistake, the best thing for the company (especially long term) and tax payers would have been to go through a normal bankruptcy.
The FDA was very clear about why they stopped it. It wasn't necessarily that the information was misleading, but that it would lead patients to make decisions about their own care without necessarily consulting a doctor, which the FDA thinks is not a good idea -- and I totally see their point, frankly.
I agree, it is not like your body belongs to you. A sheep does not make decisions about what medicine they are given. Your masters should make that decision. We are clearly too stupid to be trusted not to hurt ourselves. I need an overlord in Washington telling me what medicine to take, what to eat, what to dress, what job to do, to make sure I am safe from myself. It is best that I know absolutely nothing about my body so my overlord can take care of it without interference.
Or, just maybe, the person who *BY LAW* doesn't actually have the authority to make those decision, and *MUST* convince that other body of government to do something if it's something he wants to get done.
But I suppose the simple fact that the President doesn't *have* the power to unilaterally enact new laws (a power granted only to Congress), has escaped you?
The HHS is under executive branch. Meaning Obama is the one in charge of that department. Obamacare was approved by congress as law under a democratic majority, and execution belongs to the HHS which belongs to Obama.
Here comes the flood of people complaining about having to listen to other people talking...
Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them
Except people tend to talk louder on the phone than in person... and you're trapped next them for the next n hours.
Put the phone down. It won't hurt. I promise.
And how is this any different from a bus or a train? Seriously have you ever refrained from taking a bus because someone might be on the phone? And yes, sometimes not being able to use the phone for hours does hurt.
Someone chatting a couple seats away from you won't hurt. I promise.
IANAD (I Am Not A Developer) but isn't this Standard Operating Procedure in most software development these days?
IAAD, Yes, this is a standard called "Usability testing". If you have the budget, you get some people to use your software and you record their face and screen, and even track their eyes if you have the equipment. Then you ask them to perform certain tasks in your application. Afterwards, you review the recordings and identify what things the user had trouble with, you change them and then ideally you test again.
While this is very standard and well known technique, it is very costly (in both time and money) reason for which not everyone does it.
I have no clue why anyone would think this article is news.
The people actually doing the work are always paid the least. That's what the "capital" in "capitalism" intends.
(And it works surprisingly well, but it's so far short of ideal.)
What you fail to take into account is that getting the capital in the first place took a lot of work for someone to produce. It is not like the capitalist is not working; when he invests, he is putting the fruit of his _previous work_ at risk. He can lose it all, and he is accepting that he won't enjoy the leisure he could be getting right now, with the hope that one day in the future he will enjoy more. Meanwhile, the person doing the job (i.e. the employee), will get paid whether the investment is good or bad.
The system works because the capitalist takes the risk (therefore he has an incentive to take on successful projects and avoid bad ones) and the employee minimizes risk while providing services he is good at and getting access to the tools that help him. The system works because this is a win win relationship, that allows both to work together and produce value.
Bullshit. Making an OS 64 bit is far more complex than a recompile. And the next Android version, Kit-Kat is not expected to be 64 bit compatible.
That is true, porting objective-c code from 32 to 64 bits is tricky, and that is why Apple is doing it now. In the future when apple does need more than 4 GB of RAM in their devices, they will need to have apps that can take advantage of that. They are making 64 bit available very early so apps will be ready by then.
64 bit gives more registers and some bigger floating point operations, which marginally benefits some apps (it is not ground breaking). But the real advantage of 64 bit is the ability to address more than 4 GB of RAM, which is moot in the iPhone 5c and 5s since they only have 2 GB. So this is more about laying the foundation for future devices/apps than actually benefiting users of 5c and 5s.
Android 64 bit is at least a year away.
Sure, but the situation is very different. You see, most android Apps are not compiled to ARM. They are compiled to Dalvik, which has a bytecode that does not care if it runs in 32 bit or 64 bit. What this means is that at some point, when Google makes Dalvik 64 bit, the vast majority of the apps that run in Android will automatically be 64 bit, without even recompiling.
So unlike with iOS, Google can take its time and do the switch when it is actually useful.
1997 the government decided that people should not pay capital gain taxes on houses but should pay capital gain taxes on everything else 2001 to come out of the recession, the government (via the federal reserve) artificially lowered interest rates to 1% and kept them there for 3 years. Fueling a borrowing spree You have monsters like Fannie mae and Freddy mac, which are entities created by government with an implicit government garantee now made explicit. That bought mortgage securities from anyone capable of fogging a mirror. Creating a massive wave of creative loans such as ARMs. Banks hurried to finance anyone, so that they could turn around and sell the mortgage to government backed Fannie Mae and Freddy mac. CRA (community reinvestment act) forced banks to give loans to lower income brackets that they would not have done otherwise FHA provided garantees to mortages that allowed people to get a loan with 0% down. This meant that the minute houses went down even a little, a lot of people would end up underwater, which further fuels foreclosures creating a massive snowball effect.
Wake up, there is nothing free about the housing market, there is no deregulation. Please tell me what housing related law was struck down?. The bubble was made entirely courtesy of massive government distortions (which are still at full force). The minute the free marked tried to correct the misallocation in 2007 - 2008, and get rid of all these wasteful activities, the government doubled down on distortions (called them stimulus), fueling yet another bubble that will be sure to burst sooner or later.
I am both a professional java and C# developer. Each one has their advantages:
On the C# camp: * delegates and events * functional constructs * automatic variable types * LINQ * Value types (efficiently allocate thousands of value objects in an array, you need some really nasty workarounds in java) * Generics that keep their types at runtime
On the java camp: * Spring (There is Spring.Net, but lets be honest: it does not compare) * Collections library (much more complete and better thought out than C#'s) * Maven * J2EE * A million other libraries freely available, that do _anything_ you want. * Portable to more platforms (Mono sometimes leaves something to be desired)
So in my humble opinion, C# is much more complete as a language, but java has much better libraries and community. So which one would I pick? well, it depends on the project, the platform, and the amount of code I can reuse from open source libraries.
For the whole second half of the movie, the characters repeatedly pound each other. No matter how hard they hit, no one seems to be able to get hurt at all. At some point superman coughs, and the bad guy gets dizzy that is about it.
You become numb after a while, there is really no excitement in the fights because they have no consequences, absolutely nothing is at stake in the fights. As stunning visually as they are, the fights are nothing but fillers.
What about all the non-free images and text taking away your rights?
They do not take away any right whatsoever. If you go to a site with proprietary javascript/html/css/whatever, there is not a single thing that you can no longer do that you could before visiting the site.
You never had the right to distribute the content without the author's permission, so how can visiting a site take away a right you never had?
The government printed money like crazy which caused really high inflation. So how does the government fight inflation? they add price control, which causes scarcity, and currency control which kills imports. Here is a video showing people that got wind that there was corn meal, chicken and some other products in a supermarket
Slashdot Mirror
Don't believe.
There is NO Posix userspace on Android. Posix kernel land is locked/limited.
Why does it take 16 GB RAM to compile the Android tarball? That's some BEAUTIFUL community inclusion!
You realize linux is _just_ a kernel right? There is roughly the same amount of linux in an android handset than in say an ubuntu pc.
Whether you put some GNU components on top, Dalvik, or busybox, it is the exact same kernel: linux. In fact this is the reason why some people advocate calling most distributions GNU/Linux
Stallman has already advocated coercion: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy...
Thank you for the article, but it does not really address my question.
In that article he tries to convince people to chose GPL over LGPL for libraries. At most, the consequence here is that someone is unable to use the library in question because he does not agree with the terms.
What I am asking is different: I would like to know if he would make it a crime to use a proprietary license.
You argue that it is unethical for someone to distribute software in a way that limits any one of the 4 freedoms to users.
If you had the option, would you make it illegal to do so?
In other words, if you had the option would you make it so that software developers were forced by law to use a free software license? or would you leave the option to the developers and try to convince them (without coercion) that it is the right thing to do?
I am a mobile app developer. I have ios, android and win surface tablets. I have nothing against any of these companies as I want my apps to work on all of them. But the surface is my least favorite one, and one I would never use for me. The usability is just bad over all. Here are some examples:
I am a software developer (and darned good at it), I design my games with usability in mind, and constantly change them based on usability testing and feedback from users. People underestimate how hard it is to make interfaces that won't confuse people, bad developers will actually think the users are dumb and blame them. Microsoft desperately needs to do some usability testing on these tablets. They did a great job at making the UI look simple and beautiful, only to kill the magic with some really bad UI design problems.
OK, what is the remedy, and is that remedy provided for in the Constitution?
According to Jefferson, the states have the responsibility of defending themselves from abuses from the federal government by using nullification. This is what the 9th and 10th amendment are for.
The Constitution provides a remedy for the Executive Branch violating laws, and it's not having the Legislative Branch go to the Judicial Branch. Congress should pass a veto-proof law clarifying its intention that universal wiretapping is against the law, and then if the Executive Branch persists, then start impeachment proceedings, where members of Congress act as judge and jury. Rand Paul's lawsuit is nothing but grandstanding -- similar to the conservative all-talk-no-results Republicans have been feeding their constituents for the past half-century, but this time it's libertarian all-talk-no-results. And unconstitutional to boot.
No. The executive does not have the power until the legislative passes a veto-proof law banning the power. It is supposed to work the opposite way, where a law needs to be approved by both the executive, legislative, and even then the judicial can still strike it down if it deems it unconstitutional. But that still fails because as the patriot act and many other laws demonstrate, the legislative branch passes (purposely) very vague laws that allow the executive to interpret whatever he wants out of it.
As it is, Boehner is Obama's puppet and might as well be on the same party. He even worked with Obama to kill a bill banning of the mass surveillance already. Trying to do _anything_ at all through the legislative branch would be truly pointless. This may not go anywhere, but it still has a much better shot than expecting both Boehner and Reid to even bring a bill to the floor.
but it is still ironic that the people that gave him the power, and started the surveillance state are not suing Obama for continuing it.
This makes no sense. Are you saying that you expect Bush to sue Obama for continuing the mass surveillance?
Perhaps you did not mean to put that "not" in there. In that case, you are confusing Bush with Rand Paul simply because they are republicans. In reality they are as far apart ideologically as can be. Not only that, but Rand Paul was not a senator when the mass surveillance started, and both him and his father opposed the patriot act from the very beginning.
It's not difficult to see which approach works best: Which OS has more contributors, *BSD or GNU/Linux?
All else being equal, you could argue that GPL encourages more contributions than BSD.
But there are a lot more forces at play here, that I suspect are having a bigger impact than the license:
While I would not be disappointed if this were true, the whole thing seems to be predicated on a dubious analogy. What is playing the role of the immune system here? In the case of MySpace, Facebook seems to have played that role.
The whole premise is just ridiculous nonsense. They are comparing a product that people voluntarily get and continue using willingly, to an infectious disease that people actively try to avoid and cure.
Just because the two prosper due to social interaction does not make them follow the same patterns, especially since everything else about them is completely different.
Facebook might die one day, sure, but it won't be because people develop immunity, it will die because something better will come along, whether that follows the same pattern as an infectious disease would be coincidental at best.
I am guessing this department is located next to the Astrology department at Princeton
You mistake "state" for "government" (that's a very usual fallacy, though).
I did not even mention the word "state"
You suggest that spying would be better if performed by privates (?!?)
No. I don't even disagree with the parent, spying is wrong either by government or private entities. However Capitalism is not about government spending money in research instead of spying as the GP implies. Capitalism is about the government not spending money at all. That was the point of my post.
China is more capitalist than the US? The Chinese State has total or partial ownership of every business in China. You just completely contradict your own initial point!
I would not say china is full fledge capitalist. And I agree the government still owns a lot of enterprises. However, in the past 20 years, China has been privitizing a lot of them, and have deregulated the economy to the point that it is easier to start a business in China than in the US. As a result, go to walmart, pick up any random item and see where it is made. The US turned its back on capitalism a long time ago, to the point that _even_ China is more capitalist than the US.
Then next time try to compete on the grounds of merit, not by spying of your customers and competitors. Spend more money in research and less in espionage. Isn't that what "capitalism" is all about?
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of capital. Ownership means control, and capital means anything that can be used for production.
When government spends money, it takes public control of capital. Spending money on research, welfare, spying, bailouts, printing money and stimulus are anti-capitalist when done by governments. At this point in time, even China is more capitalist than the US (thus why they are growing and we are sinking)
Even the CEO of Toyota admitted publicly that GM being liquidated would have hurt Toyota badly because they depend on many of the same suppliers. My company would have been out of business entirely and we are a Tier 3 supplier to GM. And we would have been just one of thousands of firms that would have collapsed. Even Tesla would likely have collapsed because the supply chain would have imploded. Tesla depends on many of the same suppliers who would now be bankrupt.
There is essentially 0 chance that it would have been liquidated. GM would have gone through bankruptcy, restructured and come out of it a stronger, healthier and leaner company than it is today. If you want recent examples of this look at all major airlines.
The main beneficiaries of a bailout are the unions, by avoiding a bankruptcy they protect their (sometimes outrageous) contracts. But make no mistake, the best thing for the company (especially long term) and tax payers would have been to go through a normal bankruptcy.
The FDA was very clear about why they stopped it. It wasn't necessarily that the information was misleading, but that it would lead patients to make decisions about their own care without necessarily consulting a doctor, which the FDA thinks is not a good idea -- and I totally see their point, frankly.
I agree, it is not like your body belongs to you. A sheep does not make decisions about what medicine they are given. Your masters should make that decision. We are clearly too stupid to be trusted not to hurt ourselves. I need an overlord in Washington telling me what medicine to take, what to eat, what to dress, what job to do, to make sure I am safe from myself. It is best that I know absolutely nothing about my body so my overlord can take care of it without interference.
Or, just maybe, the person who *BY LAW* doesn't actually have the authority to make those decision, and *MUST* convince that other body of government to do something if it's something he wants to get done.
But I suppose the simple fact that the President doesn't *have* the power to unilaterally enact new laws (a power granted only to Congress), has escaped you?
The HHS is under executive branch. Meaning Obama is the one in charge of that department. Obamacare was approved by congress as law under a democratic majority, and execution belongs to the HHS which belongs to Obama.
Who concedes decision-making power of the most important item on one's list?
The person who wants to be able to say "I was not informed" in case things go south... obviously.
Here comes the flood of people complaining about having to listen to other people talking...
Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them
Except people tend to talk louder on the phone than in person... and you're trapped next them for the next n hours.
Put the phone down. It won't hurt. I promise.
And how is this any different from a bus or a train?
Seriously have you ever refrained from taking a bus because someone might be on the phone?
And yes, sometimes not being able to use the phone for hours does hurt.
Someone chatting a couple seats away from you won't hurt. I promise.
IANAD (I Am Not A Developer) but isn't this Standard Operating Procedure in most software development these days?
IAAD, Yes, this is a standard called "Usability testing". If you have the budget, you get some people to use your software and you record their face and screen, and even track their eyes if you have the equipment. Then you ask them to perform certain tasks in your application. Afterwards, you review the recordings and identify what things the user had trouble with, you change them and then ideally you test again.
While this is very standard and well known technique, it is very costly (in both time and money) reason for which not everyone does it.
I have no clue why anyone would think this article is news.
Did Obama do anything to stop the spying after taking office?
Well, then isn't Obama just as guilty as Bush on this issue?
The people actually doing the work are always paid the least. That's what the "capital" in "capitalism" intends.
(And it works surprisingly well, but it's so far short of ideal.)
What you fail to take into account is that getting the capital in the first place took a lot of work for someone to produce. It is not like the capitalist is not working; when he invests, he is putting the fruit of his _previous work_ at risk. He can lose it all, and he is accepting that he won't enjoy the leisure he could be getting right now, with the hope that one day in the future he will enjoy more. Meanwhile, the person doing the job (i.e. the employee), will get paid whether the investment is good or bad.
The system works because the capitalist takes the risk (therefore he has an incentive to take on successful projects and avoid bad ones) and the employee minimizes risk while providing services he is good at and getting access to the tools that help him. The system works because this is a win win relationship, that allows both to work together and produce value.
Bullshit. Making an OS 64 bit is far more complex than a recompile. And the next Android version, Kit-Kat is not expected to be 64 bit compatible.
That is true, porting objective-c code from 32 to 64 bits is tricky, and that is why Apple is doing it now. In the future when apple does need more than 4 GB of RAM in their devices, they will need to have apps that can take advantage of that. They are making 64 bit available very early so apps will be ready by then.
64 bit gives more registers and some bigger floating point operations, which marginally benefits some apps (it is not ground breaking). But the real advantage of 64 bit is the ability to address more than 4 GB of RAM, which is moot in the iPhone 5c and 5s since they only have 2 GB. So this is more about laying the foundation for future devices/apps than actually benefiting users of 5c and 5s.
Android 64 bit is at least a year away.
Sure, but the situation is very different. You see, most android Apps are not compiled to ARM. They are compiled to Dalvik, which has a bytecode that does not care if it runs in 32 bit or 64 bit. What this means is that at some point, when Google makes Dalvik 64 bit, the vast majority of the apps that run in Android will automatically be 64 bit, without even recompiling.
So unlike with iOS, Google can take its time and do the switch when it is actually useful.
Just for one example, it was the deregulation of the housing and mortgage industry that allowed "free market" to destroy the economy in 2008. You should take a world history class, fool. Hell, just get up to date on current events! Competition and free markets are also the cause of much evil in the world today.
1997 the government decided that people should not pay capital gain taxes on houses but should pay capital gain taxes on everything else
2001 to come out of the recession, the government (via the federal reserve) artificially lowered interest rates to 1% and kept them there for 3 years. Fueling a borrowing spree
You have monsters like Fannie mae and Freddy mac, which are entities created by government with an implicit government garantee now made explicit. That bought mortgage securities from anyone capable of fogging a mirror. Creating a massive wave of creative loans such as ARMs. Banks hurried to finance anyone, so that they could turn around and sell the mortgage to government backed Fannie Mae and Freddy mac.
CRA (community reinvestment act) forced banks to give loans to lower income brackets that they would not have done otherwise
FHA provided garantees to mortages that allowed people to get a loan with 0% down. This meant that the minute houses went down even a little, a lot of people would end up underwater, which further fuels foreclosures creating a massive snowball effect.
Wake up, there is nothing free about the housing market, there is no deregulation. Please tell me what housing related law was struck down?. The bubble was made entirely courtesy of massive government distortions (which are still at full force). The minute the free marked tried to correct the misallocation in 2007 - 2008, and get rid of all these wasteful activities, the government doubled down on distortions (called them stimulus), fueling yet another bubble that will be sure to burst sooner or later.
I am both a professional java and C# developer. Each one has their advantages:
On the C# camp:
* delegates and events
* functional constructs
* automatic variable types
* LINQ
* Value types (efficiently allocate thousands of value objects in an array, you need some really nasty workarounds in java)
* Generics that keep their types at runtime
On the java camp:
* Spring (There is Spring.Net, but lets be honest: it does not compare)
* Collections library (much more complete and better thought out than C#'s)
* Maven
* J2EE
* A million other libraries freely available, that do _anything_ you want.
* Portable to more platforms (Mono sometimes leaves something to be desired)
So in my humble opinion, C# is much more complete as a language, but java has much better libraries and community. So which one would I pick? well, it depends on the project, the platform, and the amount of code I can reuse from open source libraries.
For the whole second half of the movie, the characters repeatedly pound each other. No matter how hard they hit, no one seems to be able to get hurt at all.
At some point superman coughs, and the bad guy gets dizzy that is about it.
You become numb after a while, there is really no excitement in the fights because they have no consequences, absolutely nothing is at stake in the fights. As stunning visually as they are, the fights are nothing but fillers.
What about all the non-free images and text taking away your rights?
They do not take away any right whatsoever.
If you go to a site with proprietary javascript/html/css/whatever, there is not a single thing that you can no longer do that you could before visiting the site.
You never had the right to distribute the content without the author's permission, so how can visiting a site take away a right you never had?
It is even worse in Venezuela,
The government printed money like crazy which caused really high inflation. So how does the government fight inflation? they add price control, which causes scarcity, and currency control which kills imports. Here is a video showing people that got wind that there was corn meal, chicken and some other products in a supermarket