The tags on this one "bushsfault", "obama", and "global warming" make me worry. The Earth's magnetic poles are KNOWN to reverse themselves. In fact we're due for one very soon. Sad, not funny, to see asinine references to political and non-associated environmental causes. Pathetic, really.
However comparing Linux/Windows on the desktop iOS/Android on smartphones is asinine. Windows was never locked down or exclusionary even remotely to the degree that iOS is. It was an open, free market for virtually everyone.
Really? You can buy a computer from [vendor name here] but it only comes with Windows.
Really? You don't remember Windows before NT 3.5 do you?
Really? Signed drivers?
Really?!?! Genuine Advantage?
Yeah, just WIDE OPEN!
As for outside the U.S., I have no data, so my comments strictly cover the U.S. market and our economy. Fair enough?
LMAO, I think you can forward my comment to them just fine. If you are speaking of those three using Linux on the desktop, then hurray! They have joined the less than 1% of the world that uses Linux on the desktop (along with me and probably 25% or more of the folks reading this, you insensitive clod!). Now, may I ask what they do for a living that they use Linux on the desktop? If your answer is anything dealing with science or academia then, yeah, that makes sense. One of the only places you see Linux on the desktop is in science and engineering disciplines...right next to Windows and Mac OS.
You can draw parallels to current Linux market share with Mac OS market share in the 1990s, but the problem is the Linux market share was never above where it is now, while Mac OS was above where it was in the 1990s prior to 1993 and is now much larger. Look at a similar 15 year period in Linux history and you will see negligible or no positive increase in market share. Why? User experience, availability of cross-platform applications and general serviceability of the operating environment. Ubuntu has made significant advances for Linux desktop user experience, and OpenOffice.org has allowed for the most basic of computing tasks (general productivity) to come up close to par with existing "for pay/closed" operating systems, but it's still not that serviceable. You still have to have a good deal of wirehead knowledge to make things work right-out-of-the-box, all the time, every time with Linux. The support community for Linux is STILL, to this day, filled with a lot of arrogant unhelpful people, forums that make huge assumptions about their readers, and so called proponents that are no better than the Mac and Windows fanbois they profess to hate on the other side of the fence.
I could go on, but no one is paying me for this! Plus, weren't we talking about Android and Google?!?! Gaaa!
I think you are using the wrong words. I think what you meant to say is:
Google has to exert [regulations] to be able to KEEP android free. Apple exerts effort to keep iOS [regulated].
AND
A FREE market requires strict [regulations] and enforcement in order to stop [corruption].
A "free" market, and a "free" or "open" piece of software are not the same thing. Apple is not monopolizing anything. They are regulating their platform the way they see fit, as Google is doing with their platform. Apple didn't create the mobile phone, smartphone or mobile applications markets. Those markets exist within the broader free market economy and did before the iPhone came to the scene. Apple and Google are merely providing two platform options, one heavily regulated and one less regulated. The market will sort this out as to which one is truly better. We can't say which will be more successful right now because the story is still playing out. However, we can see where the weaknesses and strengths of BOTH platforms are starting to show. Hence my comment of how I like to see these things play out. I think Apple thought this app market thing through a little better and took a more conservative starting point. Google took a more liberal approach and has completely splintered their market and made things harder to regulate going forward. It's far easier to loosen regulation in a controlled sandbox than it is to lasso unruly kids scattered all over the playground.
No misunderstanding here, but a little knowledge can be just as harmful as ignorance.
You mean like Linux helped to bring down locked alternatives like Windows and Mac OS. Yeah, that's working out amazingly well as a plan, especially for the desktop. Don't get me wrong. I believe in the right tool for the right job. I use a lot of different OS platforms on a daily basis (Win, Mac, Linux, BSD...) for different purposes, but Linux is *NOT* making inroads on the desktop after 15 years (or more) of being there.
The if-you-build-them-something-open-they-will-come motto just doesn't hold water. The success of Android has been driven by the fact that Apple held onto their exclusive deal with AT&T too long. This is a similar story to what Sony did with the Betamax patents in the 1980s, but with a different set of effects happening now.
What "keep[s] the market clean and filled with options" is innovation, change, new stuff, a better way of doing it, not just an open software development platform.
I had a similar reason for wanting to post (before reading a few comments and the article). Baidu and Bing are search engines (and indirectly ad platforms). Android is an operating system. Who cares if Baidu or Bing muscle out Google's search on their own mobile OS platform? How is that going to spell the end of Android or Google as a company?
Article is full of speculation and wild hyperbole. Waste of time to even read. Sad for Harvard Biz review, really.
And Google can cut off access to any manufacturer at any time if they get too in-bed with Baidu or Microsoft.
Yeah, but wouldn't that then make Android/Google just as "evil" as Apple? I just find it interesting that people are suggesting that Google could do something with their "open" Android platform that Apple can do today with their "closed" iOS platform. It's just one of those shoe-on-the-other-foot moments that I like to see play out when folks don't think things all the way through.
This an article about how the allies where able to estimate the number of German Tanks produced based on the Serial Numbers of the Tanks. Neat!. Godwin does not apply.
Seriously?!?! Is there an editor in the house? Try:
This [is] an article about how the [Allies were] able to estimate the number of German Tanks produced based on the Serial Numbers of the Tanks. Neat!. Godwin does not apply.
..particularly whether the neurally-controlled arm-prostheses he had been fitted with might have played a role.
Can someone explain to me how bionic arms would be the cause of the crash, considering your arms are not used in controlling the velocity of a vehicle? His legs work! The brake pedal is the middle one, or one on the left (left-side drive). Sounds like the idiot was just going too damn fast! Darwin wins again. Shame.
Ok, read a good bit of the patent and having spent a great deal of time with a patent attorney over the years I can say that this has nothing to do with rollovers at all. If they are stretching the "point to a token and simultaneously displaying a segment of information from a larger body of information" portion of the claim to be *THE CLAIM* they're gonna get hosed. The rest of the patent document clearly states that this invention is...
The present invention is specifically a system for users to rapidly collect and rearrange a wide variety of specific Contexts into flexible, imagination driven patterns and then to access them rapidly for guidance when needed to improve performance or to transform situations.
It has NOTHING to do with rollovers, whatsoever, other than referencing them as a means of displaying information. Not as part of the patent claim. The system described is basically a self-generating body of knowledge that is populated by an end user from a larger body of knowledge based on rules set forth by an "Editor". To claim a patent on rollovers from this "invention" is ludicrous at best. We'll see how it plays out. They better hope for a REALLY dumb judge.
Ok, I think this guy's question has been answered (almost before he asked it, honestly). Uhhh, no, the random data and encrypted data will be indistinguishable, however, random data does not occur without human intervention (intent). Meaning, if your rouse of carrying random data to confuse and supply deniability is your plan, think of another plan.
My question is, what are you trying to hide? You don't have to be overly specific, but it helps to hide similar data within a similar structure. Steganography works well for hiding pictures within other pictures, sound within other sound, etc. Why? Because even the encrypted data looks like errors in the image file that might just be due to a corrupted file. If you're thinking of hiding entire filesystem contents within a single image then you're about as dumb as a post and will be hiding nothing from anyone who knows what they are doing, let alone what they are looking for.
So, think about what you're hiding and why. If you're hiding financial or other personal information and the like, why steganography? Just use TrueCrypt to lock it down. If you're transmitting the data, encrypt it as a file, encrypt the connection, and physically send the key with a carrier that uses a tracking number. If you're doing something legally questionable, think again. You just outed your intentions on a global public forum and no amount of random data will save you from prosecution.
Isn't that how it works in the US where you have (at least in some states) employment "at will" and it is very easy for a company to fire someone? The innocent until proven guilty only works for criminal cases. This sort of thing is exactly why you need laws protecting employees....of course he really needs to talk to a lawyer to see whether there are any such laws applicable here.
The question you pose, again, reinforces the reason why you need to speak with a labor attorney in your state, and probably another attorney that deals with identity theft.
There are two things going on here, folks. One, his identity was stolen and used fraudulently. That's a criminal matter and you need to call the police and/or FBI. The outcome of that investigation then needs to flow into the civil labor case where you were unduly suspended from your job for something that is clearly out of character for you, and could cause additional undue damage to your career and reputation.
The identity theft is separate from the labor case, but one must be dealt with first in order to clear your name in the second.
The gadgets come from Windows Live messenger dlls that are loaded by default on IE and have no ASLR flag.
Wouldn't that be an IE bug at this point that QuickTime is exploiting, not so much a QuickTime bug? I'm not apologizing for Apple not cleaning up their code after they removed a feature (RTFA!), but seems like MS is just as much to blame for this one with the WindowsLive DLL being loaded by default and having no security on it.
Just saying... if you RTFA and don't just bash QT all day.
Ok, I get it. He was frozen. I don't call that time travel as it wasn't his intent to travel through time, neither did he make any kind of jump in time. He was frozen and floating through space for 504 years. I don't consider that time travel, or we'd ALL be time travelers, without the frozen part.
Just because the dude missed a few years while he was sleeping doesn't make him a time traveler. You would have to lump Rip Van Winkle and Woody Allen's 'Sleeper' in the mix if you're counting guys that were asleep-or frozen-as time travelers.
"The FCC is directed by five Commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for 5-year terms, except when filling an unexpired term. The President designates one of the Commissioners to serve as Chairperson. Only three Commissioners may be members of the same political party. None of them can have a financial interest in any Commission-related business.
As the chief executive officer of the Commission, the Chairman delegates management and administrative responsibility to the Managing Director. The Commissioners supervise all FCC activities, delegating responsibilities to staff units and Bureaus."
So, yeah. Yeah we do. And if you paid attention to the news you would have seen articles on this very website about the new FCC chairperson and what they've done to quell anti-net neutrality leanings within the FCC. Take your soap box and get off my lawn!
...what about PHASERS? What about other materials that get lased? Whenever I hear something about "we're reaching the end of [insert technology here]'s abilities" I always take it with a grain of salt. Sure, with current techniques and materials we are reaching the end of the power curve, but we're certainly not at the dead end for the technology. Or, maybe we are, but there will certainly be something that comes along to supplant it. It's not like oil where there is a finite supply of the stuff. How many times have we heard that hard drives could not possibly hold any more data?
If the government regulates net neutrality, policies for internet access are set by one entity: the FCC. However, if the government stays out, each company will set its own policies. If you don't like the FCC's policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States.
We live in a democracy in the U.S., and if we don't like a policy created by the government we have a mechanism for changing that
If a company makes a policy we have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to change that policy (except through government regulation, duh!), especially if that company has a monopoly (real or perceived) within a market of service
This article must have been written by Fox News or some other conservative crackpot that obviously has something to gain from the end of Net Neutrality, so EFF YOU! We've heard your theory. It's BS. STFU!
Actually, it's: "Quality, Cost, Time. Pick two." That's the balance every project manager has to walk when they actually "build" something, like a supercomputer and its power and cooling systems in 90 days.
EVERYTHING, gets calculated into the costs for a cost center, say like the one you associated with said supercomputer. Office space, electrical costs, office supplies, salaries with fringes, machines, PDUs, switches, cables, pizzas, sodas, t-shirts, etc., etc., et cetera! Everything that involves money attached to it. Then that amount is divided into a unit, say cpu/hrs, where cpu/hrs = 365.25 days * 24 hours * 2200 cpus = 19,285,200 cpu/hrs. So you take that huge monetary value, divide it by another really ugly number, and get a reasonable idea of what the operation costs in a billable amount folks are familiar with, i.e., $/cpu-hrs.
Phelps and his band of nut jobs *ARE NOT CHRISTIAN*!!! I'm sorry, but nowhere in the Bible does "God hate" anyone! I believe the message(s) within the Bible preach love, faith and hope; not hate. Christ did not say, "Hate thy neighbor." Christ did not call for the death or the destruction of others. These people are hate mongers and evil. PERIOD!
C's closeness to the hardware is probably why it has stayed relevant in the era of mobile computing and battery life. Some developers do need to tell the computer every nitty-gritty detail.
I wholeheartedly agree! I haven't RTFA, but is this guy suggesting that as an alternative we develop a ton of application specific languages and compilers? If so, that's the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard. The whole beauty of C/C++ is that it is a utilitarian language. Now, I will say that it has diverted from its original Bell Labs intent as being the write once, compile everywhere language, but that's more due to the diversity of hardware that exists today than anything else. I like that there are only a few low(er) level and high level languages to work with, that can grow as you grow as a developer, and can be used on *ALL* platforms. It just makes sense. Sure the compiler may bloat (Who really cares?!?!), but the underlying language remains amazingly capable for decades.
Of course, this guy could just be an attention whore and made these outlandish statements to get himself in the press, and more press for Google, but dumb, dumb, dumb idea! Also sounds a bit like innovation envy of Bell Labs. Google has yet to contribute anything as amazing given how many "smart" people work there. Hell, they're not even on par with PARC, the main Bell Labs competitor from back in the day. And I don't mean last Tuesday!
Slashdot Mirror
The tags on this one "bushsfault", "obama", and "global warming" make me worry. The Earth's magnetic poles are KNOWN to reverse themselves. In fact we're due for one very soon. Sad, not funny, to see asinine references to political and non-associated environmental causes. Pathetic, really.
Try more than 15 years since the movement began. When the history ain't right I don't bother to RTFA.
Sn02
Should be "SnO2" not with a zero.
However comparing Linux/Windows on the desktop iOS/Android on smartphones is asinine. Windows was never locked down or exclusionary even remotely to the degree that iOS is. It was an open, free market for virtually everyone.
Really? You can buy a computer from [vendor name here] but it only comes with Windows.
Really? You don't remember Windows before NT 3.5 do you?
Really? Signed drivers?
Really?!?! Genuine Advantage?
Yeah, just WIDE OPEN!
As for outside the U.S., I have no data, so my comments strictly cover the U.S. market and our economy. Fair enough?
LMAO, I think you can forward my comment to them just fine. If you are speaking of those three using Linux on the desktop, then hurray! They have joined the less than 1% of the world that uses Linux on the desktop (along with me and probably 25% or more of the folks reading this, you insensitive clod!). Now, may I ask what they do for a living that they use Linux on the desktop? If your answer is anything dealing with science or academia then, yeah, that makes sense. One of the only places you see Linux on the desktop is in science and engineering disciplines...right next to Windows and Mac OS.
You can draw parallels to current Linux market share with Mac OS market share in the 1990s, but the problem is the Linux market share was never above where it is now, while Mac OS was above where it was in the 1990s prior to 1993 and is now much larger. Look at a similar 15 year period in Linux history and you will see negligible or no positive increase in market share. Why? User experience, availability of cross-platform applications and general serviceability of the operating environment. Ubuntu has made significant advances for Linux desktop user experience, and OpenOffice.org has allowed for the most basic of computing tasks (general productivity) to come up close to par with existing "for pay/closed" operating systems, but it's still not that serviceable. You still have to have a good deal of wirehead knowledge to make things work right-out-of-the-box, all the time, every time with Linux. The support community for Linux is STILL, to this day, filled with a lot of arrogant unhelpful people, forums that make huge assumptions about their readers, and so called proponents that are no better than the Mac and Windows fanbois they profess to hate on the other side of the fence.
I could go on, but no one is paying me for this! Plus, weren't we talking about Android and Google?!?! Gaaa!
I think you are using the wrong words. I think what you meant to say is:
Google has to exert [regulations] to be able to KEEP android free. Apple exerts effort to keep iOS [regulated].
AND
A FREE market requires strict [regulations] and enforcement in order to stop [corruption].
A "free" market, and a "free" or "open" piece of software are not the same thing. Apple is not monopolizing anything. They are regulating their platform the way they see fit, as Google is doing with their platform. Apple didn't create the mobile phone, smartphone or mobile applications markets. Those markets exist within the broader free market economy and did before the iPhone came to the scene. Apple and Google are merely providing two platform options, one heavily regulated and one less regulated. The market will sort this out as to which one is truly better. We can't say which will be more successful right now because the story is still playing out. However, we can see where the weaknesses and strengths of BOTH platforms are starting to show. Hence my comment of how I like to see these things play out. I think Apple thought this app market thing through a little better and took a more conservative starting point. Google took a more liberal approach and has completely splintered their market and made things harder to regulate going forward. It's far easier to loosen regulation in a controlled sandbox than it is to lasso unruly kids scattered all over the playground.
No misunderstanding here, but a little knowledge can be just as harmful as ignorance.
You mean like Linux helped to bring down locked alternatives like Windows and Mac OS. Yeah, that's working out amazingly well as a plan, especially for the desktop. Don't get me wrong. I believe in the right tool for the right job. I use a lot of different OS platforms on a daily basis (Win, Mac, Linux, BSD...) for different purposes, but Linux is *NOT* making inroads on the desktop after 15 years (or more) of being there.
The if-you-build-them-something-open-they-will-come motto just doesn't hold water. The success of Android has been driven by the fact that Apple held onto their exclusive deal with AT&T too long. This is a similar story to what Sony did with the Betamax patents in the 1980s, but with a different set of effects happening now.
What "keep[s] the market clean and filled with options" is innovation, change, new stuff, a better way of doing it, not just an open software development platform.
I had a similar reason for wanting to post (before reading a few comments and the article). Baidu and Bing are search engines (and indirectly ad platforms). Android is an operating system. Who cares if Baidu or Bing muscle out Google's search on their own mobile OS platform? How is that going to spell the end of Android or Google as a company?
Article is full of speculation and wild hyperbole. Waste of time to even read. Sad for Harvard Biz review, really.
And Google can cut off access to any manufacturer at any time if they get too in-bed with Baidu or Microsoft.
Yeah, but wouldn't that then make Android/Google just as "evil" as Apple? I just find it interesting that people are suggesting that Google could do something with their "open" Android platform that Apple can do today with their "closed" iOS platform. It's just one of those shoe-on-the-other-foot moments that I like to see play out when folks don't think things all the way through.
This an article about how the allies where able to estimate the number of German Tanks produced based on the Serial Numbers of the Tanks. Neat!. Godwin does not apply.
Seriously?!?! Is there an editor in the house? Try:
This [is] an article about how the [Allies were] able to estimate the number of German Tanks produced based on the Serial Numbers of the Tanks. Neat!. Godwin does not apply.
Geesh!
..particularly whether the neurally-controlled arm-prostheses he had been fitted with might have played a role.
Can someone explain to me how bionic arms would be the cause of the crash, considering your arms are not used in controlling the velocity of a vehicle? His legs work! The brake pedal is the middle one, or one on the left (left-side drive). Sounds like the idiot was just going too damn fast! Darwin wins again. Shame.
Ok, read a good bit of the patent and having spent a great deal of time with a patent attorney over the years I can say that this has nothing to do with rollovers at all. If they are stretching the "point to a token and simultaneously displaying a segment of information from a larger body of information" portion of the claim to be *THE CLAIM* they're gonna get hosed. The rest of the patent document clearly states that this invention is...
The present invention is specifically a system for users to rapidly collect and rearrange a wide variety of specific Contexts into flexible, imagination driven patterns and then to access them rapidly for guidance when needed to improve performance or to transform situations.
It has NOTHING to do with rollovers, whatsoever, other than referencing them as a means of displaying information. Not as part of the patent claim. The system described is basically a self-generating body of knowledge that is populated by an end user from a larger body of knowledge based on rules set forth by an "Editor". To claim a patent on rollovers from this "invention" is ludicrous at best. We'll see how it plays out. They better hope for a REALLY dumb judge.
Ok, I think this guy's question has been answered (almost before he asked it, honestly). Uhhh, no, the random data and encrypted data will be indistinguishable, however, random data does not occur without human intervention (intent). Meaning, if your rouse of carrying random data to confuse and supply deniability is your plan, think of another plan.
My question is, what are you trying to hide? You don't have to be overly specific, but it helps to hide similar data within a similar structure. Steganography works well for hiding pictures within other pictures, sound within other sound, etc. Why? Because even the encrypted data looks like errors in the image file that might just be due to a corrupted file. If you're thinking of hiding entire filesystem contents within a single image then you're about as dumb as a post and will be hiding nothing from anyone who knows what they are doing, let alone what they are looking for.
So, think about what you're hiding and why. If you're hiding financial or other personal information and the like, why steganography? Just use TrueCrypt to lock it down. If you're transmitting the data, encrypt it as a file, encrypt the connection, and physically send the key with a carrier that uses a tracking number. If you're doing something legally questionable, think again. You just outed your intentions on a global public forum and no amount of random data will save you from prosecution.
Isn't that how it works in the US where you have (at least in some states) employment "at will" and it is very easy for a company to fire someone? The innocent until proven guilty only works for criminal cases. This sort of thing is exactly why you need laws protecting employees....of course he really needs to talk to a lawyer to see whether there are any such laws applicable here.
The question you pose, again, reinforces the reason why you need to speak with a labor attorney in your state, and probably another attorney that deals with identity theft.
There are two things going on here, folks. One, his identity was stolen and used fraudulently. That's a criminal matter and you need to call the police and/or FBI. The outcome of that investigation then needs to flow into the civil labor case where you were unduly suspended from your job for something that is clearly out of character for you, and could cause additional undue damage to your career and reputation.
The identity theft is separate from the labor case, but one must be dealt with first in order to clear your name in the second.
FTFA:
The gadgets come from Windows Live messenger dlls that are loaded by default on IE and have no ASLR flag.
Wouldn't that be an IE bug at this point that QuickTime is exploiting, not so much a QuickTime bug? I'm not apologizing for Apple not cleaning up their code after they removed a feature (RTFA!), but seems like MS is just as much to blame for this one with the WindowsLive DLL being loaded by default and having no security on it.
Just saying ... if you RTFA and don't just bash QT all day.
Ok, I get it. He was frozen. I don't call that time travel as it wasn't his intent to travel through time, neither did he make any kind of jump in time. He was frozen and floating through space for 504 years. I don't consider that time travel, or we'd ALL be time travelers, without the frozen part.
Just because the dude missed a few years while he was sleeping doesn't make him a time traveler. You would have to lump Rip Van Winkle and Woody Allen's 'Sleeper' in the mix if you're counting guys that were asleep-or frozen-as time travelers.
I will have to RTFA, because I don't remember Buck Rogers ever time traveling. Even the old Buster Crabb version was devoid of time travel.
I did notice that Star Trek was missing from the summary. I know they time traveled a lot! Especially, the Kirk Enterprise.
Sorry, you lost me at:
Voters have no way to directly influence FCC policy.
From http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html :
So, yeah. Yeah we do. And if you paid attention to the news you would have seen articles on this very website about the new FCC chairperson and what they've done to quell anti-net neutrality leanings within the FCC. Take your soap box and get off my lawn!
...what about PHASERS? What about other materials that get lased? Whenever I hear something about "we're reaching the end of [insert technology here]'s abilities" I always take it with a grain of salt. Sure, with current techniques and materials we are reaching the end of the power curve, but we're certainly not at the dead end for the technology. Or, maybe we are, but there will certainly be something that comes along to supplant it. It's not like oil where there is a finite supply of the stuff. How many times have we heard that hard drives could not possibly hold any more data?
If the government regulates net neutrality, policies for internet access are set by one entity: the FCC. However, if the government stays out, each company will set its own policies. If you don't like the FCC's policies, you are stuck with them unless you leave the United States.
I am totally patenting the Faraday Suit(TM) when this hits the air!
And in other news, articles about the Juno spacecraft continue to be plagued by unit conversion errors.
The whole vault weighs about 200 kilograms (500 pounds).
Really?!?! Because, the unit conversion for kilograms to pounds is x2.2. 1 kg = 2.2 lbs NOT 2.5 lbs!!!
For God's sake! The Metric system is not that hard to remember! If you don't know, LOOK IT UP!!!!
Actually, it's: "Quality, Cost, Time. Pick two." That's the balance every project manager has to walk when they actually "build" something, like a supercomputer and its power and cooling systems in 90 days.
EVERYTHING, gets calculated into the costs for a cost center, say like the one you associated with said supercomputer. Office space, electrical costs, office supplies, salaries with fringes, machines, PDUs, switches, cables, pizzas, sodas, t-shirts, etc., etc., et cetera! Everything that involves money attached to it. Then that amount is divided into a unit, say cpu/hrs, where cpu/hrs = 365.25 days * 24 hours * 2200 cpus = 19,285,200 cpu/hrs. So you take that huge monetary value, divide it by another really ugly number, and get a reasonable idea of what the operation costs in a billable amount folks are familiar with, i.e., $/cpu-hrs.
Phelps and his band of nut jobs *ARE NOT CHRISTIAN*!!! I'm sorry, but nowhere in the Bible does "God hate" anyone! I believe the message(s) within the Bible preach love, faith and hope; not hate. Christ did not say, "Hate thy neighbor." Christ did not call for the death or the destruction of others. These people are hate mongers and evil. PERIOD!
C's closeness to the hardware is probably why it has stayed relevant in the era of mobile computing and battery life. Some developers do need to tell the computer every nitty-gritty detail.
I wholeheartedly agree! I haven't RTFA, but is this guy suggesting that as an alternative we develop a ton of application specific languages and compilers? If so, that's the STUPIDEST thing I have ever heard. The whole beauty of C/C++ is that it is a utilitarian language. Now, I will say that it has diverted from its original Bell Labs intent as being the write once, compile everywhere language, but that's more due to the diversity of hardware that exists today than anything else. I like that there are only a few low(er) level and high level languages to work with, that can grow as you grow as a developer, and can be used on *ALL* platforms. It just makes sense. Sure the compiler may bloat (Who really cares?!?!), but the underlying language remains amazingly capable for decades.
Of course, this guy could just be an attention whore and made these outlandish statements to get himself in the press, and more press for Google, but dumb, dumb, dumb idea! Also sounds a bit like innovation envy of Bell Labs. Google has yet to contribute anything as amazing given how many "smart" people work there. Hell, they're not even on par with PARC, the main Bell Labs competitor from back in the day. And I don't mean last Tuesday!