Except that it's cheaper to launch a new satellite, with advanced technology, then it would be to retrieve and relaunch

And this exact mentality is the reason there are between 2,000 and 5,500 tons of large debris (over 500,000 distinct objects) in space. Since when is money the sole factor in doing something? Stop worrying about the monetary cost and starting thinking of the overall impact of the decisions...

More payload, sure. But smaller cargo dimensions (the shuttle was 4.6m x 18m vs 4.6m x 11.4m). But lower orbit capabilities (200km vs 960km for the shuttle). But without the ability to bring back cargo (the shuttle could retrieve payload from space for return to Earth). But with lest liftoff thrust (17MN vs 30MN).

You don't get something for nothing. I'm not saying it shouldn't be replaced. But this *it's so expesnive, it must die* bs is nothing more than rhetoric. But as of yet, the only alternative to it (the Falcon Heavy) still has not flown. And it also has no human capabilities as of yet (it's designed to be human rated, but there's no crew module, which would take quite a while to design and build). So kill it, it must die! But we won't have something to take the place of it anytime soon...

I really can't stand this *cost effective* bs. People keep coming out and saying how expensive the shuttle was, and how much of a waste of money it was. In reality it was actually very cheap in comparison to other things we spend money on. Source: XKCD

Shuttle
Total: $194 billion
Per Launch: $1.43 billion
Per Year: $6.46 billion

Apollo Program
Total: $192 billion
Per Launch: $11.94 billion
Per Year: $17.45 billion

Federal Fraud
Per Year: $125.4 billion

Iraq War
Per Year: $98 billion

Ballistic Missile Submarines Per Year: $12 billion

Federal Interest on Debt
Per Year: $198 billion

US foreign military aid
Per Year: $11.5 billion

So yes, it was expensive. But we spend money like it's going out of style (heck, the 2009 stimulus was 115 times the annual cost of the program. It was even 4 times the total cost of the program)!!!

So sure, let it die with nothing to replace it. Because nothing ever came from it...

To me, there is a significant difference between a framework and libraries. Libraries are collections of code to do one or more tasks. Frameworks are libraries that enforce architectural constraints in exchange for reducing boilerplate code and making things easier (and faster in theory) to develop. The tradeoff comes back when those architectural constraints are not inline with the application. This either leads to tons of pain when building the application (I've heard the phrase "just do it the rails way" a few times), or when maintaining due to changes in the app requirements or bugs that are deep rooted in the architecture of the application.

That's why I'm a fan of the Architecture First method to development. Do a formal architecture for the application, then pick the framework that fits that architecture (if any). If none do, fit the closest one and remove anything from it that doesn't fit.

To be clear, I'm not opposed to using the ORM in the model, or for some applications having the ORM dominate the model. I'm just against the concept that it is the model (since there's a lot more by most people's ideas)...

Yes, we have talked about it at length...

The first on the list is one that isn't public yet. I know the lead dev on it and got an early preview. So out of the popular frameworks, it is number one to avoid....

I couldn't disagree more. Cake is loaded with deeply awkward black magic and bad practices. Not to mention the fallacy that the model layer is the orm (hint: in the rest of the world it is not). Cake is second on my list of frameworks to avoid (and most senior developers that I know agree). I would suggest you do the same. .

Exactly. Especially since almost any XSS vulnerability automatically becomes a CSRF vulnerability.

If I can inject JS into your browser, I can do anything that you can do on that site...

All data on Facebook is property of Facebook, not of the people who put it there... so you should be able to ask Facebook to remove it... (according to the text, "companies (i.e. Facebook) will be forced to delete it when asked").

And that doesn't sound like it will ripe for abuse...

Oh wait...

This. Very much this. Everything in this world is pretty much built upon axiomatic systems. The language we speak, the laws that govern us, economics, etc. It's going to be quite hard to spend one day without interacting with at least a dozen or more axiomatic systems. Without even a cursory understanding of how rules and these systems behave, how can we hope to interact effectively with them?

So that brings up the question, what's the easiest and clearest axiomatic system that we encounter on a day to day basis? Mathematics. The study of math isn't so much so that students learn the principals so they can apply them in during the rest of their lives (although there are some that they do need to know), it's so they can better understand how rule based systems operate. Therefore there's no real need for a literary student to be able to prove the Quadratic Formula. What IS important is that they know a proof exists, and they understand why it can be proven. That's the main key.

So yes, trim calculus for most students. Trim formal proofs from tests (but do demonstrate them in class). Focus more on the why, not the how. Then once that's nailed down, go on to the topics that are of real value (but are often under-taught IMHO): basic statistics and probability, formal and prepositional logic, and mental estimation... Each one is used nearly every day by people whether they realize it or not. It doesn't matter that they know that If P then Q; P; therefore Q is called modus ponens, but they must know that it does work. They don't need to be able to determine a probability of an even happening, but they do need to understand and know the basic concepts.

I will disagree slightly with your statement: With calculators and computers, nobody needs to know math itself.. The correct (IMHO) statement would be that most people don't need to be able to prove what the calculator is giving them is correct, but they do need at least a cursory understanding of what's going on, otherwise how will they know if it's correct? If you punch 5 + 10 * 100 into a calculator, you'll get back 5000 on a stack based calculator (computer) but 1500 on a normal calculator... If you don't understand what's going on, how do you know which is right (or that there are two possible answers)...?

Again, just my $0.02

This.

And why do I think this? It's quite simple really. There was no implementation in the API for devices of varying features or screen size until iOS 4. If the design was originally intended for a tablet, I would think they would be smart and implement the API from the beginning, so that they wouldn't need to re-create all the apps so that they would run on the tablets natively. But they didn't. No support for the basic features of a tablet appeared until iOS 4. Which shows that either it wasn't intended in the beginning to run on tablets, or they never thought ahead to include the necessary API features. And both show that it was never really intended for tablets. Sure, the initial concept may have been derived from a tablet idea, but when iPhone OS 1 was released, it was never intended to be used on a tablet.

As with most FUD, there is likely an element of truth involved. I'm not doubting that the idea for the iPhone came from an internal tablet they tried to make. But what I am doubting is that the OS was designed from the beginning to be used on a tablet...

the iPad is the first to be successful on any meaningful scale

In the public sector. In other areas (such as Emergency Responders, Health Care, Manufacturing and many others) there have been wildly successful tablets for many years.

Apple just made it successful for the average consumer...

you rarely see them in the enterprise lines, and their BIOSes don't get the same Dell branding, and so forth

Did you ever stop to think that the reason for that is exactly what the FTC just tried to stop? That they had an agreement with Intel to "lock up" the higher end market?

From the actual article linked by the OP:

Specifically, the app does collect data from your phone, but only the device's phone number, subscriber identifier, and voicemail number fields are retrieved.

I understand that this is newsworthy, but the Summary is blatantly wrong when it was posted, yet alone with future information...

Besides, the app requested this info from when it was installed. If you just clicked "ok" when it asked for permission to access your personal data and the internet, then it is not malware. Malware is doing something besides what it is telling you. Sure, it's not telling you its sending that info elsewhere, but it is telling you that it is accessing it.

Besides, there have been a LOT of Apple fanbois that have been using this to bash the "open system"... One thing that I must ask is if it asked you for access to that information, and you said ok, how is this the fault of the open system? In fact, I would rather have the system tell me what an App has access to than to trust a draconian dictator...

Yes this is bad. Yes it should be pulled from the market. But how many apps like this exist for both platforms that just haven't been found first? At least with Android, you get to see what the app has access to, so if you don't think it needs that access don't install the app. It seems (oddly enough, given Google's privacy nightmare) the better platform if you care about your privacy IMHO...