As of -whenever it was- no copyright attribution needs to be asserted in order to apply. As long as the classes, or their structure were leveraged from others' works. Take 'Pair', 'Triple' as an example. In Java, there's no Pair, but many people like to associate two entities together in a free-form way. To do this, you:

Make a constructor with optionally 2,1,0 arguments
Setter for the first item (optional)
Getter for the first item
Setter for the second item (optional)
Getter for the second item

That API will be all but identical to the hundreds if not thousands of distinct implementations of Pair. As a construct, Pair has probably existed for several decades, and its rather shocking to assume that any primitive construct can be copyrighted by the 'first guy to come up with it'. In fact, it will certifiably lead to the end of software development as a whole (at least in the US) if such a ridiculously broad claim is upheld.

Once you start crossing borders, 'nations' become less worrisome. I'd like to know how many of the 'willing expats' have travelled out-of-nation prior to the survey. I'd bet that the majority have. I'd assume that there are fewer of the Americans surveyed who have travelled abroad, but this is just my gut feel. I've heard 'stories' mind you, of people who've never left their counties *shudder*.

Once you leave and explore the world a little, you'll find that many places are quite nice to visit / live for a while. Some will be learning experiences, some will just be for material gain, and others will receive opportunities that their own country can't offer. Why the specific people thought what they did was another topic.

Although one big reason is that there's still the prevailing belief that moving to America will increase your chance at happiness, security, or financial success. I'd still consider that debatable, but the circumstances are very relevant.

http://www.nationmaster.com/co...
Tells me there's a large shift in immigration for people moving into OIL rich nations which makes sense since there's probably a great financial incentive to move (10 year old data alas). The US is 30th, so still pretty strong on the immigration front, but seems to be slowwing per capita over time, which may indicate tighter immigration policies or less incentive from 2005-2008. Of course post-housing meltdown numbers would be more interesting, but oh well.

1. The vertical space on my start bar is very small, like 1/3 of an inch on one of my 27" diagonal monitors. For that price, I can actually read contextual words on my task list which is why I don't have to click an icon then click again to find the 'right' window to jump back to. Many people do it differently, but its the way I work.
2. My 'reading' screen is vertically oriented, my 'work' screen is horizontal, but my IDE's have lots of important side-bar crap that fills in. With my current 2x27" setup, I've never thought, damn, I need more screen real-estate. All in all, I have maybe 2% of my total screen real-estate constantly occupied with static OS items. If I was using XFCE (I like the top/bottom bars for Linux), it would be double that, but still very acceptible for my use cases.

Nah, I hate Unity / Gnome 3 because they were quite clearly Apple desktop and tablet clones. Not that there's anything wrong with those UI's, they just don't fit my workflow. Instead of adding options to support *shocked* many application styles, they said fuck you, this is the way, or you can go jump off a roof. Having a project so hostile to their community is probably the fastest way of losing them.

The negativity was turning one product into an entirely brand new product. If you hate XFCE, then you also hate Gnome 2, which was largely the same. The hate as you'd put it was that they decide they didn't want to be an Apple anymore, instead they wanted to produce Oranges. They just assumed that everyone should be eating Oranges now because... why? They were perfectly in their right to build the best Orange they can, but assuming that they wouldn't piss off their entire existing userbase of Apple eaters is a little naive.

One could rightly argue that the 'artifiicial' comes from the fact that many of the fixed costs associated with the build were paid with taxpayers dollars and yet given almsot absolte control over by the providers. This is what you'd call artificial barriers. If said lines were offered access to equally based on subscriber %, you'd at least have an even (or at least much closer to) 'even playing field. I have no problems with a big provider investing $600 or whatever it is to provide service for a household, but I do have a problem with it when provider A pays $80, and provider B pays $200 and provider C pays $1000 based on ... who knows. You could make the same argument about cell providers and spectrum, but whatev's.

I think the idea of hating government roots from an inherent fear of losing control. If you have no idea how to control (or even get involved) with your political process, how can you ever hope to control it? Hint, making the government smaller won't be the magic bullet that will bring happiness to all. It won't fix your disproportionate financial disparity, it won't help the cycle of violence that is now almost institutional in some parts of America.

Maybe instead of bitching about your government , you actually step up and do something about it. Only then will things actually get done to improve the lives of people. The government is only as good as those who participate in it (and watered down for 'politics'). If you don't like the fact that politicians are being bought by donators, then create grass root movements and actively hurt their chances of being re-elected. The internet makes this so cheap, how is this not a bigger thing from the country self-described as the upholder of democracy (you know something something for the people and all that)? Organize, focus, do SOMETHING. But please don't whine about a system you don't have any participation in.

The definition of Monopoly really comes from that 6th company attempting to enter the market:

1. No legal/physical means to provide service in said jusirdiction: Monopoly
2. Not financially feasible entering said market leaving a few dominant players to fight over market share: Ologopoly (this can happen with anything as long as competition exists, this should eventually reach saturation in price conscious markets)
3. Simple boundaries for entry, and good rate of return: Open competition mode, that should arguably not last exceedingly long as continually entering competitors race in and lower prices to entice more business

For Sweden, the stiff steep fixed costs of entry have been largely paid and continually subsidized by government maintainance, which gives a natural benefit to players entering the market in avoiding large capital outlays. This doesn't mean the system is 'bad' or inefficient, or even taking cash from tax payers. They -could- be revenue positive for all we know as many gov corps are, so don't give me that song that all government is somehow intrinsically wasteful (or a bunch of robbers). It just shows your political leanings, not your common sense.

Since the cost of entering the market requires comparitively little vs. an American incumbant, they can and most likely do discount their rates against one another to maintain their position. Its very possible but I couldn't be sure that the gov actually sets pricing guidelines, but for that I wouldn't know. So no, the Comcasts of Sweeden aren't making stupidly large profits, but I'm sure they're in the market because there's enough room to make a desired profit point. Think of it like the days of dial-up. In those days, anyone could be an ISP with a few lines and a bigger pipe paid to an ILEC (or some other provider) and you could get by. You would grow if you had a good service offering beyond just the physical medium (which was by and large the same besides over-saturation).

Maybe if you bothered to look at the relay logs in the header, you'd probably know they were sent from a fictional server pretending to be you (or totally legit from an exploit), but since said note was absent in your comment, I'm assuming you didn't know about spoofing email, which any script kiddie could do trivially.

Secondly, I can't say about Yahoo, but google has 2 factor auth to avoid said problems. Third, Google has account access history so that if 'bad people' were logged into the account, you'd at least be able to view a record of who/when. I'd be very surprised if Yahoo didn't offer a similar example.

Considering that most new phones are being released at 2 GB+ configurations, I care less and less about 'small embedded systems that are becoming more and more niche and obscure'. Sure memory optimization is good, but when resources are short GC's work harder and more often. If anything embedded systems are suited for GC language runtimes just fine, but they waste more CPU cyles for the privilage. The advantage with GC runtimes being that you don't get memory leaks (in the C sense of never being able to reclaim the allocated ram except for restarting the app, sure people can hold ram in allocated by forgotten places, but that's nothing specific to GC runtimes).

The difference being that tech is VERY in demand and introducing anyone with a pulse (including those that aren't fond if it as a career) is a good at filling back-end need. Forgetting the argument that these people are less likely to be what we would call your typical programmers (people have said that for decades, so nothing new there), having targetted enticements for people to enter a given field that is under-served isn't a bad thing.

From an objective setting, all opinions are equal, though truth (objective truth) may be closer represented by one side or another. But, since we're all subjective beings, all opinions are intrinsically equal. One's opinion of will always be weighted higher than those given by others when considering an anonymous setting like internet chat boards suck as slashdot.

Specifically to my note, saying that candy crush isn't a game is like saying hop scotch or hoola hoop aren't games either. Why not say Call of Duty isn't a game, its a killing simulator. All these terms are subjectivly asserted by people, and the fact that multiple people differ in terms of their meaning is nothing new. Everyone is welcome to their opinion, and in a case like this, probably everyone is right (in their own mind).

As someone who's played games since the NES, blah blah blah and still invests hundreds of dollars every few years on updated gaming rigs, I could give a flying fuck about what someone says about anti-social troglodites who deserve all the bad press that they get. I'm not happy that I've been lumped in with 'all the crap' personalities that go along with it, but fuck it. Its an editorial and maybe not a specifically good one. I ignore them and read meaty articles. If a site doesn't have good meaty articles on things that I care about, I move on. I don't bitch and whine and force boycott ads so that others who may very well enjoy the site are deprived because they financially incentivise it.

I hate fox news, and I think they're a bunch of idiot blow hards. Do I go to their advertisers mass boycott style to have their 'right' to talk about idotic subnects pulled from the airs? No, let them have their platform, because if we start pulling down all the platforms, there won't be any left that you agree with either.

Or more relavantly, you're not utilizing any more performance out of your computer to improve your productivity (or enjoyment factor) and you are right now. Much of this is the shifting of complexity into online services. If you take away the internet, your computer becomes significantly worse than it was. Google Maps pretty much killed every desktop mapping software. Desktop mapping software could have been wasting those countless cycles running them, but instead Google does the heavy lifting for the benefit of allowing your PC to sit mostly idle. See countless other examples. Once you stop needing computing cycles locally, why would you upgrade your system (you being anyone/company/institution)?

That said as an avid gamer, I still upgrade my video card every couple years to the best mid-range option I can justify because I do enjoy my toys, but its a luxury and serves little productivity boost. As a company, the only significant justifications for upgrades are TCO, retention, and reducing drag on business process.

- TCO is obvious, cheaper is better.
- Rentention is basically: If I upgrade this PC to "some better configuration", will my workforce be more likely to stay with the company. Its a concept that business planners basically never care about, and only begrudgingly accept when managers come to them crying about lost resources.
- Business process drag is another sore spot which businesses often do care about, but can never justify cost wise (because it generally costs a small fortune to do). Getting better software / hardware services to better serve your changing business is great, but it also costs a lot of dollars. So much, that a VERY well presented business plan has to sell it. This is also why COBOL mainframes walk the earth to this day. Why upgrade when what we have now is 'good enough' and the upgrade costs at the very least several million dollars?

There's no reason why an OS needs to be any larger than it is. Let the market add value to a cornerstone product. There's no reason that the Linux kernel should ever take up a gig of ram because, hey lets throw more boiler plate into it.

Microsoft has one job with Windows, and that's to make the best application shell possible for almost every possible desktop need. I think they've done a pretty good job at it, though they've fucked their UI core so badly time and time again, it feels like they're just re-arranging chairs to justify the upgrade cost.