Than you don't really know much about UI development.

Qt is about as horrible as you can get in every aspect. Its not native, which sucks in every way. Its not UI native, its not UX native, its not native to devs of a particular platform, its pretty much different in everyway, none of which are particularly better other than being cross platform. If you think Qt has abstracted everything away from your for cross platform dev then you really aren't doing all that much with your apps. That doesn't mean you don't make great apps, but it does mean their guis are pretty simplistic (which is also a good thing).

What you think is so great about Qt is exactly why it sucks. Its mind numbing the number of people that look at all those things as good traits. Its like you utterly failed to grasp the idea that users of a system expect applications of that system to behave in a certain way and you're proud of the fact that you do everything possible to be counter-intuitive. Not just to the users, but other devs well since Qt pretty much lives in its own little obnoxious world.

Wow, you are so clever and original. No one has ever made such a witty remark as yours before.

NO IT DOESN'T. I REALLY wish people would stop saying these things.

Using traditional methods of propulsion to accelerate in normal space-time causes time dilation.

The formula entirely falls apart when you hit the speed of light which according to the formulas in question require infinite energy.

FULL STOP.

Leaving one location and arriving at another faster than light traveling through normal space does not require that you do exactly as specified above.

If you can avoid the acceleration portion, its a whole new ball game.

If you can avoid traveling in normal space-time, then you've just potentially solved the problem entirely.

Neither of these two things have been proven impossible, although very improbably for the former.

A blackhole is already not normal-space time, the formula in fact breaks down inside a black hole. A wormhole (which can mean any number of things) connecting two black holes? Thats pretty far from normal-space time and certainly, in theory, allows for things such as leaving point A and arriving at point B before the light traveling between the two does.

Light does not travel in time at all from its perspective.

You can't fly a 747 by shooting a jet of water from the top of it up into the sky, you can make it fly using all the other normal aerodynamic principles that keep us as happy fliers. Just because you know it won't work one way doesn't mean their isn't a way we haven't discovered yet to accomplish the same thing from a practical perspect, and you really should stop implying that FTL == Time Travel. The equations that produce that 'theory' break down at the speed of light, so you can't use them to make assumptions about what happens after that.

This guy seems to think the fact that his computer is usable is an exploit. He doesn't mention anything that isn't just documented and known as the 'way it works'.

Pretty much everything he talks about makes it clear he doesn't actually understand the features and how they actually work. Every comment he makes ... makes almost no practical sense. Its not technically incorrect, its just pointless and doesn't actually mean anything from a security perspective. Its like saying These makes are insecure; the sky is blue; and magically the second is supposed to backup the first.

A couple things to note:

It doesn't work on an iPhone, third party apps aren't allowed to steal information from you typically on iOS where as that is on by default on Android and its completely acceptable to steal your data.

iPhone owners typically purchase the phone AS a product. Android users typically ARE the product.

No one cares about the remaining 3 blackberry users or the 10 Windows Phones in the MS test lab.

Awe, cute, you're trying to show us how smart you are ... but you did just the opposite.

Let me help you:

I went to school in central Florida, widely accepted as a pretty shitty school system in relation to America, which in turn is considered to have a pretty shitty school system in relation to the rest of the civilized world ... yet, you some how managed to attend a school system that didn't bother to teach basic Earth Science in elementary school where everyone learned exactly this. Roots help break rocks into dirt by enlarging any crack they can find, ever so slightly, which allows more water in to do things like freeze and expand to break rock or wash dissolvable bits out.

Awe, now you're trying to be ultra-literal. This just makes you look like a douche, for reference. You know what they were saying or you're a complete and total moron without enough reading comprehension skills to qualify to participate in a slashdot discussion.

Are you really that stupid? It wasn't confusing, it was perfectly simple to understand, if you aren't trying to make it more complex than it is. Again, if this was difficult for you, you're reading the wrong web site, and so is anyone who modded you up.

Then he deserved the prize for shittiest route planner. I can track 5,000 miles in Florida if I drive the costline a couple times before actually heading to my destination. Just because the guy picked a horrible route doesn't make the state that large. Basically what you're saying is the guy drive A1A and I-95 from key west to the Georgia -Florida line ... THEN decided to cut west on A1A back to I-10 and took I-10 to someplace like Pensacola.

Yea, its possible, but its stupid. Its like driving from Atlanta to Boston ... via Chicago.

To drive over 1000 miles in florida, you have to intentionally take the long route, you can't do it by taking ANY optimal or near optimal route between ANY 2 points in the state.

Florida != Texas or Alaska

uhm, actually plist files are xml, with a schema definition and everything. They certainly aren't very compact as far as formats go, even on the watch.

Of course not. It'll just cease to exist in a few months, replaced by something that does.

Wow, you know nothing about what happened, do you? Are we really already to the point where people don't have any idea how 'locked down' the PC was when it first came out? We've already forgot? Oh, you misread a Wikipedia article ...

IBM fought tooth and nail to prevent Compaq from being able to sell generic 'PC's and they had to go to great lengths to emulate the IBM BIOS without actually using any code to avoid lawsuits.

IBM saying its 'open' does not mean what you think it means. It doesn't mean you can get the specs and information for free, or even for the same price as the last guy. IBM means 'open' as in they are 'open' to charge you whatever the fuck they want to allow you into their system. It was about as open as any game console now days.

This story is just a slashvertisement.

The story linked (now linked in the summary) is to a guy making silly ignorant statements about how the GAO is wrong but in such a vague way that I can safely say the guy making these silly comments is wrong. He's arrogantly implying that no aircraft can be hacked because they never make any mistakes and use separate systems and a special software device (thats not a firewall!) that acts as a firewall and doesn't let the two connected networks communicate with each other ...

Also he seems to think that engines 'breath' air, and that the air inside the cabin of an airliner is not at all isolated from the air that goes into the engines.

In short, the summary refers to an article written by someone that claims to be a security expert AND pilot while at the same time making incredibly stupidly inaccurate blanket statements that any useful security officer and certainly any pilot know are too broad and vague to be true or just flat out wrong.

There most certainly IS a firewall between the passengers and the engines on commercial jet aircraft, otherwise the people would die at 30k feet. The fact that he claims to be a pilot and then claims there is no separation between the cabin and exterior is just scary.

And claiming that this other special box ... that acts as a firewall ... but since they gave it another name, its not actually a firewall, so therefor its not possible to be hacked and bypassed.

The reality of it is, what the GAO said IS TRUE. IT IS possible that 'hackers' MIGHT be able to cross the network boundaries if they are physically connected, anyone who claims this is not true knows absolutely nothing about IT security or security on complex systems in general. You work really hard to prevent it, and make certain design decisions to make it hard to cross that gap, but the instant they are connected, you've created the possibility. You can't honestly claim that your network is 100% secure and impeneratble which is what this guy is trying to claim ... about aircraft that he's never had anything to do with, never seen, knows nothing about the internal operation of ... just because he's a pilot doesn't make him suddenly privy to private information internal to Airbus or Boeing.

Once again, I repeat, this is nothing but a shitty slashvertisement. They probably paid timothy to post it to the front page, which explains why it was done in such a hurry the first time and didn't even have a fucking link in it.

Without them for energy? Yes.

Fossil fuels are far more important as fertilizer and medicine than they are as energy products. We can, fairly easily, replace them as energy sources with alternatives that may be more expensive but are viable.

We don't have shit for a way to replace the fertilizer supply, which means we'd probably have a great dying due to starvation if we completely abandon fossil fuels.

Then of course theres all the medicines we make from oil. If the starvation dying doesn't get you, the lack of medical supplies is going to curb another large portion of our population.

If you consider that the C compiler itself uses assembly to make the basic operations work in the libraries, and that all C code is built on assembly libraries, then it makes the whole argument kind of silly, doesn't it?

ALL the kernel code is assembly on Linux and BSD, some of it is just raw assembly, and other bits of it are assembly encoded in "C".

The couple in that most languages and VMs are written in C ... as well as all the libraries that these things depend on to actually get something else done ... well then pretty much everything is reduced to assembly ...

Or not, since we can wait 5 years, see how other countries have done it, pick the best methods to manage it and move on.

Amazon will be happy to return its test program to the US at that point.

You do realize some of the reason countries are making it easier than the US is specifically to have the initial research done on their soil, not because they intend to stay the way they are, which will end when various things go wrong, like the Amazon team coming back drunk from a Friday lunch and flying into a school bus on its way home.

No you won't. Any decent "drone". Will just land or return to base if primary or secondary radio links are lost. If GPS lock is also lost, it will just land where it's at.

You aren't even a little bit clever and you clearly don't know enough about the state of drones to start making bullshit claims about making it crash. Even the basic OSS flight controllers are well beyond your abilities based on how easy you seem to think it is.

Just because you saw something on the Internet about Syria or Iran redirecting US MIlitary drones doesn't mean that's what actually happened.

All of my fully autonomous drones are not going to come down due to RFI, since RFI is so common place that they are designed to deal with it naturally, even without the threat of haxors. My radio links are digitally signed packet networks, you aren't pretending to be my radio transmitter though not encrypted so you could watch the data flow, it's pretty useless to you. If you confuse it with bad packets, it will just ignore you and stay on its preprogrammed flight plan or potential it's "radio signal lost" plan, which personall I just set to RTB.

No gps lock has the option to hold position and wait or just land immediately.

Really, we thought of people as clever as you probably well before you were born.