What's relevant for learning to program might not correspond to what's currently being used.

Teach a man code a a language, and he's relevant to a small market. Teach a man to program, and he owns them all.

The point was to provide a sandbox, among other things. That freed up a lot of issues with security (although we know how that story ended) and issues with operating systems.

COBOL was never cool, either, but is still in use in enterprises.

For learning the craft, they should use what's best to teach it, not necessarily what's relevant at the time (unless it's a job school).

You only need to learn one oo procedure based language. All others are just a book exercise.

One assembly language and how compilers translate stuff.

And then you should also learn scheme.

That will handle basically everything, reducing it to a book learning experiment.

Maybe so it can work on those paralyzed from a spinal injury?

I wondered the same thing.

It has nothing to do with ownership. It has everything to do with creation and distribution of the new copies.

The copyright holder cannot tell you what you can do with the copies once legally obtained. There is no control of downstream use, barring copying.

It is a monopoly in every sense of the word, and furthermore, that's the correct word to use.

The proper phrase from that movie would be "this is red 5, I'm going in" or perhaps "Chewie get us out of here!"

Tesuji is clearly the best, especially delivered at high volume.

Had to scroll through comments to see if anyone had mentioned it.

At this point, hitting a TSA security line, rather than trying to pass through it, or just skipping that entirely and turning a good, honest, domestically available, AR-15 on a little-league crowd somewhere in Iowa would be at least as scary and way easier...

I concur. Everyone is upset about the imagery from the boston marathon, and it was downright scary. Now imagine if those two people had AR-15s and a backpack full of ammo instead, especially if they started at opposite ends of a block and worked their way in.

The imagery wouldn't be as scary as limbs blown off, but far, far more people would've died.

Here's a news article on a blog by someone who worked there, which pretty much verifies what you're saying.

Apple's iphone doesn't have a removable battery because (they say) it would take extra packaging, and that would reduce the size of the actual battery. Having taken one of those things apart, I don't think they're being sneaky... it looks true and makes for a far more solid, self-contained product without worries of battery doors falling off.

Does your first paragraph apply to your second paragraph?
Non-removable batteries in phones is not necessarily sneaky or tricky, especially if they provide a painless battery replacement service. ifixit does a breakdown, and says the battery is extremely difficult to replace by the end user, which could imply planned obsolescence. But phones generally go obsolete after 2-5 years anyway as the tech increases, especially with smartphones, and the battery will last that long (although it doesn't have terrific battery life as it is).

If you have actual data to add, e.g. their justification (right or wrong), then post it. Otherwise, add some value with your whiny emotional objection, or else piss off. Coward.

I ran into this issue when my iPhone was downloading email and roaming.

ATT billed me $500 and I wouldn't pay it. They tried to blame Apple and I informed them that the iPhone was their issue, too, as they were the only carrier for it. As it turns out, customer service is really collections, and we had a fine yelling match. Finally the lady agreed to send it up the line, and I had her read me exactly what she was going to send, since she did not have my interests at heart.

They did reverse the charges, and apple added the disable roaming option.

That's a good link, and shows that their grammar wasn't perfect. It is, however, a "style" book and discusses how to read n write good like and common misused words; it isn't strictly a grammar book.

One of the biggest complaints I normally see is that S&W is too pedantic, and the claim that English is a living language and changes, and that White screwed up the language when it was published and adopted by so many universities. But, that very claim that it's living and morphable is the same thing they're annoyed with (or rather, "with which they are annoyed"). S&W codified things, to make the language a little more understandable and less willy-nilly for proper writing. They changed it (by deprecating many poor or ambiguous uses) and to most detractors, this is the problem... changing a living language.

I don't see it as a problem.

I'm gazing across my bookshelf full of O Reilly books, Knuth's series, TCP/IP Illustrated, and others... but the most important books are more mundane:

Godel Escher Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid, and Alice in Wonderland

Both of these books encompass the thinking and mindset which will make you a better programmer by planting the seed of logic, states, and recursion, and nourishing the hell out of it. It will massage the pathways to make someone actually want to be a programmer.