No, it's really not useful. It's overhead. It takes more effort to maintain such a formal interface than to have people simply consume JSON as they will. And often the parts of the system that are supposed to process those formal definitions fail. All around just a horrible block to getting things working the way you like.

Couldn't disagree more. Frameworks and protocols are meant to make life easier. What I see with many implementations based on REST are frameworks that, through the lack of a published schema, encourage half-baked, undocumented APIs that often result in developer headaches and lost time. Personally, I think we can do much better.

Ignore all concerns but scalability, and REST becomes far more preferrable than SOAP. The overhead of XML -- usually an order of magnitude in data size -- can be a huge, undesirable impact. That said, there's one aspect of SOAP that popular REST specs are missing: a definition language. With the help of the WSDL, SOAP gained cross-platform client generation and type safety. REST protocols would do well to leverage this concept, at least for invocation parameter definitions. In most cases, REST result messages are encoded in JSON, where a Javascript interpreter for parsing and object model translation can be leveraged. But even then, having a documented result schema would be a huge improvement over forcing developers to inspect result sets at runtime to divine structure and content.

But, back on topic, having evaluated OAuth 2.0, I agree with Hammer's assessment. It's not a protocol, and the inability of this team to produce a viable solution will only lead to fragmentation and the failure of OAuth.

Kazakhstan *does* have superior potassium.

The WSJ and Fox News are both are owned by Rupert Murdoch. In effect, the WSJ is Fox News.

Those rights have a cost, and consequences. When corporations can serve time in prison, or be drafted into military service, then I think you might have an argument.

I guess we'll see. If Brazil's courts hold to the current ruling, that's not only a 2 billion dollar dent in their bottom line, it will set a precedent that other countries will surely be interested in following. And the very fact that there is a very public court case settling this is a clear indication that bribery is not as an effective strategy as you depict.

Never said it was a "full solution" (strawman), and if you read my post, I already mentioned logistics. To assert that temporary, regional, socio-political causes are more important than long-term, global trends doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but most of the arguments I've seen against GM seem rather irrational and fear based.

Any time you alter a living organism, either by cross breeding species through germination, or by systematically constructing genetic sequences and injecting them, you're taking a risk.

My points are:

1. 1. GM as a technology, should not be judged solely by how Monsanto uses it.
2. 2. GM as a technology, should not be judged as a whole by any given application. Rather, each application should be judged on its merits alone.
3. 3. GM as a technology is an important tool to how we approach the problems that we will face in feeding the population should both growth and climate trends persist. This is a problem that will only grow more critical as the years pass. GM is not the sole answer, but it should be part of the greater solution.

Here are just a few:

Nature

National Academies

And to be balanced:

Guardian UK

(Note that the debate against focused on the logistical causes for food shortages, arguments that ignore current population and climate trends and focus on socio-political conflicts at specific geographic regions)

If trends continue, populations will grow, fresh water supplies will decrease, and deserts will take over a greater percentage of our landmass. While GM won't be the key to solving every problem, I have seen nothing that refutes its worth as a tool. Furthermore, if you look at traditional means of genetic modification, what some refer to as "organic methods", the net result is the same: the genetic code of an organism is altered to achieve specific properties. Current GM techniques simply allow much greater latitude. I suggest that the debate focus not on the means of alteration, but on the risk-reward profile of a given product. Introducing a pesticide into the very structure of a plant may not have been in the best interests of humanity. Engineering drought resistance, on the other hand, will have a much greater benefit with perhaps much less risk.

Monsanto needs to rethink their business model. While some may have emotionally based reactions toward GM in general, the consensus is that it's an essential tool in the effort to feed the world's growing population. In order to continue, Monsanto needs to stop thinking in terms of genetics as intellectual property, and being paid for wherever their genomes spread. Instead, they need to focus on their relationship with the farmer, and making that relationship essential enough to pay for on a yearly basis. Aside from the product of seed, there are a wide number of services that Monsanto can and should be providing to farmers to help ensure that yields remain high as well as managing business and ecological concerns. Instead of alienating, they should be making themselves as useful as possible.

How ever could the parent post rate a 4?

We have a healthy run of innovation ahead of us for solar. If the historical rates continue (as they have for the last 30 years) solar will become the power source of choice not because of subsidies or green concerns. It will simply be the cheapest, most profitable option, by far -- cheaper than oil, coal, natural gas, or nuclear. Add portable, scalable from the individual up to entire regions, reliable, and clean, and you have an easy choice.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/03/16/smaller-cheaper-faster-does-moores-law-apply-to-solar-cells/

It really does pay to do your research.

A comment forum commenting on comments about comments.