STEM is about organizing ones thoughts for clarity, something "humanities" strives to do, and in trying, often misses the mark by a wide berth.
Frankly, more and more STEM degrees miss the mark by a wide berth as well. We call people who had the misfortune to graduate from such a university "stack overflow programmers."
That's only true if you see education's function as solely to prepare you for a specific vocation.
OS/2 failed because:
It was more expensive.
It had higher hardware requirements.
It wasn't as compatible with existing software especially with DOS games.
It wasn't as compatible with 3rd party hardware.
I don't think the advertising had much to do with it at all.
"Apple does the same thing with their products they are trying to push."
um... maybe sometimes... but many signature apple commercials and ads do not show the product:
You might remember a few years of these?
https://www.youtube.com/result...
Or maybe these ipod commercials? from 2004 to 2008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Oh that's all ancient history. You meant something recent right?
Like 2015. Look at how easy it is to use, and all the new features:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'd say reality doesn't really sync up with your argument here.
If MS carries through with open-sourcing all of the C#/.NET stuff, it will be a great ecosystem. I'd love to write C# for Linux server back-end stuff, without being constrained to some subest of the language, and with full ".NET native" compiler support (or distribution support for the
I've found that programmers often get themselves in trouble by trying to be "clever", which often makes for horribly unintuitive or unnecessarily complex systems.
Unless you're Mel, in which case you make awesomely unintuitive and necessarily complex systems to save one or two clock cycles in the inner loop, and become a legend.
You're mixing income tax with consumption tax. If you want to tax income, tax income. But if we're taxing consumption, then those who consume more pay more than those who consume less, and those who consume least because they have the least to spend pay the least in taxes because of the baseline exemption. The upper middle class guy who's busting his butt to pay off his student loans, and who saves as much as he can, is not going to pay a disproportionate amount in taxes. (Or are we going to tax his student loan payments as consumption, even though he paid consumption tax while living on those loans? What about deposits in a savings account, or stock purchases? If we're going to do that, we may as well just call it an income tax, because that's what it is.)
If he pays off his student loans and still chooses to live modestly, he continues to pay a low tax rate. If he instead decides to start living large, then he'll start paying more in taxes. Either way, he essentially chooses his tax bracket, because he chooses every day what to buy, and how much to spend on it. This is especially true if we're giving him a front-loaded exemption on expected costs for rent and groceries. In other words, we're not taxing him for living, eating, and having shelter, and we're not taxing him for working and earning money. We're taxing whatever life style he chooses above and beyond the baseline. This tax is progressive in that people who choose to live modestly or who cannot afford to live extravagantly pay very little in taxes. Those who are able and choose to live extravagantly pay much more in taxes. Yes, you could have a billionaire who pays no taxes because he chooses to live in an efficiency and drive an '86 Yugo. That's only a problem if you believe that the government owns all income, and is naturally entitled to its "fair share," because class warfare or whatever. I prefer the tax theory of take from people the very least necessary for government to function. And I suspect there would be very few billionaires living tax free under this system, because it has an actual lifestyle cost to them. The only cost now for billionaires to live tax-free is they pay their accountants and lawyers $900/hour to get creative with shell entities.
Just how hard is it to render HTML?
Hard. If you don't render the page exactly like other browsers, and the web pages 'break' in your browser as a result, then no one will use your browser. The result is you need pixel-perfect rendering of a standard that was designed specifically to not allow pixel-perfect rendering. And of course, there are multiple HTML standards......
If you take a whizbang feature from Java and use it in Python, you're more likely to be sued by Oracle than doing the equivalent getting you sued by Microsoft.
Except that Java is covered under the GPL which would forbid that. Oracle can still be dicks about it but the Oracle - Google case, the lower court ruled for Google. It was remanded for reconsideration back to the lower court. The other difference is that Sun open sourced Java and Jonathan Schwartz (former Sun CEO) did not think that Google did anything wrong. It was Oracle who later bought Sun that re-interpreted what they would allow.
In this case MS from the beginning has issues with claiming
The trouble with nuclear, at least in America, is that it's damn near impossible to keep it safe.
Actually, nothing could be further from the truth WRT new reactors. In POF, TransAtomic's molten salt reactor is impossible to melt down. Just like pebble reactors, heat makes the fuel become self-regulating.
In fact, the SMARTEST thing that America can do, is push for multiple companies to develop these and replace the OLD reactors with these new ones. They can use the spent fuel that is simply sitting on-site and burn it for the next 100 years. Likewise, we can use new thorium reactors to replace coal plants, rather than switching to nat gas.
Yes, there is a difference between open source and free. But you completely missed the point in that the authors are complaining that "Open Source"
For example, if there was a library that I wanted to port from
Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker
