No, clearly not - that would be an unjustified extrapolation of an unwarranted generalization of a simplistic reading of the point under discussion.

While Mr Rosenberg claims that Go is distinguished by its approach to concurrency, his section 'The Essence of Go' is almost entirely devoted to the trivia of braces and semicolons. Yo won't learn anything about Go's approach to concurrency here.

I think the fact that Apple did not indicates that it did not think there was much chance of success, and was not, by then, expecting (or even much hoping) to ship with a sapphire screen.

My guess is that at some point Apple decided the new manufacturing technology was unlikely to work in their timescale, and was not going to make its plans dependent on it (I imagine this was shortly before it backed out of acquiring the manufacturing equipment.) At this point, GT became the party desperately seeking a deal, and Apple effectively said 'show us, and we will consider it.'

I believe some of that chip-making equipment is pretty expensive - I am surprised that its protection was not given as the primary benefit. Perhaps they already have a solution for that environment, and this is for basic facilities maintenance.

The child not only manipulates time as an abstract concept, but also demonstrates a theory of mind. AFAIK, no simulation has yet achieved a theory of mind.

The data apparently hasn't heard of the Jersey Turnpike - probably because of its laser-like focus on cities.

If you think it is unpleasant to have an incompetent boss at work, spare a thought for all the soldiers in WW1 whose bosses thought massive frontal assaults were the way to win.
 

This defense always comes up when cheating is the issue, and it is always wrong. The purpose of an examination is to determine if an individual understands the subject matter, and no argument how programming is done in practice alters the fact that a cheater has failed to demonstrate that he understands the subject matter (and has, in fact, provided good evidence that he does not.)

Furthermore, one should not be spending the time and money a degree from Duke costs, just to be a cut-and-paste coder - a semester at a community college should be enough, if you can't teach yourself. The purpose of a university education is to develop a thorough understanding of the subject matter in order to become the person who finds solutions to problems, rather than the people who copy them.

There is one other group harmed, and quite seriously, by widespread cheating: those who have worked hard and honestly for the best diploma they can both achieve and afford, but see it devalued to worthlessness because too many holders of the same diploma are cheaters, and incompetent.

In normal vision, we look at the same place from two slightly different directions. Furthermore, it is well-established that the neural 'wiring' for assimilating these two views into a single stereo image develops during childhood, in response to the stimuli. (I am not so sure about this, but I think this is also true for the wiring that controls the eye muscles and therefore the convergence of vision.) I am not a biologist, but I think there are grounds for concern here.

AmiMoJo makes a valid point (though not the most important one that could be made on the topic): the article's title is click bait.

1) Even assuming you are right, just because it 'only' sucks wouldn't lead me to think this issue can be disregarded. Dealing with credit card fraud while travelling, especially in a foreign country, is not something to shrug off.

2) At least in the UK, credit card companies have used the alleged security of EMV to transfer some of the risk to the cardholder (see http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sjm21... )

3) I don't think transferring the cost to the merchant is an acceptable solution. As explained in other posts here, the merchant who accepts the stolen funds is rarely the perpetrator of the fraud.

If that's the only way to use a NFC card safely, then having NFC on a card seems to be a pointless additional security risk.