Depends on your accent. I get about 98% recognition. I still don't use it because its easier to type/swype.

No, they just didn't allow any checkins at all as they were "original research".

Never had to walk a tree? Recursion is usually the best solution, unless you're just walking down 1 branch. It's not a frequently used technique, but it's definitely used.

Because websites aren't available offline, are much less responsive, have security and privacy issues, provide worse UX, and are less integrated with the hardware and system so can't provide polish that other apps can (such as sound muting if the user picks up the phone). Websites are ok if your purpose is to get up to date information, but they're a poor replacement for a real app.

Yeah- now in reality that doesn't happen. The whole lone programmer thing is almost completely a myth- pretty much all non-trivial programs are worked on by a team. At the absolute best you'll get someone who comes up with a new algorithm to do something by himself, but even then it will be one part of a larger whole that will need to be worked on by the full team.

Both. But in this case I meant the second one. In reality Lisp is dead as a doornail, and the rest of the functional languages with it.

No, they don't. But a lot of academics like to think they do.

Depends on your definition of harm. The money the people had to spend doesn't disappear- it gets spent in other ways. Many of those other ways will be local businesses, which will improve the local economy. The long term effect may be positive. Especially with software that can just be pirated.

Sorry, you're wrong. By your definition, this post is programming because I'm encoding commands for what should be displayed on screen in the form of ascii commands. HTML and CSS are not programming, they're design.

He's making sites from scratch without programming because HTML isn't programming. Most small business/personal websites require little to no work even at the javascript level. He isn't talking about writing a blog, he's talking about a dozen screens for a restaurant with their location, menu, and a few pictures. Which still probably shouldn't be done by hand anymore unless its a personal for fun project.

And that's stock, not cash. I don't think even Google has 200B cash sitting around. For the sale to go through they'd have to give stock, and at a premium. Realistically you'd see FB owning 35-50% of the new company in an all stock deal. Just not feasible.

I doubt FB would take that offer, and I'm not entirely sure Apple actually could physically make it. But ignoring that it would be the worst possible merger you can imagine. There are no 2 more polar opposite cultures in the valley than those two.

Have you see FB's market cap? I'm pretty sure they don't.

It would get rid of the only piece of functionality worth having. The screen was tiny, hard to see, impeded your normal vision, and more or less utterly sucked. It couldn't be interacted with and couldn't take text input well. The only interesting thing about the device was the camera and what you could do with it in the realm of computer vision. I'd rather lose the screen and have a wearable camera with bluetooth to my phone for display and processing. I already have a far superior screen in my pocket and I can perform real input on it. The screen was useless.

People don't care about support. Big business might, but small business and individuals only care about if the computer runs and runs fast enough to not be annoying.