You're thinking of criminal law, this is about civil law (money). You don't have to do something illegal to get sued: e.g. the parking break on your car failing and hitting someone.

Might appear "remarkably consistent" in the graph you posted, but only because their market share is so small compared to Android. They fell from 20% in 1212 to 15% in 2013, 2014. Which is a 20% decline, and not what a normal person would call consistent. It only appears small on the graph due to the fact that Android has over 80% of the market, and 5% is minuscule compared to that.

Those ratings for those engines are mostly worthless. They only apply to the specific machine in a specific configuration that competed, and the computer was allowed to manage its own clock. Here, analysis was limited to two seconds per move, and likely on very low end hardware and memory compared to the machines that are rated. Just upgrading the hardware for Crafty would close the rating gap at least some. And you'd be very hard pressed to say ratings for full games played at normal time controls still translates that accurately to 2 secs per move without all that dedicated RAM, CPU, and storage.

The main reason so many people support the Arduino project is because it is open, and anyone can make clones. Fortunately, they don't seem to be complaining, and trying to steer people away from clones. But that's what happened with the MakerBot. Bre Pettis capitalized on a lot of people's work promoting his platform under the assumption that it was open, and always would be. Then Bre started complaining when people actually started making clones, and closed everything up. I hope that never happens to the Arduino, but history tells me it eventually will.

Video cameras all have very low resolution compared to a still camera, so don't try to use a video camera to get a good quality still photo. Almost all still cameras today support Picture Transfer Protocol (PTP). If there's already a computer on the site, it's as simple as plugging it in and loading some free software. If not, you can add one or something like a Raspberry Pi if you're comfortable with that sort of thing. There are also things like the Eye-Fi cards that use WiFi to transfer files automatically. There's probably a dozen other ways to solve it too, I think you've just locked yourself into the idea of using a video camera for no good reason, and that's why you haven't been able to find an acceptable solution.

Actually, no rules are imposed automatically, it's up to the players to enforce them. It's only when both players agree to egregiously refuse to follow the rules that a TD can intervene. The fact that a lot of software automatically enforces things like valid moves is just a convenience to the TD and players. In a rated over the board game, anytime a player wants to make a claim they are supposed to pause the clock and go get a TD, which is hard or even impossible where there is no real TD.

Land sharks only attack when answering the door, so you are actually better off just sitting down.

Source?

The idea that they can be simply replaced if they do things we don't like is only true in an efficient and fair election system. Most candidates never state where they stand on most issues, and make sure the public never gets a chance to challenge them on any issue beyond asking single question. So you wouldn't know who to vote for to begin with, even if you assume both candidates were actually in opposition on the topic.

Running yourself won't help as money is required to get your word out, and our voting system only works with two parties.

Places with a lot of activity like this one migh5 have a lot of stars capable of supporting life. Unfortunatley they also have a lot of debris, that'll probably wipe out any life before it gets very advanced. Places to look for life are usually much less active.

I'm not totally familiar with the new manned vehichle, but the primary idea was to send up the people on one rocket and all of the other cargo on another. So the only reason it couldn't service the Hubble would be if it's not powerful enough to get people there.

It looked like electrons vibrating an a CCD. Which is not verry interesting, so they used that data to produce colors on a screen.

I'm always baffled by people who think they know what an acceptable level of processing is. Yes, there are ethical concerns when someone is trying to deliberately be deceptive, but all images are heavilly processed from their original form. That's true whether it's digital or film, or whatever comes next.

Good information doesn't necessarily sell unfortunatley. I'm willing to bet the WSJ editors have a much better understanding of what sells, and are activley using on that information. People looking for good, accurate information will probably get access to it for free.

It's pretty amazing how little attention proportional representation gets in the us. Too many people would rather argue about things they'll never agree on, than focus on things like proportional representation, which pretty much everyone would agree on (as demonstrated by almost every other democratic country on Earth).

Just in the past month or so I decided to make the jump and learn iOS programming. My experience is not at all similar to yours in that I have a CS degree and have been a full-time programmer since '94, and have been developing Android apps for over a year, and Blackberry apps before that, and PalmOS before that. Had I known Apple was in the middle of a language switch, I would have put it off a lot longer. It should be obvious that the one to learn is whichever one will win out in the end. There is no since in learning a language that will never take off, nor in learning a language that is being phased out.

So your goal is to predict which one will win. And, statistically speaking, the odds aren't in Swift's favor as almost all new languages fail. Granted, most of those don't have the power of a company like Apple behind it, but VBScript is one example that failed to catch on with an even more powerful company behind it. Microsoft had tried and failed several times to introduce VBScript in different environments. So, just because Apple wants it to succeed, and says it's the "new thing" in their documentation, doesn't mean it's going to. On the contrary, JavaScript is a good example of a language that likely would have failed, but has been immensely successful solely due to Netscape's adoption of it. So, which language is better really won't matter as far as which one wins in the end.

My current take on Swift is that it's too difficult to find working examples on how to call the framework libraries. That's not to say they don't exist, I just haven't been able to find them. Most of what you find on Google today is from the beta versions of Swift, and they're not syntactically compatible with the current version. It's certainly possible to figure it out yourself, but takes quite a bit of time. So the question boils down to: "If Swift wins, will you waste more time trying to figure out Swift today, or will it be more efficient to learn Objective-C today and switch to Swift after it's won?". IMHO, Objective-C is the answer today, and if you combine it with the fact that Swift will likely fail just by playing the odds, then Objective-C is the clear winner. If Swift wins, you'll likely spend a lot less time learning it later than you will spend learning Objective-C today.

Reading the comments above, there's obviously no shortage of people who think they absolutely know which language is the future, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't know. You'll have to hedge your bets they best you can. But if I were a betting man, I'd say Swift will fail as it's got several serious strikes against it:
- Most new languages and platforms fail
- It's a proprietary language with only one use case.
- The one use case it has (iOS) is declining in market share.
- The launch appears to have been botched with few sources of documentation available on how to actually use it for iOS programming.
- The language has already been polluted by the beta versions, leaving newcomers with no way to discern from the old and the new.
- Apps in the App Store are no longer the cash cow they once were, reducing the benefit for people to spend time learning it.
- Since iOS is declining, even if Swift wins the iOS language war, it's possible it won't be relevant.
- For existing programmers, there is no economic benefit to switching to Swift
- Swift brings no new functionality to the table, so there's no reason to switch to it other than Apple wants you to.