After my initial tests, I must say that ReFS is incredible advangement. ReFS supports named streams, object IDs, short names, compression, file level encryption (EFS), user data transactions, sparse, hard-links, extended attributes and quotas. It is basically all the best filesystems compiled into one.

Not only is this good for Windows system, but overall network architecture.

What about if you stopped stalking me? Regarding the story, I have no opinion about this.

SilverLight. They technology behind it stunning. You can also use C# to developed. For video sites there's also a HUGE difference compared to flash - with SilverLight the client and server will adjust to the available bandwidth the user has.. in flash this would just show up the loading icon and stop playing. SilverLight is technically much better than Flash.

What? Do you honestly think no other country could have created those? For example we had multiple local Facebook equivalents since like the 90's. Widely used in my country too, with almost all teens and young adults being on those services. Similarly there was search engines, in fact in larger countries they even to this day dominate Google (In Russia Yandex, in China Baidu and in South Korea Naver)

But that xkcd is exactly what Google is doing - creating yet another standard on the pile of old ones instead of doing it together with other browser makers.

But why would anyone start to use this? Google has a huge problem with quickly abandoning projects. They just throw something at wall and see if it sticks. There's no point to start learning and using something that will be dead soon. On top of that something being licensed under BSD license is a moot point if it's Google that dictates the whole "standard" without possibility of other browser makers to voice their opinions. This is why we have W3C and other standard consortium's - so that companies can work out the standard together.

The same problem that there would be with lots of people if Microsoft started suddenly introducing their own "standards" again. There's still some issues because of all that bs 10 years ago, but now it has almost gone away. There really isn't any need to broke the web again. And how to create something better? Work out a standard of it. Don't just create it, but ask others if they have some opinions and make it with others so that they can contribute their opinions too.

As a web developer and after all the nuisance old IE's gave me and other web developers back in the day, this is really what's stupid with Chromium and Google's approach. They're mimicking the old Microsoft here - make your own "standards" and break the web by making features and sites that only work Google's browser. I seriously thought we would had been past that and the old IE's were the last browsers that didn't adhere to standards. IE9 is now fully standards compliant, and what does Google do? Oh yes, break the web AGAIN.

This isn't the only time they're introduced non-standards compliant features, either. Another example is NaCl, or Native Client, which tries to mimic Microsoft's ActiveX, and again, only works in Chrome. But with all the security headaches. It seems like Google is going out of it's way to copy all the stupid mistakes Microsoft made. I guess Google is at the same point now than Microsoft was back then - antitrust issues, breaking web standards and constant flow of news of how they're done wrong again. It's like Microsoft all again.

This is a stupid question. Of course you are going to buy product that is ready to do what you want. Writing custom code is always hundreds of times more costly. These commercial products can sell them cheaper because they sell thousands, even millions of them. But if you need someone to write that code for you (which you will be doing regardless of putting it open source), it will cost.

So take the product that is required to get the job done, right now. Don't waste the money on getting some expensive coders on other product. You would also have headaches with testing and bugs. All that is done for you with MSSQL. Take it.

No. Facebook will compile the mentions of the U.S. candidates. Then Facebook's data team will use automated software tools to do the statistics. These statistics are given to Politico, not the actual messages.

That is entirely false. Facebook is not giving Politico any private messages. They will run the statistics tools themselves.

No they aren't. Summary is just badly worded. Facebook will not share any messages with anyone, they will run the statistics tools themselves. Read the announcement by Facebook, where they clearly state that. Politico will not get the messages.

Yes, the summary is badly worded. Facebook themselves clearly say that it is Facebook who will run the statistics software.

No, that's only what the summary is claiming. How unsurprising that it is wrong. Read the announcement by Facebook