The article summary is completely wrong -- it mentions "while you're in coverage", to mean that you can leave the device connected to the network.

But from TFA: "Plane passengers will be allowed to use electronic devices weighing less than a kilogram in offline mode from gate to gate without needing to turn them off. The devices will need to remain in flight mode and cannot be used for calls, text or data, however."

So, all this really does is confirm the findings that the FAA had -- small devices are reasonable to use in airplane mode in all phases of flight.

Qt is far easier to use and more elegant than .NET and other Microsoft solutions. The number of Windows-only apps leverage Qt is amazing. Your choice of desktop OS does not limit your choice of application development frameworks.

Android and iOS)are weird platforms because they treat all non-native toolits as second class citizens. You are EXPECTED to use Android/iOS APIs for everything. The idea that people might write apps in a non-Google/non-Apple framework simply did not occur to them. They are too busy trying to reinvent the world to bother with anything that is not invented in the hallowed halls of the Goolgeplex or Arcology.

"weird dialect of C++98" - WTF? What is this dialect you speak of? Do you need to pass --weird to G++ to get it to compile? Of course not! It's using the same C++ every other C++ app in the world is using. Both C++98 and C++11 are supported. It doesn't REQUIRE you to use C++11, but that is a benefit not a drawback.

"it has its own object model" - Of course it does, that's because C++ does not have one of its own. QObject is there to provide for the introspection that C++ lacks. Once you have that introspection you can start communicating with other objects. I fail to understand why this is a disadvantage in your eyes.

"networking stack" - Of course. Why should it not? It is an cross-platform application framework.

"container library" - When Qt began the STL was fragmented, not standardized, and poorly supported. Yet containers are useful. Qt kept them around because they turned out to be better than the STL containers. They're a balance between raw performance and the "bloat" of pure templatized containers. Externally they end up being 100% compatible with the STL.

"threading library" - It was only extremely recent that C++ got its own threading, and it's just very low level threading. Qt threading provides a nice usable wrapper around threads (which are native C++ threads underneath if built with C++11), and the ability to easily communicate between threads with signals/slots.

"graphics primitive library" - Why not? Seriously, why not? Isnt't that the whole point of a GUI toolkit? Underneath it draws widgets using the native controls, if available, or uses its own if not. That's why the widgets look like native controls on Windows and Mac, because they ARE native controls! On X11 it will draw its own. It doesn't use Cairo, why should it use Cairo, who made Cairo king that we all have to bow down before it?

When it comes to the UI, objects are natural. Every C toolkit goes through hoops to provide you with objects of some kind. Motif, GTK, etc. So why not just use an object oriented language to begin with?

You don't have to use the dark corners of the language. Qt sticks to just the Object Oriented parts of C++, with just a tiny bit of templates. Not a functor in sight (unless you wander toward the totally optional Qt::Concurrent framework). Internally it uses all of the language, but as an API it provides just the object oriented subset.

The shareholders hired Elop. The shareholders kept Elop on. It will be the shareholders who approve the buyout. And it will be the shareholders who vote to reward Elop.

So yes the sharehodlers are getting the shaft, but they're asking for it. I don't understand the motivation behind bondage and dominance, but who am I to judge the shareholders' sexual proclivities?

At 29 you've barely learned how to shave.

Precisely! The price if a good is whatever the seller and buyer can agree on. The labour theory of value is wrong. The cost theory of value is wrong. Things are only worth what we think they are worth. There's stuff like marginal utility, supply and demand curves, etc., but they are just fancy ways of saying that something is only worth what someone will pay for it. Even that $200 textbook, if we didn't value the textbook more than $200 we wouldn't buy it, and would resort to alternatives instead.

p.s. Actually we're not paying high prices for textbooks, we're paying high prices for college courses to which textbooks are attached.

It's not about missing the point, it's about the how email actually works. It's not that this method doesn't work, it's that it's a complete and total non sequitur. It's like trying to hide your income from the IRS by endorsing all your paychecks in disappearing ink.

Too complicated. Just use a white font, they'll NEVER be able to read it!

As trivially as ROT13? Hah! Doesn't even need to be subverted at all! There is no encryption here, no cipher, not even obfuscation. This idea is so mindboggling stupid that I can't help but suspect the work of a Grandmaster Troll.

Then there's the part in the book where the architect blows the building up because they didn't follow his plans exactly. Apparently to Ayn Rand artistic sensibilities trumped property rights.

How is he denying freedom of speech to anyone? There's an entire internet to go post their garbage to.

Government is a special case because government gets to use violence against you. KDE can't prevent your from posting on any non-KDE blog, they can't arrest you, they can't throw you in jail, then can't shoot you if you resist, they can't torture you, etc. But government can. Even those warm fuzzy governments that wring their hands and feel your pain.

It's not censorship if KDE doesn't provide you with a microphone. Sheesh. Enough with the whiny gimme attitude.

Freedom of speech does not mean I must provide you with a microphone. Moderating forums and mailing lists is not censorship.