The fact that Apple has to maintain internals using Objective-C does not conflict with the fact that they're pushing platform developers to use Swift. There are pieces of Apple's stack written in C, C++, and probably even other languages as well, seeing as the vast majority of their code base comes from open source.

Of course Apple hasn't said Objective-C is a dead end. There would be a revolt and a mass fleeing from the platform if they did that.

But they sure as hell aren't encouraging people to stay on Objective-C instead of moving to Swift.

Are you sure you're on the same internet as the rest of us? I've read several articles and summaries (including on Slashdot) that have made it clear Apple wants people to use Swift.

Oh, wait. Never mind. Apple person. You don't deal with the same reality as the rest of the world.

Yahoo is already dead, and just can't accept the fact.

Over a year ago, they pushed an unholy abortion of an email interface that takes over 2 MINUTES to load on a 6.5 megabit link.

Now they've pushed an interface for their main news page that doesn't even render or refresh properly with Iceweasel/Debian.

While other sites are developing slick HTML5 interfaces, Yahoo seems hell-bent on creating the most UNUSABLE interfaces to hit the web since the days of AOL.

Quite frankly, when they die, it will be "good riddance" to the eyesore that Yahoo has become.

Apple has made it clear their development future lies in Swift, not Objective-C.

That means you're choosing between a popular, well supported language and a dead end.

The choice should be obvious.

There's targetting a teen audience and then there's targetting an elementary school audience...

This kind of abuse is why the latest round of "anti-terrorism" legislation from the Conservative jackboots who currently run our country needs more oversight. Having one person in charge of the oversight is just rife with the potential for sweeping issues under the rug and failure to detect problems.

I firmly believe that a committee of at least three politicians and one "specialist" should be overseeing all of these Canadian privacy-related issues, regardless of "national security" issues -- one from each of the major parties. (The only reason I don't say four is May is a whackjob and there are no other Green Party members of parliament -- that woman isn't qualified to oversee lunch.)

The Abrams movies are action movie fluff. Nothing more, nothing less. The characters are "Star Trek" in name only, and an insult to every single Star Trek series or movie that came before them.

The first of Abrams movies, I thought "Well, it's just a start. They've got to get their legs under them."

But when Kirk lost the Enterprise and then gained it back in less than 10 minutes in the second movie, I shut it off. I've never watched it. I refuse to watch such an insulting piece of drek that thinks someone is going to be given a trillion dollar starship just because they asked after having had it taken away for breaking the law.

I presume there is going to be another Abrams movie soon enough. I won't bother watching that, either.

Watching the Abrams movies is like watching the first three "Star Wars" movies after having seen the original trilogy. It's painful. It's insulting. It's degrading. And it feels like it's marketed to pre-teens, not people who think.

Ah, yes, my ISP with over 25 years experience servicing hundreds of thousands of customers with over five million email addresses clearly doesn't know what they're doing.

It couldn't possibly be that the people behind the phishing attacks are custom-crafting the address chains in the fake "delivery failure" messages. Oh, no, it's clearly my ISP at fault because this is the only time this has happened in over 15 years of using them.

I sure hope you aren't responsible for securing anything more important than your home PC...

That same conversation has been around since since the first saboteurs threw their shoes into the gears of factory equipment.

The answer has never changed: society will evolve to a communist one because it has no choice if it's to avoid mass revolts and warfare.

You have only to look to the inner cities of North America to see the unrest and riots that have already started over trigger-issues such as a citizen being shot by police. Those riots aren't just over the deaths; they're an expression of people's frustration with "the system."

No matter what the DE, the people who use it always want it to be the default for their distro.

What is so damned hard about doing "apt-get install de-of-choice"?

At the beginning of last week, I saw a number of fake emails "returned" to my ISP email account. A day or two later, I received a phishing email requesting me to change my password for that email account.

Today, someone tried the same thing for my Microsoft account.

It's more creative than usual, but it is still just a phishing attack, and you can easily spot it by the fake URLs in the phishing emails.

The new TLDs are a cash grab and nothing more. Not only for ICANN, but for every company that manages to buy up a gTLD.

Basically, the people buying up these gTLDs are hoping to cash in on companies wanting to register .searchterm domains. Which, in my books, is nonsense. I don't trust any of these new domains to be anything but spam traps and phishing expeditions. Given the options in search results, I would always go to the .com, .org, or .net address over a gTLD.

I'd think using pen/stylus tablets to scribble diagrams and then emailing or messaging those amongst the team members would be about as good as you can get, unless you can find a software package that would let the people share a drawing space using individual tablets. I've long wanted to get one of the Samsung tablets just for that purpose.

More like "teenage rage." I do not believe for a second that someone with such poor communication skills is a professional programmer whose users give a whit about the security of their laptops.

Given that iOS and Android can and do encrypt user data now, and that web device communications encryption is largely a question of whether a site uses SSL/HTTPS, what is the distinguishing feature of these phones that would make them marketable?

To me it looks like pure marketing hype, not a real benefit compared to other devices now that they've started using encryption.

The real legislation is only 20 pages; the other 280 are describing the pork-barrel projects and legislation.