Xojo (formerly RealStudio) is a visual basic-like language except that it's realy OOP (has nice things like interfaces and delegates for example) that compiles to programs that use native GUI widgets on Windows, Mac, and Linux. No, it's not as powerful as C/C++, but it's a lot easier/quicker.

It's biggest weakness (IMHO) is that it's developed by a small, private firm that seems resource constrained. This leads to some releases having real issues and it taking some time for those issues to be sorted. That can mostly be mitigated by only updating once you know the current version is quirk-free.

Xojo also has a decent plugin architecture/SDK so you can write "heavier things" in C if you need to. It also handles decalres against C libs pretty well.

Xojo's definitely worth taking a look at (again IMHO) if you really need to build cross-platform software (small business applications for example).

I had a similar thought, but the linked study indicates that it focused only on elective surgery, so I don't believe surgeries related to accident or recent injury were counted.

The paper seems to conclude that the weekend staff being smaller and less experienced may be the cause.

Is there really? Or does it just get a lot of play on the news? Where are the hard, independently-verified survey numbers on UK attitudes or US attitudes on illegal immigrants?

Sometimes I feel a bit like we're all being led by our collective nose by our media culture.

Wow. You totally nailed my intent there!! Good job!!

Or maybe I was just blowing off some steam in a public forum about an issue that frustrates me. See the difference??

Until I am PROVEN GUILTY of not being one. I don't have to "opt in" for what should be my no-questions-asked constitutional rights.

What about the Mac or iOS versions?

Microsoft makes money off of Windows and Office licenses and they use IE to try to keep people locked into those two products.

I think that's patently false. The EU and the feds thought so too.

Fair enough regarding IBM. So they possibly have a right to complain based on their investment. I'm guessing Mozilla is thinking that the dollars from big corporations like IBM (and almost certainly Google) will be drying up. Also, was IBM investing in Firefox or an open-source browser engine?

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Mozilla is trying to figure out is trying to figure out how it exists in the long term and is looking to get some revenue stream off of it's larger consumer user base. I think they doubt that businesses would license Firefox when there are free alternatives. I think their right. Do you think your company would ever pay a per user or per machine license for Firefox? If not, then I'm sorry if this decision sucks for you, but I don't see why Mozilla would change course for a zero-revenue user or company.

For the record I don't like this move by Mozilla, but I'm not arrogant enough to think I know enough about their motivations that I can declare that there latests move is "idiocy", and I'm a pretty arrogant guy. ;)

And how much money(if any) does Mozilla get paid by your organization for your use of Firefox?

They seem to be fine with iTunes doing it.

Thank you for posting this. Yong claims to have all his "licensing" in order, this seems to back that up. He also claims that it was Sony that caused this takedown and that he'd seen evidence pointing to that. See ZodTTD's homepage for more information about how this WASN'T because of licensing abuse/misuse.

Now to all the Android fans. It's OK to like Android just like it's OK to like Apple. It's OK to like one or the other more. It's NOT OK to delude yourselves that Google is your "open" buddy free from commercial interests. Short version, they aren't. Google is a a very large corporation, and like all other very large corporations they are extremely focused on making lots of money off of you, the consumer. There's nothing sinister about this, but IMHO you shouldn't delude yourself into thinking otherwise because they embrace some "parts or principles" of open source. This also means they're not afraid to shit all over a developer if they think that developer is impugning upon their "money-makin'-turf". It SEEMS like that's what happened here.

My biggest beef with this, and with Google in general, is that their "sleazy corporate moves" always seem to me to be back handed. Oh, we're holding back this source now. Oh, we're letting carriers do shady shit now. Oh, we're pulling developers post-approval because a key partner or two complained. For the record, I personally prefer Apple as a company to Google. Mostly because they are out-in-front about wanting to "screw you"/profit off of you. Apple say's they want your money upfront, and in exchange for that, they guard you and your info like a jealous lover.

I'm not claiming that Apple's way is the best way of doing things, I don't know if there is a "best" way and wouldn't presume to know what that "best" way was, is, or will be. I am saying that Apple's up-front "dickishness" is the way I prefer for a company to treat me. I know Apple overcharges me and are dicks about letting me access certain information. I consider it a fair trade in exchange for their "openness" about how they screw me, as well as their efforts to protect their walled garden in which I dwell. I spend MY money with Apple accordingly, others are free to spend THEIRS where they will.