That's often a symptom of bloated corporate design. You can write clean Java code that resembles C in succinctness. Granted the language is verbose using words where other languages use symbols. Why isn't there a sensible default for method access -- 'public or private?' The default 'package' access is rarely used.

but my only question is how on earth did Java beat out C

That's like asking why isn't Assembly language on the top of the list? It runs circles around C in the performance area, both in speed and size (important for embedded apps).

Java beats C because you can accomplish more in Java than C with fewer lines of code and less mental effort. Things like exceptions, OO, garbage collection, a massive library, etc. save a lot of time compared to C. Debugging is also relatively painless because you get a stack trace in Java, but not in C.

I too have a few questions:
How on earth did VHDL beat Verilog? I thought everyone in companies used verilog because VHDL was too complex, like Ada.

Why is Julia not on the list? Its syntax is similar to Python but performance approaches C/Java.

So will this shut down email communication between Russians and the rest of the world? According to TFA:

The law which bans online businesses from storing personal data of Russian citizens on servers located abroad ... and apply to email services ...

Under the new law, if a Russian were to send an email to a German, using a webmail service like Yahoo mail, won't the email text have to be stored outside Russia to make it easily accessible to the German? Is such a law really practical?

Not sure why dedicated lane posts are being marked troll, but that's the safest option considering the difference in speed and the relative fragility of bikes. As shown in this article, extra space (as opposed to the current 6 inches space) between bike and car lanes is crucial for safety.

An even better solution is a protected and dedicated bike lane where there are concrete barriers preventing cars from entering bike lanes. Of course, all this requires a lot of city planning.

So you are using those examples to show why less regulation is okay? FYI, those madmen could have been uber drivers since it's less regulated.

That's retransmission for one person (you). Aereo was doing mass retransmission -- also known as redistribution.

No.... it's OTA. The content is being distributed freely over the air.

So, it's like gpl -- once in the air, it's becomes free to anyone who can read it? Well then, anyone should able to record it and sell DVDs of tv shows too, right?

Some viewers have difficulty receiving the OTA content over the air at the quality they want using their own equipment, or the investment is too much, or they lack the expertise to build large antenna structures and setup gateways to stream their content to themselves over the internet, so they are inclined to subscribe to a service to maintain equipment to receive over the air on their behalf and provide them the technical assistance to receive the freely available content in the manner the end user wants.

So why can't your service provider pay for the content it is rebroadcasting for a profit? Aereo thinks it should be able to profit from somebody else's content, but the content providers should not profit from their own content? The OTA broadcast is only for individual consumption -- rebroadcasting or commercial use requires a new license and fees.

The charges that OTA channels get to charge cable companies a purely a protection racket. THAT is what should have been made illegal, not Aereo!

How, so? The content is a product and the cable companies profit from that product, and should therefore pay the OTA broadcasters for its use.

The spectrum that the broadcasters use to transmit over the air programming belongs to the American public and we believe you should have a right to access that live programming whether your antenna sits on the roof of your home,

The spectrum may be public, but the public does not own the data in the spectrum, (just as roads may be public, but the public don't own the cars on the roads).

A little over three years ago, our team embarked on a journey to improve the consumer television experience, using technology to create a smart, cloud-based television antenna consumers could use to access live over the air broadcast television.

Why didn't you obtain retransmission rights for the copyrighted content? Was it to save your company a lot of money?

So your position is that using Slingbox or a DVR over the Internet (a shared non dedicated connection per user) makes you a CATV company and a copyright infringer as well?

Retransmitting copyrighted content, like a tv show, without permission, over the internet, is copyright infringement. However, viewing a show from your slingbox is allowed as fair use.

However, if your slingbox retransmits tv shows to your multiple friends, that's copyright infringement. Aereo is kinda like an antenna connected to a slingbox which in turn transmits content to many viewers. That's redistribution of copyrighted content, which is illegal without permission.

My point is Aereo is cable tv like service that is using the internet instead of the older cable technology to deliver TV shows. Therefore, they should be treated in the same manner as a cable tv service. Simply changing the transmission layer (whether it's cable, satellite or internet) does not change the fundamental business model. Legally, you can't redistribute copyrighted content to multiple users and not pay the licensing fees for the content.

I can erect an antenna across town and back haul the signal on the internet...

Except in this case, you're not erecting the antenna and hauling equipment (decoders and servers), Aereo is. You are renting their equipment to watch TV. Once the TV signal leaves "your" Aereo antenna and enters shared equipment like decoders and servers, it becomes content on just another video site like youtube. Face it, Aereo is like a cable company delivering video via the internet. It doesn't have equipment to deliver dedicated internet connection per user, rather it uses a big upload pipe (just like a video website), to deliver copyrighted content to the user.

Oh yeah totally nailed it, except for where people are paying, and the product is freely available to them anyway.

They're paying a lot less than basic cable. What if Aereo had to pay retransmission fees to the copyright holders? Won't Aereo then jack up the monthly subscription fees to cover that cost?

You are broadcasting through open Wi-Fi to other people. However, I'm not sure anyone cares as only a small number of people can access your Wi-Fi signal and they can probably get a better reception using their own antenna/devices instead of snooping on your network traffic.

No. When you activate the Aereo service, you are assigned a dedicated (not shared) antenna and the video is streamed from that antenna to your device. There is no storing or sharing of anything.

LOL, antennas can't convert TV signal into an internet video stream. You need a computer with a video decoder and a shared internet service to transmit the video stream to your millions of customers. Unless they have a also have a dedicated DVR per user, a dedicated internet connection for each user, and the user owns all the above equipment and services, they are renting out a TV show transmitting service which is similar to cable TV service.

The justices were openly hostile to Aereo and saw it as basically someone setting up a cable company without following the rules set up for cable companies

That's your opinion, but others may say Aereo wants something (TV shows) for nothing, which is same as stealing/copyright infringement. Aereo and many of its customers have no problem giving the financial shaft to the owners and creators of the TV shows, but without profit, no one is going to create more quality TV shows.