I should clarify that I'm quoting Eric Holk in that comment. I'm not Eric Holk.

"How Experienced and Novice Programmers See Code

From one of the links:

I’m excited to see what else Mike’s research uncovers. One aspect he’s interested in is how the approach of inexperienced programmers differs from that of experienced programmers. For example, there seems to be some evidence that following variable naming conventions helps experienced programmers understand the code much quicker, while breaking these conventions leads to a severe penalty. On the other hand, inexperienced programmers seem to take about as long regardless of how the variables are named.

-Eric Holk

Microsoft has worked long and hard to make sure that nobody can compete with them by erecting barriers to the free market.

What barriers to switching exist on a fully deployed enterprise Microsoft-based platform that wouldn't otherwise manifest itself on any other platform?

...no, it's for the original coder(s) to build trust among the people using the programs.

But if you're not going to give anyone permission to use your code, why post it on GitHub in the first place?"

Lets say I stumble across a fantastic utility, and the source is open for me to view. I'll dive through the code and make sure I'm comfortable with its functionality (i.e. it's not doing anything I don't want it to do) before grabbing the tool.

I'm not using the code for my own projects. I'm just vetting the code. Plenty of developers throw code for small utilities up for exactly this reason, and the vast majority of the world is totally cool with it.

Parastoo means swallow (as in the bird) in Farsi, for anyone wondering.

Is it just because it's still covered by US6384822? Or was there some other reason for why Carmack's Reverse wasn't included in this release?

x86-64 and 64-bit ARM on the same chip?

I can see this being a remarkable selling point for Windows devices if both ARM and x86 code can execute on the same device without emulation.

It's also worth noting that Virginia sued Northrop either last year or two years ago for issues over creating driver's licenses, so I suspect New Jersey decided to also contract with Northrop for the same system.

Oh well, their loss. Everyone in VA looks like a serial killer on their black-and-white photos.

You're not the first to think that, either. The same message was conveyed by the BadAstronomy blog when the same such shot was released from Phoenix.

Think on this, and think on it carefully: you are seeing a manmade object falling gracefully and with intent to the surface of an alien world, as seen by another manmade object already circling that world, both of them acting robotically, and both of them hundreds of million of kilometers away.

Never, ever forget: we did this. This is what we can do.

I neglected to mention the obvious point in my submission that this was HiRISE's second such shot.

http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/phoenix-descent.php

The first shot of the sort was this one from the Phoenix lander.

The legislation appears intended to cause potential plaintiffs to reconsider, with the secondary benefit of codifying an already-implemented tactic.

I agree with you in that the legislation should be unnecessary, but perhaps it's needed as a deterrent.

6 ‘‘ 285A. Recovery of litigation costs for computer
7 hardware and software patent
8 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 285, in
9 an action disputing the validity or alleging the infringe-
10 ment of a computer hardware or software patent, upon
11 making a determination that the party alleging the in-
12 fringement of the patent did not have a reasonable likeli-
13 hood of succeeding, the court may award the recovery of
14 full costs to the prevailing party, including reasonable at-
15 torney’s fees, other than the United States.

The language allows the judge presiding over the case to effectively determine whether the case was a frivolous case, meaning there's a decent chance that this won't deter legitimate patent suits. That said, only time will tell.