Online references aside, this makes a lot of sense thinking of the baseball that I've played and watched on tv.
Next you'll have to have another competition between two managerial candidates to see who does a better job of judging the programmers' work.
Gimmickry is not going to solve the issues that we have in software development. You can probably only count on two hands the number of true 'one size fits all' solutions and this isn't one of them.
And how does this situation differ other than the fact that the alloc/free operations are done local to the JVM instead of making system calls? The fact that the JVM is doing the work doesn't magically make memory management easier.
The other thing that I'm skeptical about is that the article seems to be contradicted by a more recent paper by the author that they are referencing (see Zorn http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=582419.582421). In the newer paper, Zorn et al. say that custom allocators are less efficient than a modern general purpose allocator.
I think that Rogers just had HTC remove the paid app functionality from the phone, and surprise surprise, Rogers has their own paid market instead (which is useless). I'm considering reinstalling the OS to turn my Dream into a regular Google phone.
For a neat visual presentation of the physics they're relying on, Mythbusters did an experiment on the explosive power of thermite powder and water vapor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnHR4cMXiyM.
I don't think that's accurate, the info online indicates that cuban wasn't the sole owner of Broadcast.com (which was a company making money), and the transaction was for Yahoo stock rather than cash see http://news.cnet.com/Yahoo-completes-Broadcast.com-acquisition/2100-1023_3-228762.html/. If he's still got $2bn after the dotbomb, then that's not bad. Call the guy an idiot mouth piece, but his financial skill isn't that bad.
Genetically engineered whales with a built in cargo hold. You just have to train them well, and take advantage of their natural migration patterns..
But one German tank could shoot down ten Russian ones. So the count alone is not the point.
Don't see the Russians short. Their tanks may not have been as technically advanced as the Germans' were, but they were designed for the terrain where the battles were taking place (snow, cold, mud pits) and they were easier to repair and manufacture. I think that if we looked at what happened in these battles, you wouldn't see the lopsided a result you're claiming.