That was 12 years ago. A 12 year out of date critique of a web technology that has had ongoing language updates and two entire rewrites in that interval should be viewed with some suspicion. Also, are you really just citing the title of the article and none of the content?

I'm not even defending PHP here, just questioning lazy kneejerk, "but it sucked once, so now I hate it forever" thinking.

I'll disagree a little bit: we have heavy lift rockets bringing mass to orbit at a greater rate than any time in history and new larger and more efficient rockets on the cusp of being brought to use, with next generations planned for the future. Space launch technology -- the actual raw launching of mass to orbit, where it can be useful -- has advanced. And mass to orbit means more fuel -- if we really wanted to get something out there faster.

And that's where our statements arrive at the same conclusion: there's little need to do anything but super efficient deep space probes. While I can quibble with your implied assertion about newer technology not making a difference in ability, in a practical sense given our funding of deep space research, the big tech upgrade has been to data collection devices and communication. We'll have to have way cheaper lift capability before extra fuel to cut time off a project makes any kind of sense. But it is now at least plausible as an option.

(Also, this appears to be the only thread that isn't making Trek or Aliens jokes)

End of Bitcoin predicted, news at 11 after the game

You nailed it. If there's a futures market for it, that means volatility. Part of it will be intrinsic to the resource itself. The other part will be due to active manipulation for financial gain. I think some will win and some will lose. Unfortunately, it will not be in equal measure.

I'd propose a compromise. Apple can run their store however they want, and charge whatever premium they'd like, but in exchange for that, anyone can start their own app store for iOS with their own rules. All that's needed from Apple is that it not disable the ability of people to install a competing app store -- in other words, that it not disable competition.

alt.sexy.mad.man.murdock

So what youâ(TM)re telling me is that employees might have different political interests than their senior executives?

Wow we ought to write that down or something.

Yeah, youâ(TM)re right, the sensible first response to âoehey, sexism is kinda prevalent and also badâ is âoeI bet those females are lyingâ.

Well done. Good job.

Lemme guess...you have never seen a comic book.

Language design unquestionably makes certain programming errors more difficult or even impossible. This is not mere tilting at windmills: many of the classes of errors that are removed are extremely important and damaging ones. Other language features can force programmers to think through their designs more and/or make their code more clear and expressive. Some language designs can even limit and constrain the possible logic errors that a program can commit.

Obviously, naturally, a better programmer will write more secure programs, in any language. But that's not a very interesting question. The interesting question is whether two equally skilled, equally disciplined programmers will write equally secure programs when one of them is allowed by the language to do anything, and the other has many guardrails in place to prevent errors.

ANTICIPATED: Handheld computers and wireless data.
EXPECTED: An almost 100% sure thing we'd get there.
UNEXPECTED: That same technology that was supposed to be our tool to free us and make us better is used by default to track us, monetize us, maintain and resell portofolios on us.
DISAPPOINTED: The success of the cell phone and tablet effectively kills other pieces of dedicated or unique hardware implementations (MP3 player, a physical chess set that you can play against another friend anywhere in the world, etc).
ALSO DISAPPOINTED: How freely the common person would cash in their privacy for free services.

HOPED FOR: That "everyone" would finally be online and that you could do real things (and significant things) online.
EXPECTED: More individuals connecting with even more individuals.
UNEXPECTED: Reaching the tipping point where you're expected to be online or you can't access some desired information. (My offline parents complain about this quite regularly.)

SKEPTICAL: My dad telling me (circa 1980) that computer graphics would be good enough one day to make cartoons just as good as I see on TV. Even further in the future, maybe even something that might look like real life!
UNEXPECTED: Just how far we've surpassed even that dream of believable computer graphics in standard definition and in real time.

PROMISED: Useful and interactive household robots.
DISAPPOINTED: Roomba and a few small toys.

PROMISED: Television will keep getting better and better.
EXPECTED: High quality and lower cost hardware.
DISAPPOINTED: Everyday "broadcast quality" video quality has improved, but not as much as I'd thought.

For "Offline Trajectories" 20180352383-A1,

It should cite "System and method for providing quality of service mapping" US8620339B2 while talks about doing that very thing (but with a different spin to it).

https://patents.google.com/pat...

I'm not saying it invalidates the patent (I'm not a patent examiner) but it should at least be cited as a related patent.

You raise some interesting issues, but in the end, what does this proposed change in FCC policy look and smell like? Is this really about how the FCC can best meet the connectivity needs of rural customers? Or something else?

If this was honestly first and foremost about meeting the needs of rural customers, hey, we'd all welcome this! But it looks like the FCC is tinkering (yet again) with the definition of broadband, and this time it seems they're using it with the intention of steering funds.

How? They can define the bandwidth requirements just high enough to be unfavorable to regional competitors who have been building out networks. Yet they don't go too high. They still keep the definition low enough as not to burden those new competitors who have a well-known plan to roll out high speed fixed-wireless technology.

5G promises to be an awesome new technology, and I personally can't wait to see it! But I'd like to see it compete with the wired competitors on more level ground. Not through political lobbying. Not by carving out competition with an arbitrary definition of 5G that artificially tilts the distribution of funds.

It is another story of regulatory capture at the FCC. The FCC was supposed to favor Americans and put limits on corporations. Now the FCC is favoring the corporation they're supposed to regulate and the Americans are just contrived into a justification for doing so.

It is sad and unfortunate for America.