...until this technology can be used to regrow luscious locks of hair for balding people? Just asking... for a friend... .

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that EMPs, understood as an electronic device scrambling wave, are only able to be generated by nuclear explosions.

Now, perhaps they have developed a wave that can destroy a very specific circuit, such as the kind found in a car's computer. Finding the electromagnetic resonant frequency of a particular circuit is not new, but can this be classified as a true "EMP"?

Then again, I may be confusing an actual EMP with something from science fiction. For some reason I consider an actual EMP blast to knock out everything from iPods to car computers to telephone wires.

Anybody remember Microsoft's smart watch? No?

Looks nice? Art doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing to be called art. Art is creativity. Art is about making you think. This is not only a very creative piece of work, but it also required quite a bit of dedication to complete.

If anything, the theme of this very piece may be dedication. Or it could be monotony. Or tedium. Or simplicity, given the featureless form of the clock, and the apparent lack of mechanical parts (which, obviously, is only an illusion).

The rationale for this piece could be one or all of these, and that is what makes it art.

That would explain that easily-fraggable player I met last night in Halo. xX_Hellen_Killer_Xx just kept spinning around looking skyward while filling the mic channel with mad mumbling noises.

C code is different. It compiles. And it usually comes with powerful debugging tools. More powerful, I dare to say, than JS debugging tools. Not to mention the standard library and the STL are very well documented.

Also, when you develop C code for different platforms, you actually have different source trees. One for each platform. You can individually test and debug each set of code on each platform. On the net, the SAME JS code is run on EVERY browser. So not only do you need to discover the right solution for each platform, you have to discover an even more magical solution that works on every browser at the same time.

I can see the point you were trying to make, but it's not really the same. You do have to test your C code in a different debugger for every platform, except, like I mentioned above, a change that you need to make for one platform wont affect all the others. Separate source trees. This is not a luxury you get with JS.

Silly you indeed. I would hate to use 3 different debuggers for every bit of code I write, to make sure it works on every platform.

God forbid MORE browsers become popular. Oh wait, Safari? Opera? I wonder if they have 2 more debuggers you can heap onto your development checklist.

If you enjoy having to debug your JS using multiple different debuggers, silly silly you indeed.

What have you done?! Put it back! Put it BACK!

I'm not sure why anyone would want JavaScript anywhere else. I believe that the only reason why JavaScript is "popular" in the first place is because it is the only option available for client-side processing on the web.

A lot of the pain of JS, like its inconsistent experience across browsers, can't really be held against it. Each browser has to implement JS according to its own interpretation of the standard, virtually guaranteeing a non-consistent experience across the board. I understand that. But what truly kills JavaScript for me is the lack of development tools and a solid reference. Debugging JS with an alert window is a horrible experience.

Again, why anyone would want this stuff everywhere is beyond me. I was shocked a long time ago when Palm Pre decided it was a good idea to use JavaScript for app development. Shocked I tell you. And look where that went. Like I said, the only reason I would consider JS "popular" on the web is because there is no other way to do client-side processing. It's literally our only choice (VBScript doesn't count).

I feel this article is a little uninformed and short sighted. Much of the qualms against Android completely ignore the phone's accelerating momentum. At the risk of sounding overly dramatic, the mobile landscape is currently shifting. This article seems to assume that the status quo will remain, ignoring the forces at work.

That being said, I feel that even the status quo is misrepresented. Some of the ratings seem quite arbitrary (in favor of Apple). Looking at the first page, Android gets a full two points lower for Web and Internet support. Why? The browsers are both web-kit based, and both phones sport "Always On" data connections. The article seems to argue that there are more internet-based applications for iPhone, but that's a separate issue, and this issue is not even a good one. Android apps are getting more numerous and better every day.

Which brings me to my next comment: Android is also a full two points lower in Application support? Not applications, application support. Really? Unlike the Apple marketplace, Android supports an open and unrestricted third party environment (regulated by a permission-based model, of course). This environment allows developers fast and unrestricted access to the Android marketplace. iPhone may have more apps, but like I said before, more and more high quality Android apps are becoming available every day. I would even argue that developers are more empowered on Android, due to the high amount of customization the platform allows. Can iPhone applications customize the iPhone home screen? The dialer? How about desktop widgets? No, no, and no. I agree that certain aspects of Android aren't up to par with the iPhone yet, but it is definitely poised to strike. In my opinion, it is a lot closer than the author would have readers believe.