Olympus Mons. Can't beat carving up that CO2 powder.

(...) trying to use the word "disingenuous" to sound smart.

I'm sorry you took it that way. I used the word "disingenuous" because I think the GGP is misrepresenting the magnitude of the Kent State shootings in comparison to Tiananmen: People are less likely to remember Kent State simply because of the smaller human cost. Just to reinforce, I am talking about impact and not necessarily political motivation.

There were 13 casualties in the Kent State shootings, 4 of which were fatal. The Tiananmen square numbers are (officially) 241 deaths, which is probably far smaller than the real number (There have been reports of up to 2400 deaths). I think it's disingenuous to compare Tiananmen and Kent State. Perhaps 9/11 would be a closer analogue? In any case, there was lots of media created about Kent State, and it _IS_ taught in schools.

1) those are profit numbers for the whole company, not just for netbooks.
2) We're in a recession.
In fact, a little googling shows that netbook sales are doing either better than or equal to the sales of notebooks. Have some links:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/12/netbook-sales-surge-in-economic-downturn-wheres-apple.ars
http://www.mynetbookreviews.co.uk/netbook-news/netbook-sales-still-soaring-in-2009/
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2242197/mini-notebook-penetration-hits
That's just from googling "netbook sales" articles in the last month. Lastly, the reason given by asus not to ship an ARM netbook is because (according to your article) windows is what

most consumers are used to.

So in answer to your question, it's been working out very well indeed.

A niche market with low margins? Wow, I bet the guys in charge of the Eee are just /wishing/ they'd consulted you before going to market.

Meanwhile, the two biggest parties will have free reign, as long as they piss the voters off equally.

Yep, and if those two stay in power long enough, you end up with a duopoly on power (Hello, USA).

666 MB (0.8 KB/sec) 9 days, 11 hours remaining.

You sure you want to download that?

I always thought it was "Bull Sh*t, More Sh*t, Piled Higher & Deeper"

There's another photo showing the Shuttle and the ISS transiting the Sun and the two are very similar. In that photo, the ISS is the more prominent object.

... and here it is!

I think most concurrent languages have been derived at least in part from CSP, so they'll probably all 'feel' like occam; it's just occam got there first. Incidentally, if you already knew about occam, you might want to check out David May's (the guy behind Occam) new startup XMOS.
I'm not affiliated, but I do own their dev kit :-)

No, there's nothing preventing you from including that header file multiple times for different types.

Okay, I missed that. However, once you start doing things like including generic functions/classes in other generics, and doing compile-time calculations you're going to have headaches, namely because the C preprocessor only does a single pass on the code.
Back to code length: the C preprocessor version forces you to define multiple constants and include a header for each specialization of the template. Given that C++ can also infer template arguments from function arguments, I would have thought the C++ would be shorter.

The only difference is that with preprocessor macros, you create the class explicitly up front with its own name so the instantiation syntax is cleaner.

My opinion is the complete opposite of this- explicitly having to specialize a template with a bunch of defines and an include each time seems fugly. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one :-)

I have a couple of issues with that code. First, If I want to create multiple CustomArrays of differing base types, in C++ I can do
CustomArray<int> ints;
CustomArray<char> chars;
With the C preprocessor, I can only do a single define, and I'm stuck with that single base type. Secondly, That's a _lot_ more code, and it's a _lot_ uglier...
Lastly, about the foreach loop- I can see where you're coming from about it being 'glued on', but i've never really found it to be much of a hindrance. Apparently C++0x has something similar, though.

C++ can't have been what you describe, because of one of the design goals: maintaining backwards-compatibility with C. As soon as you start making arrays behave differently, you break a lot of code. C++'s strength is that it has powerful high-level language features while allowing C's (relatively) low-level stuff.
As for C++'s STL libraries being difficult to use, I have to disagree again. Let's take vector as an example. Elements are accessed the same way as regular arrays (square bracket notation), and the notation for using templates (i.e. vector<int> ints;) is really not difficult. Actually writing template functions is a little harder, though. I am frankly amazed you think the C preprocessor is equivalent in usefulness to templates, so in case i'm being stupid here, would you explain how you implement a generic container using the preprocessor? For that matter, what do you find nicer about the C preprocessor than templates? Littering source code with #defines and #ifdefs surely can't be neater...?

As for OO in PHP, I don't see why you think dynamic typing decreases the value of object-oriented programming.

It's not that I think dynamic typing decreases the value of OO, but that I think OO decreases the value of dynamic typing.

Dynamic typing just makes it a little easier to shoot yourself in the foot by not throwing up an error when you make the assignment or function call in the first place.

Which is why I really don't see the value of forced dynamic typing- it makes code less clear, puts 'compile'-time errors at runtime, and generally reduces performance all around.

[PHP is] remarkably close to what C++ should have been ...

Wow. Really? Somehow I feel you've never done any development for high-performance applications before.
Variable length arrays? Try STL's vector or map. C++'s arrays are backwards compatible with C's, but that's not to say it's not sensible behaviour- growable arrays have a fairly big overhead.
Also, I'm not sure where your gripes with C++'s string manipulation come from, but I suspect you really haven't looked into the STL libraries very much. I often see C++ coders rewriting even basic things like vector or some of the algorithms (poorly) just because they didn't know about them
Preach PHP all you want, but don't try to tell me that it's better designed than C++. It's simply not true.
A side note, what's the point of OO in dynamically typed languages? It kinda defeats the point of inheritance & polymorphism...