I will let you inform him of that when I am not around...

Oops I meant XxtraLarGe, not cassings.

You are missing the point of the post by man_of_mr_e and the reply from casing.
man_of_mr_e wanted to dismiss formatting issues as not a big deal to diff in the version control, claiming diff is smart enough to handle it; an interesting assertion.
However, casing cleverly pointed out that man_of_mr_e was missing the issue of case formatting and how diff would probably choke on it.

I agree that if productivity is in question then it would be nice to know. However I would disagree that productivity issues should clutter a version diff though.

Imagine the scenario where my IDE can quickly switch code from camel case to snake case and give me the white spacing I am most comfortable with. If with a key stroke Bill can alter Joe's code to be more readable for Bill and that in turn improves his efficiency, then why not? Correspondingly then Joe should be able to flip it write back when he has to work on Bill's code.

Now you are worried about the situation where Bill picks up Joe's code and spends his morning moving curly brackets to a new line and converting camels to snakes manually. Probably not the best use of Bill's time for you, and even if arguably the time spent converting Joe's code manually makes Bill more productive it was not a total time well spent. Now surely Bill is good enough to read Joe's formatting, but if it pisses him off, well then perhaps a few hours is worth keeping Bill happy? I mean Bill is a good guy, a great programmer, he is just set a bit in his ways and opinionated. Bill is still making his deadlines, no worries.

I believe he was referring to Joe using camel case, myVar, and then Bill later fixing it to snake case, my_var. As a result the diff would mark this change as a difference since it was more than a white space change. This is as opposed to Joe placing his curly brackets on the same line as his if statements and Bill moving them to the line below white space changes.

White spacing changes are no longer a big deal with modern IDE's able to reformat to your desired white spacing, but I have not seen an IDE option to correct camel case to snake case.

Agreed, if they truly believe in not selling out to something like Android they would have stuck with MeeGo which was just as far along as Windows Phone.

I really wonder what the thought process was behind dumping MeeGo and going with Windows Phone, if they truly saw it being a winner.
Unfortunately it seems there best bet now is to stay the course with Windows Phone.

I would kill for a 41MP PureView camera coupled with updated N950 hardware and running Android.
The smartphone market is so crowded, but a super phone is still waiting to be released.

I really hope the smart phone hardware market turns more toward a PC model of separating the hardware from the software.
Unfortunately Apple is trying to destroy that in both markets, and even more unfortunate it is a sound business plan.

If Nokia had peed their pants with Android they would still be #1. Instead the crapped their pants with Windows Phone.

It could be said that the modern African American population has profited from slavery as well; they could have been born in some African nation under a dictator instead of America.

If you are not running CyanogenMOD then it is your own fault for installing 3rd party apps that cannot be trusted.

I am a lot more skeptical than you are.
I assume our elected officials have a higher level of education than the average of the general voters.
I suspect that most elected officials are not even well informed on the issues they vote on despite their greater education and the fact that they get paid to legislate as a full time job.

I can only imagine how a voter base that is so easily swayed by advertising would vote on complex issues and legislation.
No matter their education level most will not have the time to research and read legislation properly.

On the other hand perhaps the elected officials are generally self serving and it would be much harder to buy off a million votes vs one man who represents a million voters.

How is this different from now? I guess there is no official way for the hyperdemocracy crowd to currently "vote" on every issue.

I assume having an election for every issue brought up would be impractical, at least to the same degree we do for our elections today.
Cost issues aside let say that a ballot of laws was presented for voting once a month.
Would voters, knowing it was simply an official opinion poll that did not directly dictate law, bother participating?

An official remote electronic hyperdemocratic voting process seems feasible though, but it seems it would be bias against those with access to computer and smartphones.
However, Grandma and Grandma seem to be adjusting to technology better than ever and smartphone access appears to be fairly high across all demographics.
But would people bother even if it was as easy as checking your email?

Or is the Death Star petition really the result of such a setup?
If 27,000 people came out to not online sign the electronic petition but put their first name and last initial to it, how many more would come out if it meant the Death Star could truly get funded?
Would more come out to stop it? Or would a flashy television commercial with Jedi Knights in metal bikinis convince more to come out for it?

Imagine if we had a true democracy where everyone had a vote on everything.

We would not have universal healthcare, we would have universal Lamborghini Aventadors.

Of course we would have no roads to drive them on since that funding would go towards universal ice cream.

Good thing corporations and rich people set our policies and not Occupy Wall Street dead beats.

This is excellent!

I would love to see your pitch if you can share.
If not I will post some of my thoughts and perhaps you can help vet them...

The objective is to provide a wireless data ecosystem that will optimize private and public spectrum usage through supply and demand based competition.

First I wanted to identify the players:
Wired Provider - brings data over a physical line to the wireless tower, sells data to the carrier.
Carrier - leases spectrum, controls wireless tower, sells data to card seller, buys data from wired provider.
Data Card Seller - sells data to customer, buys data from carrier.
Device manufacturer - creates devices for tower and mobile usage
Customer - buys device, buys data card.

Physical Specs:
Wired Provider - Fiber, coax, copper lines for data transfer to the carrier tower.
Carrier - Wireless Tower with wireless transceiver (LTE/WiFi)
Data Card Seller - nothing, ideally all virtual
Device Manufacturer - LTE/WiFi tower and mobile device creation
Consumer - LTE/WiFi device usage

Monetary Transaction Specs:
Spectrum Acquisition - the Carrier secures a spectrum license for a given region from the FCC
Tower Deployment - the Carrier secures physical real estate from a land/building owner, wireless transceiver equipment from a Device Manufacturer , electrical power service from a local utility or the land/building owner, and wired data service from a Wired Provider.
Mobile Device Acquisition - the Consumer purchases a mobile device from the Device Manufacturer or a distributor.
Data Card Acquisition - the Consumer purchases a Data Card from the Data Card Seller.
Data Payment - The Data Card Seller pays the Carrier for the Consumers data usage.

Connection Transaction Specs:
The Consumer device scans for available wireless providers.
Both WiFi and LTE/GSM specs provide Access Point (AP) Names.
Ideally the APN would indicate not only the provider but the current rate being charged for data by the AP.
The Consumer device then requests connectivity to an AP.
The AP provides limited access that will allow for the Consumer device to relay the credentials provided by the Data Card Seller.
Upon authentication with the Data Card Seller, the Carrier provides service based on the Consumers available balance, perhaps reserving chunks of data balance with the Data Card Seller.
The Consumer device is allowed to freely use data, the Carrier will then notify the Data Card Seller of the usage; the Consumers account balance will be decreased accordingly.
When the Consumer disconnects from the AP the remaining unused reserved balance will be released back to the Consumer account with the Data Card Seller.

Technical Issues:
Assuming an unlocked GSM/LTE/WiFi device, no SIM card, can a Carrier tower be configured to accept connections from the said device and provide more than emergency service?
What would be the issues, security and otherwise to such a connection?

Google with Android would be the ideal candidate to push this.
If smaller carriers adopted this they could compete with the likes of AT&T and Verizon.
Of course the big carriers will hate this, but once it gets enough traction they will have no choice but to fall in line.
I am sure I am over simplifying this in my mind, my knowledge of the industry is only as an outsider, customer, mobile developer at best.

I look forward to discuss this further!

We do not need huge carriers that produce individual networks.

Cell towers should run like WiFi access points, and the mobile device should handle the hand off between towers.
Each tower can even be run by an individual entity if desired.
Instead there would be entities that sell data credit.

A mobile device would have an account with a data credit reseller.
The mobile device can scan for access in its area and connect to a tower based on how the user priorities (cost, speed, signal strength...)
The tower would then charge the data credit reseller for the user's usage.

This setup allows for each cell tower to compete for users in an area.
This would allow start-up wireless companies to compete immediately.
Once enough individual towers went up then it would compete with the big carriers and force them to change.

We will always need a device attached to the big screen in the living room.
A PC interface is just not practical, the physical form factor generally not slick enough, and the hardware not subsidized.
Developers love the security of console DRM as well.
The set top box, console, whatever you want to call it will give us video and single-screen multi-player gaming for years to come.

The hope is that we can have the best of both worlds with PC and console gaming.
Console: power on and go, no worries, a monkey can do it.
PC: no generation hardware stagnation, modding, no vendor hardware lock in

Now if we can just be free of the OS, or have an open OS.
That is where Ouya and Android come in to play.
Hardware is getting powerful enough that a Virtual Machine layer with some Just In Time compiling will be delivering sufficient performance on dirt cheap hardware.
Now if we can only sell the developers on the platform and get them away from Sony and Microsoft's closed gardens.
Ouya may not be the final solution, and open or Linux consoles have been threatened before...but I am still hoping!

I will take a dozen if they come with a desktop optimized (mouse and physical keyboard) UI option for Android, an Android desktop section in the app market, and open source drivers.

It is called Twitter, enjoy...of course it still costs you a device, connectivity charge, and eventually whatever monetizing means Twitter comes up with.

You do not need to pay, go out in the world and get it yourself.

Now if you expect someone to bring it to you on a platter with any level of quality, and reliability, trustworthiness then it will come at a cost.
That cost may be tax dollars in your socialist society that feeds, clothes, bathes, and medicates you, or from advertising views or pay-walls.
Of course I do not know of any news service that provides that caliber of news today for pay or free anyway, so Twitter should be sufficient for you.