I'm failing to see any sort of logical reason why you think the CLR runs faster than compiled code?
There are a whole bunch of reasons, such as inlining method calls and runtime optimizations. But the biggest reason is probably that with the CLR, applications can safely run in a single address space. That means much faster startup, better integration, and much lower memory usage.
yeah... the day the rest of society operates in total freedom.... we can talk.
I don't see that happening. I see the opposite happening. More protections, regulations... So we better dance to the tune of society... or we will continue to be trampled.
Put one lens of the 3d glasses over your cam, and bingo. Ok, so you end up with one of two subtly-different rips, but meh.
You're describing an electrical current -- although it bears pointing out that a current between A and B does not involve any electrons actually moving from A to B, but moving only very small distances.
These, on the other hand, are polarization currents. Every person on the planet capable of reading the linked article could know that.
With all due respect, all humans are someone's brother or sister or father or mother or child. Even those that feel they ought to be able to choose these sorts of things for themselves.
Your argument, essentially, is because your brother got cancer and died from it, the rest of us are no longer able to disagree.
While my heart does go out to you, I'd also like to point out the multitudes that died to give us the right to discuss these things and vote on them.
All life has value, but our rights still also have value.
The whole "software is math" argument is old and debunked. Anything which requires creativity and careful analysis, and the investment therein, is a potentially valuable addition to human knowledge.
You seem to have no idea what mathematics actually is, if you think it doesn't require creativity and careful analysis.
She was pretty specific on when, where, and how she said she was going to kill the guy. In class, on a certain day, with an embalming knife. That's enough that authorities -have- to look into it, otherwise they're liable should it turn out to be actual premeditated murder and not just some idiot ranting.
Read the article and some of what she posted. She brought this on herself.
Also, there's no 'e' in 'ridiculous'.
The end result of your philosophy is a society where one or two mafia-like power structures control everything, and everyone else is essentially slaves. Whether those power structures are national governments or corporations the dynamic is much the same. Granted that appears to be what a lot of people want. Preservation of a free society requires limitations on the abuse of power. The FTC part of that mechanism.
I write software that may be run on either Intel and AMD processors, so I need a compiler that works for both. If Intel wants to be in both the compiler business and the microprocessor business, they can't intentionally design their compiler to sabotage AMDs microprocessor business. If there are no limits on that sort of thing, then inevitably one company gets a near monopoly, uses its position to screw over everyone, and everything stagnates and we get poorer. This dynamic is why many impoverished parts of the world are impoverished. To the extent that we embrace that model, our economies will wind up in the toilet also.
The bar for skeptics is always going to be higher. Otherwise we'd have to rewrite the chemistry textbooks every time some student messes up his lab assignment, because this will produce data that contradicts the theory.
Many people who doubted AGW (humans causing the hockey stick graph, or the graph itself) are claiming this is some sort of smoking gun. I claim it's scientists being scientists, and failing at being politicians.
The very fact that this reveals some scientists are doubting some results is exactly what should happen in science. This is why there is a consensus among scientists. Doubting is a part of science and skeptics alike, but discovering the reasons for the doubt and changing a viewpoint when good, conflicting data are found are hallmarks of the scientist. Skeptics will cling to disproved data, hoping it somehow becomes true if they believe it hard enough.
There is no doubt that the earth is warmer, but mark my words: some idiot media personality will make claims to the contrary due to this. They thrive on confusion, and there's nothing more confusing (and humorous) than watching scientists wrestle with politics.
Nobody is a disinterested party.
Whatever your views on AGW, if you live on this planet you are not disinterested in this issue.
You clicked on a CNET article. Surprised?
The trouble is, with Apple, that sort of thing wouldn't happen. That's what makes them more dangerous than their competitors.
People only care about DRM when it stops them doing something that they want.
Yup, you won't see an enforced ad pop up while using the phone "normally", while running iTunes, or sending an e-mail, or making a call or whatever else is basic on the iPhone. If you see them, they'll be embedded into apps and content you download from other sources. This is a patent that lets Apple say "Here's an easy way to generate revenue from our customer base with your content, and without charging it all directly for the download. They won't mind clicking on an use your stuff. Better than DRM, because even if they send it on to our other customers, the ads go with it." It's similar to the tactic they took when they rolled out iTunes, with inoffensive DRM replacing non-ownership of files by subscription.
And now that streaming services are becoming viable and popular, thanks to increased bandwidth, customer familiarity, and other factors, there's an application for the ad model. Hulu on the iPhone, or similar. Not only will people not mind - they will approve. The feeling, for many, will be that putting up with this will give them what they want rather than not having it at all. To my mind, smart compromise is the best thing to hope for. The realistic alternative isn't no DRM or other restrictions, the alternative is heinous and insidious DRM. That's the industry recognizing, eventually, what the business models and customer bases are becoming. I'm not sure that I'd agree with "dangerous", but I do agree that Apple could pull this off in a way palatable to enough customers that other companies think they'll be able to get away with worse.
You apparently haven't met many programmers.
My personal experience is only from college, but I can assure you that most of the students were better in English than they were in C++. They couldn't code their way out of a wet paper bag. Most of the time their syntax was decent, but the algorithm was completely wrong. ("No failure is quite so disheartening as creating a complete solution to the wrong problem," or something to that effect.)
Maybe English is a little harder, but it's not drastically so.
Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards. -- Aldous Huxley