Yeah, I disagree with this comment. When it was released (and even today) G+ is more secure then Facebook because of the circles. I think the author hit the nail on the head. Every feature of G+ is superior then FB. The way the apps integrate with it and the sheer beauty and elegance of the interface is mind boggling. The only reason that I still use FB? None of my friends use G+ regularly. If I was able to even repost my G+ posts on FB, that would be helpful. A 2 way synch would be the bomb.

I fully agree that the issue should be with the content provider AND Google does generally comply with local regulations for it's Region specific versions of it's site. But for France to make the claim globally is an abomination. European laws do not govern those in America or other Countries no matter how much the French like to think they are center of the universe. Like it or not, the world's information has gone global. Instead of trying to stop the search engine, find ways to regulate the content providers and ensure that false accusations aren't allowed to remain in the cloud.

I agree a lot with the comments, but I'm not willing to totally discount the study. It's true that make and female brains are different (there is physical proof), however that does not mean that there is also not a societal component to this. I encourage my daughter to learn to program, but I'm a programmer. There is a lot more pressure on me to also get my daughter to dress nice, take care of herself, and other things then I feel with my son. I don't feel that it's appropriate to say parents DISCOURAGE women from entering tech fields, they just don't ENCOURAGE them as much. That said, I think there are other reasons. Computer and robotic programs are generally also geared toward women. The programs are self contained and typically lack the complex social structure that most women like. I think the key is adding that component. Like the article mentioned above, girls need to see the social component of computer programming to see the benefit. I think many parents, including programmers like myself, tend to miss that aspect that would really speak to a girl. But then, so do many of the programs designed to get kids into programming as well.

Wes, I believe it's talking about the full conversion DC-AC-DC. And whoever said that power INVERSION is efficient needs to be shot. Converting DC to AC with a voltage boost is very inefficient. Converting AC back to DC, much better. Still, the point is that you loose some 30% - 40% of your battery power vs. going straight DC.

That's not entirely true though. There is no "yellow path" for other electronic mediums like Amazon or Pay Pal or Pay at the Pump you find in most gas stations. I think, though, that simply requiring you to provide a zip code or other information would cut down on the fraud significantly. One thing I do agree on is that calling the bank and having them authorize a device would be the most secure, but it would significantly hinder adoption.

The Debian guys have always been anti-business. They don't like anything that's not open source. It's one of the reasons I abandoned Debian for Ububtu. Ububtu has made a lot of unpopular (wrong?) choices, but they understand the need for non-oss. In the end, an OS needs to support your work. There is no browser for Linux that is better for supporting web and heavy js. This is another case of Debian Philosophy interfering with its usefulness.

Thing is though, Comcast DOES charge content providers for a fast lane. One of their spokespersons said, in regards to net neutrality, "Don't think of it as a fast lane and a slow lane. Think of it as a fast lane and a faster lane."

I'm a software engineer and have worked with other software engineers for decades. While it might be true that software engineering may not be considered science by some definitions, Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer and can be lumped in the same boat. In either case, this likely either has to do with evolution and/or climate change and most software engineers I know believe in both. Not all, but most. So... I guess if they are not scientists, at least most of us understand the scientific method and it's application.

I agree. Pearl probably has a higher "functionality" factor but it's compleatly unmaintainable.

There is a difference here. When I browse a website and that we site chooses to deliver content to my box, they can choose to advertise, but I don't have to allow them to use my bandwidth or my professor. And many of these add agencies pose a security risk or track you. Heck many store cross site cookies.

Yes and no. Quantum physics has massive implications to relativity. But quantum physics allows for things like the Big Bang. If you believe, however, that space time is a product of gravity and mass (which relativity proves) then it doesn't break down so much as it's a question of "what happens" when space or time or mass and energy exceed the speed of light. And most importantly, if energy is neither created nor destroyed, how can a universe come from nothing..

Yes. Basically. At the quantum level, quanta can just spontaneously appear and disappear. It's the reason many quantum physicists believe in multiple/parallel universes. Of course, if your a religious person, it's also an acceptable theory, one in which creation would be involved. I'm more of a scientist, but if anything unites the two views, quantum physics and the Big Bang seem to come the closest.

Sure you can, although the latest OS's on Mac have been free, so I'm sure apple would be happy to give you a refund.

Java is verbose, but not crap. There is a reason most of the enterprise software today is written in it. Java's verbosity also makes it intimately readable. If you look at the error streams coming off of most iOS apps today, you'll see why languages like Java HAVE been so popular. That said, this is about swift. Swift is interesting because it promises to make cocoa in its entirety available, it plays nicely with objective C, is simpler to learn and apple claims it's faster. The problem with objective c, like other c's, is it's too close to the object code. Swift promises to have the structure and ease of use of a modern language with the efficiency of native code. And swift DOES PRODUCE native code. I've been playing around with swift and although it lacks a lot of maturity, the promise of using cocoa and nativ objC api's it true. If it were me, I would learn swift and evolve with the technology. It's certainly the direction that apple is taking.

If you take a computer architectures class and KNOW how memory works, who flipping cares. Truth is, much like nobody programs in assembly any more, all modern languages have garbage collection and most have eliminated pointers. Why? Well the reasons are many. First off, such techniques are error prone at best. Even IF someone understands them, sometimes things get overlooked and when they do, they are hard to debug. The reality is that the OO paradigm and in the near future functional models will be 99% of what the overage programmer will be exposed to. I'd rather hire someone who was comfortable with these concepts then someone who could map put and manage their own memory any day of the week.