You can make your argument about developer lock-in for Swift, but not Objective C.
And really [Objective C] in the above list exist only because Apple decided they wanted to try for developer lockin.
Objective C was developed by Brad Cox and Tom Love at their then company Stepstone. It was then used by NeXT for NextStep. It got into Apple only because NeXT was bought by Apple and NextStep was the basis for Mac OS X. It had nothing to do with developer lock-in.
A presidential pardon may be granted at any time, however, and as when Ford pardoned Nixon, the pardoned person need not yet have been convicted or even formally charged with a crime.
So, yes, Obama can pardon Snowden.
... the age of exploitation is over. And unless those people, companies, entities, with their Corporate Social Responsibilities, especially those with the power to influence vast masses, start putting the priorities of the Planet, which has so far given us the privilege - not right - to exist and be making all that $$$, it ain't going to benefit anyone.
You know that, at least in the US, the pro-business Republicans now control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, right? The age of exploitation is just getting started. (They even tried to get rid of their own independent ethics board.)
but don't mention anything to do with George Soros or middle eastern donations to the Clinton campaign you're playing partisan politics.
So let me get this straight -- what you're saying is that it's nothing more than a partisan attack if allegations about *both* Republicans and Democrats aren't made at the same time, and given equal weight, correct? Because you realize that doesn't make any sense... the allegations here decidedly aren't equivalent, and your attempt to impose some sort of false equivalency between them makes you look rather partisan yourself.
Allegations against George Soros, and other allegations regarding Clinton campaign donations, have definitely come from what I'd consider highly partisan sources, and the allegations themselves appear highly partisan as well. But the current allegations regarding Russian involvement in the November election, specifically in regards to leaked emails from John Podesta and the DNC, are coming from the CIA, a well-funded and highly-regarded government agency, which traditionally has provided useful and non-partisan intelligence to both the executive branch of the U.S. government, as well as to the U.S. Congress. Keep in mind that what the CIA is alleging here is not that Trump or anyone in the Republican party was involved in the release of the emails; the CIA is saying that agents under the ultimate authority of Vladimir Putin removed electronic documents from systems belonging to the Democratic party and the Hillary Clinton campaign, then leaked those documents to the press in an attempt to sway voter oppinion during the election.
Regardless of your party affiliation, if those allegations are true, it's a deeply disturbing situation, and it definitely deserves an official investigation. Today it was the Russians; tomorrow it might be the Chinese, or the North Koreans, or someone else with little love and potentially a lot of hate for America. It's being awfully short-sighted to think that these kinds of shenanigans can't or won't impact Republicans in the future. The opportunities for out-and-out blackmail of political candidates, or extortion, or a whole variety of other nefarious activities are rife. Trump's virtual dismissal of the potential political problems here with foreign actors influencing American elections rings hollow, and I very much hope Republicans will spend a little time working to preserve the democratic process itself, instead of focusing only on the conservative-friendly results of the last election.
How to fail to persuade: "you're just to stupid to understand, but smart people believe X". How to persuade "I understand why you think that way, plenty of smart people would, knowing what you know. Here are some things you don't know, and why they're important".
Interestingly, conservatives seem more likely to use argument #1, whereas liberals prefer argument #2. However, in almost every case I've seen recently, neither style of argument actually persuades anymore, likely because no one is really listening to facts these days.
Sadly, in our current post-truth reality, whoever speaks loudest and most often is the one who wins, and they can lie about anything and everything without consequence.
The solution to this problem is free education and a basic income. We should start with a grant for 60 credit hours of community college and a basic income at 60% the federal poverty level.
I think you're underestimating both the scope and the magnitude of the problem.
First, consider that the problem we're facing here isn't just going to affect only low-skilled workers. Artificial intelligence, automation and robotics will ultimately impact higher-skilled workers too. It's only a question of time. If IBM's Watson can already diagnose illness better than a physician with a decade of college and on-the-job education under their belt, than even doctors have something to worry about. Don't forget that we're at the point now where nearly 1/3 of all Americans already have at least a bachelor's degree. When the economy itself needs fewer and fewer workers to produce more and more goods and services, a few extra free junior college units isn't going to keep average Americans employed.
Finally, the end-game here is all-too obvious; with an increasing population chasing fewer and fewer jobs, a basic income at 60% of the poverty line isn't going to do anything but ensure grinding poverty in the future, likely for decades to come, as the vast majority of Americans will never be able to find work again.
Overall, after careful consideration of the problem, I think this plan sucks. We as a nation ought to be able to do better than that. A handful of the uber-rich presiding over a nation of hundreds of millions of perpetual beggars is what I would consider a nightmare scenario. It does not have to be this way. I pray that we'll find some way to avoid this kind of apocalyptic scenario. I suspect it will require a great deal of out-of-the-box thinking, and we'll likely have to abandon some of our cherished capitalistic principles.
There may be an inflection point when needs required by new technology can be fulfilled by technology itself, or fewer people due to advances in tech. I think we are seeing the latter already, and it will steadily progress to the former. There is no turning back.
Don't be naive! We can absolutely turn back the clock on technological progress if necessary. If technology is driving humanity off a cliff, humans can and should limit technology. To do anything else is foolish and, in a word, insane.
As I see it, human beings are not lemmings. We are not living out our lives solely to implement technological progress. Therefore, we do not need to commit societal suicide because, "Ooohhhhh, shiny!" Technology is useful insomuch as it benefits society. If technology is not useful, or if it's counterproductive, we can most certainly say, "No."