bbb

I trust there must be good reasons on a global scale... but in my local view this makes only limited sense.

(Btw., this is the J-1 visa home residency rule, for those who care. I need to live in my home country for at least two years before I can apply for an H-1b. Two years at home is just long enough to settle in and make moving _again_ not very attractive.)

http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/03/78063.html

This drives up attendance fees, which are of course reimbursed from tax payer money...

Not so fast. The North has millions of trained, ready soldiers and nukes, and a single-minded determination to fight to the end. A full-blown war would cost millions of lives on all sides, and a win for us is not certain at all. It could easily end with a bloody stalemate and new truce after they've conquered most of the south and we lose the will to send >100,000 US soldiers to die. Just look at how it went the first time. The army of North Korea is quite formidable.

That's really not an insightful conclusion. I think it's rather a question of pride and effort: the code probably needs to be cleaned up before release, and the reward for investing that time is very low (career-wise). Researchers are going to publish their source code when it becomes required by most major journals and conferences.

There may be jobs in industry that allow for similar growth, but they are certainly not the norm. It is easy to stay within one's comfort zone once one gets paid to do so.

In my (completely biased) opinion, doing a PhD is worth it for great and curious students that like to be challenged and that can afford 5 years, no matter what you plan to do afterwards (in fact, especially if you don't know what to do afterwards). You can always be a code monkey for 50 years after the PhD; it's hard to go the other way.

http://developer.apple.com/technologies/tools/whats-new.html...

(This is probably a side effect of PR people preparing the website; there is no reason why LLVM should not be able to detect this particular kind of NULL-dereference.)

No, you, the consumer, are not making commercial use of the NYTimes.com newsfeed.

The company producing the Pulse reader, however, is making commercial use of the NYT brand and content by featuring it prominently in the advertising material.

So, as mentioned by others, the easiest solution seems to be to remove all NYT references (and other unlicensed brands) and resubmit.

The problem here is that the Pulse reader is (from the point of view of the NYT) trying to get a free ride on the NYT's brand name. This is really no different from ripping off any other brand name to advocate your product, e.g., you can't advertise your "high-performance shoe laces" by prominently featuring Nike shoes without obtaining prior approval.

It's perfectly reasonable for heavy users to pay more than light users. But the same holds true for water, sewage, electricity, etc.

So why do we have such a complicated mess of data plan options? Why is 3G bandwidth not just a simple metered service where everybody pays the same rate?

Of course, the oil would probably start leaking through the sand/rubble after a few days.

This could be trivially solved by applying nuclear explosives to weld everything shut, with the added benefit that local fishermen could stop to worry whether they'll have a job again soon. </sarcasm>

Oh, I don't doubt that many artists would welcome your service if it leads to a broader, more international audience. Yet I somehow doubt that the labels and their lawyers are necessarily going to be of the same opinion.

Anyway, if I may digress, if you happen to be offering the reverse service at some point, I'd like to watch German RTL Formula One coverage from the US. RTL even offers an iPhone app for that, but they check the user's location and block viewers not residing in Germany... :-(

These arbitrary "market segmentations" are really annoying and not the least in the interest in the viewer (who, sadly, is not the customer...). Good luck toppling them, I'll root for you.

From a user point of view, I think that's pretty cool. However, are you sure it's legal? I'd think it's greyish at best (but IANAL), and you might get a lot of unwanted attention from the big media companies for advertising this so openly. Are you sure you have the pockets to stand up to them in court even if you are sure that it's legal?

Wow, I wish I could recognize trends that quickly. At most two observations, and already a "regular."

That would be notepad.exe. No, I'm not kidding. I learned Java using nothing but notepad.exe and javac on a Win98 box. Syntax highlighting seemed quite magical back then. ;-)

(Ok, ok, I know, editor != IDE…)

Could work, but you'd have to get me hooked more quickly.

I get what they mean, but "more optimal"? Please...

Maximal, minimal, optimal, and the corresponding verbs, require proof. Why not use "better", "improved", "shorter", "reduced", "faster" or "sped up" instead?

That's a bit harsh; there's a large difference between an "uneducated opinion" and a "carefully researched assessment by a non-lawyer". Based on your criteria, no journalist could ever write about any topic but journalism.

Gruber: I’m not offended by their decision to obtain this unit and publish everything they were able to ascertain regarding it. [...] Second, publishing the name, photographs, and personal information of the Apple engineer who lost the phone is irrelevant to the story. It was the dick move to end all dick moves.

It seems to me that he made it pretty clear that he does not take offense with reporting about the prototype per se. Rather, he condemns the way that Gizmodo chose to handle the whole affair.

What I find a lot more scary is this: http://www.engadget.com/photos/joojoo-unboxing/#2855956

Vents? Seriously? Does it have a fan? Is it going to be noisy? Just imagine all the crap that can fall in there, all the stuff that can get caught on it.

This is where we differ---the whole reason to get excited about the iPad is because it promises to make typing (and mouse wiggling, one of the most unnatural things to do ever!) a whole lot less relevant. That's something to be excited about, IMO.

One of the reasons why the first German democracy (1918-1933) failed (and gave rise to Hitler) is because the German society was very much compartmentalized and split into "subcultures" at the time. In fact, large parts of the military chose to continue as "para-military" units after the end of WWI. These violent groups that saw themselves as above the law played a significant part in Hitler's ascent to power.

When the current Germany was designed after WWII, many safeguards were built into the system to ensure that there would be no more "parallel" societies. Two obvious examples are 1) the universal draft (flow all parts of society through the military to prevent the military from isolating itself) and 2) no home schooling (the public schools serve to promote democracy and western values; the public school system is designed to be the "melting pot" that integrates immigrants and fringe groups).

How would you feel about this case if the home schooling did not involve Christians (Note: I'm not religious myself.), but radical Moslems? What if it were about Nazis indoctrinating their kids with hate? What if it were about a sect that raises their kids to prepare for a collective suicide?

The German (mainstream) belief is that the government has to step in in these cases. It has to protect the kids from their own parents.

The family that was granted asylum may very well be fine parents and teachers (I don't know them), but for obvious reasons you can't have an effective law that says "you may only homeschool kids for Christian reasons, but other choices are not ok".

So, the German society, under consideration of its history, chooses to err on the safe side: no homeschooling. Period.

Of course, the particular circumstances may very much differ for other societies, so that other societies may reasonably come up with different rules (e.g., the US). But that does not invalidate the reasoning behind the German laws.

I recently had to do something like this and ended up using SWIG to generate the glue code. However, I noticed that my code had to spent considerable time (many iterations) in the C++ library to reduce overall execution time (but then it did by a factor of 20x-40x).

Do you happen to have some advice on how much speedup could be gained by replacing SWIG with handwritten wrappers?