175 karma · joined August 7, 2009
1. Google will allow .edu Google Apps users to activate G+.
2. ?
3. G+ will "dominate" Facebook.
Watching sports online could be such a great experience, but most sports leagues seem to have their hands tied by their traditional broadcasting contracts unfortunately.
"Cutting the cable" still isn't that viable an option for a lot of people, and traditional broadcasting and media companies are still very much in control of most media consumption.
Facebook wants its users to catalog their lives. For them, this data is marketing gold. For end users, it means their content (photos, status updates, life events, etc) are categorized more thoroughly and in a more meaningful fashion (geographically, chronologically, etc).
The rest of the arguments are just as spurious and the article is, in my opinion, representative of the tech world's flawed and narrow take on Google+. It seems like most commentators have let their analyses be skewed by either an irrational dislike of Facebook or a love of new technology. Neither of these will drive people away from Facebook or towards Google+. Furthermore, a lot of these arguments seem, sometimes implicitly, predicated on the idea that Facebook is just going to stand by and let themselves be steam-rolled by Google. Google is the underdog here, they have a lot of failures under their belt in this area and at the end of the day, despite the novelty involved in binning friends into circles, Google+ is just a Facebook clone.
This isn't true of Python, though. Most people are Python coders first, web framework users second. Their level of experience with Python has a part in dictating what they're looking for in a web framework and many experienced Python devs are more attracted to small or micro-frameworks like Bottle, Flask, web.py, etc. Django has never been the "one true web framework" for Python the way Rails is for Ruby. Personally I have never touched Django, just Flask and web.py.
Also, if you are going to base your framework usage on its popularity in comparison to Rails you're going to have a tough time ever being satisfied. When has any framework (web or otherwise) generated the same level of cult following as Rails? The Rails community is an absolute outlier in the open source software world (and I mean that in a positive way).
The real, real story here is, as the author asks, where do you draw the line? Personally I don't think the author had much of a leg to stand on given that the image was being used to sell an album and was easily recognizable as a simulacrum of the original work.
When I want a carrot I grab one out of the fridge, grab the peeler off of the counter, pull my compost box out from under the sink and peel it directly into the compost. Why would you need a cutting board?!
Where was the article trumpeting the "renewal of content freedom" when Alien Swarm came out?
> And on the plus side, you get all the benefits of compiler type checking, better IDE support, and great refactoring support.
Since when? Compile time type checking is only a benefit if you're worried about type errors and in my experience the people that are most concerned with type errors are the proponents of statically typed languages. With respect to IDEs and refactoring support, my experience has been more along the lines of "C# and Java have good IDEs and refactoring tools, everything else not so much." I personally find Scala and Haskell's tool support to be far behind Python's, just for example. Also, Smalltalk has, arguably, far better tools available than any statically typed language (or any other language for that matter).
Nobody has proven that statically typed languages are better than dynamically typed ones, nor that applications built with them are less error pronen. I would argue that the amazingly widespread use of Ruby and Python and the average quality of projects written in those languages is evidence to the contrary.