bonch

People that don't have the money to buy bitcoins and see them appreciate are jealous of the ones that do. They hide their insufficiency and jealousy by calling it a ponzi scheme or scam, so they can simultaneously feel superior to the bitcoiners whilst tricking themselves into thinking they wouldn't buy them anyway even if they had the money.

It'd also be a fear that one day they'd have to work on a bitcoin project, which would be rubbing salt in the wounds.

Fact is, there are tons of hackers that could contribute a lot to the bitcoin ecosystem, but they take the negative route instead: they don't want to give anyone a free ride (or they like their rut.)

I could go on, but there are some anti-Israel type tones in the anti-bitcoin brigade, that's my feeling when I write anything positive about bitcoin: I may as well write something positive about Israel.

For many, bitcoin.org is the startup, and buying the currency is the investment. People would upvote any story about their startup, and they'd upvote anything about bitcoin. It's a fair thing to do.

Bitcoin is an extremely hacker-ish thing. It is a hack on the money supply. It is as revolutionary to money (the concept, perhaps not the implementation as yet) as mp3 was to music, or blogs to writers. It has hugely positive implications, so people that hate it, will Really hate it.

The best part is that you say to wait a year for the product to get finished. Then you list some of the very criticisms made in the article.

The issue is that those apps will be relegated to the crufty, legacy desktop tile while the first-class apps get to appear on the new shell.

The idea that .NET is going to be replaced by HTML5 and JavaScript is absolutely ridiculous.

VB6 developers probably wouldn't have believed that Microsoft would kill it off either, but they did.

    // Order.h
    #import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
    
    @interface Order : NSObject
    @property (copy) NSString *id;
    @property (retain) Customer *customer;
    @property (copy) NSDate *timestamp;
    @property (copy) NSString *productId;
    @end
    

    // Order.m
    #import "Order.h"
    
    @implementation Article
    @synthesize id;
    @synthesize customer;
    @synthesize timestamp;
    @synthesize productId;
    @end

    Order *order = [NSEntityDescription insertNewObjectForEntityForName:@"Order"
                    inManagedObjectContext:self.managedObjectContext];

-performSelector: takes a selector string, and its variants allow you to pass objects as arguments. I'm not sure why you think it involves C types or why you cite it as the feature that makes Objective-C dynamic (there's considerably more to it than that).

No offense, but the tiny sampling size of the few people you talk to doesn't mean anything. The public happily gives more personal information to Facebook than Sony has on them.

A jailbreaker already gave Apple their money for the hardware. It's like how Apple doesn't go after software piracy all that much, relying on a serial number at best. OS X doesn't even use one.

When iPods and iPads are included, iOS greatly surpasses the Android install base. These aren't just phone operating systems; they're mobile device operating systems.

People have been claiming HTML and Javascript were the future of application development for about 15 years now. They also claimed it about Java and, ironically, .NET.

Microsoft hasn't been portraying the new shell that way. It seems to be where the first-class Windows 8 applications will reside, with the icky old legacy applications relegated to the classic desktop.

What are you talking about? What about it is trying to "sound like a news outlet?" It says right in the side of the page, "Matthew Fraser - Reflections on life and literature in Paris." It's clearly a blog.

> The author took a law that makes a little sense and tries to find hidden agendas, self interests and contradictions in official reports with little or no evidence.

What could possibly make sense about prohibiting people from mentioning Facebook and Twitter on television? The CSA spokesperson actually asked, "Why give preference to Facebook, which is worth billions of dollars, when there are many other social networks that are struggling for recognition?" Because Facebook beat out those networks struggling for recognition, that's why. It's not anyone else's problem that Facebook beat them.

I find the author's nationalist explanation to be plausible. This is the same government that insisting on inventing its own term for email that was more "distinctly French."