When the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) announced the applications for new Top Level Domains, a number of proposed domains were related to adult content, such as .sex, .porn and .adult. Critics say that these domains should be banned from the Web because they will lead to more pornography, while open Internet proponents say there are great benefits to cordoning off porn to these specific domains. Should .porn and its kin be allowed? Vote in the poll below.

There are a variety of arguments to consider in the .porn debate. Morality in Media (MIM), an organization that has opposed the public dissemination of pornography since 1962, lists two specific reasons for officially opposing the new gTLDs. Foremost, MIM maintains that more porn domains will mean more porn on the Internet. Second, MIM says that nonporn entities (schools, brands, companies, individuals) will be forced into buying .porn domains to avoid the humiliation of having their own online identities tied to a pornography-related domain by someone else.

The second point in an interesting one. This type of extortion has been a major reason why many people have opposed opening new top-level domains in the first place. ICANN has worked to address these concerns in the rules it has set up for how domain owners handle their registries. ICANN has two separate rights protection mechanisms (RPMs) that apply to owning a top-level domain, including a sunrise period (where brands can acquire their domains before the registry is made available to the public), as well as a trademark claim service that will be handled by a company called Trademark Clearinghouse. 

There is also the reverse of the extortion equation from the perspective of the porn industry. Many leading adult-content conglomerates were upset when ICANN released the .xxx domain that was approved in March 2011 and went into effect a month later. Porn sites argued that they were being forced to buy new sites on the .xxx registry even though they already owned popular .com domain names. So, the debate slides both ways. 

As for the argument that there will be more porn on the Internet with new top-level domains such as .adult, .porn and .sex, there is little proof that will be the case. Yes, there will likely be more porn site names, but many of those will be placeholder sites by existing porn sites or “defensive” registries. CNET reported in May this year that there were 61 .xxx domains in the top million sites on the Web, with only one in the top 52,000. Overall, there were 215,835 .xxx sites, with 132,859 pertaining to adult content. 

The argument in favor of domain names related to adult content comes from a variety of sectors. Many believe that porn domains will help create a community where people in search of adult content will be able to visit outside of the normal .com or .net sites. It would amount to their own cordoned-off section of the Internet. Also, it is easier for parents and IT administrators to block access to adult content domains that use the .porn or .adult URL paths. 

Groups like Morality in Media are going to protest no matter what. That is what they do. But the situation is not quite as black and white as they make it seem.

What do you think? Should new domains like .porn, .sex and .adult be allowed on the Internet? Take the poll below and let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Sun Microsystems was well-loved among developers. It created Java and gave it to the world, asking little in return. It took big bad Microsoft to court and won. Java is one of the most important software innovations of the Web era. Until it sold itself to Oracle. 

Oracle acquired Sun in January 2010 and took all of seven months to bring charges against Google for infringing its rights to Java. The database king claimed that Google not only violated a variety of patents but copied the Java language and its application programming interfaces (APIs) outright. It sought damages of $6 billion - roughly a billion shy of what it paid for Sun. The case hasn't gone smoothly. As of last week, it looked as though Oracle does not have a strong claim to Google’s profits from its use of Java in Android. 

And this is where Oracle has not only damaged its bottom line, but also its credibility. Java has been and will likely always be open source and free. Sun created it as such and developed it more as a steward than an owner. By attempting to copyright the API regardless of the impact it would have on the entire software ecosystem, Oracle has thrown the legal nature of computer languages and programming into question.  

How badly have Oracle’s legal machinations hurt its brand? How badly have its legal machinations damaged its credibility with developers and the open source community? Take the poll below.

That's all set to change within three years, according to a growing chorus of analysts. The latest to vouch for the impending growth of Windows Phone is iSuppli, who last week predicted that the platform could outperform Apple's iOS by 2015.

This echoes previous predictions from the likes of IDC and Gartner, and certainly isn't at odds with the future as envisioned by Nokia president Chris Weber, who stated last year that Windows Phone will make iOS and Android look antiquated in due time. To be sure the platform's growth will fueled by Microsoft's partnership with Nokia and the buzz-worthy devices it generates, such as the Lumia 900 and its brethren.

Still, some have balked at the claim that Windows Phone could rise to challenge iOS anytime so soon, given Apple's propensity to upgrade its mobile hardware every year, with even modest iterations yielding surprisingly successful results. What do you think?

When my colleague David Strom pointed it out to us here at ReadWriteWeb, I made one of my artificially erudite remarks: I wonder how many RWW readers, I said, would consider CNBC passé?

This led to an interesting discussion, which has evolved into the inspiration for asking you the question in a way that might make you think about it first. I'll go ahead and ask it first, then if you care, I'll share some personal thoughts.

Two of the larger factors that inspired me to seek the profession I'm in now are, curiously and perhaps ironically, television and conferences. I grew up admiring - and trying to emulate - a man named David Brinkley, who during the 1960s read the news during the dinner hour for NBC, at a time when TV news was electronic news. My interest in computer technology derived partly because I wanted to make my own games, but also from my sincere belief that interactive journalism would supplant broadcast journalism. For that reason, I became attracted to, and a frequent attendee of, computer and electronics conferences, CES among them. (Though my wife used to be my editor, I met her in person at COMDEX.)

There is a plausible argument that, at a time when most viewers have already heard about each story, a broadcast news program has become somewhat antiquated. And there is an equally plausible argument that an annual electronics conference at any one city, at a time when most retailers and suppliers and manufacturers do business with one another electronically on a daily basis, has become quaint, old-fashioned, and maybe even a waste of money.

But I'm not certain the Internet has actually replaced either one as a venue. There is no "Huntley-Brinkley Report" for the Web, no single authority for reliable news. And while that does not bother everyone, it bothers me because it means most folks' view of the world is hodgepodge, aggregated, assembled from multiple accounts, with varying levels of accuracy and dependability. When I read "Michael Jackson is Dead," I did not believe it; and when I read "Jon Bon Jovi is Dead," I questioned myself as to why I should not believe it.

And there is no CES for the Web, although I know the CEA has tried. The Web cannot replicate the directness, the urgency, and yes, the excitement of bringing every major player together into the same square mile.

So I'm curious to learn your thoughts, and here is where I'll point out the handy little comments section at the end: If history truly is outmoding all sense of authority, regality, pomposity, and prominence from these two once-dominant sources of information, then which one leaves our midst first?

Spotify's free accounts are normally restricted to ten listening hours per month. If you really, truly love a particular song, you'll only be able to stream it five times in a given month. These caps will come on top of the usual limitations of free accounts: You have to listen to advertisements and there's no mobile access.

For $5 per month, users can eliminate the listening caps and advertisements. For $10 they can get access to Spotify's giant library of music from their smartphone. For many users, the mobile version of Spotify can serve as an iPod-killer, since it allows them to merge their own MP3 collection with the company's massive selection of albums in the cloud.

The question of whether users will convert to paying customers is crucial to the viability of Spotify's business model. The company has deals in place with all of the major music labels and many independent ones, but those relationships are not necessarily set in stone, nor did they come about easily. Its U.S. launch was delayed due to extended negotiations with the labels. More recently, concerns have been raised over the relatively small payout seen by artists, a few of which have opted to keep their new releases off of Spotify.

There could be several books written about the battle for Flash against mobile. "Steve Jobs' Last Laugh" could probably be finished in time for the holiday shopping season. "How To Kill Flash For Dummies" would be an enlightening title as well. It is a bittersweet day for many. We want to know: how are you reacting to the passing of Flash for mobile? Take the poll below.

The Fall Of One, The Rise of Another

The fall of one platform is often correlated to the rise of another. Look at Android vs. Blackberry or Chrome vs. Firefox, Google vs. Yahoo, Internet Explorer vs. Netscape. The death of mobile Flash is seen as the ultimate validation of HTML5. The evolution of this battle on mobile will take place with native apps vs. Web apps though there is no clear indication yet what will ultimately be the winner in that sweepstakes.

Adobe will now focus on HTML5 development and tools that can be used to help developers. The company's recent acquisition of PhoneGap maker Nitobi will help ease the pain in Adobe's mobile development cycles and should not be overlooked as a major factor in this decision to kill mobile Flash.

The pages of ReadWriteWeb have been filled with Flash news for the last four years. Like so many things in the last decade, the argument was created by our generation's largest tech luminary, Steve Jobs. A lot of pundits and tech insiders took Jobs' words for gospel and that fueled the bashing of Flash that has led to this point. On the other hand, there have been a lot of hardworking people (with a lot of money) that have tried to fix the problems Flash had on mobile devices for the last several years. This cannot be a good day for them as something they have been working on for years has been obsoleted overnight.

Take a look at some of the highlights of our Flash coverage from the last couple of years and take the poll below to let us know how you feel.

ReadWriteWeb's Notable Flash Coverage:

• Steve Jobs Wins: Adobe to Give Up Mobile Flash for HTML5
• Steve Jobs Speaks: Why We Don't Allow Flash on iPhones and iPads
• On Mobile Flash, Apple Stands Alone
• Does HTML5 Really Beat Flash? The Surprising Results of New Tests
• EU May Force Flash Onto Apple Products
• Adobe Releases Flash to HTML5 Conversion Tool
• HTML5 Scores a Point as SlideShare Ditches Flash Entirely
• Adobe: Flash is an Exception to Windows 8's 'Plug-in Free' Rule
• Adobe Flash Player 10.2 Ready For Honeycomb; Honeycomb Not Ready For Anything
• Farewell Flash? Adobe Launches HTML5 Web Animations Tool "Adobe Edge"
• Google Swiffy Converts Flash to HTML5
• B&N's Nook Color Gets Apps, Flash & More in Major Update
• Flash Video Comes to the iPhone, iPad with Skyfire
• How to Install Flash on your iPhone (The Easy Way)
• Apple Approved: iSwifter Lets You Play Popular Flash Games on the iPad
• Worried About Flash on the iPad? Apple Tries to Ease Your Fears
• No Flash? No Worries: Majority of Online Video Now Available in HTML5
• YouTube: Flash Still Beats HTML5
• Flash Now Importable to HTML5 Canvas
• Death to Flash: 3 Great HTML 5 Demos
• Adobe Celebrates, But Will Flash Developers Return to Apple?
• Proof of Concept Brings Flash to the iPhone
• MobiUs Accelerates Mobile HTML5 Development, Aims to Kill Mobile Flash

Programmable Web (a site owned by ReadWriteWeb sponsor Alcatel-Lucent) counted up the mentions of specific APIs to try to determine which one drew the most ire from developers.

The verdict? Facebook is the worst. But actually, Facebook tied with "Other." Given that Facebook is one of the most popular APIs, can we really conclude that Facebook has the worst API, or just the most commonly used?

Here's a list of the most common gripes about APIs in general, from Trove's blog post:

• Poor documentation (how you loathe poor documentation)
• OAuth (oh wow, do you hate OAuth)
• Poor error handling
• Lack of example code
• Lack of test environments
• Lack of standardized libraries across languages
• APIs that change/break frequently (huge shout out to Facebook here, like you're surprised)
• Normalizing data to match internal data structures
• Line between use and abuse
• Arbitrary throttling (differences between services)
• Differing standards (REST v SOAP v XML-RPC, XML v JSON v POST, versioning v not, etc.)
• Getting services to talk to a dev machine behind a firewall

Most of these can apply to just about any API, not just Facebook. But as Programmable Web executive editor Adam DuVander notes, Facebook really is called out explicitly and often.

Is the Facebook API really so bad?

Image Credit: Massimo Barbieri

The nuances of such a debate are beyond the capabilities of a simple poll such as this one, but just to gauge the community's response to the issue, we're asking you: is it time to end software patents?

Meanwhile, Mike James makes the case that your next language had better be C++. James notes the uncertainty surrounding Java following Oracle's acquisition of Sun, and the uncertainty around .NET as Microsoft seems to be de-prioritizing it in Windows 8.

I can't see Microsoft deprecating C# anytime soon, but as James notes the Visual C++ team is hard at work and C++ is clearly going to be central to Microsoft's developer strategy in the future.

And although Java is finally moving forward again, and frameworks like Spring are pushing it into the future, I can certainly see the case for being weary of Java in the Oracle age.

And James didn't even mention NaCl, which will bring C++ into the browser.

The one place that it seems deficient is in mobile, and it seems all but certain that the HTML5/CSS3/JavaScript stack will rule the majority of mobile development. But there will be some cases in which developers will want to develop native apps, and Android now supports the creation of native apps in C++. Apple may never allow this for iOS, but there it's Apple's way or the highway anyway. Update: I was mistaken, I thought Apple only allowed Objective-C and HTML/JavaScript apps since its terms of service update last year, but C and C++ are also supported.

What do you think?

If you want to study-up on C++, you can check out our collection of free resources here.

Bob Warfield suggests that the two keys to a successful PaaS are 1) Revenue generation (such as through an app market) and 2) Commodity pricing. It reminds me a lot of our post What do Developers Dream Of? Fun, Money and Beautiful Machines.

What is that you look for in PaaS?

Photo by Shereen M

What about you? Are you interested in developing on this platform? What do you want to build with it?

Photo by Shereen M

I could speculate as to whether the fact that PaaS vendors do in fact have developers paying to use their services is evidence that developers want to use these services, or whether developers habit of setting up their own development environments extends to the cloud. Or I could just ask: do you want to use a PaaS?

Photo by Shereen M

Part of Coast's argument is about the rate of change in Rails, but it isn't just a matter of wanting to stick to the old ways. "We're making it perfect and keeping up the number of new things to learn per month for people writing rails for the last few years," he writes. "But we're making it harder and harder for anyone to join the club from scratch."

What do you think? Is Rails going in the wrong direction?

It doesn't appear that there's a mechanism for offering paid extensions, yet. But Decision Stats blogger Ajay Ohri hopes to see this turn into an app store for algorithms.

"For some time now, I had been hoping for a place where new package or algorithm developers get at least a fraction of the money that iPad or iPhone application developers get," Ohri writes. "It is hard work to think of new algols, and some of them can really be useful."

Ohri hopes that there will be a way for data miners to at least donate money to algorithm inventors through the RapidMiner interface.

Since Microsoft and other companies are already offering marketplaces for data, an algorithm marketplace makes sense as the next logical step. What do you think? Is it time for an app store for algorithms?

Do you use any of these APIs? Have you found alternatives yet?

We suggested asking questions that start with "Tell me about a time when..." and drilling down from there. Is that the best way to interview? How do you prefer to do it?

Photo by Shereen M

He decided Rhipe, which integrates R with Hadoop, was the closest to what he was looking for. However, one notable absence from his overview is Wukong, which brings Ruby to Hadoop. (Though I'm not sure whether this would meet his requirements).

Which language do you prefer for creating MapReduce jobs, and why?

On the other hand, as pointed out in this blog post by Metamarket CTO Mike Driscoll on the company's migration to Node.js, it's better to swap out critical infrastructure early in a startup's life.

So, when you're building an application - when do you start thinking about scalability?

We know this community doesn't necessary represent the broader population of developers, but of course we'd still like to know: what operating system do you use to get most of your coding done?

Photo by Shereen M