A traditional computer science program is designed to prepare you for research, may that be in academia or industry. Most of the problems that you'll be solving won't be easy, the solutions that you develop won't be seen by many people out of your field, but the work of a good computer scientist will be groundbreaking. They take the impractical and make it practical, primarily through developing algorithms that have a strong mathematical basis.
It sounds like you'd be more interested in a software engineering degree. That's still heavy on math, but the emphasis is on designing and implementing software in a rigorous manner. Or maybe you want to be going through some sort of college program. That'll be much lighter on the math and you can still get decent jobs with it, but you'll be more of a grease monkey of the information age. (That is fine if you like that type of work, just realize that your career options are more limited.)
I took a quick look at the introductory material of the report, and the data appeared to be for 2011. This is well after regulatory changes were made so the data may reflect a positive outcome from those regulatory changes.
(I'm no fan of "GreenPeace" and similar groups, but the degree of hate expressed by some people is beyond belief.)
Even if the registration was legitimate, they still used a Microsoft trademark as a portion of the domain name. That is going to cause problems for the domain's owner even if the trademark XBox One didn't exist at the time of registration.
For what it's worth, I pulled up on archive.org and it was some sort of xbox fan site in the past. Depending upon the trail of registrations since then, it is doubtful that a domain squatter owns it.
Bad experiences can be character-forming, but character forming goes both ways.
Employers look at a person's history while hiring. A person with a clear history or a history of positive contributions is going to have a leg up when it comes to securing employment. A person which has a history of negative decisions is going to have less success securing employment.
Making everyone's life an open book doesn't solve that problem because it is based upon a bunch of false premisses. It is based upon the make-believe notion that everyone makes mistakes, and the fictional notion that everyone makes similar types of mistakes.
First of all, some people make far fewer mistakes than other people. A person who studied hard in college is probably going to frown upon a person who partied hard in college. A person who steered clear of drugs is probably going to look down upon a person who got sucked in by drugs. Even if the person who made irresponsible decisions turned their life around, the person who demonstrated responsibility throughout their life may still hold a dim view of them.
Even if people made mistakes in similar quantities, different types of mistakes have different social stigmas. A teenager caught DUI may be branded, but a lot of people will overlook that 10 years down the road because a lot of teenagers do stupid things. If that teenager killed a person while DUI they will be branded for life. Same mistake, different outcome, different social stigma. Don't think that stuff like that is posted online? Think again. People post videos of assaults and rapes online then harass the victim over it (a teen in my area recently killed herself because of that).
It's great to hear that these patent trolls are being held to account, but it looks like it is being done under consumer protection laws. Yet the real problem isn't consumer protection. The real problem isn't even patents. The problem is an abuse of the legal system that has the potential to undermine the legal system, particularly in the public mind since they used the threat of legal action. (It would undermine the legal system in practice if they actually followed through with those threats.)
It depends upon how you look at advertising. I would argue that advertising is meant to shape the tastes of consumers to reflect the interests of businesses. Given that this data is being collected to make advertising more effective, i.e. to make the shaping of our tastes more effective, I do see this as something to worry about.
... but I'm not expecting more honest telcos out of the deal. Whenever I see phones sold outright by the carriers or their affiliates, the phone is locked to the service provider. Whenever I look at the service plans offered by carriers, the monthly fee is the same whether you're on contract or not (the big difference is that you're not locked into a contract, so you can change plans or carriers down the road).
There are upsides. If carriers start refusing phone subsidies altogether, the price of phones should go down. Maybe you'll see more independent phone retailers popping up too. But I'm not expecting this to be a quick fix and it will take proactive attitudes from consumers.
I'm usually opposed to software patents because a lot of them seem trivial and focused upon anti-competitive business practices. Of course, patent trolls aren't helping matters either.
On the other hand, I don't see why non-obvious and non-trivial innovations shouldn't be patentable. Many algorithms take a considerable amount of time and money to develop. Industry wouldn't be willing to undertake the development process unless there is an opportunity to recoup their investment.
I always chuckle at signs that claim the area is protected by video cameras, simply because images of the camera jumping off the wall and performing ninja moves pass through my mind.
On the other hand, they are an investigative tool for after crimes have been committed. How useful they are, I cannot say because I do not entangle myself with the law (as a good guy or a bad guy). What I can say is that they are a product of a free society. For the most part, we don't go around arresting people for suspicious behaviour or the intent to commit crimes. That means that evidence must be collected after the fact, and CCTV is one of the tools for doing so.
As for being a really easy tool for governments to spy on people, maybe you should set your paranoia aside. There is no easy way to sift through the massive quantities of data produced by CCTV cameras, at least at present. If they were interested in spying on people, it would be far easier to have human eyes on the street reporting on the behaviour of people. Even that is excessive in most nations, because the various branches of the government are only interested in select people.
Of course, the Pi is also smaller and uses less power than a mini-itx board. Sticking something the size of a small tissue box in the backyard, and doesn't have an AC cord running into the house, is going to create a lot less friction with the spouse. Many people also find solving problems with constrained resources fun.
There are good reasons why mothers should get additional leave.
However, I do have one concern: it reinforces the notion that women are the primary child minders. Of course, this is a sexist attitude towards men because it deprives them of a role that they may wish to fulfil. Yet it is also sexist towards women, since it perpetuates a role that many women want to grow beyond.
This a thousand times over. Every account I've seen describes childbirth as painful. On top of that, women have to put up with many undesirable symptoms during pregnancy. Then there are the mothers who make many sacrifices in their lifestyle in order to ensure the health of the baby. Suggesting that Yahoo's policy is sexist is denying the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are inherently sexist.
Also, expecting mothers often take time off of work for their own health and their baby's health. Expecting father's don't (unless they have a desire to coddle their wife). The article didn't mention if this leave covers that as well.
I have numerous accounts for everything from forums to banking. Some are clearly important, while others are not important. The important accounts get the strong passwords, passwords that aren't reused (even in terms of a significant modification). The unimportant accounts have reused passwords, with the only real rule being that the password is different from accounts that may somehow be correlated (e.g. through their authentication mechanism or username).
The problem with preventing reuse is (a) every service thinks that they are the most important thing since the creation of the universe and (b) strong, non-repeated passwords have their own inherent insecurities.
By inherent insecurities I mean things like people recording their passwords. Written records and unencrypted electronic records can be read by anyone. These digital key managers secure all passwords with a single password, may they be locally hosted or remotely hosted. Records of any form run the risk of tying all accounts together rather than keeping them separate. Even those who memorize their passwords run the risk of entering the password for service A into service B.
Of course the people who think about security usually think about the things that they can control, which is the combination of bits. They rarely seem to address the psychology of the people using their mechanisms (outside of complaining or making unrealistic demands). If they want to create secure systems they need to apply human psychology, and recognize that security is often being applied where it is unimportant.
I'm not sure what kids are learning these days, but freedom and responsibility went hand-in-hand when I grew up. That is to say, you have freedom but you have to be responsible in your actions and take responsibility for your actions. Unfortunately, anonymity is frequently used to "exercise freedoms" while avoiding responsibility for your actions. I stuck exercise freedoms in quotes because some people are using that as an excuse to commit crimes or impinge upon the freedoms of others.
Of course I realise that equating crime to anonymity is only sometimes true. I also realise that anonymity is necessary in a free society. On the other hand, I do see why law enforcement agencies are deeply concerned by anonymity and encryption. I understand why judicial systems and governments have similar concerns. I understand why many ordinary citizens are concerned.
Apple definitely use their products to sell other products. That's a big part of the motivation behind iTunes and the Mac App Store.
I don't know if they derive revenues from it, but they have also integrated support for various email and social media services directly into their product.
Apple doesn't seem to do this any more, but they have also bundled demonstration software with their computers. (Microsoft Office comes to mind, but I seem to recall having to remove other software.)
So yes, Apple does use their products for marketing. It isn't as blatant as it is on some platforms, but it is there.
Congratulations. You're fired, before you get around to quitting. Seriously. As an employee, your role is to do the job required with the resources provided. If you cannot do so, or choose not to do so, you have no place in the workforce.
(You are free to offer your input, but a refusal to comply with reasonable demands placed by your employer indicates that you are likely to present ongoing issues for your employer. Demanding that employees use IE6, particularly if it is restricted to internal networks and is necessary to run particular software, is certainly reasonable.)
It all depends upon how the data is used. Proper use can suggest where students are struggling, so that in class instruction can be improved. In conjunction with other data, it can be used to identify and help at risk students. Of course, it can also indicate whether a textbook is a valuable resource or otherwise.
On the other hand, it can be abused. I was forced to drop a course back in the days of paper textbooks because I refused to buy a book that the instructor had written. The book that I had from a prior course was better suited to my style of learning (e.g. it forced me to derive proofs rather than be spoon-fed proofs, the prose was more concise and more interesting, and I was familiar with the structure of the book). Now the issue only came up because I brought up the issue. In the realm of electronic textbooks, the instructor need only compare the list of students enrolled in the class to the list of students registered to use the textbook.
Now things aren't always that bad. I had professors who wrote the book and were perfectly okay with students who photocopied it (i.e. the other extreme). But when things get in the way of a professor's, department's, or university's business plan it can get nasty. I managed to step on the feet of all three levels. Fortunately, only the instructor was vindictive.
The Gartner report never projects the sales of iOS and OSX devices exceeding those of Windows devices. Those projections cover the years 2012 through 2017, so I'm not sure where that sensational conclusion came from. It's also worth noting that the projected sales of Windows devices is continuing to increase, albeit not at the same rate as iOS/OSX, each year.
Not that I would place much value in these projections. The volume of sales of mobile phones suggests that people will be replacing them every 2.4 years, and that's assuming that everyone over the age of 15 owns one. (If you assume that fewer people own mobile phones, the replacement rate must increase to less reasonable levels.)
There are two things that bias the perspective of these business men.
The first is that they look at business models rather than what the consumers want, and try to shape the consumer to meet the needs of their business model. Their main interest, after all, is to make money. The best way to make money, reliably, is to have a plan and execute it. Selling a product without a plan is suicidal, particularly for large businesses that need to coordinate within their own structure and with third party developers and suppliers.
The second issue is that these business people know what their lives and interests are like, but they rarely understand the market as a whole. They have reliable high-speed internet because it is a function of their job, their lifestyle, and their income. They fail to consider that some people buy consoles because they live in rural locations and don't always have access to other forms of entertainment (or reliable, high-speed internet for that matter). They fail to realize that some people buy consoles because it is a relatively cheap form of entertainment, and may not be able to afford reliable high-speed internet. If the motivation is to kill off the second-hand game market, they fail to realize that even the big spenders use that to offset the cost of their entertainment. And that's just the stuff that would be easy for them to understand, because it is quantifiable. What about the stuff that is harder for them to understand because it isn't quantifiable, like privacy?
I've tried a couple of edX courses, and they are far better than expensive online offerings from other universities. Not only is the technology better, but so is the depth of instruction. (Too many universities seem to believe that an online course is a page for news, another page to submit assignments, and a forum.)
Computers and electricity have been a part of school curricula for at least 20 years now, and some schools have been incorporating meaningful computer instruction for 30 years. The issue is that very few teachers are capable of teaching this stuff.
I don't foresee this situation changing any time soon. The type of person who has a deep enough knowledge of electricity and programming to teach it effectively is rarely attracted to teaching at the primary level. The few who do make it usually discover why their peers never went into teaching.
That being said, there are a lot of excellent science and technology out of school programs out there. It is usually a better place to learn and teach about technology because the constraints of traditional schools aren't there.
Many of the people who started using PCs in the past 20 years weren't actually interested in computers. They were looking for a communications device that connected them to the Internet. The Internet, in turn, connected them to family, friends, and businesses. A subset of those went beyond that by using the Internet as a research tool and their computer as a content creation tool. Yet even then their use was limited by their interest in the technology: very few people learned how to do proper database searches and never really explored the potential of content creation tools. Is it any wonder that they jumped for smartphones and tablets when the opportunity arose, since they fit the needs of those users like a glove.
The early adopters of computers, as well as a portion of children introduced to computers since then, are interested in general purpose computers. Some of them are interested in the technology itself, while others are interested in what the technology can do. Since mobile phones and tablets don't reflect their needs (and likely won't due to the limited scope of interaction), they will continue to be interested in PCs. These people will keep PCs alive, while the volume of PCs used by institutions will keep them cheap.
Kickstarter is a potential source of funding. In that respect, it isn't terribly different from partnerships, banks, and other traditional forms of investment. If you can't convince investors that your product will make it in the market, that you can produce the product, or that you have the ability to operate a business then you aren't going to convince a sane investor to give you money. Kickstarter does differ a little bit from traditional investments in that the customers are doing the investment and the return is abysmal, but the risk is still there.
It doesn't change much for me since I already avoid events that are dominated by men or women. For some reason, behavioural expectations tend to be ignored in those situations.
Slashdot Mirror
A traditional computer science program is designed to prepare you for research, may that be in academia or industry. Most of the problems that you'll be solving won't be easy, the solutions that you develop won't be seen by many people out of your field, but the work of a good computer scientist will be groundbreaking. They take the impractical and make it practical, primarily through developing algorithms that have a strong mathematical basis.
It sounds like you'd be more interested in a software engineering degree. That's still heavy on math, but the emphasis is on designing and implementing software in a rigorous manner. Or maybe you want to be going through some sort of college program. That'll be much lighter on the math and you can still get decent jobs with it, but you'll be more of a grease monkey of the information age. (That is fine if you like that type of work, just realize that your career options are more limited.)
I took a quick look at the introductory material of the report, and the data appeared to be for 2011. This is well after regulatory changes were made so the data may reflect a positive outcome from those regulatory changes.
(I'm no fan of "GreenPeace" and similar groups, but the degree of hate expressed by some people is beyond belief.)
Even if the registration was legitimate, they still used a Microsoft trademark as a portion of the domain name. That is going to cause problems for the domain's owner even if the trademark XBox One didn't exist at the time of registration.
For what it's worth, I pulled up on archive.org and it was some sort of xbox fan site in the past. Depending upon the trail of registrations since then, it is doubtful that a domain squatter owns it.
Bad experiences can be character-forming, but character forming goes both ways.
Employers look at a person's history while hiring. A person with a clear history or a history of positive contributions is going to have a leg up when it comes to securing employment. A person which has a history of negative decisions is going to have less success securing employment.
Making everyone's life an open book doesn't solve that problem because it is based upon a bunch of false premisses. It is based upon the make-believe notion that everyone makes mistakes, and the fictional notion that everyone makes similar types of mistakes.
First of all, some people make far fewer mistakes than other people. A person who studied hard in college is probably going to frown upon a person who partied hard in college. A person who steered clear of drugs is probably going to look down upon a person who got sucked in by drugs. Even if the person who made irresponsible decisions turned their life around, the person who demonstrated responsibility throughout their life may still hold a dim view of them.
Even if people made mistakes in similar quantities, different types of mistakes have different social stigmas. A teenager caught DUI may be branded, but a lot of people will overlook that 10 years down the road because a lot of teenagers do stupid things. If that teenager killed a person while DUI they will be branded for life. Same mistake, different outcome, different social stigma. Don't think that stuff like that is posted online? Think again. People post videos of assaults and rapes online then harass the victim over it (a teen in my area recently killed herself because of that).
So yeah, posting mistakes online is an issue.
It's great to hear that these patent trolls are being held to account, but it looks like it is being done under consumer protection laws. Yet the real problem isn't consumer protection. The real problem isn't even patents. The problem is an abuse of the legal system that has the potential to undermine the legal system, particularly in the public mind since they used the threat of legal action. (It would undermine the legal system in practice if they actually followed through with those threats.)
It depends upon how you look at advertising. I would argue that advertising is meant to shape the tastes of consumers to reflect the interests of businesses. Given that this data is being collected to make advertising more effective, i.e. to make the shaping of our tastes more effective, I do see this as something to worry about.
... but I'm not expecting more honest telcos out of the deal. Whenever I see phones sold outright by the carriers or their affiliates, the phone is locked to the service provider. Whenever I look at the service plans offered by carriers, the monthly fee is the same whether you're on contract or not (the big difference is that you're not locked into a contract, so you can change plans or carriers down the road).
There are upsides. If carriers start refusing phone subsidies altogether, the price of phones should go down. Maybe you'll see more independent phone retailers popping up too. But I'm not expecting this to be a quick fix and it will take proactive attitudes from consumers.
I'm usually opposed to software patents because a lot of them seem trivial and focused upon anti-competitive business practices. Of course, patent trolls aren't helping matters either.
On the other hand, I don't see why non-obvious and non-trivial innovations shouldn't be patentable. Many algorithms take a considerable amount of time and money to develop. Industry wouldn't be willing to undertake the development process unless there is an opportunity to recoup their investment.
I always chuckle at signs that claim the area is protected by video cameras, simply because images of the camera jumping off the wall and performing ninja moves pass through my mind.
On the other hand, they are an investigative tool for after crimes have been committed. How useful they are, I cannot say because I do not entangle myself with the law (as a good guy or a bad guy). What I can say is that they are a product of a free society. For the most part, we don't go around arresting people for suspicious behaviour or the intent to commit crimes. That means that evidence must be collected after the fact, and CCTV is one of the tools for doing so.
As for being a really easy tool for governments to spy on people, maybe you should set your paranoia aside. There is no easy way to sift through the massive quantities of data produced by CCTV cameras, at least at present. If they were interested in spying on people, it would be far easier to have human eyes on the street reporting on the behaviour of people. Even that is excessive in most nations, because the various branches of the government are only interested in select people.
Of course, the Pi is also smaller and uses less power than a mini-itx board. Sticking something the size of a small tissue box in the backyard, and doesn't have an AC cord running into the house, is going to create a lot less friction with the spouse. Many people also find solving problems with constrained resources fun.
There are good reasons why mothers should get additional leave.
However, I do have one concern: it reinforces the notion that women are the primary child minders. Of course, this is a sexist attitude towards men because it deprives them of a role that they may wish to fulfil. Yet it is also sexist towards women, since it perpetuates a role that many women want to grow beyond.
This a thousand times over. Every account I've seen describes childbirth as painful. On top of that, women have to put up with many undesirable symptoms during pregnancy. Then there are the mothers who make many sacrifices in their lifestyle in order to ensure the health of the baby. Suggesting that Yahoo's policy is sexist is denying the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are inherently sexist.
Also, expecting mothers often take time off of work for their own health and their baby's health. Expecting father's don't (unless they have a desire to coddle their wife). The article didn't mention if this leave covers that as well.
I have numerous accounts for everything from forums to banking. Some are clearly important, while others are not important. The important accounts get the strong passwords, passwords that aren't reused (even in terms of a significant modification). The unimportant accounts have reused passwords, with the only real rule being that the password is different from accounts that may somehow be correlated (e.g. through their authentication mechanism or username).
The problem with preventing reuse is (a) every service thinks that they are the most important thing since the creation of the universe and (b) strong, non-repeated passwords have their own inherent insecurities.
By inherent insecurities I mean things like people recording their passwords. Written records and unencrypted electronic records can be read by anyone. These digital key managers secure all passwords with a single password, may they be locally hosted or remotely hosted. Records of any form run the risk of tying all accounts together rather than keeping them separate. Even those who memorize their passwords run the risk of entering the password for service A into service B.
Of course the people who think about security usually think about the things that they can control, which is the combination of bits. They rarely seem to address the psychology of the people using their mechanisms (outside of complaining or making unrealistic demands). If they want to create secure systems they need to apply human psychology, and recognize that security is often being applied where it is unimportant.
I'm not sure what kids are learning these days, but freedom and responsibility went hand-in-hand when I grew up. That is to say, you have freedom but you have to be responsible in your actions and take responsibility for your actions. Unfortunately, anonymity is frequently used to "exercise freedoms" while avoiding responsibility for your actions. I stuck exercise freedoms in quotes because some people are using that as an excuse to commit crimes or impinge upon the freedoms of others.
Of course I realise that equating crime to anonymity is only sometimes true. I also realise that anonymity is necessary in a free society. On the other hand, I do see why law enforcement agencies are deeply concerned by anonymity and encryption. I understand why judicial systems and governments have similar concerns. I understand why many ordinary citizens are concerned.
Apple definitely use their products to sell other products. That's a big part of the motivation behind iTunes and the Mac App Store.
I don't know if they derive revenues from it, but they have also integrated support for various email and social media services directly into their product.
Apple doesn't seem to do this any more, but they have also bundled demonstration software with their computers. (Microsoft Office comes to mind, but I seem to recall having to remove other software.)
So yes, Apple does use their products for marketing. It isn't as blatant as it is on some platforms, but it is there.
Congratulations. You're fired, before you get around to quitting. Seriously. As an employee, your role is to do the job required with the resources provided. If you cannot do so, or choose not to do so, you have no place in the workforce.
(You are free to offer your input, but a refusal to comply with reasonable demands placed by your employer indicates that you are likely to present ongoing issues for your employer. Demanding that employees use IE6, particularly if it is restricted to internal networks and is necessary to run particular software, is certainly reasonable.)
It all depends upon how the data is used. Proper use can suggest where students are struggling, so that in class instruction can be improved. In conjunction with other data, it can be used to identify and help at risk students. Of course, it can also indicate whether a textbook is a valuable resource or otherwise.
On the other hand, it can be abused. I was forced to drop a course back in the days of paper textbooks because I refused to buy a book that the instructor had written. The book that I had from a prior course was better suited to my style of learning (e.g. it forced me to derive proofs rather than be spoon-fed proofs, the prose was more concise and more interesting, and I was familiar with the structure of the book). Now the issue only came up because I brought up the issue. In the realm of electronic textbooks, the instructor need only compare the list of students enrolled in the class to the list of students registered to use the textbook.
Now things aren't always that bad. I had professors who wrote the book and were perfectly okay with students who photocopied it (i.e. the other extreme). But when things get in the way of a professor's, department's, or university's business plan it can get nasty. I managed to step on the feet of all three levels. Fortunately, only the instructor was vindictive.
The Gartner report never projects the sales of iOS and OSX devices exceeding those of Windows devices. Those projections cover the years 2012 through 2017, so I'm not sure where that sensational conclusion came from. It's also worth noting that the projected sales of Windows devices is continuing to increase, albeit not at the same rate as iOS/OSX, each year.
Not that I would place much value in these projections. The volume of sales of mobile phones suggests that people will be replacing them every 2.4 years, and that's assuming that everyone over the age of 15 owns one. (If you assume that fewer people own mobile phones, the replacement rate must increase to less reasonable levels.)
There are two things that bias the perspective of these business men.
The first is that they look at business models rather than what the consumers want, and try to shape the consumer to meet the needs of their business model. Their main interest, after all, is to make money. The best way to make money, reliably, is to have a plan and execute it. Selling a product without a plan is suicidal, particularly for large businesses that need to coordinate within their own structure and with third party developers and suppliers.
The second issue is that these business people know what their lives and interests are like, but they rarely understand the market as a whole. They have reliable high-speed internet because it is a function of their job, their lifestyle, and their income. They fail to consider that some people buy consoles because they live in rural locations and don't always have access to other forms of entertainment (or reliable, high-speed internet for that matter). They fail to realize that some people buy consoles because it is a relatively cheap form of entertainment, and may not be able to afford reliable high-speed internet. If the motivation is to kill off the second-hand game market, they fail to realize that even the big spenders use that to offset the cost of their entertainment. And that's just the stuff that would be easy for them to understand, because it is quantifiable. What about the stuff that is harder for them to understand because it isn't quantifiable, like privacy?
I've tried a couple of edX courses, and they are far better than expensive online offerings from other universities. Not only is the technology better, but so is the depth of instruction. (Too many universities seem to believe that an online course is a page for news, another page to submit assignments, and a forum.)
This was around 15 years ago.
Computers and electricity have been a part of school curricula for at least 20 years now, and some schools have been incorporating meaningful computer instruction for 30 years. The issue is that very few teachers are capable of teaching this stuff.
I don't foresee this situation changing any time soon. The type of person who has a deep enough knowledge of electricity and programming to teach it effectively is rarely attracted to teaching at the primary level. The few who do make it usually discover why their peers never went into teaching.
That being said, there are a lot of excellent science and technology out of school programs out there. It is usually a better place to learn and teach about technology because the constraints of traditional schools aren't there.
Alan Kay has been trying to implement his vision for decades through work with hardware and software projects. (Examples include Squeak and OLPC.)
We aren't discarding the PC.
Many of the people who started using PCs in the past 20 years weren't actually interested in computers. They were looking for a communications device that connected them to the Internet. The Internet, in turn, connected them to family, friends, and businesses. A subset of those went beyond that by using the Internet as a research tool and their computer as a content creation tool. Yet even then their use was limited by their interest in the technology: very few people learned how to do proper database searches and never really explored the potential of content creation tools. Is it any wonder that they jumped for smartphones and tablets when the opportunity arose, since they fit the needs of those users like a glove.
The early adopters of computers, as well as a portion of children introduced to computers since then, are interested in general purpose computers. Some of them are interested in the technology itself, while others are interested in what the technology can do. Since mobile phones and tablets don't reflect their needs (and likely won't due to the limited scope of interaction), they will continue to be interested in PCs. These people will keep PCs alive, while the volume of PCs used by institutions will keep them cheap.
Kickstarter is a potential source of funding. In that respect, it isn't terribly different from partnerships, banks, and other traditional forms of investment. If you can't convince investors that your product will make it in the market, that you can produce the product, or that you have the ability to operate a business then you aren't going to convince a sane investor to give you money. Kickstarter does differ a little bit from traditional investments in that the customers are doing the investment and the return is abysmal, but the risk is still there.
It doesn't change much for me since I already avoid events that are dominated by men or women. For some reason, behavioural expectations tend to be ignored in those situations.