To me it sounds weird funny old stuff. Like people in 70s couldn't think of GPS and stuff we've got; instead, they fancied a traffic warden robot in the middle of a crossroads waving its stick.
From what I can see, trend-makers (say, Google or Apple) prefer lighter UI than does MS. In 2007 at Mossberg's annual event (whatever it's called) Mr. Gates made that prophecy about a 3d UI of the future. (BTW Jobs was like, I dunno, sth will obviously change, but you know, people don't want cars with 6 wheels, they are happy with 4). Although if they had some nice ideas about it, why not patent them.
Me, I take it for granted that drugs should be legalized. I don't even want to argue in favor of it, could reiterate someone else's point (I actually read less than a half, it's so obvious to me).
It's funny that wsj comes up with an article like that. A good sign that even those on the conservative side (the smarter of those) are questioning the benefits of prohibition and this "drugs are bad" mentality.
Someday soon you will surf the Internet using just your voice, a development that will make the Web more widely accessible worldwide, particularly for those who cannot read or write.
We'd better teach them to read and write. Writing is a highly efficient way of presenting information, several times faster than oral speech in terms of perception. Although today's input methods are a bit clumsy. Instead of a keyboard one could think of some sensor that you put on wrist to scan some subtle movements of fingers. I mean, in sci-fi future there's a lot to be done, but leave writing alone.
Why do you have to think whatever is done in Russia is wrong? I do like Google and all that, but I want them to avoid becoming a monopolist. You can't be a no-evil-guy anymore, once you've gained total control over the industry. Just think for a sec of a possibility that there might have been some good reason for blocking the deal. Like promoting competition in the market instead of creating a monopolist, eh?
As of now, Google doesn't have a major share in Russia, it's about a half or less, I guess. And its main competitor is a local search engine called Yandex. Of course, they suck (compared to Google), but they are trying hard to get better, believe me:)
So, basically what the regulators did was 1) eliminate potential for monopoly & 2) support a homegrown business.
Now, what's so dreary about it?
Slashdot Mirror
To me it sounds weird funny old stuff. Like people in 70s couldn't think of GPS and stuff we've got; instead, they fancied a traffic warden robot in the middle of a crossroads waving its stick.
From what I can see, trend-makers (say, Google or Apple) prefer lighter UI than does MS. In 2007 at Mossberg's annual event (whatever it's called) Mr. Gates made that prophecy about a 3d UI of the future. (BTW Jobs was like, I dunno, sth will obviously change, but you know, people don't want cars with 6 wheels, they are happy with 4).
Although if they had some nice ideas about it, why not patent them.
Me, I take it for granted that drugs should be legalized. I don't even want to argue in favor of it, could reiterate someone else's point (I actually read less than a half, it's so obvious to me).
It's funny that wsj comes up with an article like that. A good sign that even those on the conservative side (the smarter of those) are questioning the benefits of prohibition and this "drugs are bad" mentality.
Someday soon you will surf the Internet using just your voice, a development that will make the Web more widely accessible worldwide, particularly for those who cannot read or write.
We'd better teach them to read and write. Writing is a highly efficient way of presenting information, several times faster than oral speech in terms of perception. Although today's input methods are a bit clumsy. Instead of a keyboard one could think of some sensor that you put on wrist to scan some subtle movements of fingers. I mean, in sci-fi future there's a lot to be done, but leave writing alone.
Are you logged in in English, anyway? International departments may not be as fast.
"ad capitem", i believe
Why do you have to think whatever is done in Russia is wrong? I do like Google and all that, but I want them to avoid becoming a monopolist. You can't be a no-evil-guy anymore, once you've gained total control over the industry. Just think for a sec of a possibility that there might have been some good reason for blocking the deal. Like promoting competition in the market instead of creating a monopolist, eh? As of now, Google doesn't have a major share in Russia, it's about a half or less, I guess. And its main competitor is a local search engine called Yandex. Of course, they suck (compared to Google), but they are trying hard to get better, believe me:) So, basically what the regulators did was 1) eliminate potential for monopoly & 2) support a homegrown business. Now, what's so dreary about it?