we're creating value for people — that's our job! It's not to do something that nobody's ever seen before. It's to do something that people love so much they're willing to give us money for
Wow, he's using almost the same argument for making DOOM 3 as the producers did to make DOOM the movie. Or Uwe Boll used for every movie he ever made. Say it ain't so, John!
While I disagree with Carmack's statements, I must point out that the DOOM movie was actually pretty damn good. It certainly exceeded all of my expectations, and it was more creative and entertaining than DOOM 3.
Yes a suprisingly large amount of the populations belives that if a police officer says you are guilty then you must be.
Unfortunately a surprisingly large amount of (all) judges believe the same.
"If you enter a plea of 'guilty' or 'no contest' then I will look over the sworn statements by both you and the arresting officer. In which case, I will assume the written report by the officer is true and you will be found guilty. If you enter a plea of 'not guilty,' then a meeting with the prosecutor will be arranged for a later date. You will then, at another later date, go to trial with a jury of your peers. If you cannot afford legal representation then you may apply for a court appointed attorney by submitting an application along with a $25 charge for processing the application."
Basically, 'guilty' and 'no contest' are synonymous in the eyes of the judge. The only way for police testimony to come into question is for a jury to rule against it or for a lawyer to prove it's tainted in some way. So say you're being charged with something relatively minor and the penalty is like $100 + court costs. Of course, whether you're guilty or not, it would make sense to plea 'no contest' and take the punishment b/c the damn lawyer will suck more than that out of you. Not to mention the time it takes to go through the various processes.
Sadly, many police/court systems are nothing but legalized extortion. Justice is an afterthought.
Did you read the article? The resonance could only be felt on one very narrow range of floors
So, are you trying to imply that it wasn't a danger? Because otherwise you seem to be saying, "Oh well! Who could have expected a structural engineer to anticipate a problem like this!?"
Yes. That's precisely what he was saying: there's no reason to believe there was actually any danger. Sure, it was an unexpected issue the engineers probably never considered, but the point of the article is that it's been tested and is believed to be safe.
The real question is, what are you trying to imply?
I think these videos are a good resource, but only the beginning. Interactive learning is the next step, with programs that can track students' progress and even adjust to their individual needs.
Exactly, that's what Salman is advocating. Replace lectures with the videos, homework with the practice modules, and then devote class time to interactive learning where the teacher is free to go from student to student assisting them when they get stuck or have a question. I don't think the parent you were responding to spent enough time on Khan Academy to fully appreciate the model. He viewed a couple of videos and assumed that was the whole thing. The videos are one third. Khan provides another third with the modules. The final third Khan leaves up to teachers, because he thinks they're still important, they're just a squandered resource the way they're currently being implemented in the classroom.
For anyone who is unsure about Khan's methodology I recommend checking out the videos where he lectures about Khan Academy and where he sees it going in the future. There's one where he is at MIT talking to a group of professors and they give him some pretty tough questions. While he admits that there are still some shortcomings, Khan does an excellent job of explaining how he plans to revolutionize education.
Personally, I believe in him. Since I was a child, everyone was always talking about how important it was to get technology into classrooms and school districts spent hordes of money to give us computers that we never used. Everyone believed technology could be used to revolutionize education but no one knew how to implement it in a way that it actually would. Salman Khan did and as a result he will likely be the most influential individual of our time. The man is a saint.
Mod parent up. Bitching to your congressman actually works, especially when you get others to do so as well. If you live in their district they'll usually give you a personal response.
As much as I hate social networks, if you're on 'em use 'em for good. Make sure people you're connected with contact their congressmen as well.
The biggest problem with congress is that the most vocal citizens are the biggest idiots so that's who the congressmen listen to. Why do the brightest minds always end up being the lazy cynics? All it takes is an e-mail. One e-mail can change your congressman's mind regarding a issue. At the very least it will make them aware that a vocal constituent disagrees with them.
Is there anything stopping potential criminals from just popping down to the local library or internet cafe?
It's probably difficult to jerk off in an internet cafe or local library. Not to mention people that may look over your shoulder. Not that I support this bullshit law or anything. It obviously has little to nothing to do with child pornography and everything to do with giving cops more of their favorite thing: power.
Or does this law mandate that every computer require a valid driver's license to be swiped before logging on?
Or maybe ownership is a human concept -- one we invented full cloth -- and one that monkeys and inanimate objects do not qualify for.
Yeah right. Try taking a banana away from a monkey. Or a bone away from a dog. Animals have a sense of ownership, it just usually doesn't last long because they tend to consume the item.
Shakespeare is public domain so the monkeys wouldn't be able to copyright it. The monkeys would have to come up with their own works of literary genius, which isn't plausible since Monkees only reproduce works written by others. However, that may not stop them for trying to take the credit.
I think they just tried to work around the only profitable aspect of Java. I'm sure if they thought they would be liable and have to pay for it, they would have just used something else. Not to mention that using Java was more like doing Sun a favor than anything else, despite the implementation. It kept Java relevant while Sun was dying. Google also helped popularize OpenOffice.
I think Sun should have filed the suit before being bought by Oracle. I've heard arguments that they couldn't afford to or whatever, but it still seems as if they implied approval for what Google was doing by not filing the suit themselves. Because Sun didn't file a suit against Google, Oracle just looks like a troll.
How will the court interpret all this? Who knows in these patent cases? This may be redundant, but the patent system is seriously flawed when it comes to software. It gets repeated so much because it's true and it's the root problem in most of these lawsuits.
Well, I don't think we should have touched Iraq. I didn't expect oil or WMDs and I didn't consider either to be valid justifications for war. Saddam was actually doing a fairly good job running that country, as far as corrupt dictators go.
I think we should have left the Taliban alone, let Al Qaeda feel safe in Afghanistan, which would then make them vulnerable to assassination. Instead we sent in a massive military to take out the Taliban, which gave Al Qaeda time to flee to Pakistan. We took out the secondary target first, which made absolutely no sense.
Concerning V: V was a terrorist b/c he didn't have public support. Of course, the conditions were set to try and perfectly justify why he had to act alone, but that was my other beef with the movie: everything was hyperbolic and nonsensical. At least in 1984 one could understand how society became the way it was. Same with Brave New World. In V for Vendetta, things were evil and oppressive on the most shallow pretenses. It seemed to be a weak slippery slope argument: "If things continue the way they are, next thing you know society will be like this and only the terrorists can save us!" 1984, on the other hand, was a strong slippery slope argument because it connected the dots in between point A and Z.
I totally agree with the sentiment that we can defeat Al Qaeda but not terrorism. Terrorism isn't the type of thing that can be defeated as it's a tactic. Al Qaeda is an organization. Organizations can be defeated by killing the members.
So it's not terrorism when we bomb them, invade their land, and destroy society as they know it; it's terrorism when we assassinate the same targets without the collateral damage?
A better analogy is Thomas Jefferson, who reduced the U.S. military to almost nothing because he had no interest in fighting wars. Pirates perceived U.S. trade ships as vulnerable and thus attacked them. Instead of raising an army, Jefferson sent a couple ships to hunt down the pirates and put bounties on their heads. Armies are for grandstanding. An enemy is an enemy. Sending in the army is the equivalent of trying to fight a battle with chivalry.
Whenever a country engages in armed conflict they should ask themselves one thing: What would Sun Tzu do? The first concerns The Art of War addresses is the problems with maintaining a military. The larger the army, the more mouths there are to feed. The more immobile they become. The more predictable they become.
Assassinating enemies isn't terrorism. It's war. Killing civilians is terrorism.
How was it a pathetic attempt to justify terrorism? It was about a rebellion against an oppressive state and quite often people die in these kind of things. See the American Revolution for a real world example.
I consider the U.S. to be an oppressive state with things such as the Patriot Act, the oligarchy in control of things, the prohibition of marijuana, the military industrial complex, and the prison industry. That doesn't mean that, were I to start blowing things up, I'd be a 'rebel' rather than a 'terrorist.'
One man's tactical error is another's post cold-war reboot of the military industrial complex. Really, the error is so obvious and so blatant how could you take it at face value?
The error was on the part of the public support that allowed it to happen and reelected him in 2004.
You mean those death squad training camps that we blew up?
What the hell do you think we've been dropping all these bombs and predator drones on? Al Qaeda's been relegated to nothing but some guys with AK-47s. We've killed almost anyone with money or power. Once we take out the remaining 10-20 leaders, it won't matter who's left. We can pack our bags and go home because everyone who remains loyal to the cause will be too poor to do anything about it and if they try the Pakistani/Afghani governments will deal with them. If they happen to pool some resources together the CIA will take care of it.
Because of 9/11 we've constantly overestimated these fucks. We never should have sent the military to deal with this. The CIA could have dealt with it fine. We should have done what the Israelis did after the '72 Munich murders: assassinate, assassinate, assassinate, and assassinate some more. Sending in ground troops was a gross tactical error. It gave them something to fight. The only military forces should have been the Airforce/Navy dropping bombs and maybe some rangers taking on assassination missions like what we did to Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was nothing but a rag-tag bunch of morons. Bush empowered them by trying to turn them into Emmanuel Goldstein.
What you fail to realize is how unorganized this 'group' is, especially since we've been killing them nonstop for the last decade. You also fail to realize how unorganized their ideology is. The only idea that holds them together is Islam, which isn't necessarily anti-western. The senior leaders such as Bin Laden used their money and power to dupe ignorant and poor individuals into sacrificing their lives for their bullshit cause. Without the senior leaders there's no one smart or resourceful enough to propagate these dumbass ideas. Furthermore, foreign aid is exactly what these extremist don't want. It's a western influence.
So I think you're wrong on all points. A large portion of the Muslim world will continue to hate the U.S., but that has more to do with our support of Israel than their lack of foreign aid (which we do give -- not to mention all the oil money we pour into the middle east). Obama has taken a fairly pro-Palestinian stance, he's dark skinned, and his middle name is Hussein. They may not love him, but just by being president he's quelled some of the hate.
Also, "V for Vendetta" was a horribly immature movie. It was a pathetic attempt to justify terrorism, it's no wonder that cyber-terrorists rally behind it. One of the worst films I've ever seen.
Why can there not be a public list of blocked websites?
Because the web sites are not blocked in any effective way and such a list would just be advertising for their services.
If it's not effective then what's the point of even trying?
What I really don't get is if they have some list of child porn sites/torrents/IPs/ect. that need to be shut down, why can't Interpol go kick some doors in?
Personally, I think the child porn thing is just an excuse to set up the infrastructure, which can then easily be converted into a system to filter out copyright violators. If there's no transparency, then this next step can be taken behind closed doors. At the very least it gets Australians accustomed to the idea of censorship as a good thing b/c no one wants to side with child pornographers.
Exactly. There is no reason for Schmidt, Brin, or Page to personally appear at these hearings other than to get the press to cover the event. The senators know that no one in the media will show up for a hearing with some random 'Google representative.' They also know that it would be bad for the press to show up for the hearing with some random 'Google representative' because that representative will probably be the best person suited for the occasion (a lawyer), meaning he will talk circles around them and make them look like fools. Of course, Schmidt will probably do that anyway.
Not to mention that it cost businesses a whole lot of money to switch away from Microsoft. It doesn't cost me anything to type in the URL of an alternate search engine. The only reason I stopped using AltaVista when Google came out was because Google's search results were much better. People figured out how to abuse the meta tag system and Google's algorithm side-stepped that abuse. Give me another minimalist-design search engine that does what Google does better and I'll use that instead (as long as it isn't owned or partnered with Microsoft or Oracle, that is).
In the 90s I would always get so angry when Bill Gates said stuff like, "The government is trying to punish us for our success." That was bullshit and he knew it. But that statement seems valid when applied to Google today. These politicians are in the pocket of Google's competitors. Namely, Microsoft.
Hopefully Schmidt sticks it to these fuckers on camera: "Well, gee, Senator, what I'd like to know is why you're on this panel when you take such large campaign donations from my largest competitors. Don't you think there's a conflict of interest here?"
It's intrusive in that Google spams the hell out of it if you use a non-Chrome browser. The Google homepage has a Chrome advertisement in the upper-right every single time.
So? The Google homepage doesn't automatically download Chrome to your computer.
Microsoft's homepage advertises Microsoft services. And Amazon has the audacity to advertise the Kindle on their homepage. Oh my!
Love your sig, btw. Taken out of context, it implies something much more sinister than the e-mail actually meant. I know because I Googled it.
Before we are carrying around mobile devices that are as powerful as the PS3, it's more likely that we're carrying around mobile devices that are slightly more powerful than the ones we currently have at a greatly reduced cost. There's no reason to have a phone as powerful as the PS3. Couple that with the costs and technical challenges of cramming the technology into a phone without becoming hotter than the sun, it really just isn't worth it. It's not that I don't believe it can be done, I just don't see a reason for it.
Who needs the best physics effects for their cellphone video games? Nobody. Carmack's overlooking the fact that mobile gaming -- even in the cases of the DS/PSP offerings -- usually depend more on puzzle games and whatnot. The screens aren't big enough to justify PS3-level processing power even when they go full-blown 3D. At this point better battery life is more important than increased processing power.
Slashdot Mirror
we're creating value for people — that's our job! It's not to do something that nobody's ever seen before. It's to do something that people love so much they're willing to give us money for
Wow, he's using almost the same argument for making DOOM 3 as the producers did to make DOOM the movie. Or Uwe Boll used for every movie he ever made. Say it ain't so, John!
While I disagree with Carmack's statements, I must point out that the DOOM movie was actually pretty damn good. It certainly exceeded all of my expectations, and it was more creative and entertaining than DOOM 3.
Yes a suprisingly large amount of the populations belives that if a police officer says you are guilty then you must be.
Unfortunately a surprisingly large amount of (all) judges believe the same.
"If you enter a plea of 'guilty' or 'no contest' then I will look over the sworn statements by both you and the arresting officer. In which case, I will assume the written report by the officer is true and you will be found guilty. If you enter a plea of 'not guilty,' then a meeting with the prosecutor will be arranged for a later date. You will then, at another later date, go to trial with a jury of your peers. If you cannot afford legal representation then you may apply for a court appointed attorney by submitting an application along with a $25 charge for processing the application."
Basically, 'guilty' and 'no contest' are synonymous in the eyes of the judge. The only way for police testimony to come into question is for a jury to rule against it or for a lawyer to prove it's tainted in some way. So say you're being charged with something relatively minor and the penalty is like $100 + court costs. Of course, whether you're guilty or not, it would make sense to plea 'no contest' and take the punishment b/c the damn lawyer will suck more than that out of you. Not to mention the time it takes to go through the various processes.
Sadly, many police/court systems are nothing but legalized extortion. Justice is an afterthought.
Did you read the article? The resonance could only be felt on one very narrow range of floors
So, are you trying to imply that it wasn't a danger? Because otherwise you seem to be saying, "Oh well! Who could have expected a structural engineer to anticipate a problem like this!?"
Yes. That's precisely what he was saying: there's no reason to believe there was actually any danger. Sure, it was an unexpected issue the engineers probably never considered, but the point of the article is that it's been tested and is believed to be safe.
The real question is, what are you trying to imply?
I think these videos are a good resource, but only the beginning. Interactive learning is the next step, with programs that can track students' progress and even adjust to their individual needs.
Exactly, that's what Salman is advocating. Replace lectures with the videos, homework with the practice modules, and then devote class time to interactive learning where the teacher is free to go from student to student assisting them when they get stuck or have a question. I don't think the parent you were responding to spent enough time on Khan Academy to fully appreciate the model. He viewed a couple of videos and assumed that was the whole thing. The videos are one third. Khan provides another third with the modules. The final third Khan leaves up to teachers, because he thinks they're still important, they're just a squandered resource the way they're currently being implemented in the classroom.
For anyone who is unsure about Khan's methodology I recommend checking out the videos where he lectures about Khan Academy and where he sees it going in the future. There's one where he is at MIT talking to a group of professors and they give him some pretty tough questions. While he admits that there are still some shortcomings, Khan does an excellent job of explaining how he plans to revolutionize education.
Personally, I believe in him. Since I was a child, everyone was always talking about how important it was to get technology into classrooms and school districts spent hordes of money to give us computers that we never used. Everyone believed technology could be used to revolutionize education but no one knew how to implement it in a way that it actually would. Salman Khan did and as a result he will likely be the most influential individual of our time. The man is a saint.
Your user name is extremely appropriate.
Car analogies no more! It's now the era of BJ analogies!
Mod parent up. Bitching to your congressman actually works, especially when you get others to do so as well. If you live in their district they'll usually give you a personal response.
As much as I hate social networks, if you're on 'em use 'em for good. Make sure people you're connected with contact their congressmen as well.
The biggest problem with congress is that the most vocal citizens are the biggest idiots so that's who the congressmen listen to. Why do the brightest minds always end up being the lazy cynics? All it takes is an e-mail. One e-mail can change your congressman's mind regarding a issue. At the very least it will make them aware that a vocal constituent disagrees with them.
Is there anything stopping potential criminals from just popping down to the local library or internet cafe?
It's probably difficult to jerk off in an internet cafe or local library. Not to mention people that may look over your shoulder. Not that I support this bullshit law or anything. It obviously has little to nothing to do with child pornography and everything to do with giving cops more of their favorite thing: power.
Or does this law mandate that every computer require a valid driver's license to be swiped before logging on?
Don't give them ideas.
I'd also like to know who's donating to his campaigns since that is an elected office.
People who care about the children. Duh. You must not care about the children.
Point 2 above. It has been reported on /. that several states have laws against recording a police officer either doing his duty or not........
Actually, they don't, because an unconstitutional law isn't a law.
Or maybe ownership is a human concept -- one we invented full cloth -- and one that monkeys and inanimate objects do not qualify for.
Yeah right. Try taking a banana away from a monkey. Or a bone away from a dog. Animals have a sense of ownership, it just usually doesn't last long because they tend to consume the item.
Shakespeare is public domain so the monkeys wouldn't be able to copyright it. The monkeys would have to come up with their own works of literary genius, which isn't plausible since Monkees only reproduce works written by others. However, that may not stop them for trying to take the credit.
I think they just tried to work around the only profitable aspect of Java. I'm sure if they thought they would be liable and have to pay for it, they would have just used something else. Not to mention that using Java was more like doing Sun a favor than anything else, despite the implementation. It kept Java relevant while Sun was dying. Google also helped popularize OpenOffice.
I think Sun should have filed the suit before being bought by Oracle. I've heard arguments that they couldn't afford to or whatever, but it still seems as if they implied approval for what Google was doing by not filing the suit themselves. Because Sun didn't file a suit against Google, Oracle just looks like a troll.
How will the court interpret all this? Who knows in these patent cases? This may be redundant, but the patent system is seriously flawed when it comes to software. It gets repeated so much because it's true and it's the root problem in most of these lawsuits.
Well, I don't think we should have touched Iraq. I didn't expect oil or WMDs and I didn't consider either to be valid justifications for war. Saddam was actually doing a fairly good job running that country, as far as corrupt dictators go.
I think we should have left the Taliban alone, let Al Qaeda feel safe in Afghanistan, which would then make them vulnerable to assassination. Instead we sent in a massive military to take out the Taliban, which gave Al Qaeda time to flee to Pakistan. We took out the secondary target first, which made absolutely no sense.
Concerning V: V was a terrorist b/c he didn't have public support. Of course, the conditions were set to try and perfectly justify why he had to act alone, but that was my other beef with the movie: everything was hyperbolic and nonsensical. At least in 1984 one could understand how society became the way it was. Same with Brave New World. In V for Vendetta, things were evil and oppressive on the most shallow pretenses. It seemed to be a weak slippery slope argument: "If things continue the way they are, next thing you know society will be like this and only the terrorists can save us!" 1984, on the other hand, was a strong slippery slope argument because it connected the dots in between point A and Z.
I totally agree with the sentiment that we can defeat Al Qaeda but not terrorism. Terrorism isn't the type of thing that can be defeated as it's a tactic. Al Qaeda is an organization. Organizations can be defeated by killing the members.
So it's not terrorism when we bomb them, invade their land, and destroy society as they know it; it's terrorism when we assassinate the same targets without the collateral damage?
A better analogy is Thomas Jefferson, who reduced the U.S. military to almost nothing because he had no interest in fighting wars. Pirates perceived U.S. trade ships as vulnerable and thus attacked them. Instead of raising an army, Jefferson sent a couple ships to hunt down the pirates and put bounties on their heads. Armies are for grandstanding. An enemy is an enemy. Sending in the army is the equivalent of trying to fight a battle with chivalry.
Whenever a country engages in armed conflict they should ask themselves one thing: What would Sun Tzu do? The first concerns The Art of War addresses is the problems with maintaining a military. The larger the army, the more mouths there are to feed. The more immobile they become. The more predictable they become.
Assassinating enemies isn't terrorism. It's war. Killing civilians is terrorism.
How was it a pathetic attempt to justify terrorism? It was about a rebellion against an oppressive state and quite often people die in these kind of things. See the American Revolution for a real world example.
I consider the U.S. to be an oppressive state with things such as the Patriot Act, the oligarchy in control of things, the prohibition of marijuana, the military industrial complex, and the prison industry. That doesn't mean that, were I to start blowing things up, I'd be a 'rebel' rather than a 'terrorist.'
V = Timothy McVeigh
One man's tactical error is another's post cold-war reboot of the military industrial complex. Really, the error is so obvious and so blatant how could you take it at face value?
The error was on the part of the public support that allowed it to happen and reelected him in 2004.
He didn't say that terrorism would be defeated. He said Al Qaeda would be defeated.
You mean those death squad training camps that we blew up?
What the hell do you think we've been dropping all these bombs and predator drones on? Al Qaeda's been relegated to nothing but some guys with AK-47s. We've killed almost anyone with money or power. Once we take out the remaining 10-20 leaders, it won't matter who's left. We can pack our bags and go home because everyone who remains loyal to the cause will be too poor to do anything about it and if they try the Pakistani/Afghani governments will deal with them. If they happen to pool some resources together the CIA will take care of it.
Because of 9/11 we've constantly overestimated these fucks. We never should have sent the military to deal with this. The CIA could have dealt with it fine. We should have done what the Israelis did after the '72 Munich murders: assassinate, assassinate, assassinate, and assassinate some more. Sending in ground troops was a gross tactical error. It gave them something to fight. The only military forces should have been the Airforce/Navy dropping bombs and maybe some rangers taking on assassination missions like what we did to Bin Laden. Al Qaeda was nothing but a rag-tag bunch of morons. Bush empowered them by trying to turn them into Emmanuel Goldstein.
What you fail to realize is how unorganized this 'group' is, especially since we've been killing them nonstop for the last decade. You also fail to realize how unorganized their ideology is. The only idea that holds them together is Islam, which isn't necessarily anti-western. The senior leaders such as Bin Laden used their money and power to dupe ignorant and poor individuals into sacrificing their lives for their bullshit cause. Without the senior leaders there's no one smart or resourceful enough to propagate these dumbass ideas. Furthermore, foreign aid is exactly what these extremist don't want. It's a western influence.
So I think you're wrong on all points. A large portion of the Muslim world will continue to hate the U.S., but that has more to do with our support of Israel than their lack of foreign aid (which we do give -- not to mention all the oil money we pour into the middle east). Obama has taken a fairly pro-Palestinian stance, he's dark skinned, and his middle name is Hussein. They may not love him, but just by being president he's quelled some of the hate.
Also, "V for Vendetta" was a horribly immature movie. It was a pathetic attempt to justify terrorism, it's no wonder that cyber-terrorists rally behind it. One of the worst films I've ever seen.
Why can there not be a public list of blocked websites?
Because the web sites are not blocked in any effective way and such a list would just be advertising for their services.
If it's not effective then what's the point of even trying?
What I really don't get is if they have some list of child porn sites/torrents/IPs/ect. that need to be shut down, why can't Interpol go kick some doors in?
Personally, I think the child porn thing is just an excuse to set up the infrastructure, which can then easily be converted into a system to filter out copyright violators. If there's no transparency, then this next step can be taken behind closed doors. At the very least it gets Australians accustomed to the idea of censorship as a good thing b/c no one wants to side with child pornographers.
Exactly. There is no reason for Schmidt, Brin, or Page to personally appear at these hearings other than to get the press to cover the event. The senators know that no one in the media will show up for a hearing with some random 'Google representative.' They also know that it would be bad for the press to show up for the hearing with some random 'Google representative' because that representative will probably be the best person suited for the occasion (a lawyer), meaning he will talk circles around them and make them look like fools. Of course, Schmidt will probably do that anyway.
Not to mention that it cost businesses a whole lot of money to switch away from Microsoft. It doesn't cost me anything to type in the URL of an alternate search engine. The only reason I stopped using AltaVista when Google came out was because Google's search results were much better. People figured out how to abuse the meta tag system and Google's algorithm side-stepped that abuse. Give me another minimalist-design search engine that does what Google does better and I'll use that instead (as long as it isn't owned or partnered with Microsoft or Oracle, that is).
In the 90s I would always get so angry when Bill Gates said stuff like, "The government is trying to punish us for our success." That was bullshit and he knew it. But that statement seems valid when applied to Google today. These politicians are in the pocket of Google's competitors. Namely, Microsoft.
Hopefully Schmidt sticks it to these fuckers on camera: "Well, gee, Senator, what I'd like to know is why you're on this panel when you take such large campaign donations from my largest competitors. Don't you think there's a conflict of interest here?"
It's intrusive in that Google spams the hell out of it if you use a non-Chrome browser. The Google homepage has a Chrome advertisement in the upper-right every single time.
So? The Google homepage doesn't automatically download Chrome to your computer.
Microsoft's homepage advertises Microsoft services. And Amazon has the audacity to advertise the Kindle on their homepage. Oh my!
Love your sig, btw. Taken out of context, it implies something much more sinister than the e-mail actually meant. I know because I Googled it.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that PayPal hopes nobody will carry a wallet by 2015.
Unless pot is legal in 2015, I'll still need cash.
Before we are carrying around mobile devices that are as powerful as the PS3, it's more likely that we're carrying around mobile devices that are slightly more powerful than the ones we currently have at a greatly reduced cost. There's no reason to have a phone as powerful as the PS3. Couple that with the costs and technical challenges of cramming the technology into a phone without becoming hotter than the sun, it really just isn't worth it. It's not that I don't believe it can be done, I just don't see a reason for it.
Who needs the best physics effects for their cellphone video games? Nobody. Carmack's overlooking the fact that mobile gaming -- even in the cases of the DS/PSP offerings -- usually depend more on puzzle games and whatnot. The screens aren't big enough to justify PS3-level processing power even when they go full-blown 3D. At this point better battery life is more important than increased processing power.