Another thing I hate about windows 8, it feels like a store. Want to create an account, you need to do it with Microsoft, ok you don't but only if you read the fine print.
I don't want to be advertised to in the operating system, that's what browsers are for, and I especially don't want them to advertise to my children. I constantly get the feeling that they are trying to sell something. The have replicated that aspect of a tablet, but maybe I am just uncomfortable with it because it wasn't that way on my before.
Yeah except the start screen, although taking the whole screen, contains less options than the start menu. I understand for tablets, big fingers, small screen but not for a desktop. I don't use it anyway I just use search to find the program.
Wow, you think the point of insurance is to pay out? I take it you've never had to make a claim.
Ok I don't live in the US, but it was quite simple making a claim. A storm blew down my fence (It was old and almost falling down anyway and I was honest about it though) they paid, not to replace it but to fix it, no problem. I think that was quite reasonable.
The answer is, because 99% of the time it is somebodies fault, and that person very well should be held liable for their negligence, malice, or what-have-you.
I mean, really? You honestly don't understand the concepts of personal responsibility and liability? Did you sleep through freshman Civics or something? This is basic, living-with-other-humans stuff, been around since the days of Hammurabi.
Well if cars drove themselves that would reduce from 99%, say < 1% from the point of view of the driver.
There is personal liability sure, but you can't reduce risk to zero, People make mistakes, developing software, doctors treating patients, while if there is negligence sure something needs to be done. But you can't go crazy because It doesn't help anyone, it just means the all these people make you sign wavers saying they are not responsible for anything. It also means people are too scared to act.
I did not go to a US college, so I did not go to freshman Civics, I can use my brain, but like most things in life it is about moderation, you need some personal responsibility but not too much. Society has to accept that mistakes sometimes happen as well, even when all reasonable precautions have been taken. If we live in a world where mistakes are unacceptable we will also live in a world where innovation cannot occur.
Careful what you wish for - no more lawyers means corporations get away with murder, quite literally, and no legal or fiscal repercussions are felt. Is that really a world you want to live in, where Walmart can hire assassins to take out pro-union employees?
I was talking about, having to prove negligence, intentionally hiring some one to kill staff would not be covered.
Also corporations already get away with murder, I don't think monetary compensation is adequate, they have bigger better lawyer than you would ever be able to afford. Even if they do get caught it is probably cheaper, for them to kill a few people. I hear you say class action, who really makes the money in a class action anyway? Its the lawyers. And even still their lawyers are probably better. How many cigarette company executives where sent to jail?
Your intentions seem good, but your plan is poorly thought out. Makes for great pavement on the road to Hell, but actually pretty bad policy.
I think we are already on the road to hell, with a system in which every sues everyone for everything. It is a big waste of time, and resources. Who do you think pays for this? The consumer, companies take this into account, they get liability insurance, and charge you more to cover the risk. Who profits lawyers and insurance companies.
Drug companies already produce stuff that can kill people and don't get sued all that much. As long as they follow the proper testing procedures, drugs can and do kill people but that is an acceptable level of risk. If car manufactures start producing self driving cars that half the road toll is it not worth it? That is 1/2 of 32,367 people (2011 just the US), or do we need keep the technology on hold until we find a way to hold them liable to the 16183 deaths that would still occur?
Well currently if you can prove it was a manufacturing defect an not driver error you could probably avoid liability, it would be a lot easier to prove if you where not actually driving.
But you are also right car manufactures will also want to avoid liability. It will probably/should go to as long as they where not negligent in developing the car/software then it will probably be nobody's fault. You will still have to get insurance, it will be like an natural disaster destroyed you home. It is nobody fault, insurance still pays out.
I don't see why everything has to be someones fault. Hopefully this may also put some lawyers out of business as well.
I don't know what crazy laws they will put in place, I am not a fortune teller, but that seems like the best solution
Not even that once we have a generation of drivers that have always been driven by self driving cars, how well do you think they are going to deal with an emergency situation, with their max hour/per year driving experience.
The solution is simple once self driving cars are common, the law will change to make them not liable, unless they fail to maintain the vehicle properly.
Many eyes does work, so much in that it helps a bit, same with static analysis it helps but not perfect and just because you have run your tool over your code does not mean you are safe.
FLOSS give you the following: 1. an independent programmer may have looked at it. 2. nobody can pull the plug. 3. If it doesn't do what you want you can add it. My favorite. 4. When a bug does occur they don't generally try to hide the fact.
FLOSS is no way a guarantee of adequate code, any idiot can write start a project, but from what I have see of closed source code, that is definitely no better.
Its not the internet's fault, it the economic systems fault, there is nothing wrong with 13 people to replacing 140,000 peoples jobs, I know its not exactly an accurate example, but if it is true its a good thing, isn't it? It is about still providing an environment in which those 140,000 people can live, be happy, and contribute to society. Our current economic system was set up in an environment where we needed to produce more just to get the basics of life. That has changed, now we seem to be producing more for the sake of consuming more.
As we get more an more efficient and it takes less and less people to produce items (e.g. imagine a robot could replace a person) the natural result in our current economic system to concentrate the wealth with fewer people (the robot manufacturer).
We as a society need to rethink our goal as an economy, is our only goal to continually increase GDP, or is it to become a happier, healthier society. After a certain point they are not the same thing. How do we distribute wealth? I don't support just giving people an equal share, people work try hard should be rewarded, but to what level? The entire human race has contributed to the knowledge we now have, not just a few individuals. Is it fair that a few individuals can claim the rewards? I think we will loose a lot if remove the rest of the population from the people who are enabled to create/innovate, because they are reduced to just trying to survive, or don't survive at all.
I don't blame the rich, they are just doing what comes naturally with the system, trying to make themselves richer, after all isn't that what we are told is the definition of success? I think that definition of success is wrong.
Although the article covers clearing an account, this is obvious and would be detected by the customer immediately, it would result in the bank investigating and the password being changed. There is actually no need clear anybody's account. If it was me I would set a program that examines the customers past transactions and transfers a relatively small amount of money each month. This would likely not even be noticed by the customer I wouldn't. It may look like a normal bank transaction on the other end too. Maybe having an account with thousands of different payments going in may raise flags, but I am sure lots of business have that happen. Since you need thousands of victims someone is likely to spot it, but would the bank investigate every transaction into that account, or simply ignore them until each customer complains? It is not their problem until then.
Don't forget that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are at odds with each other.
That's what they want you to believe. Apart from insurance companies getting a percentage, Insurance companies need health cost to be high, if health care was god forbid affordable then people would not need insurance at all.
Insurance companies have other ways of getting out of paying, like you missed some little thing on your medical history, ok you are covered keep paying premiums, when you claim THEN your not covered. Why can't those forms be: "I give you, permission to look at my medical records for X period, in which you can choose to decline me". I am not a doctor and have no idea is relevant and what is not.
Although I don't proclaim to be able to predict what will actually happen in the future. I the past in the computer industry has bounced between server "cloud" centric and client centric for years. There are advantages in having both, In your example of email while it is true you can't get new email while the internet is down you can still read old emails. If the emails where stored only on the server then this would be inconvenient. Also there is a difference your connection to the internet going down and your email cloud provider going down. It is one more point of failure.
Also don't underestimate the value of having control over your data, you do not want to be reliant on some random person/company being up, not go bankrupt, or change its terms and conditions on you. Also people like having the impression of ownership, I think its something inherent in our nature, how many things do you own that you use only use occasionally, that would much be a much better allocation of resources if it was shared?
Consumer drives have this thing called being half the price, keep one spare, what the heck if it breaks go out and buy a new one, in 1 a hour, still faster than 4 hours. What kind of enterprise organization wouldn't have a few hard drives spare just in case a few failed. Send the old one back to replaced, in their own good time.
I don't see why you would have to pay 100% markup for what is basically insurance, for the manufactures defects.
Sort of like airline tickets that you can reschedule, more than 2x the price and still subject to availability (last time my company bought one), just buy the non refundable ticket, if your plans change then buy another one, the average cost is going to be less, unless you change your plans a lot, perhaps you need better planning? You also have travel insurance for such things which is not the cost of the plane ticket, and covers other things too.
I agree, we all know people choose bad passwords, we have to design systems that take that into consideration. This is my current thinking:
A smart key that plugs into a usb slot that will provide a (you may have multiple) public key to a web site. When you log on to a website you press a button on the "smart key" it will respond to exactly 1 challenge response.
You could password protect the smart key if you wished, but this is not the primary protection mechanism, that is possession of the key.
You could also have a back up key, you kept in a safe place just in case the other is lost.
The advantages are: 1. no web site can store your password since you never give it to them. 2. hard to issue multiple requests try to break the private key since it requires physical interaction for each request. 3. If you loose the card it can be replaced, you could have a central lost key repository. invalidating all logins that used that key at once. 4. The keys it generates could be random, well more random than passwords now. 5. no need to remember passwords. 6. you can have multiple "smart keys".
I don't really get the whole demand problem thing. If there is no demand what is the problem do we want people consuming for the sake of it?
Sure increasing demand will make the numbers look better, companies will earn more, and produce more, GDP will go up. But aren't we just producing stuff nobody really needs.
If demand is low, good unless that demand is low because people are starving and can't afford to live, but maybe that is wealth distribution problem since we also have obese people.
Must we constantly be trying to consume and produce more, for no good reason?
I did say that you derive self satisfaction from doing the right thing.
The point there is no situation where you can did any act not get a feeling so it is not Altruism. My point is when the expected gain to you is negative then it is altruism, not that there is no gain what so ever.
I disagree, its not Altruism even if you are not aware of the benefit to you (arguing on a subconscious level is hard since by definition you are not aware of it and you can make anything up). If you use the argument it is actual benefit should be measured, then it is easy to show altruism, any thing you did expecting a reward that did not actually work out.
Just because it is there doesn't mean it is not altruism either.
Ok, I'll check it out," was the only way I was going to get that old fucker off of my porch.
What you got is him going away. In that case was it altruism?
I think you are right however you don't always need self satisfaction, you can do something that is on the whole that is emotionally unpleasant. That's what I was inferring because you believe its the right thing.
An example although I would say its not Altruism because of other reasons is punishing your child (aka gene propagation, long term reward, you hope), it is highly unpleasant, requires effort, and the will not thank you.
Just because he left with a happy feeling, doesn't make it a selfish act. Although if he had hoped to get a reward, but didn't and wasn't too upset would make it so. He could just be playing the odds.
If you reduce the argument you got some kind of feeling after doing something well you are very unlikely find example, because even if it happens you can always say that person had a good, feeling.
The truth is people who are altruistic enjoy being so, the act is altruistic if the giver expects net return to themselves to be negative. Although I admit a happy feeling is hard place value on.
Sometimes I have done things that don't reward me on a physical level and don't like doing, I do them because I believe they are right thing to do. Is that altruism, or you could argue that I get self satisfaction from doing the "right" thing.
This is not a proof by induction it is a proof by contradiction, no induction step is needed.
It assumes there is a number N such that their must be at 2 primes between M and M + N, for any M, then the proof goes on to show how to pick a M for which this is not the case.
unless you are referring to the proof that the numbers between N! and N! + N are divisible not primes (clearly they are since you can write it as a*k+k = a*(N + 1) where a*k=N! for all values of k between 1 and N ). But you don't need induction to prove that either.
It cost over $100 million, the reason is if you have too much money, you spend too much money. There is very little reason for them to be efficient. Why do you think Facebook can offer $3 billion dollars for snapchat, a company that has no revenue. They have more money than they know what to do with.
Think of it this way if you got a billion dollars today you may go out and by some expensive sport car(s), would they get you from a to b any quicker, safer, more reliably, no, no, and no. You still need to keep to the speed limit, most cars can do that, with that extra power you are probably more likely to crash they are not designed for safety. A car like a Toyota is far more reliable. The only thing you gain is showing people you can afford to spend that much money on a car.
I would like a general purpose computer built into my TV, that can record, and browse the internet (as long as it comes with a standard browser and a keyboard). I have a media PC that does this, but it is a bit of a hassle. Just give me a media PC built into my TV, I could run games on it as well. not this propriety locked down nonsense.
Currently the only thing I can see 3d is good for is possibly games, but frankly I can live without all the other features.
Slashdot Mirror
Another thing I hate about windows 8, it feels like a store. Want to create an account, you need to do it with Microsoft, ok you don't but only if you read the fine print.
I don't want to be advertised to in the operating system, that's what browsers are for, and I especially don't want them to advertise to my children. I constantly get the feeling that they are trying to sell something. The have replicated that aspect of a tablet, but maybe I am just uncomfortable with it because it wasn't that way on my before.
My mac doesn't give me that feeling at all.
Yeah except the start screen, although taking the whole screen, contains less options than the start menu. I understand for tablets, big fingers, small screen but not for a desktop. I don't use it anyway I just use search to find the program.
Wow, you think the point of insurance is to pay out? I take it you've never had to make a claim.
Ok I don't live in the US, but it was quite simple making a claim. A storm blew down my fence (It was old and almost falling down anyway and I was honest about it though) they paid, not to replace it but to fix it, no problem. I think that was quite reasonable.
The answer is, because 99% of the time it is somebodies fault, and that person very well should be held liable for their negligence, malice, or what-have-you.
I mean, really? You honestly don't understand the concepts of personal responsibility and liability? Did you sleep through freshman Civics or something? This is basic, living-with-other-humans stuff, been around since the days of Hammurabi.
Well if cars drove themselves that would reduce from 99%, say < 1% from the point of view of the driver.
There is personal liability sure, but you can't reduce risk to zero, People make mistakes, developing software, doctors treating patients, while if there is negligence sure something needs to be done. But you can't go crazy because It doesn't help anyone, it just means the all these people make you sign wavers saying they are not responsible for anything. It also means people are too scared to act.
I did not go to a US college, so I did not go to freshman Civics, I can use my brain, but like most things in life it is about moderation, you need some personal responsibility but not too much. Society has to accept that mistakes sometimes happen as well, even when all reasonable precautions have been taken. If we live in a world where mistakes are unacceptable we will also live in a world where innovation cannot occur.
Careful what you wish for - no more lawyers means corporations get away with murder, quite literally, and no legal or fiscal repercussions are felt. Is that really a world you want to live in, where Walmart can hire assassins to take out pro-union employees?
I was talking about, having to prove negligence, intentionally hiring some one to kill staff would not be covered.
Also corporations already get away with murder, I don't think monetary compensation is adequate, they have bigger better lawyer than you would ever be able to afford. Even if they do get caught it is probably cheaper, for them to kill a few people. I hear you say class action, who really makes the money in a class action anyway? Its the lawyers. And even still their lawyers are probably better. How many cigarette company executives where sent to jail?
Your intentions seem good, but your plan is poorly thought out. Makes for great pavement on the road to Hell, but actually pretty bad policy.
I think we are already on the road to hell, with a system in which every sues everyone for everything. It is a big waste of time, and resources. Who do you think pays for this? The consumer, companies take this into account, they get liability insurance, and charge you more to cover the risk. Who profits lawyers and insurance companies.
Drug companies already produce stuff that can kill people and don't get sued all that much. As long as they follow the proper testing procedures, drugs can and do kill people but that is an acceptable level of risk. If car manufactures start producing self driving cars that half the road toll is it not worth it? That is 1/2 of 32,367 people (2011 just the US), or do we need keep the technology on hold until we find a way to hold them liable to the 16183 deaths that would still occur?
Well currently if you can prove it was a manufacturing defect an not driver error you could probably avoid liability, it would be a lot easier to prove if you where not actually driving.
But you are also right car manufactures will also want to avoid liability. It will probably/should go to as long as they where not negligent in developing the car/software then it will probably be nobody's fault. You will still have to get insurance, it will be like an natural disaster destroyed you home. It is nobody fault, insurance still pays out.
I don't see why everything has to be someones fault. Hopefully this may also put some lawyers out of business as well.
I don't know what crazy laws they will put in place, I am not a fortune teller, but that seems like the best solution
But would those airstrikes occurred if they didn't have drones in the first place?
Its an easier decision to make when you are not putting you soldiers lives at risk.
Not even that once we have a generation of drivers that have always been driven by self driving cars, how well do you think they are going to deal with an emergency situation, with their max hour/per year driving experience.
The solution is simple once self driving cars are common, the law will change to make them not liable, unless they fail to maintain the vehicle properly.
Many eyes does work, so much in that it helps a bit, same with static analysis it helps but not perfect and just because you have run your tool over your code does not mean you are safe.
FLOSS give you the following:
1. an independent programmer may have looked at it.
2. nobody can pull the plug.
3. If it doesn't do what you want you can add it. My favorite.
4. When a bug does occur they don't generally try to hide the fact.
FLOSS is no way a guarantee of adequate code, any idiot can write start a project, but from what I have see of closed source code, that is definitely no better.
E.g. utility function to move a file:
char buff[256];
sprintf(buff, "mv %s %s", src, dst);
system(buff);
problems ,buffer overruns and moving the file "; rm -rf /" can be problematic. And its was not just a one off either.
If you are looking for guarantees about code quality just because you are FLOSS you are going to be disappointed.
Its not the internet's fault, it the economic systems fault, there is nothing wrong with 13 people to replacing 140,000 peoples jobs, I know its not exactly an accurate example, but if it is true its a good thing, isn't it? It is about still providing an environment in which those 140,000 people can live, be happy, and contribute to society. Our current economic system was set up in an environment where we needed to produce more just to get the basics of life. That has changed, now we seem to be producing more for the sake of consuming more.
As we get more an more efficient and it takes less and less people to produce items (e.g. imagine a robot could replace a person) the natural result in our current economic system to concentrate the wealth with fewer people (the robot manufacturer).
We as a society need to rethink our goal as an economy, is our only goal to continually increase GDP, or is it to become a happier, healthier society. After a certain point they are not the same thing. How do we distribute wealth? I don't support just giving people an equal share, people work try hard should be rewarded, but to what level? The entire human race has contributed to the knowledge we now have, not just a few individuals. Is it fair that a few individuals can claim the rewards? I think we will loose a lot if remove the rest of the population from the people who are enabled to create/innovate, because they are reduced to just trying to survive, or don't survive at all.
I don't blame the rich, they are just doing what comes naturally with the system, trying to make themselves richer, after all isn't that what we are told is the definition of success? I think that definition of success is wrong.
Although the article covers clearing an account, this is obvious and would be detected by the customer immediately, it would result in the bank investigating and the password being changed. There is actually no need clear anybody's account. If it was me I would set a program that examines the customers past transactions and transfers a relatively small amount of money each month. This would likely not even be noticed by the customer I wouldn't. It may look like a normal bank transaction on the other end too. Maybe having an account with thousands of different payments going in may raise flags, but I am sure lots of business have that happen. Since you need thousands of victims someone is likely to spot it, but would the bank investigate every transaction into that account, or simply ignore them until each customer complains? It is not their problem until then.
sorry its not clear
what about this stuff? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYlDVimu1s0
Don't forget that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are at odds with each other.
That's what they want you to believe. Apart from insurance companies getting a percentage, Insurance companies need health cost to be high, if health care was god forbid affordable then people would not need insurance at all.
Insurance companies have other ways of getting out of paying, like you missed some little thing on your medical history, ok you are covered keep paying premiums, when you claim THEN your not covered. Why can't those forms be: "I give you, permission to look at my medical records for X period, in which you can choose to decline me". I am not a doctor and have no idea is relevant and what is not.
Although I don't proclaim to be able to predict what will actually happen in the future. I the past in the computer industry has bounced between server "cloud" centric and client centric for years. There are advantages in having both, In your example of email while it is true you can't get new email while the internet is down you can still read old emails. If the emails where stored only on the server then this would be inconvenient. Also there is a difference your connection to the internet going down and your email cloud provider going down. It is one more point of failure.
Also don't underestimate the value of having control over your data, you do not want to be reliant on some random person/company being up, not go bankrupt, or change its terms and conditions on you. Also people like having the impression of ownership, I think its something inherent in our nature, how many things do you own that you use only use occasionally, that would much be a much better allocation of resources if it was shared?
Just because someone posts as "Anonymous Coward" don't mean they have something to hide. They may simply not want to open a slashdot account.
Anyway I assume AC was simply making a joke.
Consumer drives have this thing called being half the price, keep one spare, what the heck if it breaks go out and buy a new one, in 1 a hour, still faster than 4 hours. What kind of enterprise organization wouldn't have a few hard drives spare just in case a few failed. Send the old one back to replaced, in their own good time.
I don't see why you would have to pay 100% markup for what is basically insurance, for the manufactures defects.
Sort of like airline tickets that you can reschedule, more than 2x the price and still subject to availability (last time my company bought one), just buy the non refundable ticket, if your plans change then buy another one, the average cost is going to be less, unless you change your plans a lot, perhaps you need better planning? You also have travel insurance for such things which is not the cost of the plane ticket, and covers other things too.
from the article they are using consumer, and enterprise dives for the same purpose, so comparison is not pointless at all.
I agree, we all know people choose bad passwords, we have to design systems that take that into consideration. This is my current thinking:
A smart key that plugs into a usb slot that will provide a (you may have multiple) public key to a web site.
When you log on to a website you press a button on the "smart key" it will respond to exactly 1 challenge response.
You could password protect the smart key if you wished, but this is not the primary protection mechanism, that is possession of the key.
You could also have a back up key, you kept in a safe place just in case the other is lost.
The advantages are:
1. no web site can store your password since you never give it to them.
2. hard to issue multiple requests try to break the private key since it requires physical interaction for each request.
3. If you loose the card it can be replaced, you could have a central lost key repository. invalidating all logins that used that key at once.
4. The keys it generates could be random, well more random than passwords now.
5. no need to remember passwords.
6. you can have multiple "smart keys".
Also makes it much easier to give contracts to you friends and family.
I don't really get the whole demand problem thing. If there is no demand what is the problem do we want people consuming for the sake of it?
Sure increasing demand will make the numbers look better, companies will earn more, and produce more, GDP will go up. But aren't we just producing stuff nobody really needs.
If demand is low, good unless that demand is low because people are starving and can't afford to live, but maybe that is wealth distribution problem since we also have obese people.
Must we constantly be trying to consume and produce more, for no good reason?
I did say that you derive self satisfaction from doing the right thing.
The point there is no situation where you can did any act not get a feeling so it is not Altruism. My point is when the expected gain to you is negative then it is altruism, not that there is no gain what so ever.
I disagree, its not Altruism even if you are not aware of the benefit to you (arguing on a subconscious level is hard since by definition you are not aware of it and you can make anything up). If you use the argument it is actual benefit should be measured, then it is easy to show altruism, any thing you did expecting a reward that did not actually work out.
Altruism does not imply joy or self-satisfaction.
Just because it is there doesn't mean it is not altruism either.
Ok, I'll check it out," was the only way I was going to get that old fucker off of my porch.
What you got is him going away. In that case was it altruism?
I think you are right however you don't always need self satisfaction, you can do something that is on the whole that is emotionally unpleasant. That's what I was inferring because you believe its the right thing.
An example although I would say its not Altruism because of other reasons is punishing your child (aka gene propagation, long term reward, you hope), it is highly unpleasant, requires effort, and the will not thank you.
Just because he left with a happy feeling, doesn't make it a selfish act. Although if he had hoped to get a reward, but didn't and wasn't too upset would make it so. He could just be playing the odds.
If you reduce the argument you got some kind of feeling after doing something well you are very unlikely find example, because even if it happens you can always say that person had a good, feeling.
The truth is people who are altruistic enjoy being so, the act is altruistic if the giver expects net return to themselves to be negative. Although I admit a happy feeling is hard place value on.
Sometimes I have done things that don't reward me on a physical level and don't like doing, I do them because I believe they are right thing to do. Is that altruism, or you could argue that I get self satisfaction from doing the "right" thing.
This is not a proof by induction it is a proof by contradiction, no induction step is needed.
It assumes there is a number N such that their must be at 2 primes between M and M + N, for any M, then the proof goes on to show how to pick a M for which this is not the case.
unless you are referring to the proof that the numbers between N! and N! + N are divisible not primes (clearly they are since you can write it as a*k+k = a*(N + 1) where a*k=N! for all values of k between 1 and N ). But you don't need induction to prove that either.
It cost over $100 million, the reason is if you have too much money, you spend too much money. There is very little reason for them to be efficient. Why do you think Facebook can offer $3 billion dollars for snapchat, a company that has no revenue. They have more money than they know what to do with.
Think of it this way if you got a billion dollars today you may go out and by some expensive sport car(s), would they get you from a to b any quicker, safer, more reliably, no, no, and no. You still need to keep to the speed limit, most cars can do that, with that extra power you are probably more likely to crash they are not designed for safety. A car like a Toyota is far more reliable. The only thing you gain is showing people you can afford to spend that much money on a car.
Sorry about the car analogy.
Look at these yachts, http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/10-expensive-yachts-world/ number 1 is a fake but number 2. $800 mil for a yacht, that's 8 Xbox controllers.
I would like a general purpose computer built into my TV, that can record, and browse the internet (as long as it comes with a standard browser and a keyboard). I have a media PC that does this, but it is a bit of a hassle. Just give me a media PC built into my TV, I could run games on it as well. not this propriety locked down nonsense.
Currently the only thing I can see 3d is good for is possibly games, but frankly I can live without all the other features.