Japanese auto industry is going to roar back with a vengence and kick the living shit out of us within 10 years. And Korea, and China, and dare i say Europe...
Watch out USA! Yugo cars are coming to kick your ass!
Gore is mentioned frequently as one of the few politicians who showed both interest in and understanding of technology (iirc, he was representative at the time), and he was explicitly mentioned as pushing the idea of the "information highway", which eventually resulted in turning arpanet into the internet.
Yeah; I guess you might be able to give him credit for making the Internet what it is today; if that's true, it'd be fair.
The way it was phrased made it sound like he was there from the beginning (Arpanet) however; which wasn't true at all.
Although, as I was going through that I thought "Was Gore really in politics as far back as the late 1960s"?
To which the article actually points out the answer is "no"; so Gore was still stretching things in claiming that he was responsible for fostering the environment in which the Internet was "born".
One of the articles referred to "loss of emotional expression" due to the loss in quality caused by multiple copying.
This reminded me of something I'd been thinking of; footage of (eg) WWII and that era tends to be old and crackly. Does the 'old' appearance of the film tend to have a distancing effect on the audience?
Or put another way, would digitally cleaning up this footage make it seem more relevant to today's audiences without artificially adding to the content?
Of course, cleaning up is not the only way this footage could be improved. If it was possible to electronically compensate for (e.g.) bad focus and camera shake, this too would improve things. Perhaps overexposure and 'blooming' (don't know the technical terms, but you know when an area of a photo is so overexposed that it 'glows') could be compensated for; although to regain bleached-out detail from overexposed areas, it might be necessary to go back to the original film- unless the digitisation includes a *very* wide dynamic range.
Obviously, the footage would still be in black and white; it might be more relevant to today's audiences if it were in colour. Colourising it artificially would (even if it looked good) definitely be "adding to" (i.e. modifying the actual content of) the original footage in a way I'd consider unacceptable.
So, the big question is; is it theoretically possible to recover some, or all of the *genuine* colour information from black and white footage?
Before someone posts a knee-jerk reaction saying "the information is lost and can't *ever* be regained".... consider this:-
Imagine that certain colours of light could penetrate into the film itself deeper than other colours could (I'm not saying it can, I'm making that up).
Thus, if that were true, we could regain some- or all- colour information by (somehow) reading the different layers of the film, which would be differently exposed (viewed from the front we would have the "averaged" sum of the layered exposures). This could be the basis of a "true" colour restoration.
Of course, all that is conjecture, and very possibly untrue. BUT; I said it to illustrate that there may be a number of ways that supposedly "lost" colour information may be stored. Even if possible, it's likely to be *horrendously* difficult... but we're talking about theoretical possibility here.
So; I'll ask again:- Is it theoretically possible to get colour from mono film?
(Yes, I know some old-WWII colour film in which the colour information had faded to B&W has been restored; but I'm talking about film that was monochrome in the first place).
Um, yeah. I mean those overpriced games. You know, the ones that made more money than Hollywood?
So, some people are willing to give the makers lots of money; how does that mean they aren't overpriced?
IIRC, the 'more money than Hollywood' quote was inaccurate, but that's not the point.
Everyone seems to really like 'em.
No. The people who are already into computer games really like 'em. No surprise there. The industry is making enough profit (I assume) to sustain itself, but this obscures the important fact:-
Most people do NOT play computer games.
There is a HUGE untapped market for 'casual' gamers. These people (and I'm probably one of them) probably aren't obsessed with state-of-the-art graphics, they don't want to play for hours, and they don't want to pay through the nose. They might be your parents, or even your grandparents.
I remember nothing 4 or so years back, just after the PS2 came out, that the most played computer games on the face of the planet must have been either...Microsoft Solitaire or the Nokia 'Snake' game. Sheesh! Even then, the snake game was crude; but my PS2-owning flatmates still played it.
Anyway, let me add my own perspective here; computer games aren't films, and in my opinion made the (unsurprising) mistake of going for improved surface gloss over increased flexibility and interactivity.
Sure, sometimes that's what we want. When I play a car racing game, I don't *want* to have to master a complex car. I want an nth-generation Pole Postion descendant. But for all its realism, that game will *not* let you drive off the track, etc. etc.
If you want to stage a road-rage attack on the driver that cut you off, you can't. Unless the feature was explicitly programmed in.
Hey, I'm kind of rambling now; what do I know, I don't really play computer games.
PC users tend to value low cost (relatively), ubiquity, and high flexibility (e.g. think how many GUI's are available for x86, and how many themes for them, etc.).
And think how many people out there are still running Windows XP (one GUI) with the one appearance (cartoony XP widgets) in the default colour scheme (playschool blue with red and green bits).
I find it ironic that the appearance of Windows XP is even *more* restricted than that of the old dull-as-ditchwater Windows 95/98 interface (yeah, you can use that with XP, but who wants to?). And I know there are add-on programs that can change XP's appearance, but they don't come from Microsoft and they don't come with Windows XP.
If anyone is going to mention Linux's interface choice, don't. The typical "PC user", like it or not, is interested in running Windows, not Linux.
Yeah. The Nanode. That was announced *way* back, almost a year ago, long before the Mac Mini was even a rumour.
One snag; it wasn't and STILL ISN'T AVAILABLE!
If they'd released it around the originally intended time, there would have been nothing to touch it (*). Now the Mac Mini with a similar kind of form and size has really stolen its thunder; the Nanode, if and when it does arrive, is going to be labelled as one of the typical "me too" clone PCs that always pop up in the wake of Apple's launches.
Don't get me wrong; there are styling differences, but the basic shape is the same. Don't even think about buying one in white or off-white, as rightly or wrongly, you'll be labelled as the kind of wannabe fashion geek who'll buy a cheap iPod-alike.
I still wouldn't mind one (if I had the money), but only if they release it in a copper or red finish (they cut down the colour range of the most recent Cubit, so I'm not holding my breath).
Long and the short; Hoojum lost this one big-time.
no, you obviously misread my comment, read it again plz
No, you obviously misread *my* comment. Read it again, please.
There's a difference between not liking something and really hating it; not the kind of job that leaves you sweating nervously to get out of the building at night, but the kind that leaves you empty and unfulfilled.
Doing that for the short term until something better comes along is fine, but it sounds absolutely ******* shit if it represents the next 40 years of someone's life.
And yeah, I know that no job will last 40 years nowadays, but finding yourself in that position in consecutive jobs would be pretty much the same.
Question: Whilst I appreciate it's probably a good idea to know a bit of C#, VB.Net and Windows stuff, and there seems to be the demand out there, am I right in thinking that MS technologies (Windows and.Net primarily) aren't as great a choice to base a career on as they first appear?
My reasoning is that they seem to fundamentally change things round a lot more than (e.g.) Unix/Linux and Java (*); so unless you keep your skills up-to-date, the skills you learn will be becoming very dated in 3 or so years time.
Basically, I don't consider having to learn a new way of doing the same thing every couple of years because MS wanted to sell more units a good basis for a career. What do you think?
If you've left, and don't find other work that you enjoy doing soon, you're at risk of ending up stuck doing stuff that you feel is a waste of your skills - something like flipping burgers
Reminds me of American Beauty...
(I almost said 'American Pie' there.... no, no, no!)
Check your licensing agreements before you buy one of these dual-core processors. Make sure that your software vendor isn't going to double the price on you.
Oracle and others have announced plans to increase their revenue by charging people for multiple cores in their single processor.
What happens when multiple-core processors become the norm? Either people will have to stick to old-fashioned single-core processors (unlikely), or everyone will have to pay more.
But if everyone can, and *will* pay more to run Oracle on an up-to-date computer (I assume that new versions of Oracle will require reasonably up-to-date machines, which will soon imply multiple-core anyway), this implies that the market will bear (i.e. is basically willing to pay) double the existing price for Oracle.
In which case- WHY HAVEN'T ORACLE DONE THIS ALREADY, using a different excuse?
Bear in mind that effectively they'll be doubling the price to run it on a "modern" PC anyway, and I doubt the introduction of dual cores will have a fundamental effect on the popularity of Oracle per se.
They should be more excited about the message I sent:
"I claim your planet in the name of Earth. Surrender or die."
Assuming that intelligent life follows the same evolutionary spurts that the human race has followed in the past few thousand years, we can conclude that evolution of intelligent life is on a scale God knows how many magnitudes faster than the pace of construction/destruction of stars/planets etc.
Thus, although by numbers, there may be a massive number of potential sites for life out there, the transitions from dumb to super-intelligent life will be like almost instantaneous sparks that happen relatively rarely (say, every few hours or so?) in the universe.
What is the chances of two (random) sparks occuring at *exactly* the same time, to within a few milliseconds?
If one race's evolutionary spurt happens even just a "few seconds" before ours, in real-life, that's still hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years ahead of us. If they survive, they'll be so much more intelligent that us that they won't have to take our threat seriously.
If, OTOH, they're behind us, they'll still be at such a dumb stage that they won't be picking up signals from space.
either way the signal is not going to go very far (interstellar speaking) and is a huge waste of money that is purely for the fool to spend his money on.
Case in point.... CEO of Craigslist.
Why is he a fool? His aim seems to have been to get attention for his company for little cost, at which he has probably succeeded.
The fools, if anyone, are the people getting excited at this.
Explanation for the "Green M&Ms" clause
on
Ask mc chris
·
· Score: 1
Van Halen used to have a rider in their touring contract that their dressing room would have a bowl filled with M&M's, but that there could be absolutely no green M&M's in that bowl.
There are two takes on this. The first is that this sort of term in the contract allows an artist to basically do what the hell they like (e.g. cancel shows, get paid stuff, whatever) if it isn't met; which it very likely won't be.
HOWEVER, Van Halen had a different explanation. Basically, they had (IIRC) heavy and very elaborate stage apparatus which was very demanding and required setting up correctly (e.g. it could collapse or get damaged if this wasn't done).
Lots of places weren't meeting the specs, or cutting corners, and they were having all sorts of problems as a result.
Their solution was to have inconspiculously buried amongst the list of requirements the "green M&Ms" clause.
If they found any green M&Ms, they knew the organisers hadn't been paying enough attention to the requirements, and there was trouble in store. I can't remember if they said they stopped any shows as a result, or if they just made them go over everything again.
Recreation? Competition? Exercise? Something fun to do? Not everything has to have a "point". Sometimes folks can just get together and have fun, you know?
Well, I wasn't having a go at you wanting to be connected per se; I was having a go at you for either (a) Not being able to figure out that it people weren't "hating on you" because you wanted to live a connected life, but because you (or rather, a certain type of mobile phone user in general) have an obnoxious intrusive ringtone and blank people in the middle of a conversation to answer your phone.
OR (b) You realised this anyway and were setting up a straw-man argument.
It's got NOTHING to do with being connected or not.
And BTW, if I was talking to you, and you stopped to have an inane conversation with someone else on the phone, I wouldn't hang about for you to finish...
Anyway, I have no problem with being able to be connected if *I* want to. Because- guess what- I want technology to work *for* me, and it's not doing that if I'm on holiday to get away from it all and the boss is able to phone me.
Of course, being tech-savvy means you can engineer a more convincing excuse for being out of touch, whilst still being able to communicate on your own terms.
Video phones are a good example; people don't want to have to look their best every time they answer the phone, or be caught somewhere where they don't want to be seen. It's not benefiting people, so they don't like it, though I'm sure businesses will find a way to use it, and their employees will find a way round it.
I believe that every cellphone on the planet should have just 1 fixed ringtone that cannot be changed. It should be some guy announcing in a loud and obnoxious voice, "LOOK EVERYONE! I HAVE A CELLPHONE AND I'M AN *ASSHOLE*!"
Bluetooth +
Security holes -->
Exploits.
Now automate the process so it downloads "LOOK EVERYONE! I HAVE A CELLPHONE AND I'M AN *ASSHOLE*!" to all phones you pass in the street.
It's annoying as hell to spend a lot of money to have as connected a lifestyle as possible
We don't hate you because you have a connected lifestyle. On the contrary, we hate you because you haven't connected your fingers to a live wall socket yet; that'd wipe the curiously-dated but nevertheless smug "I'm a hip cargo-pants-wearing connected futurist who'll be a dotcom millionaire in six months time" grin off your face.
Slashdot Mirror
when I put my three middle fingers into my horse it relaxes me a lot too, let alone the horse.
WikiAfterDark.com [wikiafterdark.com] What do you wanna do sexually?
I'm really not sure you're doing wikiafterdark.com any favours when your sig is attached to posts like that...
Japanese auto industry is going to roar back with a vengence and kick the living shit out of us within 10 years. And Korea, and China, and dare i say Europe...
Watch out USA! Yugo cars are coming to kick your ass!
They're those big, 18" diameter jobbies.
:-O
BTW, in Scotland the word "jobbies" means "turds", and I really *don't* want to think what an 18" diameter jobbie would be like.
Gore is mentioned frequently as one of the few politicians who showed both interest in and understanding of technology (iirc, he was representative at the time), and he was explicitly mentioned as pushing the idea of the "information highway", which eventually resulted in turning arpanet into the internet.
Yeah; I guess you might be able to give him credit for making the Internet what it is today; if that's true, it'd be fair.
The way it was phrased made it sound like he was there from the beginning (Arpanet) however; which wasn't true at all.
I thought Gore invented DOS!
Nah; he didn't claim to have invented the internet either...
Although, as I was going through that I thought "Was Gore really in politics as far back as the late 1960s"?
To which the article actually points out the answer is "no"; so Gore was still stretching things in claiming that he was responsible for fostering the environment in which the Internet was "born".
Good answer, thanks...
One of the articles referred to "loss of emotional expression" due to the loss in quality caused by multiple copying.
This reminded me of something I'd been thinking of; footage of (eg) WWII and that era tends to be old and crackly. Does the 'old' appearance of the film tend to have a distancing effect on the audience?
Or put another way, would digitally cleaning up this footage make it seem more relevant to today's audiences without artificially adding to the content?
Of course, cleaning up is not the only way this footage could be improved. If it was possible to electronically compensate for (e.g.) bad focus and camera shake, this too would improve things. Perhaps overexposure and 'blooming' (don't know the technical terms, but you know when an area of a photo is so overexposed that it 'glows') could be compensated for; although to regain bleached-out detail from overexposed areas, it might be necessary to go back to the original film- unless the digitisation includes a *very* wide dynamic range.
Obviously, the footage would still be in black and white; it might be more relevant to today's audiences if it were in colour. Colourising it artificially would (even if it looked good) definitely be "adding to" (i.e. modifying the actual content of) the original footage in a way I'd consider unacceptable.
So, the big question is; is it theoretically possible to recover some, or all of the *genuine* colour information from black and white footage?
Before someone posts a knee-jerk reaction saying "the information is lost and can't *ever* be regained".... consider this:-
Imagine that certain colours of light could penetrate into the film itself deeper than other colours could (I'm not saying it can, I'm making that up).
Thus, if that were true, we could regain some- or all- colour information by (somehow) reading the different layers of the film, which would be differently exposed (viewed from the front we would have the "averaged" sum of the layered exposures). This could be the basis of a "true" colour restoration.
Of course, all that is conjecture, and very possibly untrue. BUT; I said it to illustrate that there may be a number of ways that supposedly "lost" colour information may be stored. Even if possible, it's likely to be *horrendously* difficult... but we're talking about theoretical possibility here.
So; I'll ask again:- Is it theoretically possible to get colour from mono film?
(Yes, I know some old-WWII colour film in which the colour information had faded to B&W has been restored; but I'm talking about film that was monochrome in the first place).
Um, yeah. I mean those overpriced games. You know, the ones that made more money than Hollywood?
So, some people are willing to give the makers lots of money; how does that mean they aren't overpriced?
IIRC, the 'more money than Hollywood' quote was inaccurate, but that's not the point.
Everyone seems to really like 'em.
No. The people who are already into computer games really like 'em. No surprise there. The industry is making enough profit (I assume) to sustain itself, but this obscures the important fact:-
Most people do NOT play computer games.
There is a HUGE untapped market for 'casual' gamers. These people (and I'm probably one of them) probably aren't obsessed with state-of-the-art graphics, they don't want to play for hours, and they don't want to pay through the nose. They might be your parents, or even your grandparents.
I remember nothing 4 or so years back, just after the PS2 came out, that the most played computer games on the face of the planet must have been either...Microsoft Solitaire or the Nokia 'Snake' game. Sheesh! Even then, the snake game was crude; but my PS2-owning flatmates still played it.
Anyway, let me add my own perspective here; computer games aren't films, and in my opinion made the (unsurprising) mistake of going for improved surface gloss over increased flexibility and interactivity.
Sure, sometimes that's what we want. When I play a car racing game, I don't *want* to have to master a complex car. I want an nth-generation Pole Postion descendant. But for all its realism, that game will *not* let you drive off the track, etc. etc.
If you want to stage a road-rage attack on the driver that cut you off, you can't. Unless the feature was explicitly programmed in.
Hey, I'm kind of rambling now; what do I know, I don't really play computer games.
PC users tend to value low cost (relatively), ubiquity, and high flexibility (e.g. think how many GUI's are available for x86, and how many themes for them, etc.).
And think how many people out there are still running Windows XP (one GUI) with the one appearance (cartoony XP widgets) in the default colour scheme (playschool blue with red and green bits).
I find it ironic that the appearance of Windows XP is even *more* restricted than that of the old dull-as-ditchwater Windows 95/98 interface (yeah, you can use that with XP, but who wants to?). And I know there are add-on programs that can change XP's appearance, but they don't come from Microsoft and they don't come with Windows XP.
If anyone is going to mention Linux's interface choice, don't. The typical "PC user", like it or not, is interested in running Windows, not Linux.
Yeah. The Nanode. That was announced *way* back, almost a year ago, long before the Mac Mini was even a rumour.
One snag; it wasn't and STILL ISN'T AVAILABLE!
If they'd released it around the originally intended time, there would have been nothing to touch it (*). Now the Mac Mini with a similar kind of form and size has really stolen its thunder; the Nanode, if and when it does arrive, is going to be labelled as one of the typical "me too" clone PCs that always pop up in the wake of Apple's launches.
Don't get me wrong; there are styling differences, but the basic shape is the same. Don't even think about buying one in white or off-white, as rightly or wrongly, you'll be labelled as the kind of wannabe fashion geek who'll buy a cheap iPod-alike.
I still wouldn't mind one (if I had the money), but only if they release it in a copper or red finish (they cut down the colour range of the most recent Cubit, so I'm not holding my breath).
Long and the short; Hoojum lost this one big-time.
no, you obviously misread my comment, read it again plz
No, you obviously misread *my* comment. Read it again, please.
There's a difference between not liking something and really hating it; not the kind of job that leaves you sweating nervously to get out of the building at night, but the kind that leaves you empty and unfulfilled.
Doing that for the short term until something better comes along is fine, but it sounds absolutely ******* shit if it represents the next 40 years of someone's life.
And yeah, I know that no job will last 40 years nowadays, but finding yourself in that position in consecutive jobs would be pretty much the same.
Question: Whilst I appreciate it's probably a good idea to know a bit of C#, VB.Net and Windows stuff, and there seems to be the demand out there, am I right in thinking that MS technologies (Windows and .Net primarily) aren't as great a choice to base a career on as they first appear?
My reasoning is that they seem to fundamentally change things round a lot more than (e.g.) Unix/Linux and Java (*); so unless you keep your skills up-to-date, the skills you learn will be becoming very dated in 3 or so years time.
Basically, I don't consider having to learn a new way of doing the same thing every couple of years because MS wanted to sell more units a good basis for a career. What do you think?
remember, it's a job, it pays the rent, and unless you actually hated it, you should have kept it
You propose that someone should spend half of their waking hours, most of their life doing something they don't like?
anyways, you can still honour your ethics and values when contributing to open source projects
Not if his contract says otherwise.
If you've left, and don't find other work that you enjoy doing soon, you're at risk of ending up stuck doing stuff that you feel is a waste of your skills - something like flipping burgers
Reminds me of American Beauty...
(I almost said 'American Pie' there.... no, no, no!)
Check your licensing agreements before you buy one of these dual-core processors. Make sure that your software vendor isn't going to double the price on you. Oracle and others have announced plans to increase their revenue by charging people for multiple cores in their single processor.
What happens when multiple-core processors become the norm? Either people will have to stick to old-fashioned single-core processors (unlikely), or everyone will have to pay more.
But if everyone can, and *will* pay more to run Oracle on an up-to-date computer (I assume that new versions of Oracle will require reasonably up-to-date machines, which will soon imply multiple-core anyway), this implies that the market will bear (i.e. is basically willing to pay) double the existing price for Oracle.
In which case- WHY HAVEN'T ORACLE DONE THIS ALREADY, using a different excuse?
Bear in mind that effectively they'll be doubling the price to run it on a "modern" PC anyway, and I doubt the introduction of dual cores will have a fundamental effect on the popularity of Oracle per se.
They should be more excited about the message I sent: "I claim your planet in the name of Earth. Surrender or die."
Assuming that intelligent life follows the same evolutionary spurts that the human race has followed in the past few thousand years, we can conclude that evolution of intelligent life is on a scale God knows how many magnitudes faster than the pace of construction/destruction of stars/planets etc.
Thus, although by numbers, there may be a massive number of potential sites for life out there, the transitions from dumb to super-intelligent life will be like almost instantaneous sparks that happen relatively rarely (say, every few hours or so?) in the universe.
What is the chances of two (random) sparks occuring at *exactly* the same time, to within a few milliseconds?
If one race's evolutionary spurt happens even just a "few seconds" before ours, in real-life, that's still hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years ahead of us. If they survive, they'll be so much more intelligent that us that they won't have to take our threat seriously.
If, OTOH, they're behind us, they'll still be at such a dumb stage that they won't be picking up signals from space.
either way the signal is not going to go very far (interstellar speaking) and is a huge waste of money that is purely for the fool to spend his money on. Case in point.... CEO of Craigslist.
Why is he a fool? His aim seems to have been to get attention for his company for little cost, at which he has probably succeeded.
The fools, if anyone, are the people getting excited at this.
Van Halen used to have a rider in their touring contract that their dressing room would have a bowl filled with M&M's, but that there could be absolutely no green M&M's in that bowl.
There are two takes on this. The first is that this sort of term in the contract allows an artist to basically do what the hell they like (e.g. cancel shows, get paid stuff, whatever) if it isn't met; which it very likely won't be.
HOWEVER, Van Halen had a different explanation. Basically, they had (IIRC) heavy and very elaborate stage apparatus which was very demanding and required setting up correctly (e.g. it could collapse or get damaged if this wasn't done).
Lots of places weren't meeting the specs, or cutting corners, and they were having all sorts of problems as a result.
Their solution was to have inconspiculously buried amongst the list of requirements the "green M&Ms" clause.
If they found any green M&Ms, they knew the organisers hadn't been paying enough attention to the requirements, and there was trouble in store. I can't remember if they said they stopped any shows as a result, or if they just made them go over everything again.
Old people in Korea aren't dead though, they still send email.
Us dead people send email too, you insensitive clod.
Recreation? Competition? Exercise? Something fun to do? Not everything has to have a "point". Sometimes folks can just get together and have fun, you know?
It's called sex, and that IS the point.
your message reminded me of the group of Linux enthusiasts in Bergen, Norway, who succesfilly sent a ping using Carrier Pigeon Internet Protocol
From the country that brought us A-Ha, and black metal bands running around killing each other.... now this. Pure genius.
I don't buy their explanation for the pigeons running off like that, though; I think they were just pining for the fjords.
Are you the guy that's been following me?
Why? Are you being stalked by a rabid Perry Como fan or something?
Well, I wasn't having a go at you wanting to be connected per se; I was having a go at you for either (a) Not being able to figure out that it people weren't "hating on you" because you wanted to live a connected life, but because you (or rather, a certain type of mobile phone user in general) have an obnoxious intrusive ringtone and blank people in the middle of a conversation to answer your phone.
OR (b) You realised this anyway and were setting up a straw-man argument.
It's got NOTHING to do with being connected or not.
And BTW, if I was talking to you, and you stopped to have an inane conversation with someone else on the phone, I wouldn't hang about for you to finish...
Anyway, I have no problem with being able to be connected if *I* want to. Because- guess what- I want technology to work *for* me, and it's not doing that if I'm on holiday to get away from it all and the boss is able to phone me.
Of course, being tech-savvy means you can engineer a more convincing excuse for being out of touch, whilst still being able to communicate on your own terms.
Video phones are a good example; people don't want to have to look their best every time they answer the phone, or be caught somewhere where they don't want to be seen. It's not benefiting people, so they don't like it, though I'm sure businesses will find a way to use it, and their employees will find a way round it.
I believe that every cellphone on the planet should have just 1 fixed ringtone that cannot be changed. It should be some guy announcing in a loud and obnoxious voice, "LOOK EVERYONE! I HAVE A CELLPHONE AND I'M AN *ASSHOLE*!"
Bluetooth +
Security holes -->
Exploits.
Now automate the process so it downloads "LOOK EVERYONE! I HAVE A CELLPHONE AND I'M AN *ASSHOLE*!" to all phones you pass in the street.
Yay!
It's annoying as hell to spend a lot of money to have as connected a lifestyle as possible
We don't hate you because you have a connected lifestyle. On the contrary, we hate you because you haven't connected your fingers to a live wall socket yet; that'd wipe the curiously-dated but nevertheless smug "I'm a hip cargo-pants-wearing connected futurist who'll be a dotcom millionaire in six months time" grin off your face.