Yes, lets blame other unpopular subject matter as the reason for an undesirable happenstance. Without any proof or facts lets connect GM crops to brown tide. There, anti-GM fanatics have another "fact" in their arsenal about why GM crops should be banned. Of course we all know that non-GM organic crops NEVER leak nutrients into the environment, they are perfect in every way. GM = bad, non-GM = good, I don't need no stinking facts!
While we are at it I also blame abortions and and increase in human rights for brown tide, so lets squash those things too. And of course you know damn well Global warming is behind all this. We should all stay home, piss in buckets and use gray water it to wash ourselves because it might cause brown tide!
This is why scientists cry, because people post shit on the web connecting something to another thing with limited basis in fact, only fear mongering and gross ignorance to support something they blindly believe in.
Yeah, I know with every new leap in technology someone comes out and claims that it going to make us dumber, but something like Google Glasses is one of those cases.
Do you need persistent feedback on everything you are looking at?
I certainly don't. I could do with less situational advertising in my life and I generally don't find it difficult to get around town without some constant reminder about where I am and an arrow to where I am going. I can read signs and understand the concept of street addresses pretty good. And I haven't reached that level of chronic social lethargy that makes pulling a phone out of my pocket a tedious chore or think it's uncool to hold a phone.
I definitely think there are niche markets for Google Glasses but for general public consumption I think these will be even more annoying then some smug hipster walking around with their "Bluetooth" lit up and dangling out of their ear talking louder then they need to about nothing at all.
Putting on a pair of Google Glasses is claiming to the world that you are too dumb and insecure to function in society without a trendy gadget of the month...where's my coffee
I am sure Hollywood (and maybe environmentalists) would love the idea of a one time use optical disk that disintegrates while being watched.
Most movies these days are barely watchable one time so if the disk disappears in a puff of smoke you have achieved all the enjoyment you are going to get out of it anyways.
Sounds like to me Nintendo won't bother trying to support 3D with the new Wii U.
While I am not huge on 3D for home movies, for gaming this is a nice niche market for the technology. Being able to immerse yourself into a game using 3D is fun and since most gaming involves using some kind of accessory or controller, having to don a pair of 3D glasses makes sense. I think 3D for gaming is in its infancy and will only get better, provided gaming companies invest a little more effort into it. That doesn't mean that ALL games must be 3D, just having the option available on an increasing number of cheap TV's that have the capabilities is a nice option.
So, just like the fact that the Wii never supported Full HD, sounds like Nintendo's new "next gen" game console will use "last gen" technology. This sounds like a cop out from Nintendo. Their 3DS is bombing so they assume consumers don't like 3D and thus are making no effort to support 3D gaming on the Wii U. This is not Nintendo following consumer trends, it's rationalizing a complete lack of understanding of consumer trends.
So instead of human instincts and experience, the computer is going to override your actions and send you flying off the cliff to your death instead of sacrificing hitting another car with minor damage. The computer is instructed to "not hit ANYTHING", but in an emergency scenario where its an easy decision for a human to hit another car vs flying off off a steep cliff, the human decision is going to win every time.
Seriously, again, this idea of car automation, in ANY shape or form, is one of the dumbest ideas ever.
Just leave my car alone. Improve systems to train drivers (such as actually putting training drivers into controlled emergent driving scenarios so they build up better driving skills and confidence), but keep the robots out of my engine.
Its not arrogance that makes me a better driver then a robot, its the fact that I want to survive a crash rather then adhere strictly to a set of programming instructions.
The world's economy is sinking like the Titanic yet governments are entertaining the idea of spending trillions going to Mars, and again, for what reason?
Hey, when we solve a lot of the earth's problems and a country like Greece cannot cause world-wide economic depression then lets entertain the novelty of sending people to another planet.
The US considering a mission to Mars will be a slap in the face for every family that lost a home and job over the last 5 years. The US government can't help people keep their homes, yet can blast a few people to another planet.
And fuck the argument about the scientific gains from simply preparing to go to Mars. I would rather see people solve problems here on Earth first that would make a mission to Mars easy and cheap. For instance inventing a new form of clean energy and putting it into USE on our planet FIRST will make setting up a mission to Mars trivial. They can spend trillions going to Mars and there could potentially be no single practical benefit to our planet.
When are governments going to start exercising some fiscal responsibility? Probably when people pull their heads out of their asses and stop voting in f*cktards looking to blow your taxes on war and stupid space missions.
The people and governments of the world are going to have to wake up and get a real big dose of reality very soon, otherwise the only reason to go to Mars is to leave this sh*thole behind.
If Steve Jobs was around and decided that Apple should not be part of EPEAT, then Apple would remain off EPEAT for good regardless of consumer opinion or corporate backlash. Instead the new Apple appears to pander to the same.
Apple lost its balls with Steve.
Microsoft is the definitive champion of a business model involving brash announcements, gathering of opinion, and eventual backpedaling, hopefully Tim Cooke is not looking to take over that title.
I still can't believe people want to move ahead with autonomous cars.
I don't care how good the "robotics" and "sensors" are on the car, there is no computer on the planet that can account for general human stupidity.
All it will take is for some yahoo on the highway to try and make a Hail Mary exit crossing 6 lanes of busy traffic to throw the automated cars into a massive pile up before governments realize just how stupid mixing autonomous and human drivers together on the same roads.
Also cars break down and no computer is going to know what to do when a wheel files off its axle or the brakes fail unexpectedly. Computer's are no replacement of human experience, reaction time, and just plain intuition when put into emergency situations. Never underestimate how effective a sudden jolt of adrenaline can do to have someone escape a deadly situation. What's a computer going to do when cars start coming at it from all directions?
Finally lets not forget that there is just simply more opportunity for fatal error with an automatically driven car. There is going to be software glitches causing cars to veer off a cliff. Sensors are going to fail causing the computer to make the wrong calculations for position. I mean what happens if a passing car kicks up a splash of water or slush that suddenly blocks a visual sensor, the car is going to think its about to hit another vehicle and slam on the brakes or veer away suddenly.
I can't believe how stupid the proponents of automatic car are, this is about the dumbest idea ever pushed forward. A few tests in very controlled situations and suddenly its ready for prime time?
Automated cars is a fiction best left in books and in movies.
The first company offering an automated car for general public use will be sued out of existence, period. I am sorry for the people that will have to die and families ruined before this happens.
Time and time again its been proven that sequential listing of the alphabet is NOT the optimal arrangement of keys. Certain characters are used more often then others, so placement of those character keys in easier to access locations is preferred over "logical" order.
Also, having 5 rows of characters versus 3 wastes more screen space.
I will agree that QWERTY is not the best arrangement for on screen keyboards, but this is not an acceptable replacement either.
One of these days someone is going to post a project that generates millions and then not offer a product to market, I have a feeling this might be one of them.
Sure, someone might be able to slap together an android powered prototype and ship it to project contributors to appease them that "something" was accomplished. Of course the box probably won't work well or as proposed.
But at what point does a kickstarter project be declared fraud? What are the ramifications of taking millions from contributors and not being able to deliver a product? What about not delivering a product for the price-point suggested, or not having the features expected, or any number of many many things that could change from the original proposal? What about delivering a product that nobody wants or doesn't generate revenue? People are buying into the idea of a $99 android game console, what happens when its shipped as a $299 under powerd crap-box, if its even delivered at al?
There are, or course, no ramifications which is why crowdfunding is probably one of the dumbest ways to waste money offered on the web (right up their with buying Carbon offsets). Straight from kickstarter.com "Kickstarter does not investigate a creator's ability to complete their project." There is just a bunch of wordage about "responsibility" and "open communication with backers", but I mean, come on, once your credit card has been charged forget about any active involvement or due diligence into expecting your money is being responsibly utilized. There is ZERO creator accountability on Kickstarter, just a lot of hopeful promises and finger crossing. Not saying all Kickstarter projects are scams, but I am sure there are more then a few in progress at the moment.
I do, however, applaud anyone that can find a way to separate stupid people from their money. This is capitalism in its purest form. I just think the bubble is going to burst when some high-profile project generates millions and does not deliver, which is going to happen eventually or is already in progress.
The concept of the Higgs Boson is undeniably part of a branch of physics that the average person barely understands. In a society where concepts and values have to be expressed in terms of "real world" metaphors, like "The length of 6 football fields", or "The amount of concrete used could build a sidewalk from Boston to New York", or "Faster then NASCAR!", instead of just reporting on the fact that Higgs Boson was discovered reporters felt obligated to "enrich" their reporting by suggesting what could be done with the Higgs Boson discovery, including references to Star Trek.
The bottom line is that the average person (i.e. American) would think, "Wow, they actually achieved something useful and exciting" rather then the typical "Why dey gone done blowin my dough on da shit".
If you are going to start lauding things that were in the room when the Higgs Boson was found, then Hanes underwear and Red Bull could be also credited with helping in the discovery too.
So, Google has been making a push for heads-up display computing devices ( I like to call them stupidity enhancers ). Google has tonnes of money and supposedly a never ending supply of "smart" people working diligently on new ideas.
In light of how litigious Apple has become and how aggressively Apple publicly pursuing to "destroy Google", why on earth would Google allow ANY market intrusion for heads-up display devices by Apple?
I mean if I were Google I would have flooded the patent office with applications that cover almost every conceivable concept, idea, or use of a heads up display, whether projecting images on to glass, directly on the eyeball, or future-proofing their patents by using language such as "any form of display, projection, or substrate".
You know damn well that Apple never conceived of a heads up display until Google announced their Glass initiative, so if I where in charge of Google I would have gotten all my ducks in a row and filed a shitload of patents prior to the announcement to stave off copy-cat tech.
This just smacks of irresponsible management. Allowing Apple any intrusion into heads up display will cause another technology war (we are deep into World War 3 for smartphones BTW). If Google fails in this market then its solely because of a lack of adequate foresight by their chief officer's. I can't believe any executive at any of the big tech companies allowing any market penetration by Apple, especially for new emerging tech.
Yeah, it would be nice if companies could partner and innovate together to create the best possible consumer experience, that WAS the whole point of patents in the first place. Patents were invented to proliferate cooperation in innovation by having companies reveal their tech secrets allowing other companies to build off of them. The opposite of a patent is a trade secret where companies do not share their ideas. But today patents have been twisted into an arsenal of IP weapons used to stifle competition and as a consequence innovation.
So, if you are a CEO in that kind of marketplace, why on earth would you not cover your ass and patent everything to do with new technology you are trying to bring to market?
Seriously, Apple abandoning iWork is the fundamental equivalent of dropping floppy drives.
If new computers are not going to use floppy drives then you will have to transfer them to a different storage medium if you want to access the content after the fact.
Dropping an iService is equivalent to moving your content to another form of storage, whether its physical or virtual.
What would be "nice" is for Apple to provide some kind of utility or tool to make conversion easier. iWork.com should now have a button on it to zip up and download one large file of all your content rather then having to manually move individual files to your desktop. Of, zip it up and move it to Apple's new cloud storage, or convert to new Numbers/Pages/Keynote files stored in the cloud, etc. There are about a dozen ways Apple could make this easier for people rather then just cutting the power a month from now.
Its good for old services that are not used to die and allow companies to focus on providing better services people actually use. The opposite is Windows which supports every freaking hardware and software standard on the planet even if only.1% of the people use any of it. I am sure there is still code buried deep in the Windows kernel to support 8" floppy drives.
In the long run, everybody hates change, but they always seem to love the results.
Object Oriented Programming is, by far, the more ideal way to develop modern software. Encapsulating data and responsibilities in a class is preferred over spreading responsibilities across many files.
People who prefer C over C++ simply don't get OOP, period. They strain to identify the purpose of classes and encapsulation and thus assume it is not required. They are not "modern" developers, they are stuck in an era of procedural coding and have not crossed the threshold into viewing code as a collection of interactive components with specific responsibilities and structured data.
Yes, C has its purpose if you are looking to build a quick and dirty library of procedures, but given that C++ is a super-set of C, there is no reason NOT to use C++ in favour of pure-C. The modern computer is highly multi-threaded and has more power and memory then the originators of C had ever envisioned. The added overhead of virtual tables and other class based mechanisms is not a significant reason NOT to use an OOP language. If I had a developer that toiled in pure-C and claimed that they were doing so for performance reasons, I would fire them on the spot.
C is the basis of many languages and scripts, there is nothing wrong with the C Language, but the problem of a lack of OOP development I can't get over. I have never seen a C library that wasn't a sprawling mess of haphazzardly organized procedures and structs. There is little capacity to Unit test C, there is little capacity to apply pattern development in C, there is little opportunity to multi-thread C. C libraries become black boxes of untouchable code, prone to significant defects and non maintainable. C's limitations make it a dinosaur captured in tar and turned into a fossil.
Anyone claiming that pure-C development is superior to OO development is not a good developer, period.
Name 5 things that you can buy today that can remain in use for 20 years through repairs. Even if you can, any of those 5 thing you actually want after 20 years?
Yeah, I agree, being able to maintain and repair something should be better valued then disposable products but that is not the reality we live in. Even cars have a shelf life these days, whether through component failure or a failure to remain in style.
Instead there are many, many, many opportunities for companies to recycle and recover components and materials.
And ultimately, what is wrong with waste?
Seriously, waste disposable is simply a social issue. Nobody likes waste. They don't want a landfills in their backyards. Municipalities do not want to invest money to build more or maintain existing landfills. They don't want the headache of trying to find more land for a dump. Its probably one of the stupidest social issues in existence because we all generate waste, even the best of us, yet nobody wants to deal with it. So thus we assume waste is bad.
But I think that in the very near future people are going to look at waste like its a gold mine. Think of all the hydro-carbons locked in a landfill. Think of all the metal and aggregate materials that are locked away in a landfill. It may not be economically viable to "mine" a landfill currently as there are cheaper and easier ways to extract the raw materials we need for our everyday consumption, but one day it will become profitable to delve back into landfills to sort and extract its valuables.
So municipalities should invest heavily in recycling, recovery, and YES, even landfills regardless of the headaches because there is a huge potential for many cities to be sitting on a goldmine's worth of recoverable materials in the very near future. There are companies already out there that can turn garbage into energy and reclaim metals and aggregate materials using plasmification, and they produce emissions 10 times better then even strict California laws would allow. But the moment a city wants to store a bit of garbage somewhere it becomes this big social headache because of all the greenies thinking the world is going to end when another dump is created.
So whatever, spray my batteries directly on the device and when I am done, if nobody wants to buy it used, if there are no electronic recyclable programs to take it back, then dump it, period. In all likelihood its going to be reclaimed eventually.
The era of grabbing a screwdriver to tinker with and fix a broken device is pretty much over with as we head toward more micronization of components and faster automated manufacturing processes. But I don't think we have to worry about more disposable items as I don't believe this is anything more then a social issue arising from unwarranted green guilt because economically and even environmentally its going to be very attractive to recover materials from landfills rather then hunting around the planet looking for scarce raw materials.
So, this is not a Google TV device yet can connect to a TV with limited functionality. Its too expensive as a standalone network media streamer compared to other products available. I don't need a network device to power its own speakers. Compare this to a $120 Apple TV or even a $190 Boxee Box and its a very over-priced and mediocre competitor. So what is the point?
Obviously if Google is using on-shore manufacturing they are already assuming this as a niche product and don't have to worry about huge demand and high production costs.
I think Google mucked this product up as they are positioning it as an expansive hipster device in a market already saturated with better value and feature rich products. All Google should have done is create a little HDMI dongle that sits on a TV/Receiver that provides AirPlay like connectivity for Android devices which are capable of providing all the same functionality as the Q and could do so for a small fraction of the cost.
First, RIM is in this pickle because they got complacent when they were dominating the mobile market with one of the most popular devices on the market. Instead of innovating all they did was tweak their designs a little and create designer models of the same thing. The story of RIM is often repeated where a market leader is suddenly playing catch-up when a distruptor enters the market with something dramatically different. RIM is a story of how everything is being done wrong by a mobile device company, even the announcement of a delayed BB10 devices is hurting the company because the remaining Blackberry fan boys are not going to buy a BB today that is going to be replaced tomorrow.
Secondly, the market will not tolerate ONE maker of all their mobile devices. Apple will not become the ONLY player in the mobile device market, where everyone owns an iPhone or iPad or iSomething. Clearly it is obviously that as popular as iThings are, Android devices are growing quickly and outnumbering iOS devices. Sure, maybe Android devices are not as good or flashy or refined, but there are significantly more people out there unwilling to pay the Apple tax for a product. In any market there are fanboys and the fanboys are NEVER going to agree on ONE thing, that is an absolute guarantee.
The question is then how many players in the mobile market will consumers tolerate? So far it looks like its only 2. RIM lost their market position through complacency and Microsoft is trying to claw their way in, but it seems consumers are only interested in having 2 options, iOS or Android devices.
I think RIM is done, period. Any speculation for the company to rebound belies a repetitive habit for failure that began when the iPhone and Android devices were released. RIM would have to shift modus operandi dramatically before it could even be considered a competitor, and I don't think they have it in them. What RIM should do now is try to position themselves as an attractive company to buy, I am sure the patent portfolio for RIM is a goldmine for Apple, Google, or Microsoft and would significantly boost any company looking to compete in the mobile market. But ultimately RIM technology needs to be directed by an innovator and there is nobody at RIM that can claim that position.
They are not even talking about PHP or Ruby , this is app development using HTML 5 which can live on as a semi-native app on iOS which has nothing to do with server/network performance. BTW that moldy old C/C++ code is the reason why Ruby and PHP works in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, lets blame other unpopular subject matter as the reason for an undesirable happenstance. Without any proof or facts lets connect GM crops to brown tide. There, anti-GM fanatics have another "fact" in their arsenal about why GM crops should be banned. Of course we all know that non-GM organic crops NEVER leak nutrients into the environment, they are perfect in every way. GM = bad, non-GM = good, I don't need no stinking facts!
While we are at it I also blame abortions and and increase in human rights for brown tide, so lets squash those things too. And of course you know damn well Global warming is behind all this. We should all stay home, piss in buckets and use gray water it to wash ourselves because it might cause brown tide!
This is why scientists cry, because people post shit on the web connecting something to another thing with limited basis in fact, only fear mongering and gross ignorance to support something they blindly believe in.
Kleenex is facial tissue, but not all facial tissue is Kleenex.
Get ejumacated!
Yeah, I know with every new leap in technology someone comes out and claims that it going to make us dumber, but something like Google Glasses is one of those cases.
Do you need persistent feedback on everything you are looking at?
I certainly don't. I could do with less situational advertising in my life and I generally don't find it difficult to get around town without some constant reminder about where I am and an arrow to where I am going. I can read signs and understand the concept of street addresses pretty good. And I haven't reached that level of chronic social lethargy that makes pulling a phone out of my pocket a tedious chore or think it's uncool to hold a phone.
I definitely think there are niche markets for Google Glasses but for general public consumption I think these will be even more annoying then some smug hipster walking around with their "Bluetooth" lit up and dangling out of their ear talking louder then they need to about nothing at all.
Putting on a pair of Google Glasses is claiming to the world that you are too dumb and insecure to function in society without a trendy gadget of the month...where's my coffee
I am sure Hollywood (and maybe environmentalists) would love the idea of a one time use optical disk that disintegrates while being watched.
Most movies these days are barely watchable one time so if the disk disappears in a puff of smoke you have achieved all the enjoyment you are going to get out of it anyways.
Sounds like to me Nintendo won't bother trying to support 3D with the new Wii U.
While I am not huge on 3D for home movies, for gaming this is a nice niche market for the technology. Being able to immerse yourself into a game using 3D is fun and since most gaming involves using some kind of accessory or controller, having to don a pair of 3D glasses makes sense. I think 3D for gaming is in its infancy and will only get better, provided gaming companies invest a little more effort into it. That doesn't mean that ALL games must be 3D, just having the option available on an increasing number of cheap TV's that have the capabilities is a nice option.
So, just like the fact that the Wii never supported Full HD, sounds like Nintendo's new "next gen" game console will use "last gen" technology. This sounds like a cop out from Nintendo. Their 3DS is bombing so they assume consumers don't like 3D and thus are making no effort to support 3D gaming on the Wii U. This is not Nintendo following consumer trends, it's rationalizing a complete lack of understanding of consumer trends.
I am still waiting for CNNBCBS, a division of ABC. That would be the worst channel ever.
So instead of human instincts and experience, the computer is going to override your actions and send you flying off the cliff to your death instead of sacrificing hitting another car with minor damage. The computer is instructed to "not hit ANYTHING", but in an emergency scenario where its an easy decision for a human to hit another car vs flying off off a steep cliff, the human decision is going to win every time.
Seriously, again, this idea of car automation, in ANY shape or form, is one of the dumbest ideas ever.
Just leave my car alone. Improve systems to train drivers (such as actually putting training drivers into controlled emergent driving scenarios so they build up better driving skills and confidence), but keep the robots out of my engine.
Its not arrogance that makes me a better driver then a robot, its the fact that I want to survive a crash rather then adhere strictly to a set of programming instructions.
The world's economy is sinking like the Titanic yet governments are entertaining the idea of spending trillions going to Mars, and again, for what reason?
Hey, when we solve a lot of the earth's problems and a country like Greece cannot cause world-wide economic depression then lets entertain the novelty of sending people to another planet.
The US considering a mission to Mars will be a slap in the face for every family that lost a home and job over the last 5 years. The US government can't help people keep their homes, yet can blast a few people to another planet.
And fuck the argument about the scientific gains from simply preparing to go to Mars. I would rather see people solve problems here on Earth first that would make a mission to Mars easy and cheap. For instance inventing a new form of clean energy and putting it into USE on our planet FIRST will make setting up a mission to Mars trivial. They can spend trillions going to Mars and there could potentially be no single practical benefit to our planet.
When are governments going to start exercising some fiscal responsibility? Probably when people pull their heads out of their asses and stop voting in f*cktards looking to blow your taxes on war and stupid space missions.
The people and governments of the world are going to have to wake up and get a real big dose of reality very soon, otherwise the only reason to go to Mars is to leave this sh*thole behind.
If Steve Jobs was around and decided that Apple should not be part of EPEAT, then Apple would remain off EPEAT for good regardless of consumer opinion or corporate backlash. Instead the new Apple appears to pander to the same.
Apple lost its balls with Steve.
Microsoft is the definitive champion of a business model involving brash announcements, gathering of opinion, and eventual backpedaling, hopefully Tim Cooke is not looking to take over that title.
I still can't believe people want to move ahead with autonomous cars.
I don't care how good the "robotics" and "sensors" are on the car, there is no computer on the planet that can account for general human stupidity.
All it will take is for some yahoo on the highway to try and make a Hail Mary exit crossing 6 lanes of busy traffic to throw the automated cars into a massive pile up before governments realize just how stupid mixing autonomous and human drivers together on the same roads.
Also cars break down and no computer is going to know what to do when a wheel files off its axle or the brakes fail unexpectedly. Computer's are no replacement of human experience, reaction time, and just plain intuition when put into emergency situations. Never underestimate how effective a sudden jolt of adrenaline can do to have someone escape a deadly situation. What's a computer going to do when cars start coming at it from all directions?
Finally lets not forget that there is just simply more opportunity for fatal error with an automatically driven car. There is going to be software glitches causing cars to veer off a cliff. Sensors are going to fail causing the computer to make the wrong calculations for position. I mean what happens if a passing car kicks up a splash of water or slush that suddenly blocks a visual sensor, the car is going to think its about to hit another vehicle and slam on the brakes or veer away suddenly.
I can't believe how stupid the proponents of automatic car are, this is about the dumbest idea ever pushed forward. A few tests in very controlled situations and suddenly its ready for prime time?
Automated cars is a fiction best left in books and in movies.
The first company offering an automated car for general public use will be sued out of existence, period. I am sorry for the people that will have to die and families ruined before this happens.
Its not a moon.
Epic fail.
Time and time again its been proven that sequential listing of the alphabet is NOT the optimal arrangement of keys. Certain characters are used more often then others, so placement of those character keys in easier to access locations is preferred over "logical" order.
Also, having 5 rows of characters versus 3 wastes more screen space.
I will agree that QWERTY is not the best arrangement for on screen keyboards, but this is not an acceptable replacement either.
One of these days someone is going to post a project that generates millions and then not offer a product to market, I have a feeling this might be one of them.
Sure, someone might be able to slap together an android powered prototype and ship it to project contributors to appease them that "something" was accomplished. Of course the box probably won't work well or as proposed.
But at what point does a kickstarter project be declared fraud? What are the ramifications of taking millions from contributors and not being able to deliver a product? What about not delivering a product for the price-point suggested, or not having the features expected, or any number of many many things that could change from the original proposal? What about delivering a product that nobody wants or doesn't generate revenue? People are buying into the idea of a $99 android game console, what happens when its shipped as a $299 under powerd crap-box, if its even delivered at al?
There are, or course, no ramifications which is why crowdfunding is probably one of the dumbest ways to waste money offered on the web (right up their with buying Carbon offsets). Straight from kickstarter.com "Kickstarter does not investigate a creator's ability to complete their project." There is just a bunch of wordage about "responsibility" and "open communication with backers", but I mean, come on, once your credit card has been charged forget about any active involvement or due diligence into expecting your money is being responsibly utilized. There is ZERO creator accountability on Kickstarter, just a lot of hopeful promises and finger crossing. Not saying all Kickstarter projects are scams, but I am sure there are more then a few in progress at the moment.
I do, however, applaud anyone that can find a way to separate stupid people from their money. This is capitalism in its purest form. I just think the bubble is going to burst when some high-profile project generates millions and does not deliver, which is going to happen eventually or is already in progress.
The concept of the Higgs Boson is undeniably part of a branch of physics that the average person barely understands. In a society where concepts and values have to be expressed in terms of "real world" metaphors, like "The length of 6 football fields", or "The amount of concrete used could build a sidewalk from Boston to New York", or "Faster then NASCAR!", instead of just reporting on the fact that Higgs Boson was discovered reporters felt obligated to "enrich" their reporting by suggesting what could be done with the Higgs Boson discovery, including references to Star Trek.
The bottom line is that the average person (i.e. American) would think, "Wow, they actually achieved something useful and exciting" rather then the typical "Why dey gone done blowin my dough on da shit".
If you are going to start lauding things that were in the room when the Higgs Boson was found, then Hanes underwear and Red Bull could be also credited with helping in the discovery too.
Considering none of those describe FireFox, no, its not true.
Obviously not a genius if he didn't read the fine print.
So, Google has been making a push for heads-up display computing devices ( I like to call them stupidity enhancers ). Google has tonnes of money and supposedly a never ending supply of "smart" people working diligently on new ideas.
In light of how litigious Apple has become and how aggressively Apple publicly pursuing to "destroy Google", why on earth would Google allow ANY market intrusion for heads-up display devices by Apple?
I mean if I were Google I would have flooded the patent office with applications that cover almost every conceivable concept, idea, or use of a heads up display, whether projecting images on to glass, directly on the eyeball, or future-proofing their patents by using language such as "any form of display, projection, or substrate".
You know damn well that Apple never conceived of a heads up display until Google announced their Glass initiative, so if I where in charge of Google I would have gotten all my ducks in a row and filed a shitload of patents prior to the announcement to stave off copy-cat tech.
This just smacks of irresponsible management. Allowing Apple any intrusion into heads up display will cause another technology war (we are deep into World War 3 for smartphones BTW). If Google fails in this market then its solely because of a lack of adequate foresight by their chief officer's. I can't believe any executive at any of the big tech companies allowing any market penetration by Apple, especially for new emerging tech.
Yeah, it would be nice if companies could partner and innovate together to create the best possible consumer experience, that WAS the whole point of patents in the first place. Patents were invented to proliferate cooperation in innovation by having companies reveal their tech secrets allowing other companies to build off of them. The opposite of a patent is a trade secret where companies do not share their ideas. But today patents have been twisted into an arsenal of IP weapons used to stifle competition and as a consequence innovation.
So, if you are a CEO in that kind of marketplace, why on earth would you not cover your ass and patent everything to do with new technology you are trying to bring to market?
Seriously, Apple abandoning iWork is the fundamental equivalent of dropping floppy drives.
If new computers are not going to use floppy drives then you will have to transfer them to a different storage medium if you want to access the content after the fact.
Dropping an iService is equivalent to moving your content to another form of storage, whether its physical or virtual.
What would be "nice" is for Apple to provide some kind of utility or tool to make conversion easier. iWork.com should now have a button on it to zip up and download one large file of all your content rather then having to manually move individual files to your desktop. Of, zip it up and move it to Apple's new cloud storage, or convert to new Numbers/Pages/Keynote files stored in the cloud, etc. There are about a dozen ways Apple could make this easier for people rather then just cutting the power a month from now.
Its good for old services that are not used to die and allow companies to focus on providing better services people actually use. The opposite is Windows which supports every freaking hardware and software standard on the planet even if only .1% of the people use any of it. I am sure there is still code buried deep in the Windows kernel to support 8" floppy drives.
In the long run, everybody hates change, but they always seem to love the results.
Object Oriented Programming is, by far, the more ideal way to develop modern software. Encapsulating data and responsibilities in a class is preferred over spreading responsibilities across many files.
People who prefer C over C++ simply don't get OOP, period. They strain to identify the purpose of classes and encapsulation and thus assume it is not required. They are not "modern" developers, they are stuck in an era of procedural coding and have not crossed the threshold into viewing code as a collection of interactive components with specific responsibilities and structured data.
Yes, C has its purpose if you are looking to build a quick and dirty library of procedures, but given that C++ is a super-set of C, there is no reason NOT to use C++ in favour of pure-C. The modern computer is highly multi-threaded and has more power and memory then the originators of C had ever envisioned. The added overhead of virtual tables and other class based mechanisms is not a significant reason NOT to use an OOP language. If I had a developer that toiled in pure-C and claimed that they were doing so for performance reasons, I would fire them on the spot.
C is the basis of many languages and scripts, there is nothing wrong with the C Language, but the problem of a lack of OOP development I can't get over. I have never seen a C library that wasn't a sprawling mess of haphazzardly organized procedures and structs. There is little capacity to Unit test C, there is little capacity to apply pattern development in C, there is little opportunity to multi-thread C. C libraries become black boxes of untouchable code, prone to significant defects and non maintainable. C's limitations make it a dinosaur captured in tar and turned into a fossil.
Anyone claiming that pure-C development is superior to OO development is not a good developer, period.
Name 5 things that you can buy today that can remain in use for 20 years through repairs. Even if you can, any of those 5 thing you actually want after 20 years?
Yeah, I agree, being able to maintain and repair something should be better valued then disposable products but that is not the reality we live in. Even cars have a shelf life these days, whether through component failure or a failure to remain in style.
Instead there are many, many, many opportunities for companies to recycle and recover components and materials.
And ultimately, what is wrong with waste?
Seriously, waste disposable is simply a social issue. Nobody likes waste. They don't want a landfills in their backyards. Municipalities do not want to invest money to build more or maintain existing landfills. They don't want the headache of trying to find more land for a dump. Its probably one of the stupidest social issues in existence because we all generate waste, even the best of us, yet nobody wants to deal with it. So thus we assume waste is bad.
But I think that in the very near future people are going to look at waste like its a gold mine. Think of all the hydro-carbons locked in a landfill. Think of all the metal and aggregate materials that are locked away in a landfill. It may not be economically viable to "mine" a landfill currently as there are cheaper and easier ways to extract the raw materials we need for our everyday consumption, but one day it will become profitable to delve back into landfills to sort and extract its valuables.
So municipalities should invest heavily in recycling, recovery, and YES, even landfills regardless of the headaches because there is a huge potential for many cities to be sitting on a goldmine's worth of recoverable materials in the very near future. There are companies already out there that can turn garbage into energy and reclaim metals and aggregate materials using plasmification, and they produce emissions 10 times better then even strict California laws would allow. But the moment a city wants to store a bit of garbage somewhere it becomes this big social headache because of all the greenies thinking the world is going to end when another dump is created.
So whatever, spray my batteries directly on the device and when I am done, if nobody wants to buy it used, if there are no electronic recyclable programs to take it back, then dump it, period. In all likelihood its going to be reclaimed eventually.
The era of grabbing a screwdriver to tinker with and fix a broken device is pretty much over with as we head toward more micronization of components and faster automated manufacturing processes. But I don't think we have to worry about more disposable items as I don't believe this is anything more then a social issue arising from unwarranted green guilt because economically and even environmentally its going to be very attractive to recover materials from landfills rather then hunting around the planet looking for scarce raw materials.
So, this is not a Google TV device yet can connect to a TV with limited functionality. Its too expensive as a standalone network media streamer compared to other products available. I don't need a network device to power its own speakers. Compare this to a $120 Apple TV or even a $190 Boxee Box and its a very over-priced and mediocre competitor. So what is the point?
Obviously if Google is using on-shore manufacturing they are already assuming this as a niche product and don't have to worry about huge demand and high production costs.
I think Google mucked this product up as they are positioning it as an expansive hipster device in a market already saturated with better value and feature rich products. All Google should have done is create a little HDMI dongle that sits on a TV/Receiver that provides AirPlay like connectivity for Android devices which are capable of providing all the same functionality as the Q and could do so for a small fraction of the cost.
First, RIM is in this pickle because they got complacent when they were dominating the mobile market with one of the most popular devices on the market. Instead of innovating all they did was tweak their designs a little and create designer models of the same thing. The story of RIM is often repeated where a market leader is suddenly playing catch-up when a distruptor enters the market with something dramatically different. RIM is a story of how everything is being done wrong by a mobile device company, even the announcement of a delayed BB10 devices is hurting the company because the remaining Blackberry fan boys are not going to buy a BB today that is going to be replaced tomorrow.
Secondly, the market will not tolerate ONE maker of all their mobile devices. Apple will not become the ONLY player in the mobile device market, where everyone owns an iPhone or iPad or iSomething. Clearly it is obviously that as popular as iThings are, Android devices are growing quickly and outnumbering iOS devices. Sure, maybe Android devices are not as good or flashy or refined, but there are significantly more people out there unwilling to pay the Apple tax for a product. In any market there are fanboys and the fanboys are NEVER going to agree on ONE thing, that is an absolute guarantee.
The question is then how many players in the mobile market will consumers tolerate? So far it looks like its only 2. RIM lost their market position through complacency and Microsoft is trying to claw their way in, but it seems consumers are only interested in having 2 options, iOS or Android devices.
I think RIM is done, period. Any speculation for the company to rebound belies a repetitive habit for failure that began when the iPhone and Android devices were released. RIM would have to shift modus operandi dramatically before it could even be considered a competitor, and I don't think they have it in them. What RIM should do now is try to position themselves as an attractive company to buy, I am sure the patent portfolio for RIM is a goldmine for Apple, Google, or Microsoft and would significantly boost any company looking to compete in the mobile market. But ultimately RIM technology needs to be directed by an innovator and there is nobody at RIM that can claim that position.
Somehow when I read this I just heard crickets in the background.
They are not even talking about PHP or Ruby , this is app development using HTML 5 which can live on as a semi-native app on iOS which has nothing to do with server/network performance. BTW that moldy old C/C++ code is the reason why Ruby and PHP works in the first place.