The problem with futurists is that as much as they try to use their imagination they're still heavily constrained by the technology of the day. Most of their predictions arise from extrapolation of the world around them. I can't count the number of sci-fi novels I've read, even those written in the 70s, where they predict galaxy-spanning civilizations storing data on tape and computers spitting out reams of paper.
Faster than light travel and robots are easy to imagine because they're all enhancements, taken to their most absurd extreme of course on what we see around us. But making that intuitive leap to something like the internet, and then going the next step beyond that to imagine how it will affect society is the real challenge. Of course, the problem is that often the most significant advances are very subtle. And the problem is that often times there's the important distinction between what we are capable of and what we are actually able to do for financial, political or practical reasons.
So we don't have the flashy bits of tech like flying cars and torus shaped space stations. But the internet and the impact it's had on humanity is incredible. The miniaturization of electronics is another big one. Those of us who grew up even as late as the 80s would be in complete awe of the world today. Growing up I fantasized about flat tvs and portable tablets, mostly thanks to Star Trek. These things are so common today that they're taken for granted. Most cars on the road today would look like an exotic concept back in 1985. That may be an aesthetic consideration, but technological evolution enabled the complexity found in presetn day cars. And by every other metric, performance, economy and reliability, cars today are far superior. But as I mentioned, many things are quite subtle and would only be noticed by someone waking up from a 30-year coma. And little of it would have been predicted by anyone.
How would this help? All you'd end up with is all these independent companies doing their own thing and interoperability being a big challenge. One of Apple's primary advantages is their impressive level of integration, that they're in control of every single aspect of their business from the hardware, to the OS, to app development. Google doesn't have that level of integration but they do, like Apple, have a cohesive corporate culture that is generally working towards a unified end.
How breaking a company into fragments going to improve cooperation? So if there's an excessively competitive mentality there now how exactly is this supposed to improve when you've got people working at separate companies that could easily turn into direct competitors. It's inevitable that in time these businesses would offer overlapping services, negating the need to continue cooperation.
Really, what Microsoft needs is strong leadership that identifies the problems of the existing culture and dumps all the stupid policies that caused them. I don't think most people relished the idea of working in that environment, as evidenced by the churn and loss of good people. If the mandate comes down, however, fostering cooperation and teamwork wouldn't employees feel a burden lifted from their shoulders?
I do think they'd have to really push it hard and embrace this approach. Anyone who can't give up the old ways, most likely those entrenched in middle management will probably have to be cut loose. Their continued presence will be poisonous.
I'd argue that it's related to quality of life. First of all, I generally find Asians in general to be a lot more pragmatic than Americans. Men and women alike in America are more about following their hearts; about a vague sense of fulfillment. This is reinforced by popular culture which teaches Americans that most work represents boredom and defeatism. We're only leading fulfilling lives when we're engaged in hedonistic activities like climbing mountains, seeing the world and partying every weekend. Think Eat, Pray Love and don't mind the unrealistic and impractical nature of such an enterprise.
Asians, however, generally see a career as a source of financial stability which ensures a comfortable life for themselves and their children. So they inevitably gravitate towards careers that are more likely to ensure that success, finance currently being one of the more popular fields. The specialties individuals choose is often driven by the respective cultures but generally there is a lot of overlap. So, presumably in a relationship if one individual in a fruitful career is a good then, then both doing the same kind of work is better. Also, if like east Asian cultures there's a growing trend towards individuals remaining single longer then it's inevitable that women see the need to sustain themselves. But as I mentioned, pragmatism is going to drive the choice of career. I've worked with or interacted with quite a few Indian women over the years who all were in very technical fields.
Now, the interesting thing I've observed with Chinese is that the belief persists that they can marry into stability. For many, that's the dream, to find a wealthy man to marry. So you see a lot of relationships where the wife is in her early 20s and the husband is in his 40s or 50s. Love isn't driving the decision making process quite to an extend you'd find in the West. Again, it's pragmatism. The problem is that it isn't terribly realistic either. The girls who generally marry into that kind of arrangement come from wealthy families themselves. It makes sense, as the only way they'd ever interact is to mingle in related circles and it certainly helps when families are pushing them to be together.
In my own experience I've found that Chinese women are less likely to get into hard sciences, although the likelihood is still higher than you'd find in the US. But what I have observed is a distinct entrepreneurial spirit. American women might be content with the 9-to-5 job and won't invest any more effort than they need to. Chinese women seem keen on starting their own businesses or at least thinking to the future. It's something I've seen many a time amongst friends.
Failure of Windows 8 Failure of Xbox One Failure of Vista Failure of the Kin Failure of the Zune Failure of Windows Phone 7 Failure of Windows Phone 8 Need I go on? You can only fuck up so many times before the board sends you packing. I'm amazed he lasted this long.
I agree that Ballmer needs to go; Microsoft does have some fundamental problems. However, I take issue with how you dismissive you are of the things on your list. That many of those products have struggled is due more to poor perception than actual lack of quality.
Windows 8 may have it's issues but it's a legitimately good OS. Like it or not, it's been incredibly influential for user interface design. Notice that the flat look is in; so much so that even Apple has abandoned skeuomorphics in favor of the look. Windows 8's bigger problem is the persistent bad press.
Xbox One one hasn't yet gone on sale so you have no basis for calling it a failure. The Xbox 360 has a been a huge success and there's no reason yet why the Xbox One wouldn't continue that trend.
Vista wasn't great, but it did enable Windows 7. Certainly it's no worse than more recent versions of OSX.
You can't blame the company for trying with the Kin or Zune. Apple's Newton was a flop too. And remember the iPhone before the iPhone we all know and love came out? The crappy thing made in partnership is Motorola? The Zune actually had some neat features and never got the appreciation it deserved. The whole parallax thing people have gushed over in iOS 7 was present on the Zune.
Windows Phone 7 was a legitimately good OS and a huge improvement from Windows Mobile 6.5. It set the foundation for Windows Phone 8 which is an excellent OS which I'd argue is one of the best on the market. The fact that it's surpassed Blackberry in market share and continues to grow is a positive sign. In some countries it's got double digit market share and in a few cases is the #2 mobile OS. The numbers look pathetic compared to Android or iOS, but you've got to start somewhere.
Ballmer leaving the company could be a very good thing, but I don't have a whole lot of confidence as far too many CEOs are rarely up to the task. Even at Apple, it's hard to argue Tim Cook is doing as good a job as Steve Jobs did. But like Microsoft, they've got quite a few years to go before it starts eating into the business in any significant way.
I agree with your assessment; I find it obnoxious that some people believe all cars need to aspire to performance pretensions. That said, nowhere does Cadillac proudly display the $2600 gas guzzler tax. That tax is listed as a line item because, well, they're giving you an estimate on what this car is going to cost you after everything is calculated. You make it seem like there's a badge somewhere boasting about the gas guzzler tax which is misleading at best.
It's also worth nothing that you've chosen the top-of-the-line performance variant of the CTS and comparing that to a base Model S. The base Cadillac CTS starts at about $20k less than the $63k base model S. If you're going to do an apples to apples comparison with the CTS-V you'd have to choose the performance version of the Model S which is the P85 and that guy starts at $83,570. The CTS-V starts at a $64k. A maxed out CTS-V flirts with $70k at the maximum. Load up on the options for any Tesla and you're easily well past the $100k mark. The price differences are so large that the tax credit is insignificant.
I think the Tesla is a great car, don't get me wrong. I think the CTS is pretty cool too, but the Tesla is more compelling. However it's misleading to suggest that they live in the same automotive space. Clearly, the technology is still in it's infancy and quite expensive, so Tesla wisely sweetened the pot but making the car so good in many other ways. Regardless, the people considering the Tesla are far more likely to be cross shopping the likes of the Audi A7 and A8 and BMW 6- and 7-series.
People always complain about stuff being more expensive in Europe and totally overlook import tariffs, VAT, sales taxes and whatever other taxes the various nations of Europe like to assess. The United States demands virtually nothing to import products, which is why a Playstation 4 in the US will cost roughly what it costs in Japan. Sure, we do have sales tax in most States but that, even at it's worst barely exceeds 12%. There's a reason why the United States is a far bigger gaming market than the EU despite similar populations.
For all the taxation and expensive goods Europeans manage to save more than Americans. They're incredibly frugal. They're not embracing a subscription services with restrictive contracts like idiots,they're not obsessed with huge houses or bloated SUVs, they don't incur massive debt to make up for an income they think they deserve.
Socialized healthcare, well-maintained roads and extensive public transit all cost money. I used to think the American way was better. Americans generally have a lot more disposable income but also more personal financial responsibility. Not that I have any delusions that the American government is capable of building social programs. Europe isn't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better at it than Americans. Unfortunately, consider how wasteful Americans have become.
So yeah, a $550 Playstation 4 would probably be a good thing for many Americans.
I wonder if recipients know where the organs are coming from. In my experience I'd expect them to be a bit wary about the source of those organs, what with the way they worry about bad luck, karma and all that.
I'm sorry, but that's an idiotic attitude to hold. From a business perspective it's invaluable to meet in person. Telecommuting isn't all it's cracked up to be and often is detrimental to the workplace. But there are a multitude of reasons why people would want to physically travel somewhere. People move where the jobs and opportunities are. This often means separation from friends and family which in turn means that they're more likely to travel to see them. How about sightseeing and vacations? Who in their right mind wants to spend days on a trip that could potentially take hours? Imagine half of your vacation spend spent simply getting somewhere.
By your rationale we may as well go back to plying the seas in galleons. If 300mph is too wasteful, is 200mph acceptable? How about 100mph? Hell, I'm sure we'd attain incredible efficiency at 25mph; I mean, if it was good enough for steam locomotives it's good enough for us. But let's just take it to the next step and go back to the horse and wagon. That's pretty much the pinnacle of sustainability. Except that there's no way in hell it's sustainable with 6 billion humans on earth. So mass transit is essential and more efficient after all.
Why can't we strive for both efficiency and speed? If a 500mph Hyperloop is more energy efficient than air travel how is it not desirable? It seems like the best of both worlds to me, preserving speed but boosting efficiency. If nothing else, it gives us more options for power sources beyond fossil fuels.
It's a good thing the human race hasn't been so pessimistic and lacking ambition because otherwise most of us would probably still be in Europe trying to fend off the plague.
Anyone who's been exposed to universities at the faculty or administrative level, as an outsider, can see that the system is a nightmare of waste. I was brought on during a supposed hiring freeze to teach a non-essential course at a university in my area; I was taking over for a friend who was no longer free. By the end of that same semester they had begun major construction on campus. At about the same time one of the professors approached me about buying new computers for the class. It blew my mind that this guy was suggesting top of the line Mac Pros and an all new suite of software to replace what we had been using. What we already had was more than adequate and fairly current, and that's not to mention that the school already gave most, if not all students a Macbook of their own. T
Money is no object at these universities. It reminds me of the healthcare system where the solution to every financial problem is to simply raise rates. They've got to have the latest and greatest of everything regardless of whether it provides any real value. Unfortunately, there's budgetary control is nonexistent; it's literally a free-for-all.
If the university administration gets it in their heads to focus on athletics then you're really screwed. They'll hire some high profile individual, at massive expense, to bolster their athletic program. That entails further spending all with the goal of having one good year to get the university on the map. The hope there is obviously to attract more students, even if it comes at the expense of academic quality.
The problem here also is that no one is identifying and addressing the problem. Americans are far too comfortable with getting into debt. So they'll take out these massive loans, and the money the parents "save" by not paying for school goes to spoiling the student with a shiny new car and generous housing. Most people seem to believe that the solution to the problem is to make getting loans even easier.
The stat I heard several years ago is if the price of milk had risen at the same rate as college tuition we'd be paying $40 for a gallon. The economics are seriously screwed up but I see no evidence that the bubble is going to burst. The same school I taught at has seen a continued construction boom. I have no idea what's going on anymore, but new buildings are going up all over campus.
But the really screwed up thing here is that they do nothing at all for the community they reside in. It's a giant money sink that skips right over the surrounding communities. Unfortunately, because these schools grease the right pockets they get to operate with impunity. It's those neighboring communities who suffer the consequences.
According to the reviews I've read the movie isn't very good. It's an amateurish portrayal where they never really delve all that deeply into Jobs' life. They want to glorify Jobs as an incredibly driven innovator, but while trying to humanize him manage to make him quite an unlikeable character. Aston Kutcher is as bad as everyone expected him to be; he's over-the-top and none of it feels authentic. It's like he's ticking off a checklist of tics, expressions and reactions.
Apparently, the writer of The Social Network is working on his own portrayal of Jobs. The expectations are that it will be a far better movie.
It's difficult to deny that Microsoft doesn't deserve what they're getting. As a Windows Phone user myself I've found myself increasingly disenfranchised what seems like general indifference towards the platform from Microsoft. But to generalize to the point that you're incapable of acknowledging that Microsoft is sometimes in the right is naive, narrow-minded and downright immature. This is Google we're talking about, who are anything but saints.
Here's the situation as I've followed it because so many people seem to be playing fast and loose with the facts. The original "official" Youtube app was little more than a webapp and a crappy one at that. You couldn't even skip around in a video. So three or four months back, after continued refusal by Google to cooperate Microsoft went ahead with their own app. It was a significant improvement, arguably one of the best apps of the three major mobile platforms specifically because it didn't run ads. But the reason for that was that Google failed to cooperate to ensure that functionality.
At Google's request, however, the app was pulled and reverted to the previous crap version. So in the interim Microsoft and Google were supposed to be cooperating to produce a proper app that did display advertising. And that's the version that was released this week. I tried it, and there they were, those annoying, unskippable ads. The following day there were widespread service disruptions, not just for Microsoft's own app but many of the third party apps on Windows Phone as well. Eventually we learned that Google had blocked the app, offering a whole new set of bullshit reasons. The HTML5 requirement had never been mentioned before and, as has been pointed out, is not even a requirement mandated of the app on iOS, Android and even Blackberry if I'm not mistaken.
It's evident that Google is trying to undermine a competitor to Android before it becomes a real threat. They're stuck with Apple because it enjoys such a large userbase, otherwise they'd probably take similar tactics with them. But the big reason here is that Microsoft competes with them in every single one of their markets. They're about as direct a competitor as you can get. So, from that perspective it can be argued that Google is being shrewd. On the other hand, Microsoft got slapped time and again for similar tactics.
It's difficult to argue that Google doesn't enjoy similar dominance in certain markets. So it's reasonable to expect that Google should be held to the same standards. Regardless of what you think about Microsoft, more options and greater competition is a good thing. Google is trying to prevent that.
Not giving notice is a good way to burn your bridges, even when you're leaving a bad environment. You're not just leaving an impression on management, but your coworkers as well. Even if those coworkers are sympathetic you'd still be dumping your workload on them.
One of my prior employers was terrible. Employees were overworked and under-appreciated and managers were impulsive, emotional and outright incompetent. I was brought on to help improve processes but within weeks it was evident the owners were paying lip service to getting anything fixed. Over the 6 months it took me to secure another job I toyed incessantly with how I'd handle my departure.
I ended up giving these guys nearly a month notice. There was a lot to be done and I didn't want to just dump all this crap on my team. I decided there was no value in venting, in pointing out all the problems there. It would never register and they'd just see me as disgruntled making my viewpoint even easier to dismiss. This way I left with a ton of contacts which may or may not be valuable in the future. At the very least, I don't have people going around behind my back giving me a bad name.
It's not the most expensive items in a car that need regular replacing. It's the cheapest of components; engine oil, filters, spark plugs, tires, etc. Those are all wear items. The next step up from there are water pumps and timing belts, but those generally are replaced at 80k miles. In a good, reliable car most other items shouldn't pose any problems for the owner up to and beyond 100k miles. This, of course, isn't accounting for aggressive driving habits and failure to do regular maintenance.
The fact that some cars are more or less reliable than others comes down to engineering complexity, manufacturing quality and application of new technology. Premature failures are not a normal and expected scenario. Torque converter automakers, for example, routinely outlasts even even second- and third-hand ownership. Components that experience a lot of movement and friction are always over-engineered.
Because of the significant expense in owning, maintaining and repairing a car there's a certain amount of expectation for reliability. It's not uncommon to be hit with a repair cost equivalent to the price of a Macbook Air. Because of the relatively disposable nature of electronics, however, the same kind of motivation is less prevalent. So they're more willing to take risks on new technology. And if there's an issue the replacement of the offending part is relatively trivial. It's certainly nothing compared to replacing a crankshaft.
All this sounds very familiar, except that in my city they're not involved in local politics. They're too busy with their light academics loads and parties. They do come in and expect the world should accommodate them at the expense of quality of life for year round residents. Often times it's just a complete lack of consideration and when people complain they're offended that anyone would try to restrict their lifestyles. The best part is when they graduate and move out, they go and badmouth the city.
Unfortunately, given that universities are a cash cow it's inevitable they'll get their way. Meanwhile, residents, who endure a heavy tax burden continue to be ignored. Although, the problems around here are more complex than that; it almost seems like our municipal government wants tax paying residents to move out.
I'm seeing a bit too much anti-Microsoft bias here. If we weren't talking about Microsoft I'm pretty sure we'd all be outraged by that court's decision, especially given the reaction on Slashdot to similar cases in the past.
Where was Microsoft irresponsible here? Who in their right mind would have thought that SkyDrive infringed on British Sky Broadcasting Group? Does any company or service with "sky" in the name also infringe? What about SkyTrain? Or Delta Sky Miles?
I fail to see how Microsoft did anything wrong here.
I've done naming for companies in the past and it can be an excruciating process. I'm pretty sure a company as big as Microsoft isn't cavalier about naming. If my clients are any indication, their own lawyers are a huge pain in the ass for the internet teams to deal with. They're specifically paid to be thorough and attuned to every little risk. I can't imagine how much more difficult it will be now coming up with a new name with the heightened sensitivity to even the remotest of infringement. I certainly wouldn't want to be on that naming team.
Liquidmetal isn't anything new, Samsung and Nokia have used it on some phones. The distinction is that they've generate been restricted to smaller components and not entire shells because of the expense and limitations in manufacturing. Interestingly enough, this technology was developed at Caltech and is marketed by this Liquidmetal Technologies. Perhaps someone more informed can explain how that works.
As far as the technology itself is concerned, it seems promising. However, from what I've read, the benefit isn't that they can produce "futuristic-looking" devices but rather that this metal is supposed to be much more wear resistant. It is true that the forming process is more akin to molding plastic, but I don't think we've been restricted by our ability to shape metal in recent years. Whether this tech lives up to promises remains to be seen. From what I've read of owners of Liquidmetal equipped Omega watches aren't too impressed; wear resistance doesn't seem to be any better than other materials the company has used.
I think it's one of those things where on paper it looks impressive, but in real life the forces these materials are subjected to generally far exceeds their tolerances. It's kind of like gorilla glass. People still manage to scratch up their screens when they don't break them outright. But still, any technological evolution is a good one.
The thing that surprised me was to learn that Apple acquired an exclusive, perpetual license with the company to use this technology in consumer electronics. So this isn't an example of Apple innovating, but rather preventing any competitors from getting their hands on the same technology.
Real progress is impossible in the United States. A multitude of groups all coincidentally work towards goals that conspire to cripple this country. So what ends up happening is the government equivalent of spinning wheels. They'll dump millions of dollars into the least impactful project they can find so that they can pander to their constituents. Meanwhile, corruption at the municipal level, especially in struggling cities, ensures that development projects still get rammed through, but because there was no proper planning they often end up causing more problems than they solve.
Considering that these luxury brands know nothing about practical usability, I can only assume this guy has been hired for some kind of special edition product. If I had to make a random assumption I'd even suggest it's for a China-specific product. The Chinese have a fetish for over-priced ultra-luxury brands on a level Americans can't fathom. It's bad enough that a few years back Louis Vuitton was concerned about the tarnishing of the brand due to increased prevalence of their bags. So they raised prices to keep them out of the hands of the plebeians. In the West, however, outside certain circles these brands don't carry a whole lot of prevalence. I can't imagine the YSL connection being of particular significance for most Apple devotees.
The whole thing is a bit odd given that YSL's foundation is in attire, not product design. They certainly have no experience in anything even remotely practical. If the goal here were some apparel based implementation of Apple's technology there are dozens of other companies better suited to the task. Additionally, those companies would have much more experience in cost-effective sourcing of materials and efficient manufacturing. Not like these luxury brands who burn last year's unsold product so that they can maintain exclusivity.
The practice of hiring renown designers is not unheard of, but companies tend to hire expertise that makes sense for the context. This almost always means that they hire product designers. Several years back, for example, Microsoft was working with Philippe Starck on peripherals. Even in that environment, however, it's often a miss because these designers know far more about aesthetics than about reliability and practicality. They're used to making products that sit untouched and are ogled from afar. Whatever issues arise are usually handled directly by the company and with the level of care you'd expect from a high-priced product. It's a totally different environment than consumer electronics. The optical mouse created under the Microsoft/Starck union looks cool, but was generally considered to be crap.
That said, Apple doesn't really need outside help to value form over function. Remember the puck mouse? How about the current piece of shit Magic Mouse? We've also all seen the new Mac Pro. What's concerning is the picture this paints for the company. It's not a big deal in the scheme of things if this is really just for a special edition product. However, if this is where they're looking to define future trends for the company I think we're seeing the beginning of the end. That's the sort of crap OEMs engage in when they're tring to build a reputation for themselves by coming up with goofy co-branded products.
I think you were living in a different country than I was. When Bush was president people were taking to the streets over every little perceived offense. Remember all the demonstrations over the war, the Patriot Act, the G8 and UN summits? Remember how vocal MoveOn.org and others were?
Go on to MoveOn.org today and there isn't a peep about Snowden or the NSA's domestic spy program. I thought these guys were supposed to be defenders of democracy. I guess they only care when a Republican is president.
A while back Al Jazeera ran a story about supporters going to absurd lengths to defend Obama even when it violates their supposed principles. It was almost comical to see the people they interviewed criticize something like drone strikes only to do a full 180 and defend the program when they learned that Obama was behind it.
You have to understand that, while H1-B visas can be a way to immigrate, and can be a path to naturalization, they don't really exist due to concern for immigrants. They exist because the US is kind of xenophobic and hostile to immigrants.
You're so full of shit with this comment it isn't even funny. My parents are immigrants, as are nearly all of my close friends. They're all doing reasonable well and haven't encountered any hostility. I have friends who's parents came here with literally nothing and now have their own businesses. Yes, there are bigots out there and some companies are absolutely exploiting illegal immigrants but you're unjustified in extrapolating that to mean all Americans.
In fact, the US makes it much easier to immigrant and become a citizen than most countries. I'm pretty sure you haven't ever lived overseas, otherwise you'd realize how much worse things could be. Other countries, unlike the US, require you learn the official language. Other countries, even with a residency via often prohibit foreigners from owning property. Some don't even allow you to get a mobile phone under your own name. And many countries expect proof that you're educated and can sustain yourself before they consider you for immigration.
But sure, keep telling yourself that the US is unfriendly to immigrants.
If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim. I know quite a few people who DO live in a number of European countries and they'd disagree with you. Not that it's necessarily worse than the US, but it's definitely no better.
If anything sinks the Xbox One it's going to be Microsoft's stance against indie developers. But this isn't a new development; it's been a long time in the making.
I've got a friend working for a successful indie developer who also happens fairly extensive contacts in the industry. There is near universal antipathy towards Xbox Live and Microsoft. The company has been so unfriendly towards small developers that even those who've enjoyed considerable success have said they'll never work with Microsoft again.
The reasons are varied. Microsoft gives developers no freedom. They dictate launch dates, pricing and promotions. They're inflexible with multi-platform releases, often prohibiting a release if it was previously available for other platforms. The approval process is slow and painful, with issues often being arbitrary. And despite that, games often launch with glaring bugs, which indicates an overburdened and apathetic certification team. On top of all that, Microsoft is stingy with sales data, so that in my friend's case they had to wait a month or two before they had any indication of how the game was selling. Not that they would have been offered any options to boost sales.
Unfortunately, this crap seems to have spilled over into Windows Phone which is why only games from big publishers ever end up with the Xbox Live connectivity. And therein lies the problem. There seems to be this arrogance to Microsoft that they've always got the big developers to fall back on and so the indies are irrelevant.
Based on what my friend has told me, however, the future isn't the PS4. Sony has gotten better, but they're not great. Nintendo has been making great strides over the past year to lure indie developers but it seems to be too little too late. Nintendo didn't consider them crucial back during the success of the Wii. Most indie developers apparently struggle to be profitable on Android, so that basically stunts the growth of Android-powered consoles right out of the gate. So you're left with iOS and PCs. iOS continues to be attractive, even if it comes with it's own host of issues, one of the big ones being restricted to touch screens, at least for now.
According to my friend, one of the most profitable platforms for them has been Steam. They don't have to deal with much in the way of profit sharing or licensing. Steam let's them do whatever they want, set whatever pricing they like and even give away as many free download coupons as they like. They get immediate and timely updates on sales. And the platform gives them access to one of the biggest gaming markets out there.
This is Microsoft's biggest problem and it will eventually bite them in the ass. Everything else is kind of irrelevant as it's an extension of everything else already present in gaming. But growing up as a PC gamer there's something satisfying about gaming's return to the platform.
Given tendencies over the last 5+ years I predict nothing will happen. Few will bat an eye if Snowden gets extradited, tried and convicted.
Every time some scandal has surfaced it's followed the same pattern: 1) It's dismissed as fabrication until evidence surfaces. The day I heard of this spy program the reports were all pointing out that everyone was denying this program existed. 2) The story is trivialized, the talking heads can't understand why the story persists and dismiss it as opponents trying to vilify the president. I've heard this repeated time again on CNN and elsewhere. 3) Dredge up some action from the prior administration to establish moral equivalency. There's a lot to blame Bush for, and he helped enable a lot of the problems we're seeing now, but a lot of stuff unfolding doesn't come close to being on the same level. If it had been we would probably had seen riots in the streets. 4) Dismiss it as one of those things that just happens or attribute blame to the prior administration. This, again, another attempt to marginalize the situation as overblown. I've noticed as tendency to see every little bit of news as evidence the story is a fabrication even when the pieces clearly don't add up. If Bush had been president these same people would have latched onto these stories with all fervor and demanded his hanging.
That's the fundamental problem here; how blindly loyal people are to Obama. The most telling aspect is that people were taking to the streets in protest during Bush's rule over less and now they're conspicuously silent. It goes to show that all that was more about ideology than any real principle. The problem isn't that people were complaining then, it's that they're not doing so now. Without question Bush had his own flock of sheep, but conservatives were generally a lot more critical towards him than I'm seeing with liberals and Obama today. The Tea Party, before being co-opted by Republicans and turned into a joke, came to rise during the Bush administration. And that's when they aren't also making a joke of the Green or Libertarian party.
For a wide variety of reasons Republicans have been in turmoil because conservatives don't feel they're being properly represented. One of the big reason being that they don't like being forced to tick off every conservative box. I've yet to see a similar response to Democrats, they certainly seem unified to a fault. When, for example, a liberal site lavishes praise on someone like Barney Frank, corrupt and having had a hand in the real estate bubble, you've really got to question the legitimacy principles. If you can't identify the problems in your own party and find good ideas in others, there are some real problems.
I will acknowledge that the response on Slashdot has been far more balanced than I've seen elsewhere. I'm actually impressed because it's a far better environment for discussion than it was back in 2008.
A couple of years ago a fashion designer sued Yves Saint Laurent over red soled shoes. Granted, it was a trademark, not a patent, but it's the same basic principle. And the absurd thing here is that the designer's trademark was specifically for red soles on shoes and they were suing for infringement on a shoe that was all red and happened to also feature red soles. The main reason the fashion industry isn't as aggressive as everyone else is merely because most of this stuff is out of style within 3 to 6 months and thus not worth protecting.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with futurists is that as much as they try to use their imagination they're still heavily constrained by the technology of the day. Most of their predictions arise from extrapolation of the world around them. I can't count the number of sci-fi novels I've read, even those written in the 70s, where they predict galaxy-spanning civilizations storing data on tape and computers spitting out reams of paper.
Faster than light travel and robots are easy to imagine because they're all enhancements, taken to their most absurd extreme of course on what we see around us. But making that intuitive leap to something like the internet, and then going the next step beyond that to imagine how it will affect society is the real challenge. Of course, the problem is that often the most significant advances are very subtle. And the problem is that often times there's the important distinction between what we are capable of and what we are actually able to do for financial, political or practical reasons.
So we don't have the flashy bits of tech like flying cars and torus shaped space stations. But the internet and the impact it's had on humanity is incredible. The miniaturization of electronics is another big one. Those of us who grew up even as late as the 80s would be in complete awe of the world today. Growing up I fantasized about flat tvs and portable tablets, mostly thanks to Star Trek. These things are so common today that they're taken for granted. Most cars on the road today would look like an exotic concept back in 1985. That may be an aesthetic consideration, but technological evolution enabled the complexity found in presetn day cars. And by every other metric, performance, economy and reliability, cars today are far superior. But as I mentioned, many things are quite subtle and would only be noticed by someone waking up from a 30-year coma. And little of it would have been predicted by anyone.
How would this help? All you'd end up with is all these independent companies doing their own thing and interoperability being a big challenge. One of Apple's primary advantages is their impressive level of integration, that they're in control of every single aspect of their business from the hardware, to the OS, to app development. Google doesn't have that level of integration but they do, like Apple, have a cohesive corporate culture that is generally working towards a unified end.
How breaking a company into fragments going to improve cooperation? So if there's an excessively competitive mentality there now how exactly is this supposed to improve when you've got people working at separate companies that could easily turn into direct competitors. It's inevitable that in time these businesses would offer overlapping services, negating the need to continue cooperation.
Really, what Microsoft needs is strong leadership that identifies the problems of the existing culture and dumps all the stupid policies that caused them. I don't think most people relished the idea of working in that environment, as evidenced by the churn and loss of good people. If the mandate comes down, however, fostering cooperation and teamwork wouldn't employees feel a burden lifted from their shoulders?
I do think they'd have to really push it hard and embrace this approach. Anyone who can't give up the old ways, most likely those entrenched in middle management will probably have to be cut loose. Their continued presence will be poisonous.
I'd argue that it's related to quality of life. First of all, I generally find Asians in general to be a lot more pragmatic than Americans. Men and women alike in America are more about following their hearts; about a vague sense of fulfillment. This is reinforced by popular culture which teaches Americans that most work represents boredom and defeatism. We're only leading fulfilling lives when we're engaged in hedonistic activities like climbing mountains, seeing the world and partying every weekend. Think Eat, Pray Love and don't mind the unrealistic and impractical nature of such an enterprise.
Asians, however, generally see a career as a source of financial stability which ensures a comfortable life for themselves and their children. So they inevitably gravitate towards careers that are more likely to ensure that success, finance currently being one of the more popular fields. The specialties individuals choose is often driven by the respective cultures but generally there is a lot of overlap. So, presumably in a relationship if one individual in a fruitful career is a good then, then both doing the same kind of work is better. Also, if like east Asian cultures there's a growing trend towards individuals remaining single longer then it's inevitable that women see the need to sustain themselves. But as I mentioned, pragmatism is going to drive the choice of career. I've worked with or interacted with quite a few Indian women over the years who all were in very technical fields.
Now, the interesting thing I've observed with Chinese is that the belief persists that they can marry into stability. For many, that's the dream, to find a wealthy man to marry. So you see a lot of relationships where the wife is in her early 20s and the husband is in his 40s or 50s. Love isn't driving the decision making process quite to an extend you'd find in the West. Again, it's pragmatism. The problem is that it isn't terribly realistic either. The girls who generally marry into that kind of arrangement come from wealthy families themselves. It makes sense, as the only way they'd ever interact is to mingle in related circles and it certainly helps when families are pushing them to be together.
In my own experience I've found that Chinese women are less likely to get into hard sciences, although the likelihood is still higher than you'd find in the US. But what I have observed is a distinct entrepreneurial spirit. American women might be content with the 9-to-5 job and won't invest any more effort than they need to. Chinese women seem keen on starting their own businesses or at least thinking to the future. It's something I've seen many a time amongst friends.
I agree that Ballmer needs to go; Microsoft does have some fundamental problems. However, I take issue with how you dismissive you are of the things on your list. That many of those products have struggled is due more to poor perception than actual lack of quality.
Windows 8 may have it's issues but it's a legitimately good OS. Like it or not, it's been incredibly influential for user interface design. Notice that the flat look is in; so much so that even Apple has abandoned skeuomorphics in favor of the look. Windows 8's bigger problem is the persistent bad press.
Xbox One one hasn't yet gone on sale so you have no basis for calling it a failure. The Xbox 360 has a been a huge success and there's no reason yet why the Xbox One wouldn't continue that trend.
Vista wasn't great, but it did enable Windows 7. Certainly it's no worse than more recent versions of OSX.
You can't blame the company for trying with the Kin or Zune. Apple's Newton was a flop too. And remember the iPhone before the iPhone we all know and love came out? The crappy thing made in partnership is Motorola? The Zune actually had some neat features and never got the appreciation it deserved. The whole parallax thing people have gushed over in iOS 7 was present on the Zune.
Windows Phone 7 was a legitimately good OS and a huge improvement from Windows Mobile 6.5. It set the foundation for Windows Phone 8 which is an excellent OS which I'd argue is one of the best on the market. The fact that it's surpassed Blackberry in market share and continues to grow is a positive sign. In some countries it's got double digit market share and in a few cases is the #2 mobile OS. The numbers look pathetic compared to Android or iOS, but you've got to start somewhere.
Ballmer leaving the company could be a very good thing, but I don't have a whole lot of confidence as far too many CEOs are rarely up to the task. Even at Apple, it's hard to argue Tim Cook is doing as good a job as Steve Jobs did. But like Microsoft, they've got quite a few years to go before it starts eating into the business in any significant way.
I agree with your assessment; I find it obnoxious that some people believe all cars need to aspire to performance pretensions. That said, nowhere does Cadillac proudly display the $2600 gas guzzler tax. That tax is listed as a line item because, well, they're giving you an estimate on what this car is going to cost you after everything is calculated. You make it seem like there's a badge somewhere boasting about the gas guzzler tax which is misleading at best.
It's also worth nothing that you've chosen the top-of-the-line performance variant of the CTS and comparing that to a base Model S. The base Cadillac CTS starts at about $20k less than the $63k base model S. If you're going to do an apples to apples comparison with the CTS-V you'd have to choose the performance version of the Model S which is the P85 and that guy starts at $83,570. The CTS-V starts at a $64k. A maxed out CTS-V flirts with $70k at the maximum. Load up on the options for any Tesla and you're easily well past the $100k mark. The price differences are so large that the tax credit is insignificant.
I think the Tesla is a great car, don't get me wrong. I think the CTS is pretty cool too, but the Tesla is more compelling. However it's misleading to suggest that they live in the same automotive space. Clearly, the technology is still in it's infancy and quite expensive, so Tesla wisely sweetened the pot but making the car so good in many other ways. Regardless, the people considering the Tesla are far more likely to be cross shopping the likes of the Audi A7 and A8 and BMW 6- and 7-series.
People always complain about stuff being more expensive in Europe and totally overlook import tariffs, VAT, sales taxes and whatever other taxes the various nations of Europe like to assess. The United States demands virtually nothing to import products, which is why a Playstation 4 in the US will cost roughly what it costs in Japan. Sure, we do have sales tax in most States but that, even at it's worst barely exceeds 12%. There's a reason why the United States is a far bigger gaming market than the EU despite similar populations.
For all the taxation and expensive goods Europeans manage to save more than Americans. They're incredibly frugal. They're not embracing a subscription services with restrictive contracts like idiots,they're not obsessed with huge houses or bloated SUVs, they don't incur massive debt to make up for an income they think they deserve.
Socialized healthcare, well-maintained roads and extensive public transit all cost money. I used to think the American way was better. Americans generally have a lot more disposable income but also more personal financial responsibility. Not that I have any delusions that the American government is capable of building social programs. Europe isn't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better at it than Americans. Unfortunately, consider how wasteful Americans have become.
So yeah, a $550 Playstation 4 would probably be a good thing for many Americans.
I wonder if recipients know where the organs are coming from. In my experience I'd expect them to be a bit wary about the source of those organs, what with the way they worry about bad luck, karma and all that.
I'm sorry, but that's an idiotic attitude to hold. From a business perspective it's invaluable to meet in person. Telecommuting isn't all it's cracked up to be and often is detrimental to the workplace. But there are a multitude of reasons why people would want to physically travel somewhere. People move where the jobs and opportunities are. This often means separation from friends and family which in turn means that they're more likely to travel to see them. How about sightseeing and vacations? Who in their right mind wants to spend days on a trip that could potentially take hours? Imagine half of your vacation spend spent simply getting somewhere.
By your rationale we may as well go back to plying the seas in galleons. If 300mph is too wasteful, is 200mph acceptable? How about 100mph? Hell, I'm sure we'd attain incredible efficiency at 25mph; I mean, if it was good enough for steam locomotives it's good enough for us. But let's just take it to the next step and go back to the horse and wagon. That's pretty much the pinnacle of sustainability. Except that there's no way in hell it's sustainable with 6 billion humans on earth. So mass transit is essential and more efficient after all.
Why can't we strive for both efficiency and speed? If a 500mph Hyperloop is more energy efficient than air travel how is it not desirable? It seems like the best of both worlds to me, preserving speed but boosting efficiency. If nothing else, it gives us more options for power sources beyond fossil fuels.
It's a good thing the human race hasn't been so pessimistic and lacking ambition because otherwise most of us would probably still be in Europe trying to fend off the plague.
Anyone who's been exposed to universities at the faculty or administrative level, as an outsider, can see that the system is a nightmare of waste. I was brought on during a supposed hiring freeze to teach a non-essential course at a university in my area; I was taking over for a friend who was no longer free. By the end of that same semester they had begun major construction on campus. At about the same time one of the professors approached me about buying new computers for the class. It blew my mind that this guy was suggesting top of the line Mac Pros and an all new suite of software to replace what we had been using. What we already had was more than adequate and fairly current, and that's not to mention that the school already gave most, if not all students a Macbook of their own. T
Money is no object at these universities. It reminds me of the healthcare system where the solution to every financial problem is to simply raise rates. They've got to have the latest and greatest of everything regardless of whether it provides any real value. Unfortunately, there's budgetary control is nonexistent; it's literally a free-for-all.
If the university administration gets it in their heads to focus on athletics then you're really screwed. They'll hire some high profile individual, at massive expense, to bolster their athletic program. That entails further spending all with the goal of having one good year to get the university on the map. The hope there is obviously to attract more students, even if it comes at the expense of academic quality.
The problem here also is that no one is identifying and addressing the problem. Americans are far too comfortable with getting into debt. So they'll take out these massive loans, and the money the parents "save" by not paying for school goes to spoiling the student with a shiny new car and generous housing. Most people seem to believe that the solution to the problem is to make getting loans even easier.
The stat I heard several years ago is if the price of milk had risen at the same rate as college tuition we'd be paying $40 for a gallon. The economics are seriously screwed up but I see no evidence that the bubble is going to burst. The same school I taught at has seen a continued construction boom. I have no idea what's going on anymore, but new buildings are going up all over campus.
But the really screwed up thing here is that they do nothing at all for the community they reside in. It's a giant money sink that skips right over the surrounding communities. Unfortunately, because these schools grease the right pockets they get to operate with impunity. It's those neighboring communities who suffer the consequences.
According to the reviews I've read the movie isn't very good. It's an amateurish portrayal where they never really delve all that deeply into Jobs' life. They want to glorify Jobs as an incredibly driven innovator, but while trying to humanize him manage to make him quite an unlikeable character. Aston Kutcher is as bad as everyone expected him to be; he's over-the-top and none of it feels authentic. It's like he's ticking off a checklist of tics, expressions and reactions.
Apparently, the writer of The Social Network is working on his own portrayal of Jobs. The expectations are that it will be a far better movie.
It's difficult to deny that Microsoft doesn't deserve what they're getting. As a Windows Phone user myself I've found myself increasingly disenfranchised what seems like general indifference towards the platform from Microsoft. But to generalize to the point that you're incapable of acknowledging that Microsoft is sometimes in the right is naive, narrow-minded and downright immature. This is Google we're talking about, who are anything but saints.
Here's the situation as I've followed it because so many people seem to be playing fast and loose with the facts. The original "official" Youtube app was little more than a webapp and a crappy one at that. You couldn't even skip around in a video. So three or four months back, after continued refusal by Google to cooperate Microsoft went ahead with their own app. It was a significant improvement, arguably one of the best apps of the three major mobile platforms specifically because it didn't run ads. But the reason for that was that Google failed to cooperate to ensure that functionality.
At Google's request, however, the app was pulled and reverted to the previous crap version. So in the interim Microsoft and Google were supposed to be cooperating to produce a proper app that did display advertising. And that's the version that was released this week. I tried it, and there they were, those annoying, unskippable ads. The following day there were widespread service disruptions, not just for Microsoft's own app but many of the third party apps on Windows Phone as well. Eventually we learned that Google had blocked the app, offering a whole new set of bullshit reasons. The HTML5 requirement had never been mentioned before and, as has been pointed out, is not even a requirement mandated of the app on iOS, Android and even Blackberry if I'm not mistaken.
It's evident that Google is trying to undermine a competitor to Android before it becomes a real threat. They're stuck with Apple because it enjoys such a large userbase, otherwise they'd probably take similar tactics with them. But the big reason here is that Microsoft competes with them in every single one of their markets. They're about as direct a competitor as you can get. So, from that perspective it can be argued that Google is being shrewd. On the other hand, Microsoft got slapped time and again for similar tactics.
It's difficult to argue that Google doesn't enjoy similar dominance in certain markets. So it's reasonable to expect that Google should be held to the same standards. Regardless of what you think about Microsoft, more options and greater competition is a good thing. Google is trying to prevent that.
Not giving notice is a good way to burn your bridges, even when you're leaving a bad environment. You're not just leaving an impression on management, but your coworkers as well. Even if those coworkers are sympathetic you'd still be dumping your workload on them.
One of my prior employers was terrible. Employees were overworked and under-appreciated and managers were impulsive, emotional and outright incompetent. I was brought on to help improve processes but within weeks it was evident the owners were paying lip service to getting anything fixed. Over the 6 months it took me to secure another job I toyed incessantly with how I'd handle my departure.
I ended up giving these guys nearly a month notice. There was a lot to be done and I didn't want to just dump all this crap on my team. I decided there was no value in venting, in pointing out all the problems there. It would never register and they'd just see me as disgruntled making my viewpoint even easier to dismiss. This way I left with a ton of contacts which may or may not be valuable in the future. At the very least, I don't have people going around behind my back giving me a bad name.
It's not the most expensive items in a car that need regular replacing. It's the cheapest of components; engine oil, filters, spark plugs, tires, etc. Those are all wear items. The next step up from there are water pumps and timing belts, but those generally are replaced at 80k miles. In a good, reliable car most other items shouldn't pose any problems for the owner up to and beyond 100k miles. This, of course, isn't accounting for aggressive driving habits and failure to do regular maintenance.
The fact that some cars are more or less reliable than others comes down to engineering complexity, manufacturing quality and application of new technology. Premature failures are not a normal and expected scenario. Torque converter automakers, for example, routinely outlasts even even second- and third-hand ownership. Components that experience a lot of movement and friction are always over-engineered.
Because of the significant expense in owning, maintaining and repairing a car there's a certain amount of expectation for reliability. It's not uncommon to be hit with a repair cost equivalent to the price of a Macbook Air. Because of the relatively disposable nature of electronics, however, the same kind of motivation is less prevalent. So they're more willing to take risks on new technology. And if there's an issue the replacement of the offending part is relatively trivial. It's certainly nothing compared to replacing a crankshaft.
All this sounds very familiar, except that in my city they're not involved in local politics. They're too busy with their light academics loads and parties. They do come in and expect the world should accommodate them at the expense of quality of life for year round residents. Often times it's just a complete lack of consideration and when people complain they're offended that anyone would try to restrict their lifestyles. The best part is when they graduate and move out, they go and badmouth the city.
Unfortunately, given that universities are a cash cow it's inevitable they'll get their way. Meanwhile, residents, who endure a heavy tax burden continue to be ignored. Although, the problems around here are more complex than that; it almost seems like our municipal government wants tax paying residents to move out.
I'm seeing a bit too much anti-Microsoft bias here. If we weren't talking about Microsoft I'm pretty sure we'd all be outraged by that court's decision, especially given the reaction on Slashdot to similar cases in the past.
Where was Microsoft irresponsible here? Who in their right mind would have thought that SkyDrive infringed on British Sky Broadcasting Group? Does any company or service with "sky" in the name also infringe? What about SkyTrain? Or Delta Sky Miles?
I fail to see how Microsoft did anything wrong here.
I've done naming for companies in the past and it can be an excruciating process. I'm pretty sure a company as big as Microsoft isn't cavalier about naming. If my clients are any indication, their own lawyers are a huge pain in the ass for the internet teams to deal with. They're specifically paid to be thorough and attuned to every little risk. I can't imagine how much more difficult it will be now coming up with a new name with the heightened sensitivity to even the remotest of infringement. I certainly wouldn't want to be on that naming team.
Liquidmetal isn't anything new, Samsung and Nokia have used it on some phones. The distinction is that they've generate been restricted to smaller components and not entire shells because of the expense and limitations in manufacturing. Interestingly enough, this technology was developed at Caltech and is marketed by this Liquidmetal Technologies. Perhaps someone more informed can explain how that works.
As far as the technology itself is concerned, it seems promising. However, from what I've read, the benefit isn't that they can produce "futuristic-looking" devices but rather that this metal is supposed to be much more wear resistant. It is true that the forming process is more akin to molding plastic, but I don't think we've been restricted by our ability to shape metal in recent years. Whether this tech lives up to promises remains to be seen. From what I've read of owners of Liquidmetal equipped Omega watches aren't too impressed; wear resistance doesn't seem to be any better than other materials the company has used.
I think it's one of those things where on paper it looks impressive, but in real life the forces these materials are subjected to generally far exceeds their tolerances. It's kind of like gorilla glass. People still manage to scratch up their screens when they don't break them outright. But still, any technological evolution is a good one.
The thing that surprised me was to learn that Apple acquired an exclusive, perpetual license with the company to use this technology in consumer electronics. So this isn't an example of Apple innovating, but rather preventing any competitors from getting their hands on the same technology.
Real progress is impossible in the United States. A multitude of groups all coincidentally work towards goals that conspire to cripple this country. So what ends up happening is the government equivalent of spinning wheels. They'll dump millions of dollars into the least impactful project they can find so that they can pander to their constituents. Meanwhile, corruption at the municipal level, especially in struggling cities, ensures that development projects still get rammed through, but because there was no proper planning they often end up causing more problems than they solve.
Considering that these luxury brands know nothing about practical usability, I can only assume this guy has been hired for some kind of special edition product. If I had to make a random assumption I'd even suggest it's for a China-specific product. The Chinese have a fetish for over-priced ultra-luxury brands on a level Americans can't fathom. It's bad enough that a few years back Louis Vuitton was concerned about the tarnishing of the brand due to increased prevalence of their bags. So they raised prices to keep them out of the hands of the plebeians. In the West, however, outside certain circles these brands don't carry a whole lot of prevalence. I can't imagine the YSL connection being of particular significance for most Apple devotees.
The whole thing is a bit odd given that YSL's foundation is in attire, not product design. They certainly have no experience in anything even remotely practical. If the goal here were some apparel based implementation of Apple's technology there are dozens of other companies better suited to the task. Additionally, those companies would have much more experience in cost-effective sourcing of materials and efficient manufacturing. Not like these luxury brands who burn last year's unsold product so that they can maintain exclusivity.
The practice of hiring renown designers is not unheard of, but companies tend to hire expertise that makes sense for the context. This almost always means that they hire product designers. Several years back, for example, Microsoft was working with Philippe Starck on peripherals. Even in that environment, however, it's often a miss because these designers know far more about aesthetics than about reliability and practicality. They're used to making products that sit untouched and are ogled from afar. Whatever issues arise are usually handled directly by the company and with the level of care you'd expect from a high-priced product. It's a totally different environment than consumer electronics. The optical mouse created under the Microsoft/Starck union looks cool, but was generally considered to be crap.
That said, Apple doesn't really need outside help to value form over function. Remember the puck mouse? How about the current piece of shit Magic Mouse? We've also all seen the new Mac Pro. What's concerning is the picture this paints for the company. It's not a big deal in the scheme of things if this is really just for a special edition product. However, if this is where they're looking to define future trends for the company I think we're seeing the beginning of the end. That's the sort of crap OEMs engage in when they're tring to build a reputation for themselves by coming up with goofy co-branded products.
I think you were living in a different country than I was. When Bush was president people were taking to the streets over every little perceived offense. Remember all the demonstrations over the war, the Patriot Act, the G8 and UN summits? Remember how vocal MoveOn.org and others were?
Go on to MoveOn.org today and there isn't a peep about Snowden or the NSA's domestic spy program. I thought these guys were supposed to be defenders of democracy. I guess they only care when a Republican is president.
A while back Al Jazeera ran a story about supporters going to absurd lengths to defend Obama even when it violates their supposed principles. It was almost comical to see the people they interviewed criticize something like drone strikes only to do a full 180 and defend the program when they learned that Obama was behind it.
You're so full of shit with this comment it isn't even funny. My parents are immigrants, as are nearly all of my close friends. They're all doing reasonable well and haven't encountered any hostility. I have friends who's parents came here with literally nothing and now have their own businesses. Yes, there are bigots out there and some companies are absolutely exploiting illegal immigrants but you're unjustified in extrapolating that to mean all Americans.
In fact, the US makes it much easier to immigrant and become a citizen than most countries. I'm pretty sure you haven't ever lived overseas, otherwise you'd realize how much worse things could be. Other countries, unlike the US, require you learn the official language. Other countries, even with a residency via often prohibit foreigners from owning property. Some don't even allow you to get a mobile phone under your own name. And many countries expect proof that you're educated and can sustain yourself before they consider you for immigration.
But sure, keep telling yourself that the US is unfriendly to immigrants.
If you actually lived in any random European country I doubt you'd be making that claim. I know quite a few people who DO live in a number of European countries and they'd disagree with you. Not that it's necessarily worse than the US, but it's definitely no better.
HFT is not gambling. If it were, people wouldn't do it. If it's anything it's min-maxing.
If anything sinks the Xbox One it's going to be Microsoft's stance against indie developers. But this isn't a new development; it's been a long time in the making.
I've got a friend working for a successful indie developer who also happens fairly extensive contacts in the industry. There is near universal antipathy towards Xbox Live and Microsoft. The company has been so unfriendly towards small developers that even those who've enjoyed considerable success have said they'll never work with Microsoft again.
The reasons are varied. Microsoft gives developers no freedom. They dictate launch dates, pricing and promotions. They're inflexible with multi-platform releases, often prohibiting a release if it was previously available for other platforms. The approval process is slow and painful, with issues often being arbitrary. And despite that, games often launch with glaring bugs, which indicates an overburdened and apathetic certification team. On top of all that, Microsoft is stingy with sales data, so that in my friend's case they had to wait a month or two before they had any indication of how the game was selling. Not that they would have been offered any options to boost sales.
Unfortunately, this crap seems to have spilled over into Windows Phone which is why only games from big publishers ever end up with the Xbox Live connectivity. And therein lies the problem. There seems to be this arrogance to Microsoft that they've always got the big developers to fall back on and so the indies are irrelevant.
Based on what my friend has told me, however, the future isn't the PS4. Sony has gotten better, but they're not great. Nintendo has been making great strides over the past year to lure indie developers but it seems to be too little too late. Nintendo didn't consider them crucial back during the success of the Wii. Most indie developers apparently struggle to be profitable on Android, so that basically stunts the growth of Android-powered consoles right out of the gate. So you're left with iOS and PCs. iOS continues to be attractive, even if it comes with it's own host of issues, one of the big ones being restricted to touch screens, at least for now.
According to my friend, one of the most profitable platforms for them has been Steam. They don't have to deal with much in the way of profit sharing or licensing. Steam let's them do whatever they want, set whatever pricing they like and even give away as many free download coupons as they like. They get immediate and timely updates on sales. And the platform gives them access to one of the biggest gaming markets out there.
This is Microsoft's biggest problem and it will eventually bite them in the ass. Everything else is kind of irrelevant as it's an extension of everything else already present in gaming. But growing up as a PC gamer there's something satisfying about gaming's return to the platform.
Given tendencies over the last 5+ years I predict nothing will happen. Few will bat an eye if Snowden gets extradited, tried and convicted.
Every time some scandal has surfaced it's followed the same pattern:
1) It's dismissed as fabrication until evidence surfaces. The day I heard of this spy program the reports were all pointing out that everyone was denying this program existed.
2) The story is trivialized, the talking heads can't understand why the story persists and dismiss it as opponents trying to vilify the president. I've heard this repeated time again on CNN and elsewhere.
3) Dredge up some action from the prior administration to establish moral equivalency. There's a lot to blame Bush for, and he helped enable a lot of the problems we're seeing now, but a lot of stuff unfolding doesn't come close to being on the same level. If it had been we would probably had seen riots in the streets.
4) Dismiss it as one of those things that just happens or attribute blame to the prior administration. This, again, another attempt to marginalize the situation as overblown. I've noticed as tendency to see every little bit of news as evidence the story is a fabrication even when the pieces clearly don't add up. If Bush had been president these same people would have latched onto these stories with all fervor and demanded his hanging.
That's the fundamental problem here; how blindly loyal people are to Obama. The most telling aspect is that people were taking to the streets in protest during Bush's rule over less and now they're conspicuously silent. It goes to show that all that was more about ideology than any real principle. The problem isn't that people were complaining then, it's that they're not doing so now. Without question Bush had his own flock of sheep, but conservatives were generally a lot more critical towards him than I'm seeing with liberals and Obama today. The Tea Party, before being co-opted by Republicans and turned into a joke, came to rise during the Bush administration. And that's when they aren't also making a joke of the Green or Libertarian party.
For a wide variety of reasons Republicans have been in turmoil because conservatives don't feel they're being properly represented. One of the big reason being that they don't like being forced to tick off every conservative box. I've yet to see a similar response to Democrats, they certainly seem unified to a fault. When, for example, a liberal site lavishes praise on someone like Barney Frank, corrupt and having had a hand in the real estate bubble, you've really got to question the legitimacy principles. If you can't identify the problems in your own party and find good ideas in others, there are some real problems.
I will acknowledge that the response on Slashdot has been far more balanced than I've seen elsewhere. I'm actually impressed because it's a far better environment for discussion than it was back in 2008.
Are you sure about that?
A couple of years ago a fashion designer sued Yves Saint Laurent over red soled shoes. Granted, it was a trademark, not a patent, but it's the same basic principle. And the absurd thing here is that the designer's trademark was specifically for red soles on shoes and they were suing for infringement on a shoe that was all red and happened to also feature red soles. The main reason the fashion industry isn't as aggressive as everyone else is merely because most of this stuff is out of style within 3 to 6 months and thus not worth protecting.