I suppose it depends on what the developers are comparing. I've read the GPU is pretty well ahead of current console hardware, but the CPU is not. The power consumption should be lower as well, which won't make games look prettier, but might factor into the whole "how advanced the hardware is" issue. The statements have been so ambiguous, it's hard to tell...

Yup. Anyone mocking another's technology doesn't deserve to have their opinion on technology taken seriously. It may come as a strange and wonderful surprise to some, but different humans like different things.

I think it would be detrimental to society to have people specialize at such an early age. First, many excel at subjects that they were forced to repeat earlier in life. Second, even if the student never makes direct use of the knowledge, it provides them a better understanding of our society. Put another way: It's ok to suck at chemistry - it's not ok to not know what chemistry *is*.

I think people need to be more comfortable with failure (or lack of excellence, for that matter). There's really nothing wrong with not being great, just do what you like and try your best.

He wasn't arguing in favor of public investment. Don't know why you're in such a huff.

This single event doesn't indicate a failure of "capital markets" (as an idea). It does, however, indicate that the analysts and investors involved made a [huge] mistake. When taken into context of the last 10-15 years, I think it points to the general inability of analysts to provide accurate, or even remotely rational, valuation of tech firms. But hey, that's just me.

If you were reincarnated as a newborn today, with all of your current knowledge (but none of your money), what kind of career would you pursue down the line? Would you leverage your software skills in the same manner, or do something completely different?

Despite the current and past crappy rulings on this case...the first thing I think about is what kind of name is "Jammie" anyway? Is it pronounced like "Jaimie", or like some weird singular form of the slang for pajamas ("Ja-mee")? Either way, I wonder wtf is wrong with parents and naming these days. For me, this is a hard case to read about.

Care to back that up?

He who controls the beans...

I'm a less-than 30 year old developer. I've worked in organizations with 1:10 manager:dev ratio, sometimes higher. These managers did no coding whatsoever (some barely understood what we were doing), and spent their time inventing metrics, discussing/presenting these metrics, and making sure devs did the absolute minimum required to satisfy the customer because all they ever looked at were those metrics. While this may not apply to you, I can see where he's coming from. I now work for a company that has roughly a 1:70 ratio of manager:dev, and it's great. Devs participate in all levels of decision making, including the assignment of features/projects to younger devs, and oversight of their proteges. You could say that the managerial-level decision making is informally shared among the senior engineers. But they code just as much as I do. Coders are given independence and have ownership, and quality is their mandate. I hear Valve operates in a similar manner and their success mirrors our own. Ok maybe they are a bit more successful ;).

Good devs shouldn't stop coding unless they are bored with it. They should continue to work and be compensated according to their skill and experience. I feel a lot of firms have devalued experienced engineers to their peril. They dangle the $$ carrot in front of engineers who are at the top of their game, drawing them into an occupation where they no longer add demonstrable value to the company's products (again, not necessarily you), and then hire a newbie to fill the hole at the bottom rung. Worse, they farm out the work. The end result is invariably a crappier product.

I'm not sure what you're saying. At least for me, shipping an item back is much less convenient than driving to the store.

Data doesn't change on account of being used, but hardware does. This is why a second hand market made some sense back in the cartridge days (though in principle you were still paying for an "experience" - I digress), but makes no sense to me today.

If they go full-bore with digital distribution, MS should aim for a tiered sales plan where the price of the game drops over time, but is tied to the owner (ala Steam). I'd love to see gradual price decline, on a day-to-day basis, instead of sudden dramatic drops. This could work on a digital download service operating in parallel to the current physical distribution model. If you want the disc and the ability to sell it "used", fine, you pay $60. But if you buy online, you pay $50 today, $49.95 tomorrow, etc...

I'm pretty sure they're not. Used game sales don't motivate publishers to release new games, and games _are_ the hobby.

Not sure about console game prices, but on PC they drop significantly with time. If buying online on PS4 is similar to Steam and Origin, you won't have a problem getting them cheap. You'll have to wait for it to become cheap, but I don't see how this is unfair.

Then they will charge for their services. We will end up paying for google the same way we pay for TV channels (for those of us who still do...)

I think the moon idea is best. You can check out the craters, and if you make sure not to move the telescope, you'll be able to notice the movement of earth and moon relative to each other (i.e. the moon will edge closer to the edge of the scope's field of view as time goes on).