What Apple can learn is to manage expectations. Pebble lost credibility because they promised a lot and then could not deliver. Even now the website has been revamps to encourage orders and development rather then detail what the watch can do for the consumer. For instance, it focuses on Apps that communicate with the pebble, but not what the Pebble can do out of the box. I don't fault Pebble for this. Pebble was crated when Apple had almost all of the market share, but Apple has never played well with third party hardware who tried to do something beyond the scope of what Apple wanted. OTOH, even Samsung has not been able to come up with a watch that plays well with it's own products.

Recall the iPhone has never worked well as a a phone. That is why it is now a mobile device that happens to let you make calls. I miss my Razr which was a great phone, but little else. I guess I don't miss it that much.

We can expect that the watch will not be that great as a watch. It is kind of like the ipod Nano, which was a good watch but could have had more faces, and was not at all stylish. We can expect something that is a passable watch. What is going to be critical is the communication with the phone. And hopefully one full day, at least 18 hours, of battery life with heavy usage of the apps. This is the one thing that is still wrong with the iPhone.

One technical problem with ST is that there is so much magic. The transporter, the universal translator,the communicators that always work, the warp engine, etc. All these are so the story does not get bogged down in what is essentially a space opera. But there is so much magic that creating suspense, or dealing with certain human situations, such as the difficulty of communication, is hard to create.

Bad segments, the The Motion Picture, do a bad job in dealing with the magic. Good segments, like Darmok, use the strength as a weakness. The society has become so dependent on the universal translator doing the brunt of communication, that they have lost the ability to interpret and comprehend. Picard had to relearn that skill in order to save the day.

It is perhaps indicative that geeks, who do not always value the process of communications, do not appreciate this episode.

the fallacy is comparing ride share services with Taxis. They are different. One is regulated service provided to make sure that public can be assured of a higher level of transportation than fixed rate public transport, the other is an ad hoc less regulated service akin to hiring a limo. I am sure no one here would make the argument that Uber is a ripoff because it costs more than a bus?

There are two problem with the ride share services. First is liability. Those who provide the service are often do not commerical insurance. Therefore any incident that occurs during commercial operation may not be covered. Likewise, companies like uber is only really responsible when a passenger is being transported, otherwise they would be open to huge liability. The limits of liability when a driver is simply logged on is minimal. To make it work, service like Uber should either require commercial insurance, or for a few provide required ad hoc insurance anytime a driver is 'on the clock'.

Second is safety. Taxi service is one of the most dangerous jobs out there. I don't know of any significant incident yet, but it is just a matter of time. At some point a driver is going to die, there is going to other lawsuits, and the model is going to be tested.

That said, there should be a new model in which taxis can vary the fee structure, compete on service, and provide to specific needs.

I find for each local field, the employees tend to come from a very universities. The reason for this, I guess, is not only chauvinism but also because graduates of a certain university speak a common language. Therefore, if the objective is not just becoming educated, but rather trying to use a degree to make more money, look at the local colleges, look at which graduates get hired.

As indicated elsewhere in the discussion, online universities appear to be best for people who already have a job but need a sheet of paper to advance. If no one in your area is hired new employees from SHNU, the time spent there will not be profitable.

It would be better. It works for copyright because there is no process to go through.

The patent system is broken because it is becoming like copyright, in the sense the no physical object or specific implementation is needed, but there is still an expensive process to get a patent. If it were simple as saying, hey everyone can use this but if you do and make it public all improvements have to be made public as well, that would be great. But there is no way to enforce that. The only thing to do is hope the patent office honors prior art.

But others are right. We do need foundations that are dedicated to paying for patents that are then openly licensing. Of course the foundation would then need armies of lawyers to defend the patents.

The real fix is severely limit the things that can be patented.

These people control Sunglass hut. They not are able to integrate the glasses into current and future products, they are able to provide a retail channel to market and promote them. They are able to provide incentives to specifically push the products to customers. This solves a problem with the original Android phone, in which end users had no way of interacting with the physical phone. Most who bought it did so soly on the Google name.

Of course, at $1750, which is basically what they device with frames costs, it is going to be a hard sell. Persols of Maui Jim will run $300. Integrate the Google Glasses, and you end with $2000.

This has little to do with manufacturing cell phones. There are only three companies making money on cell phones, Apple, Samsung, and MS through royalty payments by most Android Manufacturers.

It is more a matter of what is legal. User can't really be allowed to change how cell phones work at this level. Such things can cause interference.

What Ubuntu can do, and what Google was supposed to do, is provide a way for users to modify and update their open source phones independent of their carrier. This should not be something that is prohibited, and where Google lost in their open source push. Apple bypassed the carriers by working with a desperate ATT and then using power built up over time to push the way into other more reluctant carriers.

This should be what Ubuntu should do. Find a desperate carrier. Sell quality phones. You are right that the fanatics will cause problems. But the others will do worse.

Someone who started work in 1985 at age 30 would be able to retire now. They would have to wait for social security and medicare, but retirement would be not only possible, but encouraged as the US tries to reduce the overcapacity built up during that time, overcapacity generated by the lack of the highest administration to understand effectiveness that would be generated by the maturing technology of the time.

Computers had been in use for over 30 years at that time by the US governement. By the 80's computers were in wide use for many purposes. I would suggest that many records are in computers, but one issue we have seen is that the government has not be able to get the computers to work together.

MS, Google, Yahoo, all free service, I don't think there is an expectation for privacy. I have seen no situations where our information is protected from employees. In the past few years they have apparently set up more guidelines, but I wonder anyone actually get fired for browsing the occasional email.

What is clear is there no legal recourse. You can't stop paying because you do not pay. I think suing over such a thing would be hard as showing damages would be hard.

I guess this shows the need for a paid encrypted account.

The answer is C, you can break 7 up into 5 and 2
So in your head you can subtract 5 from 15 quickly to get 10, then subtract another 2 to get 8.

Startups tend to employee young or inexperienced people. They also tend to not use cash for employees. They focus on the lottery aspect of the startup, that you might get huge sums of money later on. It is a sophisticated model. For someone just out of college, how has fewer expenses than a mid career person, it can make sense. One might gain experience, and one might make money. I would say research the type of stock options, the risks, and assume you will never get them. Be aware of the significant tax liabilities. I have seen people wiped out because they owned stock that then became worthless due to tax liabilities and leveraging. Organizing mostly happens to older employees who looking to negotiate with the employer for safer or better compensated or more protected situations. Tech work is not in general dangerous. It is generally better paid than other jobs at the same skill level. Outsourcing is already widespread so that boat has left the dock.

Because kids, and pretty much everyone else, prefer a free beer. Open source beer is cool to talk about, but it requires a certain amount of sophistication.

Sparkfun had no idea about the trademark, and doesn't mind changing the color, but they say restrictions like these are a flaw in the trademark system.

I wonder what kind of electronics person does not know fluke and the trademark, at least anyone who has a passing relationship to the business.

This is where trademark laws works, and the way it is supposed to work. Fluke has spent 50 years developing good tools for people who need of want good tools. Some upstart like Sparkfun decides to superficially mimic this work, and then claims 'we did not know'.

Here is the thing with small business. You are allowed and encouraged to take risks, you are allowed to try to work under the radar, but sometimes you make a mistake and you have to pay. There are rules, and if you are going to play the game, it is important to know the rules. They can be complex, even arbitrary, which is why kids do not do the real work.

wearables are potentially very nice. Samsung has one, and when one talks android, one is still talking Samsung. Apple may or may not have one, but it won't be Android, obviously. So we are talking HTC and Motorola, neither or which are profitable. HTC marketshare is falling, and Lenova has not made mobile devices.

Flash is dead and Apple killed it. Sure, Google promised it to save it with android, but they could not. Flash is a resource hit and if Apple was not going to learn how to make it work, who else has the money?

An open flash clone might be ok because it does not matter that it will not run on the devices most of the world are going to be using in the near future. These app can be legacy, like the stuff that requires IE. But it is just like Java which has fallen 25%. People will figure out how to make HTML5 work, and work better, so they can access as many customers as possible.