Perhaps you are too casual a gamer to know what the bridge games are? You could have educated yourself simply by reading the article, but I'll mention a couple of them here: Mario Kart Wii and New Super Mario Bros.

I was going to make a reference to The Shining here, but Slashdot's lameness filter put an end to that ...

I think an important part of his argument is that current processors aren't perfect anyway, and they are only going to get worse as we move to smaller processes. The argument is that, eventually, everyone should be writing more robust code anyway, so why not get something out of it. I don't know whether that is true or not, but to argue against his ideas, you need to address his points ...

Sounds like a worthless degree, which brings me back to my original assertion: schools that produce worthless graduates are selling worthless degrees.

I would expect that employers would quickly discover which institutions are crap and which ones aren't which makes the diploma worth more-or-less what you put into it ... But then I am in a relatively small field with a degree from a relatively well-known institution.

I believe the idea is that an individualistic program requires that individuals know everything, whereas those in a team can specialize since your team mates will handle the things you can't.

I know I am in the minority in this, but it's not like we don't know what it stands for. (Or well, maybe we don't? I thought it was "shit" but I see a lot of "fucks" in the comments.) Personally, I don't really care if my kids cuss since I did a lot of that as a kid myself. However, I don't see the point in half-censorship. Pretending like $#*! isn't "shit" and @$$ isn't "ass" is just nonsense, so just say SHIT or FUCK or whatever cuss word you want or omit it entirely. (Ditto for s*** and f***.) Now, if you can't say these things on TV, then why allow the bullshit pussy semi-censored versions? It's not like we aren't all automatically doing the transliteration in our heads. I remember swear words getting edited out of movies showing on TV when I was a young child, and even at that age it was always pretty obvious what the original line was. It is inconsistent to allow one but not the other. Again, I am on the they-should-just-allow-cussing side of that argument, but it is a different (though related) argument.

Ok, well then I was confused when you said "switch".

So, you are telling me that the target market for the Nexus One are people with multiple cutting edge cell phones? That would explain why sales are so low, but then raises the question, why would any company want a market that small?

I confess, I don't really follow your second sentence ... Are you saying that iPhones sell for more than the cost of the phone plus early termination fee? A quick check on ebay suggests this may be true, but I'm not sure how that ties into switching to T-Mobile.

Now that you mention it, replacing letters makes things so much clearer now! But now I can't tell the difference between companies and products. So actually, no, you're obfuscating things for no gain whatsoever.

The answer to your question is, as you say, "Easy". They shouldn't have had HTC make the phone! But then you clearly think it's better to have made a phone that no one wants than not to have tried at all. The Nexus One is undeniably a mistake, plain and simple; its sales are all the proof one needs. The fact that this outcome was obvious from the beginning is what makes it a stupid mistake. But maybe sales will pick up, given time? I am sure they'll start selling more once the Desire and Incredible hit US markets.

Why are you substituting letters for everything? Is it supposed to make your point clearer? Look, it's not a discount if your product is the only one that isn't discounted. That's tantamount to a stupid tax. So yes, it is stupid to release a top-of-line product into a market in which your product is the only one with a stupid tax. But then, Google actually isn't the only company to sell phones this way. Nokia also does this with their high-end phones, and it hasn't exactly done them any favors in NA.

I guess, if you absolutely cannot wait until your contract is up, then yes, you have to buy an unlocked phone. On the other hand, if you are close enough to the end of your contract, you are generally better off just paying the $75 early upgrade fee and getting a subsidized device.

WRT "freeing the device from the carrier" that is all and well, but you aren't describing the Nexus One. You can buy the T-Mobile one, or you can buy the AT&T one. And then you're stuck with that carrier (as long as you want to keep using your $530 unlocked Nexus One), not to mention that neither of them work on Sprint or Verizon.

So, no. The real benefit of an unlocked phone is that if you travel internationally often, you can buy a prepaid sim card and not have to pay roaming charges.

It was Google's idea to release the Nexus One, and that idea is stupid because only T-Mobile discounts rates.

Google's idea is stupid because the costs aren't just up front. If you buy the AT&T Nexus One, then you will pay the same service rates as everyone else. Basically, you will be subsidizing everyone else's phones. If you must have a Nexus One, that is fine, but I myself find it difficult to justify the astronomical cost compared to similar devices. If the service plans sans contract were less, then I'd have some incentive to buy the Nexus One, or even to hold onto my old phone. But since I'm going to end up paying the same amount anyway, I sign the contract and get a new phone for free every 2 years instead.

even if they are convicted, nothing will happen? Besides, if my Backflip is any indication, Google's so-called monopoly is not worth very much.

Actually, I do care that Wal-mart doesn't sell porn. I care more about that then the fact that Apple doesn't sell porn. I don't have an iPhone, and I don't plan on buying one, and since Steve Jobs is so fanatical about keeping developers from making cross-platform applications on the iPhone, it doesn't really affect me much. HOWEVER, most games (and probably other media as well) need to be carried by Wal-mart to be profitable, and so they will self-censor however they must in order to be sold in there. So, even though I don't shop at Wal-mart, the media I consume is still affected by Wal-mart's policies. I fail to see how this is better than iTunes. I can make another analogy with Texas and textbooks, if you want.