While I agree with your assessment of Apple's portrayal in the video, it is also important to avoid the perception of bias in the legal system. Even the perception of bias, may that bias be imaginary or real, has the potential to undermine the legal system.

(For a more common example of this, consider how many minorities distrust the judicial system because of perceived racial biases. Whether those biases are real or not is a moot point.)

I need to improve my knowledge and skills related to 3-D printing first, then I'll make the plunge.

As many have noted, 3-D printing isn't easy. A big part of the reason is that the technology isn't well developed yet. As others have noted, 3-D printing is also over hyped. A big part of the reason is that the idea is exciting, but it takes a particular type of personality to have a use for it.

Yet this simply means that 3-D printing is of limited value as it stands, and as it will continue to stand. (It will become more reliable, but it will never become convenient.) It does mean that the people who end up using it will have a mindset where they want to create their own stuff. Some of those people will be inventive, while others will want to know how their stuff work. Some will be tinkerers, while others will take pride in what they create.

So please stop with the negativity. If it's not for you, that's fine. If you can't honestly recommend it to other people, that's fine. But also understand that there are other people who want to use 3-D printing and have good uses for 3-D printing.

Government run institutions are among the last to change, except when they are among the first to change. The thing is that there are a lot of government institutions out there. Some of them have a lot of motivation to institute change, because the scale of the problem is so large that traditional methods won't work. Some of them have a lot of motivation to avoid change, because the amount of effort required to institute change exceeds the returns. So you are in a sense right: there are cases where there is no reason to change. Yet you are also wrong: it is a feature (i.e. they aren't changing in order to control costs) rather than a problem.

Empty? We are talking about the Solar System here. Even if you ignore the Sun and planets, this place is remarkably full. This sample from STARDUST demonstrates just how incredibly full it is.

(No sarcasm intended. A lot of the matter out there is in the form of an incredibly tenuous gas rather than particles.)

There is a lot more to this article than the mythical labor shortage. There is a discussion of the complexity of the issue. That includes things like labor market cycles, shortages in some specializations with surpluses in many, the cost of misinformation to graduates, and a fair bit more.

To the summary skimmers, this article is probably worth your time.

The big reason: you aren't in the target demographic for TV commercials. I suspect that you would find the advertising in a trade publication that interests you similarly interesting, because you would be in the target demographic.

Time is another consideration. This is a 1 minute commercial, so they have time to "tell a story". I'm pretty sure that most commercials are 30 seconds, and even 15 seconds, in length. That's barely enough time to get a person's attention and blurt out your product name.

It is understandable when people see something that they don't like, then proceed to create an opinion without informing themselves in even the most basic manner.

Private funding is great in many areas. This is particularly true of science that addresses problems that society needs to solve (e.g. medicine) or that captures people's imaginations (e.g. astronomy).

However, there is a lot of science that needs to be done that doesn't fit into either category. That is where governments need to step in.

For usability, you need to look at your target market. This means that you should be asking the people who will buy your product, rather than the people on Slashdot. (If we are your target market, at least let us know what you are developing so that we can provide meaningful input.)

To add to what LoRdTAW said:

The landscape of computer education has also changed tremendously, and for the better. Whether this was stimulated by the OLPC project or not is an open question, but there has been a change.

Computers in education pretty much meant a computer running a web processor, a word processor, and a smattering of poorly designed educational products when the XO-1 was introduced. Since then the "constructionist" philosophy of Papert, which was the framework of computer education in the 1980's, has reemerged. Many projects have been started to develop more comprehensive computer curricula and educational resources (e.g. lesson plans and software). The available software is more flexible in both lesson design and their philosophy of education. Self-directed resources have also improved. When the XO-1 came out, they were mostly geared towards reading and viewing. Now we have a large element of collaboration.

While it is sad to see the demise of the OLPC project, the demise reflects many positive changes in the landscape of education.

As a service, this really does make sense. It takes time and knowledge to configure a computer. A lot of people are lacking in one, or both, of those departments. The price also makes sense when it comes down to installing an individual piece of software. It takes time to do so. For businesses, time is money.

On the other hand, consumers really ought to look for better deals. You can tell someone what you need and pay them by the hour to get a system that is tailored to your needs. If you need a bunch of stuff done, it'll cost much less. It will also be done according to your requests, which is something that Dell isn't equipped to do.

According to my brain, emacs. According to my fingers, vim. Since my fingers are controlling the keyboard, guess who wins.

For the most part, the hatred directed towards Microsoft wasn't about the actual antitrust case. A lot of the hate was directed towards Microsoft locking other OS vendors out of the market. A lot of the hate was due to their stranglehold on the market even though there were huge concerns about the quality of Microsoft's products.

That said, I do wish that some of the haters would update their arguments. I still hear stuff that hasn't been valid since the days of Windows 3.1, never mind Windows XP, and IE6.

Given that this is dealing with company computers on a company network, it is their right to know how it is being used. I would hope that there is a strong privacy policy in place regarding any personal information that they uncover that is not a violation of company policies, but that is a hope and not an expectation.

Overall though, I would suggest that it is best to avoid doing anything at work that would stir up office politics.

Now both people and computers will call me a girl.