Why?
Isn't that like saying "On a Windows PC all I want to run is Windows"? By that logic there would be almost no Linux PCs since most of them come with Windows pre-installed.

Dual booting Android and a full Linux dist seems like a pretty nice feature on a tablet.

As usual when someone "understands" this they have the facts all wrong.

Not so important error: It's the Ecuadorian embassy.

Important error: He is in solitary so he will not disrupt an ongoing investigation for other crimes. Not for anything related to the pirate bay sentence.

I'm not saying it's justified to keep him in solitary for these suspected crimes, but at least get your facts straight.

I know your joking, but I doubt you would want software written by someone who spent most of his day talking on the phone. For that we have project managers... :-)

I still had my mobile connected to the PBX, just no *desk* phone, because that was what suited my usage pattern best.
Also, it always made more sense to have them connected to my dev system than the office system.

It could have been a good geeky exercise to have one of every kind of phone connected to the same number though. (Analog, ISDN, h323, SIP, DECT, mobile and a soft phone on the PC). But i'm not sure my neighbor would like that when all of them starts ringing at once :-)

Less and less people get desk phones. In my last three jobs I have not had a desk phone.*
All I have been given is a mobile phone. However this does not mean PBXs (office phone systems) are not being used.
The mobile phone is still connected to a PBX so I can make free internal calls, call co-workers with shorter 4 digit numbers and have all the other PBX services mentioned in the summary .

Of course people who make a lot of calls still need and use hard phones. But where I have worked this has been a minority

This is fairly typical for tech companies in Sweden, i think. It may not be representative for other companies in Sweden or tech companies in other countries though.

There are also two different questions in the summary.
Are office phones coming to an end? No, but usage is declining.
Are office phone systems coming to an end? No, but usage patterns have changed to include mobile phones and IM

* Except when I worked as a developer on a PBX. Then I had around 8 phones on my desk. I still didn't bother to configure any of them for usage as my office phone...

This is insightful. And a very sad insight as well.
He intentionally sacrificed his life so maybe other current and future players would not have to suffer from the same things he has suffered from.

Yeah, thats a great future that is easy to envision.

Can you also see a path from the society we have today that will take us to that future?
That part is not so easy for me to see.

Bonus points if that path does not contain lots of people getting killed along the way

It's only a crap shoot if you suck at hiring people.

But then obviously it is going to be a crap shoot no matter what age they are...

I was thinking the same thing. If you pay for it upfront they will include the odds of you never needing the service. In other words exactly as buying insurance.

To illustrate with an example:
The equipment costs $6000 but they know that statistically only one in five customers will need it. Then selling it to 5 customers upfront for $1500 will give you a profit of $1500.
Selling the $6000 equipment for $1500 to you while you need it will incur a loss of $4500

I still think your view of fragmentation is too narrow.

Features in successive models do not always "stay the same or improve".
Making a screen taller or wider or adding and removing hardware buttons is not strictly backwards compatible improvements.
See for example the new Iphone screen. You can work around it with black borders, but if you want to have a native look and feel you need to do some work for each model.
Same with the Ipad screen. Even though it doubled in size so scaling was trivial, that just means it is backwards compatible with the old apps. If you want to create a new app that looks good on both versions you got to do extra work.

By that logic all fragmentation is "perfectly ordinary sideways compatibility work".

To me Iphone 5 and Iphone 4s are products in parallel, since they are used at the same time.

Of course, after a while the old models become obscure and the user base so small that you can ignore them, but even though they were on sale in serial, they will be used in parallel for quite a while.

I guess it all depends on what you mean by "fragmentation". Two models sold in serial, but in use at the same time is the simplest case of fragmentation to me. 20 models sold in parallel is another much worse case of fragmentation.
But probably some people think "Two models is not fragmentation, because that is easy to handle. Its not fragmentation until it becomes a real burden". I just don't agree to that view. Just because it is worse on android does not mean it does not exist on the iProducts

I'm not sure you understand fragmentation either.

Parallel products does not mean "on sale at the same time", it means "in use at the same time".
Just because they stop selling the old Iphone model it does not mean all the people who bought those will stop downloading apps.

As long as your potential customers are using their old devices they contribute to fragmentation

You are absolutely right that fragmentation is much worse on Android though.

This is because NOBODY in Sweden has the power to make that guarantee.
This is not Ecuador or some other semi-corrupt state where the president can tell the courts something and they listen.
There are procedures to follow if a country requests extradition.

In fact it is illegal for anyone in the government to try to influence the courts.

The only guarantee that exists ( and I believe this applies to the whole of Europe ), is that he will not be extradited to any country if he is at risk off receiving the death penalty.

Then they are not making any markets. It's not like the real buyer and seller wouldn't find each other if the HFT was not there. It's just that they would find each other a millisecond later.
All they do here is steal some profit from the real investors. If the buyer is willing to buy at 3 and the seller is willing to sell at 1, they should meet at 2. Not give the difference to the man in the middle who happened to have a shorter network cable in the stock exchange server room.

I would say you have confused correlation for causation.
Computers getting faster and cheaper have made transaction costs go down. HFT just happened to grow big at the same time.

Thats exactly what I was thinking about people arguing for it. I have never heard a single good argument for it.
The real investors don't benefit, and the companies don't benefit either. But hey, the man in the middle makes a fortune until he crashes the market, so that's gotta be worth it, right?

I have never heard of this before, but I am very interested in a citation so I can read more about it

If we assume that the immigrants moving in drive down the wages for the native high skilled workers, then this is not surprising.

The high skilled workers can move some place else and make more money.

The low skilled workers won't really be better off if they move, since the immigrants moving in are not competing for their jobs. And if they make minimum wage they have zero chance of having their wage reduced by people moving in to do it for less money.

Wait, you're telling me that anecdotal evidence isn't the best kind of evidence?

You are exactly right.
I think most people can easily envision a distant future where nobody has to work, where all work is done by robots.
The problem is how the hell do we make the transition from our society today to that society of tomorrow?