As a programmer working on difficult and abstract problems, his method is not that usefull. The example was good for a single simple problem. But that is not really the problems you have when working on difficult problems. And writing visual-feedback software for complex problems would be like writing book authoring software that creates a movie from the book you are writing. It is a good and obvious idea. But absolutely unrealistic for real world problems.

Where it is *very* useful though is for programmers designing software. If we can make our software work like that in their limited domains, then it is a terrific way to solve our users problems.

These days you don't have to choose. I run Win 7 on my machine and a virtualbox Ubuntu on that. So I develop in Ubuntu, and any kind of multimedia stuff is handled in Windows.

The great thing about development on Unix is that it is all just there. apt-get install xxx and you are ready to go. Versions are automatically upgraded. If you prefer working in a windows environment for some part of your project, you can easily do it by sharing drives and networking.

The required current would be really high.

But I guess that you could just have an extra battery pack that is charged untill it is full, and then charge the car from that. That would also make solar and wind power better alternatives, as you could store power in cheap periods.

Considering that my 46" LED 1600x1080 flatscreen TV, which also has built in media player, internet connection etc costs about the same as a tablet, I would say yes.

They are insanely priced. I could install android on a small computer and make my own bloody 46" tablet... and use it as a coffee table.

A tablet is basically a netbook where the keyboard has been traded for a touch screen. But with less ram and storage. So they should at least be less expensive than a netbook. But they seem to cost at least twice that. It makes no sense whatsoever.

May I kindly point out that 2D will never work either. It has even more problems than 3D. How will anyone evet get depth perception in a 2D movie :-S

The real reason for linux is the freedom for me as a developer. But in a modern world where I have to edit video, make music and edit pictures, Windows or Mac is a required choice too.

Having to spend $100 on a windows desktop does not matter a bit to me. Nor to most other people I would expect.

As a software developer on the server end I am happy that there is a relatively lightweight desktop interface on my dev machine that runs virtualised in Virtualbox under Windows 7.

If open source developers are a big enough audience to keep that alive, then that is good enough for me.

I could not care less if my mother switched to linux.

If you put a high voltage through it, some conductive atoms move a little bit away from each other. That that makes it into an insulator instead. You can then reverse the voltage and move the atoms back in place. Actually a mechanical on/off switch, but at such small scales that it goes blazingly fast.

I never said they produced CP to convert it to cartoons.

Presumably they would take existing CP and "filter" it.

I believe that the cartoon clause are there because child pornographers used photoshop filters on real child pornography to make it look like cartoons To avoid prosecution.

Although we are still somewhat following Moores law, out computers have not become that much faster over the last years.

They have, however, become smaller and cheaper. So if you extrapolate from that, he is spot on.

And all we need for really small computers to become really usable is wearable screens. Perhaps even 3D screens.

The television crowd is currently working on that. When there is enough tv shows on big 3D screens, small 3D eyeglasses will become normal too.

I mean we will need glasses to watch 3D on 50" screens, so why not skip the 50" screen and just use the glasses only?

And what would you rather want right now? A faster computer notebook or a wearable one with 3D glasses?

No problem. We will just feed it to our livestock too. 30% more meat instantly.

They are a political and economic tool to advance economic growth and development of new technology.

In the software world where there are many people working on the same problem, and finding the same solutions. Patents are of no use whatsoever.

I would like to be proven wrong though. Is there any examples of software that would not have been developed without software patents?