Its only a matter of time before all these interactive phone voices get hijacked by commercials and say "Before I answer you question, did you know that you get a free cup of coffee with every McGriddles purchase today... now, the closest Hair Salon is..."

With Google+ they are building a google into a CRM system basically. The strict control over how you can identify yourself and your friends can identify themselves increases the value of the overall system of contact information and creates higher ad values. Which is of course why I quit using google as much as possible. It was all just good clean fun until they became the Death Star.

I thought the same thing. Do we really want millions of americans living in factory dormitories making barely enough money to send a few dollars a month home to their family's village, where there is likely no running water and everyone subsists on a diet of rice, vegetables, and a few servings of protein a week? Seriously... if an american factory worker has to compete against that, then there is no point in even bothering.

We need some legally sanctioned government buccaneers to sail the high seas of the internet and steal some good stuff on our behalf. It can't possibly be the case that the internet, the best idea in decades, is going to turn out to be nothing more than a content delivery tool for huge international corporations that want to peddle mp3s and movies. Sheesh. What a waste.

ipod, ipad, tablet... as long as its square, thin, and you can poke at it, then it seems to be worth at least $200 for no other reason than the word used to name it.

If I were home, I would use the desktop computer I have at home. So I wouldn't take anything. If I were at the beach, I would use a pen and a pad of paper. If I were on a train, I would read a newspaper or write on a peice of paper. I don't need to buy several thousand dollars of electronics to meet these needs. I think the cell phone contract is the model every company would like to emuiate ultimately. I pay almost $1000 a year for a phone + network access. If only they could get something like that kind of revenue going for what most people now consider to be a "laptop" then it would be golden. Of course, the idea would be to sell everyone on both (or muiltiple) devices, so that instead of buying a laptop every couple of years for $700, they get us all on the treadmill of multiple devices and network access for everything we now use a computer for. This idea that I need to take something like a laptop or table to the beach is sort of weird, but all they need to do is convince 20 million people globally that is is a necessity and they are making a lot of money off it.

Basically, our manufacturing and technological world has become a moribund treadmill of innovation driven by consumer whimsy. In an effort to reinvigorate the stale metaphors of capitalism, environmentalism is being advanced as the reason why we might once again buy some new things: new cars, new light bulbs, new energy efficient gizmos in general. If only we could all become convinced that we really do need to buy some new things for this absolutely essential reason, the whole ponzi scheme of capitalism would be able to slouch along for another 20 or 30 years... but THEN WHAT? Colonize Mars and start the whole thing over again.

The problem with this whole topic is that it seems to imply that China is different that other countries... in particular that the US government doesn't do basically the same thing by different methods. The most egregious example is of course the bank bailout, where the US government gave US banks trillions of dollars to cover the losses they incurred in the course of their own freely chosen business activities. Another example would be how the US government continues to buy billions of dollars of airplanes from US companies (Boeing in particular) mostly as a way of keeping people employed and not because there is any real need. So, I would say that any reasonably objective person would say the US government still steers business too.

I work for a small company. A couple of years ago we had a guy in his late forties writing code for us. He was fired and they hired two guys in their 20's for less than he was getting paid. I doubt the quality of their work is as high. If you can live on the wages of a 25 year old, then go for it, but it's unlikely. The world is just crammed to the hilt with people who can code.

Good grief I was just joking in my original post above. Actually, the best way for the government to turn the internet into a revenue stream is to create a legal framework that makes EVERYONE a lawbreaker and then ticket or fine for infractions. It's the exact same thing with Speed Limits. You would think that the cost of gas and the fear of death would make everyone drive 55 MPH in america but in fact the government all but made every driver into a speeder so that they could capture the revenue from speeding tickets. Its a well they return to whenever they want to generate cash for themselves (i.e. the government). The internet too could be such a well but for it to succeed, the infractions have to be defined in such a way that everyone is guilty and the punishment is so minor that all it amounts to is paying a fine. And also it will only work if the government can watch everything that is passing through the intertubes, just like they do with watching traffic on highways.

I have the ATT code scanner on my phone. When you scan a code a dialogue box pops up and says "Do you want to visit...?" and it gives the actual URL. This article is like saying "malicious URLs can be hidden behind seemingly valid URLs by means of redirects so therefore you should be concerned about clicking on links on the internet."

Law Enforcement usually wins in these sorts of cases because if you are not a criminal, then you have nothing to be concerned about.

In that case, I don't think it really makes sense to let children play Angry Birds on battery with your critical safety device. The problem seems to be that people expect a critical safety device to be useful as a toy, phone, computer, car battery and who knows what else.... which is of course rather a lot to ask from a retail device that you are literally risking your life on hoping it functions correctly in critical situations.

I live in Chicago and the going rate for a movie is $12 per ticket... I wouldn't mind paying $12 but the last 10 movies I have seen in theaters have just been awful. Horrible Bosses, Killer Elite, The Spirit... etc etc... every time I see an ad on tv for a movie I think "Geez, that looks good" and then when I go see the movie I realize that the only good scenes were actually in the commercial already and the movie itself is just filler. Movies have become a combination of a Ponzi Scheme and a classic Bait and Switch. The Ponzi Scheme is based on the financing of movies: they raise tens of millions of dollars to produce a movie but the whole enterprise depends on building buzz to get more and more people to buy in and then ultimately nobody but the people at the top get profit. The Bait and Switch: all the movie company needs to do is make a product just barely enough like the film being advertised that people won't scream "This movie is NOTHING like the ads I saw for it" but then at the same time the movie company spends just the absolute minimum on actually making the product being advertised so that it really isn't what you thought you bought a ticket to see at all. In short, the reason I rarely go see movies at the theater anymore is that everytime I give it a try I just end up feeling like I got raped then mugged... and then there is always the actual possibility of getting raped and mugged because the other people at movie theaters in Chicago tend to be Neanderthals who show up ten minutes late, yell at the screen, and generally behave like they are in the stadium at a Bears game. Not worth $12 at ALL. I have a 52 inch tv at home and a nice couch so the DVD experience is pretty sweet by comparison..

Yes, but then the issue is that the device is only for people who need more than three hours at full operating capacity without access to any kind of powersource... and in reality that is not necessarily very many people... especially if you consider that a $100 device can compete with a $600 iPad for most people's needs. My laptop only gets about 4 hours on battery with dimmed screen and wifi and blue tooth off and I have never really found that to be a major limitation of its portability or usefulness.