Physics - awesome!
Chemistry - awesome
Biology - awesome

But I think he's wrong on some many issues. From the summary:

... he imagined laser-scanning every object in the Smithsonian for students to explore ...

Why? That's like looking at a single car from one country and claiming an "education". Think REALITY. The students could see HOW the objects were created. What tools were used. Who crafted the item. What the society was like that required it.

... and collaborating in shared virtual spaces rather than campuses.

They're called "chat rooms". Wanna "cyber"? Porn is NOT the same as education.

Looking at other students would be a distraction.

The next step past that is when you have shared space, and not only do you believe that this object is right there in front of me, but I look around and I see other people just like we see each other now, and I really, truly believe that youâ(TM)re right in front of me.

Why does it matter that you see avatars looking at the same point that you are looking at?

And he keeps going on about that. For him it is all about "seeing" other "people" (really just avatars) so it can be the same "experience" as real life.

That's stupid. They are not people. They are avatars. And knowing how people are, their avatars would be designed to be as distracting as possible.

The problem isn't how do we make people safer drivers.

The problem is how do we make people NOT the drivers. Then we don't have to worry about whether they are texting.

Part of kickstarter should be that you've already taken a substantive risk on your own. Making a game demo with, for example, limited level/playtime is a good mark that you are capable of producing the rest.

Since there is no recourse once the funding takes place for funders, this doesn't seem unreasonable.

Get rid of your dictator and adopt a representative democracy and it will be over. Indeed, nobody could have thought it would go on this long.

FWIW, I agree that it may not entirely be "real-world accurate". It does pre-suppose that whomever is attempting to crack your password already knows something about the structure of your password (such as it being a dictionary word followed by a repeating sequence, as in the original "Ten!!!!!!!!!!!" example). However, if we take this at face value, it does give us a better worst-case scenario for password strength than those which simply presume a brute-force approach.

That is, given someone looking over your shoulder (but without sufficient accuracy to see exactly what you're typing), and then applying computational tools, how quickly could your password be cracked? That's certainly an interesting question to have the answer to, and if your password is resistant to a known-pattern based cracking approach, it's certainly going to kill any attempts to purely brute-force it.

Yaz

Why anyone cares what this guy has to say boggles my mind. He may have had a hand in some good games decades ago, but what have you done for me lately?

Oh yeah, you took a steaming turd on my computer. Thanks.

In other news, North Korea is the best Korea.

They want to regulate Canadian media consumption -- the same way they've been doing for decades.

Seems like a big non-story.

doesn't mean you should.

Thinking that any Linux distro, just because it could be run in both environments, should be developed to be suitable for both seems wrong.

Why not just pick a desktop-oriented existing distro for your desktop and a server-focused one for your production environment?

And if you need to develop on your server environment, then this doesn't really matter to you, since you have to pick what's best for your production environment regardless of your desktop.

Nit-pick here, but using GPL code doesn't require you to issue source, even if you've made modifications. It's not until you distribute said modified code that you need to release source (and even then, you only technically have to provide source to those you've distributed binaries to, and not just anyone who happens to request it).

Thus if I take some GPL code, modify it, and use it in an internal process that isn't shared with anyone, there is no requirements for me to make sources available. But as soon as I share the artifacts with anyone else, they have the right to my source modifications, and all those rights entail.

How that relates to this case, I have no idea.

Yaz

A word doesn't automatically take its worst possible meaning.

Here is the quote from TFA. It provides the context.

Machines, meanwhile, remain slaves with uncertain masters.

No. That is not referring to an IDE drive.

Or, more completely:

Humans have rights, under which they retain some measure of dominion over their bodies. Machines, meanwhile, remain slaves with uncertain masters. Our laws may, directly and indirectly, protect peopleâ(TM)s right to use certain machines - freedom of the press, the right to keep and bear arms. But our laws do not recognize the rights of machines themselves.

So no. They are not talking about an IDE "master/slave" situation. They are talking about humans using machines (with examples provided) and equating that to "slavery".