Agreed, I meant that Keurig 2.0 had few advantages over Keurig 1.0.

Personally I like drip coffee, but when I wake up at 7 in the morning I appreciate being able to just press a button and getting a decent (if not great) cup.

It's very well understood that DVDs can't be copied. This is considered reasonable. While the restriction on coffee grounds considered unreasonable.

But I'd propose an alternative: Keurig 2.0 is going nowhere mostly because the only real advantage it has is the ability to brew pots of coffee. A lot of people simply aren't interested in doing that, much less willing to pay more/give up more countertop space for the privilege.

It's kind of nice being able to make a pot of coffee. If you have a dinner party and want to make coffee for everybody afterwards, somebody has to stand around the Keurig machine pressing buttons for ten minutes, handing out cups of coffee one-by-one.

While conceptually I don't like the idea of DRM'd coffee, realistically anything you buy is licensed, and using "my KCup" brews coffee that's so ridiculously weak. By the time you're grinding your own beans, just use a gold-filter pour-over.

They amortize r and d on a product they haven't released yet, and of course they don't amortize profit. You know just enough to be even more wrong.

They're a small, growing company hoping to release an entirely new manufactured line in just a couple years. It would be bizarre if they were making money on a quarterly basis under these circumstances. I imagine if they were content being nothing but a niche player, they could be turning a profit.

Have you paid attention to a computer stock, ever? They are anything buy short-term obsessed. The short term doesn't even exist for them. Everybody from a startup to Uber to Amazon can lose money quarter after quarter, and have no real intention of making short term profits. Yet the companies continue to do business, and are valued highly, purely because of long-term prospects.

I love story after story about how old, male, native-US-born computer programmers are entitled to their engineering jobs.

Seriously. And none of them would even date a socially awkward Computer Science student. Vapid cunts. Well, they're all fat and ugly now, while I post on Slashdot and have a sweet Fedora collection.

real work on real computers and we don't want to have to suffer through an over simplified touch-screen/mobile user interface because it gets in the way of us getting real work done. The best course going forward is for the OS developers to understand that and leave us with a choice of UI so that different people can use different systems for different things the way we want to use them.

An Apple A8 is more than powerful enough for the big important work you do. And Windows 10 or Ubuntu would alter the interface depending on whether your using it as a PC or as a phone (as was mentioned in both the article and in the reply you quoted).

Do you really use them for wildly different tasks? Surely you browse the web and check your e-mail on each. Surely there's files you have on each.

I think the ideal would be a phone that had a single program with multiple modes. When (say) Word was in phone mode, Word mostly let you browse files and make simple edits. When a monitor was attached, you got the full version of Word.

And I'm guessing the current generation of mobile phone processors are already powerful enough for the desktop for most people, unless they game or do heavy graphic/video processing.

The device has not been proven to work. The amount of thrust was minimal, equivalent to the weight of a grain of sand. The same amount of thrust was detected, even when the experiment was configured to do nothing at all.

If this works, it would have amazing implications for humanity. I hope it does, and I'm sure they'll continue doing research. But it certainly hasn't been proven to work, and I would say it's overwhelmingly unlikely. OK I'm just some random guy on Slashdot, but Elon Musk (among many others) have also expressed their doubts.

I read both his articles, and they're actually about "which development environment for disabled users is more open-source friendly." What the fuck? Obviously, Linux is going to be, so what? And there isn't a single word about which is actually better for disabled people to use, so provide great advantages over proprietary alternatives for people with disabilities is an inaccurate way to summarize the article. Instead, it's some guy blindly pursuing some nerdy "open source is the best!" dialogue like it was 2003.

Well it's not like this is all a recent development. The Bay Area has been more expensive than Texas for about 150 years now, and yet SV is the big time, while Austin is a regional hub. "Land is cheaper! Employees will settle for less money!" is true pretty much everywhere except for NYC, and yet I don't see many companies moving to flyover country.

And of course, if a number of large employers all suddenly congregated in Austin, of course land prices would go up, salaries go up, etc...this doesn't all happen in a vacuum.

"Stealing is taking things from other people."

"Popular dictionaries and encyclopedias say that intellectual property theft is also stealing."

"Well, yes, but that's not a *true* Scotsman."

Well I grew up rich, and I think people have a social responsibility to each other.

Is my story any more relevant than yours? Did growing up poor provide you with special insights?

I mean aside from how to cook Kraft dinner.