For me, still one. I never use a hub when away from my desk, and always use one when I'm at my desk. Think of it as a docking station and that's pretty much my usage pattern. If I can get a thinner or lighter laptop by throwing away the "extra" ports, I'd leap at the chance.

That's assuming you don't care about giving your users a good UI experience, because if you don't, your competitors just might. You can always financially justify cutting corners if you're not considering longer-term ramifications.

I'm not saying building native apps is the right decision for all apps, but it certainly is the right decision for *some*.

That is the oddest mortality unit I've heard in a long time.

All well and good, but doesn't exactly solve the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

Sure it does. (Not that one small pilot project solves the problem, I mean if the tech is scaled up.) It's carbon-neutral just like biofuels are, it does not add any net CO2 to the atmosphere: it only puts in what it took out to make the fuel in the first place. (I suppose your could even use it to remove CO2, to get us back to 350ppm via carbon sequestration -- make up a bunch of "blue crude" and then stick it underground, running an oil well in reverse.) The problem with greenhouse gas emissions is fossil carbon, which puts in carbon that was captured millions of years ago.

Those lectures with hundreds of students were, at least in my experience, often followed by much smaller workshops or labs with the instructor's graduate student assistants. That's typically when you got your questions answered in more detail. Also, at the collegiate level, I suppose instructors figure that students should need a bit less hand-holding at that point. It's not all that dissimilar to tech conferences at the professional level. You generally only get the high points and broad brush strokes at the lectures themselves. By and large, you need to do a heck of a lot of studying on your own to stay proficient with new technologies.

Perhaps these people are intent on trying improve their country rather than fleeing from it? Crazy, I know...

If you think about it, after a disaster, there's really nothing more important to family members than finding out if a loved one is okay or not as soon as possible. I think the point of this flag is just to obviously signal to everyone "I'm OK" with minimum fuss and bother, because for those in the danger zone, they very likely have other immediate pressing needs.

Your friends and family would already know which social network you hang out on, and how to contact you. Think about it - what better way is there to use the same social network where you already are regularly in contact with each other? A completely different system used *only* during emergencies? That makes zero sense.

Also, how do you figure real friends and family are somehow different from Facebook friends? You're suggesting that real-life friends and family don't use Facebook to keep in touch with each other? The data says otherwise.

Anyhow, the fact that people are actually using these features to good effect sort of proves their value. Sorry, I just don't see it as anything but a good thing for social networks to have this system in place.

You think the US is hostile to women in tech?

I hope they find the bastards who did this, but I'm not holding my breath. She seemed like a vibrant, engaging, and intelligent woman. Pakistan will need more people like her to continue the fight against their more regressive, barbaric elements. My condolences to her family and friends.

Apple's iProbe (EZ-insertion technology patent pending) and monitor kit will sold separately for the low price of $139.95. Look for a public announcement soon!

Honestly, my take is that this feature on Facebook / Google makes a lot of sense. How many people would think to first check the Red Cross website first (or specifically, the site you linked to, which I couldn't seem to find via the main site)? People are much more likely to *first* check Facebook to see if their family or friends have posted an update. These are social networks already in place, so why not use them for an important feature that's obviously "social" in nature?

The Red Cross feature is fantastic for people who aren't already hooked up with Google or Facebook. But honestly, who wants to do that when they can click a single button on their already-used social network of choice, versus the battery of personal data you have to enter at the Red Cross? Consider the Facebook or Google feature as a first-line system. If a person doesn't mark themselves safe, family members can then register them as a missing person on the Red Cross site.

I bought a 60" Vizio a couple of years ago because it was a decent looking TV at a great price. Now, having learned more about the company, I'm really glad I did. The TV looks fantastic and has worked consistently - no complaints in that department, and I love how they're standing firm against these patent trolls.

When it's eventually time to upgrade, I'll definitely look at their products again.

I think one solution I've seen that makes sense is being built on the coast of Oregon. A small city government building is being built on large reinforced concrete stilts, with parking underneath the building. There are external ramps up to the government offices on top. In the event of a tsunami, this structure is meant to hold a large portion of the town's residence as a temporary shelter.

This seems like a reasonable way to protect large numbers of people in vulnerable areas. You don't have to build them everywhere, just in enough key locations, and they can be useable as office space during normal situations. It's not going to save the town's buildings, but material goods can be rebuilt or repurchased.

I think it's a given that better warning systems are needed. We're actually extending our system in the Pacific after the latest tsunamis, and hopefully they emulate our Hawaii-based Pacific early warning center in the Indian ocean as well.

I actually saw a story a few years ago about the company that are designing these survival capsules, which, IMO, is a lot more interesting than someone pulling a stunt like this. We actually have a very tsunami-vulnerable coastline in many US states ourselves, of course, and it's difficult to know exactly how to protect people who don't have immediate access to higher ground. If the tsunami is generated by a subduction zone earthquake close to the coast, you may only have fifteen or twenty minutes warning before it hits. "Just get out of the path" is not always possible when the nearest high ground is miles away.

Unfortunately, the cost of these devices is so high ($12K to $20K each for the prototypes), and when compared to the likelihood of needing them versus the population density of the typical tsunami-prone coastline, it's unlikely that large populations would ever be completely protected by these things. It would be great if these could be mass produced cheaply, bringing the price down where they could be affordable. Unfortunately, for the Indian Ocean regions, you're talking about a population that, on average, doesn't exactly have a lot of discretionary income. Still, very few people have come forward with better solutions, aside from better early warning systems and public education (i.e. when the surf disappears, RUN!).

Japan is now talking about a seawall that will reportedly cost 7 billion dollars. For that price, they could afford to protect about 1.4 million people with these safety capsules, assuming the cost is around $5000 per person. Of course, the downside is that these capsules would do nothing to protect against massive property damage.

There's no such thing as 'water proof' -- everything is simply water resistant up to a certain level, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...