I disagreed about apple being jewelry alone. Microsoft made products that people grumblingly put up with - so they could get the job done and be more productive.

Apple made products that people finally liked to use, and could use it easily enough, and fairly intuitively. When you create a great user experience like this, especially with a very low learning curve, people will adopt and use it in extraordinary ways. Once they feel good about using your products, they will feel special, like it was their private special thing. They will then become your biggest marketing team.

If anything, the industrial design aspect of Apple's products and even high price were side effects. The first was a nice to have, the second not so nice to have. But it didn't change a damn thing. It was always about the core user experience.. And how even most of the third party apps gave you the same sense of familiarity and consistency.

In a cynical way, this is like marketing a drug. You give the first few doses for free and make people realize how easy it is to use the drug and how shiny their world becomes when they use it regularly. Then step back and enjoy the fun. Apple gave people a tiny little pill yto swallow and even gave them little travel packs. Microsoft made people goto the doctor and get the drug injected up their backsides.

"8GB was something acceptable back in 2008... but a laptop should be at 16, if not 32 gigs of RAM."

On what basis are you saying that? What are these deal-breaker applications that will need 32 or 16 gigs of RAM? Mind you, this post is about an ultra portable 13" laptop - I would assume that no one in their right mind would want to use this as a full blown workstation. I would imagine most users would use a laptop like this for standard stuff like browsing, Office apps, for presentations, etc.

Maybe a few would run Photoshop or Visual Studio or Eclipse. Is 8GB not enough for Photoshop or Eclipse anymore?? And I do feel that with HD 5500, 8GB RAM, and a speedy SSD, Photoshop would run just fine.

And back in 2008, Windows XP 64 bit had barely come out and almost no one was using 64 bit apps. From what I remember, almost everyone had between 2GB - 4GB RAM in standard laptop builds. Much less 8GB.

I'm honestly scratching my head to try and imagine why 32 GB or 16GB would be considered bare minimum for an ultraportable laptop.

Especially while listening to urea heap.

That is great service support indeed. And I can see why you wouldn't let go of this model.

P.S. I wasn't aware of black macbooks (but I have never owned a mac) - and saw an opportunity to sneak in some stinkpad love.

On a side note, check out the new XPS 13. Those near zero bezels look mighty nice.

http://www.dell.com/us/p/xps-1...

Like the Sharp Aquos phone that is near bezel-less.

http://www.sharpusa.com/ForHom...

(Sorry for the OT - got carried away a bit)

"vintage Black MacBook" - Sorry, I am not a Mac person - what's a black Macbook? Or wait a minute... Did you stick an Apple logo on a Thinkpad? :-D

Perhaps what is "sensible" or not depends on usage patterns. It could very well be that Asians want a bigger phone because they use their device more and hence want something closer to a tablet. During train and public transit. As opposed to Americans who are mostly driving to work and are thus not using their phone as much every day.

+1

*That* is the real reason to have music in Flac. Please put aside the endless music format and abx testing debate where no one is going anywhere anytime soon (and throw Hi Res into the picture).

Buy if you want to buy a song or store it, you would obviously want a lossless format, and flac would be the obvious choice. You can always covert flac into a lossy compressed format and based on your storage constraint (in say your portable media device or phone), figure out how much audio quality you want to lose. But you cannot do it the other way around.

And if you dig deeper into the code and get down to the electrical level, you start hearing the sound of the universe.

Ohmmmm.

FYI, there is a lot of research being done in trying to make perennial versions of many of the grains and vegetables we currently eat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

You make a good point. But I wonder if the food we grow are always based on scientifically optimal choices or often based on other factors. Like one crop being grown more widely because it commands a higher price. Or changing food habits and inordinate preference to certain grains and veggies.

The other thing to consider is access to information and access to grains. Are we growing or not growing (a crop like muringa) because of an informed decision, or because most of the world is not even aware of these options?

Other things to consider are that plants like muringa will grow in most places where you wouldn't dream of growing spinach. This is not just a third world problem. Even in most developed countries, good access to irrigation and "the right climate" are often deal breakers.

Finally, I find the tree (perennials that live for many years) vs plant (that typically die on every harvest) debate - an interesting one. It is something I feel that we need to focus on more deeply. Is it really an optimal choice to grow a plant from scratch every year? Could a tree or a perennial shrub provide better long term nutritional returns? Isn't a mature tree far hardier and less susceptible to crop loss?

Mind you, I am not saying you are wrong. All I am saying is that we definitely need more awareness about more such options, better access to seeds and how to grow them in different climatic and soil conditions. And more informed debates. And we really need to discuss this far more than Kim Kardashian's buttocks.

As an interested lay person, I'm thrilled to hear about this initiative. Not to sound ungrateful, but I would really really wish and hope that
- This initiative will always retain the bazaar mindset, and not get bogged down by bureaucracy
- This initiative will spread into the continents where this is needed the most - Asia and Africa.
- The options for seeds grows beyond vegetables and into grains and other basic nutrition foods. Ref: http://www.opensourceseediniti...
- They use this platform to spread awareness and accessibility to some of the really hardy native crops in various parts of the world that are dying out. Many of these are naturally drought and pest resistant, grow very easily, and in some cases, have much better nutritional value than many of the foods that are today more fashionable.

The moringa plant, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

To compare (an example):
100 grams of moringa leaves has 9.3 g protein, 434 mg calcium, 738 g vitamin A, and 164 mg vitamin C
100 grams of spinach leaves has 2.9 g protein, 99 mg calcium, 469 g vitamin A, and 28 mg vitamin C

And this tree grows even in a desert. But I don't want to goo offtopic. This was just an example.

My only hope is that a platform like this - can and should - make knowledge and seeds accessible to all. We can literally solve world hunger and world health by doing this.

Got it. Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were trying to make. And you are correct, of course.

Software development, like (i guess) medicine, law, finance, etc., values expertise, skills, experience, and deep analytical ability. More so than many others where analytical ability is less valued. Besides, this leadership skills, client management skills, and project management skills are also valued, but they are equally valued in other industries as well.

That is, IMHO, we see the pattern we see. Highly skilled software developers, like highly skilled financial analysts/traders - transcend traditional salary and "perceived value" bands, and can often make far more money than even very senior counterparts in their company. However, conversely, other counterparts - i.e. software development managers with well rounded analytical and managerial skills are also very well regarded and paid accordingly.

There really is no reason why one has to feel snarky about either of these options. One can feel snobbish about individual skills (and being a non-manager), just as one can feel snooty about being high up in the corporate chain. And both positions are boorish, IMHO. Pride about individual skills is fine, and good, but do remember, there are very highly skilled craftsmen and blue collared workers and armed forces personnel by the thousands who get paid diddly squat compared to what software and financial guys get paid. We just got lucky and are enjoying the ride in the gravy train - and all because of the completely messed up way in which the market works (and assigns relative value to skills).

The reason why this thread (along with all other threads) will be 90% focused on Malala is because - bluntly put - Malala is a lot more news-worthy than Kailash Satyarthi. On one hand, you have a young fragile good looking girl who is standing up against evil tyranny. On the other hand, you have a decidedly unsexy oldish guy who has been chugging along on his fight against child labor (which really is a fight against bonded or slave labor) for the past 3 decades.

It is a different matter that Kailash has been able to create an organization with over 80000 members and his efforts over the last couple of decades have directly resulted in hundreds of thousands of children from getting freed from the cycle of bonded labor. It is also a different matter that he was being considered for the Nobel peace prize for a decade now. But of course, there are many many people who are just putting their head down and doing their bit to improve the world. So why him, right? He didn't even have a meaningful twitter following until this news just broke. Heck, even people in his country hardly knew about him, except in the NGO (India's term for not-for-profit organizations) circles. But that is modern media for you. And by extension, our modern attention spans.

Just to be perfectly clear, I am not begrudging Malala anything. Her courage and ambition and ability to leverage the publicity she has been getting - has been extraordinary. But to both Malala and Kailash - this award is a game changer for them - in terms of publicity and monetary support. In a very real way, the Nobel Peace prize has not just become an acknowledgment of effort but a very powerful tool to further boost their efforts.

I, for one, am really happy that the award went to these two, instead of presidents and famous politicians who really didn't need the award, except as a pat in the back.

And exactly how is that any different from getting help or advice from friends, support groups, or discussion forums? I know a couple of people who are already doing this. One crucial point the article summary does not mention - people are searching for advice from facebook discussion forums focused on their medical ailment.

As such, facebook is trying to encourage discussion forums - especially since they are realizing that many people are already using their site as a discussion forum.