Secondly, the companies pushing for more visas are NOT doing it because they're looking for the best and the brightest from around the world. They're doing it to drive the price of programming down.

Thank you, I agree.

OK now to muddy the waters with my ignorant thought. Seems to me this isn't the whole story. Since their goal is to spend less money on programmers, the increased tax money from immigrants would be offset by less money moving from the company to the economy. Score one for hiring domestic workers. On the other hand, educated immigrants (also bearing educated children) might improve the economy as a whole, since their presence lowers the cost of doing business while adding new entrepreneurs. This increases the likelihood of companies headquartering in the U.S. rather than somewhere else which, in turn, creates more tax revenue. Score one for immigration.

I really have no clue where this all leads, but at the very least I do agree that we should get companies' intentions straight: They want cheaper workers and they do not value their excellence as much as they say they do.

Right, but those techniques rely on extremely vague understandings. Imagine if we were known so well that even if we saw it coming we were powerless to object. In fact we'd welcome it, no matter how horrible it might be.

This makes the sci-fi part of my brain tingle, imagining a scenario where our understanding of the brain becomes so good that behavioral manipulation reaches extraordinary heights. High-precision brainwashing on a grand scale. Who would remain immune to play the role of puppeteer?

I appreciate how he shares technical details with us even though it probably doesn't benefit him personally at all.

In summary: I don't necessarily think it is offensive to say that bugs are coded by developers, because they are. However, it is offensive to say that they are responsible for the bugs without taking into account the broader context in which they are working (and indeed, saying they are responsible for the bugs still doesn't necessarily mean that they are in some way wrong or deficient for entering a bug. People - even brilliant people - can and do make mistakes, and that is why review processes do (or should) exist.

Yes, that's a good way to put it. I wonder if they considered attaching biometric probes to managers to find out when they are most likely to come up with stupid ideas? :)

The core implication here is that developers are the source of mistakes, and those mistakes must be minimized. Never mind that developers are also a source of productivity and innovation, and that dehumanizing them decreases both.

MS is apparently buying into the whole "every other release is good" thing too. They sure seem to be in a hurry to iterate the version number.

You can also just put an NFC sticker in your wallet. Works pretty well. Admittedly, it's often more natural just to swipe in my pattern. And if you keep your phone and wallet in the same pocket you'll be prone to butt dialing.

You hit the nail on the head, but you missed a few things. On most dedicated Blu-ray players the load times are hideous, as are the menu response times. And that's on top of all the unskippable preview nonsense. And there's seemingly no standard way to control playback features, so you're at the whims of whatever overblown, backwards menu system the producer came up with. It's the same problems DVDs had, amplified. And finally, if you so much as fart in the general direction of a Blu-ray disc it will develop a skip. That can't be good for collectors.

One of the few handy features Blu-ray brings to the table is the ability to resume playback, which only seems to work on occasion.

Eliminating the profession doesn't make the problem go away. It just hands the work off to a different set of people who are no less likely to screw it up. How about we be honest and admit that, like any other skill set out there, there are good designers and bad designers?

I wonder now if we aren't gradually trading one bad situation for another. With each service getting more and more exclusive content, I hope we don't end up needing ten different $15 subscriptions just to see the shows we want.

Don't get me wrong, it would still beat the pants off cable. You could always subscribe for a month, binge watch your show, then cancel until they release something else you're interested in.

Correct, the studios can't stop DVD rentals. But they can stop this "virtual DVD" proposition brought up in the article. Why would the studios allow something that makes DVD rentals cheaper and more convenient, when their true desire is for them to DIE DIE DIE? The only possible way to make it happen would be if the cost savings went directly to the studios. But even then, it's supporting a model (rental) that they fundamentally dislike.

I don't even wear a dumb watch, so this is probably not for me, but...

• - It could display incoming text messages
• - It could allow you to mute your phone without taking it out, unlocking it, etc. (handy for meetings)
• - It could allow quick access to Google Now voice commands
• - It's probably great for GPS navigation while on foot or on a bike
• - It could play/pause/skip music tracks
• - It could initiate speakerphone and/or Bluetooth calls

These are all just assumptions. I have no idea what features this thing really has. All would be pretty handy though.

There is a lot more room than most people think, but technology can't stop math. If people stop dying, you run out of room, unless you prevent births. And technology could also drastically increase the birth rate, making things worse. Granted we are talking about a problem that is eons away, but once we get around to eliminating death we better be well on our way to populating other planets.

Funny story... your comment is INVISIBLE on Slashdot beta. At least, I can't find it, and I'm staring at this very sub-thread in a separate tab.