I'm really surprised Tin Man wasn't listed. For me it's always stuck in my mind as the worst. It was an interesting idea completely marred by that insufferable, whiny ass Tam Elbrun.

I don't understand why people see every new bit of technology like it's some magical panacea, ready for mass consumption the instant they learn of its existence.

You wouldn't try to print 100,000 books on an ink jet printer. While you might do mockups on that ink jet, you'd have the actual run output on a printing press. 3D printing is the same exact thing. Great for prototyping, but too slow, inefficient and expensive for mass production. That may change some day, but currently were a ways away from that being feasible.

Why in the hell would they ever build their own OLED factory? This is far from being a trivial enterprise, and is something that even established companies don't generally engage in. There are numerous display manufacturers already out there, so there's no need whatsoever to be reliant on Samsung. Sharp and AU Optronics are two of the biggest players that immediately come to mind.

If we're talking about competition and being able to scale the company I don't see how Facebook benefits Oculus VR. Facebook has no experience with hardware so they can't help there. I saw mention of Facebook having a longer term vision than investors. If that's the case then they're seeking out the wrong people. From everything I've ever seen, the right kind of investors are much more likely to see the product through to fruition. Facebook has many more people to answer too and the way Zuckerberg has been throwing away money I expect people are going to start demanding some accountability. And when push comes to shove, Oculus VR is a small aspect of Facebook's business. Had they gone with individual investors there would be more ownership in the enterprise.

It's hard to figure out what Facebook is trying to do. Every one of their other acquisitions has revolved around their core business. The desire to diversify is more evident at Google than it is here. So the acquisition of Oculus VR seems to be borne out of some desire to somehow integrate it with existing platforms. I wonder if this isn't some kind of response to Google Glass. Any way I slice it, I think Facebook is looking to expand their own platform. This is not to Oculus VR's advantage.

I'm in a similar boat to you but I still support spending money on the space program over a lot of the other garbage on which our government spends money.

News reporting, whatever little there is left with all the talking head crap, has adopted the software development model. Post a story in "beta" so that you can beat everyone else to the punch; although, sometimes the errors are so blatant it's probably more akin to an alpha release. By the time the appropriate fixes come along the damage is done and everyone has moved on.

There's no accountability whatsoever. But what do you expect in a culture driven by celebrity and craving the next sensationalistic fix like a drug addict?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make as Keynote is basically just Apple's version of PowerPoint. They both do the same exact thing. Misuse is not PowerPoint's fault. Just like it isn't Keynote fostering the creation of better-looking presentations. That's generally the result of designers typically being Apple devotees and as gravitating towards all things Apple. Of course, they're going to have a much better eye for what constitutes a good presentation. That said, I've seen some bad Keynote presentations. Actually, the best presentations I've seen were created using online services. But again, that's thanks to designers being heavily involved and in some cases those being promotional pieces.

It almost always comes down to how the tool is used, not the tool itself.

Having sat through far too many PowerPoint meetings, I've found that the problem isn't PowerPoint itself, but that most people have a compulsion to cram far too much information onto each slide. It basically gets turned into a teleprompt. So what ends up happening is that by the time the presenter done regurgitating what's on the screen everyone's already read through it all.

PowerPoint is best used to convey overarching themes and talking points. It frames what the presenter is going to say and helps emphasize critical points. This PowerPoint ban essentially produces the same net result, but what people really need is to learn how to use the application.

Who's the other major software vendor? Microsoft? They spell out their support policies quite clearly. Everyone knew well in advance when Microsoft was ending support for XP, an OS that's been supported far, far longer than anything from Apple. My Intel iMac at home is stuck at OSX 10.6.8. It was built several months too soon and lacked some random bit of hardware related to the BIOS which disqualified it from being a proper 64-bit machine. By the time Apple announced it was dropping support for that version I hadn't seen updates in about a year anyway.

Instead of just criticizing Apple for what they do wrong, there seems to be this compulsion to make everything relative so that Apple doesn't look so bad. I'd argue that in this particular case Microsoft is a lot better than Apple. Apple seems content to sweep things under the rug as long as they can get away with it.

People turn quite irrational at the prospect of being photographed or filmed. I've run into problems overseas, but I almost think it's worse in the US. People seem to take issue with the mere presence of a camera. If you're shooting buildings that are not established landmarks you get odd looks. And I got approached once because I was taking photos of car taillights for a project. They were still suspicious after showing them my shots. The only time you're really not going to have a problem is when you're with friends and your camera is clearly pointed at them.

Google Glass, however, takes this perceived threat to a whole other level because you've got a camera stuck to your head and in the minds of the ignorant you're recording everything you see.

Of course, we don't really know the nature of the incident; if this woman was antagonistic herself, if the other party were resentful of someone flaunting wealth, if theft was the motive, or if they really were just plain stupid. Either way, bars and such tend to attract imbeciles which is why I would never wear something like Google Glass out at night. At least not until the technology became ubiquitous and accepted.

The fundamental reason why humans have developed currency is because no other system is equipped to properly cope with the complexities of goods and services. Bartering already was not feasible thousands of years ago on a large scale, and it's even less realistic a model today.

Let's say you want to buy a car. How do you barter for that? Drive up with a truck load of corn? Or do you take a job at Ford and build your own car? Are you also going to stamp your own steel, mix your own paint, manufacturer your own fastners? What about all the electronics going into that car?

Perhaps someday we'll have some incredible utopia were everyone selflessly works for free and robots do most work for us. But until that day comes we need money.

I'd argue Bitcoin could be as legitimate a currency as anything else, but the problem is that it's pegged to nothing. It's value is entirely defined by being a get-rich-quick scheme. Sure, there are plenty of people playing similar games with legitimate currencies, but they're not the ones defining its value because those currencies are still tied to more tangible things.

First of all, if you think broadband is slow in the US, you clearly haven't traveled overseas. The numbers might look good on paper, but in the experience of myself and others the reality rarely reflects what the numbers promise.

Secondly, the arrangement telcos enjoy overseas is usually even more monopolistic than it is in the US. Usually, there's a single provider who does everything and often that company is partially owned by the government. Mind you, they're still for profit enterprises, their involvement with the government generally involves subsidies and infrastructure investment. The multiple providers you see are really nothing more than resellers. Service overseas isn't necessarily cheaper either, but when it is, that's thanks to those subsidies meaning that what you're saving on your monthly bill comes out of what you pay in taxes.

I'm not saying things are better in the US, but merely pointing out that the grass isn't as green overseas as these articles always imply.

The perception has little to do with anything Microsoft actually did and everything to do with branding. To one extent or another all the major players in the tech industry have engaged in similar kinds of questionable activities. But Microsoft got associated with boring office drones and Apple, and to a lesser extent Google, are perceived as representing a hip counter culture. That makes the brand a lot more desirable, allowing consumers to be forgiving of shortcomings.

What surprises me is how Apple has been able to hold on to it's reputation this long. But people continue associating product design with innovation. So despite the fact that both Microsoft and Google do more real innovation, Apple is the one that continues to be perceived as the big innovator.

Increasingly, I find people grasping at straws to justify their dislike of Microsoft. There's nothing wrong with having your own preference but it gets to a point where it feels like you're discussing religion or politics.

Because the short work week in France and long siesta in Spain is doing wonders for their respective economies. Furthermore, the majority of Americans don't work as hard as everyone seems to believe. You don't know what being overworked is until you've been anywhere in Asia; they just don't complain about it like Americans do.

The fundamental difference between our world and Star Trek's is that everyone there is shown to be self-motivating and productive.

I can easily see a scenario where progress and culture stagnate because everyone's needs are provided for. I think all that would happen is the majority spends their life engaged in hedonistic pursuits and doesn't contribute much of anything to society. If you ask me, it sounds a lot like Hollywood and trust fund kids. The problem is that the majority will probably end up bored and restless. And they'll still find ways to stratify society.

I don't think humans have hit that critical cultural shift that could enable a Star Trek-like society.

Foxconn is Taiwanese, not Chinese. That's an essential distinction because neither the Taiwanese government nor their businessmen have any allegiance to the People's Republic of China. The fact that they've torn down a lot of barriers to travel and business is primarily due to opportunities for profit.

Taiwan still has a strong manufacturing base and like most other countries shifting manufacturing to China because it was cheaper. The fundamental driver, was cheap labor and overall lower cost of doing business. However, in many cases they retained the expertise for themselves, generally sending Taiwanese over to China to run the factories. This is in contrast to Americans who essentially outsource everything and then leave quality control and factory management in the hands of the locals.

This makes it much easier for Taiwanese to pull out and move their manufacturing elsewhere. They aren't stuck with this knowledge base in China they've invested in. Moving a factory isn't a big deal if there's a good case for it. It's relatively easy to train locals to work at your factory. However, engineers and managers with intimate knowledge of the process and all its nuances is much harder to replace.

The end result is that in the long run China is screwed. Unlike the Japanese, Koreans and Taiwanese, they're still a ways away from establishing their own technological base that enables them to not be reliant on manufacturing. The Taiwanese have had a harder time establishing their own brands, but they've practically cornered the market in high end manufacturing. Their companies are less likely to suffer a conflict of interest, unlike Samsung, and the stuff they make has a high degree of quality.