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.

Net neutrality as it's described here seems like a good thing. Net neutrality as the government would implement it is not necessarily a good thing. From day one I've found the whole thing to be murky and have trouble understanding why it's inherently a good thing. The impression I get is that one group of corporations profits from it going one way and another group profits from it going the other way. If we operate from the assumption that they're all looking out for their own bests interests, then the people are screwed either way.

The ridiculous thing I'm seeing here on Slashdot is the persistent claim that ISPs are exclusively in the pockets of Republicans. They're equally strong supporters of Democrats. Late last year a Comcast executive held a fundraiser for Obama, which he attended and gave a speech at. Doesn't seem like Comcast is a company afraid they won't get their way. And typically contributions fluctuate between whichever party is in power. Only the ignorant masses, who also feel betrayed when an athlete leaves their favorite team, remain fiercely and irrationally loyal. It's fascinating how effective propaganda in America actually is.

In my experience when a company says they want someone "passionate" what they mean is that they want someone willing to work overtime on a regular basis. Secondarily, they want someone who doesn't question overtly stupid decisions.

Just do what you're told and be enthusiastic that you have a job.

Outside of the prizes in science most of the awards have always seemed to be based around reinforcing the ideology of the Nobel committee. The prizes for Obama and Arafat, however, were especially ridiculous because they were founded in wishful thinking, the thought that somehow the Nobel Prize would spur something positive.

Without question, Snowden is more deserving of the prize than they were, even if this is little more than a political statement. However, we've yet to feel the full implications of his leaks and don't really know what the end result will be. I don't think nearly enough time has elapsed for a proper assessment to be made.

Not that it matters much given that the Nobel Prize seems to be slipping into irrelevancy.

The PCjr was my first computer growing up. If it had a shortcoming it was only the existence of the PC. But before EGA came along it was the only way in the PC world, to enjoy 16 color graphics. Also, with a 3-channel speak it offered a better audio experience than you got out of the IBM PC's speaker. Ours came with two keyboards, the chiclet keyboard everyone complained about and a replacement with conventional keys. As a kid, I preferred the look of the chiclet keyboard, but the keys had too much travel for the way they were shaped. The fact that they were infrared was great, as long as you didn't have a book in the way of the sensor. Or someone didn't come in with a second keyboard and screw with you.

For all the fondness people display towards Apple, by comparison their machines at the time were crap. My school had Apple 2's which weren't good for a whole lot, especially the ones saddled with 2-color displays. We did have a single weird Apple clone that rendered more color. The Macintosh wasn't a consideration given it was so expensive. We got our PCjr for about $1000. The PC was maybe another $500 on top of that. But the Macintosh was easily $2500 and about all it had going for it was the GUI.

Early on my father got an attachment offered by a company called Legacy that doubled the size of the machine but gave us an extra 520k and a second floppy drive. I don't remember now but I think we even got a 20MB harddrive for the machine. We definitely got quite a few good years of use out of that machine.

Although, I'd be lying if I didn't look longingly at Amigas with their fantastic 4096 color displays.

Guys at that level get out of jail by writing a letter to the government stating that they'll be good next time and that they really, really mean it.

Is it me or is the maker movement based around a bunch of hispters patting themselves on the back for doing stuff humans have been doing for eons? They'll spam everyone about a crappy iPhone holder but wouldn't be able to switch out a faulty light switch in their own apartment.

Outside of making 3D printers accessible I'm not sure how libraries could feasibly offer workshops. People don't only work in plastic, and presently 3D printing is a novelty for your average person.

Just because someone has a preference you don't agree with doesn't make them a shill.

Not to mention that you're just resorting to an ad hominem attack instead of arguing a legitimate counterpoint.