I heard this story on NPR on the way into work and it makes sense. You would need to license and register robotic cars differently so why not start now independant of whether or not Google's car works?

Quality control is fine but then why take weeks and cost so much to get a rejection due to bugs or low quality? When a game crashes I don't believe many blame Microsoft but instead point fingers at the ISV (example: Bethesda). Why do this? To strictly control and squeeze all the money they can from the supply chain where quality seems to not be secondary.

Instead this seems like "The Law of Unintended Consequences". In an effort to control the system Microsoft has put in place a barrier to entry, they've excluded an entire class of high quality software. Small games and games that thrive on frequent updates don't fit well into XBox Live which has been lamented by many but seems to be just as well since others can make software work on other platforms and pocket a lot more of the profits.

Is it because its "tried-and-true" or is it familiar? There are plenty of things weird and wrong with KDE and Windows work where people just got used to it unstead of understand it. That doesn't mean either system is bad but what is bad is the automatic rejection of one or the other.

The right way to do this is to offer both styles of desktop environments. There is value in being able to layout your desktop in a Windows like manner because they have been using Windows like environments for decades but this has no value for new users or new systems. Especially for Tablets, Phones, and TVs and other emerging platforms going with what Gnome offers makes more sense for usability.

The short answer is yes we can afford it but the current climate of unnecessary and dangerous austerity just to make small numbers even smaller is not going away any day soon. Those on the other side have to pick their fights and decided that for a number of reasons "Mars Exploration" isn't one they can back.

I never understood the desire to unify desktop and other things (XBox) on a phone let alone why is it valuable. There is value in creating apps that interface with other systems but one is overstating the value of a whole phone dedicated to interfacing this way when it turns out people would rather have other features (mobile location services, e-readers, etc).

Another way to think about not: Are people chomping at the bit who support Android and iPhone to get or sharing accessing to their home machines? These platforms aren't popular because of this nor do I see that changing in two years. If you can answer "Why do you think that is valuable?" then I can begin to see your stance otherwise I suspect that such features are "gee-whiz" but not necessary or the best use of the mobile phone platform.

I don't know if it is a good thing but it shouldn't be shocking that there are "party discipline" differences between the Dems and GOP. It just happens that this time it was pointed towards something popular to hate.

But there are bugs logged against Hyper-V and they haven't gotten satisfactory resolution. Since random programmers can't fix bugs or implement missing features then that falls under "broken" and should be removed if they want to move into a "candidate for release" state.

I agree. As a matter of UI, I never understood the appeal of the Windows centric layout:

- If "Start" button doesn't behave like a button.
- If "Start" is a menu, its position docked at the bottom-left is unusual because that usually contains settings for control but "Start" doesn't control anything about the desktop.
- As a menu "Start" is clumsy where navigation of more than two levels in another system that menu would be a target for redesign.
- If "Start" is a file explorer, then the interface is inconsistent (sometimes you click to navigate...or hover...or double click?).

And so on. Doing the "Explain It To Grand Mother" test usually exposes all of the weirdness about Windows. It always seemed to me people figured out how to work with the Windows desktop in spite of itself. I'm all for Ubuntu going in another direction: Don't make it like Windows or MacOS but learn from all of them and come up with something different. Even saying that, this different thing maybe a problem or a failure so Ubuntu should also include a fall back desktop that contains the most basic UI layout.

I'm not sure what the "danger" here happens to be. If the HDTV hardware has enough hardware and capibility it can be updated multiple times instead of expecting to throw out the TV to get the latest version. Or at the very least, it is not clear why it is better to throw out multiple little boxes when the same change in technology forces it.

In my living room is a "traditional" Dumb TV with 4 boxes connected too it (ignoring the receiver). In my "office" I have a Google TV which has no other boxes connected to it. I don't think I could or would swap the two around: There isn't enough space in the office for the Dumb TV and all of the additional boxes while there are some things the Smart TV doesn't do like play DVD and Blu-ray.

I think the market can handle both Smart and Dumb TVs. But just like Smart Phones no one should believe they are saving money by choosing one.

As I in a previous comment (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2612736&cid=38652618), the reason why its in the TV is so you don't have to connect a bunch of those boxes. In their current configuration I am not sure that Google TV and the like are ready for the living room but they are definitely ready for other places. Right now there is so much duplication in features in so many of the boxes that hang off a modern HDTV...Why not put them in the TV?