Only novelists and crackpot linkbait article writers think robots or computers are going to be smarter than humans anytime soon. Most people with a scientific, engineering, or programming background know they're not even close and won't be anytime soon. I doubt it will happen even in the next 50 years. 100 years is so far away anything can happen so all bets are off.
"increasing H-1B visas for highly skilled coders"
No thanks, companies are already using H-1B workers to fill their positions, cutting out jobs for us American programmers and lowering wages. I keep hearing that companies are desperate for tech workers and there are not enough people to fill positions. Yet my resume gets tossed half the time, and the companies I interview at are very arrogant, acting more like you need them and should feel grateful they are even considering hiring you.
You're right about the tangable products, so no Amazon.com and Newegg impacts. But I think you jumped to conclusions too fast on netflix/hulu. I don't think the App Store policy states that you're only subject to the rule if you allow the actual purchase within the app. Apps that only allow you to sign up or purchase content outside the app may still have to follow this rule. If that were the case, then Sony and Amazon would have an easy out to just direct you to their website to buy books.
The scary part is that the App Store rule that Apple is using to enforce this doesn't specifically say eBooks. It says that any purchase that's available from an app, must also be made available through iTunes in-app purchase. That could apply to any app that allows you to buy anything, including the Amazon.com and Newegg apps. Could you imagine Amazon and Newegg having to put every single product in iTunes and giving Apple a 30% cut? It's even more complicated for Amazon which acts as an intermediary to 3rd party sellers.
No, that's not socialism, that's your typical capitalist, business as usual decision. Now, if he decided to take the money back from the rich board members and executives and give it back to the individual investors, THAT would be socialism.
Common shareholders are the FIRST to get wiped out when a company is in trouble, the company leaders are the LAST to lose their money, that's quite the opposite of socialism.
By 2000, I (and most everyone I knew) had MOUNDS of extra 3.5" floppies stacked up on the desk, in boxes, etc. We had so many excess disks, we used them for all kinds of fun and destructive proposes
The poll asked the last time you BOUGHT floppies, not the last time you used them.
iPhone applications can retrieve ALL information from your phonebook including names, addresses, and phone numbers. It does not need your permission either, there is no confirmation popup like with the location functions.
Yep, you summed it up just right.
NORMAL human beings will not let petty arguments escalate.
MOST people have the self control not to pull out a gun.
The problem is there are over 300 Million people in the U.S. (If that's where you are from). Give guns to most people and that small percentage of people that WOULD let things get out of control WILL NOW have an easy time taking it to that level.
I am not a gun control advocate. I'm just pointing out that if you take all of the times that people get heated and out of control in the entire U.S. in a single day, or lets say in a week, think about adding a gun to that equation. You don't think the percentage of shootings would be higher?
Again, that's not a reason to ban guns, I was just making a point. If you want to fight for less gun laws, you shouldn't just completely ignore or refute the point I'm making, but find a way to reduce the number of shootings/killings that occur.
Your comparisons are not accurate. How many times do the police shoot someone because they mistakenly think a person is about to shoot them? They are trained for those instances so how do you think an angry person is going to react when the person they are arguing with starts to pull out their gun? It quickly becomes a life or death situation that comes down to who can pull out their gun faster and shoot, regardless of whether or not the person who first went for their gun intended to use it.
Having a gun right by your side that you can quickly pull out and use is different than looking for a big rock, picking it up, walking back to the person, and beating them to death with it. Running someone down with a car is also not a good comparison (see above paragraph).
I don't agree at all. How many times do people argue and physically fight? It's very difficult to kill someone with your bear hands, unless you really want to. It may not be so hard to get so pissed off you pull out your gun and start shooting before you have time to think about what you're doing.
Think about all the fights you see in HS, College, Bars, Sports events! Try giving all those people guns and then see what happens.
Yeah, an amazing new battery posted on the front page of Slashdot that holds 10 times the power of traditional batteries using nothing other than air as the new ingredient. Hold on while I get the party poppers and start celebrating the automobile and electronics revolution.
Reminds me of the movie Grandma's Boy. It was about a bunch of game programmers and testers. It had the stereotypical genius/crazy/anti-social programmer diva.
Finally, first post!
Link to Original Source