Sony came up with some interesting hardware - and it burned them badly. Between cost problems and developers bitching because it made their ports harder, I don't know if anyone will have the stomach to move away from the PC/X360 model anytime soon.
"a 5-megapixel backside illuminated sensor"
Does that mean the sun shines out its backside?
Problem is, there are no tablets.
Instead of a code of laws, we get rule by decree.
Technically we have the Queen! Oh wait wrong country. And no-one listens to her anyway.
... but I don't actually know how to dispose of the equipment properly. So it lingers in my closet.
health care just costs too darn much.
Individuals can't afford it anywhere.
Corporations can't afford the insurance premiums for their employees in America
Governments can't afford if for their citizens in other countries.
The problem is not who pays for it (taxpayers vs. insurance companies). The problem is that no entity of any kind can properly afford it.
This is what happens when you insist on using the market to assign equilibrium pricing to something which is not a luxury good or service - if you're dying, you'll take on as much debt as you have to. If you're a democracy with an unhealthy and unhappy electorate, you'll take on as much government debt as you have to.
There is no equilibrium price in this situation - the only market pressure points upwards, and encourages price gouging at every step of the supplier chain.
Pharmaceutical companies overcharge for prescriptions. Makers of medical equipment overcharge for machinery which in many cases is orders of magnitude less complicated than a commodity desktop computer. Doctors and their practices overcharge for consultation time. Labs overcharge for test results. Insurers have to actually pay all these costs and therefore resort to high premiums and really sketchy reasons for denying coverage.
This is a dramatic failure of the market to regulate prices and benefit anyone, least of all the consumer of health care services.
This flies in the face of market capitalism.
This flies in the face of economics.
And yes, it flies in the face of common sense.
Finally, as a non American, I'm tempted to argue that the USA's insistence of following this abuse of the market not only drives up costs for American individuals, but it drives up costs for the government-run systems in other countries. Why would Canadian or Australian doctors stick around when they can price-gouge with impunity in America, for example?
I'm not saying that I'm a superstar. But if I were, I'd look for a group with a track record solid project management. This means a group that
1. Keeps numbers on man-hours from previous projects and uses these numbers as a heuristic when scheduling future projects.
2. A company that puts out controlled revisions of its existing software at regular intervals, without much deadline slippage.
3. A company with low staff turnover.
4. Interesting projects that really attempt something new.
Things I would not touch with a 40-foot pole:
1. Long (multi-year) release cycles that never seem to quite make it out the door.
2. Execs who set deadlines based on thin air, or when the next trade show is.
3. A reputation for frequent and serious "crunches" where developers are expected to work 70 hour weeks. Occasional crunches are part of the business. If they happen too often, it's a sign of bad management.
4. Projects that basically reinvent someone else's product so the company in question can get a piece of the market.
Nothing kills a love of programming like constant crunch time, schedules based on thin air, and an incompetent, bureaucratic approach.
Sadly, it's most often the organisations whose project management is totally out of control who are seeking the "superstar coders" - they want guys who are 10x more productive in order to save them from serious scheduling mistakes they have already committed.