I'm not sure I agree with this.

For starters, the film 2001: A Space Odyssey was based on a short story by Arthur C. Clarke called "The Sentinel." Clarke wrote the novel at the same time the movie was being made, and it was actually released after the movie, so it's essentially an adaptation of the film and by no means essential to appreciating or understanding the film.

What's more, Kubrick has a track record for taking the material he is bringing to the screen and adding to it or taking it in new directions not expressed in the written work -- see The Shining, for example, which diverges from Stephen King's book wildly.

Kubrick's film should be enjoyed as a film. All these comments saying you need to read the book to understand it just sound like people who couldn't understand the movie and feel guilty about it, so they went and got the book from the library. Don't feel guilty. The film is designed to be a bit inscrutable and to inspire thought and debate.

Well, you haven't met me, but if you're talking about everything between the ape men and Discovery then those happen to be my favorite parts of the film. My absolute favorite scene, in fact, is when Heywood Floyd runs into the Russian scientists at the Pan Am lounge on the space station. And if you want to see why these scenes are absolutely essential to 2001, look no further than the film 2010, which completely fails to understand anything about the earlier movie and portrays the Heywood Floyd character -- and everybody else, for that matter -- as a bumbling incompetent who couldn't survive an airline flight to Greece, let alone an interstellar voyage.

...into which you type your Personal Identification Number Number.

Nothing "micro" about it, sorry.

And rather a lot of the programming interface for kernel modules, and the system call interface to the kernel, comes from the BSD part, not the Mach part.

And what might be a "proper" personality for OS X? If you've actually looked at the bits atop the core OS (yes, I have), it's a combination of BSD calls and Mach messaging to other processes.

"1BSD" was an add-on to V6 UNIX (which was PDP-11 only), and 2BSD was also based on PDP-11 UNIX, so the "BSD" that contributed to OS X was more like 4.4-Lite, which dates back more to 4BSD and 3BSD than the PDP-11 BSDs..

"Famous", dunno, but I also dunno how many significant mathematicians are famous.

I also don't know whether the guy whose doctoral thesis was "Mod-2 K-Theory of the Second Iterated Loop Space on a Sphere" should have been famous as a mathematician, but then again, I don't know what a "Mod-2 K-Theory of the Second Iterated Loop Space on a Sphere" is. Do you?

Of course you think so, Apple shill.

Wow. Just wow. Not one single thing I said had anything to do with Apple, but here you are...

You really need to start buying the more expensive paint to huff, the low quality stuff is not doing your neurons any favors.

If they fork change then the devs will more than likely follow

For a market that's smaller than Windows Phone (samsung only devices and only newer ones at that)? I don't think so. Developers only target Android now because of a huge device space, even though they make less money than with iOS development. There's no reason to think they would make MORE money on Samsung devices, and the device count is far smaller than Android as a whole.

Hold on you announced "Samsung is doing a better job of improving Android than Google is." and now you can barely list any improvements that Samsung bring.

They were in my original message. Try reading.

Apps are not an improvement to the CORE OS you moron. I'm talking about features apps can be built on, not apps themselves!

Is it better to write 3+5 than 3.add(5) ?

The thing 3.add(5) has going for it is clarity, in that I know 5 is being added to 3.

3+5 in a world where operator overloading exists could mean 3 carves 3 and 5 on a tree, or 5 posts a nice message to 3's Facebook wall.

Because "normal" humans do not have to read code, it's really not that obvious at all that 3+5 is better than 3.add(5) or other variants thereof...

but Google own a hardware manufacturing company capable of generating more patents, and those will not be squandered on Frand patents this time.

FRAND patents are the only patents actually worth anything, because they earn you regular licensing income over a very long period of time.

All other patents are just nerf darts in a world where everyone has a pile of a million nerf darts stockpiled. You can fling them at each other all day long and in the end nothing changes, and you each have a pile of nerf darts.

Metaphorically speaking, Google doesn't even have the whistlers nor are any likely to be forthcoming from the husk of Motorola...

The big deal is Google is expected to spend US$500 million in marketing the Moto X

Which would be an excellent reason to sell GOOG, and expect Samsung to take Android for itself. Did you really think Samsung would just sit there and say Hurrah! when Google makes such a heavy push to steal sales from the Galaxy line?

Where are the Samsungs compelling first party Apps? A quick search on Google Play...

Don't they ship on Samsung devices? Why would they even be on Play?

I thought the Note came with some nice drawing/note taking apps that were unique to the system.

All of the Google apps will also work on Samsung devices... and none of them are really compelling.

They'll replace the core O/S with something like Tizen

People keep saying that but I don't think Samsung wants to give up on the app support AND widespread developer support Android gives them. They would much rather extend Android in a number of premium ways and get developers to use the Samsung specific extensions they are offering. It's way easier to do that then to get developers to port a whole app to Tizen.

Samsung is doing a better job of improving Android than Google is. Even though Google shipped hardware with BTLE, Samsung was the first company to offer libraries that actually let you use BTLE with Android!

I think at some point soon Samsung will take over where Android is heading, or just veer off with it's own version of Android entirely. And I'm not sure Android will be the worse for it.

I've also admired the custom work Amazon has done with Android. They had multi-user on the Fire before Google announced support for it.

Well, what's ironic about it, really? Chromecast doesn't require Android -- and statistically, you're much more likely to own some flavor of iPad than an Android tablet. Google never promised you that you wouldn't need either one.