That is absolutely insane.

That 11 1/2 hours is not in any way contiguous -- what could you accomplish in that time, in 114 seconds a day? How could that possibly offer any advantage, let alone one worth $35/hour?

Even if you could come up with some fantastic task that could justify the value placed on that tiny bit of time, who the hell can't manage to find 114 seconds of extra time per day? Go to bed 114 seconds later than normal, no weird untested toothbrush or dentist appointment required.

What if you shaved 19 seconds off the beginning and end of every meal? But I'm thinking too narrowly here. Just think how much time you could save by eliminating all those unnecessary trips to the toilet with a catheter!

You suggest that "fair number of people" would benefit. I'd love to know who these folks are, why their day is packed down to the second, and (most importantly) and why they're not all cathed.

I can't tell you how thankful I am that my schedule has never been so tight that saving 114-seconds on personal care could feel significant.

How do you find the time to post on slashdot?

Meh, who cares?

Remember VB6? (Oh, the horror!) VB6 apps were slower and bigger than the equivalent written in VC++.

  Do you know why it was so popular?

Because the "horrible" performance was good enough for most applications. A good developer using VB6 cut his development time significantly (hours vs days, days vs. weeks). A beginner could actually get something to work in a reasonable amount of time. That's powerful.

The web as a platform has its own set of advantages that, for many applications, more than offset the speed issue. Your application is near effortlessly cross-platform and painless to deploy. I'd even argue development time as a significant advantage over c++.

Your talk about frame rates makes me think your focused on games. Well, it's good enough there as well -- even on mobile -- if you don't mind your game looking about Wii quality, that is. For most people, and most games, this is perfectly acceptable.

So, yes, "almost there" really is "good enough". No one is "chasing frame rates" that were "common in the late 90's" -- that doesn't even make sense. The web can easily handle "common in the late 90's" without breaking a sweat. You seem to think that if it's not good enough to run a modern AAA title at 60fps it's worthless as a platform. That's ridiculous.

Some people have complained about the lack of a moderation breakdown, the addition of even more unnecessary javascript, and lack of unicode support. It doesn't seem to offer users anything new.

Also, it completely sucks.

Install IObit's Start Menu 8.

I'll describe it with a car analogy. Have you ever had some obscure problem with your car that makes it stall, overheat, or otherwise perform in such a way that driving it becomes a huge pain. You know that feeling of relief you get when you drive that car home from the garage? That's what it feels like when you install that program. Like everything is back to normal.

Well, I don't see any terrorists around, so it must be working!

It's just like the rock I keep on my nightstand to ward off tigers. Sure, it's not a recurring cost, like the war on terror, but it has a similar effect.

Proof for you naysayers: I've yet to be so much as scratched by a tiger in my sleep.

Or they've had nothing but success.

A company I occasionally do work for dropped an old dos program that was in use since 1990 a couple years back. It was running just fine in Windows 7.

I've yet to see an old Windows program that wouldn't run. I've heard anecdotes, sure, but it's never been something I've actually encountered. The most I've ever had to do was check the "Run this program in compatibility mode for" box and pick an old version of Windows. That happens so infrequently I can't even recall the name of any of those programs.

What are these mysterious applications that run just fine under WINE on your Mac that don't run in Windows 7?

Just for fun

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE7AQY5Xk9w

You sound like someone who bought Apple at $690.

Good luck with that.

Like most people, my GPS lives in the car. I don't lug it around when I'm not driving, I leave it in the car. What possible reason would I have to carry it with me at all times?

I like that my GPS has a large screen that's easy to read in sunlight. I love that it has a loud clear voice that can even integrate with my car stereo. It doesn't require a data plan, and doesn't run down the battery on my mobile.

The advantages of a dedicated device in this case are enormous. Sure, your phone might be "good enough to get by", but why settle for a second-rate solution when a better option is available? A good GPS isn't exactly expensive.

Times have changed.

That "Sent from by BlackBerry" at the bottom of an email was a sign of status. It said to the recipient "This guy is busy and important".

The similar "Sent from my iPhone" message today reads like an apology.

I blame HP.

In the hands of a competent company, and with some better hardware, WebOS could have killed Apple.

BlackBerry was wise to steal so many of their good ideas. The PlayBook and Z10 are a pleasure to use, due in no small part to the innovations pioneered by WebOS.

Before Apple, they had one of the best mobile browsers. Today, it's the best on the market. Apple's browser, in contrast, is now years behind everyone else.

"The problem wasn't that we stopped listening to customers, [...] We believed we knew better what customers needed long term than they did."

Sounds an awful lot like Apple as well...

Really, Apple today looks an awful lot like RIM in 2008 -- except that they're doing even less. Apple has taken 'resting on their laurels' to a whole new level.

Can you predict what will happen to Apple over the next few years? I have a pretty good idea.

That was a bit more powerful in the context of the personal computer revolution.

Today, it sounds empty. A bit more like "Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life, or do you want to come with me an sell premium personal electronics?"

Ignoring the rest of the URL, which clearly does not point to a .dmg file, just about everyone can safely "click" links that end in .dmg as a dramatic majority of users do not own a Mac.

Further, why would the few Macs users, having downloaded such a file, blindly execute its contents?

Really, the only people who could possibly be in danger from such a link would necessarily be both a Mac users and unimaginably incompetent.