It's all a cover up. Start buying your canned food, ham radios, solar panels, guns, shields, melee weapons, and buy a bug-out cabin because we're about to hit the zombie apocalypse, people!

At the very least, Florida will be the first to go. Anyone wanna go down there and prevent the destruction of wang of America?

Ya... didn't think so.

I don't know why, but I get the distinct feeling that what Ballmer means is that he wants Microsoft to make competing products better than Apple does. That means faster, more reliable, prettier, and able to do more stuff at once. That requires that Microsoft plays the same game

But that's not innovation. That's improvement.

Innovation is doing things differently. If Microsoft wants to do things differently than Apple, then they can create competing products that actually offer different services and options.

Let's take MP3/Media players for example. The MS Zune bombed because it tried to be an iPod with different styling and different proprietary programs. What Microsoft should do instead is create an MP3/Media player that sheds the playpen style of the iPod. Instead of competing for the same "I just want something pretty that I don't have to think about" audience, Microsoft should target the "I want to make it look exactly how I want it... and then customize how battery power is prioritized... and then share those settings with a bunch of other people" crowd.

Most people who stick to Windows machines do so because of the greater immediate control over the system that the OS offers as compared to MacOS. Fight for that population. Fight for those that want to have it their way. Offer developer tools with the launch of a new device to, at the very least, modify user interface and file handling. "Oh, the player didn't ship with an equalizer? Let me see if I can make one!"

Innovate for something different. Stop chasing the same audience. Target those who want to do a little work on their own (or just use other peoples' work!) to make a product vastly superior to what iOS offers.

We all know that the desktop computer is not dying. It's large screen, superior processing and graphics power, peripherals, connectivity options, and multitude of input devices are irreplaceable in the world of content and product creation.

What Bill is talking about is that *tablet devices* (thin, portable, touchscreen computers with crippled OSes) have such quick consumer turn-over, that they are the future of big-freakin-PROFIT.

The computer workstation is here to stay with those who need to do more than consume digital media, type out emails, or draw things with their fingertips. In fact, most people with tablets have a laptop or a PC. The difference is that people are more likely to buy new tablets when new ones come out because end-users cannot upgrade components. No adding RAM. No swapping processors. No getting a new USB dongle for the newest Wi-Fi standard. Just buy new!

They're the future... of profit.

I agree. This is seen as a compromise between the money interests and the person interests but is still not "Good". It's better, but not good.

A single-payer government healthy union would mean that the US Gov't would negotiate prices for services on behalf of the citizen users and would remove the massively redundant billing and collections overhead that every single insurance company has.

Insurers who don't want to play ball will not be eligible to receive public patients.

You don't understand what a tax is. Here is a comparison:

Tax: "Hi. I want to help take care of you but it costs money. Give me money to take care of you. No, you will not have a say on the type of care you receive nor from whom you receive it."

Mandatory Service: "Hi. You should really take care of yourself because we're all sick and tired of paying for you. Yes, that means that you're going to have to start paying for a service, but at least you get choose how and who you pay."

Then, of course, there is the best of both worlds:
Single Payer Tax: "Hi, I want to help you take care of yourself for as little cost as possible. Give me money and you can choose your service provider. We are the middleman, but we're non-profit so it will actually be cheaper than how it works right now."

Note that this assessment is the latest evolution of his general education assessment. He's finally coming around to understand what any 2nd year public school teacher could have told him at the creation of the Gates Foundation: Teachers, class sizes, and access to good information matter.

Now if only he would understand that low-cost PCs are more of a distraction at that age than a tool. But hey, when all he has is a hammer, everything looks like a nail!

There are two types of leadership: Institutional, and Behavioral.

Institutional leadership is what we imagine normally when we think of the concepts of "leaders" or "leadership". These institutional leaders (officially) affect the actions of others directly and assume responsibility/accountability for the decisions of those under their influence. This may happen to varying degrees bases on competencies. One needn't be in a "leadership position" to be this kind of leader, but there must be some organization within a group (even if unspoken).

Behavioral leadership acts in such a way so as to encourage others to emulate him/her. This is also referred to as "leading by example". No organization is needed to be a behavioral leader.

The people most frequently recognized as leaders are those who exhibit the characteristics of both categories. Of course, actually good leaders from either category are hard to come by. But why?

First, people don't typically aspire to be "leaders". Many aspire to be in control, own a business, or be revered, but that's just ambition-- which is only very loosely related to leadership. Few understand the burdens involved and thus never learn to shoulder them. Be it living the virtuous life (or "walking the walk") or being able to admit without concern "yep, that error came from my team", people assume that either is too difficult.

Similarly, there are everyday leaders that exemplify the institutional and behavioral leader but refuse to take on the title because they assume it requires position and rank.

Today, we're kind of mixed up in the realm of leadership because the ambitious have retooled the term to their own cause while the actual leaders frequently attempt to evade visibility. Still, we would be better off if we could more consistently shine the light on real, everyday leaders and use them as role models for leaders of every type in the future.

I got into Star Trek neither for the fictional science nor for watching Diana Troy skip about in a body suit (that intrigue came later in life). I watched TNG, from childhood, for the frequent discussion on ethics. The Prime Directive was the main character of the storyline for me and I couldn't wait to learn more about the background of the Prime Directive, how human society evolved to accept the Prime Directive, how other characters were going to disregard it, and how they would justify doing so.

I was a student of ethics and behavior from very, very early in life, so it took no effort for me to get hooked.

I would suggest taking a similar method with any budding Trekkie. Find their interests and curiosities in life and relate them to directly to the show. Skip to specific episodes if necessary. Then, describe certain characters and roles those characters play. After a bit of episode surfing, offer to start from the beginning.

Checked for Yoda reference, leaving satisfied.

My qualifications: 5 years at a public university, 100% on a combination of student aid, graduated 2005, worked in higher education outreach for quite a while, still working at a public university.

There are a few different kinds of Student Financial Aid:
(1) Scholarships -- a competitive grant awarded to a student for comparatively high score in testing, GPA, essay entry, speech, or a combination thereof.

(2) Grants -- a need-based or participation-based award given without competition. Need-based grants typically have minimum high school performance standards and maximum income per-person household limits. A participation-based grant (like the GI Bill) is based on a fulfilled commitment of service.

(3) Loans -- an amount of money that needs to be paid back. The best are the Federal loans that do not accrue interest while the student is still in school and repayment can be deferred reduced when income is short. Avoid private education loans like the plague if at all possible. Loans, unlike scholarships and grants are pretty easy to get an are considered unlimited.

Knowing the above, it's not general "Student Aid" that contributes to bloat on the university level, it's unlimited access to Federal Student Loans.

I went into my college career in 2000, expecting to pay a total of $14,700 for the whole year. The cost included tuition/fees, transportation expenses, room and board, books, and other expenses. It was fully paid for my scholarships and grants (I was poor and good in school... a jackpot). Tuition and Fees were deducted from the account and I was given a third of my award quarterly. It was my responsibility to use my money wisely.

Between 2000 and 2005, the cost of the very same education ballooned from $14.7k to $25k per year. I paid for my 5th and half of my 4th year entirely with federal loans. Undergrads on the same campus should expect to pay around $35k for this year.

How did prices go so high? Well, there are new buildings on campus, a new Student Union to pay for, dormitory expansions, new faculty and existing faculty getting regular raises, and administration employees making hundreds of thousands of dollars each to manage what is, effectively, a city of 40,000 people 5 days a week. I don't think a mayor of a 40,000 should make so much, but our chancellor makes over $300k/year easily.

In that time, also, there have been major cuts to state higher education funding and other shortfalls in income. There have been bad investments, I'm sure.

So how is it paid for? Well, students and parents alike have been convinced that all kids need a research university education if they are going to make more than $35k per year in an air-conditioned office, so most think they have no choice.

The demand is there. The unlimited access to credit is there. But there is no incentive to keep costs low.

I think that it should be federal law that no one working at a university making more than $75k per year should be allowed to get a raise for 3 years after the last student tuition/fee increase.

Young listeners also lso have access to silly amounts of bandwidth almost without regard to their location. If there's not a WiFi hotspot, then the kid (or Mom/Dad) are paying for a large bandwidth cap on the smartphone.

They don't bother to learn directions anymore or explore because Google Maps or Yelp tell them exactly where to go. They don't wander what their friends are doing, their friends are desperately advertising their locations and activities on Facebook and "young listeners" hear it.

It's not surprise that Gen Y or Millennials are less likely to have their own copies of music. They understand bandwidth and internet access as ubiquitous. Most of us don't. We grew up with low-speed hardline modems, not always on broadband connections. We see wireless internet access as a luxury. They see it as a given.

I'm with you on this. Transparency and shininess were tacky two weeks after "yuppie" became a general accepted term. I've been running Windows Classic UI since Win2k... but I may actually use the Win8 default if it continues to be so demure and functional.

The newer generation didn't grow up with the opportunities the understand what simple coding could do. In the 4th grade (1991), I had "computer class" once a week where we were taught BASIC and the concept of step-by-step logic coding via turtle (Logo). I was able to grow up tinkering with throw-away 286s and 386s, screwing them up and then reinstalling DOS.

Today, kids have beautiful UIs and systems that want to minimize their interactions. They don't have computers... they have "apps", "the internet", and all these other environments, but are rarely presented with the opportunity to understand how Action A leads to Result B.

They love what technology can do, but they have no clue how it works. They're not tech-savvy. They're tech-dependent.

Only in Britain, with their extreme libel, defamation, and slander laws, can a random and potentially anonymous "taunt" be considered vicious and/or depraved.

AnonCoward045: You're an idiot and lick goats daily!
Lawyer: This vicious and depraved comment has ruined the reputation of "Dougaliscious81" amongst his 16 followers. Expect to be sued for eleventy billion pounds!

I agree with you to a certain extent... and that limit is the disregard for addiction and life-long conditioning.

Thanks to the glorious television, child are directly targeted by a constant stream of advertising and marketing. They're told what they should like, why they should like it, and what happens if they don't get what they like. Add on top of that, the social pressures that amplify the indirect pressures and you have the culture of conformity and stratified castes that program children to desire and seek visible actions that would, in their views, make them seem more normal or higher in the caste system. That may be buying soda and pizza at school (showing childhood opulence) instead of receiving a standard school lunch with water or milk, or begging mom and dad to get the largest soda possible if/when they go out to get some fast food.

Additionally, children are already innately programed to seek out and consume all sugary things. With sweets not being too common in nature, but sugars being particularly good sources of calories, it benefited per-civilization children to consume as much of these as possible. Of course, with the hyper-sweetness of high-fructose corn syrup meets this desire quickly and its abundance and ubiquity in the form of carbonated beverages allows these instincts to be so consistently satisfied that instead of the sugar consumption being an opportunity, it becomes a psychological norm. A norm that leads to habitual overdosing and then diabetes.

So ya... they choose to be fat in the very same way you choose to drive a car and seek out a big fat steak. You've been conditioned by for-profit organizations and marketers with a healthy dose of anthropological history.

It must be GREAT to be able to write people off like that and thus remove any kind of expectation for action on your side.