Voice recognition is hard. Image comparison is hard. Working with video is hard.
Kodak has a digital camera back for view cameras that has 50 mega pixels 16 bits each per channel. That's 300 Mbytes per photoshop layer. Todays computers cannot render that fast enough. Most people don't use view cameras. Most of those don't use 20,000 buck digital backs. Those that do can put fractional terabytes of RAM in their computers.
People have gotten used to mediocrity in computers, and they don't expect much from them, and they are so used to their limitations that they are unaware of them. It will take some 'killer app' to move that forward.
I mentioned the phone market mostly to emphasize that reasonable network speed is NOT a given, and that even service of any kind is far from ubiquitous outside metro areas.
To a certain point you are right. The market is no longer one of, "replace my computer because it can't keep up" and more of one of "replace my computer because it's worn out." The number sold each year is declining to replacement units rather than new units.
Re: desktop. I want the desktop to BE the computer. 5 x 3 feet rolled into a quarter cylinder, touch sensitive, hyperbolic scaling. (If I move a window toward the edge of the screen it shrinks.) This is not a commodity item yet.
Would you replace your laptop if doing so it would weigh less than a pound, be as thin as a clipboard, be usable in daylight, was waterproof, and had enough battery to allow you to fly to Perth, Australia watching Blu-Ray movies all the way?
Spoiler: you're not going to like any of it. At all.
That's assuming they release the real thing...
I wouldn't be too surprised if they released a decoy. Last time there were such talks, they were killed when they came under the public eye. So a bland document would be a good way to defuse the situation.
Of course that's assuming anybody cares about it nowadays which might be a bit optimistic of me.
You can believe whatever encounters you have had and try to make them an example, but the point remains that Linux is a very chaotic environment and nobody wants to stand up to be liable if something goes wrong.
LOL. Wow. The very thing that MS has been guilty of for years you lay at the feet of open source. Who was it that created an OS that gave no thought to security and then resisted securing their OS for years? Oh, yeah, that was MS. Who built "features" into their software that proved to be a gold mine for malware, and then only patched the problems as each "feature" was abused by malware? Oh, yeah, that was MS.
When was it MS stood up and said they really screwed up and took responsibility for all the security holes in their systems and software? Oh, yeah, that's right, they never have. They blame everyone else, including their users.
Actually, the best way to fight piracy is to make a product pirates aren't interested in.
Question the motive not the action. It's what they use the information for that determines whether it is evil or not.
The simplest test would be - which user, once removed, makes things no longer slow?
The real bias problem in Television news isn't a liberal or conservative bias (with the exception of Fox news) but has to do with pro-corporate thinking. There are very few times that a news organization even acknowledges there is a second side to the debate when it comes to so-called "piracy" or copyright issues. I think these major reporters are so immersed in the corporate system that they are blind to the fact they even have this bias... it's the way they live, it is how they are getting paid and I believe they think there is no other way to look at many of these issues. I think that's one reason reporting this shoddy gets on the air... in the corporateThink world a connection between a kewl dood putting up a torrent of a porn dvd he ripped to mp4 and a white slave trader doesn't seem that outrageous.
Yay, let's spend the rest of the discussion bashing creationists and religion to make ourselves feel enlightened and intellectual instead of just discussing the story. This happens on ANY tech site that posts a story that could even remotely be related to religion in some way. We get it; you're a super-smart atheist like the rest of us.
That is not entirely fair.
30% said god created us and we can evolve
15% say humans evolved with out god.
It's more like 45% against the 51% which is far less terrifying than you make it out to be. What about the other 4%?
I'm all for the impartial analysis of data and I fully recognize that being proven wrong can be just as valuable as being proven right.
Faith is not the enemy of Science, and therefore, the enemy of logic and reason. I have always believed that Faith is simply the believe in a hypothesis that currently lacks the ability to reach any conclusions. Science is not without Faith in that regard. Faith can be a healthy component of our existence and provide meaning, purpose, and comfort. Regardless of your opinions, it is a well used coping mechanism by the majority of the planet to deal with the very fact we exist and we have questions without answers.
The problem that you seem to have, and that I have as well, is when people who have Faith (sometimes commonly grouped into the Christian Faith) ignore all evidence in front of them and hold on to beliefs that have already been proven wrong beyond all reasonable doubt. Those people that would belligerently refuse the truth that has been revealed to them because admitting they are wrong somehow destroys their faith.
More problematic, and downright destructive and counter-productive to human growth, are those that will not only refuse to have a dynamic adaptive Faith that can change with new data and observations, but cannot accept anyone else having a Faith different than their own.
That 30% do not fall into that category necessarily are certainly not the most destructive. They are acknowledging that evolution as a process is real and observable. I cannot see how that is denying anything you hold to be "blatantly obvious". Neither you or I can prove that God does not exist and currently we have no data or observations that can disprove that God did not set into motion the creation of the Earth, and through evolutionary processes, all life on Earth. Of course, I think we have reasonably disproved the whole so-called 7 day "theory" and that Earth is only a few thousand years old. However, to me that only proves the Bible was a book created by a bunch of men with vivid imaginations. Disproving the Bible, in whole or in part, does not disprove the existence of diving being(s).
Your post is rather insulting to that 30%. I don't think they are your "enemies" in this case or part of the problem. Heck, the very fact they are willing to acknowledge Evolution means they are meeting you half way and can be reasoned with.
The 51% are probably a lost cause. That is not intended as an insult, but people can take that for what's it worth. When Faith cannot change because it has been delivered by Doctrine, than it is not really their Faith at all. I agree with you and those people concern me greatly since they seem to like laws that legislate their Faith upon others which is deeply and tragically ironic considering that my country (USA) was ostensibly founded with opposition to such behavior.
It takes a certain level of analytics and tech interest to be a software developer, that makes people wierd. On the other hand, I've seen very few that were the kind of irrational crazy not-connecting-the-dots people as software developers. Just like you see very few introvert people working in sales and marketing. Some differences just come with the job description, but there's infinite variations on crazy and plenty left for everyone.
/* Halley */ (Halley's comment.)