Do you think Foursquare should abandon potentially offensive badges as it picks up mainstream popularity? Or should it stick to it’s nerdy guns. http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/31/foursquare-douchebag/
No! Stick to their guns!
Chuck Klosterman, Eating the Dinosaur (via fimoculous)
People use too many explanation points these days, it’s true. And Fitzgerald had a point. But lordy. I’d take too many exclamation points over this dourness.
Also, this is one of the reasons I love having a job that isn’t as a writer. So I can keep using exclamation points, and say “dude, get over it. I’m not a writer. I’m a business man.”
Another thing to file in the “never ceases to amaze me” category: how people keep equating what an official says in public with what they actually think, do and believe, and then use it as evidence that they are dumb.
Turns out the U.S. monopoly on deadly unmanned aerial vehicles is nearing the end. From P.W. Singer:
The unmanned spy plane that Lebanon’s Hizbullah sent buzzing over Israeli towns in 2005 was loud and weaponless, and carried only a rudimentary camera. But the surprise flight by a regional terror group still worried U.S. analysts, who saw it as a sign that the unmanned vehicles were falling into the wrong hands.
Today that concern appears to have been well founded. At least 40 other countries—from Belarus and Georgia to India, Pakistan, and Russia—have begun to build, buy, and deploy unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs, showcasing their efforts at international weapons expos ranging from the premier Paris Air Show to smaller events in Singapore and Bahrain. In the last six months alone, Iran has begun production on a pair of weapons-ready surveillance drones, while China has debuted the Pterodactyl and Sour Dragon, rivals to America’s Predator and Global Hawk. All told, two thirds of worldwide investment in unmanned planes in 2010 will be spent by countries other than the United States.
You wouldn’t know it to hear U.S. officials talk. Jim Tuttle, the Department of Homeland Security official responsible for safeguarding America against nonnuclear weapons, downplays the idea that drones could be used against us. “What terrorist is going to have a Predator?” he scoffed at a conference last winter. More recently, The Wall Street Journal reported, the U.S. ignored a dangerous flaw in its UAV technology that allowed Iraqi insurgents to tap into the planes’ video feeds using $30 software purchased over the Internet.
Such arrogance is setting us up for a fall. Just as we once failed to imagine terrorists using our own commercial aircraft against us, we are now underestimating the threat posed by this new wave of technology. We must prepare for a world in which foreign robotics rivals our own, and terrorists can deliver deadly explosives not just by suicide bomber but also by unmanned machine.
No surprise, but Gruber gets it. Performance is a distraction, and it all comes down to control. Going back to my point about Apple producing its own processors from the other day, you can look at the introduction of the iPod, iPhone & iPad as evolutionary steps towards greater and greater control of the device ecosystem - all the way down to the silicon.(via secondverse)
Agreed. Where it gets interesting, though, to me, isn’t the morality of it. I have no problem working in a controlled, closed environment, provided it does what I need. This is where I think Apple’s taking the real gamble - they are so very confident they can keep providing everything the bulk of their users needs. That may be so. But I can definitely envision a day where the whole shebang starts to deviate from *my* needs, and then I’ll have to move on. And that’s the other thing - I hope there’s something to move on TO. I suspect there will be, though. And I’m not convinced that Apple, by being closed now, is lessening the chances that there are alternatives to switch to down the road.
A: Technology and talent. Typically small companies. We’ve looked at big companies, but nothing has totally fit. If we find a large one, we won’t be shy about it, but we won’t do it to do it. We’re not about having the highest market share or revenue…we want to make the best products. Acquiring a company simply to boost our revenue wouldn’t be something we’d consider.” —Apple COO Tim Cook Speaks at Goldman Sachs Conference - Mac Rumors
I wish Tim and Steve would find one, just because it would make my life more entertaining if Apple acquired a large company.
Nooooo! We need Shake Shack in our hood! Come on! It’s not gonna be any worse than Habaña, with the dozens of people milling about, or Pinche. People take the food back to their offices or home!