If the reason Kodak failed is because they failed to see the shift in attitude towards photographs, then why is it that traditional camera makers like Canon and Nikon are alive and well?

I think the writer failed to see the obvious here. The reason Kodak failed is because Kodak is primarily a film and photo chemicals maker and not primarily a camera maker. With less people using film it is obvious Kodak can't base its business model on an obsolescent technology. Nikon and Canon are primarily camera makers and they were able to make the shift to digital successfully. Kodak was not.

Kodak's error was that it decided to hold onto a flawed business model rather than just closing down the company and returning the assets to the stockholders. Some companies are destined to close down. It's just the way it is.

I have been to a professional conference where all the attendees---except one---are wearing slacks, collared shirts or business uniforms. The one sore thumb was in a t-shirt, jeans and sneakers. Everyone wondered what kind of company he works for that would allow their representative to come to a conference dressed like that.

And if you think the guy is smart, forget about it. He is not. During the discussion no one would take his ideas seriously because obviously if he cannot even be bother to dress appropriately for a professional conference one has to doubt whether he can even be bothered to think deeply about what he is about to say.

Slackware.

Ubuntu is targeted at users. If you want hardcore, go Slackware, or Knoppix or Linux From Scratch. Why so much hate on Unity when there is plenty of Linux distributions around?

High risk projects that carry a high rate of return when successful are important in the technology industry. More so in aviation. Boeing needs to do this in order not to become like HP---a company that rested on its laurels and never took the risks of innovating. You sound like one of the guys at Wall Street.

In any project that involves, new, innovative, and highly speculative technology there is always the possibility of failure. If NASA decided to shut down its space program after several rockets exploded on their launchpad back in the 1950's and 1960's, America wouldn't have landed on the moon and the space age would be Russian and Chinese dominated and not American. Even so, if the financial and risk management is any good, project failures should not bring a company down. NASA continued with its space program because it had a mandate from the president and the bottomless pockets of the US government.

Boeing is still alive and kicking. They do have enough projects that are successful that will keep the company in the forefront of aviation for years to come. Remember, Boeing created and dominates the industry of pilot-less drones that many believe shall be the future of military aviation. They invented the Boeing 747 that redefined how many passengers can be carried safely into the sky by a single aircraft. The 747 is the gift that keeps on giving but Boeing is right in not resting on the success of this 1960's era project. I hope it keeps on conducting the high risk projects that Wall Street and arm-chair analysts like to criticize when it fails.

It's not a mistake. It's called expanding into the hardware side of the mobile business. Google needs to have a hardware division if it wants to compete with Apple and Microsoft---both of which have hardware divisions. Google can expand into the hardware side in one of two ways: (a) spend money to create the division or (b) buy it from someone else. Many of the pundits who think the Motorola deal is not such a good one are not accountants and do not have access to privileged accounting information. Google made the computations and they decided that buying the mobile division from Motorola makes sense from their strategic viewpoint.

Will the Motorola deal work for Google? We do not know. Lots of things that seem a hundred percent sure often don't turn out as expected. But from the viewpoint of business strategy and decision making, the motorola deal is a very good one. The deal is better than not doing anything at all and watching helplessly as Apple and Microsoft (who have become friends because of a common enemy) chip away at the rising comet of Android via their legal shenanigans. It could also mean Google boarding the train too late as Microsoft slowly but surely turns Nokia into their mobile division through cross licensing and sweetheart deals. With a former Microsoft executive at the helm of Nokia, Microsoft does not even have to buy Nokia outright.

The acquisition of Motorola is a master stroke by Google. It took everyone by surprise. You could very well bet that within the executive offices of Microsoft and Apple are people worried that the owner of the mobile OS that has taken a huge portion of the smartphone market in such a short time now also has a hardware division of its own; a division with factories that can produce phones, tablets, electronic appliances and whatnot. Things have become very interesting.

Because they went extinct. You guys want to be so politically correct that you are even afraid to call the neanderthals inferior. Come on! There is no chance that someone in the world right now would be offended by the statement that Neanderthals are inferior. Homo Sapiens Sapiens dominates the world today while the neanderthals are nowhere to be found. That, in itself, indicates that in terms of biological success, neanderthals are inferior to us.

Maybe we killed them off: we are nimbler, smarter, and probably more agressive than they. Our African ancestors went to Europe, the Neanderthals stayed where they were. That shows we have initiative and the smarts to plan ahead. Maybe the neanderthals are not as adaptable as us. When Europe became warmer, they were unable to cope. In any case, they are no longer here while we are in every corner of the earth.

So they found we share, what 4% of our genes? We share over 98% of our genes with the chimpanzees! Four percent of the remaining 2% is not such a big deal. Our ancestors captured and raped Neanderthal women, and then adopted the offspring. Babies are babies everywhere. We find them cute. I have no doubt our ancestors find the Neanderthal babies cute also. It is those adopted babies that contributed the genes to our gene pool over the many generations. But make no mistake, the Neanderthals are extinct. We are not them and they are not us.

This new discovery is very intriguing but it does not take away from the fact the Neanderthals are the loser species.