Slashdot Mirror

They'll take cash and check

He also maintains a wide grin in the picture looking at fresh produce. Come to think of it, these pictures of Jong Il looking at things are a sympathetic side of him, seeing the man being interested about what's happening around the country and inspecting the quality of products.

I would have bet his away message was "Busy. Looking at things".

Our mobile phones will start to read our minds.

God help us.

Yes. Read my mind.

That looks like another fine picture for http://kimjongillookingatthings.tumblr.com/.

Xcode is not a wonderful IDE. It's incredibly buggy. By far the buggiest desktop application I've ever used from Apple. It's still quite a bit faster than Eclipse, but Xcode 4 was noticeably slower than Xcode 3 and it seems to be getting worse. There are lots of regressions from release to release and it's nowhere near as extendable - not in the "write crazy plugins to change the whole UI paradigm", but basic things like "create a project template" or "create a custom view that can be used in the nib editor" features either not existing or only available through undocumented hacks.

Billions of dollars are spent on mansions of certain politicians (think, what possibly that is legal, could Putin do to be able to build a billion dollar house at the Black sea side) and nothing will be spent to shut down the old nuclear powerplants and secure their remains and build new ones with new designs.

That's as good a reason as any to get rid of this troll from the government.

Maybe if they change that we could save lots of misunderstanding!

The first version may only have one pixel, but higher resolution lens displays - like those seen in Terminator

No character -- that I am aware of -- had electronic contact lenses in the movie Terminator. I don't recall John Connor or Kyle Reese wearing such lenses. The titular character had a graphical display overlay on the visual input from it's "eyes", but it did not wear contact lenses.

The summary is a little misleading. This is not a "major upgrade," it is a complete rewrite of the MyFord Touch system. You see, for their first attempt, Ford decided to outsource the project to a company called BSQUARE who put the UI together using Adobe Flash Lite. For some reason, the results were slightly less than stellar.

Anyway, Microsoft itself is supposedly helping with the rewrite and Ford is doing the rest in-house (without Flash) so those of us who have been dealing with this awful system for the last year are at least a little hopeful.

Politicians use Google and Facebook too. Put messages there.

Or you could get together with 87,834 of your closest friends and call them.

It's good to see people mobilisation en masse to oppose this bill, but as others have said, it remains to be seen whether Congress will listen to anyone unless they dangle a cheque in front of their nose.

The big danger that I see is how dangerously regressive and backward-looking attitudes on the Hill are.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of the recent House Judiciary Committee hearing was that Google, the sole opponent to the legislation allowed to present at the hearing, was castigated by most of the people there, impugned for purportedly profiting from piracy and cast as the villain in this whole affair.

Seeing one of the few growing and dynamic drivers of the information economy not only cast out of the fold but actively opposed, one can only conclude that the captains of the US media industry are perfectly content to cut their nose off to spite their face. They will burn the bridge represented by Google rather than cross it.

I see two immediate dangers if this regime is actually allowed to take the shape proposed for it:

• 1) Innovation in content re-use and sharing will move outside of the US. Some will move into the shadows (kind of like offshore pirate radio in days of yore, except the ships and radios are available for the cost of a laptop). Some will move into the less governed – or governable – areas.
• 2) US influence on innovation and invention will decline significantly. This legislative package will serve as a clear signal that Silicon Valley is no longer the influence it used to be. (Indeed, the Valley’s lack of standing in DC was evidenced by committee members’ contempt for Google throughout the hearing.)

The latter outcome is the more dangerous of the two. Losing influence in the direction the Internet’s development takes also means losing the uniquely American ethos of freedom and individualism.

There are numerous new media and technological players poised in the wings right now. But few of them (with the possible exception of Al Jazeera) have any moral stake in human rights or even individual expression. Not, at least, in the same way that many American developers do - that is, at the axiomatic level, rather than as a conscious overlay to their world view.

I'm inclined to agree. The limitations of his style of software development are quite apparent. I think Minecraft is a great game with a concept behind it that hasn't been fully exploited yet, and I would agree that there are mods doing things the core game should be doing. Minecraft itself is a catalog of half-baked ideas. The core of the game--exploring, mining, crafting, and building--is very strong. Many of the other elements, however, feel half-finished.

I think Notch agrees with you - http://notch.tumblr.com/post/12551870085/inspiration-motivation-stress-and-abandonment

As good as steam is, like any other distribution platform it asks for a lot from the developer. In this case, too much for notch.

http://notch.tumblr.com/post/9550850116/why-no-steam-notch

With fuck-ups like this or this it seems people WILL have to memorize a set of actions, except this set of actions is not printed out on a reference sheet, but found out by trial and error.

http://siriouslyweird.tumblr.com/
http://sirisaysthedarndestthings.com/

Coming to the app store soon for $10, looks like.
http://tapose.tumblr.com/

Minecraft is a sandbox game if you want it to be, but be sure to pay attention to the current direction of Mojang's development. Ever since Terraria came out, Mojang has been heavily focused on the action-rpg aspects of the game. Most of the game's mechanics that give it a sandbox feel are riddled with bugs (see piston bugs and redstone bugs), and have been since their implementation.

I wish I would have paid more attention to the direction the game was headed. I probably still would have bought it, but I wouldn't have been so disappointed when redstone and pistons get neglected while pig faces are given an extra 5 polygons. (Not just any polygons, mind you. Textured polygons).

Most of what I enjoy about Minecraft came from mods the community has made, which Mojang has made no attempt to support. Almost all mods that exist now are made using obfuscated code that is reverse engineered by the Minecraft Coder Pack team *every single update*. I was under the impression that Mojang was going to implement a modding api to support modders, but now that I read about it, it seems they're offering a license agreement and access to their full source code (not an api at all, which means compatibility between mods will still be a problem).

Moral of the story: put more thought than I did into buying games which are in the alpha/beta stages :)

*pours a little out for the sandbox game Minecraft could have been*

Anyway: http://brianericford.tumblr.com/post/11735684801/great-artists

I’ve always thought the “good artists copy” line was confusing, at best, so I started to think about it: What does it actually mean?

The best possible analysis, I think, rests in the distinction between copying and stealing.

They’re both negative concepts, at first blush, but the quote clearly indicates that stealing is better than copying.

Those who hold the quote against Steve, given his reaction to the rise of Android, often seem to conflate the two terms, but:

1. Copying involves reproducing something wholesale and leaving the original intact.
2. Stealing involves taking something and making it your own; the original owner is left with nothing.

It’s simple, really: There’s nothing bold about copying. Great artists (or designers, or whatever) take what they need and they make a product their own. But it’s also much bigger than that.

In case you still don't get it, that was "copying"

I’ll leave off with the source of the “good artists” quote. It’s often attributed to Pablo Picasso, but it turns out it’s a bastardized version of a quote from a T.S. Eliot essay.

This may be the most apt description of the difference between Apple’s vision for iOS and Google’s for Android I’ve ever read. It’s also as good a summary of Steve Jobs’s legacy and genius as you’ll likely ever find:

One of the surest tests [of the superiority or inferiority of a poet] is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different than that from which it is torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest.

This is what EP4-6 Troopers are thinking about your idea

Google has had voice search for quite awhile now, and the rest of the functions are what would have happened if you hooked up a voice recognition program to a virtual assistant. Unless I'm really misunderstanding this is something I could get running on my Android phone easily.

Given what I saw on http://shitthatsirisays.tumblr.com/, it doesn't appear that it's particularly sophisticated either.

It's snarkier than Cleverbot.

http://shitthatsirisays.tumblr.com/

--
BMO

Lol, are you serious? The American Dream is the _opportunity_ to succeed, not the guarantee. Literally anyone _can_ succeed in this country. That's all we're promising. Whether you will succeed is up to you.

One of the major grievances of the OccupyWallStreet protests is that that is not true (anymore?): that the American Dream does not exist. Look at the We Are the 99% tumblr page. Certainly some poor people are poor due to bad choices, but it does not sound like a lot of those people ever had the opportunity to succeed.

I can't find the exact image -- it's a Facebook photo of a friend-of-a-friend (possibly visible here) -- so this Tumblr image will have to suffice. Lately I saw a college professor complaining about how badly in debt his students are and how their lives will start with crippling burdens. Yet for all that, I heard no consideration for the part they played in this drama. Did they offer to take a pay cut? Find a more economical way to teach? The college-for-all movement has heightened costs (expanded the number of instructors required, added facilities and administrative staff) while not materially changing the overall worth of a degree.

Supposedly, the main reason for getting a college degree is the bump in lifetime earnings, but not all degrees are created equal. Engineering, math, and the hard sciences dramatically pull up the averages for everyone, while the humanities languish. It was this way when I was in college back in the 80's, and it's only gotten worse since. If you're slaving away to get that PhD in medieval literature and racking up $150,000 in debt, you might want to revisit that life plan.

Which homepage are you talking about?

There are terrific similarities between the two groups. They are both angry about the bank bailouts, but one focuses its rage on the government for providing the bailout and the other focuses its rage on Wall Street for taking it. In fact, the biggest difference between the two may be their demographic: Tea Party is mostly older and OWS mostly younger, making this a conflict of generations rather than classes. The problem is the manipulators are hard at work keeping people from finding any common ground by demonizing the other side instead of addressing their grievances.

The Tea Party got this treatment from the Huffington Post, who focused on the most racist signs from the protesters. Now we're seeing the same thing, with Andrew "we have the guns" Breitbart's photographer blatantly staging a photo of a protester supposedly defecating on a police car. Brietbart's previous credits include videos edited to make USDA employee Shirley Sherrod look like a racist and ACORN employees look like they were giving tax evasion advice on running child prostitution rings.

I sympathized with the early Tea Party. Now I sympathize with these protesters, and this constant demonization of them is so heartbreaking. For the first time in my life I'm confronting these people on Facebook, forcing them to support their statements with references or showing them how they are being manipulated (90% of the time by a story I can trace back to Breitbart). For a week they fought back, but then they toned down their attacks... Unfortunately, watching the new Facebook Ticker, I can see that they have merely taken their hatred to where they think I can't see it. Wonderful social experiment that new Facebook Ticker, see what you're "Friends" are saying about you behind your back and there's no way to turn it off.

All we can do is try to get people to see the human beings behind the villainous caricatures. When they try to connect the movement to the "sinister machinations of George Soros," I point out that Soros is a prolific philanthropist and humanitarian. When they call the protesters scum, slackers, and anarchists, I point them to the We are the 99% blog and ask them to justify their position with references from that site.

People in the Tea Party should be doing the same thing, putting a human face on their movement. We should be finding common ground. Keeping us fighting each other is exactly what the powers that be need to prevent any significant change.

Yeah, that could only have been done by an utter design genius.

Why the dripping sarcasm? This is true. Good industrial design has always been about stripping a thing down to its essentials and making it as simple and focussed to its task as possible. And that does take an utter design genius.

Before the iPad, tablet design was like this and this and this.

The hallmark of good design is that after we see it, it seems "obvious", and design illiterates think there's absolutely nothing special about it. But they can't explain why nobody thought of it before then.

What happens if you say, "I'm horny!"?

I believe you're after row 4: http://shitthatsirisays.tumblr.com/ Looks like it knows what you're on about ;)

"I'm horny" results in directions to escort services! See:

http://shitthatsirisays.tumblr.com/

Quite possibly: http://shitthatsirisays.tumblr.com/

Some other, rather more reliable indications that this guy may indeed be full of crap:

Brian Switek's commentary on the story on his Laelaps palaeontology blog

P. Z. Myers' view of the story on his Pharyngula blog

Discussion of the story on an archive of geologists' conversations on Twitter

The professor's own profile page, which shows he has quite a history of making far-reaching claims.

Blog post here.

The posts on http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/ reflect my experience. My advanced degree and frugal lifestyle has me making steady financial progress, only I've been laid off on a few occasions - wiping out my nest egg and I'm not really that far along. My experience has me convinced that no one in the government has my back. Lucky my wife has an awesome job - after many years of school where she made nothing and accumulated debt - and we are now in a top income bracket. I know what it is like to not have a job yet be willing to work and have 'in demand' skills. I don't live on the east coast otherwise I'd be out there representing the contingent of society that sweated their way through an engineering PhD. At the end of the day I want my 2yr old to go to a nice school and feel proud to live in this country. I don't see it getting better for him (my wife and I have a large income but will never be 'rich' like Bloomberg, Buffet, Gates, etc.) unless we all stand up now for the 99%.

Occupywallstreet may or may not fizzle out. Either way, I think this is the turning point. I hope this occurs to our leaders and convinces Washington to enact actual campaign/lobbyist reform. That is what I see tying together all the OWS concerns: life may not be fair, but for many it has become completely unfair in the favor of the 1%. Seeing them out there I am inspired because I realize that I am not alone. There are many others out there in the same boat that I am in while I watch the 1% prosper beyond all measure or need. The mere existence of 501c3 organizations - put into law by our own congress - is pretty much proof that our current politicians are nearly 100% corrupt beyond anything we've seen in the USA for nearly a century. Anyone in the world can donate to a 501c3 organization anonymously. Anyone. Isn't this a major national security hole? This country has and can do better than that in its elected officials. If OWS gets snuffed out I think the next movement will be larger and more aggressive. I hope OWS wakes up the conscience of our politicians enough to enact reform and/or wakes up enough of the 99% to start electing officials who will fight, actually fight, for reform.

Why is this a troll? Have you people actually read the signs people are posting online? Stories of how they ruined their own lives, including people who speculatively bought houses which drove the housing meltdown to begin with, blaming the government or Wall Street for their predicament?

Seriously, actually READ the things people are posting on http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

It's a litany of people who made really idiotic financial decisions for themselves. I'd say maybe 1/3 are people who just got screwed over or had bad luck, but at least another 1/3 did things like real estate speculation or had several children out of wedlock while in college for some liberal arts program that had no future paying out of state tuition with loans while not working. And somehow they thought this would turn out positively for them? The final third are standard middle class people who feel inconvenienced that they can only afford a used iPhone 3GS instead of a new white iPhone 4S, and that this somehow puts them below the poverty line...

But when anyone who claims to be happy, healthy, and gainfully employed adds their voice, they get shouted down by the rest (example). The people representing this protest don't represent the 99%.

It's a whole bunch of people who refuse to do any hard work and are upset that the people who did work hard their entire lives were (gasp) REWARDED FOR IT.

Did you hear that straight from Fox and Friends? Instead of believing what you're told about these people, why don't you listen to what they actually say.

These are people from all walks of life. People who are successful. People who aren't. People who made mistakes. People who just had plain old bad luck. People who tried to do the right thing. People who work 3 jobs. People who can't find work. And people who are worried about the future.

I've read that factoid too, and it's pure spin. I'm in the top 5%, meaning my family makes a little more than $150k a year. So the spinsters say I have nothing to complain about, as if we live in the lap of luxury. But you know what? I live in the DC Beltway, and our family income puts us in the middle middle class, where we can only afford a modest house and can only afford partial days at daycare for our son and have no idea how we're supposed to afford the second child we want to have.

I consider myself part of the 99% because we work hard just to survive and I sympathize completely with the unfortunate souls sharing their stories personal tragedy on the 99% blog. People who are trying to frame this as an 80% versus 20% thing have no clue what it's like out here in the real world where corporations have engineered the system to take every last fucking dime from honest hard-working Americans while refusing to give anything back to the country that made their success possible.

Have you seen the tumblr blog that started all this? It's not just students on there, and if you watch anything but Faux news you'd know by now they are a VERY diverse group.

I'm guessing the people that don't understand Jobs' influence are probably recent college grads that didn't grow up in the 80s. Jobs influence doesn't just extend to iPad and iPhone made by Apple, but to pretty much every tech company and everyone that has ever used a computer since the beginning of the personal computer age.

Here's a statement that will cause your head to explode: Steve Jobs was responsible for a large percentage of the world's GDP and America's status over the last quarter century.

Would anyone use a computer today without the mouse-based GUI? Maybe the nerds, but no one else. Steve made the connection that the GUI would be the way the average person would use a computer. The inventors certainly didn't make that connection. So now Microsoft Windows exists because of Steve Jobs. Bill Gates certainly wouldn't have made it had it not been for Steve Jobs promoting the GUI concept to the public, starting with an ad on the Superbowl no less.

He got rid of instruction manuals from computers. Would anyone use computers if they had to read 500 pages of instruction manuals? The idiots back in the 80's got into pissing matches to compete over which computers had a bigger instruction manual! Stallman is one of those morons. He wanted everyone to be an expert on computers to use them, which is the opposite of good.

Meanwhile, as Jobs got rid of instruction manuals, he created Desktop Publishing. That alone puts him on the level of Johannes Gutenberg. The Xerox PARC guys certainly didn't care about it enough to find it usable.

The World Wide Web was invented on a NeXT computer that Steve Jobs made, because it had an easier development platform than other systems. Would the web exist without NeXT? Actually, would the web exist without HyperCard being promoted everywhere by Apple years before the Tim Berners Lee made the first web browser? (on a GUI?) Do you REALLY think the web would be invented without Steve Jobs? The non-GUI Gopher already existed, but no one used that.

Just the fact that we're talking alternative what-if scenarios indicate Job's success, since regardless of what-ifs, Jobs actually DID IT.

(would Facebook exist without the web? Would the Arab spring revolution have happened without that?)

Even the most pissy people about Steve Jobs actually uses his products every day. The low-power ARM CPU that all the Android fanboys love these days was designed by a company co-founded by ... you guessed it: Apple. This was to implement the Newton PDA, the overall concept which was described in detail by Steve Jobs in the early 80's.

His influence goes right up to today, with Siri for example. In fact, here's an interview with Steve Jobs from 1984, talking about Siri: http://newsweek.tumblr.com/post/11109366062/steve-jobs-basically-introduces-siri-in-1984

There is absolutely NO reason to underrate him, he really was THE guy that shaped modern society and brought about a true change in the world unlike anyone else over the last 30 years. There were plenty of technologists that brought about single point ideas, and in fact, Jobs didn't invent many of these ideas, but had such a string of success stories like him.

His actual brilliance was as a designer, the art-director type of person that took the complex tools, and simplified them, because he understood humanity, and understood artistic meaning behind an invention that often even the inventors didn't even understand. Other technologists would be dumbfounded if they were presented with a person that didn't give a crap about a higher-speed processor - they just wouldn't know what to do with that type of person that's more interested in how things look than the numbers behind it, because they think numbers are what matters. Billions more people care about how things look than numbers. This recognition allowed Jobs to reach those billions of people.

No politician, no other technologist, no other wealthy person changed global society as much as he did. (name one?)

So, really, let's end this debate. Steve Jobs won these last 30 years.

Let's be honest, if you could you would: http://3.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kpcvvy3eqK1qz4a62o1_500.jpg

• Hugo Mercier on The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning
• The Argumentative Theory: ‘Reason evolved to win arguments, not seek truth’

• Hugo Mercier on The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning
• The Argumentative Theory: ‘Reason evolved to win arguments, not seek truth’

"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."

It's been recognized for generations that people won't rebel against a government for light reasons. As long as people have food and jobs to keep them busy, they'll tolerate quite a bit of oppression.

The thing is, the Internet is both a "bread and circuses" sort of distraction and - to a younger generation (and to use Western generational/cultural identifiers, because those are the only ones I know), the Internet is more than what "TV" was to their Boomer parents. It's more akin to what "church" was to their Silent grandparents: where everybody goes to interact, not merely distract. Governments, typically being composed of older-generation folks, don't seem to understand that yet.

Hence, the meme that started with the Egyptian riots: If the government shuts down your internet, shut down your government.

"In the case of Minecraft, the sad fact is that the Xbox 360 is the only console (handhelds excluded) on which it will be released, specifically because Microsoft forced Mojang into an exclusive contract."

According to Notch, the creator of Minecraft, they aren't on Steam for a completely different reason, not because MS forced their hand.

Why No steam notch

I've written a full post on this issue here, but I'll respond to your individual points.

If you are going to share extremely sensitive documents with several people, why the FUCK wouldn't you create several *different archives* with different passwords - one for each individual you are sharing the information with?!

I agree, it is somewhat unusual for WL to have disseminated the cables in an encrypted archive, deleted the archive, then at a later time shared the same encrypted archive rather than creating a new one. It might have been better to create a new one with a new password, and may have added some extra layers of security, but from a cryptographic standpoint this was perfectly reasonable behaviour.

You need to consider this as a cryptographic system (as I'm sure Julian Assange did), and that means considering what information is public and what information is secret. The archive was encrypted, and the ciphertext was shared across the open Internet (I assume over SSL, but still not requiring authentication). Therefore, we must assume that the encrypted archive is public from that point forwards. The password that unlocked that archive was kept secret and treated as extremely sensitive by WL. By Leigh's own description, JA handed it to him in person on a piece of paper, and then verbally gave him a salt to apply to the password. It's strange that the passphrase wasn't a collection of random letters, but apart from that, all of this makes cryptographic sense.

Now let's suppose that you need to send the exact same document to another journalist at a later date. While maybe you should re-encrypt it, cryptographically it doesn't make any difference, because we are operating under the assumption that the original encrypted archive was public from the last time we put it on the open network. Therefore, reusing the same archive again with the same passphrase doesn't weaken our security very much. To put it another way, even if WL had destroyed that archive and never reused the passphrase, someone in the general public could theoretically have a copy of it from the one time it was shared, and therefore could have decrypted it when Leigh disclosed the passphrase.

Give each individual access for a short period of time, and then DELETE THE INDIVIDUAL FUCKING ARCHIVES FROM YOUR SERVER! This has the additional benefit of being able to trace any future leaks.

Technically it is too late by this point. Once you have put it on the open internet for a short period of time, you have to assume that it is public, and rely on the encryption on the archive itself, and your endpoint not to disclose the passphrase. They could have set up a login system that requires the client to authenticate. That would have guarded against the contact disclosing the password at some point in the future. But is there any reason to have planned for that scenario? You are already giving the full dump of sensitive documents to your contact, so cryptographically it makes no difference whether you do it by an authenticated login or by transmitting an encrypted document. The end result is the same -- only you and your contact have the plaintext -- assuming your contact is not malicious or stupid. If your contact is malicious or stupid, you're fucked anyway because he has the documents. To put it another way, the system would have been secure if Leigh had not disclosed the password, which Leigh was contractually obliged not to do. Any other system would have required the same level of trust in Leigh. This was an error on Leigh's part, not WikiLeaks and not the technology.

Seriously, if you have disseminated the password to your single "master copy" archive to multiple organisations, then it might as well not be encrypted. If they had created different archives + passwords for each recipie

Yes but this is what I meant by "Nobody is denying the facts here (the only thing that's in contention is where the blame lies)." -- I accept that there is a debate going on as to who said what was temporary and who should or shouldn't have disclosed what. But the following facts are not in dispute: (1) WikiLeaks provided the documents (encrypted) and passphrase to Guardian, (2) Guardian editors revealed passphrase in book. So there is no need for a theory that someone else got hold of the password: Leigh published it. I'm not sure who published the encrypted data, but I believe it was WL themselves. Following cryptographic principles, WL was not at fault to publish the encrypted data, because that isn't the part that was supposed to be secret; the passphrase was.

To your points: (1) Yes, WikiLeaks did know the password was out there many months ago. They did not make a public statement about it until today, because they didn't want to draw attention to it. At the time of the book's publishing, the encrypted files were already available online, and there was nothing that anybody could have done to keep it from getting out (besides not saying anything). WikiLeaks had no power to change the password or revoke the file by that time.
I wrote a full post on this issue.
(2) I find it very hard to believe that WL would have told the guardian that the password was temporary, since it clearly wasn't (it was PGP). I imagine there was a misunderstanding which went something along these lines:
1. JA hosts a file on a private server. The connection to the server itself is over SSL. However, JA knows that SSL is not sufficient to prevent others from downloading the file, since it doesn't require authentication on the part of the client. So he also encrypts the file itself.
2. JA explains to DL that the connection to the server is encrypted and the file will only be temporarily hosted. DL, by his own admission a non-technical person (he needed JA's help to use 7-zip) misunderstands this as "the password on the file is temporary."
3. JA separately hands DL a piece of paper containing the password to decrypt the file.
4. DL downloads and decrypts the file using the password.
5. JA is operating under the assumption that the encrypted file is public (since it was available on an open network, via SSL, but still available to the public). Therefore, it is safe to distribute the same file on another date (I'm not exactly sure how this encrypted file eventually got out, but suffice to say that it is now public, and this is cryptographically not to be unexpected or a problem).
6. DL, not realising the importance of the password (he figures that now that the file has been taken off JA's server, the password is no longer valid) writes it down into his book.
7. The editors, under pressure to release, do not vet the contents of the book, and publish it.
8. JA reads the book and finds the password. By this point, it is too late to do anything other than keep silent about it as long as possible.

You should also read this blog post commenting on the Microsoft post. Money quote:

Again, this is Microsoft’s own research, cited in the same post: nobody — almost literally 0% of users — uses the menu bar, and only 10% of users use the command bar. Nearly everybody is using the context menu or hotkeys. So the solution, obviously, is to make both the menu bar and the command bar bigger and more prominent. Right?

Microsoft UI has officially entered the realm of self-parody.

Better information about Microsoft's researches: http://seldo.tumblr.com/post/9549775746/this-is-genuinely-microsofts-idea-of-a lol

That's pretty much the most idiotic response yet, they've seen that the menu bar isn't widely used and decided to improve it, the context menus and hotkeys are used a lot so leave them as-is.

Better information about Microsoft's researches: http://seldo.tumblr.com/post/9549775746/this-is-genuinely-microsofts-idea-of-a lol

having "drunk the Kool-Aid" (BTW, the Jonestown [wikipedia.org] incident used Flavor Aid [wikipedia.org], not Kool-Aid, but don't let facts get in the way)

Most of us know that, we just aren't nit-picking pedants... well, okay, we *are* nit-picking pedants, just not enough to correct the culturally-accepted expression.

BTW, wouldn't "drunk the Appleade" be a more appropriate expression here? :-)

How can you even compare a damn CEO with someone who dedicated their life to making the world a better place?

There are good pols and bad pols, just like there are good businessmen and bad businessmen.

I didn't agree with a lot of Layton's policies though you have to hand it to a politician who came out in support of same sex marriage in 1988!

The fact is he's someone who went into politics for the right reasons, to help people, and he never lost his integrity or his courage.

Now I'm not a huge apple fan, I don't like how they lock down their systems, particularly how they're building this walled garden when you're going to find yourself with Apple storing all your data and deciding what programs you can run, and Steve Jobs is responsible for that vision.

But I truly believe he's a good man trying to make the world better, and even when I disagree with what he's doing I think the world is a lot better with him than without him, and I hope he sticks around.