The NSA doesn't ask for permission. A head honcho director just recently lied to Congress under oath about the extent of surveillance, and nobody in charge seems to mind. Tell me again exactly what this law is supposed to accomplish?
The government's denials appear to follow a pattern of avoiding the question of machine gathering of raw intelligence products, and just focusing on the humans sifting through them. People are concerned about the former (raw data), whereas the denials seem to be focused on the manual human aspect, which of course misses the big point. I suspect this is partly related to people not understanding how computers and data storage/archival work.
Best example of this: Still waiting for Hayden to go to jail for lying under oath to a congressional committee, when he claimed that intelligence wasn't being collected on millions of Americans, then had to walk it back later, and claim that he was just talking about people preparing actionable reports. There's no question in my mind that all that data trawled from the internets is still sitting there waiting to be queried at the snap of a bureaucrat's fingers.
No, I mean the United States. [blah blah] The truck bombs that might slip through will most likely be killing voters.
I would rather have a few more dead voters and compliance with the Constitution at the top levels of government.
You know, maybe we could reduce terrorist violence by forcibly deporting anyone who even vaguely looked like a Muslim. Note: I'm serious, I think we actually could reduce the terrorist threat by weeding out Muslims from American society. But it's not worth it, because we don't want to live in that kind of country. Similarly, perhaps if all citizens were locked in cells when they weren't working at their government approved jobs, there would be less crime. But again, it's not worth it to lose our freedom. The government thinks if it reassures people that it's for their own safety, that they'll give up their 2nd Amendment, or 1st Amendment, etc. No, thanks.
The public servants in the bureaucracy are answerable to congress, not the electorate.
There really isn't a good option for auditing a secret government program wherein both the Congress and the Executive branch are complicit in violating the constitution. Ratting them out seems like the most direct way to shine light on their violation of the Constitution. The whistleblowing is obviously illegal, and is kind of bad in some ways, but it's not as bad as what the federal government has been doing. Does that make sense?
You have this wrong. Part of the hint for that can be found in where he fled to: The People's Republic of China, also known as Communist China.
You use the word "hint", and I guess it's true we don't really know for sure what his intentions are. Some people seem inclined to assume the best of him, and others like you want to assume the worst. I personally am waiting and seeing where this goes.
I think when you say "the United States" you really mean "the current corrupt federal government administration of the United States", right? Our government (not-equal-to) our country. I would suggest that Snowden has significantly helped the actual United States, i.e. the people of the United States, by tattling on public "servants" who fancied themselves masters unanswerable to the electorate and have been secretly violating the Constitution.
Well, lets[sic] all remember what the second amandment[sic] actually is for. Maybe its about time?
The 2nd Amendment was canceled a long time ago in many parts of the USA. Every now and then somebody gets shocked when they discover that. Who knew that you could be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to jail for doing nothing more than "keeping and bearing arms"?
So the bottom line, my dear AC, is -- don't worry, the Bill of Rights is being rolled back in an entirely intentional and deliberate sequence by the government. They know what they are doing.
Hey, smart pants, I want you to understand two things: it's an absolutely necessary tool to fight terrorism, and it didn't happen, so just forget about it.
On a different note, we are going to severely punish whoever leaked that PowerPoint presentation -- which for him/her is highly classified, but for you (once again) doesn't actually exist.
Bennett Haselton gets to be supreme dictator for a day, and writes new laws for the USA. He throws out the 5th Amendment, because it protects many people who are guilty in addition to a few people who are innocent. Bennett says, "If all you want to do is let people off the hook, it would be better to just roll the dice. We need to statistically be sure we focus on truly guilty people."
Then Bennett dug into the demographics of crime. He was delighted to discover that there are certain slices of the population who are (for complex reasons) more likely to commit a crime than others. He finally came up with a comprehensive system for weighting criminal convictions on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, and other factors. A disproportionate number of innocent black people ended up going to jail, but Bennett was still happy, because the overall average in the entire population improved, and Bennett could prove it mathematically.
You go, Bennett! Like, preferrably... away... please...
On one hand, if you aren't writing engineering / simulation / trading / game internals, you are unlikely to use most advanced math. So it's not important. On the other hand, if you can't handle advanced math, you probably won't be a top-tier programmer either. Top-tier programmers think about advanced concepts and keep a lot in their heads at the same time. So in that sense I'd say it is important.
You can't change your IQ, but you can maximize the use of what you have by developing good personal mental disciplines, i.e. working your behind off on stuff like this in college. My $0.02.
Women of childbearing age are statistically at higher risk than others for being lower performers for a company in the long term, both during and after pregnancy
Please provide link(s) to said studies with said statistics.
I laid that out very concisely myself, by pointing out that women would have to sustain a higher than average efficiency to make up for not being there when on leave. My basis of assumptions for the thought experiment (and belief in real life) is that men and women have very similar IQs and can be recruited at similar strengths and abilities to perform a given job. I suppose there are some jobs where the workers are pretty much cookie-cutters and interchangeable; but in the kind of jobs I care about, it matters very much having each specific member of the team there, and you notice if somebody's contribution is absent... even for the noblest of reasons, which care of a newborn certainly is.
And mods, please do NOT +1 Informative such posts without links. They certainly can generate interesting discussion, but not without something to substantiate their viewpoint.
Yeah, companies shouldn't discriminate against women in hiring. A woman can perform just as well as a man. In fact, she must be even more efficient in her work than a man, for her average to stay as high even with her longer maternity leave./sarcasm
I have a huge problem with society-enforced institutionalization of untruths. Don't demand that people smile, nod their heads, and repeat along with politically correct mantras that are obviously false. Tell it like it is. People can (learn to) handle it. Women of childbearing age are statistically at higher risk than others for being lower performers for a company in the long term, both during and after pregnancy. Maybe we should or shouldn't allow discrimination (I'm not commenting on that because I'm making a different point), but the numbers don't lie. Neither should we.
Full disclosure: I am a male who as a teenager and twenty-something was charged higher auto insurance rates than females my age, because (once again) the numbers don't lie.
you have no idea what you're talking about. [blah blah blah] you can't necessarily be called a moral guy according to moral code A. Why ? Because you may be following moral code A not out of your free will and judgement but because you fear that if you don't, the invisible guy in the sky will send you to hell. So no you are not a moral guy just because you follow the moral rules of moral system A.
No, my friend. _You_ have no idea what you're talking about. Search the Bible sometime for the phrase "fear of God".
A refutation of your post seems unnecessary since you appear to be hard at work refuting yourself. On one hand you sweepingly dismissed as not truly moral those who do what is right out of fear of the sorts of spiritual repercussions that you don't believe in. And then on the other hand you said that there isn't any objective standard for morality or ethics, implying that your first point is wrong, since their idea of morality is just as good as yours. Lol!
I would say that an ability to think about and analyze something goes along with one's strength in scientific disciplines, but the self-control required to act on what we know is right? That's a different story. How many people cheat on their partners? (Too many.) How many of them could give a good analysis and explanation of why that's wrong? (Uh, probably 100%.)
No? Then, not guilty. Anyone that offs themselves is solely responsibly for that act.
So if I lock you in my basement and threaten to torture you for the next ten years, and you find a way to kill yourself, nobody should ask me any questions. Your death was your own fault in that instance, right? I grant it's an exaggerated analogy, but it refutes your fallacy concisely. Somebody contributed to threatening an American citizen with decade(s) of prison time over essentially mild internet mischief, and I for one would like to know who is to be held accountable for that.
That works if you have a competent contractor _and_ you are a competent customer. However, in many software projects the customer doesn't really know what they want/need when they start. Then, instead of helping them iterate a bit and learn what they need, the contractor has to spend his time saying "no, that's not what I estimated". Fixed bids are a huge problem for the agility required on such projects, and can cause them to fail in very bad ways.
Almost all my contracting work has been T&M, and has involved cautious feature creep as the customer's understanding of their needs evolved. The one major fixed bid project I did happened to be a success, because it was managed on the customer side by highly competent engineers who knew exactly what they needed.
As a contractor I've been through this more than once, and actually had very good experiences training / mentoring customer employees to "take over" the programming of my projects. In one case I met weekly with a guy over many months, and took him from hand-holding up to completing major releases. I don't see it as a threat, because if you're already sharing the source code (which I always do), then you're explicitly offering that the customer can take over the job in the future. So -- assuming that mentoring is a service you want to offer -- do the best job you can, and have fun. And it is a tremendous amount of fun to teach when you are good at what you do, have some communication skills, and also have a beginner student with decent aptitude along with a serious attitude toward learning. I had all of those./toot-own-horn
I don't just want to learn about them. I want to know their names, where they work, where they live, the stuff they buy at the grocery store. Everything.
It improves over gzip by a mere 3% or so, but takes an order of magnitude longer to compress [...] it's practical merit is virtually nil.
Maybe it's useless to you as a developer(?), and to most people. However, you benefit from this kind of technology all the time. Compare this to video encoding, where powerful machines spend a heck of a lot of time and CPU power to gain extra 3%'s of compression to save bandwidth and give you a smooth viewing experience.
This tool could have many useful applications for any kind of static content that is frequently served, including web services, as well as embedded content in mobile games and other apps. Every little bit of space savings helps (as long as it isn't proportionally slower to expand, which the article says it stays comparable).
Oh? From my own and 3rd party observations (friends), win8 sucks badly because a) they force a specific UI on their users, which an OS has no business doing and b) said UI is an utter violation of all guidelines for good UI design.
Given that Microsoft publishes "guidelines of good UI design", I am guessing that you are engaging in a little bit of "no true Scotsman" fallacy here. With regard to the rest of it, there are reasons why Metro UI has limitations relative to desktop applications. They are actually good reasons oriented toward power efficiency on mobile devices and setting standards for touch interaction. Since they are a step backward for keyboard/mouse users, I can't see the desktop ever being totally eliminated, and I can agree that making Metro the default start screen was a questionable decision. But anyone who pooh-poohs the emergence of mobile primacy and touch interaction (as you seem to be doing) is behind the times.
this is news for nerds, and according to nerd usage, yes, it does suck.
It's not clear what your credentials are to speak on behalf of all nerds. Personally, as a developer (and nerd, and long-time/. reader) I love the fact that there are more options now - that the same touch first experience that my users love on iOS/Android can be experienced on a desktop OS. Sure, nobody wants to sit all day long in a traditional office pose holding their arms straight out, but that's a silly objection to Windows 8. Three reasons off the cuff: (1) portable Windows tablets, (2) monitors that recline, (3) giant wall or coffee table displays that multiple people can do interesting stuff on. With all of these a touch-first usage mode is desirable, and Microsoft has finally taken the leap to add that new option to Windows 8. In my opinion, Apple is likely to follow at some point in the next year or two.
By the way, I'm typing this in Windows 8's desktop mode, which is still a keyboard/mouse centric mode. The fact that a touch-first mode exists a keystroke away doesn't emotionally disturb me. Should it?:p
If you happen to live in a country with fully socialized medicine, I suppose ordinary people/voters may have some at least indirect voice in what treatments will be made medically available. However, welcome to USA-centric Slashdot, let's take a look here...
- Mostly capitalistic, patient (ins. co.) funded care, especially on the "bleeding edge" of innovation: [CHECK] - Parents are merely human, and may for whatever reason not take their pills or have another chemical imbalance: [CHECK] - Parents care a lot more about their baby than a Slashdot troll does: [CHECK] - Relevance therefore of the above Slashdot troll to the discussion: [LEFT BLANK]
Kudos to your upbeat attitude, but in this case Apple did make a conscious decision to break many existing apps in the App Store. Here's a link that describes the changes they made. For what it's worth, I personally could have coded something that would either not break anything (realistically unlikely in an app store of hundreds of thousands of apps relying on obscure side effects), or at least break a lot fewer apps. link to description.
This is not like the 64 bit thing, because Apple could easily have avoided breaking this stuff on iOS 6. The message they sent was that you'd better be prepared to re-release your app for every new iOS version, because Apple's primary interest is forward-looking, not backward looking. They care about their next dollar, not one they earned a year ago. But I already said that.
We've talked about this from several angles, so that's a hard question to answer simplistically. We all like cool new stuff that works.:D
I'd just get back to my example of Apple deliberately breaking autorotate for legacy apps running on iOS 6. I definitely do not prefer that kind of change. I think it was a good example of what I was talking about, and not "drivel" at all. You're welcome to write a refutation of that point.
Thanks, you are correct on all counts. My comments were based on the preponderance of new systems sold, which are pretty much all 64 bits as of (vaguely) recently.
Slashdot Mirror
The NSA doesn't ask for permission. A head honcho director just recently lied to Congress under oath about the extent of surveillance, and nobody in charge seems to mind. Tell me again exactly what this law is supposed to accomplish?
The government's denials appear to follow a pattern of avoiding the question of machine gathering of raw intelligence products, and just focusing on the humans sifting through them. People are concerned about the former (raw data), whereas the denials seem to be focused on the manual human aspect, which of course misses the big point. I suspect this is partly related to people not understanding how computers and data storage/archival work.
Best example of this: Still waiting for Hayden to go to jail for lying under oath to a congressional committee, when he claimed that intelligence wasn't being collected on millions of Americans, then had to walk it back later, and claim that he was just talking about people preparing actionable reports. There's no question in my mind that all that data trawled from the internets is still sitting there waiting to be queried at the snap of a bureaucrat's fingers.
No, I mean the United States. [blah blah] The truck bombs that might slip through will most likely be killing voters.
I would rather have a few more dead voters and compliance with the Constitution at the top levels of government.
You know, maybe we could reduce terrorist violence by forcibly deporting anyone who even vaguely looked like a Muslim. Note: I'm serious, I think we actually could reduce the terrorist threat by weeding out Muslims from American society. But it's not worth it, because we don't want to live in that kind of country. Similarly, perhaps if all citizens were locked in cells when they weren't working at their government approved jobs, there would be less crime. But again, it's not worth it to lose our freedom. The government thinks if it reassures people that it's for their own safety, that they'll give up their 2nd Amendment, or 1st Amendment, etc. No, thanks.
The public servants in the bureaucracy are answerable to congress, not the electorate.
There really isn't a good option for auditing a secret government program wherein both the Congress and the Executive branch are complicit in violating the constitution. Ratting them out seems like the most direct way to shine light on their violation of the Constitution. The whistleblowing is obviously illegal, and is kind of bad in some ways, but it's not as bad as what the federal government has been doing. Does that make sense?
You have this wrong. Part of the hint for that can be found in where he fled to: The People's Republic of China, also known as Communist China.
You use the word "hint", and I guess it's true we don't really know for sure what his intentions are. Some people seem inclined to assume the best of him, and others like you want to assume the worst. I personally am waiting and seeing where this goes.
He has harmed the United States.
I think when you say "the United States" you really mean "the current corrupt federal government administration of the United States", right? Our government (not-equal-to) our country. I would suggest that Snowden has significantly helped the actual United States, i.e. the people of the United States, by tattling on public "servants" who fancied themselves masters unanswerable to the electorate and have been secretly violating the Constitution.
Well, lets[sic] all remember what the second amandment[sic] actually is for. Maybe its about time?
The 2nd Amendment was canceled a long time ago in many parts of the USA. Every now and then somebody gets shocked when they discover that. Who knew that you could be arrested, convicted, and sentenced to jail for doing nothing more than "keeping and bearing arms"?
So the bottom line, my dear AC, is -- don't worry, the Bill of Rights is being rolled back in an entirely intentional and deliberate sequence by the government. They know what they are doing.
Hey, smart pants, I want you to understand two things: it's an absolutely necessary tool to fight terrorism, and it didn't happen, so just forget about it.
On a different note, we are going to severely punish whoever leaked that PowerPoint presentation -- which for him/her is highly classified, but for you (once again) doesn't actually exist.
Bennett Haselton gets to be supreme dictator for a day, and writes new laws for the USA. He throws out the 5th Amendment, because it protects many people who are guilty in addition to a few people who are innocent. Bennett says, "If all you want to do is let people off the hook, it would be better to just roll the dice. We need to statistically be sure we focus on truly guilty people."
Then Bennett dug into the demographics of crime. He was delighted to discover that there are certain slices of the population who are (for complex reasons) more likely to commit a crime than others. He finally came up with a comprehensive system for weighting criminal convictions on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, and other factors. A disproportionate number of innocent black people ended up going to jail, but Bennett was still happy, because the overall average in the entire population improved, and Bennett could prove it mathematically.
You go, Bennett! Like, preferrably... away... please...
On one hand, if you aren't writing engineering / simulation / trading / game internals, you are unlikely to use most advanced math. So it's not important. On the other hand, if you can't handle advanced math, you probably won't be a top-tier programmer either. Top-tier programmers think about advanced concepts and keep a lot in their heads at the same time. So in that sense I'd say it is important.
You can't change your IQ, but you can maximize the use of what you have by developing good personal mental disciplines, i.e. working your behind off on stuff like this in college. My $0.02.
Women of childbearing age are statistically at higher risk than others for being lower performers for a company in the long term, both during and after pregnancy
Please provide link(s) to said studies with said statistics.
I laid that out very concisely myself, by pointing out that women would have to sustain a higher than average efficiency to make up for not being there when on leave. My basis of assumptions for the thought experiment (and belief in real life) is that men and women have very similar IQs and can be recruited at similar strengths and abilities to perform a given job. I suppose there are some jobs where the workers are pretty much cookie-cutters and interchangeable; but in the kind of jobs I care about, it matters very much having each specific member of the team there, and you notice if somebody's contribution is absent... even for the noblest of reasons, which care of a newborn certainly is.
And mods, please do NOT +1 Informative such posts without links. They certainly can generate interesting discussion, but not without something to substantiate their viewpoint.
Do your own moderating, Mr/Ms. AC. :p
Yeah, companies shouldn't discriminate against women in hiring. A woman can perform just as well as a man. In fact, she must be even more efficient in her work than a man, for her average to stay as high even with her longer maternity leave. /sarcasm
I have a huge problem with society-enforced institutionalization of untruths. Don't demand that people smile, nod their heads, and repeat along with politically correct mantras that are obviously false. Tell it like it is. People can (learn to) handle it. Women of childbearing age are statistically at higher risk than others for being lower performers for a company in the long term, both during and after pregnancy. Maybe we should or shouldn't allow discrimination (I'm not commenting on that because I'm making a different point), but the numbers don't lie. Neither should we.
Full disclosure: I am a male who as a teenager and twenty-something was charged higher auto insurance rates than females my age, because (once again) the numbers don't lie.
He would die of shock [...] And then her body would be torn asunder.
So you think a black hole would accomplish a gender change on the subject? Interesting theory.
you have no idea what you're talking about. [blah blah blah] you can't necessarily be called a moral guy according to moral code A. Why ? Because you may be following moral code A not out of your free will and judgement but because you fear that if you don't, the invisible guy in the sky will send you to hell. So no you are not a moral guy just because you follow the moral rules of moral system A.
No, my friend. _You_ have no idea what you're talking about. Search the Bible sometime for the phrase "fear of God".
A refutation of your post seems unnecessary since you appear to be hard at work refuting yourself. On one hand you sweepingly dismissed as not truly moral those who do what is right out of fear of the sorts of spiritual repercussions that you don't believe in. And then on the other hand you said that there isn't any objective standard for morality or ethics, implying that your first point is wrong, since their idea of morality is just as good as yours. Lol!
I would say that an ability to think about and analyze something goes along with one's strength in scientific disciplines, but the self-control required to act on what we know is right? That's a different story. How many people cheat on their partners? (Too many.) How many of them could give a good analysis and explanation of why that's wrong? (Uh, probably 100%.)
No? Then, not guilty. Anyone that offs themselves is solely responsibly for that act.
So if I lock you in my basement and threaten to torture you for the next ten years, and you find a way to kill yourself, nobody should ask me any questions. Your death was your own fault in that instance, right? I grant it's an exaggerated analogy, but it refutes your fallacy concisely. Somebody contributed to threatening an American citizen with decade(s) of prison time over essentially mild internet mischief, and I for one would like to know who is to be held accountable for that.
That works if you have a competent contractor _and_ you are a competent customer. However, in many software projects the customer doesn't really know what they want/need when they start. Then, instead of helping them iterate a bit and learn what they need, the contractor has to spend his time saying "no, that's not what I estimated". Fixed bids are a huge problem for the agility required on such projects, and can cause them to fail in very bad ways.
Almost all my contracting work has been T&M, and has involved cautious feature creep as the customer's understanding of their needs evolved. The one major fixed bid project I did happened to be a success, because it was managed on the customer side by highly competent engineers who knew exactly what they needed.
As a contractor I've been through this more than once, and actually had very good experiences training / mentoring customer employees to "take over" the programming of my projects. In one case I met weekly with a guy over many months, and took him from hand-holding up to completing major releases. I don't see it as a threat, because if you're already sharing the source code (which I always do), then you're explicitly offering that the customer can take over the job in the future. So -- assuming that mentoring is a service you want to offer -- do the best job you can, and have fun. And it is a tremendous amount of fun to teach when you are good at what you do, have some communication skills, and also have a beginner student with decent aptitude along with a serious attitude toward learning. I had all of those. /toot-own-horn
Good luck, hope it goes well for you!
I don't just want to learn about them. I want to know their names, where they work, where they live, the stuff they buy at the grocery store. Everything.
It improves over gzip by a mere 3% or so, but takes an order of magnitude longer to compress [...] it's practical merit is virtually nil.
Maybe it's useless to you as a developer(?), and to most people. However, you benefit from this kind of technology all the time. Compare this to video encoding, where powerful machines spend a heck of a lot of time and CPU power to gain extra 3%'s of compression to save bandwidth and give you a smooth viewing experience.
This tool could have many useful applications for any kind of static content that is frequently served, including web services, as well as embedded content in mobile games and other apps. Every little bit of space savings helps (as long as it isn't proportionally slower to expand, which the article says it stays comparable).
Oh? From my own and 3rd party observations (friends), win8 sucks badly because a) they force a specific UI on their users, which an OS has no business doing and b) said UI is an utter violation of all guidelines for good UI design.
Given that Microsoft publishes "guidelines of good UI design", I am guessing that you are engaging in a little bit of "no true Scotsman" fallacy here. With regard to the rest of it, there are reasons why Metro UI has limitations relative to desktop applications. They are actually good reasons oriented toward power efficiency on mobile devices and setting standards for touch interaction. Since they are a step backward for keyboard/mouse users, I can't see the desktop ever being totally eliminated, and I can agree that making Metro the default start screen was a questionable decision. But anyone who pooh-poohs the emergence of mobile primacy and touch interaction (as you seem to be doing) is behind the times.
this is news for nerds, and according to nerd usage, yes, it does suck.
It's not clear what your credentials are to speak on behalf of all nerds. Personally, as a developer (and nerd, and long-time /. reader) I love the fact that there are more options now - that the same touch first experience that my users love on iOS/Android can be experienced on a desktop OS. Sure, nobody wants to sit all day long in a traditional office pose holding their arms straight out, but that's a silly objection to Windows 8. Three reasons off the cuff: (1) portable Windows tablets, (2) monitors that recline, (3) giant wall or coffee table displays that multiple people can do interesting stuff on. With all of these a touch-first usage mode is desirable, and Microsoft has finally taken the leap to add that new option to Windows 8. In my opinion, Apple is likely to follow at some point in the next year or two.
:p
By the way, I'm typing this in Windows 8's desktop mode, which is still a keyboard/mouse centric mode. The fact that a touch-first mode exists a keystroke away doesn't emotionally disturb me. Should it?
Try to pick examples that aren't stupid.
If you happen to live in a country with fully socialized medicine, I suppose ordinary people/voters may have some at least indirect voice in what treatments will be made medically available. However, welcome to USA-centric Slashdot, let's take a look here...
- Mostly capitalistic, patient (ins. co.) funded care, especially on the "bleeding edge" of innovation: [CHECK]
- Parents are merely human, and may for whatever reason not take their pills or have another chemical imbalance: [CHECK]
- Parents care a lot more about their baby than a Slashdot troll does: [CHECK]
- Relevance therefore of the above Slashdot troll to the discussion: [LEFT BLANK]
Kudos to your upbeat attitude, but in this case Apple did make a conscious decision to break many existing apps in the App Store. Here's a link that describes the changes they made. For what it's worth, I personally could have coded something that would either not break anything (realistically unlikely in an app store of hundreds of thousands of apps relying on obscure side effects), or at least break a lot fewer apps. link to description.
This is not like the 64 bit thing, because Apple could easily have avoided breaking this stuff on iOS 6. The message they sent was that you'd better be prepared to re-release your app for every new iOS version, because Apple's primary interest is forward-looking, not backward looking. They care about their next dollar, not one they earned a year ago. But I already said that.
Perhaps you prefer the former?
We've talked about this from several angles, so that's a hard question to answer simplistically. We all like cool new stuff that works. :D
I'd just get back to my example of Apple deliberately breaking autorotate for legacy apps running on iOS 6. I definitely do not prefer that kind of change. I think it was a good example of what I was talking about, and not "drivel" at all. You're welcome to write a refutation of that point.
Thanks, you are correct on all counts. My comments were based on the preponderance of new systems sold, which are pretty much all 64 bits as of (vaguely) recently.