Israel bears most of the blame for the latest crisis in Lebanon. They launched an invasion on the pretense of searching for two captured soldiers, even though they themselves were holding hundreds (thousands?) of captured hezbollah soldiers
How does total garbage like this get marked as insightful?
Jesus Christ, people, these are recent historical events. A matter in full view, and amply recorded by a variety of sources. This isn't like digging up old records of the Punic Wars or something, it happened just this fucking year.
They didn't launch an invasion on "the pretense" that you state. Since you seem to have missed it, Hezbollah *launched rockets* at a *city* in Israel, and then ambushed an IDF patrol with ATGMs, killing three soldiers and taking two prisoner.
That's not a minor little border skirmish like occasionally happened in Berlin during the Cold War. When you're *launching artillery rockets* at another nation's population centers, there's a word for that: war. When you do something of that sort, you're taking the gloves off. And I think everyone, from the pinkest neo-Marxist socialist feeb, to the most rabid big-L Libertarian nutbat, can agree that one of the *foremost responsibilities* of *any* government is to actually protect its citizens from attack, especially by NGOs firing free-flight artillery rockets from the other side of some line on a map. And *despite* that simple fact, Israel has put up with that kind of thing from Hezbollah for *years*, ever since it withdrew from Southern Lebanon in the first place.
To say this was a reaction to nothing more than the kidnapping of two soldiers is a grotesque and bald-faced mendaciousness on your part.
And even if that's *all* it was, Israel would still have been entirely justified in going after Hezbollah. Nation-states get to do that kind of thing when their citizens are attacked and kidnapped by foreign powers.
it was against the wrong people entirely
Again, bullshit.
Take a look at this. Clicky the before and after buttons. Turn the labels on.
Note the scale. The photo covers an area about 1000 yards on a side. Plug your local neighborhood into Google Maps, zoom into the 500' level, and mentally compare.
By and large, if it was a Hezbollah building, they flattened it. If it's civilian, it's still standing. This neighborhood was *Hezbollah headquarters*, and the area of the picture is small enough that even if Israel had turned the entire area into rubble, that would still represent a targeted attack on a tiny portion of the city itself. If there was one place Israel would have bombed into complete oblivion, it would have been this.
But they didn't do that.
Now let's be realistic for a moment,
I reject that comment with a mocking laugh when it comes from anyone who starts off with blatantly misrepresenting facts in the opening paragraph of his argument. An essential prerequisite of moral behavior is getting facts right, and you've shown little enough interest in doing that that I'm not particularly concerned with the color of the sky or the direction of gravity in your personal reality.
Pick a topic you're familiar with. Computer security, IP law, file sharing, medicine, whatever.
Read a newspaper article on that topic.
Note how grotesquely ill-informed the reporter and editorial staff are on that topic? Notice all the basic and fundamental errors they make that shine out as eye-searing actinic flares to you, given your far greater knowledge of that field of human endeavour?
Extrapolate this to all the topics you're not as familiar with.
Well, this has further cemented my opinion that while the Zune certainly would make me very, very afraid if I were the CEO of Creative, I'm not sure that it would have me shaking in my boots if I was in Steve Jobs' position.
My hope is that it spurs Apple on to get of its ass and make significant improvements to the iPod and its interface.
Like a full-front screen if they want to be serious about video, with built-in touch-screen capabilities to replace the tiny screen and big wheel.
Or, and this is a big one, *nested menus*. Hitting "Artists" and having a single list of every artist in your collection was fine and acceptable back when the iPod was first released and could hold 4 gigs. When you have 60 gigs of music and hundreds or even thousands of artists, it's a bit less practical, the variable-speed scrolling notwithstanding. It sure would be nice to be able to click "Artists" and then see a lower, nested hierarchy of "A," "B," "C," and so forth, so you could click on "B" and now be looking at all artists that begin with that latter. It would be trivial to implement this, it would be a significant improvement in ease-of-use, and the only thing stopping Apple from doing it (iTunes itself even supports nested playlists now, but the iPod doesn't!) is the fact that they have such a gobsmackingly huge market share that they're not driven to.
Even if MS's device doesn't grab a large chunk of the market from Apple, I hope the threat of competition in the market drives Apple to make better products.
Evolution is a scientific truth. It occurs. Allele frequencies change over time within populations. Speciation occurs. There is absolutely no debate even possible on this issue, it's a plain and simple fact in the same way that a heliocentric solar system is a plain and simple fact.
To explain this fact and many other associated facts, there are various explanations put forth. We call those attempts to explain a wide variety of observations as arising from the operation of a few discrete principles "theories." When those theories are successful at explaining what we observe, and successful at predicting things we didn't observe before we had the theory but did observe when we went looking for them in the places the theory tells us to expect them, we call those "successful" theories.
Modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is a theory that's demonstrated its success by both its explanatory and its predictive prowess. There are entire fields of productive human endeavour that exist only because modern neo-Darwinism is at least a reasonably accurate model of the universe, in the same way that the computer you just used to post your garbage only exists because quantum electrodynamics is a reasonably accurate model of the universe.
There are other explanations for the same facts that are semantically void, veridically null, completely nonfalsifiable and thus completely unscientific. They have no predictive or explanatory power whatever. We call those "religion."
losing your virginity signs that a woman may be pregnant how long does it take for the symptoms to show up that you are pregnant can you not get pregnant by having sex without a condom missed period negative home pregnancy test and positive blood test why christian love how to love your enemies inmate lookup at rikers island
the Department of Energy estimates that more than 2,500 billion liters of groundwater are contaminated with uranium as a consequence of nuclear weapons production.
Not to mention the oceans.
This probably has something to do with the fact that uranium is a naturally occurring mineral that's pretty much omnipresent at one concentration or another in any lump of soil you'd care to dig up. Oh noes!
I'm pretty happy with my hacked PSP. I'm not sure why so many people are down on the platform
It might have something to do with the number of PSP owners who have the wherewithal and the confidence to hack their PSPs without turning them into $200 bricks. If, instead of your PSP, you had a brand new one right off the rack with newer firmware and didn't know how to revert it, would you be able to get the use out of it you're getting out of the one you actually have?
Please. The muzzle energy of a.45ACP round is the same as that of a 10-pound weight when dropped from a height of 1.37 inches, and thus traveling at a speed of 2.7 feet per second.
There's no physiological reason for that to knock anyone down.
It showed that a bad outcome occured, not that a bad decision was made.
It absolutely showed that a bad decision was made: you don't inject all the trial subjects with your protocol drug one right after the other. You are, in fact, supposed to follow the protocol you're using, and it it calls for two hours between injecting each subject, then you damned well wait that two hours after injecting Patient A before you inject Patient B.
If they'd followed the protocol, there'd be *one guy* with a permanently-fucked immune system, instead of six. There are six, because they decided to ignore that aspect of the protocol and inject all the subjects at once.
You mean to tell me that a company that builds a networking infrastructure actually gets to set the terms by which others are or are not allowed to use it?
I was inititally looking forward to SW:G. Open-ended roleplaying in the Star Wars universe, complete with a robust crafting system and player-created towns!
My plan was to harvest gungans for their leathery hides, turning them into clothing and decorative lampshades. I envisioned an entire complex where gungans would be brought in on railcar, speedily dispatched by internal electrocution, and then rapidly skinned. I'd have other players paying me for those raw hides so they could cure them and sell them to the tailors who would stich them together into stylish impact armor.
That's a nova. You've got a white dwarf, with a red giant companion star. Gas flows from the red giant to the white dwarf, accumulating there. Eventually enough builds up for fusion to begin in that accreted matter, and that causes a great increase in luminosity which we call a nova.
But that accreted mass doesn't disappear. Sure, some of it gets blown out into space, but the 'ash' of the fusion 'burn' accumulates with each cycle. Eventually, enough mass accumulates that the white dwarf star, in which fusion reactions have essentially stopped, becomes massive enough to start fusing the carbon that was created back when it was still on the main sequence.
So you have a sudden wave of carbon fusion that occurs everywhere throughout the star, causing an enormous increase in luminosity and also blowing the star apart. This is, not surprising, referred to as a 'carbon detonation' supernova, or Type 1a supernova, which is what the article was talking about. This thing's right under the critical mass at which that'll happen, so a bit more accumulation of stellar matter from its companion star, and 'boom.'
How was this marked insightful? The terminal velocity of BBs in the lower atmosphere is considerably short of the typical 17 kilometer-per-second relative velocity of an earth-crossing meteor.
Trillion-ton meteor. Typical earth-crossing velocity of 17kps. That's 1.3E20 joules of kinetic energy. One big rock, or lots of dust, it's still the same mass, the same velocity, and the same amount of kinetic energy that's going to be liberated when it all impacts the atmosphere. That's like a 31 gigaton bomb going off in the upper atmosphere. Say, 100 miles up.
Radius of total destruction for a 31 gigaton bomb is well over 100 miles. The atmosphere would rush towards earth like a falling anvil, causing massive destruction even before you consider what the thermal radiation would do to anything exposed.
I expect it should be difficult because much more meteor dust rains down in a single day than most would believe.
Distributed over the entire area of the atmosphere, spread out in time over 24 hours. Arrange for it all to show up at very close to the same place at what is a good approximation of the same instant, and I guarantee you wouldn't want to be around.
See the comparison of buckshot to slugs in the other reply.
What comparison? Would you rather I shot you with 9.308-caliber pellets amounting to about 1.5 ounces or would you rather I shoot you with a single 12-gauge slug amounting to 1.5 ounces? You're just as fucked, it's just that the wound track would be different.
Let's say we drill a hole into the asteroid and manage to break it up with a really big nuke.
That's not, at all, how you'd want to do it. The whole idea of using nukes to divert meteors is that you *don't* set the nuke off in direct contact. You set it off at a certain standoff distance based on the size of the nuke, the size of the meteor, and so forth. The radient energy from the nuclear weapon, which will be mostly x-rays if you set it off in space, will flash some of the meteor into plasma. As that plasma expands, it pushes on the meteor.
using their released energy to divert and/or slow down the resulting debris cloud.
If you can do that, why not just use their released energy to divert or slow down the impactor in the first place, causing it to miss altogether? Why spend all that energy breaking it up if you just have to steer it away anyway?
If we can bust up a planet-killing asteroid, we should have ample power to redirect its leftovers.
It also follows that if you can bust up a planet-killing asteroid, you should have ample power to simply divert its course, instead. So why not do that?
Because the resulting pieces will be of varying size and shape, some will be below the size to successfully reach the surface before burning up.
Again, this doesn't provide much in the way of salvation. Take the mass of a big meteor, take its approach speed, figure the kinetic energy. If it's big enough to cause catastrophic effects if it stays in one piece and impacts the surface, it's big enough to cause catastrophic effects if you pulverize the entire thing down to dust and let it burn up as it enters the atmosphere.
Not all the resulting component pieces will have the same tragectory, thus
Why not? Before you do whatever it is you do, the rock has a big velocity vector pointing at the earth. Energy that goes into breaking rock isn't going to alter that velocity vector.
Because the resulting pieces will be smaller and spread over a larger area, the resulting damage will be less pronounced.
Oh no, no, no, no, no. One trillion tons of impactor is a really bad thing. One trillion tons of impactor broken up into 1,000 billion-ton impactors would be vastly, vastly worse. A single big impactor "wastes" a lot of energy throwing chunks of the lithosphere out into escape trajectories. Lots of smaller impactors cause far more widespread destruction.
Medieval wine merchants used to boil the H20 out of wine so their delicate cargo would keep better and take up less space at sea. Before long, some intrepid soul - our money's on a sailor - decided to bypass the reconstitution stage, and brandy was born. Pass the Courvoisier!
Um...alcohol boils at a *lower* temperature than water does. If you "boil the H2O" out of wine, the alcohol's gone long before the H2O is.
Then maybe you should write a web page that actually takes advantage of the fact that it's a web page, as opposed to a CYMK-printed brochure with set page heights and page widths. Requiring the user to resize his browser window to read all the fucking text went out sometime around 1997. Or rather, it should have.
The issue here is extensibility of Windows. Windows prides itself it on being pluggable and extendable. For example, to facilitate the accessibility extensions, Windows needs to be able to send keystrokes on the user's behalf so that a Windows user can talk to an input device and have that be translated into keystrokes that drive a dialog or type an email message. This also allows interesting and useful scenarios such as "show me how" buttons inside help dialogs.
However, that means that malware, running as a Standard User, can download an administrative application, and send keystrokes through Windows to simulate the user invoking the application. As a result, Windows cannot tell if YOU launched the application or if malware launched the application.
So they're *still* designing insecurity into the system because they place a higher priority on the "extensibility" that lets applications do things the user isn't expecting them to do.
Once that is true, we can then move to educating the users to know that "good" elevations are ones that they initiated and "bad" elevations are ones that suddenly appear without their explicit action.
And they're still relying on Grandma logged into her AOL account as the last line of defense.
Slashdot Mirror
Israel bears most of the blame for the latest crisis in Lebanon. They launched an invasion on the pretense of searching for two captured soldiers, even though they themselves were holding hundreds (thousands?) of captured hezbollah soldiers
How does total garbage like this get marked as insightful?
Jesus Christ, people, these are recent historical events. A matter in full view, and amply recorded by a variety of sources. This isn't like digging up old records of the Punic Wars or something, it happened just this fucking year.
They didn't launch an invasion on "the pretense" that you state. Since you seem to have missed it, Hezbollah *launched rockets* at a *city* in Israel, and then ambushed an IDF patrol with ATGMs, killing three soldiers and taking two prisoner.
That's not a minor little border skirmish like occasionally happened in Berlin during the Cold War. When you're *launching artillery rockets* at another nation's population centers, there's a word for that: war. When you do something of that sort, you're taking the gloves off. And I think everyone, from the pinkest neo-Marxist socialist feeb, to the most rabid big-L Libertarian nutbat, can agree that one of the *foremost responsibilities* of *any* government is to actually protect its citizens from attack, especially by NGOs firing free-flight artillery rockets from the other side of some line on a map. And *despite* that simple fact, Israel has put up with that kind of thing from Hezbollah for *years*, ever since it withdrew from Southern Lebanon in the first place.
To say this was a reaction to nothing more than the kidnapping of two soldiers is a grotesque and bald-faced mendaciousness on your part.
And even if that's *all* it was, Israel would still have been entirely justified in going after Hezbollah. Nation-states get to do that kind of thing when their citizens are attacked and kidnapped by foreign powers.
it was against the wrong people entirely
Again, bullshit.
Take a look at this. Clicky the before and after buttons. Turn the labels on.
Note the scale. The photo covers an area about 1000 yards on a side. Plug your local neighborhood into Google Maps, zoom into the 500' level, and mentally compare.
By and large, if it was a Hezbollah building, they flattened it. If it's civilian, it's still standing. This neighborhood was *Hezbollah headquarters*, and the area of the picture is small enough that even if Israel had turned the entire area into rubble, that would still represent a targeted attack on a tiny portion of the city itself. If there was one place Israel would have bombed into complete oblivion, it would have been this.
But they didn't do that.
Now let's be realistic for a moment,
I reject that comment with a mocking laugh when it comes from anyone who starts off with blatantly misrepresenting facts in the opening paragraph of his argument. An essential prerequisite of moral behavior is getting facts right, and you've shown little enough interest in doing that that I'm not particularly concerned with the color of the sky or the direction of gravity in your personal reality.
Pick a topic you're familiar with. Computer security, IP law, file sharing, medicine, whatever.
Read a newspaper article on that topic.
Note how grotesquely ill-informed the reporter and editorial staff are on that topic? Notice all the basic and fundamental errors they make that shine out as eye-searing actinic flares to you, given your far greater knowledge of that field of human endeavour?
Extrapolate this to all the topics you're not as familiar with.
Well, this has further cemented my opinion that while the Zune certainly would make me very, very afraid if I were the CEO of Creative, I'm not sure that it would have me shaking in my boots if I was in Steve Jobs' position.
My hope is that it spurs Apple on to get of its ass and make significant improvements to the iPod and its interface.
Like a full-front screen if they want to be serious about video, with built-in touch-screen capabilities to replace the tiny screen and big wheel.
Or, and this is a big one, *nested menus*. Hitting "Artists" and having a single list of every artist in your collection was fine and acceptable back when the iPod was first released and could hold 4 gigs. When you have 60 gigs of music and hundreds or even thousands of artists, it's a bit less practical, the variable-speed scrolling notwithstanding. It sure would be nice to be able to click "Artists" and then see a lower, nested hierarchy of "A," "B," "C," and so forth, so you could click on "B" and now be looking at all artists that begin with that latter. It would be trivial to implement this, it would be a significant improvement in ease-of-use, and the only thing stopping Apple from doing it (iTunes itself even supports nested playlists now, but the iPod doesn't!) is the fact that they have such a gobsmackingly huge market share that they're not driven to.
Even if MS's device doesn't grab a large chunk of the market from Apple, I hope the threat of competition in the market drives Apple to make better products.
Oh, bullshit.
Evolution is a scientific truth. It occurs. Allele frequencies change over time within populations. Speciation occurs. There is absolutely no debate even possible on this issue, it's a plain and simple fact in the same way that a heliocentric solar system is a plain and simple fact.
To explain this fact and many other associated facts, there are various explanations put forth. We call those attempts to explain a wide variety of observations as arising from the operation of a few discrete principles "theories." When those theories are successful at explaining what we observe, and successful at predicting things we didn't observe before we had the theory but did observe when we went looking for them in the places the theory tells us to expect them, we call those "successful" theories.
Modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory is a theory that's demonstrated its success by both its explanatory and its predictive prowess. There are entire fields of productive human endeavour that exist only because modern neo-Darwinism is at least a reasonably accurate model of the universe, in the same way that the computer you just used to post your garbage only exists because quantum electrodynamics is a reasonably accurate model of the universe.
There are other explanations for the same facts that are semantically void, veridically null, completely nonfalsifiable and thus completely unscientific. They have no predictive or explanatory power whatever. We call those "religion."
the Department of Energy estimates that more than 2,500 billion liters of groundwater are contaminated with uranium as a consequence of nuclear weapons production.
Not to mention the oceans.
This probably has something to do with the fact that uranium is a naturally occurring mineral that's pretty much omnipresent at one concentration or another in any lump of soil you'd care to dig up. Oh noes!
I've never seen a water molecule, but I still shower in the morning.
I'm pretty happy with my hacked PSP. I'm not sure why so many people are down on the platform
It might have something to do with the number of PSP owners who have the wherewithal and the confidence to hack their PSPs without turning them into $200 bricks. If, instead of your PSP, you had a brand new one right off the rack with newer firmware and didn't know how to revert it, would you be able to get the use out of it you're getting out of the one you actually have?
Knock him on his ass? Break his sternum?
.45ACP round is the same as that of a 10-pound weight when dropped from a height of 1.37 inches, and thus traveling at a speed of 2.7 feet per second.
Please. The muzzle energy of a
There's no physiological reason for that to knock anyone down.
It showed that a bad outcome occured, not that a bad decision was made.
It absolutely showed that a bad decision was made: you don't inject all the trial subjects with your protocol drug one right after the other. You are, in fact, supposed to follow the protocol you're using, and it it calls for two hours between injecting each subject, then you damned well wait that two hours after injecting Patient A before you inject Patient B.
If they'd followed the protocol, there'd be *one guy* with a permanently-fucked immune system, instead of six. There are six, because they decided to ignore that aspect of the protocol and inject all the subjects at once.
That is, in fact, a bad decision.
You mean to tell me that a company that builds a networking infrastructure actually gets to set the terms by which others are or are not allowed to use it?
Clearly, something must be done!
I doubt they'd let that happen.
I was inititally looking forward to SW:G. Open-ended roleplaying in the Star Wars universe, complete with a robust crafting system and player-created towns!
My plan was to harvest gungans for their leathery hides, turning them into clothing and decorative lampshades. I envisioned an entire complex where gungans would be brought in on railcar, speedily dispatched by internal electrocution, and then rapidly skinned. I'd have other players paying me for those raw hides so they could cure them and sell them to the tailors who would stich them together into stylish impact armor.
Nope. Not allowed. Fuck you, Koster.
Nonono.
That's a nova. You've got a white dwarf, with a red giant companion star. Gas flows from the red giant to the white dwarf, accumulating there. Eventually enough builds up for fusion to begin in that accreted matter, and that causes a great increase in luminosity which we call a nova.
But that accreted mass doesn't disappear. Sure, some of it gets blown out into space, but the 'ash' of the fusion 'burn' accumulates with each cycle. Eventually, enough mass accumulates that the white dwarf star, in which fusion reactions have essentially stopped, becomes massive enough to start fusing the carbon that was created back when it was still on the main sequence.
So you have a sudden wave of carbon fusion that occurs everywhere throughout the star, causing an enormous increase in luminosity and also blowing the star apart. This is, not surprising, referred to as a 'carbon detonation' supernova, or Type 1a supernova, which is what the article was talking about. This thing's right under the critical mass at which that'll happen, so a bit more accumulation of stellar matter from its companion star, and 'boom.'
Especially when the thing is really just a big pile of flying gravel to start with.
Only some. Metal meteors are a pretty good approximation to 'solid chunk of metal.'
How was this marked insightful? The terminal velocity of BBs in the lower atmosphere is considerably short of the typical 17 kilometer-per-second relative velocity of an earth-crossing meteor.
Prove this.
.308-caliber pellets amounting to about 1.5 ounces or would you rather I shoot you with a single 12-gauge slug amounting to 1.5 ounces? You're just as fucked, it's just that the wound track would be different.
Trillion-ton meteor. Typical earth-crossing velocity of 17kps. That's 1.3E20 joules of kinetic energy. One big rock, or lots of dust, it's still the same mass, the same velocity, and the same amount of kinetic energy that's going to be liberated when it all impacts the atmosphere. That's like a 31 gigaton bomb going off in the upper atmosphere. Say, 100 miles up.
Radius of total destruction for a 31 gigaton bomb is well over 100 miles. The atmosphere would rush towards earth like a falling anvil, causing massive destruction even before you consider what the thermal radiation would do to anything exposed.
I expect it should be difficult because much more meteor dust rains down in a single day than most would believe.
Distributed over the entire area of the atmosphere, spread out in time over 24 hours. Arrange for it all to show up at very close to the same place at what is a good approximation of the same instant, and I guarantee you wouldn't want to be around.
See the comparison of buckshot to slugs in the other reply.
What comparison? Would you rather I shot you with 9
Let's say we drill a hole into the asteroid and manage to break it up with a really big nuke.
That's not, at all, how you'd want to do it. The whole idea of using nukes to divert meteors is that you *don't* set the nuke off in direct contact. You set it off at a certain standoff distance based on the size of the nuke, the size of the meteor, and so forth. The radient energy from the nuclear weapon, which will be mostly x-rays if you set it off in space, will flash some of the meteor into plasma. As that plasma expands, it pushes on the meteor.
using their released energy to divert and/or slow down the resulting debris cloud.
If you can do that, why not just use their released energy to divert or slow down the impactor in the first place, causing it to miss altogether? Why spend all that energy breaking it up if you just have to steer it away anyway?
If we can bust up a planet-killing asteroid, we should have ample power to redirect its leftovers.
It also follows that if you can bust up a planet-killing asteroid, you should have ample power to simply divert its course, instead. So why not do that?
Because the resulting pieces will be of varying size and shape, some will be below the size to successfully reach the surface before burning up.
Again, this doesn't provide much in the way of salvation. Take the mass of a big meteor, take its approach speed, figure the kinetic energy. If it's big enough to cause catastrophic effects if it stays in one piece and impacts the surface, it's big enough to cause catastrophic effects if you pulverize the entire thing down to dust and let it burn up as it enters the atmosphere.
Not all the resulting component pieces will have the same tragectory, thus
Why not? Before you do whatever it is you do, the rock has a big velocity vector pointing at the earth. Energy that goes into breaking rock isn't going to alter that velocity vector.
Because the resulting pieces will be smaller and spread over a larger area, the resulting damage will be less pronounced.
Oh no, no, no, no, no. One trillion tons of impactor is a really bad thing. One trillion tons of impactor broken up into 1,000 billion-ton impactors would be vastly, vastly worse. A single big impactor "wastes" a lot of energy throwing chunks of the lithosphere out into escape trajectories. Lots of smaller impactors cause far more widespread destruction.
Um...alcohol boils at a *lower* temperature than water does. If you "boil the H2O" out of wine, the alcohol's gone long before the H2O is.
And you can hide your own Easter Eggs.
Google is complying with the law. Yes, I think it's a bad law. But since when is obeying the law evil?
This might come as a surprise, but in a republic, *citizens get a say in determining what the laws are*.
In China, they don't.
Then maybe you should write a web page that actually takes advantage of the fact that it's a web page, as opposed to a CYMK-printed brochure with set page heights and page widths. Requiring the user to resize his browser window to read all the fucking text went out sometime around 1997. Or rather, it should have.
You don't have to hold a hood over your head to compose on a TLR, either.
So they're *still* designing insecurity into the system because they place a higher priority on the "extensibility" that lets applications do things the user isn't expecting them to do.
And they're still relying on Grandma logged into her AOL account as the last line of defense.
Have they learned nothing?
Sorry, that was rhetorical.