We already have something better than plurality voting, but most voters don't bother to utilize it. Instead they sit at home during the primaries and only bother to vote until they have only two choices, if they bother to vote at all.
Since the states have their primaries on different dates, the effect is a sort of run-off voting. The first states vote, and those candidates who do poorly are ignored by voters in other states who vote on later dates, so that they can put their votes where they will make a difference: choosing between the two most popular candidates. Since there are many different dates over which the primaries occur, this is a gradual process, with each election causing a few more of the least-popular candidates to drop out of the race, or at the very least, causing voters who might have voted for them to reconsider since they now realize they have no chance of winning.
Indeed, even without primaries, we still have pre-election polls which are usually clear enough in telling us who the top two contenders are, and we can simply choose between those two candidates. With no "wasted vote" effect, polls can tell us each candidate's true level of support, since no one has any reason to tell a pollster that they will vote for any candidate other than their favorite, even if they will do so in the election after seeing the incredibly poor poll results for their favorite candidate.
I'd love to have condorcet voting if we could make it happen, but I don't believe its absence is the cause of our problems.
Those products now have warnings to use only distilled or boiled (and cooled) water in them.
Insufficient warnings in my opinion. The actual text:
Warnings: Rinsing your nasal passages with only plain water will result in a sever burning sensation. Always Use Distilled, Micro-Filtered (through 0.2 micron) Commerically Bottled or Previously Boiled & Cooled Down Water at Lukewarm or Body Temperature, properly mixed with NeilMed SINUS RINSE packets. Do not use tap or faucet water for dissolving the mixture unless it has been previously boiled and cooled down. Do not rinse if nasal passages are completely blocked or if you had recent ear or sinus surgery, contact your physician prior to irrigation. If you experience any pressure in the ears, stop irrigation and get further directions from your physician. Keep out of reach of children. Read and retain the enclosed brochure, if provided, for instructions and other important information. Inside components of this unit are not for individual sale. Do not discard this printed box and any enclosed printed material. The inside final product may not have all the details you require for the ongoing use of the product. If this printed box is used as an inner subassembly box, it will not have the lot number and expiration date. Please refer to the main point-of-sale box for further details. STORE IN A COOL & DRY PLACE
I guess the Capitalizing Every Word is their way of putting it in bold text, though not as bold as the end which becomes red and eventually all caps.
Anyway, the warning makes it out to be something not all that important (particularly because it's mentioned after something that, while painful, isn't likely to cause any long-term damage), and also because they didn't bother to bold it, but rather, they merely capitalized all of the nouns. So it comes across as nothing but typical paranoia, e.g. maybe there's some rare chance that if your city doesn't chlorinate their water then you'll get some bacterial infection, requiring you to go to the doctor and get some antibiotics, and then you'll sue them for the $100 that cost you, and thus, you don't give a fuck and you can just use tap water if you want to.
It just isn't a real warning if it doesn't mention the consequences. For example, the warning about using plain tap water is a real warning because it informs you about why you want to follow that advice. However, when it comes to what might actually kill you, they're completely silent about the consequences, likely because they don't want to say anything that might discourage people from using the product. As a result, I'm sure that damn near everyone who uses the product uses it with plain tap water, and that the only reason more people aren't dying is because it's simply an unlikely infection.
I don't see the harm in driving down a road at 55 MPH when the speed limit is 55 MPH just because there are four people behind me who want to go 70 MPH.
Indeed, what you describe with having to pull over to allow them to pass would create a situation where those who choose to obey the law on a 55 MPH road are reduced to averaging about 20 MPH, since every time they start moving, four more people with no regard for safety or the law are on their tail again, and so they have to stop yet again to allow them to pass.
Then what happens when you, driving 85 MPH down this road (because that's as fast as you feel you can safely travel) are being followed by a trail of others wanting to drive 115 MPH. So now you have to pull over constantly, reducing your average speed to a mere 40 MPH.
It really makes more sense if the people behind are responsible for resolving the situation on their own by merely passing the slower driver when they have the opportunity. That way everyone can drive at least 55 MPH.
Yes, because the last thing we need is anyone hindering the ability of others to break the law. That needs to be illegal. </sarcasm>
In the more sane parts of the U.S., if you don't like the speed of the person in front of you, you're expected to either pass them or take a different route. Indeed, when I see people following me too closely because they don't like my speed, I help them out by removing my foot from the accelerator until I've slowed sufficiently that they are able to pass me easily. The way I look at it, I can't force people to follow me at a distance that is safe for the speed we are traveling at, but I can force them to follow me at a speed that is safe for the distance they are following me at, and so that's what I do.
They're not going to charge for the next Windows upgrade.
This whole scheme is about everyone rejecting Windows 8. Microsoft thought "what if we could just force them to upgrade?" So they decided to make Windows 10 the final version, with free upgrades afterwards. So they polish it up so that it's acceptable to most people, get them to upgrade, and in a few years they'll revert back to the bullshit of Windows 8, except this time it won't be an optional upgrade, it'll just be another OS update which you can't disable because they removed the ability to block updates from Windows 10. You'll show up to work one day and find your start menu replaced with a bunch of colorful squares on a black screen, important menus hidden away in hot corners and other places you like to put your mouse cursor when you want to get it out of the way, and virtually every utility replaced with an always-fullscreen "app" with only 20% of the functionality of the original utility....and you'll use it this time, because you won't have a choice.
...and one person didn't like something I said about OSX and down-modded the post, and now I'm posting at 0. Fuck this shit, even reddit makes more sense than this.
What exactly is wrong with a task bar and a start menu? It works. People know how to use it. Why fuck that up, especially to replace it with something that seemingly no one is able to understand the vision behind. Even you haven't told me what is actually better about Gnome 3, other than it being a "blank slate" as if failing to start out with a usable configuration is a good thing. Indeed, I wouldn't even call the Firefox which had to be loaded up with plugins to be a worthwhile web browser a good thing. Back then I was using Opera, where all of the plugins people loved in Firefox were out-of-the-box features in Opera. (Of course, that didn't stop lots of "but Opera doesn't have a ______ plugin" complaints. Plugins are fucking retarded, they're just features that should be a part of the core software but for some reason aren't.)
As for the out-of-date icons, I can understand that, but then why fuck up the entire UI rather than just replace some icons? Hell, remove the icons entirely for all I care. I've never been a fan of the stupid icons anyway, usually ignoring them in most cases just to pick things out of the menus anyway, which is why I get pissed when people take away my menus because they're "too cluttered" or whatever. God-forbid that the fact that software is capable of doing things be even remotely visible to first-time users. Apparently software isn't elegant enough until it appears to be entirely featureless to first-time users.
What I mean is, when I was using OSX, I kept right-clicking all sorts of things looking for functionality that simply wasn't there.
Sorry if it doesn't fit with how you imagine it to be an ideal OS, but I got burned wasting $1300 on a Macbook just because everyone on Slashdot said that OSX was the shit, so I feel compelled to let people know that it isn't all roses. I mean, yes, the OS does "just work," but only if by "just work" you mean "the few things they bothered to make it capable of doing, it is able to do well." It's nice until you realize that having an OS with a bunch of half-broken features is better than having an OS that doesn't have those features in any form at all.
OSX just isn't an OS that I can see any kind of computer enthusiast taking an interest in. It's an OS like a television: designed to do just one thing, and it does that one thing well, but fuck you if you have a use case in mind which the designers hadn't considered because you're shit out of luck.
It's also kind of the opposite of Linux in terms of the availability of free software. Whereas with Linux, you can expect to find virtually any software for free, with OSX it's the exact opposite: Since those with a lot of money to blow buy Apple products, virtually everything that exists for OSX costs at least $10 no matter how trivial it is, and you'll be looking for a lot of this software to fill in holes in the core OS's functionality since, like I said, it's rather featureless.
I feel the need to reply "me too" here, just so that perhaps some people not reading score 0 comments (since, by default, they're not shown) will see your post.
Holy fuck... Does anyone actually use Gnome 3, or is it just a playground for a bunch of people who wish they weren't born after all of the good GUI concepts had been discovered and want to move ahead as if there are still better GUI concepts to be discovered and we all just need to get used to them?
I mean, the original goal was "come up with GUI widgets that are intuitive enough that you don't have to teach people how to use them." However, we've already done that, so they seem to have chosen a different goal, namely "come up with GUI widgets that everyone would agree are better if only they'd take the time to learn how to use them and also forget about all of those things that make using a computer easier that we haven't bothered to implement an alternative for as we don't do those things ourselves."
I feel handicapped enough when I'm forced to use Windows, as the lack of (a useful implementation of) virtual desktops drives me insane when I try to do anything of moderate complexity, and even when I'm doing simpler things I'm annoyed by the task bar now having just icons and no window titles, and having to click the program's icon, then select which window of that program I want. (Undoubtedly that's done to deal with the lack of virtual desktops requiring so many windows to be displayed on the task bar, and indeed, none of the third-party virtual desktops available for Windows bother to limit the windows shown on each virtual desktop's task bar to only the windows that are open on that virtual desktop.) If I were ever forced to use Gnome 3, however, I'd probably just switch to using Windows, since even though it's a pain in the ass, it's still possible to do things with it.
Honestly, I think KDE 4, Gnome 3, and Pottering are all just plots by Microsoft to ensure that Linux never wins the OS war. I mean, everyone hates Pottering, so how is he able to affect the Linux ecosystem so much? Obviously he has a publicity team working for him, telling him where he needs to be, what he needs to say, and writing piles of just-good-enough code for him, such that he is able to inflict maximum damage to the Linux ecosystem.
Perhaps, but unfortunately its GUI assumes you're the exact opposite of an advanced user, and provides you with so few advanced options that it doesn't even require right-click context menus. The only thing worse than being unable to do something because it's unnecessarily difficult to do is being unable to do it because no one has bothered to write code for that functionality at all.
It's the OS that has just one mouse parameter slider that controls both speed and acceleration, because someone thinks that having two sliders so that each parameter can be configured individually would be too confusing for users. If you can deal with that sort of bullshit on an everyday basis, then OSX might be for you. Otherwise, take your $2000 and buy two laptops instead of just one.
I tried a bunch of them a few years ago. I found that FreeBSD was the best one, even though it doesn't come with a GUI by default, and so you have to install it afterwards. (Seems kind of ridiculous to me, but that's how they package it for some reason.) I don't know if they've changed the documentation since then, but note that you don't have to compile X11 and your window manager, as there is a system that can install pre-compiled packages that they don't bother to mention until after they tell you how to compile your own packages. Just skip ahead in the manual to find it.
Overall, I really liked FreeBSD, as I found it much more agreeable to how I think things should work. What ultimately drove me away from it was sort of what ultimately drives people who use Linux back to Windows: familiarity. For example, I once needed to use "strace," but FreeBSD has "dtrace" instead, and while I could find many web pages insisting that dtrace was better than strace, for some reason none of those web pages could tell me how to make the much more advanced dtrace perform the comparatively simple task that strace performs, simply printing system calls and their parameters to stdout. So I switched over to Linux for that little project. After a while, I found myself switching over to Linux for a lot of things, just to get shit done rather than spend all day learning how to do it, and so I realized I might as well be using Linux to begin with.
I do plan to give it another go some day when I have a lot more time to spend learning it, as I really did like what I saw when I was using it, but it's just a simple fact that I don't use my computer for fun, and I can do stuff faster in Linux, not because it has better documentation, but because I've already wasted a lot of effort learning to use Linux and so dealing with its bullshit is easier than learning how to use FreeBSD's lack of bullshit.
you can exchange a first time key, and to defeat that key exchange, NSA would have to intercept all communications all the time. If it missed the first exchange, it fails, if it missed ANY subsequent exchange, the tap is revealed.
That's actually a great idea. Too bad that security people are all to happy to ignore good solutions and stick with bad ones simply because they haven't yet found a perfect solution. Everyone knows that unencrypted HTTP communications are bad. We also know that certificate authorities merely provide a false sense of security, particularly against people like the NSA. Yet apparently we'd rather stick with bad and worse rather than adopt any idea that is merely "good" but not infallible.
Others have replied that the NSA can intercept that key exchange each and every time, but the simple fact is that they can't. Sometimes people will communicate while on the same LAN, other times from within the same ISP at points so close that the packets never go deep enough into the internet that the NSA gets to intercept them, and there will likely be a lot of people running honeypot communications just to detect whether the NSA doing a MITM on them. So while they might be able to fool a lot of people a lot of the time, there will be a lot of people detecting such activity, which would raise a huge red flag for everyone when detections of this activity hit the news. Not to mention that, as far as we presently know, they aren't doing MITM work on any sort of large scale, but rather, just for targeted investigations, and so over the short term such a scheme would provide real security, and over the long term it would have the capability of alerting us to when they have begun doing MITM attacks on everyone.
Unfortunately, people working on encryption schemes don't consider it good enough to merely put an end to mass spying. They insist upon perfection, including "deniability" and "perfect forward secrecy" and every other encryption feature they can think of, even if that requires moving the goal posts so far that they are impractical to reach and so we're doomed to simply have no encryption at all.
Slashdot Mirror
We already have something better than plurality voting, but most voters don't bother to utilize it. Instead they sit at home during the primaries and only bother to vote until they have only two choices, if they bother to vote at all.
Since the states have their primaries on different dates, the effect is a sort of run-off voting. The first states vote, and those candidates who do poorly are ignored by voters in other states who vote on later dates, so that they can put their votes where they will make a difference: choosing between the two most popular candidates. Since there are many different dates over which the primaries occur, this is a gradual process, with each election causing a few more of the least-popular candidates to drop out of the race, or at the very least, causing voters who might have voted for them to reconsider since they now realize they have no chance of winning.
Indeed, even without primaries, we still have pre-election polls which are usually clear enough in telling us who the top two contenders are, and we can simply choose between those two candidates. With no "wasted vote" effect, polls can tell us each candidate's true level of support, since no one has any reason to tell a pollster that they will vote for any candidate other than their favorite, even if they will do so in the election after seeing the incredibly poor poll results for their favorite candidate.
I'd love to have condorcet voting if we could make it happen, but I don't believe its absence is the cause of our problems.
Those products now have warnings to use only distilled or boiled (and cooled) water in them.
Insufficient warnings in my opinion. The actual text:
Warnings: Rinsing your nasal passages with only plain water will result in a sever burning sensation. Always Use Distilled, Micro-Filtered (through 0.2 micron) Commerically Bottled or Previously Boiled & Cooled Down Water at Lukewarm or Body Temperature, properly mixed with NeilMed SINUS RINSE packets. Do not use tap or faucet water for dissolving the mixture unless it has been previously boiled and cooled down. Do not rinse if nasal passages are completely blocked or if you had recent ear or sinus surgery, contact your physician prior to irrigation. If you experience any pressure in the ears, stop irrigation and get further directions from your physician. Keep out of reach of children. Read and retain the enclosed brochure, if provided, for instructions and other important information. Inside components of this unit are not for individual sale. Do not discard this printed box and any enclosed printed material. The inside final product may not have all the details you require for the ongoing use of the product. If this printed box is used as an inner subassembly box, it will not have the lot number and expiration date. Please refer to the main point-of-sale box for further details. STORE IN A COOL & DRY PLACE
I guess the Capitalizing Every Word is their way of putting it in bold text, though not as bold as the end which becomes red and eventually all caps.
Anyway, the warning makes it out to be something not all that important (particularly because it's mentioned after something that, while painful, isn't likely to cause any long-term damage), and also because they didn't bother to bold it, but rather, they merely capitalized all of the nouns. So it comes across as nothing but typical paranoia, e.g. maybe there's some rare chance that if your city doesn't chlorinate their water then you'll get some bacterial infection, requiring you to go to the doctor and get some antibiotics, and then you'll sue them for the $100 that cost you, and thus, you don't give a fuck and you can just use tap water if you want to.
It just isn't a real warning if it doesn't mention the consequences. For example, the warning about using plain tap water is a real warning because it informs you about why you want to follow that advice. However, when it comes to what might actually kill you, they're completely silent about the consequences, likely because they don't want to say anything that might discourage people from using the product. As a result, I'm sure that damn near everyone who uses the product uses it with plain tap water, and that the only reason more people aren't dying is because it's simply an unlikely infection.
I don't see the harm in driving down a road at 55 MPH when the speed limit is 55 MPH just because there are four people behind me who want to go 70 MPH.
Indeed, what you describe with having to pull over to allow them to pass would create a situation where those who choose to obey the law on a 55 MPH road are reduced to averaging about 20 MPH, since every time they start moving, four more people with no regard for safety or the law are on their tail again, and so they have to stop yet again to allow them to pass.
Then what happens when you, driving 85 MPH down this road (because that's as fast as you feel you can safely travel) are being followed by a trail of others wanting to drive 115 MPH. So now you have to pull over constantly, reducing your average speed to a mere 40 MPH.
It really makes more sense if the people behind are responsible for resolving the situation on their own by merely passing the slower driver when they have the opportunity. That way everyone can drive at least 55 MPH.
> That's how it should be everywhere.
Yes, because the last thing we need is anyone hindering the ability of others to break the law. That needs to be illegal. </sarcasm>
In the more sane parts of the U.S., if you don't like the speed of the person in front of you, you're expected to either pass them or take a different route. Indeed, when I see people following me too closely because they don't like my speed, I help them out by removing my foot from the accelerator until I've slowed sufficiently that they are able to pass me easily. The way I look at it, I can't force people to follow me at a distance that is safe for the speed we are traveling at, but I can force them to follow me at a speed that is safe for the distance they are following me at, and so that's what I do.
They're not going to charge for the next Windows upgrade.
This whole scheme is about everyone rejecting Windows 8. Microsoft thought "what if we could just force them to upgrade?" So they decided to make Windows 10 the final version, with free upgrades afterwards. So they polish it up so that it's acceptable to most people, get them to upgrade, and in a few years they'll revert back to the bullshit of Windows 8, except this time it won't be an optional upgrade, it'll just be another OS update which you can't disable because they removed the ability to block updates from Windows 10. You'll show up to work one day and find your start menu replaced with a bunch of colorful squares on a black screen, important menus hidden away in hot corners and other places you like to put your mouse cursor when you want to get it out of the way, and virtually every utility replaced with an always-fullscreen "app" with only 20% of the functionality of the original utility. ...and you'll use it this time, because you won't have a choice.
...and one person didn't like something I said about OSX and down-modded the post, and now I'm posting at 0. Fuck this shit, even reddit makes more sense than this.
What exactly is wrong with a task bar and a start menu? It works. People know how to use it. Why fuck that up, especially to replace it with something that seemingly no one is able to understand the vision behind. Even you haven't told me what is actually better about Gnome 3, other than it being a "blank slate" as if failing to start out with a usable configuration is a good thing. Indeed, I wouldn't even call the Firefox which had to be loaded up with plugins to be a worthwhile web browser a good thing. Back then I was using Opera, where all of the plugins people loved in Firefox were out-of-the-box features in Opera. (Of course, that didn't stop lots of "but Opera doesn't have a ______ plugin" complaints. Plugins are fucking retarded, they're just features that should be a part of the core software but for some reason aren't.)
As for the out-of-date icons, I can understand that, but then why fuck up the entire UI rather than just replace some icons? Hell, remove the icons entirely for all I care. I've never been a fan of the stupid icons anyway, usually ignoring them in most cases just to pick things out of the menus anyway, which is why I get pissed when people take away my menus because they're "too cluttered" or whatever. God-forbid that the fact that software is capable of doing things be even remotely visible to first-time users. Apparently software isn't elegant enough until it appears to be entirely featureless to first-time users.
What I mean is, when I was using OSX, I kept right-clicking all sorts of things looking for functionality that simply wasn't there.
Sorry if it doesn't fit with how you imagine it to be an ideal OS, but I got burned wasting $1300 on a Macbook just because everyone on Slashdot said that OSX was the shit, so I feel compelled to let people know that it isn't all roses. I mean, yes, the OS does "just work," but only if by "just work" you mean "the few things they bothered to make it capable of doing, it is able to do well." It's nice until you realize that having an OS with a bunch of half-broken features is better than having an OS that doesn't have those features in any form at all.
OSX just isn't an OS that I can see any kind of computer enthusiast taking an interest in. It's an OS like a television: designed to do just one thing, and it does that one thing well, but fuck you if you have a use case in mind which the designers hadn't considered because you're shit out of luck.
It's also kind of the opposite of Linux in terms of the availability of free software. Whereas with Linux, you can expect to find virtually any software for free, with OSX it's the exact opposite: Since those with a lot of money to blow buy Apple products, virtually everything that exists for OSX costs at least $10 no matter how trivial it is, and you'll be looking for a lot of this software to fill in holes in the core OS's functionality since, like I said, it's rather featureless.
I feel the need to reply "me too" here, just so that perhaps some people not reading score 0 comments (since, by default, they're not shown) will see your post.
Damn Slashdot and its war on Anonymous Cowards.
Holy fuck... Does anyone actually use Gnome 3, or is it just a playground for a bunch of people who wish they weren't born after all of the good GUI concepts had been discovered and want to move ahead as if there are still better GUI concepts to be discovered and we all just need to get used to them?
I mean, the original goal was "come up with GUI widgets that are intuitive enough that you don't have to teach people how to use them." However, we've already done that, so they seem to have chosen a different goal, namely "come up with GUI widgets that everyone would agree are better if only they'd take the time to learn how to use them and also forget about all of those things that make using a computer easier that we haven't bothered to implement an alternative for as we don't do those things ourselves."
I feel handicapped enough when I'm forced to use Windows, as the lack of (a useful implementation of) virtual desktops drives me insane when I try to do anything of moderate complexity, and even when I'm doing simpler things I'm annoyed by the task bar now having just icons and no window titles, and having to click the program's icon, then select which window of that program I want. (Undoubtedly that's done to deal with the lack of virtual desktops requiring so many windows to be displayed on the task bar, and indeed, none of the third-party virtual desktops available for Windows bother to limit the windows shown on each virtual desktop's task bar to only the windows that are open on that virtual desktop.) If I were ever forced to use Gnome 3, however, I'd probably just switch to using Windows, since even though it's a pain in the ass, it's still possible to do things with it.
Honestly, I think KDE 4, Gnome 3, and Pottering are all just plots by Microsoft to ensure that Linux never wins the OS war. I mean, everyone hates Pottering, so how is he able to affect the Linux ecosystem so much? Obviously he has a publicity team working for him, telling him where he needs to be, what he needs to say, and writing piles of just-good-enough code for him, such that he is able to inflict maximum damage to the Linux ecosystem.
Perhaps, but unfortunately its GUI assumes you're the exact opposite of an advanced user, and provides you with so few advanced options that it doesn't even require right-click context menus. The only thing worse than being unable to do something because it's unnecessarily difficult to do is being unable to do it because no one has bothered to write code for that functionality at all.
It's the OS that has just one mouse parameter slider that controls both speed and acceleration, because someone thinks that having two sliders so that each parameter can be configured individually would be too confusing for users. If you can deal with that sort of bullshit on an everyday basis, then OSX might be for you. Otherwise, take your $2000 and buy two laptops instead of just one.
I tried a bunch of them a few years ago. I found that FreeBSD was the best one, even though it doesn't come with a GUI by default, and so you have to install it afterwards. (Seems kind of ridiculous to me, but that's how they package it for some reason.) I don't know if they've changed the documentation since then, but note that you don't have to compile X11 and your window manager, as there is a system that can install pre-compiled packages that they don't bother to mention until after they tell you how to compile your own packages. Just skip ahead in the manual to find it.
Overall, I really liked FreeBSD, as I found it much more agreeable to how I think things should work. What ultimately drove me away from it was sort of what ultimately drives people who use Linux back to Windows: familiarity. For example, I once needed to use "strace," but FreeBSD has "dtrace" instead, and while I could find many web pages insisting that dtrace was better than strace, for some reason none of those web pages could tell me how to make the much more advanced dtrace perform the comparatively simple task that strace performs, simply printing system calls and their parameters to stdout. So I switched over to Linux for that little project. After a while, I found myself switching over to Linux for a lot of things, just to get shit done rather than spend all day learning how to do it, and so I realized I might as well be using Linux to begin with.
I do plan to give it another go some day when I have a lot more time to spend learning it, as I really did like what I saw when I was using it, but it's just a simple fact that I don't use my computer for fun, and I can do stuff faster in Linux, not because it has better documentation, but because I've already wasted a lot of effort learning to use Linux and so dealing with its bullshit is easier than learning how to use FreeBSD's lack of bullshit.
you can exchange a first time key, and to defeat that key exchange, NSA would have to intercept all communications all the time. If it missed the first exchange, it fails, if it missed ANY subsequent exchange, the tap is revealed.
That's actually a great idea. Too bad that security people are all to happy to ignore good solutions and stick with bad ones simply because they haven't yet found a perfect solution. Everyone knows that unencrypted HTTP communications are bad. We also know that certificate authorities merely provide a false sense of security, particularly against people like the NSA. Yet apparently we'd rather stick with bad and worse rather than adopt any idea that is merely "good" but not infallible.
Others have replied that the NSA can intercept that key exchange each and every time, but the simple fact is that they can't. Sometimes people will communicate while on the same LAN, other times from within the same ISP at points so close that the packets never go deep enough into the internet that the NSA gets to intercept them, and there will likely be a lot of people running honeypot communications just to detect whether the NSA doing a MITM on them. So while they might be able to fool a lot of people a lot of the time, there will be a lot of people detecting such activity, which would raise a huge red flag for everyone when detections of this activity hit the news. Not to mention that, as far as we presently know, they aren't doing MITM work on any sort of large scale, but rather, just for targeted investigations, and so over the short term such a scheme would provide real security, and over the long term it would have the capability of alerting us to when they have begun doing MITM attacks on everyone.
Unfortunately, people working on encryption schemes don't consider it good enough to merely put an end to mass spying. They insist upon perfection, including "deniability" and "perfect forward secrecy" and every other encryption feature they can think of, even if that requires moving the goal posts so far that they are impractical to reach and so we're doomed to simply have no encryption at all.