It's funny how everyone says they like the truth, openness, honesty, free speech--all that shit. Well, until someone dares actually exercise any of that stuff when it exposes THEM, of course. Then it's GODDAMN WAR!!
I was hoping for a discussion about how technology (and the ubiquity of Wikipedia) now allows for revisionist history in real-time, potential guards, etc.
I feared the discussion would quickly devolve into a political debate and ignore the actual topic.
I discovered that it didn't even start to talk about the technical topic, but instead went straight for the political flamebait material.
Thanks a lot, Slashdot. You managed to underwhelm even my most pessimistic expectations.
This is one of the most important things you should know - independent of any other factors, such as getting regular exercise, etc., sitting for long stretches will increase your chance of a heart attack by 54 percent.
* Go for frequent short walks. Go to the water cooler a lot, drink lots, go to the toilet regularly. * When you're on the phone, stand.
Other than that, sit in a good position - shoulders back, arms parallel to the desk, etc.
This is one of the most important things you should know - independent of any other factors, such as getting regular exercise, etc., sitting for long stretches will increase your chance of a heart attack by 54 percent.
* Go for frequent short walks. Go to the water cooler a lot, drink lots, go to the toilet regularly. * When you're on the phone, stand.
Other than that, sit in a good position - shoulders back, arms parallel to the desk, etc.
I remember when innovation meant jumping from 16 colors to 4000 colors, from a sound chip that went "beeeeep" to near-CD level music, from single task word processing to multitasking dozens of programs at the same time. While in a live chat online. With a mouse.
Increasing the bit depth, or the number of sound channels, isn't innovative. It's just progress of technology. It's like going from a 130 horsepower engine in your car to a 170 horsepower engine. Faster, yeah. Innovative, as in something really, really different? No.
Going from black and white screens to color, or from no sound to any sound, or from a text only display to a WIMP interface (and I remember all of these transitions) are innovative. Yes, going to a multi-tasking environment (or implementing preemptive multi-tasking, say) is innovative. But increasing the number of colors in your palette is actually less innovative than changing the visual design of your desktop metaphor. As someone else pointed out, redesigning the whole interface paradigm can be a game changer.
I want to know about interference between cars. I've only see one self-driving car tested at a time. If there's hundreds within visual range of each other are their radar and laser sensors going to have much more noise?
I believe it is Toyota who is working with a system that allows cars to talk to each other. These aren't self-driving cars, but the idea is that if you are approaching an intersection and have right-of-way, and another driver is approaching the same intersection and is barreling on through regardless, the two cars will talk to one another, determine that they are on a collision course, negotiate, and one of those cars will slam on the brakes automatically. How it'd work at a busy NY intersection, who knows...but that's what computer simulations are for.
(And also why you need mathematics, in reference to the story yesterday about "does anyone really use maths in their programming job?". If you're working with any kind of engineering, and especially EE, then the answer is a solid yes, either the programmer or the EE will be implementing higher maths in their code.)
"Semi-silently"? What, kind of like a stealth aircraft that, umm, isn't really particularly stealthy?
The dialog is clearly split - top half, iTunes, bottom half, other stuff. I uncheck it. It clearly states, right up front, that it's optional. Easy.
And the titlebar at this point says "Apple Software Update". Once you choose to go ahead and install iTunes, then it will say iTunes updates, which I think sounds alarmingly sensible, quite honestly.
iTunes is a dreadful, dreadful piece of software on Windows. But you're flat out fabricating stories, and that's not fair.
But why are they a problematic issue if Google doing street view shots and sniffing your SSID isn't a problem in the eyes of many Slashdotters? This is what I do not get - and especially given that Google is all about combining everything. Your search history, GMail, blah blah blah...
The system will gather data as described in the article.
The Domain Awareness System will draw data from 911 calls, previous crime reports, license-plate readers, law-enforcement databases, environmental sensors, and roughly 3,000 closed-circuit cameras
911 calls - the police have access to these by default, to serve the public. (Going back to someone else's comment that the phone company needs to know where your cell-phone is at all times so they can serve you by connecting your calls.)
Previous crime reports, law enforcement databases - this is the police department's job, in the interests of public safety.
License plate readers, environmental sensors, closed circuit cameras - I suspect this is what's annoying people commenting on this story. Look at it this way - it's just gathering data based on what people on the streets see every day. Closed circuit cameras aren't peering behind closed doors into private areas; they're in public areas and you can generally see them if you look for them. License plate readers - you're driving your car, you have a license plate, anyone can see it if they are looking.
There have been debates about Google sniffing data from broadcasting routers (SSID names), and what they get from Google Street View. Which is worse? Is one worse than the other?
At least I can look up and see a CCTV. I wasn't home the day the Google car took a snapshot of my house and my car in the driveway...
These guys were drooling about wholesale intrusion into the most private aspects of our lives.
It really is the rise of big brother. The fact that it is a corporation instead of government is of little practical value; monitoring data gives those who have it power, and that power will always be abused - and will result in ruined or destroyed lives, reduced freedom, and corrupt leadership (whether government or corporate).
Really? How so. Please point out what AC got wrong.
Kim Dotcom was already charged, convicted, and punished of crimes. There is no need to punish someone again
Until they do something else that's naughty.
The AC to whom you replied pointed out that Kim Dotcom had a collection of guns, he liked to show them off, and this is unusual in NZ. That is all true. If you have a gun collection in NZ, you're out there.
Add to the fact the guy had a head of security. This is New Zealand, a sleepy, bucolic country of four million people and 70 million sheep. The Mongrel Mob has security; business men do not.
Slashdotters are usually very suspicious of anyone suspected of involvement in financial dealing. Shall we point out Dotcom tried to start a hedge fund (failed because, small problem, he didn't have a license)?
Read up on his background. Really read up on it. The guy is larger than life and revels in it. He has delighted in sticking up his middle finger to the law in multiple countries. He's run people off of roads. He paid people to upload popular movies (forget "information wants to be free" - he bought pirated movies so he could resell them).
His conviction wasn't a one-off; he gets into trouble, goes to court, then runs off to another country. Germany, Thailand, Hong Kong, New Zealand. Hong Kong authorities have stated he deliberately tried to stymie their investigations.
You comment he was waiting for the police, but neglect to mention the fact he was waiting for them with a shotgun in his hands.
He had more than 30 credit cards in different names and three different passports.
He bought stock in a website with little value, pumped it up, and then dumped the stock, leaving investors broke.
What more do you want? The guy is addicted to trouble.
Excellent post. I have several times thought about pointing out these same points on UEFI, but always gave up. I figured "no point - it'll get modded down because people don't want to hear".
Anyone who goes along with this UEFI bullshit is a fucking traitor, a coward, and a goddam disgrace to the open source community.
Ah, well at least you're putting forth a calm and rational argument.
Doing NOTHING is the only appropriate course of action. Why? Simple, because then you're shifting the problem to the hardware manufactures who are going to get shafted in sales because their stuff doesn't run Linux OOTB (not without configuring UEFI first).
This argument isn't going to fly. Most hardware manufacturers don't care about Linux. How long have Slashdotters bemoaned the lack of major manufacturer Linux options, or complained about the small forays by Walmart and Dell which are then pulled back?
It's like letting the Germans into your country during 1945
This kind of commentary is not doing your argument any favors. You're shooting yourself in the foot; you obliterate any useful point you may have.
The least they could do is show some goddam balls, stand up and say "No, we're not going to be your bitch".
Says the anonymous coward.
I have several times observed a tech expert, making a totally valid point that was 100% correct, fail utterly to win support for his argument because he made his point while raving and going over the edge.
Ranting is not the answer. You end up marginalizing anyone who's not already part of the faithful. Doing nothing is not the answer. People who you want to switch to Linux will see it doesn't work on their new system and won't have any sensible explanation as to why this should be. If that's the first picture they get, and there's no help, then they think "Linux can't even install/boot up/get started without some mucking around? What else is going to go wrong?".
Then again, you're probably not going to listen and I really don't care. So, rant away, and continue wondering why you don't make any inroads.
Putting it in quotes makes it sound like that's the comment GM made. What they actually said:
We regularly review our overall media spend and make adjustments as needed. This happens as a regular course of business and it's not unusual for us to move our spending around various media outlets - especially with the growth of social and digital media outlets.
In terms of Facebook specifically, we are reassessing our advertising, but remain committed to an aggressive content strategy with all of our products and brands, as it continues to be a very effective tool for engaging with our customers.
Of course you can take it as a polite way of saying "Facebook ads don't work". Or you could take it as a way of saying "we're trying something else to save money and that was bottom of the list". That same guy (before he got fired) also ended their relationship with ad agency Campbell-Ewald, who they'd been using for decades.
And now GM is reconsidering their decision to advertise on Facebook. Why would they do this? Because:
"We certainly don't want to walk way from 900 million consumers and we haven't walked away," Perry said. "We're a big proponent of Facebook."
It was certainly embarrassing - disastrous, even - coming on the eve of the IPO, and yes, it's nice grist to the mill of FB bashers. In reality, sometimes things aren't that black and white. Wasn't there a story here the other day where people were fiercely debating whether marketing and advertising are just a lot of nonsense anyway, with merely rudimentary metrics?
This stuff was was broadcast in the clear over public airwaves. That means it has no expectation of privacy. If you want privacy, every WAP I've ever heard of provides encryption. Turn it on, and you DO have an expectation of privacy, so if Google was decrypting it, then they should be punished.
Sigh.
1. Same argument applies to me saying "if you go out and don't lock your front door, I have every right to wander through your home".
2. I really fail to get Slashdot logic. Google grabs data from random people without them knowing about it or even using their services and people are clamoring to defend them. Facebook grabs data from people who sign up for an account and voluntarily hand over their data, and you want to lynch Mark Zuckerberg. How twisted is that?
3. Regarding that whole "expectation of privacy" thing. There is such a concept as social etiquette. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's good or acceptable. I can whistle and leer at a girl in a short skirt. I can comment out loud on her legs or the tightness of her shirt. But it's not particularly polite, now, is it?
Totally conventional. Mark Zuckerberg is doing nothing out of the ordinary in going this way. Lots of companies do this, whereby the owners/founders have a different class of stock which means they have effective complete control.
Wrong. The airplanes that carry the rest of us around are tracked in the public domain. These guys are tracking airplanes, not people.
It's very easy to find out that a particular Learjet with tail letters XYZ belongs to Jay Z. Almost* the entire article is about tracking an airplane which has a one-to-one relationship with a specific famous person.
How easy is it to find that MatalliQaZ is a passenger on UA flight 789 leaving out of PHL at 2:40?
Saying they're tracking airplanes and not people might be technically correct, but it's awfully disingenuous.
* Not quite the whole thing. It does also talk about industrial espionage capabilities (see the WalMart reference).
We could only be so lucky. If it could take Twitter with it to the grave, so much the better!
There's a big difference between ads and Facebook/Twitter.
Ads are prevalent throughout the web. You are likely to come across them no matter what your browsing habits (unless you use AdBlock).
Facebook and Twitter require you to visit them and/or sign up. I see no impact to my life from Twitter because I don't use it. I do see an impact from Facebook because I choose to use it and it is a valuable tool for keeping in touch with friends and family all around the world.
I've never understood why so many people on Slashdot complain about Facebook. Nobody is forced to use it. Plenty of people choose to ignore it and their lives go on. Similarly, plenty of people choose to use it, aware of potential pitfalls, and their lives do not explode in flames.
If you dislike it for whatever reason, then don't use it. If you don't sign up for a Facebook account, Zuckerberg is not going to send proselytes to your door to pass on the good word. If you do sign up for a Facebook account, don't give them your cell phone number and address.
Google, on the other hand, collects all manner of data about you from the myriad of services you use, even if you don't sign up for an account.
I expect several replies about Facebook's abuse of privacy, poor security, etc. Don't sign up.
I agree. I wrote the same thing in May in a story entitled "Online Loneliness At Google+".
MySpace let people have loads of control, and it ended up an awful, slow, non-responsive mess. Facebook started off by letting people use templates and that's how they've continued. They can control the end user experience much better, and people have a much more consistent and much more positive experience.
Disclaimer: I have never used Google + because (i) nobody's there, and (ii) I have always been wary about Google and how much information they collect about me. So I have no clue what it's like.
Final thought: Slashdot, that pinnacle of geek friendly sites, has had a "share this article on Facebook" icon on stories for ages. They only very recently added the equivalent Google + icon. If even a super-geek (well, used to be a super-geek) site like/. shows a preference against Google +, it's gonna take a bit of work to make it succeed.
The Udvar-Hazy Center has both the shuttle and the Blackbird. As a bonus, you can go up into an observation tower and watch the planes at the nearby airport while listening to ATC chatter.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny how everyone says they like the truth, openness, honesty, free speech--all that shit. Well, until someone dares actually exercise any of that stuff when it exposes THEM, of course. Then it's GODDAMN WAR!!
You're talking about Julian Assange, right?
I was hoping for a discussion about how technology (and the ubiquity of Wikipedia) now allows for revisionist history in real-time, potential guards, etc.
I feared the discussion would quickly devolve into a political debate and ignore the actual topic.
I discovered that it didn't even start to talk about the technical topic, but instead went straight for the political flamebait material.
Thanks a lot, Slashdot. You managed to underwhelm even my most pessimistic expectations.
This is one of the most important things you should know - independent of any other factors, such as getting regular exercise, etc., sitting for long stretches will increase your chance of a heart attack by 54 percent .
* Go for frequent short walks. Go to the water cooler a lot, drink lots, go to the toilet regularly.
* When you're on the phone, stand.
Other than that, sit in a good position - shoulders back, arms parallel to the desk, etc.
This is one of the most important things you should know - independent of any other factors, such as getting regular exercise, etc., sitting for long stretches will increase your chance of a heart attack by 54 percent .
* Go for frequent short walks. Go to the water cooler a lot, drink lots, go to the toilet regularly.
* When you're on the phone, stand.
Other than that, sit in a good position - shoulders back, arms parallel to the desk, etc.
And how in creation did you apparently escape every single class in which grammar and punctuation were taught?
By far, the most visible new "feature" in Windows 8, is it's new UI, which takes inspiration from smart phone and tablet devices.
That is awe-inspiringly bad.
I remember when innovation meant jumping from 16 colors to 4000 colors, from a sound chip that went "beeeeep" to near-CD level music, from single task word processing to multitasking dozens of programs at the same time. While in a live chat online. With a mouse.
Increasing the bit depth, or the number of sound channels, isn't innovative. It's just progress of technology. It's like going from a 130 horsepower engine in your car to a 170 horsepower engine. Faster, yeah. Innovative, as in something really, really different? No.
Going from black and white screens to color, or from no sound to any sound, or from a text only display to a WIMP interface (and I remember all of these transitions) are innovative. Yes, going to a multi-tasking environment (or implementing preemptive multi-tasking, say) is innovative. But increasing the number of colors in your palette is actually less innovative than changing the visual design of your desktop metaphor. As someone else pointed out, redesigning the whole interface paradigm can be a game changer.
See link
I want to know about interference between cars. I've only see one self-driving car tested at a time. If there's hundreds within visual range of each other are their radar and laser sensors going to have much more noise?
I believe it is Toyota who is working with a system that allows cars to talk to each other. These aren't self-driving cars, but the idea is that if you are approaching an intersection and have right-of-way, and another driver is approaching the same intersection and is barreling on through regardless, the two cars will talk to one another, determine that they are on a collision course, negotiate, and one of those cars will slam on the brakes automatically. How it'd work at a busy NY intersection, who knows...but that's what computer simulations are for.
(And also why you need mathematics, in reference to the story yesterday about "does anyone really use maths in their programming job?". If you're working with any kind of engineering, and especially EE, then the answer is a solid yes, either the programmer or the EE will be implementing higher maths in their code.)
"Semi-silently"? What, kind of like a stealth aircraft that, umm, isn't really particularly stealthy?
The dialog is clearly split - top half, iTunes, bottom half, other stuff. I uncheck it. It clearly states, right up front, that it's optional. Easy.
And the titlebar at this point says "Apple Software Update". Once you choose to go ahead and install iTunes, then it will say iTunes updates, which I think sounds alarmingly sensible, quite honestly.
iTunes is a dreadful, dreadful piece of software on Windows. But you're flat out fabricating stories, and that's not fair.
But why are they a problematic issue if Google doing street view shots and sniffing your SSID isn't a problem in the eyes of many Slashdotters? This is what I do not get - and especially given that Google is all about combining everything. Your search history, GMail, blah blah blah...
The system will gather data as described in the article.
The Domain Awareness System will draw data from 911 calls, previous crime reports, license-plate readers, law-enforcement databases, environmental sensors, and roughly 3,000 closed-circuit cameras
911 calls - the police have access to these by default, to serve the public. (Going back to someone else's comment that the phone company needs to know where your cell-phone is at all times so they can serve you by connecting your calls.)
Previous crime reports, law enforcement databases - this is the police department's job, in the interests of public safety.
License plate readers, environmental sensors, closed circuit cameras - I suspect this is what's annoying people commenting on this story. Look at it this way - it's just gathering data based on what people on the streets see every day. Closed circuit cameras aren't peering behind closed doors into private areas; they're in public areas and you can generally see them if you look for them. License plate readers - you're driving your car, you have a license plate, anyone can see it if they are looking.
There have been debates about Google sniffing data from broadcasting routers (SSID names), and what they get from Google Street View. Which is worse? Is one worse than the other?
At least I can look up and see a CCTV. I wasn't home the day the Google car took a snapshot of my house and my car in the driveway...
These guys were drooling about wholesale intrusion into the most private aspects of our lives.
It really is the rise of big brother. The fact that it is a corporation instead of government is of little practical value; monitoring data gives those who have it power, and that power will always be abused - and will result in ruined or destroyed lives, reduced freedom, and corrupt leadership (whether government or corporate).
You're talking about Google, right?
Clearly you lack reading comprehension skills
Really? How so. Please point out what AC got wrong.
Kim Dotcom was already charged, convicted, and punished of crimes. There is no need to punish someone again
Until they do something else that's naughty.
The AC to whom you replied pointed out that Kim Dotcom had a collection of guns, he liked to show them off, and this is unusual in NZ. That is all true. If you have a gun collection in NZ, you're out there.
Add to the fact the guy had a head of security. This is New Zealand, a sleepy, bucolic country of four million people and 70 million sheep. The Mongrel Mob has security; business men do not.
Slashdotters are usually very suspicious of anyone suspected of involvement in financial dealing. Shall we point out Dotcom tried to start a hedge fund (failed because, small problem, he didn't have a license)?
Read up on his background. Really read up on it. The guy is larger than life and revels in it. He has delighted in sticking up his middle finger to the law in multiple countries. He's run people off of roads. He paid people to upload popular movies (forget "information wants to be free" - he bought pirated movies so he could resell them).
His conviction wasn't a one-off; he gets into trouble, goes to court, then runs off to another country. Germany, Thailand, Hong Kong, New Zealand. Hong Kong authorities have stated he deliberately tried to stymie their investigations.
You comment he was waiting for the police, but neglect to mention the fact he was waiting for them with a shotgun in his hands.
He had more than 30 credit cards in different names and three different passports.
He bought stock in a website with little value, pumped it up, and then dumped the stock, leaving investors broke.
What more do you want? The guy is addicted to trouble.
Excellent post. I have several times thought about pointing out these same points on UEFI, but always gave up. I figured "no point - it'll get modded down because people don't want to hear".
Anyone who goes along with this UEFI bullshit is a fucking traitor, a coward, and a goddam disgrace to the open source community.
Ah, well at least you're putting forth a calm and rational argument.
Doing NOTHING is the only appropriate course of action. Why? Simple, because then you're shifting the problem to the hardware manufactures who are going to get shafted in sales because their stuff doesn't run Linux OOTB (not without configuring UEFI first).
This argument isn't going to fly. Most hardware manufacturers don't care about Linux. How long have Slashdotters bemoaned the lack of major manufacturer Linux options, or complained about the small forays by Walmart and Dell which are then pulled back?
It's like letting the Germans into your country during 1945
This kind of commentary is not doing your argument any favors. You're shooting yourself in the foot; you obliterate any useful point you may have.
The least they could do is show some goddam balls, stand up and say "No, we're not going to be your bitch".
Says the anonymous coward.
I have several times observed a tech expert, making a totally valid point that was 100% correct, fail utterly to win support for his argument because he made his point while raving and going over the edge.
Ranting is not the answer. You end up marginalizing anyone who's not already part of the faithful. Doing nothing is not the answer. People who you want to switch to Linux will see it doesn't work on their new system and won't have any sensible explanation as to why this should be. If that's the first picture they get, and there's no help, then they think "Linux can't even install/boot up/get started without some mucking around? What else is going to go wrong?".
Then again, you're probably not going to listen and I really don't care. So, rant away, and continue wondering why you don't make any inroads.
I guess last week's little stunt with creating fake documents under some else's name didn't get them enough publicity.
Apparently not, since this is the first I've heard of it, at least. Out of interest, was it posted on Slashdot?
Putting it in quotes makes it sound like that's the comment GM made. What they actually said:
We regularly review our overall media spend and make adjustments as needed. This happens as a regular course of business and it's not unusual for us to move our spending around various media outlets - especially with the growth of social and digital media outlets.
In terms of Facebook specifically, we are reassessing our advertising, but remain committed to an aggressive content strategy with all of our products and brands, as it continues to be a very effective tool for engaging with our customers.
Of course you can take it as a polite way of saying "Facebook ads don't work". Or you could take it as a way of saying "we're trying something else to save money and that was bottom of the list". That same guy (before he got fired) also ended their relationship with ad agency Campbell-Ewald, who they'd been using for decades.
And now GM is reconsidering their decision to advertise on Facebook. Why would they do this? Because:
"We certainly don't want to walk way from 900 million consumers and we haven't walked away," Perry said. "We're a big proponent of Facebook."
It was certainly embarrassing - disastrous, even - coming on the eve of the IPO, and yes, it's nice grist to the mill of FB bashers. In reality, sometimes things aren't that black and white. Wasn't there a story here the other day where people were fiercely debating whether marketing and advertising are just a lot of nonsense anyway, with merely rudimentary metrics?
Thank you for injecting a random bit of allegation into the conversation. Out of interest (sincerely), can you back that up?
This stuff was was broadcast in the clear over public airwaves. That means it has no expectation of privacy. If you want privacy, every WAP I've ever heard of provides encryption. Turn it on, and you DO have an expectation of privacy, so if Google was decrypting it, then they should be punished.
Sigh.
1. Same argument applies to me saying "if you go out and don't lock your front door, I have every right to wander through your home".
2. I really fail to get Slashdot logic. Google grabs data from random people without them knowing about it or even using their services and people are clamoring to defend them. Facebook grabs data from people who sign up for an account and voluntarily hand over their data, and you want to lynch Mark Zuckerberg. How twisted is that?
3. Regarding that whole "expectation of privacy" thing. There is such a concept as social etiquette. Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's good or acceptable. I can whistle and leer at a girl in a short skirt. I can comment out loud on her legs or the tightness of her shirt. But it's not particularly polite, now, is it?
Totally conventional. Mark Zuckerberg is doing nothing out of the ordinary in going this way. Lots of companies do this, whereby the owners/founders have a different class of stock which means they have effective complete control.
Wrong. The airplanes that carry the rest of us around are tracked in the public domain. These guys are tracking airplanes, not people.
It's very easy to find out that a particular Learjet with tail letters XYZ belongs to Jay Z. Almost* the entire article is about tracking an airplane which has a one-to-one relationship with a specific famous person.
How easy is it to find that MatalliQaZ is a passenger on UA flight 789 leaving out of PHL at 2:40?
Saying they're tracking airplanes and not people might be technically correct, but it's awfully disingenuous.
* Not quite the whole thing. It does also talk about industrial espionage capabilities (see the WalMart reference).
We could only be so lucky.
If it could take Twitter with it to the grave, so much the better!
There's a big difference between ads and Facebook/Twitter.
Ads are prevalent throughout the web. You are likely to come across them no matter what your browsing habits (unless you use AdBlock).
Facebook and Twitter require you to visit them and/or sign up. I see no impact to my life from Twitter because I don't use it. I do see an impact from Facebook because I choose to use it and it is a valuable tool for keeping in touch with friends and family all around the world.
I've never understood why so many people on Slashdot complain about Facebook. Nobody is forced to use it. Plenty of people choose to ignore it and their lives go on. Similarly, plenty of people choose to use it, aware of potential pitfalls, and their lives do not explode in flames.
If you dislike it for whatever reason, then don't use it. If you don't sign up for a Facebook account, Zuckerberg is not going to send proselytes to your door to pass on the good word. If you do sign up for a Facebook account, don't give them your cell phone number and address.
Google, on the other hand, collects all manner of data about you from the myriad of services you use, even if you don't sign up for an account.
I expect several replies about Facebook's abuse of privacy, poor security, etc. Don't sign up.
I agree. I wrote the same thing in May in a story entitled "Online Loneliness At Google+".
MySpace let people have loads of control, and it ended up an awful, slow, non-responsive mess. Facebook started off by letting people use templates and that's how they've continued. They can control the end user experience much better, and people have a much more consistent and much more positive experience.
Disclaimer: I have never used Google + because (i) nobody's there, and (ii) I have always been wary about Google and how much information they collect about me. So I have no clue what it's like.
Final thought: Slashdot, that pinnacle of geek friendly sites, has had a "share this article on Facebook" icon on stories for ages. They only very recently added the equivalent Google + icon. If even a super-geek (well, used to be a super-geek) site like /. shows a preference against Google +, it's gonna take a bit of work to make it succeed.
As I read the article, the program was included; it just didn't work properly.
the engineering team ... did not realize that it needed to update the detection logic
The Udvar-Hazy Center has both the shuttle and the Blackbird. As a bonus, you can go up into an observation tower and watch the planes at the nearby airport while listening to ATC chatter.