Is it possible that the focus group thought they were talking about phones? Where the "start" button is absolutely *not* appropriate? (As any user of Windows Mobile knows to their absolute frustration.) Or... maybe they thought that the testers were talking about touch interfaces in general, where again, "start" is not appropriate?
And nobody considered that in a classic KVM interface, it or something like it is pretty much mandatory?
Ok, so I punched the "start" button, clicked on Firefox, brought up Slashdot, and find that according to a focus group, I no longer use the "start" button. But I.... I just... (looking over in the left corner) I... just now... and about a thousand times yesterday... WTF?
And again, I'm not a fan of Apple, but I observe that the iphone has become the latest shiny object amongst the executive crowd, and the company was, therefore, forced to support it. It's the most popular company-issued phone here. (I carry Android, myself.) Your mileage, as always, may vary, but in this particular case, it wasn't the numbers that forced support at the beginning, it was *who* those people were. If you're a six-person wireless department in a billion dollar company, you don't get to say "no" when the CTO wants an iphone.
Let's try it again. I personally did not bring up the iphone analogy. I can see ways in which the case can be made, but I'm not a fanboi and I have no interest in making that case.
The issue is, and continues to be, the impetus for developers to code for a special environment. The fact is, all Windows environments currently in use will run web apps. *Only* Windows 8 runs Metro apps.
Let me state that again: Of all the Windows users in the world, every single one of them have some kind of web browser. That all Android and IOS and OSX and Linux desktops also have a web browser is worth noting. Of all those 2.2 BILLION desktop users, a Metro app only applies to those people running a particular variant of Windows called "Windows 8". All those other Windows users are people who are NOT running Metro. Since we are talking specifically about Metro apps, this is significant. (Parenthetically, if Microsoft back-ported Metro to Windows 7 and included it in Windows Update, they might see improved penetration, but never mind.)
This conversation thread involved applications used in business. If you want to talk the next followon to Angry Birds, you're in the wrong thread.
Business environments are different from consumers. A friend brought me a laptop not long ago that was "running slow" and it was running Vista. I am in IT and it happened to be my first experience diagnosing an actual user problem "in the wild", in Vista. In 2012. (Not a problem really, it was enough like 7 that I could figure it out.) And that is because my company is STILL running XP and Windows 2003 Server, and has just last month started deploying Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008, years after their initial release. All through the Vista release, we bought PCs and laptops pre-installed with Vista and immediately scrubbed and installed XP Pro SP3. Because that is what the company had standardized on. And (this is important) THERE WAS NO BUSINESS CASE to upgrade to Vista.
We are not alone in this.
Business environments tend to stay on the trailing edge precisely because they need to get work done that is not related to the care and feeding of a new operating system. There has to be a business case to upgrade to a new operating system, because it's a huge, expensive endeavor. There was no business case for Vista. There is (well, there might be) a case for allowing a gradual conversion to Windows 7. There is absolutely no case for Windows 8. Sorry, there just isn't. For the desktop, businesses operate on "good enough" and 7 (with aero turned off) is good enough. Hell, XP is still good enough, but support is getting iffy.
All that being the case, what are the chances that developers will develop to Metro? Sure, Windows has 90% of the desktop market, and in raw numbers is far ahead of paltry IOS. But Windows does not run Metro apps. Windows 8 does. And that's a completely different kettle of brightly colored power tools.
This doesn't even touch on the very real odd/even phenomenon of Windows releases. Microsoft tends to do their major rewrites on even releases, and massive bug fixes on odd releases. Sometimes the rewrite works. It has been a fiasco often enough that any time Microsoft announces a new paradigm, the smart bet amongst people who have to get real work done (as opposed to OS technology junkies) is to wait and see.
In summary, there is no business case to write Metro apps. There will be a few, produced by junkies for bleeding edge technology and a few companies with wildly optimistic business plans, but in general, unlikely.
But zero regular desktop users are running win8, which is what was under discussion. And even when it becomes widely available, there is no guarantee people will upgrade in significant numbers, and very little chance that businesses (which were the topic of discussion) will convert en-masse. Your numbers are only germain if we change the topic. Are youu sure you're in the right conversation?
The exception that proves the rule. Enough volume makes coding in an antiquated, complex environment practical from a business standpoint. I don't believe win8 will ever have that kind of following.
Ok, it's an important point that coding to Metro is not necessarily coding to a single, specialized environment. And, it's not nearly as bad as, for instance, having to write broken code so that it would work properly in Internet Explorer. I'll also concede that some app developers will code for Metro. I predict, though, that most will not. This prediction predicates that people are no longer falling for "embrace, extend, extinguish" in significant numbers. We shall see.
> Hopefully the shareholders realise that every dollar that goes to the various law firms is a dollar that won't be part of the profit pool they get dividends from.
Doesn't this make the (rather unlikely) assumption that significant numbers will be using the Win8 address book and email apps? In order for this to be significant, wouldn't one have to assume that Win8 will have some reasonable amount of penetration in the business environment? It then becomes a chicken-and-egg problem, I think.
The thing is, a conventional web app will still work, I think, even in the rather unlikely event that the user is running Windows 8 in a business environment. So again, I don't see the percentage of doing any tweaking or coding to run in Metro, and then having to maintain and test those code paths, on the off chance of having actual customers for which this would be important.
It's rather like coding a business app with Vista-specific features, when we know good and well that most businesses passed over Vista. I'm aware that at some point this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that's one of the problems when you have to bet what might be mission-critical operations on "a complete rewrite".
Ok, clue me in. I really need to know this. Why would I make a Metro app, which only runs on Windows 8, especially a client/server app as described in TFA, when I can make a web app that runs in any environment that has a web browser? What is the percentage in coding to a single, specialized environment when everyone else in the world is coding using mature cross-platform web-based solutions. Wouldn't coding to Metro be a really good way to commit corporate suicide?
We're still mostly on XP, evaluated and decided to skip Vista, and are just now starting to deploy 7. This is because (pay attention, this is important) having the latest and greatest cutting edge bits on the desktop is waaaayyyyyy down on the list of things a business looks for in a personal computer environment. Reliability, (Windows 8 service pack zero? It is to laugh.) security (ditto), and compatibility (which is, oddly enough, at direct odds with the concept of "complete rewrite") are MUCH more important factors than having whatever MSFT thinks is the latest whiz-bang interface. It comes down to this: What worked yesterday is more likely to work today than something that came out today. Windows 8 may be, despite being an even numbered release, the greatest thing since sliced milk. But the responsible thing to do is wait and see, let someone else take the chances, and make the decision when the environment is proven. If that means MSFT doesn't meet their 4Q sales, then they should have known better.
I can't stand either company, for different reasons, and have absolutely no interest in Itanium. I have a hard time picking someone to root for in this... I guess I'll have to go with HP. Go, HP! Only because (a) it's entertaining, and (b) it causes problems for Oracle.
If Oracle counter-sues, I can always root for Oracle.
We have a Roku box on my wife's TV, and upstairs in the media room we have a DVD player that has Netflix built in and has a USB port on the front that accepts a thumb drive with, you know, a video on it. Should you have a video on a thumb drive for some reason... This combination plus a conventional antenna (remember those?) so wife can watch football (she's a fanatic), pretty much takes care of our video needs.
Advantages are, netflix video service is cheap, the occasional DVD can be played upstairs (Friday is pizza-and-movie-night) and we can still do off-air viewing if we really wanted to (almost never). I used to pay something like $120 a month for TV, with two set-top boxes, the one in the media room with DVR capabilities (which never really worked all that well) and then a PC running Windows Media Center upstairs (what a piece of carp that was), and I tell ya -- finding an appliance to do all of that without having to pay for cable TV was the greatest thing ever.
So... Nokia was the largest phone manufacturer worldwide when they signed the deal with Microsoft in Feb 2011, their share price immediately dropped 14%, and Apple overtook them in sales 4 months later. They're expected to have laid off 66,000 people by 2013. On June 18 2012 Moody's downgraded Nokia's rating to junk.
Yep, Nokia is toast. A bad end to a once-good company. So, what does Microsoft think they'll sell in the phone market after Nokia goes under? Do they think the market will just go away?
> "In a detailed interview on the future of education, Bill Gates was surprisingly down on tablets in education — considering that Microsoft just released Surface.
Right. And that's because Surface is not a tablet. It's a notebook with a detachable keyboard, which -- let's face it -- nobody is going to detach except for trivial tasks like playing a movie or music, because Windows doesn't work well on tablets.
> He said low-cost PCs are the thing for students, and he dismissed the idea that simply giving gadgets to students will bring change.
Riiiiight, because low cost PCs aren't gadgets... And tablets are.... Which, now that I think about it, in Bill's world, is correct. If you can only do casual things on a tablet, then tablets are gadgets, like an MP3 player or a dedicated movie appliance. You may be able to do real work on a tablet that runs an operating system other than Windows, but that doesn't count.
And yes, I am not giving Microsoft the slightest benefit of the doubt, and that is because this all seems very self-serving. If Microsoft was really serious about tablets, and not simply practicing embrace, extend, extinguish, they'd be all gung-ho about tablets in the classroom. They're not, because (I am convinced) they have no intention to offer a viable product in that market.
Microsoft *has* a touch-only interface that works well -- it used to be called Surface, now rebranded PixelSense, as their touchscreen-notebook has now been branded Surface. The problem is, to integrate PixelSense's arguably superior touch interface into Windows and make it work along side the conventional KVM interface, was apparently too hard.
Doctor Who is a good example, at 13 episodes it had a minimum (but not zero, you're right) of filler episodes. The seasons that had a story arc that progressed through each episode were the best, in my opinion.
Oddly, Showtime's Torchwood, Miracle Day seemed about 3/4 filler per episode, and I finally gave up on it after four episodes. Never did find out what happened, don't care, don't ever want to waste my time with that show again.
I had heard that DS9 got edgier towards the end, and things actually started happening that remained happened through subsequent episodes. (You know what I mean -- as opposed to episodes specifically made so that they could be shown in any order.) It sounded marginally interesting, but I had gotten so bored with the characters and the premise by that time that I couldn't make myself go back to it. Maybe some day.
And that's another thing -- when you start a series, you need to get to the point in some reasonable time, or risk losing your audience. SGU had this issue -- by the time they finally got to the real story arc, we were all mind-numb from hours of pointless squabbles. Moreover, when a series story arc leads to a conclusion, GET TO THAT CONCLUSION. By artificially drawing it out, you have forfeited your right to my viewing time. Challenge the writers to find a new story arc in the same framework after the current arc is complete.
I see. I wasn't aware of that. That's brilliant on Microsoft's part. And the person at Nokia who signed that paper should never work in the industry again. Although now that I think about it, he probably doesn't need to...
Although neither of us would be happy were I drawn into a discussion of Game of Thrones, I agree in spirit. Fewer, higher quality episodes makes tremendous sense to me. I find that most of the shows I watch tend to fall in that category -- White Collar, Burn Notice, the British Sherlock series. I would opine that it's part of a general paradigm shift in television watching habits -- away from the TV Dinner, 3 channel, Watch Whatever's On Until 11:00 O'Clock, to very selective and deliberate viewing of content that directly interests the viewer. (At a time and place, I add, of the viewer's choosing, but that's a different discussion.)
Specifically to Trek, despite being a rabid (RABID) fan of TOS, I never did finish TNG, saw only about four episodes of Voyager total, dumped Enterprise midway through the first season, and couldn't bring myself to watch DS9 past the second season, precisely because of what you mention -- too many filler episodes in a row, and my eyes start to glaze over and I start to think of all the other things I could be doing were I not sitting here.
It does seem sometimes that the major networks act like they have a guaranteed audience -- that huge masses of people can be depended upon to spend every non-Friday weeknight on the couch from 7:00 to 11:00, and the only question is which network gets the most eyes. You can sandwich a stinker between two hits and get eyes on it, and you can have a long stretch of nuthin' in the season as long as the finale has a lot of action and ends on a cliffhanger. The thing is, there's a whole 'nother generation for which the idea of television only occurring in real time, is an alien one. And that breaks a paradigm that has existed for 60 years.
This may not be entirely on-topic, but discussions of TSA agents and personal privacy tend to raise this question in my mind. There are some jobs where the people who most want the job are the people you don't want to have it. Arguably this may include anything in politics, for instance.
Regarding TSA pat-down or naked-scan agent, it occurs to me that the people who want that job are likely to be the people you don't want to have that job.
> but the TSA could produce a naked photo of my kid "for National Security."
Right, because no TSA person would ever commit a sex crime, so we don't have to worry about a TSA operator saving and sharing pictures of your naked children.
Except... do a news search with the keywords "TSA" and "Sex crime", and read some of the relevant hits.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it possible that the focus group thought they were talking about phones? Where the "start" button is absolutely *not* appropriate? (As any user of Windows Mobile knows to their absolute frustration.) Or... maybe they thought that the testers were talking about touch interfaces in general, where again, "start" is not appropriate?
And nobody considered that in a classic KVM interface, it or something like it is pretty much mandatory?
Ok, so I punched the "start" button, clicked on Firefox, brought up Slashdot, and find that according to a focus group, I no longer use the "start" button. But I.... I just... (looking over in the left corner) I ... just now... and about a thousand times yesterday... WTF?
And again, I'm not a fan of Apple, but I observe that the iphone has become the latest shiny object amongst the executive crowd, and the company was, therefore, forced to support it. It's the most popular company-issued phone here. (I carry Android, myself.) Your mileage, as always, may vary, but in this particular case, it wasn't the numbers that forced support at the beginning, it was *who* those people were. If you're a six-person wireless department in a billion dollar company, you don't get to say "no" when the CTO wants an iphone.
Let's try it again. I personally did not bring up the iphone analogy. I can see ways in which the case can be made, but I'm not a fanboi and I have no interest in making that case.
The issue is, and continues to be, the impetus for developers to code for a special environment. The fact is, all Windows environments currently in use will run web apps. *Only* Windows 8 runs Metro apps.
Let me state that again: Of all the Windows users in the world, every single one of them have some kind of web browser. That all Android and IOS and OSX and Linux desktops also have a web browser is worth noting. Of all those 2.2 BILLION desktop users, a Metro app only applies to those people running a particular variant of Windows called "Windows 8". All those other Windows users are people who are NOT running Metro. Since we are talking specifically about Metro apps, this is significant. (Parenthetically, if Microsoft back-ported Metro to Windows 7 and included it in Windows Update, they might see improved penetration, but never mind.)
This conversation thread involved applications used in business. If you want to talk the next followon to Angry Birds, you're in the wrong thread.
Business environments are different from consumers. A friend brought me a laptop not long ago that was "running slow" and it was running Vista. I am in IT and it happened to be my first experience diagnosing an actual user problem "in the wild", in Vista. In 2012. (Not a problem really, it was enough like 7 that I could figure it out.) And that is because my company is STILL running XP and Windows 2003 Server, and has just last month started deploying Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008, years after their initial release. All through the Vista release, we bought PCs and laptops pre-installed with Vista and immediately scrubbed and installed XP Pro SP3. Because that is what the company had standardized on. And (this is important) THERE WAS NO BUSINESS CASE to upgrade to Vista.
We are not alone in this.
Business environments tend to stay on the trailing edge precisely because they need to get work done that is not related to the care and feeding of a new operating system. There has to be a business case to upgrade to a new operating system, because it's a huge, expensive endeavor. There was no business case for Vista. There is (well, there might be) a case for allowing a gradual conversion to Windows 7. There is absolutely no case for Windows 8. Sorry, there just isn't. For the desktop, businesses operate on "good enough" and 7 (with aero turned off) is good enough. Hell, XP is still good enough, but support is getting iffy.
All that being the case, what are the chances that developers will develop to Metro? Sure, Windows has 90% of the desktop market, and in raw numbers is far ahead of paltry IOS. But Windows does not run Metro apps. Windows 8 does. And that's a completely different kettle of brightly colored power tools.
This doesn't even touch on the very real odd/even phenomenon of Windows releases. Microsoft tends to do their major rewrites on even releases, and massive bug fixes on odd releases. Sometimes the rewrite works. It has been a fiasco often enough that any time Microsoft announces a new paradigm, the smart bet amongst people who have to get real work done (as opposed to OS technology junkies) is to wait and see.
In summary, there is no business case to write Metro apps. There will be a few, produced by junkies for bleeding edge technology and a few companies with wildly optimistic business plans, but in general, unlikely.
But zero regular desktop users are running win8, which is what was under discussion. And even when it becomes widely available, there is no guarantee people will upgrade in significant numbers, and very little chance that businesses (which were the topic of discussion) will convert en-masse. Your numbers are only germain if we change the topic. Are youu sure you're in the right conversation?
The exception that proves the rule. Enough volume makes coding in an antiquated, complex environment practical from a business standpoint. I don't believe win8 will ever have that kind of following.
Ok, it's an important point that coding to Metro is not necessarily coding to a single, specialized environment. And, it's not nearly as bad as, for instance, having to write broken code so that it would work properly in Internet Explorer. I'll also concede that some app developers will code for Metro. I predict, though, that most will not. This prediction predicates that people are no longer falling for "embrace, extend, extinguish" in significant numbers. We shall see.
> Hopefully the shareholders realise that every dollar that goes to the various law firms is a dollar that won't be part of the profit pool they get dividends from.
Bonus!
Doesn't this make the (rather unlikely) assumption that significant numbers will be using the Win8 address book and email apps? In order for this to be significant, wouldn't one have to assume that Win8 will have some reasonable amount of penetration in the business environment? It then becomes a chicken-and-egg problem, I think.
The thing is, a conventional web app will still work, I think, even in the rather unlikely event that the user is running Windows 8 in a business environment. So again, I don't see the percentage of doing any tweaking or coding to run in Metro, and then having to maintain and test those code paths, on the off chance of having actual customers for which this would be important.
It's rather like coding a business app with Vista-specific features, when we know good and well that most businesses passed over Vista. I'm aware that at some point this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that's one of the problems when you have to bet what might be mission-critical operations on "a complete rewrite".
Ok, clue me in. I really need to know this. Why would I make a Metro app, which only runs on Windows 8, especially a client/server app as described in TFA, when I can make a web app that runs in any environment that has a web browser? What is the percentage in coding to a single, specialized environment when everyone else in the world is coding using mature cross-platform web-based solutions. Wouldn't coding to Metro be a really good way to commit corporate suicide?
We're still mostly on XP, evaluated and decided to skip Vista, and are just now starting to deploy 7. This is because (pay attention, this is important) having the latest and greatest cutting edge bits on the desktop is waaaayyyyyy down on the list of things a business looks for in a personal computer environment. Reliability, (Windows 8 service pack zero? It is to laugh.) security (ditto), and compatibility (which is, oddly enough, at direct odds with the concept of "complete rewrite") are MUCH more important factors than having whatever MSFT thinks is the latest whiz-bang interface. It comes down to this: What worked yesterday is more likely to work today than something that came out today. Windows 8 may be, despite being an even numbered release, the greatest thing since sliced milk. But the responsible thing to do is wait and see, let someone else take the chances, and make the decision when the environment is proven. If that means MSFT doesn't meet their 4Q sales, then they should have known better.
I can't stand either company, for different reasons, and have absolutely no interest in Itanium. I have a hard time picking someone to root for in this... I guess I'll have to go with HP. Go, HP! Only because (a) it's entertaining, and (b) it causes problems for Oracle.
If Oracle counter-sues, I can always root for Oracle.
We have a Roku box on my wife's TV, and upstairs in the media room we have a DVD player that has Netflix built in and has a USB port on the front that accepts a thumb drive with, you know, a video on it. Should you have a video on a thumb drive for some reason... This combination plus a conventional antenna (remember those?) so wife can watch football (she's a fanatic), pretty much takes care of our video needs.
Advantages are, netflix video service is cheap, the occasional DVD can be played upstairs (Friday is pizza-and-movie-night) and we can still do off-air viewing if we really wanted to (almost never). I used to pay something like $120 a month for TV, with two set-top boxes, the one in the media room with DVR capabilities (which never really worked all that well) and then a PC running Windows Media Center upstairs (what a piece of carp that was), and I tell ya -- finding an appliance to do all of that without having to pay for cable TV was the greatest thing ever.
So... Nokia was the largest phone manufacturer worldwide when they signed the deal with Microsoft in Feb 2011, their share price immediately dropped 14%, and Apple overtook them in sales 4 months later. They're expected to have laid off 66,000 people by 2013. On June 18 2012 Moody's downgraded Nokia's rating to junk.
Yep, Nokia is toast. A bad end to a once-good company. So, what does Microsoft think they'll sell in the phone market after Nokia goes under? Do they think the market will just go away?
> "In a detailed interview on the future of education, Bill Gates was surprisingly down on tablets in education — considering that Microsoft just released Surface.
Right. And that's because Surface is not a tablet. It's a notebook with a detachable keyboard, which -- let's face it -- nobody is going to detach except for trivial tasks like playing a movie or music, because Windows doesn't work well on tablets.
> He said low-cost PCs are the thing for students, and he dismissed the idea that simply giving gadgets to students will bring change.
Riiiiight, because low cost PCs aren't gadgets... And tablets are.... Which, now that I think about it, in Bill's world, is correct. If you can only do casual things on a tablet, then tablets are gadgets, like an MP3 player or a dedicated movie appliance. You may be able to do real work on a tablet that runs an operating system other than Windows, but that doesn't count.
And yes, I am not giving Microsoft the slightest benefit of the doubt, and that is because this all seems very self-serving. If Microsoft was really serious about tablets, and not simply practicing embrace, extend, extinguish, they'd be all gung-ho about tablets in the classroom. They're not, because (I am convinced) they have no intention to offer a viable product in that market.
Microsoft *has* a touch-only interface that works well -- it used to be called Surface, now rebranded PixelSense, as their touchscreen-notebook has now been branded Surface. The problem is, to integrate PixelSense's arguably superior touch interface into Windows and make it work along side the conventional KVM interface, was apparently too hard.
Doctor Who is a good example, at 13 episodes it had a minimum (but not zero, you're right) of filler episodes. The seasons that had a story arc that progressed through each episode were the best, in my opinion.
Oddly, Showtime's Torchwood, Miracle Day seemed about 3/4 filler per episode, and I finally gave up on it after four episodes. Never did find out what happened, don't care, don't ever want to waste my time with that show again.
I had heard that DS9 got edgier towards the end, and things actually started happening that remained happened through subsequent episodes. (You know what I mean -- as opposed to episodes specifically made so that they could be shown in any order.) It sounded marginally interesting, but I had gotten so bored with the characters and the premise by that time that I couldn't make myself go back to it. Maybe some day.
And that's another thing -- when you start a series, you need to get to the point in some reasonable time, or risk losing your audience. SGU had this issue -- by the time they finally got to the real story arc, we were all mind-numb from hours of pointless squabbles. Moreover, when a series story arc leads to a conclusion, GET TO THAT CONCLUSION. By artificially drawing it out, you have forfeited your right to my viewing time. Challenge the writers to find a new story arc in the same framework after the current arc is complete.
I see. I wasn't aware of that. That's brilliant on Microsoft's part. And the person at Nokia who signed that paper should never work in the industry again. Although now that I think about it, he probably doesn't need to...
I had the same thought. Didn't Microsoft commit the Osborne Mistake with this announcement? Or maybe they don't think they need to care?
Although neither of us would be happy were I drawn into a discussion of Game of Thrones, I agree in spirit. Fewer, higher quality episodes makes tremendous sense to me. I find that most of the shows I watch tend to fall in that category -- White Collar, Burn Notice, the British Sherlock series. I would opine that it's part of a general paradigm shift in television watching habits -- away from the TV Dinner, 3 channel, Watch Whatever's On Until 11:00 O'Clock, to very selective and deliberate viewing of content that directly interests the viewer. (At a time and place, I add, of the viewer's choosing, but that's a different discussion.)
Specifically to Trek, despite being a rabid (RABID) fan of TOS, I never did finish TNG, saw only about four episodes of Voyager total, dumped Enterprise midway through the first season, and couldn't bring myself to watch DS9 past the second season, precisely because of what you mention -- too many filler episodes in a row, and my eyes start to glaze over and I start to think of all the other things I could be doing were I not sitting here.
It does seem sometimes that the major networks act like they have a guaranteed audience -- that huge masses of people can be depended upon to spend every non-Friday weeknight on the couch from 7:00 to 11:00, and the only question is which network gets the most eyes. You can sandwich a stinker between two hits and get eyes on it, and you can have a long stretch of nuthin' in the season as long as the finale has a lot of action and ends on a cliffhanger. The thing is, there's a whole 'nother generation for which the idea of television only occurring in real time, is an alien one. And that breaks a paradigm that has existed for 60 years.
This may not be entirely on-topic, but discussions of TSA agents and personal privacy tend to raise this question in my mind. There are some jobs where the people who most want the job are the people you don't want to have it. Arguably this may include anything in politics, for instance.
Regarding TSA pat-down or naked-scan agent, it occurs to me that the people who want that job are likely to be the people you don't want to have that job.
> but the TSA could produce a naked photo of my kid "for National Security."
Right, because no TSA person would ever commit a sex crime, so we don't have to worry about a TSA operator saving and sharing pictures of your naked children.
Except... do a news search with the keywords "TSA" and "Sex crime", and read some of the relevant hits.
For many types of identity theft, often our only defense is that we're not worth impersonating.
I think we've just eliminated fingerprints as a viable identification method.