Or you could just go with the simple solution and use roundabouts.
The simple solution isn't that simple when you take the time to actually look at a map sometime. (Go ahead, try it, we will wait...)
Rebuilding every intersection that has stoplights to have roundabouts doesn't work, and can't be afforded, even in those countries where roundabouts are common. Oh, wait, that would be NOWHERE. Even in the EU where everyone sings the praises of Roundabouts they are RARE.
Any time you are driving on surface streets (hate that term), you soon learn to "drive the stop-lights" by looking ahead a block or two. Its not that hard, and even when you can't see the lights driving just about the speed limit will be close enough to get you 5 greens out of 6 tries.
That being said, anything that can guarantee more greens is welcome, but putting it in cars seems the wrong approach. If the stop lights just talked to each other you would have enough info. When Stoplight A can't clear its queue in the allotted green, you can pretty much bet stoplight B won't be able to do so when that slug of cars reaches it.
In most cases the problem is dumb signals, hold overs from the Pleistocene, with no attempt to make traffic efficient.
s this a media frenzy, playing on confirmation bias, or is it the FLA being clumsy in how it addresses the public?
When you read the entire story to which you linked, (instead of cherry picking one quote), you will find the the "tons of issues" are probably related to the brand of soap in the lavatory dispensers, because everything else in the report is absolutely glowing.
You seem very quick to use the "A" word, insisting they are ATTACKED, merely because someone else posts a different opinion. Then you follow up with stuff like "The summary reads like a Fox News attack" and " tactics for turning bullshit into news".
This is the internet. You've been here long enough to understand you need to grow a pair. Either that or tone down your rhetoric a little bit. That chip on your shoulder looks like a target to most people.
You are correct, there are more than a few corporate interests here, but perhaps the fiercest and quickest to strike are the Apple enthusiasts. Mention almost anything negative about Apple in general or about specific products and you will be modded into oblivion almost instantly.
Its like they have watcher-bots looking for posts to mod down, and they always seem to have mod points. It is so fast and complete you almost suspect they have several dozen accounts all linked by a back-channel (human or automated) to find, publish, and punish such posts. I've long suspected there are paid astroturfers out there, but of course there is no way to prove it.
However, their mod points seem to be shallow, and given time, the rest of the/. community mods most of these posts back up to where they should be. They don't appear to have the number of accounts to hold a post down for too long.
As well as case the joint for anyone else that pays them.
Have you noticed any problem Real Estate agents encounter when getting pictures for a building they want to sell? Seems the sellers are only too happy to provide inside and outside shots.
This is a totally bogus use case, drummed up to make the whole thing look innocuous.
The judge followed the law. That is what he is OBLIGATED to do.
When we get to the point of allowing ANY LAME excuse as a reason to violate ANY law we will have lost everything the rule of law offers to society.
I can see the excuses from the witness stand:
Why yes, officer, I did shoot you, I was performing a public service by testing your bullet proof vest. You should get a better one, yours is all bloody anyway.
Yes, Mr. Banker, I did test your vault door last night, as a public service and to guarantee my money was safe, but sadly I had to withdraw my funds (and the funds of other concerned citizens) after the vault door proved ineffective against 5 pounds of C4. Sorry about the rest of your building. Its all for the best you know.
Its perfectly obvious that he was trying to break in without authorization, and he would have had to be trying for a long time. No way he gets it right the first try.
And even if he found it by accident (yeah right) he should have written a bug report or an email complaining that his perfectly valid use of facebook accidentally discovered a flaw. You don't steal the silver and the jewelry just to point out to your neighbor that he failed to lock the front door when he went out of town.
Define useful purposes. Do so in such a way that your neighbor's rights to privacy, peace and quiet, and safety are not violated by your selfish definition of useful.
Ah, Slashdot. The world's only technology site populated by Luddites.
Newsflash, buddy... The people you're so terrified of already have helicopters. What's wrong with making flight cheaper and more accessible?
Might not the availability of private drones lead to a business of providing service to those pestered by drones? Celebrity weddings and events might become plagued by Paparazzi drones, but some company will also rush in to provide blocker drones to block the shots or accidentally dangle "antennas" into rotors, or just take them out via collision.
A cloud of security drones around a site would probably discourage other drones as well.
I'm not sure the whole idea here is "making flight cheaper and more accessible". Accessible to who?
Farmers? Maybe. Forestry? Maybe. Pipeline survey? Maybe. News Media? Perhaps. City dweller? ah, No, don't be foolish. Suburban Citizen? No. Joe RC Enthusiast? Not really. Too expensive, and already goverened.
By Accessible, you can only mean the Police in this day and age.
The outcome was known as soon as the study was announced.
This group is a industry created and funded "watch dog" group trotted out when any of the funding members need some independent *cough* observers to come in and put on a media show.
You're describing previous generations of reactors. The new ones are more like a giant battery. They are sealed, self contained, and walk-away safe.
Walk Away safe is a pretty big claim for something that has never actually been built yet. (And no, Navy shipboard reactors don't count. Operation of those reactors is top secret, and they are way too small.)
At some level, the concept of "walk away safe" is just another example of The Arrogance of Engineers. There are just too many things assumed.
The real problem with this design is that it might actually be built in reasonably large numbers, installed in places that are less well planned, operated by your average mid-sized power company, guarded by Mall Cops, maintained by low-bidders, and inspected by bribe takers.
In short, this type of reactor has the ability to become far too ubiquitous before any of the inevitable problems are discovered after 10 years of operation.
One could say that they may be too successful, too quickly.
You shouldn't have destroyed your individuality by combining all of these things. If you hadn't, maybe you wouldn't be getting divorced.
Or at least they wouldn't be getting divorced this early. Had they not shared email or cell bills, someone might have gotten away with what ever they were up to for quite a bit longer.
But in other respects, you are spot on. If you can't trust a spouse to have a separate email, facebook, music, ebook, movie account then that person should probably not be a spouse in the first place.
Apart from sharing a cell account to get a substantially cheaper rate, other things like movie and ebook accounts are drop dead simple to acquire, and maintaining an existing account is hardly worth the effort.
Close them all. Just download all of your eBooks to your devices and computers for long term retention. Close all other accounts, and divide the memberships that have any accumulated value, but really these aren't worth messing with.
If these things are all there is to bicker about in a divorce, then count yourself lucky (for once) to be broke. If you had any joint assets of consequence, you wouldn't be worried about some ridiculous on-line accounts.
It's a trial balloon. If the shareholders say "yes" then the government can point to shareholder support for their talking points. If the shareholders say "no" then the government can pull out the standard anti-business talking points.
Either way, it polarizes the issue and gives the politicians another opportunity for a self-serving speech.
Its pretty clear that the Telco's can word it in such a way that Tim Berners-Lee would vote the wrong way 8 times out of ten. I've seen many such proposals forced onto shareholders ballots which were worded in such a way that the reader was certain only Satan himself would vote for the proposal.
Besides that, given the hijacking of the term "net neutrality" over the last couple years its not safe to say you support Net Neutrality without a clarifying definition, because some companies have managed to twist the definition to the point that it means exactly the opposite of what you think.
Even Google fell off the bandwagon when they said this in the space of two sentences:
There is widespread agreement among all parties that outright blocking, impairing, or degrading Internet traffic should not be tolerated. Beyond that, we also believe that broadband carriers should have the flexibility to engage in a whole host of activities, including:
...
Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as streaming video;
I gather you haven't been to Europe, where electricity is a bit more expensive; or India, where electricity is in short supply,...
up to now they could not charge the guests for the extra power they use; now they can.
So I gather you haven't been charged for electrical use either, in all your travels, and even in the worst cases there is no rational way to recover installation costs, let alone electrical costs.
I grab my biggest laptop power supply brick, and read the numbers: 180 watts max. 180 * 24hrs = 4320 / 1000 = 4.32kwh/per da 4.32 w/hrs * $0.12 = $0.50 power cost at typical US rates.
In India, the average tariff charged is eight US cents per KWH compared to 12-15 cents in Canada, South Africa and the US and 19-20 cents in much of Europe and the developing world.
So worst case, use in Europe, double the US average, and assume a whole Dollar per day. Or 0.76 euros. Average room prices in London for a 4star hotel is about what it is in Chicago. Lets take Berlin, typical 4star rate is 73 Euros, slightly less than Las Vegas (81). Laptop = less than 1% of the hotel bill.
Your laptop costs less than 1% of the hotel bill just about anywhere, on average.
Padding the bill to cover average usage costs Nothing. Rewiring the hotel? Come on!!! It will NEVER pay for itself.
So what was this nonsense about the prices of electricity in places I haven't visited?
Well, left unsaid is just how many trials it takes to determine if the key in question is one of those 2 in 100 that is vulnerable. And the exact process is still not documented.
They were able to produce evidence that a small percentage of those numbers were not truly random, making it possible to determine the underlying numbers, or secret keys, used to generate the public key.
This is a far cry from "no security at all" if I understand it correctly. Any email encrypted with those keys would still be encrypted. And Joe Random Lurkerr would not be able to decrypt it even if he did intercept it.
However Random Monitoring Agency might amass enough such emails to make a guess at the random number used key generation. You have to have a fairly good sized pool of keys to work from in order to figure out the keys of any single encryption.
The paper goes on to state:
Cryptosystems such as RSA that require, during key-setup, multiple secrets are more aaffected by the apparent difficulty to generate proper random values than systems such as Diffe-Hellman (cf. [8]), ElGamal, and (EC)DSA that require a single secret. For either type of system identical keys can be exploited only by parties that can be identified by searching for the owner of the duplicate. But for the former (RSA) partially identical choices allow any malcreant to commit fraud.
For some values of "Any". You still need a significant number of such RSA keys in which to search for the use of duplicate random numbers.
When wireless charging takes off this is exactly what's going to happen. Sony will have a standard, Apple will have a standard, and everything else will use the agreed on open standard.
But nobody will install any strictly proprietary electrical outlet.
Risks are one thing, but actual use case is even more basic.
Is there any rationale to bill you for the power you use in a hotel room? Seriously? Paying today's hotel rates (not high end, just quality chains), I already pay them exorbitant rates for next to no service, zero security, and retched restaurants.
Now they are going to charge me to plug in a phone, and a computer? Given the dearth of outlets in your typical hotel room I can't see how you can use enough electricity to make it matter. Are people checking in with a Toaster Oven under each arm these days?
Now if they were electrifying their parking lots and wanted you to pay for charging all of those millions of electric cars that people travel with (snort), I could see it. But the linked article shows standard* room outlets, not parking lot outlets. (* Standard in some juristictions, I suppose. Not a ground prong to be seen. )
First time in forever the crowds outside the Apple store weren't dueling down their shirts over new hardware and Apple runs right out and finds company to shill for it. Amazing.
FLA is essentially the fox watching the hen house if you ask me. The organization is not particularly well though of, being considered by some merely an attention diversion. Even Wiki didn't have much good to say about it. And Non Profit Watch is more than a little skeptical.
The take away is that Apple is very sensitive to bad public image press, especially if it makes it into the New York Times, and bodies are hitting the ground.
But in the background they keep suing android vendors for using hyperlinks on web pages. Because that won't get any one standing outside their windows with placards, and they can lean on the press not to cover it, because its boring technical stuff.
Displaying multiple windows at the same time means that screen space isn’t used efficiently, and it means that you don’t get a focused view of what it is that you are interested in. Windows that aren’t maximised also create additional tasks for people. Often you need to adjust their size, or you have to move them around.
They are clearly on track to eliminate that in favor of maximized windows. These people spend their lives studying Microsoft Window users, where a ridiculously high percentage of users have to close their browser to read their email, because nobody ever explained to them that you can do more than one thing at a time.
Had Gnome not gone out of their way to kill off (or at least bury) the historical multiple desktop that 'Nixes have had for decades they would not now find themselves chasing after the most incompetent of users, and trying to dumb down the interface to the point where productive people are just as helpless as your grandmother.
Not content with that, they are now aiming at a full screen environment, where even the simplest tasks require all the real estate you have.
Yes, you can run multiple non-maximized windows, and yes you can have more than one desktop. These are not the norm any more for Gnome. And reading the design documents at the posted link makes it clear what they think of your intelligence level, and makes it clear they would just as soon hide that capability even deeper than they buried it in past releases.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you could just go with the simple solution and use roundabouts.
The simple solution isn't that simple when you take the time to actually look at a map sometime. (Go ahead, try it, we will wait...)
Rebuilding every intersection that has stoplights to have roundabouts doesn't work, and can't be afforded, even in those countries where roundabouts are common. Oh, wait, that would be NOWHERE. Even in the EU where everyone sings the praises of Roundabouts they are RARE.
Any time you are driving on surface streets (hate that term), you soon learn to "drive the stop-lights" by looking ahead a block or two. Its
not that hard, and even when you can't see the lights driving just about the speed limit will be close enough to get you 5 greens out of 6 tries.
That being said, anything that can guarantee more greens is welcome, but putting it in cars seems the wrong approach. If the stop lights just
talked to each other you would have enough info. When Stoplight A can't clear its queue in the allotted green, you can pretty much bet stoplight B won't be able to do so when that slug of cars reaches it.
In most cases the problem is dumb signals, hold overs from the Pleistocene, with no attempt to make traffic efficient.
Once recognized, the employer must pay 2% of payroll to the union and the workers must pay 0.5%.
Net result is the workers lose 2.5%, all based on the preferences of 25 workers.
This from a Socialist site, praising China!!! let me show you my shocked face.
s this a media frenzy, playing on confirmation bias, or is it the FLA being clumsy in how it addresses the public?
When you read the entire story to which you linked, (instead of cherry picking one quote), you will find the the "tons of issues" are probably related to the brand of soap in the lavatory dispensers, because everything else in the report is absolutely glowing.
Nobody cares what laptop you run. Really, nobody.
You seem very quick to use the "A" word, insisting they are ATTACKED, merely because someone else posts a different opinion.
Then you follow up with stuff like "The summary reads like a Fox News attack" and " tactics for turning bullshit into news".
This is the internet. You've been here long enough to understand you need to grow a pair. Either that or tone down your rhetoric a little bit. That chip on your shoulder looks like a target to most people.
You are correct, there are more than a few corporate interests here, but perhaps the fiercest and quickest to strike are the Apple enthusiasts. Mention almost anything negative about Apple in general or about specific products and you will be modded into oblivion almost instantly.
Its like they have watcher-bots looking for posts to mod down, and they always seem to have mod points. It is so fast and complete you almost suspect they have several dozen accounts all linked by a back-channel (human or automated) to find, publish, and punish such posts. I've long suspected there are paid astroturfers out there, but of course there is no way to prove it.
However, their mod points seem to be shallow, and given time, the rest of the /. community mods most of these posts back up to where they should be. They don't appear to have the number of accounts to hold a post down for too long.
What makes you think this UK Judge was presiding over a Jury Trial?
So clueless. So naive.
As well as case the joint for anyone else that pays them.
Have you noticed any problem Real Estate agents encounter when getting pictures for a building they want to sell? Seems the sellers are only too happy to provide inside and outside shots.
This is a totally bogus use case, drummed up to make the whole thing look innocuous.
The judge followed the law. That is what he is OBLIGATED to do.
When we get to the point of allowing ANY LAME excuse as a reason to violate ANY law we will have lost everything the rule of law offers to society.
I can see the excuses from the witness stand:
Why yes, officer, I did shoot you, I was performing a public service by testing your bullet proof vest. You should get a better one, yours is all bloody anyway.
Yes, Mr. Banker, I did test your vault door last night, as a public service and to guarantee my money was safe, but sadly I had to withdraw my funds (and the funds of other concerned citizens) after the vault door proved ineffective against 5 pounds of C4. Sorry about the rest of your building. Its all for the best you know.
Its perfectly obvious that he was trying to break in without authorization, and he would have had to be trying for a long time. No way he gets it right the first try.
And even if he found it by accident (yeah right) he should have written a bug report or an email complaining that his perfectly valid use of facebook accidentally discovered a flaw. You don't steal the silver and the jewelry just to point out to your neighbor that he failed to lock the front door when he went out of town.
Define useful purposes.
Do so in such a way that your neighbor's rights to privacy, peace and quiet, and safety are not violated by your selfish definition of useful.
Ah, Slashdot. The world's only technology site populated by Luddites.
Newsflash, buddy... The people you're so terrified of already have helicopters. What's wrong with making flight cheaper and more accessible?
Might not the availability of private drones lead to a business of providing service to those pestered by drones?
Celebrity weddings and events might become plagued by Paparazzi drones, but some company will also rush in to provide blocker drones to block the shots or accidentally dangle "antennas" into rotors, or just take them out via collision.
A cloud of security drones around a site would probably discourage other drones as well.
I'm not sure the whole idea here is "making flight cheaper and more accessible".
Accessible to who?
Farmers? Maybe.
Forestry? Maybe.
Pipeline survey? Maybe.
News Media? Perhaps.
City dweller? ah, No, don't be foolish.
Suburban Citizen? No.
Joe RC Enthusiast? Not really. Too expensive, and already goverened.
By Accessible, you can only mean the Police in this day and age.
The outcome was known as soon as the study was announced.
This group is a industry created and funded "watch dog" group trotted out when any of the funding members need some independent *cough* observers to come in and put on a media show.
Pebble Bed modular reactors, or PBMR, have been around for quite some time now. They are small, inexpensive to build and maintain,
Only a small handful of designs exist in the world, none of them has been certified for commercial use, in fact, none have actually been built.
I don't think you can glibly announce that they have "been around for quite some time".
You're describing previous generations of reactors. The new ones are more like a giant battery. They are sealed, self contained, and walk-away safe.
Walk Away safe is a pretty big claim for something that has never actually been built yet. (And no, Navy shipboard reactors don't count. Operation of those reactors is top secret, and they are way too small.)
At some level, the concept of "walk away safe" is just another example of The Arrogance of Engineers. There are just too many things assumed.
The real problem with this design is that it might actually be built in reasonably large numbers, installed in places that are less well planned, operated by your average mid-sized power company, guarded by Mall Cops, maintained by low-bidders, and inspected by bribe takers.
In short, this type of reactor has the ability to become far too ubiquitous before any of the inevitable problems are discovered after 10 years of operation.
One could say that they may be too successful, too quickly.
You shouldn't have destroyed your individuality by combining all of these things. If you hadn't, maybe you wouldn't be getting divorced.
Or at least they wouldn't be getting divorced this early. Had they not shared email or cell bills, someone might have gotten away with what ever they were up to for quite a bit longer.
But in other respects, you are spot on. If you can't trust a spouse to have a separate email, facebook, music, ebook, movie account then that person should probably not be a spouse in the first place.
Apart from sharing a cell account to get a substantially cheaper rate, other things like movie and ebook accounts are drop dead simple to acquire, and maintaining an existing account is hardly worth the effort.
Close them all. Just download all of your eBooks to your devices and computers for long term retention. Close all other accounts, and divide the memberships that have any accumulated value, but really these aren't worth messing with.
If these things are all there is to bicker about in a divorce, then count yourself lucky (for once) to be broke. If you had any joint assets of consequence, you wouldn't be worried about some ridiculous on-line accounts.
If I rely on smtp, I want higher priority than your voip.
You really can't have it both ways.
It's a trial balloon. If the shareholders say "yes" then the government can point to shareholder support for their talking points. If the shareholders say "no" then the government can pull out the standard anti-business talking points.
Either way, it polarizes the issue and gives the politicians another opportunity for a self-serving speech.
Its pretty clear that the Telco's can word it in such a way that Tim Berners-Lee would vote the wrong way 8 times out of ten. I've seen many such proposals forced onto shareholders ballots which were worded in such a way that the reader was certain only Satan himself would vote for the proposal.
Besides that, given the hijacking of the term "net neutrality" over the last couple years its not safe to say you support Net Neutrality without a clarifying definition, because some companies have managed to twist the definition to the point that it means exactly the opposite of what you think.
Even Google fell off the bandwagon when they said this in the space of two sentences:
There is widespread agreement among all parties that outright blocking, impairing, or degrading Internet traffic should not be tolerated. Beyond that, we also believe that broadband carriers should have the flexibility to engage in a whole host of activities, including:
...
Prioritizing all applications of a certain general type, such as streaming video;
I gather you haven't been to Europe, where electricity is a bit more expensive; or India, where electricity is in short supply, ...
up to now they could not charge the guests for the extra power they use; now they can.
So I gather you haven't been charged for electrical use either, in all your travels, and even in the worst cases there is no rational way to recover installation costs, let alone electrical costs.
I grab my biggest laptop power supply brick, and read the numbers: /per da
180 watts max.
180 * 24hrs = 4320 / 1000 = 4.32kwh
4.32 w/hrs * $0.12 = $0.50 power cost at typical US rates.
In India, the average tariff charged is eight US cents per KWH compared to 12-15 cents in Canada, South Africa and the US and 19-20 cents in much of Europe and the developing world.
So worst case, use in Europe, double the US average, and assume a whole Dollar per day. Or 0.76 euros.
Average room prices in London for a 4star hotel is about what it is in Chicago. Lets take Berlin, typical 4star rate is 73 Euros, slightly less than Las Vegas (81). Laptop = less than 1% of the hotel bill.
Your laptop costs less than 1% of the hotel bill just about anywhere, on average.
Padding the bill to cover average usage costs Nothing. Rewiring the hotel? Come on!!! It will NEVER pay for itself.
So what was this nonsense about the prices of electricity in places I haven't visited?
Well, left unsaid is just how many trials it takes to determine if the key in question is one of those 2 in 100 that is vulnerable.
And the exact process is still not documented.
Quoting from the NYT article:
They were able to produce evidence that a small percentage of those numbers were not truly random, making it possible to determine the underlying numbers, or secret keys, used to generate the public key.
This is a far cry from "no security at all" if I understand it correctly. Any email encrypted with those keys would still be encrypted. And Joe Random Lurkerr would not be able to decrypt it even if he did intercept it.
However Random Monitoring Agency might amass enough such emails to make a guess at the random number used key generation. You have to have a fairly good sized pool of keys to work from in order to figure out the keys of any single encryption.
The paper goes on to state:
Cryptosystems such as RSA that require, during key-setup, multiple secrets are more aaffected by the apparent difficulty to generate proper random values than systems such as Diffe-Hellman (cf. [8]), ElGamal, and (EC)DSA that require a single secret. For either type of system identical keys can be exploited only by parties that can be identified by searching for the owner of the duplicate. But for the former (RSA) partially identical choices allow any malcreant to commit fraud.
For some values of "Any". You still need a significant number of such RSA keys in which to search for the use of duplicate random numbers.
So DSA keys are safer it would seem.
When wireless charging takes off this is exactly what's going to happen. Sony will have a standard, Apple will have a standard, and everything else will use the agreed on open standard.
But nobody will install any strictly proprietary electrical outlet.
Ever hear of the National Electrical Code?
Risks are one thing, but actual use case is even more basic.
Is there any rationale to bill you for the power you use in a hotel room? Seriously?
Paying today's hotel rates (not high end, just quality chains), I already pay them exorbitant rates for next to no service, zero security, and retched restaurants.
Now they are going to charge me to plug in a phone, and a computer? Given the dearth of outlets in your typical hotel room I can't see how you can use enough electricity to make it matter. Are people checking in with a Toaster Oven under each arm these days?
Now if they were electrifying their parking lots and wanted you to pay for charging all of those millions of electric cars that people travel with (snort), I could see it. But the linked article shows standard* room outlets, not parking lot outlets. (* Standard in some juristictions, I suppose. Not a ground prong to be seen. )
First time in forever the crowds outside the Apple store weren't dueling down their shirts over new hardware and Apple runs right out and finds company to shill for it. Amazing.
FLA is essentially the fox watching the hen house if you ask me. The organization is not particularly well though of, being considered by some merely an attention diversion. Even Wiki didn't have much good to say about it. And Non Profit Watch is more than a little skeptical.
The take away is that Apple is very sensitive to bad public image press, especially if it makes it into the New York Times, and bodies are hitting the ground.
But in the background they keep suing android vendors for using hyperlinks on web pages. Because that won't get any one standing outside their windows with placards, and they can lean on the press not to cover it, because its boring technical stuff.
Ah, too busy to RTFA?
Displaying multiple windows at the same time means that screen space isn’t used efficiently, and it means that you don’t get a focused view of what it is that you are interested in. Windows that aren’t maximised also create additional tasks for people. Often you need to adjust their size, or you have to move them around.
They are clearly on track to eliminate that in favor of maximized windows. These people spend their lives studying Microsoft Window users, where a ridiculously high percentage of users have to close their browser to read their email, because nobody ever explained to them that you can do more than one thing at a time.
Had Gnome not gone out of their way to kill off (or at least bury) the historical multiple desktop that 'Nixes have had for decades they would not now find themselves chasing after the most incompetent of users, and trying to dumb down the interface to the point where productive people are just as helpless as your grandmother.
Not content with that, they are now aiming at a full screen environment, where even the simplest tasks require all the real estate you have.
Yes, you can run multiple non-maximized windows, and yes you can have more than one desktop. These are not the norm any more for Gnome. And reading the design documents at the posted link makes it clear what they think of your intelligence level, and makes it clear they would just as soon hide that capability even deeper than they buried it in past releases.