Like everything else in this country, people seem to have this pathological need to take things to extremes.
I don't think it's about "going to extremes" per se, but people have the expectation and demand for a single solution and a single "right answer". They're looking for a "correct belief system" that can't be challenged and will never require revision. They're looking for "the correct thing to study in school" to the exclusion of all other topics, which should guarantee you a good, easy job that makes you rich. They're expecting there to be a "correct place to invest your money" which will return large profits every year with no risk whatsoever. They want a "correct diet" where they can eat some specific combination of foods that will make them always healthy and in-shape.
And those things don't really exist. They can't exist. But a bunch of people get convinced that they've the "correct" belief system, they run around trying to get rid of all of the other ones. Someone tells us the "correct" field to study is law, and then we end up with a glut of lawyers. We hear on the news that the "correct" place to invest your money is home ownership, and we get a housing boom followed by economic collapse.
"Going to extremes" is the result. "Wanting easy answers" is the problem.
I'm not a programmer, but more in IT support, and but it seems like there's always someone doing the same thing: trying to be clever. Everyone wants to be a cowboy. Everyone wants to do something badass that serves their ego.
more often than not, doing a good job is more about paying attention, being thorough, and doing the obvious thing. Listen to the user, read the error messages, look in the relevant log file. Tell the user what to expect, and then keep them informed until the problem is resolved.
I wonder if that's that it's about in all professions. Maybe most jobs don't require special genius, but most of the secret is just being thorough and conscientious, and using some common sense.
Regardless of what you think of the "flat" look (and like I said, I hate it), there is absolutely no way it is an improvement from a functionality and UI point-of-view.
I think it's an improvement aesthetically-- almost like, "How could it not be?" You went from ugly, busy, childish graphics to a blank. A plain color. It grates on me less.
But I would agree, that Windows 8 is a step back in terms of user interaction, in various ways big and small.
Elements on the screen, and especially different windows simply run together in a mess of undifferentiated rectangles.
I'm not sure I agree there. I suppose you could use a drop shadow to help provide depth in order to differentiate the windows, but I don't think making them flat make them more confusing.
The pajama boy hipsters have taken over the asylum
And this, I don't get. This is the second time I've heard someone claim that Windows 8 is the result of "hipsters", which leads me to conclude that you probably don't know what hipsters were.
And the whole thing is just fucking ugly. More and more people spend an enormous amount of time in front of a computer, not just for social/entertainment purposes but for work as well. Aesthetics matter and Windows 8/10 fail horribly.
Believe it or not, some people like the modern/metro/flat look. Personally, I think it's better than a lot of what came before. After all, look at the Windows XP interface. That blue/green/silver monstrosity is far worse than anything that came after, but the design of Vista was also pretty unappealing. Windows 7 is fine, but all of the windows have this weird thick border of fake frosted glass, including a cheesy fake reflection.
Until Windows 8, I always just went back to the "classic" look of Windows 2000. At least it was plain and unobjectionable. Windows 8 seems fine to me, aesthetically at least. As far as user interaction, it's worse than Windows 7, but aesthetically I think it's an improvement.
Congratulations. "Science" has "proved" that there are no standards for language and all those teachers that marked up your papers with red pens were just being mean.
Your sentiment matches mine more or less, but I also think there's something that needs to be thrown into the debate: whether we should try to use grammatical/spelling/usage rules prescriptively is not really a question of science or history. You can say that attempts to prevent the evolution of language often fails, at least to some degree. You can point out that our current rules of "proper English" are not an absolute and unchanging set of rules that have "always been that way." However, none of that addresses the question of whether we should try to stick to a particular set of rules.
That's one of the things that people who are really into "descriptivism" as a theory often miss. Languages are dynamic, yes. There are various dialects with different rules, of course. Nobody is arguing about that. The question of whether we want to teach people to use the Oxford comma... well, that's something we get to decide, and not exactly a question for scientific study. To clarify: In trying to decide, we could devise a scientific study to attempt to find out which kind of comma usage is more confusing to more people, but we could still debate many other related issues.
Ultimately, if you write something like, "I should of gone to the store yesterday," it makes you look, at best, uneducated. Of course, we all have typos and little brain farts. And yes, if people keep saying "should of" and "could of", it may eventually be considered valid within some dialect. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable for an author to use that choice in dialog to convey the casualness with which someone is speaking, or the educational level of the speaker. However, until we have a whole separate dialect in which that's considered proper, it's supposed to be "should have" or "should've".
And that's another key issue here: these rules are contextual, but they are rules. You can have a dialect where the grammar is different, but then there are still rules, just a different set of rules. Slang usage can be different from "proper" usage, but even slang has a meaning and a set of rules that are understood and accepted.
I don't know that anyone is arguing that there should be a "one, true, proper English". However, in whichever context you're speaking English, there are rules for how you speak, and you should probably follow them. Knowing those rules might include knowing when to use slang, even when to break the "rules" in order to create an effect and clarify your meaning. But there are still rules.
It's important to understand why the debate is coming from on this issue. On the one hand, most people will agree that if you're going to perform executions, they should be "humane". Not everyone agrees on what that means. Performing painless executions have never been difficult, but whenever it's seriously suggested, people object that they don't want it to be completely painless. There are people who insist that the execution needs to be a form of punishment, and so it needs to always stay a bit scary and painful.
And you might think that's crazy, but there are enough people who think that way that it's politically infeasible to go against it. If a politician pushes to make executions completely painless, he'll be branded as "soft on crime".
Yes, I hate all of Apple's proprietary standards. Like how they used AAC for their iTunes store, or mini-DisplayPort for the video connectors. And then they used Thunderbolt. Oh, and now they're using USB Type-C ports.
If you're confused as to why I grouped USB Type-C ports in there, it's because I was being sarcastic. Contrary to popular belief, none of those things that I listed are Apple proprietary technology. AAC does not stand for "Apple Audio Codec", and it's a standard put out by the same people who put out the MP3 standard, but actually has had fewer patent issues. Mini-DisplayPort was created by Apple, but the turned it into an open standard that is completely free to use, with no patent issues. Thunderbolt is a standard that Intel created, though supposedly Apple helped develop it. It's being used on lots of non-Apple hardware.
I guess the MagSafe port is proprietary. It's also really good, and they were smart to develop it. iPhones and iPads have the Lightning port, which was apparently used because they found the specs for the current USB micro connectors to be insufficient. There have been some rumors that Apple helped develop the USB Type-C ports because they wanted a replacement for USB's current micro connectors that would be usable in their products. Their wireless communications are all WiFi and Bluetooth. A lot of their software is based on open-sourced software.
Yes, obviously not all of their software is open source, and they aren't producing commodity hardware. However, it doesn't really make sense to imply that they refuse to follow standards and instead create more expensive non-compatible alternatives.
Depending on exactly what the needs are, I'd recommend looking at both project management software and software aimed at helpdesk sorts of things. Google for those, and you'll find an endless list. On the project management side, you'll find things like Trello, Asana, and Basecamp. For helpdesk-related things, you might look at things like Desk.com, Zendesk, or Autotask.
On both of those fronts, there are tons and tons of competing services. There's not really a "best" solution as much as "the one that gives me the features I want at a good price." There are also some open source options if you want to host your own.
Yeah, once I understood the headline and that it wasn't the largest animal ever, the insight about the paddles evolving into limbs seemed more interesting to me, too.
New question, then: Why is this a big deal? I paid more attention to what I was reading now, and it says that this animal was 1.6 meters long, so it wasn't very big at all. Why is it a big deal that it was the largest animal at the time?
Is it something like, this is the last time that an arthropod was the largest animal on earth? And why is that particularly interesting? For the sake of clarity, I'll explain that I'm not arguing that it's not interesting. It just seems to me that there must have been many different creatures which were the largest on Earth at the time they lived, and since my reading comprehension apparently sucks today, I'm honestly asking, why is it particularly noteworthy about this creature?
Almost half a billion years ago, the largest animal on Earth was a 2-meter-long, helmet-headed sea creature that fed on some of the ocean’s tiniest prey. The newly described species is one of the largest arthropods yet discovered
Now, if it's the largest animal ever on Earth, doesn't that mean it also has to be *the* largest arthropod, and not just one of the largest? Or are there some arthropods that are larger, and also not animals?
Yes, well some of the steam boxes appear to be upgradeable. If you don't like them, you can build your own, install SteamOS, and get all the same features.
Plus, if you buy a game for this console, you can also play the game on your Mac, your Windows machine, or any other platform the developer chooses to support. And if you upgrade to the latest version of the console a couple of years later, you it'll be backwards compatible and support your old games. This should be a huge improvement for consumers.
That might possibly be true, if we make certain assumptions. One of the big assumptions that I would not be willing to make is that the security policies are otherwise equal. Some of the IT at government agencies may not be "very good" by some measures, but I would assume that the State Department has pretty good security.
Valve likely wants to release SteamOS hardware and is pushing for ports/originals that target that platform.
Yeah, they announced a bunch of pieces of hardware in the past week or two, and it looks like they're pushing out Steam Boxes in the fall. This means you'll be able to buy a game console that's basically commodity hardware, running Linux and Steam.
It would only make sense that Steam will try to expand their library of Linux-supported games before the launch.
This is essentially what bothers me about the story. Not knowing all the details, I'm concerned about whether the server was properly secured, and if not, what data may have been vulnerable, given her position. But ultimately, that's not what really bothers me about this. What bothers me is the question, "Why did she want to do this at all?"
It doesn't really make any sense for a private individual to run their own email server out of their own home, unless they're trying to hide something. Even if the reason was vanity, if she didn't want to go with a government email service because she liked the idea of having her own personalize domain, it's easier, cheaper, more reliable, and more secure to go with an existing provider than to run your own server out of your own home. But even that would be a bit irresponsible, since it would be completely possible to have the State Department configure something so she can have her email from her vanity domain forwarded to a secure server.
So why? Who is she hiding her email from? The only reasonable answer is, "other people within the government," but which other people? Is she trying to prevent unlawful access by the NSA? Given the reported security problems, I'd wonder if the NSA couldn't hack their server if they wanted to.
The only reasonable answer that I can think of is, she's hiding her emails from legitimate inquiries from law enforcement or other governmental investigations.
It's even one of the few ports on the Microsoft Surface. The reason Apple chose it over HDMI was that it doesn't have patent fees, which means it's arguably a more open standard than HDMI.
But... I may be wrong here, but isn't the "Battlefield" series one of those games where they just keep rehashing the same game, churning out sequel after sequel for people with no taste? Like Call of Duty? I thought the main features of those games were (a) fancy graphics; (b) dumb guys get to imagine that they could be dropped into a real war zone, and they'd be total bad-asses who would kill all the bad guys and save the day.
If so, I feel like they are kind of betraying their demographic by not having high resolution graphics with a high frame-per-second count. That's why people want the new systems and the new games. Benchmarks!
Do pilots still need licenses in the age of autopilot?
I think there's a big difference in that, if the autopilot encounters a problem it can't deal with, it can't really just stop. I don't know, but I suspect that a lot of a pilot's training isn't just "how to fly a plane" but things like, "how to file a flight plan," or "what FAA regulations do I have to follow?" or "What do I do if something goes wrong." Cars don't need flight plans, the autonomous cars will probably do a better job of following the rules of the roads, and if something goes wrong, the car can just stop itself, with no more negative effect than if a car stalled or someone slammed on the breaks.
Yeah, it's also like, "In order for the update to full take effect and work correctly, we need to restart a bunch of services and applications. You should save all your work, since various things might close or stop working for a little bit." You can explain that to users, have them not pay attention, and then get pissed off because the update closed their document that they didn't save. Or you can just tell them that you're going to reboot.
I've heard it said that we get the type of candidates for political office that we do because the system is not attractive to good and noble candidates.
It's not just us. Plato raised this as a general problem in ancient Greece. Good people-- the kind of people we should want to be in a position of power-- are quite possibly never the people who are lusting to put themselves into a position of power. That's the one-sentence summary of "The Republic".
See, I was right. Stubborn, stupid, and there's no point in arguing with you.
If I email you from my Google account, where do those bits go? Who can read it once it leaves Google's servers? I don't know, because aside from SSL in transport, it's not encrypted.
Maybe you should think for 30 seconds before posting.
I, for one, don't really use Google+, but it's not because of any particular problem other than, "No one else is using it," with just a smidge of "I don't know what I'm supposed to be using it for," thrown in.
It does seem to me like "Hangouts" should be its own thing, along with chat and VoIP. If anything, those things should should sooner be integrated into Gmail somehow. I'm not sure I want that, but it would make more sense, at least, since it's all, roughly speaking, private communications.
I also think that there should be a separate web application that is, "Where my phone automatically uploads my photos, where I can organize them and track them myself, but they're private." Personally, it just makes me a little uncomfortable for that to be bolted straight on to the "photo sharing social networking site," but maybe that's just me. I'm old. I feel ok if the social networking site can connect in and pull photos from the private site. Hell, even if I know it's all ultimately stored in the database, that's not what bothers me. It's just to have my private stuff be in the same interface as the publicly shared stuff, without a clear apparent distinction... it worries my poor little monkey brain.
Ultimately, between Facebook, Twitter, and Google+, I tend to use Facebook for sharing posts/photos/updates. Not because I like it or think it's good, and only somewhat because my friends seem to use it more. As much as anything, I think it's because it's the site that confuses me the least.
There's not much point in arguing with you because you've shown that you're both too stupid to understand the point and too stubborn to actually think for 30 seconds before pushing your own tired nonsensical point.
But here's the thing in a very basic, simple, easy to understand explanation: End-to-end encryption doesn't suddenly become useless because you've trusted a 3rd party with the encryption keys. When you trust a 3rd party, then the encryption remains as strong as that 3rd party is trustworthy.
This is especially important to know, since we're already trusting other 3rd parties as part of the security chain. If I don't trust GPG or anyone auditing their code, then I can't trust the security of things encrypted with GPG, regardless of who has the keys.
Regardless, encrypting individual messages rather than relying solely on SSL during transmission does add security against various kinds of attacks and breaches. I could give examples, but do you want them? Would examples help, or are you, as I suspect, simply being difficult because you're an asshole who can't admit to being wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Like everything else in this country, people seem to have this pathological need to take things to extremes.
I don't think it's about "going to extremes" per se, but people have the expectation and demand for a single solution and a single "right answer". They're looking for a "correct belief system" that can't be challenged and will never require revision. They're looking for "the correct thing to study in school" to the exclusion of all other topics, which should guarantee you a good, easy job that makes you rich. They're expecting there to be a "correct place to invest your money" which will return large profits every year with no risk whatsoever. They want a "correct diet" where they can eat some specific combination of foods that will make them always healthy and in-shape.
And those things don't really exist. They can't exist. But a bunch of people get convinced that they've the "correct" belief system, they run around trying to get rid of all of the other ones. Someone tells us the "correct" field to study is law, and then we end up with a glut of lawyers. We hear on the news that the "correct" place to invest your money is home ownership, and we get a housing boom followed by economic collapse.
"Going to extremes" is the result. "Wanting easy answers" is the problem.
I'm not a programmer, but more in IT support, and but it seems like there's always someone doing the same thing: trying to be clever. Everyone wants to be a cowboy. Everyone wants to do something badass that serves their ego.
more often than not, doing a good job is more about paying attention, being thorough, and doing the obvious thing. Listen to the user, read the error messages, look in the relevant log file. Tell the user what to expect, and then keep them informed until the problem is resolved.
I wonder if that's that it's about in all professions. Maybe most jobs don't require special genius, but most of the secret is just being thorough and conscientious, and using some common sense.
Regardless of what you think of the "flat" look (and like I said, I hate it), there is absolutely no way it is an improvement from a functionality and UI point-of-view.
I think it's an improvement aesthetically-- almost like, "How could it not be?" You went from ugly, busy, childish graphics to a blank. A plain color. It grates on me less.
But I would agree, that Windows 8 is a step back in terms of user interaction, in various ways big and small.
Elements on the screen, and especially different windows simply run together in a mess of undifferentiated rectangles.
I'm not sure I agree there. I suppose you could use a drop shadow to help provide depth in order to differentiate the windows, but I don't think making them flat make them more confusing.
The pajama boy hipsters have taken over the asylum
And this, I don't get. This is the second time I've heard someone claim that Windows 8 is the result of "hipsters", which leads me to conclude that you probably don't know what hipsters were.
Slashdot: Shit fo' nerds, shiznit dat matters.
And the whole thing is just fucking ugly. More and more people spend an enormous amount of time in front of a computer, not just for social/entertainment purposes but for work as well. Aesthetics matter and Windows 8/10 fail horribly.
Believe it or not, some people like the modern/metro/flat look. Personally, I think it's better than a lot of what came before. After all, look at the Windows XP interface. That blue/green/silver monstrosity is far worse than anything that came after, but the design of Vista was also pretty unappealing. Windows 7 is fine, but all of the windows have this weird thick border of fake frosted glass, including a cheesy fake reflection.
Until Windows 8, I always just went back to the "classic" look of Windows 2000. At least it was plain and unobjectionable. Windows 8 seems fine to me, aesthetically at least. As far as user interaction, it's worse than Windows 7, but aesthetically I think it's an improvement.
Congratulations. "Science" has "proved" that there are no standards for language and all those teachers that marked up your papers with red pens were just being mean.
Your sentiment matches mine more or less, but I also think there's something that needs to be thrown into the debate: whether we should try to use grammatical/spelling/usage rules prescriptively is not really a question of science or history. You can say that attempts to prevent the evolution of language often fails, at least to some degree. You can point out that our current rules of "proper English" are not an absolute and unchanging set of rules that have "always been that way." However, none of that addresses the question of whether we should try to stick to a particular set of rules.
That's one of the things that people who are really into "descriptivism" as a theory often miss. Languages are dynamic, yes. There are various dialects with different rules, of course. Nobody is arguing about that. The question of whether we want to teach people to use the Oxford comma... well, that's something we get to decide, and not exactly a question for scientific study. To clarify: In trying to decide, we could devise a scientific study to attempt to find out which kind of comma usage is more confusing to more people, but we could still debate many other related issues.
Ultimately, if you write something like, "I should of gone to the store yesterday," it makes you look, at best, uneducated. Of course, we all have typos and little brain farts. And yes, if people keep saying "should of" and "could of", it may eventually be considered valid within some dialect. In fact, it's perfectly reasonable for an author to use that choice in dialog to convey the casualness with which someone is speaking, or the educational level of the speaker. However, until we have a whole separate dialect in which that's considered proper, it's supposed to be "should have" or "should've".
And that's another key issue here: these rules are contextual, but they are rules. You can have a dialect where the grammar is different, but then there are still rules, just a different set of rules. Slang usage can be different from "proper" usage, but even slang has a meaning and a set of rules that are understood and accepted.
I don't know that anyone is arguing that there should be a "one, true, proper English". However, in whichever context you're speaking English, there are rules for how you speak, and you should probably follow them. Knowing those rules might include knowing when to use slang, even when to break the "rules" in order to create an effect and clarify your meaning. But there are still rules.
It's important to understand why the debate is coming from on this issue. On the one hand, most people will agree that if you're going to perform executions, they should be "humane". Not everyone agrees on what that means. Performing painless executions have never been difficult, but whenever it's seriously suggested, people object that they don't want it to be completely painless. There are people who insist that the execution needs to be a form of punishment, and so it needs to always stay a bit scary and painful.
And you might think that's crazy, but there are enough people who think that way that it's politically infeasible to go against it. If a politician pushes to make executions completely painless, he'll be branded as "soft on crime".
Yes, I hate all of Apple's proprietary standards. Like how they used AAC for their iTunes store, or mini-DisplayPort for the video connectors. And then they used Thunderbolt. Oh, and now they're using USB Type-C ports.
If you're confused as to why I grouped USB Type-C ports in there, it's because I was being sarcastic. Contrary to popular belief, none of those things that I listed are Apple proprietary technology. AAC does not stand for "Apple Audio Codec", and it's a standard put out by the same people who put out the MP3 standard, but actually has had fewer patent issues. Mini-DisplayPort was created by Apple, but the turned it into an open standard that is completely free to use, with no patent issues. Thunderbolt is a standard that Intel created, though supposedly Apple helped develop it. It's being used on lots of non-Apple hardware.
I guess the MagSafe port is proprietary. It's also really good, and they were smart to develop it. iPhones and iPads have the Lightning port, which was apparently used because they found the specs for the current USB micro connectors to be insufficient. There have been some rumors that Apple helped develop the USB Type-C ports because they wanted a replacement for USB's current micro connectors that would be usable in their products. Their wireless communications are all WiFi and Bluetooth. A lot of their software is based on open-sourced software.
Yes, obviously not all of their software is open source, and they aren't producing commodity hardware. However, it doesn't really make sense to imply that they refuse to follow standards and instead create more expensive non-compatible alternatives.
Depending on exactly what the needs are, I'd recommend looking at both project management software and software aimed at helpdesk sorts of things. Google for those, and you'll find an endless list. On the project management side, you'll find things like Trello, Asana, and Basecamp. For helpdesk-related things, you might look at things like Desk.com, Zendesk, or Autotask.
On both of those fronts, there are tons and tons of competing services. There's not really a "best" solution as much as "the one that gives me the features I want at a good price." There are also some open source options if you want to host your own.
Yeah, once I understood the headline and that it wasn't the largest animal ever, the insight about the paddles evolving into limbs seemed more interesting to me, too.
Ah, thank you. That makes more sense.
New question, then: Why is this a big deal? I paid more attention to what I was reading now, and it says that this animal was 1.6 meters long, so it wasn't very big at all. Why is it a big deal that it was the largest animal at the time?
Is it something like, this is the last time that an arthropod was the largest animal on earth? And why is that particularly interesting? For the sake of clarity, I'll explain that I'm not arguing that it's not interesting. It just seems to me that there must have been many different creatures which were the largest on Earth at the time they lived, and since my reading comprehension apparently sucks today, I'm honestly asking, why is it particularly noteworthy about this creature?
Almost half a billion years ago, the largest animal on Earth was a 2-meter-long, helmet-headed sea creature that fed on some of the ocean’s tiniest prey. The newly described species is one of the largest arthropods yet discovered
Now, if it's the largest animal ever on Earth, doesn't that mean it also has to be *the* largest arthropod, and not just one of the largest? Or are there some arthropods that are larger, and also not animals?
Yes, well some of the steam boxes appear to be upgradeable. If you don't like them, you can build your own, install SteamOS, and get all the same features.
Plus, if you buy a game for this console, you can also play the game on your Mac, your Windows machine, or any other platform the developer chooses to support. And if you upgrade to the latest version of the console a couple of years later, you it'll be backwards compatible and support your old games. This should be a huge improvement for consumers.
That might possibly be true, if we make certain assumptions. One of the big assumptions that I would not be willing to make is that the security policies are otherwise equal. Some of the IT at government agencies may not be "very good" by some measures, but I would assume that the State Department has pretty good security.
If not, WTF?
Valve likely wants to release SteamOS hardware and is pushing for ports/originals that target that platform.
Yeah, they announced a bunch of pieces of hardware in the past week or two, and it looks like they're pushing out Steam Boxes in the fall. This means you'll be able to buy a game console that's basically commodity hardware, running Linux and Steam.
It would only make sense that Steam will try to expand their library of Linux-supported games before the launch.
This is essentially what bothers me about the story. Not knowing all the details, I'm concerned about whether the server was properly secured, and if not, what data may have been vulnerable, given her position. But ultimately, that's not what really bothers me about this. What bothers me is the question, "Why did she want to do this at all?"
It doesn't really make any sense for a private individual to run their own email server out of their own home, unless they're trying to hide something. Even if the reason was vanity, if she didn't want to go with a government email service because she liked the idea of having her own personalize domain, it's easier, cheaper, more reliable, and more secure to go with an existing provider than to run your own server out of your own home. But even that would be a bit irresponsible, since it would be completely possible to have the State Department configure something so she can have her email from her vanity domain forwarded to a secure server.
So why? Who is she hiding her email from? The only reasonable answer is, "other people within the government," but which other people? Is she trying to prevent unlawful access by the NSA? Given the reported security problems, I'd wonder if the NSA couldn't hack their server if they wanted to.
The only reasonable answer that I can think of is, she's hiding her emails from legitimate inquiries from law enforcement or other governmental investigations.
It's even one of the few ports on the Microsoft Surface. The reason Apple chose it over HDMI was that it doesn't have patent fees, which means it's arguably a more open standard than HDMI.
That guy doesn't know what he's talking about.
But... I may be wrong here, but isn't the "Battlefield" series one of those games where they just keep rehashing the same game, churning out sequel after sequel for people with no taste? Like Call of Duty? I thought the main features of those games were (a) fancy graphics; (b) dumb guys get to imagine that they could be dropped into a real war zone, and they'd be total bad-asses who would kill all the bad guys and save the day.
If so, I feel like they are kind of betraying their demographic by not having high resolution graphics with a high frame-per-second count. That's why people want the new systems and the new games. Benchmarks!
Do pilots still need licenses in the age of autopilot?
I think there's a big difference in that, if the autopilot encounters a problem it can't deal with, it can't really just stop. I don't know, but I suspect that a lot of a pilot's training isn't just "how to fly a plane" but things like, "how to file a flight plan," or "what FAA regulations do I have to follow?" or "What do I do if something goes wrong." Cars don't need flight plans, the autonomous cars will probably do a better job of following the rules of the roads, and if something goes wrong, the car can just stop itself, with no more negative effect than if a car stalled or someone slammed on the breaks.
Yeah, it's also like, "In order for the update to full take effect and work correctly, we need to restart a bunch of services and applications. You should save all your work, since various things might close or stop working for a little bit." You can explain that to users, have them not pay attention, and then get pissed off because the update closed their document that they didn't save. Or you can just tell them that you're going to reboot.
Users understand rebooting better.
I've heard it said that we get the type of candidates for political office that we do because the system is not attractive to good and noble candidates.
It's not just us. Plato raised this as a general problem in ancient Greece. Good people-- the kind of people we should want to be in a position of power-- are quite possibly never the people who are lusting to put themselves into a position of power. That's the one-sentence summary of "The Republic".
See, I was right. Stubborn, stupid, and there's no point in arguing with you.
If I email you from my Google account, where do those bits go? Who can read it once it leaves Google's servers? I don't know, because aside from SSL in transport, it's not encrypted.
Maybe you should think for 30 seconds before posting.
I, for one, don't really use Google+, but it's not because of any particular problem other than, "No one else is using it," with just a smidge of "I don't know what I'm supposed to be using it for," thrown in.
It does seem to me like "Hangouts" should be its own thing, along with chat and VoIP. If anything, those things should should sooner be integrated into Gmail somehow. I'm not sure I want that, but it would make more sense, at least, since it's all, roughly speaking, private communications.
I also think that there should be a separate web application that is, "Where my phone automatically uploads my photos, where I can organize them and track them myself, but they're private." Personally, it just makes me a little uncomfortable for that to be bolted straight on to the "photo sharing social networking site," but maybe that's just me. I'm old. I feel ok if the social networking site can connect in and pull photos from the private site. Hell, even if I know it's all ultimately stored in the database, that's not what bothers me. It's just to have my private stuff be in the same interface as the publicly shared stuff, without a clear apparent distinction... it worries my poor little monkey brain.
Ultimately, between Facebook, Twitter, and Google+, I tend to use Facebook for sharing posts/photos/updates. Not because I like it or think it's good, and only somewhat because my friends seem to use it more. As much as anything, I think it's because it's the site that confuses me the least.
There's not much point in arguing with you because you've shown that you're both too stupid to understand the point and too stubborn to actually think for 30 seconds before pushing your own tired nonsensical point.
But here's the thing in a very basic, simple, easy to understand explanation: End-to-end encryption doesn't suddenly become useless because you've trusted a 3rd party with the encryption keys. When you trust a 3rd party, then the encryption remains as strong as that 3rd party is trustworthy.
This is especially important to know, since we're already trusting other 3rd parties as part of the security chain. If I don't trust GPG or anyone auditing their code, then I can't trust the security of things encrypted with GPG, regardless of who has the keys.
Regardless, encrypting individual messages rather than relying solely on SSL during transmission does add security against various kinds of attacks and breaches. I could give examples, but do you want them? Would examples help, or are you, as I suspect, simply being difficult because you're an asshole who can't admit to being wrong?
Ah, so I guess the answer is, "a little of each."