Read TFS. They are not suing Google, they are suing the University or whatever.
Google Apps can be the most accessible system in the world. But if the University IT block the POP3 and SMTP port, or forbids attaching headphones or speakers to the computers, it does not help. So, they require the University to provide accessibility, then the University will chose the tools that suit them better to get that done (google apps or not).
If the government (in the form of publicly funded schools) requires you to use specific software then you can't just go and "spend your money elsewhere". You have to use that software, even though it is physically impossible for you to do so, and despite the fact that there are alternatives you could use if allowed. That is what the accusations of violating civil rights are about.
The government does not require specific software. They require the software to meet certain criteria. That is a very different meaning.
Well, it's your right to think that way, but I'm sure you'd feel differently if you were blind, and your computer's screen-reader program was unable to parse important emails from your professor.
Yes. The people affected do tend to have biased opinions (far more so than usual) on the matter more than not. What's your point?
I don't follow your reasoning... blind people is biased and non-blind people not?
Unless you can point me to an objective statement that you and me know to be truth (i.e. "God says blind people are so by His design and you must not help them to overcome their disabilities"), then there is no "fixed point" to claim that some opinion (the one you are against) is biased while your opinion is not biased.
To me, your post translates into: "I am not blind so I do not share the opinion most blind people have, so my bias is different to theirs".
I guess that for "trans" you meant transexual. My excuses if it means something else.
I'm trans, you know, the minority of people who are so small and misunderstood that we're not even allowed to have sob stories the way most minorities have, much less sob stories that high school kids are indoctrinated with (not saying it's a good thing, just stating a fact). Somehow trans people find ways of navigating a cis gendered world, often at great expense to themselves. I'd give up my sight any day to be cis gendered (better be careful what I wish for lol), so I guess I really have no sympathy for blind people despite their enormous hardships.
When you're in my minority, the world looks at you and says, "Figure it out on your own damned time at your own damned expense." When you're blind, the world looks at you and says, "Damn, that sucks. (And it does, having interacted with blind people on the bus, again, not saying it's a cake-walk just stating facts.) Here, have a government check every month. Here, have free care. Here, ride the bus for free. Here, have a free education. And if you don't get a job, don't worry, we'll keep sending you a check so you can eat."
Bullshit. You may be a trans, but that does not mean:
That you can only moved be in a chair, even for moving.
That you can't notice people, threats (moving cars, a hole in the street, etc.), whatever, until they make some sound or you touch it with the tip of your stick.
That you cannot use a phone (at least to talk), or hear what people are saying to you unless you get to see their face.
That you have intelligence enough to make sound judgements (when you want to).
And the list goes on...
So, there is discrimination about transexuals... cry me a river. Look a little beyond and you'll see people discriminated (and worse) by their sexual orientation, race, gender, politicals beliefs, religion, place of birth. And yes, against the handicapped. I am not saying it is just, I am not saying it shouldn't be easier for you. I am saying that I feel that "as I am being discriminated against I do not like it when other people get some relief" is a very miserable thought to have, let alone to write in a post.
And please note that these helps that you think are so big things are just a way of leveraging their disabilities a little. It is neither a consolation prize, nor a way to compensate for the discrimination against them. It is a way to leverage their disabilities so they can get into a more equal "playing field". Other than the discrimination issues... is there anything that I can do that you can't?
The issue is not specifically with Google, even if TFHeadline is somewhat ambiguous.
They are suing workplaces/institutions that are not adapted to blind users. These entities are the ones that must chose the tools useful for such people. The only implication of Google in this would be if they (implicitly or explicitly) said that their app was compliant with those standards and it happens that it is not. And even in the app is compliant, it does not mean that there is a good setup for using the accessibility aspects (v.g., a computer lab without speakers/headphones for the PC because "the students would only use them to listen to music").
Of course, I am talking only about the "legal" (through lawayers, lawsuits, etc.) way. Anybody can have asked Google to follow that standards, but it has the same legal weight that any request you or me can make to them, and Google can decide then to do so or not.
Without discussing the current numbers, 88.000 people can be missing in a few seconds, and be reported in a few hours
Of course, in only one team was reporting missing people, it would take quite more. But, thanks to paralel processing, in every town you can have officials attending reports and sending the estimated total for his town to regional officials who add them up and send them to province officials who.... well, do you get it, don't you?
I remember some other news about companies using bunkers; the usual reason is not protection against explosions but prices. If a bunker is no longer used in its primary functions, there is little else you can do with it (would you put shops in? offices? housing?). So, someone gets some state that already has tight security, backup electricity and refrigeration and, not surprisingly, he tries to use it as a datacenter.
If you have any doubt, look at the list of customer.... mainly hosting providers. If people were so afraid of "Emergency", the main customers would be government, banks, great industry groups.. but none of these appear.
Until we get the data to compare the model predictions with the real results, all that we know is that we have some model calculated fast... Just let it be a few more days (or hours) and then we can talk about something.
Well, just guessing, but probably the costs of physically producing the stamps (usually you put antifraud elements in it), distributing them and having them publicly available must be, if not huge, considerable.
As for the solution, I feel it is too early; the technology is not ready yet. You have to:
have a cell phone (ok, you can take as almost granted in Sweden).
know how to send a message (not rocket science, but can be hard for people not used to technologies).
remember the sms number phone
remember how to code the message
IMHO, a lot more complicated than the actual system (even if it is quickier than go to the shop/PO and buy the stamps). I hope they allow the old system to be run side by side with this one until they get something better.
Let me ask yourself: when you are in a plane... are there, now, other WiFis to which you can connect? Not someone else's computer that is useless (unless you want to have a LAN party), but something that will give you internet access?
Even if Boeing is designing that "new" Wi-Fi that you guess, they do not need to deliver FUD to become the only operator. In fact, this only discourages Wi-Fi usage (yes they can claim later its Wi-Fi is safer, but some doubt will remain...)
Some years ago I was in a plane ready to take off when the cabin informed of "technical difficulties"
They went searching in a particular area of the seats and found someone who had forgot to turn off his phone before leaving his coat in the luggage compartment(*). It was more educational than a ton of posters asking me to turn off my cell phone.
So... well, let's say that I am that moron that will ask you politely to stop talking when the plane is going to start the take off, even if that means interfering with your freedom to do whatever you want to do, whenever and wherever. And I will keep doing, thank you very much.
Then, from my part, we are not going to use phone in planes. Never. If we are not going to use the phones while in the plane, the only caveat to giving it to an steward would be finding a good method that assures me that I will recover my phone without problems neither much delays when I arrive at my destination.
(*): Yes, you sometime did leave your phone on and nothing happened. I did forget to turn it off sometime, too. And probably if the phone of that guy had been in his pocket it would not have been detected. Or maybe it was somewhat defective. But I do not like to increase any chance of an accident for anything as trivial as what you could say in your phone.
If you want a car analogy, you can blame the government for limiting your freedom of getting drunk at a party and getting back home driving your car. And most of the times, if you do, nothing bad will happen. But that does not mean that it is not a stupid risk.
Nobody is pro-corporations anywhere. Being pro-corporations is bad when you are asking for votes from people.
So if you have to help your friends/overlords who want their corporations to give them HUGE profits, you need to lie to the people and tell them that you help corporations only as a way to help the people... in the lines of "if the corporations can make you work unpaid overtime then they will get more benefits from you and then they will have more money to pay you more/hire more people". Or "if the corporations can drill everywhere and we do not stop them with silly security/environmental protections, then they will hire you to destroy someone's else environment".
You see an article about two girls falsely accusing the teacher of being a pedophile, and you say: "it should be obvious the girls were lying".
The father of one of the girls sees the posts. Do you think he says: "It is obvious my daughter is lying"? And at least he knows her, and can ask her first about if it is real.
The father of other girl at the same school sees the posts. Do you think he says: "It is obvious that girl is lying"?
A police officer of the town sees the posts. Do you think he says: "It is obvious that girl is lying, I won't go to the teacher house to ask about this?"
A familiar of the teacher sees the posts. Do you think he says: "it is obvious that girl is lying"?
And so on.... Note that I do not state that everybody will take the opposite reaction (i.e. "the girl is right and the teacher is a pedophile"), but even the doubt ("is there some truth behind that?") is damaging enough. Put in other words: Would you mind if I put adverts in your local newspapers stating that "Geekmux might be a pedophile"? It is way milder and leaves it to the common sense of you neighbours think if you are or are not, so I take from your words that you will not mind if I do.
At any rate, I wish to compliment in your optimism for believing that everyone that uses FB and sees a post like that will always be able to know if it is slanderous or not, and what is the truth behind me (Myself, I only know they were slanderous because I have found an article about them).
Better yet, because it is a sales tax. So you last line should be something like that (I corrected the days in month too):
Because as we all know buying each year 9 cars instead of 10 is roughly equivalent to not eating anything for 3 days a month if you can't afford groceries on 90% of your income.
Shouldn't we also acknowledge that the root cause of this kind of misery are people who'll believe whatever they read, without any due diligence?
Ok, I acknowledge it.
But that people is still there, causing this misery. And, IMHO, most of them do not care about truth, but about founding someone worse than them so they can feel better about themselves
The guy who was being slandered could know 100% about the sociology, pshycology and economics of astroturfing. Yet if someone believed the lies and went to do something about that, how many people do you think would listen to his explanations (given that he has enough time to give them).
And after that, the one who went to insult/slap/hit/whatever that guy, would return back at home proud of what he had done.
Bullfighting is well established and widely accepted also. Does that make it okay?
In Spain, yes. In India, no.
I'm not sure whether this morality means that any change to a law or its interpretation is always wrong (after all, clearly either the change will permit something that isn't accepted or it will suppress something that is accepted!), or whether it means that any such change is always right (after all, after the change, the new law will be the accepted law!). Either way it seems like a pretty optimal morality to use for avoiding going to jail and a tautologically worthless morality to use for designing or evaluating law.
I think our AP (ancestor posts) are confusing social and personal issues. In the bullfighting issue, it can be widely accepted but an individual can morally opossed against it.
For cultural reasons, in Spain 99% might be going to bullfighting every afternoon but the 1% remaining can think that it is the worst sin in the world. In India, 99% might prefer being stoned than killing a cow but the 1% remaining might think that killing a cow for meal, or sports, is not a big issue or even it is a must do.
Behind these issues, laws ares set: in Spain bullfighting is legal and in India killing a cow is ilegal. Then again, individuals can mantain their stance, but must obey the rules of the country. Do not mistake law and moral, even if one can be founded in the other. Moral is personal, what you thing is wrong is what you thing is wrong (yet usually you'll agree more than not with the people of the culture where you grew/live). Law is communitary and it does not matter what you feel about it. What keeps you in or out of jail (ideally) is not your moral, but following the laws of the country or not (in any country that follows the "rule of law").
If your moral stance against something that is allowed (or for something that is forbiden) means that you must do something about it, you are supposed to act inside the law (informing people of your POV, staging legal protests, founding a political platform -where allowed-). Sometimes the individuals feel that the legal ways existing are not enough due the seriousness of the issue, and they get outside the law in several degrees. From milder ones like interrupting acts without hurting anyone, for the sake of publicity, to the various sorts of more violent acts, which receive different names due to how much we approve of it: revolution, insurgency, terrorism, freedom fighting, etc.
You would be OK, none of my coworkers have died of dyssenthery yet...
Now more seriously, relax. Look at how people has historically lived. How long have we had drinkable and controlled water in our home? Or have been almost be assured a john (it is how it is called?) nearby when we need it? And you are probably better feed, have had more vaccines and have acces to more and better physicians than 99,9% of the rest of mankind that has ever been. And even with those disavantages, most of these people did not die from illness (and many of the worst epidemics have been linked with periods of crisis, war, and the like that caused famine that weakened the population). And you are mostly surrounded by healthy people, the sicker staying at home or going to an hospital.
The fact that there are spots in TV telling you to buy something every time you sneeze does not mean you are in any way weaker than those people(This is no medical advice. If you tomorrow sneeze and die, I deny all responsability;-p).
Of course, some safety measures may be sensible, but: isn't it true that you touch door handlers, phones, papers that other people have touched too? Have you heard of someone getting sick that way? Why is a hand scanner different?. Also I don't understand why "a bomb" is so dangerous... I'd always assume an sneeze would be way, way worse.
OTOH, if you want to be worried about those things, you can remember that a single bout of influenza can kill you (remember which was the most lethal pandemy in the XXth?)
*1: This is no medical advice. If you sneeze today and die of that, I
The thing is - the free market takes care of you in situations like this. Those apps - I'm sure had 1 or 2 stars and market reviews along the lines of "malware" - plus the reviews I'm sure were not all that great either "Japanese screaming sexy girls" may have been popular, but its hard to mistake for anything serious like a SSH tool.
Wow, wait a little! You:
Decide a conclussion "the free market takes care..."
Based in the conclussion, decide what must have been the facts: "I'm sure had 1 or 2 stars" and do not even check them
Assume that popular is serious... sorry, maybe the fishbowl screensaver is neither serious nor sofisticated, but that does not mean it is not popular. Check Facebook if you have any doubt.
In fact, at least 50.000 customers have been "taken care of" in spite of the free market. And has stopped due to Google "pulling a Jobs" and banning them.
Do not missunderstand me, I am tech savvy and like to check what is in my computer (no smart phone) and all of that. And I also know a lot of people have a motto (v.g. "Free market rules") and want to write it down everytime they get the chance to. But I do not think this is a news where you can say "see how free market magically solves all the problems in the world?".
Slashdot Mirror
Read TFS. They are not suing Google, they are suing the University or whatever.
Google Apps can be the most accessible system in the world. But if the University IT block the POP3 and SMTP port, or forbids attaching headphones or speakers to the computers, it does not help. So, they require the University to provide accessibility, then the University will chose the tools that suit them better to get that done (google apps or not).
If the government (in the form of publicly funded schools) requires you to use specific software then you can't just go and "spend your money elsewhere". You have to use that software, even though it is physically impossible for you to do so, and despite the fact that there are alternatives you could use if allowed. That is what the accusations of violating civil rights are about.
The government does not require specific software. They require the software to meet certain criteria. That is a very different meaning.
if it's a place of public accomodation
Huh?
Well, it's your right to think that way, but I'm sure you'd feel differently if you were blind, and your computer's screen-reader program was unable to parse important emails from your professor.
Yes. The people affected do tend to have biased opinions (far more so than usual) on the matter more than not. What's your point?
I don't follow your reasoning... blind people is biased and non-blind people not?
Unless you can point me to an objective statement that you and me know to be truth (i.e. "God says blind people are so by His design and you must not help them to overcome their disabilities"), then there is no "fixed point" to claim that some opinion (the one you are against) is biased while your opinion is not biased.
To me, your post translates into: "I am not blind so I do not share the opinion most blind people have, so my bias is different to theirs".
I guess that for "trans" you meant transexual. My excuses if it means something else.
I'm trans, you know, the minority of people who are so small and misunderstood that we're not even allowed to have sob stories the way most minorities have, much less sob stories that high school kids are indoctrinated with (not saying it's a good thing, just stating a fact). Somehow trans people find ways of navigating a cis gendered world, often at great expense to themselves. I'd give up my sight any day to be cis gendered (better be careful what I wish for lol), so I guess I really have no sympathy for blind people despite their enormous hardships.
When you're in my minority, the world looks at you and says, "Figure it out on your own damned time at your own damned expense." When you're blind, the world looks at you and says, "Damn, that sucks. (And it does, having interacted with blind people on the bus, again, not saying it's a cake-walk just stating facts.) Here, have a government check every month. Here, have free care. Here, ride the bus for free. Here, have a free education. And if you don't get a job, don't worry, we'll keep sending you a check so you can eat."
Bullshit. You may be a trans, but that does not mean:
So, there is discrimination about transexuals... cry me a river. Look a little beyond and you'll see people discriminated (and worse) by their sexual orientation, race, gender, politicals beliefs, religion, place of birth. And yes, against the handicapped. I am not saying it is just, I am not saying it shouldn't be easier for you. I am saying that I feel that "as I am being discriminated against I do not like it when other people get some relief" is a very miserable thought to have, let alone to write in a post.
And please note that these helps that you think are so big things are just a way of leveraging their disabilities a little. It is neither a consolation prize, nor a way to compensate for the discrimination against them. It is a way to leverage their disabilities so they can get into a more equal "playing field". Other than the discrimination issues... is there anything that I can do that you can't?
The issue is not specifically with Google, even if TFHeadline is somewhat ambiguous.
They are suing workplaces/institutions that are not adapted to blind users. These entities are the ones that must chose the tools useful for such people. The only implication of Google in this would be if they (implicitly or explicitly) said that their app was compliant with those standards and it happens that it is not. And even in the app is compliant, it does not mean that there is a good setup for using the accessibility aspects (v.g., a computer lab without speakers/headphones for the PC because "the students would only use them to listen to music").
Of course, I am talking only about the "legal" (through lawayers, lawsuits, etc.) way. Anybody can have asked Google to follow that standards, but it has the same legal weight that any request you or me can make to them, and Google can decide then to do so or not.
Without discussing the current numbers, 88.000 people can be missing in a few seconds, and be reported in a few hours
Of course, in only one team was reporting missing people, it would take quite more. But, thanks to paralel processing, in every town you can have officials attending reports and sending the estimated total for his town to regional officials who add them up and send them to province officials who.... well, do you get it, don't you?
I remember some other news about companies using bunkers; the usual reason is not protection against explosions but prices. If a bunker is no longer used in its primary functions, there is little else you can do with it (would you put shops in? offices? housing?). So, someone gets some state that already has tight security, backup electricity and refrigeration and, not surprisingly, he tries to use it as a datacenter.
If you have any doubt, look at the list of customer.... mainly hosting providers. If people were so afraid of "Emergency", the main customers would be government, banks, great industry groups.. but none of these appear.
Until we get the data to compare the model predictions with the real results, all that we know is that we have some model calculated fast... Just let it be a few more days (or hours) and then we can talk about something.
Haven't you seen the video? Don't you know about electroghonorrea?
Note: Don't mod if you don't know where this quote is from.
Well, just guessing, but probably the costs of physically producing the stamps (usually you put antifraud elements in it), distributing them and having them publicly available must be, if not huge, considerable.
As for the solution, I feel it is too early; the technology is not ready yet. You have to:
IMHO, a lot more complicated than the actual system (even if it is quickier than go to the shop/PO and buy the stamps). I hope they allow the old system to be run side by side with this one until they get something better.
Se callen, coño :-P
??????
Let me ask yourself: when you are in a plane... are there, now, other WiFis to which you can connect? Not someone else's computer that is useless (unless you want to have a LAN party), but something that will give you internet access?
Even if Boeing is designing that "new" Wi-Fi that you guess, they do not need to deliver FUD to become the only operator. In fact, this only discourages Wi-Fi usage (yes they can claim later its Wi-Fi is safer, but some doubt will remain...)
Next conspiracy theory, please?
Some years ago I was in a plane ready to take off when the cabin informed of "technical difficulties"
They went searching in a particular area of the seats and found someone who had forgot to turn off his phone before leaving his coat in the luggage compartment(*). It was more educational than a ton of posters asking me to turn off my cell phone.
So... well, let's say that I am that moron that will ask you politely to stop talking when the plane is going to start the take off, even if that means interfering with your freedom to do whatever you want to do, whenever and wherever. And I will keep doing, thank you very much.
Then, from my part, we are not going to use phone in planes. Never. If we are not going to use the phones while in the plane, the only caveat to giving it to an steward would be finding a good method that assures me that I will recover my phone without problems neither much delays when I arrive at my destination.
(*): Yes, you sometime did leave your phone on and nothing happened. I did forget to turn it off sometime, too. And probably if the phone of that guy had been in his pocket it would not have been detected. Or maybe it was somewhat defective. But I do not like to increase any chance of an accident for anything as trivial as what you could say in your phone.
If you want a car analogy, you can blame the government for limiting your freedom of getting drunk at a party and getting back home driving your car. And most of the times, if you do, nothing bad will happen. But that does not mean that it is not a stupid risk.
Nobody is pro-corporations anywhere. Being pro-corporations is bad when you are asking for votes from people.
So if you have to help your friends/overlords who want their corporations to give them HUGE profits, you need to lie to the people and tell them that you help corporations only as a way to help the people... in the lines of "if the corporations can make you work unpaid overtime then they will get more benefits from you and then they will have more money to pay you more/hire more people". Or "if the corporations can drill everywhere and we do not stop them with silly security/environmental protections, then they will hire you to destroy someone's else environment".
Make that a "Freedom overlord", and let's go for it.
Don't feed the tr.... oh, wait!
I mean where precisely do you think the drug cartels get their money from?
From selling drugs?
Wow!
You see an article about two girls falsely accusing the teacher of being a pedophile, and you say: "it should be obvious the girls were lying".
The father of one of the girls sees the posts. Do you think he says: "It is obvious my daughter is lying"? And at least he knows her, and can ask her first about if it is real.
The father of other girl at the same school sees the posts. Do you think he says: "It is obvious that girl is lying"?
A police officer of the town sees the posts. Do you think he says: "It is obvious that girl is lying, I won't go to the teacher house to ask about this?"
A familiar of the teacher sees the posts. Do you think he says: "it is obvious that girl is lying"?
And so on.... Note that I do not state that everybody will take the opposite reaction (i.e. "the girl is right and the teacher is a pedophile"), but even the doubt ("is there some truth behind that?") is damaging enough. Put in other words: Would you mind if I put adverts in your local newspapers stating that "Geekmux might be a pedophile"? It is way milder and leaves it to the common sense of you neighbours think if you are or are not, so I take from your words that you will not mind if I do.
At any rate, I wish to compliment in your optimism for believing that everyone that uses FB and sees a post like that will always be able to know if it is slanderous or not, and what is the truth behind me (Myself, I only know they were slanderous because I have found an article about them).
Better yet, because it is a sales tax. So you last line should be something like that (I corrected the days in month too):
Because as we all know buying each year 9 cars instead of 10 is roughly equivalent to not eating anything for 3 days a month if you can't afford groceries on 90% of your income.
Truly
Plus I'll amaze the chicks with my spork.
Shouldn't we also acknowledge that the root cause of this kind of misery are people who'll believe whatever they read, without any due diligence?
Ok, I acknowledge it.
But that people is still there, causing this misery. And, IMHO, most of them do not care about truth, but about founding someone worse than them so they can feel better about themselves
And there are lots of them
The guy who was being slandered could know 100% about the sociology, pshycology and economics of astroturfing. Yet if someone believed the lies and went to do something about that, how many people do you think would listen to his explanations (given that he has enough time to give them).
And after that, the one who went to insult/slap/hit/whatever that guy, would return back at home proud of what he had done.
In Spain, yes. In India, no.
I'm not sure whether this morality means that any change to a law or its interpretation is always wrong (after all, clearly either the change will permit something that isn't accepted or it will suppress something that is accepted!), or whether it means that any such change is always right (after all, after the change, the new law will be the accepted law!). Either way it seems like a pretty optimal morality to use for avoiding going to jail and a tautologically worthless morality to use for designing or evaluating law.
I think our AP (ancestor posts) are confusing social and personal issues. In the bullfighting issue, it can be widely accepted but an individual can morally opossed against it.
For cultural reasons, in Spain 99% might be going to bullfighting every afternoon but the 1% remaining can think that it is the worst sin in the world. In India, 99% might prefer being stoned than killing a cow but the 1% remaining might think that killing a cow for meal, or sports, is not a big issue or even it is a must do.
Behind these issues, laws ares set: in Spain bullfighting is legal and in India killing a cow is ilegal. Then again, individuals can mantain their stance, but must obey the rules of the country. Do not mistake law and moral, even if one can be founded in the other. Moral is personal, what you thing is wrong is what you thing is wrong (yet usually you'll agree more than not with the people of the culture where you grew/live). Law is communitary and it does not matter what you feel about it. What keeps you in or out of jail (ideally) is not your moral, but following the laws of the country or not (in any country that follows the "rule of law").
If your moral stance against something that is allowed (or for something that is forbiden) means that you must do something about it, you are supposed to act inside the law (informing people of your POV, staging legal protests, founding a political platform -where allowed-). Sometimes the individuals feel that the legal ways existing are not enough due the seriousness of the issue, and they get outside the law in several degrees. From milder ones like interrupting acts without hurting anyone, for the sake of publicity, to the various sorts of more violent acts, which receive different names due to how much we approve of it: revolution, insurgency, terrorism, freedom fighting, etc.
You would be OK, none of my coworkers have died of dyssenthery yet...
Now more seriously, relax. Look at how people has historically lived. How long have we had drinkable and controlled water in our home? Or have been almost be assured a john (it is how it is called?) nearby when we need it? And you are probably better feed, have had more vaccines and have acces to more and better physicians than 99,9% of the rest of mankind that has ever been. And even with those disavantages, most of these people did not die from illness (and many of the worst epidemics have been linked with periods of crisis, war, and the like that caused famine that weakened the population). And you are mostly surrounded by healthy people, the sicker staying at home or going to an hospital.
The fact that there are spots in TV telling you to buy something every time you sneeze does not mean you are in any way weaker than those people(This is no medical advice. If you tomorrow sneeze and die, I deny all responsability ;-p).
Of course, some safety measures may be sensible, but: isn't it true that you touch door handlers, phones, papers that other people have touched too? Have you heard of someone getting sick that way? Why is a hand scanner different?. Also I don't understand why "a bomb" is so dangerous... I'd always assume an sneeze would be way, way worse.
OTOH, if you want to be worried about those things, you can remember that a single bout of influenza can kill you (remember which was the most lethal pandemy in the XXth?)
*1: This is no medical advice. If you sneeze today and die of that, I
The thing is - the free market takes care of you in situations like this. Those apps - I'm sure had 1 or 2 stars and market reviews along the lines of "malware" - plus the reviews I'm sure were not all that great either "Japanese screaming sexy girls" may have been popular, but its hard to mistake for anything serious like a SSH tool.
Wow, wait a little! You:
Decide a conclussion "the free market takes care..."
Based in the conclussion, decide what must have been the facts: "I'm sure had 1 or 2 stars" and do not even check them
Assume that popular is serious... sorry, maybe the fishbowl screensaver is neither serious nor sofisticated, but that does not mean it is not popular. Check Facebook if you have any doubt.
In fact, at least 50.000 customers have been "taken care of" in spite of the free market. And has stopped due to Google "pulling a Jobs" and banning them.
Do not missunderstand me, I am tech savvy and like to check what is in my computer (no smart phone) and all of that. And I also know a lot of people have a motto (v.g. "Free market rules") and want to write it down everytime they get the chance to. But I do not think this is a news where you can say "see how free market magically solves all the problems in the world?".