You're underestimating the legacy java crap that bank/intranet websites run on (Though I have yet to find one that uses ActiveX). My bank's (OCBC) website requires java.. and requires some shitty hardware token for generating and validating one time use numbers. I basically have to maintain a separate browser install with the java plugin enabled for it.
No, you cannot chose any ipsw. After choosing the firmware it has to check with apple's servers before proceeding. Ergo, Apple has blocked me from using any firmware besides what they think I should use.
The irony of *YOU* calling others 'retard' is quite delicious.
False. Apple will force me to use iOS 7 whenever I reformat and restore my phone which I end up doing atleast once a year because the phone slows down after about a year of use.
2) Others have managed to restore back to iOS 6.
If you have a device that has the A5 or newer chip, you cannot downgrade the OS because Apple has fixed bugs people used earlier.
Also *IF* and that's a big if some people (on some devices) have managed to restore the OS back go 6, they are using techniques that use flaws in Apples update process. They have to know in advance the steps that need to be taken. e.g. (If you happen to be the one of people that know how to.. and managed to cache their SHSH blobs in advance - note that this technique used to work but does not anymore). Apple *does not* allow you to downgrade.
Because you can never go back to 6.1.3 now. (officially.. w/o jailbreak, etc). If you have any problem with your phone and you need to reinstall the OS.. you are screwed - you *have* to install iOS 7. Or if you decide to upgrade to 7 just to "see what it was like" and found it slow on your particular hardware, too bad, you cant go back. - This is especially bad for "dated" hardware like the iPhone 4.
Thats untill you login to any email id or other online account with your real name from the same IP enough times to form a link between the "anonymous" ID and the "real" ID.
I think we've gotten fairly off-topic here so I'll just let this be my last response. --
I think privacy policies are more meaningful than you imply. I believe they create promissory estoppel.
Its never been tested so we'll never know. Besides, the point is moot since nobody can expect an average user to sue giant corporations - given their army of lawyers.
Google has a really excellent security story, and I think we should be telling it. But since we aren't all I can say is: It's awesome, trust me:-)
Okay. I'll take that at face value.
We disagree on the need for an explicit opt-in, and I do think that Google's business model is a reasonable one, and one that's good for users.
When I type google.com into a browser, I am not expressing any intent for Google to track me. Google is simply assuming that the fact that any packets are routed through their networks gives them the right to inspect and track/save them. What if every single internet backbone provider starting mining data packets? After all, when you go the route of implicit-authorization anyone can do anything. In my opinion recording data without permission should be illegal before companies really start testing the boundaries (and they will eventually). I've been online since 1996 and I remember the days when setting cookies or recording visitor IP addresses was considered invasion of privacy !
What if Google decides that people who click on ads should have their traffic/service prioritized? I'm sure it makes great business sense - in fact - it makes perfect sense to simply do it without telling anyone. Once you create a successful business which relies primarily on user data/clicks/impressions - the only way to grow in a saturated market is to give the 1-2% "paying customers" who click on ads something extra.
And I'm not even getting to what can happen if data is used to manipulate peoples psychology. Google can enable really evil advertising. e.g. If I was exchanging emails with my family regarding any personal health problems, Google is the perfect platform to show me an ad for some anti-depressant or some other pill especially if some automated algorithm determined I was in a vulnerable frame of mind.
Ofcource it wont start out that way. Maybe some geek will come up with an automated algorithm to map the user into N-personality/mood dimensions and you can even run some kind of genetic algorithm to determine which category ads are successful for which state of mind.
There could be some perfectly "nice" use case where I'm more likely to order a pizza online when I come home late and Google detects a change using some android gps location data or IP or what have you.
I have simply too many fears of user exploitation.Its not restricted to only Google. I doubt I can be comfortable with any business that charges no money upfront for their products.
No? Perhaps we have different standards of comfort, but it seems pretty good to me. The first clause says that Google may outsource data processing, but that whoever they outsource to must follow the same rules as Google. The second says Google will only sell aggregated, anonymized data.
I wanted to contrast the language difference between TOS and Privacy Policy. A TOS is something "I Agree" to whereas a Privacy Policy is just something Google tells me it might or might not do with my data. A huge difference. It is evident in the language too, TOS allows Google to sell personally identifiable data, while privacy policy states they wont. Privacy Policies are not legally binding - so its merely a PR thing. TOS gives Google rights - for e.g. to kick a user out of their service whenever they want - without giving the *user* any rights - other than what the privacy policy states they might do.
Well, at least as long as Page, Brin and Schmidt are in charge, Wall Street and other MBAs don't have much say. Those three outvote the rest of the shareholders combined. And Google is pretty light on MBAs in general, especially in managerial and executive positions. It's very engineer-heavy all the way up to (and including) the top:-)
Given the amount of personal info Google has, I hope that's true for everyone's sake.
The problem is that once the data has been sold, there's no way to call it back, and no way to keep track of what was done with it. I also don't have a lot of confidence in the security practices of, well, most everyone. I was a security consultant for 15 years, working with all kinds of fortune 500 companies -- mostly financial institutions! -- and security practices are generally appalling.
Well, nothing stops individual employees from leaking/spying on data anyway. And it has happened.. at Google/Facebook/etc, so all the security in the world will only stop external script-kiddies and other low-level information hackers but cant stop anyone who is motivated enough.
So, I'd much rather the data stay in house at Google, who does a good job of securing it, is willing to fight back against government intrusion, and even gives me the option of seeing what data they have collected (through the privacy dashboard) and allowing me to opt out and/or have my data deleted. And I'd rather that Yahoo! promise to keep what they collect on me in-house as well, rather than selling it, even if I don't have quite as much confidence in their integrity.
Your statement contains an implicit assumption that data *must* be collected. I am of the opposite view. Personal data should never be automatically collected, even in an anonymous fashion. All data collection must be done through a specific means (e.g. user submitted form) via an explicit opt-in event - not just clicking "I Agree" on some large wall of text that nobody can understand.
and even gives me the option of seeing what data they have collected (through the privacy dashboard) and allowing me to opt out and/or have my data deleted.
I have never seen any option of permanently deleting data. I assume deleted just means hidden from the user. One reason being google cant guarentee that the data is deleted from all the backups, and another reason is - even deleted data is valuable for targeting ads.
I'm sure we disagree on most of the above since you work for Google:)
Yes, aggregated, anonymized trend data is sold. It's a minor, but not trivial, revenue source for Google.
Well I don't really know about other divisions. I just happened to run into this because I setup a google adwords account recently for our company and managed to catch this setting and turn it off. More importantly, the terms of service allows google to sell any data to anyone.
For e.g.
---------------- Your TOS states:
"When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."
And your privacy policy states:
We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless one of the following circumstances apply:
We provide personal information to our affiliates or other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us, based on our instructions and in compliance with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites. For example, we may share information publicly to show trends about the general use of our services. ----------------
Not exactly comforting. Though I suppose for any online advertising company, such things are boiler plate legalese stuff to avoid future lawsuits. When things are going good user privacy is important from a PR perspective but when things go bad and wall street/investors/other idiot MBA types turn on the pressure, most companies fold and will sell out to make money.
I don't think that's what DataSift is doing though. They appear to be selling individual user information.
Maybe but why would individual user information be useful to anyone? I mean.. if I was trying to sell a product, I'd want to target an entire class of people conforming to certain criteria rather than specifically Bob or Sally.
One of the great things about using a Mac is you can backup and move a whole program by just copying it!
Except all of the programs that cant be copied and need to be installed via installers (or install kernel extensions)
Try that on a windows PC?
Turns out its so easy that Microsoft let you do that since Windows 1.0. Tons of windows apps work just fine by copying them around. The most popular example I can think of is Steam. I first installed it ~2006 and I have just copied the Steam folder everytime I upgraded the OS. (Steam installs a service but it detects that you've moved it and re-installs it if its missing). For more apps just Google 'portable apps'. e.g. - http://portableapps.com/
The Application Bundle in OSX is just a folder. I don't see anything technically special about it.
Um.. Carmack is a systems programmer. He does not design games. He does not create the visual art,effects,gameplay,physics,ai,shaders, audio or anything that people "see" in the game. His work is important but behind the scenes. Saying "but what has he done lately" and then listing some games is stupid because nobody has criticized those games on any technical systems programming basis. His success is in making sure the actual game development goes smoothly, not in actually designing the game.
Carmack did not design it. He did not create art for it. He did not design the gameplay. He wrote the tech-scaffolding that the others in the company created the game around. Atleast try to know something before you go around spewing random comments.
id Games are not designed by john carmack. The success of modern games is determined by a combination of visual/audio art, game design, and rendering/physics/AI tech. Carmack works on behind the scenes tech stuff (hes not even an expert on AI or physics) that people don't "see" when they play games. Carmack is a technical person giving an informed technical opinion on technical things. The fact that you don't like id games is irrelevant to what he has to say.
Well at least the college grads can compete for the jobs. What happens if the jobs are just outsourced outside of the US to avoid the H1B visa hassle? When compared to outsourcing the presence of h1bs allows the US to collect taxes on them (I believe they also pay into medicare/SS) and plus they have to spend a portion of their salary in the US.
Small companies mostly seem to actually give a shit about their customer's opinions
No average website user even knows about this, much less have an opinion on it !! Which customer is going to explain their preferred session cookie design to a company? And even if they did why would a company task resources (costing thousands of dollars/week ) to improve their codebase just to keep one/two customers? It doesn't make any business sense (either for a small or a big company). "Doing the right thing" - very rarely and in most cases only accidentally has lead to more business.
I find that really hard to believe without actual evidence. More specifically, if someone did find a way to read domain cookies from a different domain that set them, it would be big enough news that every single session cookie would be vulnerable to that attack.
I didn't say it was 0% effective, it just isn't very effective, nor is it the most effective way of reliable obtaining information.
There is no single method of obtaining reliable information. Different people crack under different kinds of interrogation techniques. That much is true.
In a civilized, humane world torture certainly should be avoided or at the very least be the *last thing* you use after exhausting other, much 'better' methods. However I doubt if such a perfect world can ever exist as long as we're dealing with humans produced by our current genetic makeup.
I didn't say it was 0% effective, it just isn't very effective
Um.. okay - if you say so..:-S. In your original reply you said you doubted the truthfulness of the statement that 'torture works'.
I doubt the truthfulness of this statement, on the basis of numerous studies, history, and a basic understanding of human psychology.
If I had information and if someone wanted to pull my fingernails or gouge my eyes, I think I would consider giving up that bit of information (discounting obvious external factors). Ofcource at the same time, I would be scared that my torturers would think I was lying and continue torturing me for information that I *DONT* have. Then ofcource as you say, people make up any kinds of shit to make it stop.
You can't make blanket statements like "it works" or "it never works", etc. Like everything else in the world, its a large grey area.
The fact that there is a debate about the merits of torture is absolutely astounding to to me. Astounding and abhorrent.
A debate does not necessarily validate any POV. In fact good debates can serve as a great arguments against certain points of view.
Metro only sucks because Microsoft made it suck. It didn't have to be that way. Think of it this way... would you like to have your iOS apps usable on both your Mac and iPad? I would. For e.g. I usually play a word/puzze game or two on my iphone when I'm waiting around. I'd love to get back home and continue that session on my mac in the background while I do other things. However, MS should not have forced it on desktop users by default. It should have been just a thing you launch like any other program and people would have been fine with it.
What MS wanted to do was encourage developers to develop apps for it by making it defauit (a business decision.. not a technical/design one). So developers look at it and go.. hey, my application could be right on the first screen the user sees and so I'm going to make this new app - that was the ideal scenario. From the user perspective.. they look at it and go.. what the fuck is this shit.. How do I turn it off.
Slashdot Mirror
You're underestimating the legacy java crap that bank/intranet websites run on (Though I have yet to find one that uses ActiveX). My bank's (OCBC) website requires java.. and requires some shitty hardware token for generating and validating one time use numbers. I basically have to maintain a separate browser install with the java plugin enabled for it.
No, you cannot chose any ipsw. After choosing the firmware it has to check with apple's servers before proceeding. Ergo, Apple has blocked me from using any firmware besides what they think I should use.
The irony of *YOU* calling others 'retard' is quite delicious.
If nobody complains and remains quiet, nothing will ever change. I'm glad I do not subscribe to such a pathetic way of life.
You must be living on a different planet. As others have stated:
Your planet seems to be the one where facts can be created just by stating them. On my planet, facts need to be supported by evidence.
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2013/09/cannot-downgrade-ios-7-ios-6-1-3-ios-6-1-4.html
1) You decide whether to upgrade to iOS 7 or not.
False. Apple will force me to use iOS 7 whenever I reformat and restore my phone which I end up doing atleast once a year because the phone slows down after about a year of use.
2) Others have managed to restore back to iOS 6.
If you have a device that has the A5 or newer chip, you cannot downgrade the OS because Apple has fixed bugs people used earlier.
Also *IF* and that's a big if some people (on some devices) have managed to restore the OS back go 6, they are using techniques that use flaws in Apples update process. They have to know in advance the steps that need to be taken. e.g. (If you happen to be the one of people that know how to.. and managed to cache their SHSH blobs in advance - note that this technique used to work but does not anymore). Apple *does not* allow you to downgrade.
So, how's the weather on your planet?
You can ask the voices in your head...
If its so easy to find, then post a link detailing how to downgrade my iPhone 4S to 6.1.3.
Apple is choosing what version of iOS I can and can't use on a device that *I OWN*. Don't know why you guys are defending such policies.
Apple is choosing what version of iOS I can and can't use on a device that *I OWN*. Good job defending that,
You cant use SHSH blobs now. Apple has introduced the APTicket mechanism which makes them useless.
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2013/09/cannot-downgrade-ios-7-ios-6-1-3-ios-6-1-4.html
I'm not sure how that's a forced update.
Because you can never go back to 6.1.3 now. (officially .. w/o jailbreak, etc). If you have any problem with your phone and you need to reinstall the OS .. you are screwed - you *have* to install iOS 7. Or if you decide to upgrade to 7 just to "see what it was like" and found it slow on your particular hardware, too bad, you cant go back. - This is especially bad for "dated" hardware like the iPhone 4.
>They don't know who you are.
Thats untill you login to any email id or other online account with your real name from the same IP enough times to form a link between the "anonymous" ID and the "real" ID.
I think we've gotten fairly off-topic here so I'll just let this be my last response.
--
I think privacy policies are more meaningful than you imply. I believe they create promissory estoppel.
Its never been tested so we'll never know. Besides, the point is moot since nobody can expect an average user to sue giant corporations - given their army of lawyers.
Google has a really excellent security story, and I think we should be telling it. But since we aren't all I can say is: It's awesome, trust me :-)
Okay. I'll take that at face value.
We disagree on the need for an explicit opt-in, and I do think that Google's business model is a reasonable one, and one that's good for users.
When I type google.com into a browser, I am not expressing any intent for Google to track me. Google is simply assuming that the fact that any packets are routed through their networks gives them the right to inspect and track/save them. What if every single internet backbone provider starting mining data packets? After all, when you go the route of implicit-authorization anyone can do anything. In my opinion recording data without permission should be illegal before companies really start testing the boundaries (and they will eventually). I've been online since 1996 and I remember the days when setting cookies or recording visitor IP addresses was considered invasion of privacy !
What if Google decides that people who click on ads should have their traffic/service prioritized? I'm sure it makes great business sense - in fact - it makes perfect sense to simply do it without telling anyone. Once you create a successful business which relies primarily on user data/clicks/impressions - the only way to grow in a saturated market is to give the 1-2% "paying customers" who click on ads something extra.
And I'm not even getting to what can happen if data is used to manipulate peoples psychology. Google can enable really evil advertising. e.g. If I was exchanging emails with my family regarding any personal health problems, Google is the perfect platform to show me an ad for some anti-depressant or some other pill especially if some automated algorithm determined I was in a vulnerable frame of mind.
Ofcource it wont start out that way. Maybe some geek will come up with an automated algorithm to map the user into N-personality/mood dimensions and you can even run some kind of genetic algorithm to determine which category ads are successful for which state of mind.
There could be some perfectly "nice" use case where I'm more likely to order a pizza online when I come home late and Google detects a change using some android gps location data or IP or what have you.
I have simply too many fears of user exploitation.Its not restricted to only Google. I doubt I can be comfortable with any business that charges no money upfront for their products.
No? Perhaps we have different standards of comfort, but it seems pretty good to me. The first clause says that Google may outsource data processing, but that whoever they outsource to must follow the same rules as Google. The second says Google will only sell aggregated, anonymized data.
I wanted to contrast the language difference between TOS and Privacy Policy. A TOS is something "I Agree" to whereas a Privacy Policy is just something Google tells me it might or might not do with my data. A huge difference. It is evident in the language too, TOS allows Google to sell personally identifiable data, while privacy policy states they wont. Privacy Policies are not legally binding - so its merely a PR thing. TOS gives Google rights - for e.g. to kick a user out of their service whenever they want - without giving the *user* any rights - other than what the privacy policy states they might do.
Well, at least as long as Page, Brin and Schmidt are in charge, Wall Street and other MBAs don't have much say. Those three outvote the rest of the shareholders combined. And Google is pretty light on MBAs in general, especially in managerial and executive positions. It's very engineer-heavy all the way up to (and including) the top :-)
Given the amount of personal info Google has, I hope that's true for everyone's sake.
The problem is that once the data has been sold, there's no way to call it back, and no way to keep track of what was done with it. I also don't have a lot of confidence in the security practices of, well, most everyone. I was a security consultant for 15 years, working with all kinds of fortune 500 companies -- mostly financial institutions! -- and security practices are generally appalling.
Well, nothing stops individual employees from leaking/spying on data anyway. And it has happened .. at Google/Facebook/etc, so all the security in the world will only stop external script-kiddies and other low-level information hackers but cant stop anyone who is motivated enough.
So, I'd much rather the data stay in house at Google, who does a good job of securing it, is willing to fight back against government intrusion, and even gives me the option of seeing what data they have collected (through the privacy dashboard) and allowing me to opt out and/or have my data deleted. And I'd rather that Yahoo! promise to keep what they collect on me in-house as well, rather than selling it, even if I don't have quite as much confidence in their integrity.
Your statement contains an implicit assumption that data *must* be collected. I am of the opposite view. Personal data should never be automatically collected, even in an anonymous fashion. All data collection must be done through a specific means (e.g. user submitted form) via an explicit opt-in event - not just clicking "I Agree" on some large wall of text that nobody can understand.
and even gives me the option of seeing what data they have collected (through the privacy dashboard) and allowing me to opt out and/or have my data deleted.
I have never seen any option of permanently deleting data. I assume deleted just means hidden from the user. One reason being google cant guarentee that the data is deleted from all the backups, and another reason is - even deleted data is valuable for targeting ads.
I'm sure we disagree on most of the above since you work for Google :)
Yes, aggregated, anonymized trend data is sold. It's a minor, but not trivial, revenue source for Google.
Well I don't really know about other divisions. I just happened to run into this because I setup a google adwords account recently for our company and managed to catch this setting and turn it off. More importantly, the terms of service allows google to sell any data to anyone.
For e.g.
----------------
Your TOS states:
"When you upload or otherwise submit content to our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content."
And your privacy policy states:
We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless one of the following circumstances apply:
We provide personal information to our affiliates or other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us, based on our instructions and in compliance with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.
We may share aggregated, non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners – like publishers, advertisers or connected sites. For example, we may share information publicly to show trends about the general use of our services.
----------------
Not exactly comforting. Though I suppose for any online advertising company, such things are boiler plate legalese stuff to avoid future lawsuits. When things are going good user privacy is important from a PR perspective but when things go bad and wall street/investors/other idiot MBA types turn on the pressure, most companies fold and will sell out to make money.
I don't think that's what DataSift is doing though. They appear to be selling individual user information.
Maybe but why would individual user information be useful to anyone? I mean .. if I was trying to sell a product, I'd want to target an entire class of people conforming to certain criteria rather than specifically Bob or Sally.
Google model of keeping the data in house and doing the targeting themselves
FYI: You guys share Google Analytics data with "others" (Whoever pays Google I guess) after supposedly anonymizing it. I wonder how many people are actually aware of it. https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/1011397?hl=en
One of the great things about using a Mac is you can backup and move a whole program by just copying it!
Except all of the programs that cant be copied and need to be installed via installers (or install kernel extensions)
Try that on a windows PC?
Turns out its so easy that Microsoft let you do that since Windows 1.0. Tons of windows apps work just fine by copying them around. The most popular example I can think of is Steam. I first installed it ~2006 and I have just copied the Steam folder everytime I upgraded the OS. (Steam installs a service but it detects that you've moved it and re-installs it if its missing). For more apps just Google 'portable apps'. e.g. - http://portableapps.com/ The Application Bundle in OSX is just a folder. I don't see anything technically special about it.
Everyone who downloads these torrents will be registered.
No.
Why facebook, of all places?
Because Wikileaks is on Facebook. They are also on twitter. They also posted it there.
Um.. Carmack is a systems programmer. He does not design games. He does not create the visual art,effects,gameplay,physics,ai,shaders, audio or anything that people "see" in the game. His work is important but behind the scenes. Saying "but what has he done lately" and then listing some games is stupid because nobody has criticized those games on any technical systems programming basis. His success is in making sure the actual game development goes smoothly, not in actually designing the game.
I'm having trouble being certain of his relevance today.
I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of your criticism since it has *nothing* at all to do with Carmack.
Carmack did not design it. He did not create art for it. He did not design the gameplay. He wrote the tech-scaffolding that the others in the company created the game around. Atleast try to know something before you go around spewing random comments.
id Games are not designed by john carmack. The success of modern games is determined by a combination of visual/audio art, game design, and rendering/physics/AI tech. Carmack works on behind the scenes tech stuff (hes not even an expert on AI or physics) that people don't "see" when they play games. Carmack is a technical person giving an informed technical opinion on technical things. The fact that you don't like id games is irrelevant to what he has to say.
Well at least the college grads can compete for the jobs. What happens if the jobs are just outsourced outside of the US to avoid the H1B visa hassle? When compared to outsourcing the presence of h1bs allows the US to collect taxes on them (I believe they also pay into medicare/SS) and plus they have to spend a portion of their salary in the US.
Small companies mostly seem to actually give a shit about their customer's opinions
No average website user even knows about this, much less have an opinion on it !! Which customer is going to explain their preferred session cookie design to a company? And even if they did why would a company task resources (costing thousands of dollars/week ) to improve their codebase just to keep one/two customers? It doesn't make any business sense (either for a small or a big company). "Doing the right thing" - very rarely and in most cases only accidentally has lead to more business.
I find that really hard to believe without actual evidence. More specifically, if someone did find a way to read domain cookies from a different domain that set them, it would be big enough news that every single session cookie would be vulnerable to that attack.
I didn't say it was 0% effective, it just isn't very effective, nor is it the most effective way of reliable obtaining information.
There is no single method of obtaining reliable information. Different people crack under different kinds of interrogation techniques. That much is true.
In a civilized, humane world torture certainly should be avoided or at the very least be the *last thing* you use after exhausting other, much 'better' methods. However I doubt if such a perfect world can ever exist as long as we're dealing with humans produced by our current genetic makeup.
I didn't say it was 0% effective, it just isn't very effective
Um.. okay - if you say so.. :-S. In your original reply you said you doubted the truthfulness of the statement that 'torture works'.
I doubt the truthfulness of this statement, on the basis of numerous studies, history, and a basic understanding of human psychology.
If I had information and if someone wanted to pull my fingernails or gouge my eyes, I think I would consider giving up that bit of information (discounting obvious external factors). Ofcource at the same time, I would be scared that my torturers would think I was lying and continue torturing me for information that I *DONT* have. Then ofcource as you say, people make up any kinds of shit to make it stop.
You can't make blanket statements like "it works" or "it never works", etc. Like everything else in the world, its a large grey area.
The fact that there is a debate about the merits of torture is absolutely astounding to to me. Astounding and abhorrent.
A debate does not necessarily validate any POV. In fact good debates can serve as a great arguments against certain points of view.
Metro only sucks because Microsoft made it suck. It didn't have to be that way. Think of it this way... would you like to have your iOS apps usable on both your Mac and iPad? I would. For e.g. I usually play a word/puzze game or two on my iphone when I'm waiting around. I'd love to get back home and continue that session on my mac in the background while I do other things. However, MS should not have forced it on desktop users by default. It should have been just a thing you launch like any other program and people would have been fine with it.
What MS wanted to do was encourage developers to develop apps for it by making it defauit (a business decision.. not a technical/design one). So developers look at it and go.. hey, my application could be right on the first screen the user sees and so I'm going to make this new app - that was the ideal scenario. From the user perspective.. they look at it and go.. what the fuck is this shit.. How do I turn it off.