the fact that the US people are so submissive to their rights being stolen from under them
I think the word you are looking for is "complacent", not "submissive". We have at least two generations of school kids who are basically ignorant of history, and who have spent their entire lives believing that the U.S. are -- and always will be -- the "good guys", with the inevitable result being that they cannot even conceive of the idea that our government might not always have their best interests at heart.
I don't completely disagree with you -- there are indeed far worse examples in terms of how governments treat their own citizens. However, I would argue that you would be hard pressed to find a government that has such a negative influence on as many people worldwide as the U.S. And the trend even here within our own borders with, as you mention, SOPA, PATRIOT Act, and the like is very, very disturbing.
Your state sucks, then -- albeit, not as much as some others might. I didn't have to wait six days when I bought a Ruger Super Blackhawk a few months ago (Alaska, FTW!!!)
However, and more to the point, I think epyT-R was commenting more on the difference between the types of firearms an average citizen can buy vs. the firearms that the military has on hand. Sure, you can buy an AR-15 or a Beretta FS92, and if you are willing to jump through a few hoops, you can even buy a full auto M-16 or AK-47. But how many people do you know who have something like the 30mm chain gun in an Apache helicopter, or the 20mm Vulcan minigun in the nose of an A-10 Warthog?
This is the mindset that has caused the US to move steadily to the right for the past 30 years. The lesser evil is still evil.
Well...I suppose it is better than moving steadily to the WRONG for the past 30 years:D
I kid, I kid! In all seriousness, I really wish our political system was a little less one-dimensional. We look at everything in terms of "left" and "right", never even considering that there might, perhaps, be an "up", a "down", a "forward" and a "backward" as well. For all I can tell, the two major political parties are just two sides of the same coin; they are more interested in wresting power from the other party than in actually fixing any of the problems this nation faces. That's the real problem, IMHO.
I agree with you in principle, but in practice you are dangerously wrong.
If I crack someone else's computer system as a proof-of-concept and get caught, I will go to jail. Just like if I see some dude beating up on a lady and I assault him to protect her, I will go to jail. Vigilantism is frowned upon in most modern cultures. You might think you are doing the right thing, but I guarantee you that the authorities will have a rather different point of view.
The company didn't ask you to do a security audit.
Not sure if you've been missing out on the past year+ of news, but companies don't really do this.
Wrong, but thanks for playing. The company I work for does, in fact, have a third party run a security audit once a quarter. How do I know this? I'm the guy who submits the request and receives the results. In all fairness, the audit we request is basically a glorified OpenVAS scan, so it's pretty basic; we aren't actually hiring someone to break into our systems, so maybe that's not entirely a fair rebuttal.
There's "underground" and there's "underground". I've read the 2600 mag quite a bit. I've set up servers and tried techniques described in 2600. As you correctly noted, that's a great way to learn computer security and how to be an effective system administrator. I personally would have absolutely no problem working with, hiring, etc. someone who made computer security a hobby, including someone who was part of an underground group that had LAN parties to try cracking EACH OTHER (in fact, I've frequently wanted to do exactly that, although I've never found like-minded people to hook up with).
The moment you step outside of a sandbox like that, however, all bets are off, ESPECIALLY if you are trying to gain unauthorized access to credit card information. If you don't own the system, or at least have permission to look for security flaws, then yes, you are on the other side of an ethical line. You may not be "morally bankrupt" but I would question your judgment at the very least. More likely, prospective employers are going to be concerned about how much they can trust you. Breaking into someone else's property, whether it's virtual or physical, is a breach of trust, and that's something that is exceedingly hard to get back once it's been lost. YMMV.
Fine. Are you going to bail the submitter out of jail when the Feds come looking for him? Are you going to finance his legal defense fund? Are you going to hire him once he's finally released from jail?
I completely agree with you that in an ideal world, filled with unicorns and rainbows and ponies and warm, happy, fuzzy thoughts that the right, ethical thing to do would be to do whatever you can to alert people to security holes so that users' don't get screwed over by the real black hats (of course, in that world, there wouldn't BE any black hats, so it wouldn't be an issue in the first place). Unfortunately, we never have -- and never WILL -- live in that world. There are plenty of stories of people who have done exactly what the submitter did (or at least what he claims he did, anyway) and are now paying the price for trying to do the right thing. In our society, no good deed goes unpunished.
If this dude has even half a brain, and from what he says he has done so far, I'm not sure he does, he will RUN, not walk, away from this incident as fast as he possibly can. There is pretty much no way it will end well for him, especially if he keeps pushing the issue.
Although it sounds like a good deal for hourly workers, in fact it probably discourages employers from paying people more. They'll just get a part timer to come in and do the extra work, or offshore it, or some such.
IME, that's kind of the point. If the company doesn't have enough employees to work reasonable shifts, they should have to pay out the yin-yang for the OT they are requiring their staff to work. When it gets more expensive to pay one tired, overworked, burnt out employee to maintain the infrastructure than it is to hire some help so the aforementioned wage-slave can get some rest, they will. There will still be situations where something is broken and all hands are working the outage (at OT rates), but that's supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Eliminating OT pay makes it more convenient for the employer to under-staff and overwork their IT shops. That's a Really Bad Thing.
What he said was that he couldn't afford to work at Wal-Mart unless he also received food stamps. That's not the same thing.
I was in a position once where I was working at slightly better than minimum wage, but ran into health problems. Unfortunately, I had no health insurance. Even though I had very, very few living expenses (I was working my way through college while living with my folks), I had to quit my job to receive public assistance because there was no way I was going to be able to afford dialysis and a kidney transplant on $9.00/hour...and without medical assistance, I was going to die within a very short period of time. Sucks, but there you have it: quit your job, receive public assistance, receive the health care you need to survive or keep working and die. Which would you choose? Yeah, that's a corner case, but sed "s/health care/food and housing/" and that's the situation some people find themselves in.
I was in that position a little over ten years ago, and I got fired.
Ya know what? It was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I was hired by another, better company exactly one month later, at 14% more pay initially, and almost double my previous salary after 18 months. Oh, did I mention that instead of working 70+ hours a week (for 40-50 hours of pay), I worked a flat 40 hours per week for the more generous salary? And, the new job offered me paid time off; the old job would (sometimes) let me take time off with no pay.
I know the economy is somewhat different today than it was in 1999, but seriously, getting fired opened the door to a much, much better job for me. If you are working in a position where your boss tells you "work it or your [sic] fired" it's time to start looking for new opportunities elsewhere.
Meh. I work in the U.S., and I earn 5 weeks, two days (and 2 hours, 18 minutes if you want to be that precise) of annual leave per year at my job, plus an additional three paid days a year of floating holidays, two additional paid days for "community service" (for example, volunteering at my child's school), and six paid holidays. That's seven weeks, three days, total, of paid time off per year.
Incidentally, I noticed that you said you are Dutch...in the interest of helping you improve your English, I think you meant "I mean..." rather than "I am mean". The former is a colloquialism that translates as "What I am trying to say is..." while the latter translates as "I am not a nice person" which I don't think is what you intended to communicate.
Most individuals suck at negotiating. This is a large part of the reason Unions were born in the first place.
Perhaps...but having worked in both union and non-union jobs, I'd far rather take my chances with my own negotiating skills every single time.
Unions are a two-edged sword, and in my experience, the edge that points back at me is far, far sharper than the edge that points at my employer. Not to mention that I generally have a pretty good working relationship with my employers (or else I won't work there for long), and adding a third party between me and my employer only serves to muck things up that my employer and I could have easily worked out had we just been left alone.
One of my senators is in the list...but I am skeptical about how much help Sen. Murkowski would be. I contacted her about another issue a year ago, and she replied with a masterpiece of sitting on the fence (sigh...). Still, it can't hurt to try.
Of course family businesses can result in some of the most spectacular business related drama known to mankind. Be careful not to end up on Dr Phil or CourtTV or whatever its called now.
"And thank you so much for bringing up such a painful memory. While we're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice all over it?"
Yeah, BTDT. Several years ago, my wife (and yes, we're still married) started a business, and wanted me to set up the IT infrastructure for it -- LAN, VoIP phones, the works. Despite trying to walk through the choices with her, explain what each of the choices mean (and the trade-offs associated with each choice), laying out costs beforehand, etc., I have never seen requirements, scope and budget change so wildly in my life. There's always two sides to every story, and I won't pretend that I did everything right, but boy-oh-boy, was that ever a painful experience...
You can overdress for a job interview. I didn't get the job, despite the fact that he was impressed with my coding.
Yep. There was one interview I went to in slacks, white shirt and tie because, like you, I was trying to look professional when I made my first impression. I did get the job, but one of the two guys conducting the interview later told me he almost didn't hire me because I was wearing a tie. Lesson learned: research the corporate atmosphere before you interview, and maybe dress slightly better than typical attire. If everyone typically wears jeans and t-shirts, maybe khakis and a button-up-the-front shirt (no tie) will do for the interview. If everyone is in a suit, you probably should be, too. But don't just default to a suit every time.
I don't think your logic works out quite the way you seem to think. If the hypothesis is "$randomVariable is not required for success", then all that is required to prove that the hypothesis is true is to provide just one example of when someone without $randomVariable succeeded. In this case, $randomVariable is wealth. Steve Jobs was not wealthy when Apple was founded, and Steve Jobs, through Apple, was successful. Therefore, unless that you can show that Steve Jobs somehow acquired the wealth that you claim is necessary for success, the hypothesis has been proven true through Jobs' success.
I'll agree that golden opportunities are indeed rare, that not everyone who works really hard will be successful and that wealth certainly makes it easier to achieve success. However, I don't think that merely being at the right place at the right time (i.e., "lucky") is all that there is to it. There's a lot that you can do to steer luck and golden opportunities your way, and consequently, one who works hard, who spends money wisely so that they can finance their dreams (even if they weren't born into wealth), and who looks for opportunities has a much, much greater probability of being successful than one who just waits for success to fall into his (or her) lap.
And the fact that, even if your software does support $randomFeature, it's buried so deep in a menu that you can't find it in time to take the shot you are trying to get anyway. While I have no desire to return to 35mm media, I really do miss the ease of use of my old 35mm SLR sometimes.
Okay, you specifically said "rape", and I took a few liberties with the term, as well as limiting my replies to (mostly) TSA agents. Nevertheless, I'm sure you get the picture.
I agree with your main point: scaremongering for any reason is exploitative and dishonest. Personally, I'm sick to death of everyone from pharmaceutical companies, to insurance agents to the TLAs all trying to scare me into acquiescence. However, I have to disagree with some of your particulars. First, I'd argue that there is a far, far greater chance of being raped or sexually assaulted than of being a victim of a terrorist. Second, considering the odds of each type of offense, we seem to be spending a disproportionate amount of money on the terrorist bogeyman (I tried to find a stat on how much money the Federal Government spends investigating sexual assault cases so that I could make a valid comparison, but a quick Google search came up empty -- the FBI's "FAQ" page vaguely claimed that there is no set budget for any particular investigation).
IMHO, for however much or however little that's worth, "terrorist" is just the 21st century word that is equivalent to the 1950's term "communist" or the 1600's term "witch".
foreach label in bogeymen
{
warn("There's no expenditure too great and no liberty too dear to sacrifice in order to be free of the threat of %s, right comrade?", %(label))
}
Canon Powershot A570IS from 2008, with multiple SD cards. Push the button, count "a thousand and one", take the picture...by which time, the subject has moved, and all you got was a blur. While on vacation in California a couple of years ago, I tried doing some macro photography of bees on flowers in a garden, and never got a single shot to come out because of the very noticeable delay between pushing the button and when the camera actually took the photo. Similar problem when trying to shoot photos of my dogs -- they are playing, I grab the camera, and by the time the shutter snaps, they've noticed I was standing there looking at them, and stopped playing.
Basically, all the gripes I've seen about P&S cameras in this thread are pretty much spot-on, IME.
Come on, you are advocating use of a camera for manual zoom to a person who said explicitly they do not want to photograph as part of a serious hobby or profession?
That makes NO SENSE. People who are not seriously into photography DO NOT WANT to manually focus a camera...
I don't know about that. I wouldn't say I'm seriously into photography (I shoot with a Canon Powershot A570...how serious could I possibly be with that camera?!?!), but I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of manual control compared to the 35mm Minolta SLR I used back in the late '80s and early 90s. I've tried getting macro photos and the Powershot consistently focuses on the wrong part of the subject (stem rather than flower, etc.), no way to exposures longer than 15 seconds, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
the fact that the US people are so submissive to their rights being stolen from under them
I think the word you are looking for is "complacent", not "submissive". We have at least two generations of school kids who are basically ignorant of history, and who have spent their entire lives believing that the U.S. are -- and always will be -- the "good guys", with the inevitable result being that they cannot even conceive of the idea that our government might not always have their best interests at heart.
I don't completely disagree with you -- there are indeed far worse examples in terms of how governments treat their own citizens. However, I would argue that you would be hard pressed to find a government that has such a negative influence on as many people worldwide as the U.S. And the trend even here within our own borders with, as you mention, SOPA, PATRIOT Act, and the like is very, very disturbing.
"Don't taze me, bro!"
Your state sucks, then -- albeit, not as much as some others might. I didn't have to wait six days when I bought a Ruger Super Blackhawk a few months ago (Alaska, FTW!!!)
However, and more to the point, I think epyT-R was commenting more on the difference between the types of firearms an average citizen can buy vs. the firearms that the military has on hand. Sure, you can buy an AR-15 or a Beretta FS92, and if you are willing to jump through a few hoops, you can even buy a full auto M-16 or AK-47. But how many people do you know who have something like the 30mm chain gun in an Apache helicopter, or the 20mm Vulcan minigun in the nose of an A-10 Warthog?
This is the mindset that has caused the US to move steadily to the right for the past 30 years. The lesser evil is still evil.
Well...I suppose it is better than moving steadily to the WRONG for the past 30 years :D
I kid, I kid! In all seriousness, I really wish our political system was a little less one-dimensional. We look at everything in terms of "left" and "right", never even considering that there might, perhaps, be an "up", a "down", a "forward" and a "backward" as well. For all I can tell, the two major political parties are just two sides of the same coin; they are more interested in wresting power from the other party than in actually fixing any of the problems this nation faces. That's the real problem, IMHO.
Point taken. I stand corrected ;)
I agree with you in principle, but in practice you are dangerously wrong.
If I crack someone else's computer system as a proof-of-concept and get caught, I will go to jail. Just like if I see some dude beating up on a lady and I assault him to protect her, I will go to jail. Vigilantism is frowned upon in most modern cultures. You might think you are doing the right thing, but I guarantee you that the authorities will have a rather different point of view.
The company didn't ask you to do a security audit.
Not sure if you've been missing out on the past year+ of news, but companies don't really do this.
Wrong, but thanks for playing. The company I work for does, in fact, have a third party run a security audit once a quarter. How do I know this? I'm the guy who submits the request and receives the results. In all fairness, the audit we request is basically a glorified OpenVAS scan, so it's pretty basic; we aren't actually hiring someone to break into our systems, so maybe that's not entirely a fair rebuttal.
That Christ guy you mention in the subject line did, for example
Yeah, but did you read the rest of the story? It didn't end so well for Him. Just sayin'
There's "underground" and there's "underground". I've read the 2600 mag quite a bit. I've set up servers and tried techniques described in 2600. As you correctly noted, that's a great way to learn computer security and how to be an effective system administrator. I personally would have absolutely no problem working with, hiring, etc. someone who made computer security a hobby, including someone who was part of an underground group that had LAN parties to try cracking EACH OTHER (in fact, I've frequently wanted to do exactly that, although I've never found like-minded people to hook up with).
The moment you step outside of a sandbox like that, however, all bets are off, ESPECIALLY if you are trying to gain unauthorized access to credit card information. If you don't own the system, or at least have permission to look for security flaws, then yes, you are on the other side of an ethical line. You may not be "morally bankrupt" but I would question your judgment at the very least. More likely, prospective employers are going to be concerned about how much they can trust you. Breaking into someone else's property, whether it's virtual or physical, is a breach of trust, and that's something that is exceedingly hard to get back once it's been lost. YMMV.
Fine. Are you going to bail the submitter out of jail when the Feds come looking for him? Are you going to finance his legal defense fund? Are you going to hire him once he's finally released from jail?
I completely agree with you that in an ideal world, filled with unicorns and rainbows and ponies and warm, happy, fuzzy thoughts that the right, ethical thing to do would be to do whatever you can to alert people to security holes so that users' don't get screwed over by the real black hats (of course, in that world, there wouldn't BE any black hats, so it wouldn't be an issue in the first place). Unfortunately, we never have -- and never WILL -- live in that world. There are plenty of stories of people who have done exactly what the submitter did (or at least what he claims he did, anyway) and are now paying the price for trying to do the right thing. In our society, no good deed goes unpunished.
If this dude has even half a brain, and from what he says he has done so far, I'm not sure he does, he will RUN, not walk, away from this incident as fast as he possibly can. There is pretty much no way it will end well for him, especially if he keeps pushing the issue.
Although it sounds like a good deal for hourly workers, in fact it probably discourages employers from paying people more. They'll just get a part timer to come in and do the extra work, or offshore it, or some such.
IME, that's kind of the point. If the company doesn't have enough employees to work reasonable shifts, they should have to pay out the yin-yang for the OT they are requiring their staff to work. When it gets more expensive to pay one tired, overworked, burnt out employee to maintain the infrastructure than it is to hire some help so the aforementioned wage-slave can get some rest, they will. There will still be situations where something is broken and all hands are working the outage (at OT rates), but that's supposed to be the exception, not the rule. Eliminating OT pay makes it more convenient for the employer to under-staff and overwork their IT shops. That's a Really Bad Thing.
What he said was that he couldn't afford to work at Wal-Mart unless he also received food stamps. That's not the same thing.
I was in a position once where I was working at slightly better than minimum wage, but ran into health problems. Unfortunately, I had no health insurance. Even though I had very, very few living expenses (I was working my way through college while living with my folks), I had to quit my job to receive public assistance because there was no way I was going to be able to afford dialysis and a kidney transplant on $9.00/hour...and without medical assistance, I was going to die within a very short period of time. Sucks, but there you have it: quit your job, receive public assistance, receive the health care you need to survive or keep working and die. Which would you choose? Yeah, that's a corner case, but sed "s/health care/food and housing/" and that's the situation some people find themselves in.
I was in that position a little over ten years ago, and I got fired.
Ya know what? It was one of the best things that ever happened to me. I was hired by another, better company exactly one month later, at 14% more pay initially, and almost double my previous salary after 18 months. Oh, did I mention that instead of working 70+ hours a week (for 40-50 hours of pay), I worked a flat 40 hours per week for the more generous salary? And, the new job offered me paid time off; the old job would (sometimes) let me take time off with no pay.
I know the economy is somewhat different today than it was in 1999, but seriously, getting fired opened the door to a much, much better job for me. If you are working in a position where your boss tells you "work it or your [sic] fired" it's time to start looking for new opportunities elsewhere.
Meh. I work in the U.S., and I earn 5 weeks, two days (and 2 hours, 18 minutes if you want to be that precise) of annual leave per year at my job, plus an additional three paid days a year of floating holidays, two additional paid days for "community service" (for example, volunteering at my child's school), and six paid holidays. That's seven weeks, three days, total, of paid time off per year.
Incidentally, I noticed that you said you are Dutch...in the interest of helping you improve your English, I think you meant "I mean..." rather than "I am mean". The former is a colloquialism that translates as "What I am trying to say is..." while the latter translates as "I am not a nice person" which I don't think is what you intended to communicate.
Most individuals suck at negotiating. This is a large part of the reason Unions were born in the first place.
Perhaps...but having worked in both union and non-union jobs, I'd far rather take my chances with my own negotiating skills every single time.
Unions are a two-edged sword, and in my experience, the edge that points back at me is far, far sharper than the edge that points at my employer. Not to mention that I generally have a pretty good working relationship with my employers (or else I won't work there for long), and adding a third party between me and my employer only serves to muck things up that my employer and I could have easily worked out had we just been left alone.
One of my senators is in the list...but I am skeptical about how much help Sen. Murkowski would be. I contacted her about another issue a year ago, and she replied with a masterpiece of sitting on the fence (sigh...). Still, it can't hurt to try.
Of course family businesses can result in some of the most spectacular business related drama known to mankind. Be careful not to end up on Dr Phil or CourtTV or whatever its called now.
"And thank you so much for bringing up such a painful memory. While we're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice all over it?"
Yeah, BTDT. Several years ago, my wife (and yes, we're still married) started a business, and wanted me to set up the IT infrastructure for it -- LAN, VoIP phones, the works. Despite trying to walk through the choices with her, explain what each of the choices mean (and the trade-offs associated with each choice), laying out costs beforehand, etc., I have never seen requirements, scope and budget change so wildly in my life. There's always two sides to every story, and I won't pretend that I did everything right, but boy-oh-boy, was that ever a painful experience...
You can overdress for a job interview. I didn't get the job, despite the fact that he was impressed with my coding.
Yep. There was one interview I went to in slacks, white shirt and tie because, like you, I was trying to look professional when I made my first impression. I did get the job, but one of the two guys conducting the interview later told me he almost didn't hire me because I was wearing a tie. Lesson learned: research the corporate atmosphere before you interview, and maybe dress slightly better than typical attire. If everyone typically wears jeans and t-shirts, maybe khakis and a button-up-the-front shirt (no tie) will do for the interview. If everyone is in a suit, you probably should be, too. But don't just default to a suit every time.
I don't think your logic works out quite the way you seem to think. If the hypothesis is "$randomVariable is not required for success", then all that is required to prove that the hypothesis is true is to provide just one example of when someone without $randomVariable succeeded. In this case, $randomVariable is wealth. Steve Jobs was not wealthy when Apple was founded, and Steve Jobs, through Apple, was successful. Therefore, unless that you can show that Steve Jobs somehow acquired the wealth that you claim is necessary for success, the hypothesis has been proven true through Jobs' success.
I'll agree that golden opportunities are indeed rare, that not everyone who works really hard will be successful and that wealth certainly makes it easier to achieve success. However, I don't think that merely being at the right place at the right time (i.e., "lucky") is all that there is to it. There's a lot that you can do to steer luck and golden opportunities your way, and consequently, one who works hard, who spends money wisely so that they can finance their dreams (even if they weren't born into wealth), and who looks for opportunities has a much, much greater probability of being successful than one who just waits for success to fall into his (or her) lap.
^^This^^
And the fact that, even if your software does support $randomFeature, it's buried so deep in a menu that you can't find it in time to take the shot you are trying to get anyway. While I have no desire to return to 35mm media, I really do miss the ease of use of my old 35mm SLR sometimes.
Have you been living under a rock? How about these, for starters:
TSO molesting children when off-duty
Another TSO molesting children
TSO rapist
TSO fired after sexual assault while in uniform and off-duty
Okay, you specifically said "rape", and I took a few liberties with the term, as well as limiting my replies to (mostly) TSA agents. Nevertheless, I'm sure you get the picture.
I agree with your main point: scaremongering for any reason is exploitative and dishonest. Personally, I'm sick to death of everyone from pharmaceutical companies, to insurance agents to the TLAs all trying to scare me into acquiescence. However, I have to disagree with some of your particulars. First, I'd argue that there is a far, far greater chance of being raped or sexually assaulted than of being a victim of a terrorist. Second, considering the odds of each type of offense, we seem to be spending a disproportionate amount of money on the terrorist bogeyman (I tried to find a stat on how much money the Federal Government spends investigating sexual assault cases so that I could make a valid comparison, but a quick Google search came up empty -- the FBI's "FAQ" page vaguely claimed that there is no set budget for any particular investigation).
IMHO, for however much or however little that's worth, "terrorist" is just the 21st century word that is equivalent to the 1950's term "communist" or the 1600's term "witch".
foreach label in bogeymen
{
warn("There's no expenditure too great and no liberty too dear to sacrifice in order to be free of the threat of %s, right comrade?", %(label))
}
Canon Powershot A570IS from 2008, with multiple SD cards. Push the button, count "a thousand and one", take the picture...by which time, the subject has moved, and all you got was a blur. While on vacation in California a couple of years ago, I tried doing some macro photography of bees on flowers in a garden, and never got a single shot to come out because of the very noticeable delay between pushing the button and when the camera actually took the photo. Similar problem when trying to shoot photos of my dogs -- they are playing, I grab the camera, and by the time the shutter snaps, they've noticed I was standing there looking at them, and stopped playing.
Basically, all the gripes I've seen about P&S cameras in this thread are pretty much spot-on, IME.
Come on, you are advocating use of a camera for manual zoom to a person who said explicitly they do not want to photograph as part of a serious hobby or profession?
That makes NO SENSE. People who are not seriously into photography DO NOT WANT to manually focus a camera...
I don't know about that. I wouldn't say I'm seriously into photography (I shoot with a Canon Powershot A570...how serious could I possibly be with that camera?!?!), but I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the lack of manual control compared to the 35mm Minolta SLR I used back in the late '80s and early 90s. I've tried getting macro photos and the Powershot consistently focuses on the wrong part of the subject (stem rather than flower, etc.), no way to exposures longer than 15 seconds, etc.