Well, I gave you the wrong idea about the dialog, if you think that's true. They certainly made the option to "ignore" seem like the worst of all choices, a scary and dangerous decision. If you ever clicked it, it would further nag you about how that was likely to be incredibly unwise and ask you to confirm that option. Then, on every subsequent scan, it would keep flagging that file anyway, and you'd have to ignore it every time.

Personally, I never treated anti-virus software as software to *clean* viruses. I use them for their virus scanner feature, and if they ever come up positive, it's time to reformat the box and start from scratch, hoping your BIOS is clean. The way I see it, if your system has been compromised, your anti-virus could be compromised. I think clicking, "delete" and getting that nice message on how your system is now clean at the end gives the user a dangerous feeling of false comfort. They're really not that much safer than if they had clicked ignore, they're fairly likely to be just as screwed.

Yeah, I'm not all up in arms against Microsoft for deleting this particular program, mind you. If anything I said implied that, then I was unclear in how I phrased my thoughts. Microsoft appeared very responsible in dealing with this particular case, down to contacting the Tor developers and making sure there was no legitimate reason why Tor would ever have been installed in that way. Kudos.

What gives me pause is that they have the capability of choosing to delete anything off a box. Because there's no guarantee they're going to be responsible with that tool tomorrow, and the next thing you know, a false positive gets deleted. I don't think such an action should even be legal, without explicit consent.

Well, that's certainly the Apple philosophy. I'm not saying that disparagingly, and I recognize the advantages of that philosophy, but I will like to point out that it's a preference, not a universal truth. Since you subscribe to it, you're probably very happy with that move to the Mac. I did the Mac thing myself for many years as a result of Apple switching to x86 compatible machines, and as a result of Mac OS X being UNIX. My latest laptop, however, is not an Apple, precisely because I personally hate that Apple philosophy, and it got in my way much more often than it was ever helpful.

I am a software developer. My philosophy, as a developer and as a user, is that a developer doesn't make decisions ever, regardless of whether they're easy or hard. A developer makes suggestions, when the choice appear obvious, in the form of defaults that can be changed in an advanced menu. If it's a hard decision, either because you're not sure what should be chosen, or because the stakes are high (files are going to get deleted, overwritten, the user will have to log out or reboot, etc.), then you don't even pick a default. You ask the question, and allow the user to set his answer as the default in the future, if he so chooses.

Once again, I'm not trying to tell you my philosophy is right and yours is wrong here, I'm just explaining my own preferences. My philosophy is right for me, and I look to use, buy, and create software that abides by it. This is Windows vs. Mac, KDE vs. Gnome stuff...you always have to trade off control for initial user friendliness, and people draw the line of where the cutoff should be differently.

You know, I haven't seen a virus scanner log on any of my computers come up with any positive results since early 2000s, so maybe things have changed. However, the way it was done back then, and the way I assumed it was still done today, is that the anti-virus would flag the potentially malicious files, and then tell you in big red letters, "We detected virus blah. What would you like to do? Ignore / Delete / Quarantine"

In this mode of operation, nothing is being done without explicit user authorization. I actually don't even see anything wrong with having an option for automatically deleting anything that it detects as malicious as long as it's not the default option, which would therefore still be considered an user-authorized action. However, to have any anti-virus software delete files or uninstall software without any consent other than the decision to run anti-virus software is most certainly unacceptable. Even if you disagree with me from an ethical perspective, even looking at it from a practical viewpoint it's a bad idea. After all, there are such things as false positives in virus-scans.

Even if it's difficult to sell the 'appropriate' part, which implies telling them there are lines they shouldn't cross (which I don't think is necessarily possible in militant religious groups of any denomination), I don't understand how we can't convince them that it's not effective. Everyone in the western world is vaccinated against polio, and they can't infect us. They can infect their nearby locations in a weird attempt to go, "nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah, your vaccination efforts are all for naught!" That strategy isn't likely to gain them much goodwill among the locals though, as they all start noticing that nobody who got vaccinated is getting the disease. They don't even need to notice this by themselves, it's a great vector for propaganda.

Well, I assumed the same, but my own linux install takes up a whole lot more space than that.

Basically, if all you use your box for is browse the web and open some documents, then I don't see why even bother taking Chrome OS out. It does the job, right? Heck, you can also go the tablet route. However, you decided you wanted a laptop, and you decided Chrome OS wasn't enough for your needs. So, what are your needs?

On my linux install, first of all I run gnome 3, which takes up a bunch of space. Then I have Eclipse installed for coding, along with the android sdk. I also have code:blocks for when I'm not doing java. I have Mono and MonoDevelop for C# coding. I store code and associated resources...

Let's say you're not a coder. You're a gamer? Ok, you install Steam and associated games. Wine, probably, in order to run the windows only games. I doubt you could install a single game on that drive, actually.

You like editing video? Again, that's out. It won't be able to store the project files.

I don't get it. What the hell did you install in place of Chrome OS on the 16-32 GB hard drive? That's an impossibly small amount of storage, which is why Chrome OS takes the online apps approach so you don't have to actually install anything.

I don't need to. With very few exceptions, 80's and 90's games are the only ones I play. Every once in a while I make an exception for something modern, like the Mass Effect series or the Arkham Asylum / Arkham City. The rest of the time, I'm playing games like the Genesis Sonic games, Mega Man (I really enjoyed the new Mega Man 9 and Mega Man 10 that Capcom released), Contra, Super Mario Bros, the original Legend of Zelda, Phantasy Star...in terms of computers games I tend to bust out the classic adventure games like King's Quest, Journeyman Project, the Tex Murphy games (really excited about the upcoming one).

I mean, taste isn't objective, and I have no problem with the fact that you like modern games more. I do want to point out that there are people out there who genuinely enjoyed those old games, and we're not motivated by nostalgia, we're not being fooled by rose-colored glasses. I genuinely like those games. I liked them when they were new, and as games evolved, I just didn't like where they were going. I remember when Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, and Quake were coming out, and I remember thinking, "these games are somewhat fun and all, but this 3D stuff is a gimmick, and it's only entertaining because there aren't many games like these. The genre is going to be forgotten in ten years." One of the many times I was utterly wrong about predicting the market, but my personal opinion didn't change. They feel gimmicky and unecessary, and I'd much rather play platformers and 2D adventure games. I remember how much King's Quest VIII angered me, and how I didn't even play it for more than ten minutes because controlling a character around and fighting made it a bad game. I just wanted to solve puzzles and unwrap the story.

Long story short, the types of games I used to enjoy are rarely made anymore, which means I still play the old ones. I'm not looking to have kids, but if I were to have them, they'd definitely be introduced to these old games, just because that's what they'd see me playing. I have no illusions about molding their preferences or anything like that, I know kids will want to play what their friends are playing. That's not a problem, they can play what they like.

Speak for yourself. As a coder, I find the widescreen switch finally made laptops usable for doing. A 4:3 aspect ratio made things impossible for me.

Sure, when I was sitting in a desktop, 4:3's were nice. That's because I always worked with a two-monitor configuration, though. Ever wonder why two-monitor configurations are so popular with coders? You get to code in one screen, have a browser on another screen for reference / browsing / running apps while simultaneously making changes. Then when we had to do work on a laptop, it became minimize / maximize / alt-tab hell.

With widescreen monitors, I get to have my code window taking half the screen, so it's horizontally narrow and doesn't violate the "comfortable 10-12 word limit" you mention. On the other half the screen I can have my browser or whatever else open. It's most of the benefits of a two-monitor in a mobile device. Screw movies, I never watch them on a laptop anyway, I have a TV for that. Widescreen made coding on a laptop not be a pain in the ass. The only complaint was the generally low resolution, but it looks like we're finally breaking out of that.

They may have downloaded the beta, realized the exploit had been patched, and released the jailbreak as a result, before a bunch of people update to 7.1 without thinking.

Pure speculation on my part, but the point is that we should wait to see if they say something about it before complaining that they were impatient. There may have been good reasons.

Human beings are not like that. I wish you could just go up to someone, present a convincing argument that they're wrong about something, and have them say, "you know what, buddy? You're right. I'm going to abandon the position I've held for the last 25 years now that you've shown me my only justifications for this belief are fallacious." Hell, I strive to be that person, I strive to be that open-minded and I know I'm not. I've actually changed my mind on issues I used to strongly believed in, so I'm proud of the fact that at least I can do it. The thing is, it took years before I gradually reversed my position.

When you first make a joke, somebody's going to feel like the victim and be offended. However, if you really are making a good point, ten years down the road and hundreds of similar jokes later they may agree and laugh with you.

It's not that nobody should ever be offended by a joke. It's that people don't get to have a right to not be offended. If you're not offending someone, you didn't say anything of value. The point of free speech is to cause people to question their deeply held beliefs, which invariably will leads to taking offense, or they wouldn't be deeply held beliefs.

As an example, I'm offended by your attitude. It violates my deeply held belief in the value of free speech and the nature of good jokes. Despite my offense, I don't wish you to get you fired, nor think you deserve to be. I just think you're an idiot, and move on with my life.

Maybe you're right. I have a great respect for anyone who lived in the world he lived in and still managed to put aside all the anger he accumulated from the injustices he saw to promote change through non-violent means. That could certainly only be done by those who were able to rationally consider what it takes to achieve the long-term goals of ending the nonsense of judging a human being by the color of their skin. So maybe it follows that he'd be able to see past his own approval of the ten commandments to the long-term consequences of having the state courthouse endorse the values of any one particular religion, even if it's his own.

I only guessed he probably wouldn't see it that way because placing a monument of the ten commandments at the a State Capitol isn't quite the same as adopting the rules in said monument officially. I would certainly argue it's a step toward officially sanctioning the religion, but if I were to play devil's advocate, I could say it's no more an endorsement of Christianity than a monument to Lady Justice at a courthouse is an endorsement of the old Roman religion and worship of the goddess Iustitia. It may just mean, "we generally approve of these values represented here, but are not legally bound by them." A simple artistic expression of, in the case of Iustitia, the idea of impartiality in the justice system; in the case of the ten commandments, of the value of a codified system of laws, which is the job of the legislature.

Honestly, the only reason I don't actually make that argument in favor of leaving the ten commandments there is because the people who generally want to place the ten commandments everywhere aren't really hiding their true intentions, and will joyfully tell everyone of the benefits of a government that attempts to be true to the Bible. I can't really abide by that attitude.

True, but another aspect of the movie involved the reason for their obsession with genetic perfection. They believed a person's worth could be accurately measured by their genetic makeup, and therefore wouldn't trust somebody like Vincent to be able to complete the mission. He might be cheap in the sense of how much they would have to pay him, but that would be dwarfed by the cost of a failed mission if they send an incompetent person up.

I think the ignorance you're talking about was demonstrated, at least twice. There was an arrogance, a cognitive dissonance in the conversation director Josef had with detective Freeman:

Director Josef: "Bodies, with minds to match. Essential as we push out farther and farther."
Detective Freeman: "Yet, you still constantly monitor performance.
Director Josef: "You have to ensure the people are meeting their potential."
Detective Freeman: "And exceeding it?"
Director Josef: "No one exceeds his potential."
Detective Freeman:"If he did?"
Director Josef: "It would mean we did not accurately gauge his potential in the first place."

Here director Josef admits that it's possible to inaccurately gauge someone's potential. The problem with their society isn't that the genetic tests aren't correct, it's that they can't account for everything. Physically and mentally Jerome was superior to Vincent, and would have made a better Gattaca astronaut. However, Jerome had no motivation, no drive. He couldn't put in the work that's necessary to prepare yourself for the mission. He got his swimming silver medal because he train hard enough, didn't push himself to his limits. And when he realized his genes weren't sufficient to make him the best, he didn't care enough to do the work necessary to improve, instead he chose to try to kill himself. Vincent didn't have the advantages, but he was willing to do what others weren't. Maybe Jerome would have had to put in half as many hours studying as Vincent did, but Vincent wasn't afraid of putting in the time. Jerome would have breezed through the physical training requirements at Gattaca, but Vincent didn't mind pushing himself so hard that he'd collapse in the end. But while their society, and director Josef in particular, admitted that lack of drive was enough to cause a gifted individual to not achieve his full potential, they failed to recognize that an abundance of drive could make up for the lack of genetic advantages in another individual. They refused to test whether they had inaccurately measured someone's potential.

The real irony is that Josef, above all, should understand this. When he was being questioned by the police regarding the murder he proudly explained, "take another look at my profile. You won't find a violent bone in my body." Yet, his drive to ensure the mission he was planning would go ahead was sufficient to overcome that predisposition to non-violence and he was able to commit murder. It shouldn't surprise him that some people, like Vincent, would have the drive to compensate for something they were missing in their genetic profile.

I interpreted that scene as showing he was exercising beyond his ability. Remember, his "borrowed ladder", Jerome, was a swimming athlete before the accident. Vincent had to make himself not only meet the physical requirements, but also had to look like he had the conditioning of an athlete. So if I figured he always ran far in excess of what he had to, while making it seem like it was easy, using Jerome's recorded heat beats.

I don't think their intended message was that you could heal yourself from heart attacks if you had willpower. The way I interpret that scene wasn't Vincent with a heart condition, it was Vincent exhausted after far exceeding his actual conditioning. It fits with how he approached the swimming competitions with his brother. Save nothing. If he's not collapsing, he's going to keep running.

That's a misunderstanding of the story. Vincent likely didn't have a heart condition. He got discriminated his entire life because his genetic profile said his DNA indicated he had a 99% probability of developing a fatal heart condition. He could be the 1 person in 100 with that DNA marker who never develops said heart condition, but in their society nobody was willing to give him a chance.

What he did was legitimately endure GATTACA's physical tests, spend an entire childhood swimming out farther and farther away from shore with his brother, and beat his life expectancy of 30.2 years. Everything indicating he had no health problems.

I think it's also important to compare apples to apples. Before navigation systems, what did I use to get someplace I don't know where to get to? A map and/or written directions. Sure, I went over it before I ever got in a car to drive, but as I progress in the route, you often have to double check stuff. Then you find yourself glancing over the map and the piece of paper, grabbing everything when you come to a stop sign or red light, etc. Basically, you're just as distracted.

Navigation is distracting. Navigation now is less distracting. Both in the past and now, if you have a passenger you should let them navigate / be in charge of messing with the gps.