LOL. You don't know much about Sergey Brin, do you?

Quite simple, what happens reflects the nature of a privatised for profit system. They do lip service to government regulations but if it is more profitable to ignore the rules then the cost of the penalties, regardless of the outcome, then private for profit entities will ignore the rules. When it comes to high risk medical services putting it in the hands of private for profit capitalists based upon the reality of the last century of private for profit entities, is just plain nuts, especially where those private for profit entities would actually generate more profits by failure than by success ie the spread of an infectious disease for them to treat.

The ownership thing can be mildly obnoxious. It's fairly standard practice at Google to click the checkbox to allow all attendees to edit a meeting. Even without that, though, it's always possible to make the change on your own copy; no one else will see the change if they look, but you can add someone (or a room), and the meeting will be added to the appropriate person/room calendar. Maybe Google Calendar works a little differently externally... I wouldn't think that part would be different.

Doesn't the Chromebox offer you the ability to type in a meeting name? That's another option on the internal system. We just go to the other room and manually enter the meeting name. Actually this was a problem a couple of years ago, but refreshes have gotten fast enough I haven't had to do that for a while, except when no one added a Hangout to begin with and we just have to make one up on the fly. Then we pick a name send it to everyone via chat or whatever, and type it into the room controller.

As for getting the other room booked, that's easy. Just make a calendar appointment and put the room on it. Fast.

A failure to understand humanity. All things have their place in the social cooperative effort that is humanity. Intelligence, common sense and creativity. Creativity comes from people willing to do nothing more than spending a great deal of time sitting and thinking, why because due to genetics their brains directly reward them with desirably brain chemicals for sitting and thinking. However those creative people do need the support of the rest of human society to spend so much time sitting and thinking but that is the nature of homo sapien, they do not do it alone, they do not survive alone, they do not evolve alone. They do it together and they do not do it together by being the same but by being slightly different and being able to specialise within human society and fulfil all the roles required to produce an ever developing and evolving human social species.

+1

Excellent points.

Just to level-set, do you find camps where undesirables (defined however you like) can be sent creepy, and morally dubious?

Ah, this sort of Linux-inspired "you'll never figure it out, a friend has to tell you" stuff annoys me. Well, thanks for telling me!

Tabs suck - switching between explorers using the task bar (when set up properly to not combine windows on the taskbar) is good.

What explorer has lacked since Windows 3.1 is two panes in explorer, to simplify moving/sorting stuff between directories. Yeah, you can snap an explorer to each side of the desktop these days but that only works properly if you have just 1 monitor. If I could easily tile explorers on one monitor in a multi-mon setup, that would be far less annoying.

Man, there's straw everywhere. Who's going to clean this mess up?

The only time I ever see "women are stupid and bad at coding! " on /. is when SJWs construct a new strawman to thrash.

Cite?

It seems to me that the main obstacle to such studies is detailed information on gun ownership, because mortality information is readily available, and not just from law enforcement. The CDC tracks it closely.

In any case, I'd love to see this research done... though I suspect that I anticipate a different result than you expect.

Nonsense. Even individuals aren't only one thing. They're different things at different times and in different contexts. Further, you're talking about two large groups of people; there's clearly a lot of variation among them.

You're a little bit closer in recognizing that women aren't all the same. Congratulations! But you're still wrong. A given woman can like some kinds of math but not others, can like math during some parts of her life but not others, can even like math in some moods but not others.

I addressed this in the paragraph below the one you quoted, and a bit more in the paragraph after that.

There are still bills I pay with paper. (Some companies still charge for the "privilege" of paying online, which pisses me off even though the amount doesn't matter.)

I occasionally deposit checks via mail. Even if I trusted my phone enough to put banking software on it (which would be a silly thing to do), that only works for some kinds of checks.

Some companies respond to customer complaints via paper mail much better than they do via the net.

Sometimes I send checks to family members who aren't technologically sophisticated enough for there to be another way.

Maybe all of those reasons will disappear eventually, but I doubt that will be in my lifetime. It's also worth remembering that you can still send some mail anonymously - frankly, I'm surprised you still can, as there's nothing a totalitarian state hates more than anonymous communication.

Oh, you're talking about a completely separate channel, with no joining to the primary channel? That creates its own set of problems... when the user authorizes a login, how do we bind that authorization to the login the user is attempting, rather than a login from some other location? Without a join (e.g. entering OTP from second channel into primary channel, or vice versa), the attacker just has to figure out when the user is logging in, and beat them.

I maintain that a second channel doesn't really help, either as defense or for detection, and you haven't suggested any way that it might.

In the case of a security key no, it does not. Not in the memory of the PC. The PC and browser are merely a conduit for an authentication process that occurs between security key and server. It's actually pretty reasonable to characterize this as a second, virtual channel. It's MITM-resistant; an attacker can block the messages but can't fake, modify or replay them without failing the auth. It is also bound to the primary channel, though that binding is admittedly dependent on the PC being uncompromised. But if the PC is compromised to the level that the attacker can cause the auth plugin to lie to the security key then there is no hope of achieving any security. A separate channel definitely wouldn't help.

Sure. But the goal is to create as much security as possible within the context of what people actually use. Theorizing about some completely different approach that no one would use is entertaining but pointless.

Look at the changelog numbers. Each number after the release number points to a specific patch. "2.88dsf-53.4" decodes as upstreams version 2.88. "53.4" the fourth patch set to the version 53 (usually one patch per version). So "2.88dsf-42" or "2.88dsf-53.4" refers to specific patches.