It's a cheap internet appliance with a keyboard as opposed to a touchscreen. Is anyone using tablets?

Or did you mean anyone using ChromeOS not on a Chromebook? Probably that animal doesn't exist, Google is trying to keep a "unified experience", i.e. Apple-like control over their platform. A large concern here is security; you can put it into "Developer Mode" and do whatever you want to the system, but otherwise it's pretty locked-down. I don't really mind this; people who want to screw with Linux can, and people who just want to browse the web and not worry about what the machine is doing can also do this. Turning on developer mode is extremely non-obvious, and that's probably good too.

As a primary machine, a Chromebook can be a little limiting, less so if you are well versed in wrangling Linux. However, I understand that it is being used in education a lot; it sounds pretty much perfect. Ultra-cheap hardware, simple software, low maintenance -- what's not to like?

Probably most of them. The drivers don't exist for Windows, and installing a Linux distro is a little more complicated than you might hope for. Plus, there are some actual benefits to ChomeOS, mostly that it will back up your files for you, and that it boots in seconds (maybe a total of ten seconds from clicking reboot to having all the browser windows open again), but it's also more secure than Linux. Security is achieved at the cost of making it hard to change the system.

Also keep in mind, these things ship with a 16GB SSD. You can install a couple Linux distributions in that space, but it's pretty cramped for any sort of content: you're not going to be gaming or torrenting very much. Increasing the storage is possible, but if you're going to buy a $200 laptop and a $100 SSD, you may as well buy a real laptop.

Generally speaking, it's a nice, cheap, internet appliance, for those who want a keyboard instead of a touchscreen. It's really not that bad of a user experience. I have been leaving mine around the house for the roommates; they browse the web, listen to music, watch movies, and type their resumes. I don't know what other features you think it needs.

You spent a non-trivial amount of time and effort fighting with trolls. Unless you're Thor Odinson and these are literal trolls, you lost just by engaging.

No, not all security is obscurity. If your list of things that need to be kept secret includes your security implementation, and especially your algorithm, then you have flawed security. Multi-level security increases the number of things you need to have and/or know in order to compromise the system. With e.g. ROT-13 or another shift cipher, once you know that they are using that cipher, there is no other knowledge that you need in order to break it. On the other hand, if you have an arbitrary number of keys and the knowledge that your opponent is using e.g. SSL, you don't have any greater ability to compromise other users.

Security through obscurity may be an overused phrase, but it does have a specific meaning; it only really makes sense in the context of security systems. You may use words however you wish, but to me that's not glory.

I don't mean to sound intolerably cruel and snide, but you're too ignorant to be taking part in this discussion, and the fact that your ignorance was modded insightful says loads about the person who modded you up as well.

There is a shortage of men in nursing (a lowish pay, low prestige field) and people are absolutely bothered by it and trying to remedy it. Just because you aren't aware of it doesn't mean it isn't a thing people are bothered by, and moreover, the arrogance you display in assuming that because you haven't heard of the issue means it doesn't exist is pathetic.

Further, women aren't being forced into tech, we're being pushed out of it by shitlords like you who assume we have a fundamental weakness that prevents us from being as good as men in the work. Do you not think that maybe - just maybe - the fact that you do think we aren't as naturally adept as men could be might influence the way you interact with women in the field vs. how you interact with men?

You aren't being cruel and snide, you're just ignorant and arrogant, and a fucking idiot on top of it because you're pretty clearly incapable of refraining from spouting off your factually incorrect opinion on the subject. If you would be honest with yourself, you'd see that, and you'd probably be pretty fucking ashamed of yourself.

Who am I kidding? People of your ilk aren't capable of feeling shame because feeling shame requires the ability to admit you could be wrong.

I don't always do graphics work, but when I do, I use the GIMP on Linux.

In my opinion, the open source community is practically perfect. Even with your once-in-25-years bug like Shellshock, I prefer having control over my systems, and access to the internals if I ever really need to. If I had unlimited power to direct the course of the open source community, and funds to match, I wouldn't change anything: just give me more of the same.

With one exception.

Can we start a petition for this? A Kickstarter? A lynch mob? The biggest embarrassment for open source isn't Shellshock, it's the name of the graphics editor. I suppose if nothing else it could lead to a profitable side business selling (Libre-) torches and pitchforks, but come on, people.

This is probably true, but not necessarily. There are probably a fair amount of access points and routers that run more fully-featured linuxes. Someone on HN confirmed that their WD MyCloud cheapo-NAS was vulnerable. The issue is, if there are any vulnerable embedded devices, they will probably go unpatched for a long time, especially if it's at all difficult for the end-user. If Joe Sixpack's TV can be hacked, he's probably not ever going to know, and probably not be able to fix it if so.

I predict there's going to be a lot of people with a lot of devices that are simply fucked.

It is not true that "there have been many, many, many more attempts at Mars than missions that actually got there", see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

Mars exploration splits into two eras, the cold war competition between the U.S. and Soviets - which the U.S. won hands-down, Yay Mariner! Yay Viking! - and the past couple of decades with the U.S. and other countries collaborating in various combinations.

During the cold war the U.S. had a track record of 8 successful missions versus 2 launch failures. During the recent couple of decades we've had 9 successes versus 3 diverse spacecraft failures. And many of those successes have been far beyond mission profiles. So the NASA Mars team is about 17 wins against 5 losses. This would be regarded as stunningly successful in any sport.

The Soviets in the early days had many launch failures that can't really be charged to the Mars missions themselves - and were about the reverse of the U.S. cold war ratio for those that did get to Mars. It was still a remarkable achievement for them to place any one of those missions in orbit.

There have also been about a half dozen non-NASA Mars missions during the past two decades. Two Russian missions unfortunately continued the trend of never leaving LEO. And now India is one-for-one. May they keep it up! Europe is one-for-two and Japan is zero-for-one. Talk about small number statistics, but that's 2 wins / 2 losses. Quite respectable. One hopes other nations join the fun.

In the aggregate this is a remarkable tally of successful missions considering Mars is never closer than 50 million kilometers or so. Anybody know the corresponding statistics for missions in LEO?

Because there's no value in overengineering things that are easy to replace and where the consequences of failure are trivial. Further, most people only need the features of their phones to be "OK" rather than "GREAT" and would rather carry one device rather than 10.

For some things - such as clothing or furniture, or items where there have literally been no earth shattering developments in the last 100 years (like, I dunno, silverware), it's okay to overengineer because doing so is actually efficient. I have a coat and a pair of boots that have lasted me 20+ years, some silverware that's maybe 200 years old, and the average of most of the "important" furniture in my home is over 75 years.

But my phone? I'm not a professional photographer. I'm not even an amateur photographer. I just want pictures I took of people and things and events I found worth photographing that are "good enough." I'm not doing professional video editing, so I just want a video cam that's good enough I can take footage of my dogs doing goofy stuff that I can send to my family. If I'm in a place where I'm watching movies or TV on my phone, it means I'm traveling and therefore unlikely to give much of a shit if the screen doesn't have perfect color fidelity or whatever because, well, there's a bunch of shit going on around me anyway. Ditto for music - why would I aim for some kind of audiophile's wet dream when likely the only time I'll be using my phone for music is when I'm out and about in situations where music quality isn't terribly relevant? Etc. and so on.

It's not that we don't value quality - I think we DO value quality very, very much - it's just that we can recognize that it's kind of stupid to waste time and money and effort on overengineering things that will be hopelessly outclassed in a few scant years.

Buy quality where it matters, buy cheap and replaceable where it doesn't.

The summary is very clear.

I can only assume that you're cracked out of your skull if you think that ridiculous mish-mash of word salad is clear.

You are required to identify yourself to a police officer who asks (per Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada). You are not required to show them identification documents. There is no good reason to do so. Do not do this. Tell them your (real) name. Certain states (not California, mind you) may have state laws requiring you to give the police such information as your address and date of birth; the Supreme Court has not ruled on the legality of these laws. I would probably not comply, but that one is up to you. Do not talk to the police. Do not assist them with any investigation -- you are not required to, and providing false information is an easy crime to get booked for. Do not answer their questions. Do not allow them to search you. There are nice cops who are just doing their job, but the potential downsides are not worth it. "Am I being charged with a crime? Am I free to go?" Those are the only things you should say to the police.

And if you get arrested, remember that, per the reprehensible miscarriage of justice in Berghuis v. Thompkins, you must explicitly invoke your right to silence in order for the police to stop questioning you. Police interrogations are so effective that perfectly innocent people have been known to sign confessions after extended interrogation sessions. Tell them you are using your right to silence, and that you will not answer questions without an attorney present, and do not say anything more until that attorney shows up.

Know your rights, and insist upon them. Do not cooperate with the police beyond strict necessity.

If I want someone with the potential to be brilliant, I'd go for the candidate who, despite NOT immersing themselves in the field for the last 4+ years of their life has just performed as well as the candidate who has dedicated their education to the field.

Even if things weren't precisely equal, I'd be inclined to go with the person who isn't trained yet performed well enough to be considered for the job, since they clearly have a lot more potential to grow and clearly have a desire to learn on their own rather than just because they "had" to in university. That person might have some deficits, but they will very likely be able to remedy them, given their already demonstrated desire to learn on their own.

If I'm just hiring a cog and they need to hit a few boxes on a checklist in order to be slotted in to a role where brilliance would actually be harmfully disruptive, then sure, give me the person who treated university like a vocational training course, I guess.

"Always from Africa comes something new." Pliny.

"May no new thing arise." Traditional Spanish benediction.

Sorry, but no - I'm not responsible for other people's behavior, no matter how much you feel like I should be simply because I use the same term.

You've clearly got some issue with "feminism" and "feminists" - but it's not an issue I can help you with. .Not my monkeys, not my circus. Be well.