The preview I installed (~2 weeks ago) was shockingly unstable and slow. I was appalled at the state of an OS, especially when it is slated for release in July.

(For example, my start... panel... thing... completely hosed itself for no apparent reason, a couple days after I installed the OS, leaving me nothing with a bunch of coloured boxes with class names in them).

I realize this is flamebait, but that still made me laugh. :)

Well, enjoy your immaculately maintained music collection.

I'll be over here enjoying my job, my spouse, and my personal life.

We're talking about OSX right now, not Windows. Generally speaking, OSX notifications are not focus stealing.

Naturally, there are notable exceptions of some applications, which makes it that much more infuriating because you don't *expect* focus to be stolen.

I would love to hear you define socialism, in your own words. I'm willing to bet that you have no idea what socialism actually is.

So THAT's where corporate CEOs come from!

Because maybe people just don't / didn't know? When buying a non-cheap product from a major company, one would expect that it's actually fit for purpose, and so it wouldn't even occur to them to ask.

I got a Samsung Galaxy S3 cause everyone was raving about how awesome it was. Needless to say I was majorly pissed when I discovered what a steaming pile of crap it was. I've since switched the iOS, which I've had comparatively zero problems with, and am never touching an android device again.

You know something is wrong when you get a new phone, and the first thing you need to do is wipe the OS and install cyanogenmod just so the phone works properly.

This of course assumes that there's a version of cyanogenmod for your phone.

What an idiotic comment. Even more so, when coming from supposed professionals.

Unlike iE, Safari has followed web standards from day one. Unlike Microsoft, Apple didn't think that it was a good idea to integrate itself tightly into the OS, right down to the kernel, making it a shocking security nightmare.

Apple didn't have to throw out their entire software line and create a new browser from scratch cause they fucked the old one up so badly that it was irredeemable.

This kind of hyperbolic nonsense not only confuses the issue, it minimizes the damage that Microsoft caused, setting web development back by a good decade.

A friend is currently playing around with the latest alpha^H^H^H^H^H insider preview of Windows 10 (wow is that thing unstable...), and when he installed Chrome and tried to set it to default, a pop up appeared saying that you can only change the default application by going into the control panel and changing it explicitly.

I have to admit that this is a good thing. With so many applications hijacking file and URL associations, it's inevitable that the option needs to be removed from them.

Thinkpads used to be good, but after having been burned and/or frustrated by several recent Lenovo purchases, I'm loathe to buy from them again. Doesn't seem to matter what it is... servers... laptops... it seems that all their care about nowadays is that when you push the power button it turns on. Whether it works properly after that is a different question entirely.

If the original Thinkpads were released with the quality Lenovo puts out now, they would never have been heralded as the durable workhorse they had been.

I mean, really. Unless something has fundamentally changed in mathematics since I was in school, dividing a number by zero is *undefined*. It doesn't make sense.

If your code is generating divide by zero errors, then you are doing something wrong. Period.

If you are so lazy or intellectually bankrupt that you can't handle that, then you shouldn't be programming computers.

What about CompuServe integration?

That's why the grandparents post mentions audits that are defined by the insurance company. If the insurance companies believes that you've taken all reasonable precautions, then the buck stops there. As the insurance client, your responsibility is to meeting the insurers requirements. If something *still* goes bad, then the insurer gives you money.

How the insurer reclaims that money is a different question altogether, and is generally irrelevant to you as the client (with the obvious exception of raising your rates).

While I agree 100% with what you're saying, I think the problem lies in the fact that there is no consistent, *external* measure to indicate your security level, and that's where things fly off the rails.

There are things like SOX compliance (in the US, anyway), but that's more for auditibility than security. What is the minimum required aspects your infrastructure has to have to be able to say that you're considered reasonably "secure"? Encryption of all data stores using an officially recognised encryption scheme? All logins for all devices managed through kerberos? All communications between devices must be wrapped by SSL?

I don't know if there's an ISO standard or something that mandates these things, but it sounds to me that until there are some clear minimum requirements to indicate securedness, this all seems like nothing more like a license for insurance companies to print money on the backs of their clients.

One will *always* be able to give some hindsight response whenever a breach occurs... to the point where companies would have to lock themselves tighter than Fort Knox before they *might* be able to squeeze money out of their insurance provider.