Unless I'm misunderstanding this, it's what your IT department trusts by applying its own signature; Microsoft is providing its own list of "trusted" sources, but your organization would still have to whitelist them along with whatever else it wants. This should hypothetically give administrators an easy way to grant limited software installation privileges to users, making it easier to allow/disallow certain software by request. While it doesn't address deeper problems like signature spoofing, it should reduce the number of virus and malware-related tickets you'd otherwise see by giving users any degree of administrative autonomy as well as the number of software installation requests you'd have to deal with by completely restricting them. Any issues that do arise should be easier to route because of the narrowed list of potential sources, and being able to revoke that trust on the fly acts like a sort of panic button to prevent further propagation. Ultimately, users will feel like they win while IT has fewer headaches to deal with, at least in theory.

Those are the only people who are going to use it. If a victim is too afraid to report an assailant to the university for whatever reason, why would they use this app? It's not truly anonymous. The supposed appeal of the app is that it allows you to "log" an incident without reporting it, such that your contact info only gets forwarded to the university if someone else's report "matches" the same assailant. In other words, the app is going to go, "Hey, remember that guy who raped you last month? Guess what? He raped someone else, and now the university is going to contact you to ask why you didn't report him back then. You could have prevented this!" Ironically, the target users for this app have more reason than anyone to avoid using it. Nobody wins here.

Take a look at the Apple Watch listings on eBay, because that's more than you'll ever see on people's wrists for the rest of your life.

It's less the ease of which you can get around the restrictions, more the fact that the restrictions exist in the first place and the public perception that they are necessary. Do you want your neighbors fingering you as a potential psychopath ready to snap and go on a mass murdering spree just because you had the sheer audacity to feel like you can do what you want with your 3D printer?

Really, all it's going to take is one news story about some nut who shot someone and just happened to have a 3D printer in his house - even if the gun he used has no 3D printed parts, the mere association is going to be enough to induce widespread fear. The media knows that blaming video games for violence doesn't resonate with people anymore, but 3D printers being such a new and exotic technology would make it a far more effective boogeyman if they decide to do so.

It is definitely distressing that the way a large portion of the global population is being exposed to 3D printing is with this "printable gun" scare. Now instead of seeing it for the fantastic technology that it is and spending creative energy finding beneficial uses for it, a lot of people won't be able to see it as anything but a dangerous device that needs to be heavily regulated for the sake of public safety. 3D printers should be something everyone will have in their own home within a decade, not something people will need a permit to use. Don't get caught buying extended magazines for your filament, or you might be put on a watchlist.

I'm usually the one calling foul when corporations use the "regulation stifles innovation" excuse, so having the tables flipped with this situation is vexing, to say the least.

Hostage Taker: "No sir, no problems here!"

Regardless of the outcome, it will continue to be socially acceptable to make fun of nerds, and The Big Bang Theory will still be America's #1 sitcom. I certainly don't participate in any "brogrammer" culture, but I can't feel sorry for it having an impact on the very people who fostered it in the first place. You may have the same right as I do to sit down and eat, but using bully tactics to win a seat at the lunch table isn't going to earn you any respect.

It really isn't just a "matter of time" issue. Bluetooth earpieces are still largely frowned upon in public because, despite being a convenient technology and the wide range of visual profiles available, they project a wide radius of social awkwardness. I think Google Glass simply ran into the same issue, which is to say the problem isn't so much with Google's particular implementation but with the very nature of how the technology is perceived. That challenge is far more difficult to overcome than just slimming it down or offering it in different colors until people like it.

Posting an article's baseless speculation about what an announcement means takes away all the fun of letting us baselessly speculate about what an announcement means.

He's not saying that Half-Life is retro or that no one wants to make Half-Life 3, he's saying that no one at Valve wants to make a HL3 that is just more of the same. Valve seems to pride itself on gameplay innovations, and if they can't come up with something totally unique and creative for HL3, they aren't going to just put it out as-is.

There are several problems with that logic, though: for one, they don't come up with those types of innovations very often and rely on hiring outside talent to provide them (e.g. Portal). Second, all that innovation hunting tends to be focused on crafting new franchises (Portal, again); I don't think Valve is particularly concerned with thinking of a new gimmick specifically for the next Half-Life.

The biggest point is that I don't think most Half-Life fans care about that level of innovation quite as much as Mr. Newell and would be more than satisfied with a "retro" HL3. Part of the reason for this is because what we call HL3 is really just the end of HL2. Fans are more eager to see how the story ends than whatever new physics gimmick Valve is going to add to the game. I think there would be far greater expectations for a new Half-Life entry with a new story and new characters, but we know that's not what the theoretical next Half-Life game would be. The disconnect between fan expectations and Valve's expectations is very frustrating.

I'm astonished by how many people are crying about the notion that she could have deleted emails without records; if you're adamant that politicians are corrupt enough to do that, then why do you assume they couldn't make unwanted emails permanently disappear from the .gov accounts they're supposed to be using? Catching Mrs. Clinton with her hand in the cookie jar doesn't change the nature of secrecy and mistrust which underlie politics as a whole. Politicians aren't going to suddenly stop communicating things they don't want on record, they're just going to try harder to keep those things buried. None of this addresses or helps to solve the much more apparent problem of poor security standards.

What you're seeing is the typical conservative notion that deregulation promotes investment, which deliberately draws attention away from the fact that the reason the US broadband infrastructure leaves so much to be desired is not because of a lack of investment but because there is nothing enforceable in place which requires them to spend the money they already receive on the necessary upgrades. Government subsidies, your monthly rates; only the barest minimum of any of that goes toward upgrades which are deemed absolutely necessary, while the rest accounts for billions of dollars in profits.

Regarding last mile bundling, one of the arguments against it is that more competition would stifle innovation. That might hold water except that the only "innovation" these companies are investing in are new and better ways to curb your bandwidth consumption. Thankfully for the millions who simply have no choice of provider because of location, fiber has already been invented. Don't worry folks -- as soon as we guarantee that no competition is ever able to enter your area, your ISP will be at your door the next morning to run high speed fiber straight into your home!

People are getting confused because it appears to be a win for net neutrality on the surface. Really now, do you think a former telecoms lobbyist would put that on the table if service providers didn't have something to gain from it? It's simply being used as a bargaining chip here to win people over into supporting the very reason our infrastructure is a global embarrassment. A decade from now, when you are paying $120/mo for 10down/1.5up Super Premium High-Speed Internet Turbo Boost Plus, they'll expect you to smile and be happy with your "open internet." To remind those with poor short-term memories, deregulation is what led to the whole Comcast BitTorrent debacle in the late 2000s; what a great win for net neutrality that turned out to be.

Rest assured that "no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling" will only benefit the bottom line of service providers. This is a compromise, one that wants you to accept long-term mediocrity for a temporary victory. How satisfied will you be when there's nothing left but the good graces of monopolistic corporations to stop your rates from skyrocketing and nowhere else to turn when they finally do?

Correction: Apparently the album view does have a neat expanding songlist if you single-click on an album, there is just an obnoxious delay which is why I didn't notice it before. Double-clicking still only plays the album without opening this list though, so it's now a two-step process. -1 intuitiveness.

Once I figured out how to get it to sort my albums by title rather than artist again, I have to say I'm getting used to the minimalist interface. iTunes has always been minimal on features, so it never made sense that its UI was such a mess. Now it's more, uh, pushbutton-y? Feels like it was designed for touchscreens, oddly enough. I definitely like the new pop-out Visualizer, now I can properly have that running on my secondary display without jumping back and forth between the full interface. The only thing I'm not digging is how double-clicking an album immediately starts playing it instead of opening the song list. There's actually no way to get to that song list anymore, you have to start the album and then skip to the track you want, else you have to sort through the Songs view which includes your entire library. Oh well.

I bet the designer got paid more for that logo than I make in a year.