Calling support for a multimeter? What planet are you from? Short of it breaking and needing a replacement under warranty, you plug it in, spin the dial to the mode you want, and away you go.

Do people call Sears for tech support on a Craftsman wrench? I’ll grant a multimeter is *slightly* more complicated of a tool, but really only slightly to someone who’s the least bit experienced in that area of tech. I think I got my first MM when I was six years old. Took Dad about 10 minutes to show me how to measure voltage and resistance, and that was when you had to set the range yourself.

As someone who doesn’t root my iPhone and would prefer nobody else do so, there is a key advantage to me to Apple’s preventing downgrades of the iOS version on a device. If an old release contains a security flaw that would allow access to secured data on the device which a newly patched version would prevent, allowing an install of the older version would allow an attacker to downgrade, exploit the bug, and extract data from my device. Jailbreaking a device amounts to removing all effective protections in terms of access security that the device may provide for data stored on it. Many (but certainly not all) jailbreaks exploited vulnerabilities at an OS-software level, and patching those vulnerabilities made it impossible to jailbreak an updated device. That doesn’t apply to the devices that had exploitable vulnerabilities in the ROM boot block of course; and that was an issue on several of the devices.

Ensuring that older vulnerable versions cannot be installed on my device is a security feature to me. It’s also a limitation of my freedom, and it makes the device less “mine.” Looking at the alternatives and what I *personally* want to do with (and want done to) my iDevice, I’ve decided this is a better option for me. I’m not prevented from using the device in the manner for which it was marketed, and potentially some would-be attackers are thwarted from extracting data from my device. Certainly there’s more that I could potentially do with the device in terms of home-rolled firmware, but I’m at the point where I really and truly don’t want to “hack” on my cell phone with all the potential issues that come with that (battery drain, instability, insecurity, etc.). I want to pull my iPhone out of my pocket and make a phone call. Apple’s update policy doesn’t prevent that, and their QA is reasonably good in terms of the battery drain and related issues being a relative minority of their users. I’m willing to take the risk of updating.

In a perfect world, boot loader security might be accomplished with a key that’s under my control rather than under Apple’s. Maybe a card / USB stick in the box with the private key for the boot loader and a “lose this at your peril” warning. The device could take official Apple updates without the key (better if that was a configurable option), or take any software with the key. Of course the support nightmare that would ensue would be insane, and Apple would never do it as it’s a definite UX detraction for any but the most geeky of buyers.

RMS’ great vision of full control of all of our hardware is a nice one, but in the mean time I’m content to enter compromises with companies that have reasonable histories of “not being evil” in the areas which directly effect me. I’m good with Apple and how they handle their iThing’s. Sure that could change, and I keep my data off-device in formats that would allow me to convert and go elsewhere if need be. Beyond that, I’m not going to lose sleep over the fact that I’m stuck with one-way upgrades of iOS. It’s one of those arguments that I can agree with ideologically, but in terms of practicality and getting things done, it doesn’t negatively effect me.

Upgrading is always an option. They’ve just decided that the (odds X cost) of potential security issues from not upgrading is lower than the cost of upgrading all of the apps and systems.

Were I an IT-type person in such a company, I’d want hardcopy signed by C-level management expressing it in those exact terms. Something to the effect of, “We acknowledge that there are significant known vulnerabilities in our operating system and browser, that there is a significant likelihood of additional vulnerabilities, particular after the vendor’s end-of-life for patches. We nonetheless choose to run this vulnerable platform in lieu of incurring the costs to upgrade. We acknowledge that IT has made us aware of these risks and absolve IT of any responsibility for security incidents which occur as a result of this choice.”

Good luck getting that of course, but I’d be looking for a new job either way...

I prefer a little oxygen in my cables when I’m watching movies. The actors’ faces get this weird blue tint without it.

In my experience, when I need That Part on a Sunday afternoon, I’m not likely to get it from Radio Shack either. There are times I’d be willing to pay the retail price premium to get what I need. It’s a moot point when they don’t even stock basic discreet components or plugs half the time.

Why do you assume governments want to discredit Bitcoin?

An “anonymous” currency that actually carries a permanent record of every transaction ever conducted in it? Sounds like a law enforcement wet dream. I wonder if they’ll consider it worth the work* and the wider understanding of BTC’s true “anonymous” nature to work backwards and de-anonymize many of the BTC wallet ID’s used to make Silk Road purchases. I’d be shocked if most buyers took the necessary steps to make their wallet ID’s completely untraceable to them.

* And it’s only “work,” assuming that the nature of NSA’s various data capture and analysis programs haven’t been watching the blockchain from day one and correlating & de-anonymizing every wallet ID as they went. Wouldn’t really take that much given the scope of the data capture they seem to have. All it takes is one browser submit of your wallet ID through the same browser or even IP that your Amazon or Google or whatever cookie has been seen from, and they have a name to go with the ID.

it’s provided by payments the banks make to be FDIC insured.

This is true only so long as the Office of Thrift Supervision does its job effectively, and in recent history it’s been doing a piss poor job. OTS is supposed to seize a failing bank prior to the value of its assets dropping below the sum of FDIC insured deposits. The sale of the bank and its assets (loans it owns essentially), whole or in pieces to other banks should equal or exceed the amount of insured funds, and depositors are made whole without tax payers taking a bath. Usually the obligation of the deposits is assumed by the purchasing banks, so any eventual withdrawals come from the new bank’s assets.

The problem is when OTS waits too long, and a failing bank has slipped past the point where it has the assets to cover its deposits. In that case, any bank purchasing the assets and liabilities would insist on either a discount on the price (to offset the value of the deposits they would eventually have to pay back) or outright cash as part of the transaction to ensure they’re not taking a loss in the transaction. At that point, the money comes from the FDIC fund to make up the difference. FDIC is “insurance” in the sense that banks pay into it, but it’s backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. That means if the fund comes up short, every penny past that point comes directly out of the tax payers.

The FDIC insurance fund is maintained at a very low percentage of the overall deposits at risk. I think the requirement was raised to 1.35% in 2010, but that target isn’t required to be reached until 2020. The number of banks that failed as a result of various sub-prime related issues put a strain on the fund because OTS consistently waited until the banks were deeply in the red before acting. My cynical self says they were playing the “wait & hope” game, hoping the banks managed to ride it out without going under so they wouldn’t need to close them. Didn’t work out so well for a lot of banks.

At least as of 2010, the FDIC fund was in pretty bad shape as a result: http://www.zerohedge.com/artic...

So it’s true that FDIC insurance isn’t provided by the government, at least up to the point the insurance fund holds. Pat that point, any shortfalls are paid for by the government, IE You.

I misread:

The response was a torrent of abuse from Windows 8 users

And the first thing to pop into my head was why in Finagle’s name would anyone torrent Windows 8? Talk about a waste of bandwidth...

Sorry... What I intended to say was, "If there's any *reasonable* suit with the slightest chance of surviving appeal outside the Ninth Circus..."

If there’s any suit available to this actress, it’s against the producer/director/etc. of the film for misrepresentation. There’s no conceivable way this should be a copyright case. There’s no way that anyone who was paid for appearing in it by the eventual rights holder (producer/etc.) should retain any right to issue take down demands contrary to the will of the actual owner of the copyright.

Short of a contract that stated she retained any rights (doubtful), then I can’t see how this was anything other than work for hire with associated assignment of copyright.

Susan Sarandon supposedly hated Rocky Horror and regretted ever appearing in it. Shall we tear down all the copies of that?

If nothing else, judges in cases like this should take to heart that once something is published on the Internet, it’s forever. I know no judge wants to hear, “You don’t have the power to do that, your Honor,” but the fact of the matter is there’s no way to ever remove something like this from public view.

See also: Star Wars Christmas Special...

If you knew with complete assurance that the first crew would be lost if they attempted to land without repair, then it would likely be worth the risk to a second crew to mount a rescue.

If on the other hand, there’s only some chance that the first crew would be lost attempting to land, then working that risk into the risk to the second crew is reasonable. IE if there’s a 10% chance that there might have been trouble landing (and it sounds like the foam strikes leading up to Columbia’s trouble were in fact common, so could be considered low-risk) then it’s not unreasonable to decide that the risk of the second crew is an unreasonable risk. Consider also that the risk to this second crew for an accelerated launch process would likely have been FAR greater than a “normal” shuttle launch (assuming it can be said there’s anything “normal” about strapping a bomb to your ass and fleeing the planet...)

If there’s a very high chance of failure of the original crew’s landing, then the additional risk might be worth it. If not, then you really are doubling down and risking losing two crews. It’s entirely plausible that due to the corners cut for an accelerated launch Atlantis could have exploded during launch, leaving Columbia to still take their chances landing with a damaged wing.

Armchair quarterbacking is easy. Saying they should have risked a second crew *now*, knowing that it’s an impossibility and that your assertion that the risk is reasonable will never be tested is also easy. Being left to make that call in the moment, knowing that you could be sending a second shuttle crew to their deaths trying to help another crew that might not even need the help the first place. Little bit harder to live with that one...

The loss of the Columbia crew is a tragedy, but looking back based on this report, it doesn’t seem like the way it was handled was unreasonable.

You know you can say, “No, thanks,” when they ask for your phone number, and they’ll still sell you your batteries, right?

people move to the outskirts of a city so their kids don’t have to fear getting mugged

Citation needed... Cost issues are certainly valid, but I’d have little safety concern working and allowing my child to grow up in New York City as an example. I’m sure there are cities in the US I wouldn’t say that for, and I suspect there are cities that I’d feel even safer than NYC, but there’s no reason you need to move out to the suburbs to be “safe”.

Safety is relative anyways. If in fact your odds of getting mugged in the suburbs are lower than in the city, that’s nice, but your odds of dying in a hurtling fireball of a car wreck on the way to/from work are immensely higher. Pick your poison...

Eschewing useful tools out of fear of being a “bad” programmer makes you a bad programmer.

It doesn’t matter how deep your knowledge of the language or environment is. A well configured IDE will allow you to complete your job more quickly. It makes research navigating around a codebase much more straight forward. There’s no reason to do textual searches in a simple text editor when an IDE can parse the language and show you actual references to a symbol, not just things that happen to be named similarly.

All of the “uber” programmers I’ve known who avoid IDE’s are universally less effective than even mediocre programmers who use tools to make their jobs easier. The type of programmer who avoids tools out of the belief that doing it “by hand” is better generally waste more time tweaking their environment, going on architecture astronaut treks, and generally doing everything they can that isn’t actually writing code that gets the job at hand done.

Car analogy: You can change a tire with a wrench, and maybe a long piece of pipe to use for leverage. Or you can use a pneumatic impact driver and get the job done quicker, with less damage to the bolts, and put back together tighter (less chance of bolts loosening, tires rolling down the road without you). Any mechanic who tried to hold themselves up as a hero for doing it the hard way would be laughed out of the shop (and probably out of a job).

Be a Software Simian. Not using tools just makes you a dumb code monkey.