They do, and the problem is that they treat it exactly like one. When you buy a lock, do you immediately re-key it? No: you use it as-is. Now maybe if the key looked very suspicious, like say it was a perfect sine or square wave or it was completely smooth, then you might ask the blacksmith whether that's normal. I bet those shopkeepers would be asking the same of their POS installer if the password was "123456" or "111111".

But to their (and my) untrained eye, "166816" looks reasonably random. It looks as random as my Schlage house key does. Maybe there's a locksmith forum where experts are making fun of me for not changing my obviously default lock. After all, they can tell at a glance that I have the standard factory issue! How stupid am I for using it without making my own pattern!

No, I think you're exactly wrong. People think of these passwords as keys. They use the ones manufacturers give them. They hand them out to the same staff that have keys to the front door and cash drawers. They don't routinely change them when people quit. They don't audit their usage. They treat them just like the little medal danglies on the ring in their pocket, no more, no less. We've done a very poor job of telling them why they should think otherwise.

Or you could just buy it directly through the device like everyone else does. I haven't bought music through a desktop iTunes app in a long time.

I hereby present you with today's Indignant Goldberg award for simultaneously finding the most convoluted way possible to perform a common operation and also bitching about its difficulty.

Do you think anyone really cares if you've never bought anything from an online music store? Do you think that makes you superior in some way? The term hipster is stupid and usually used poorly but I think it might apply here.

Those of us with actual jobs and real life obligations have better things to do than track down random artists in person so we can throw an extra $5 at them in person.

And my hipster theory is confirmed. Do you have a point to make or are you just trying to be smug?

Just throwing this out there but you might want to actually check your facts before saying something publicly that can be shown to be completely false by spending 10 seconds on Google's search engine.

You've been able to use iPods as removable hard drives as far back as I can remember. I've done it myself.

But only fairly recently has it been employed in large scale in the relevant area. It wasn't economically feasible in lots of cases due to the availability of much easier and cheaper sources of oil and gas.

Apparently so. Do you have evidence of an alternative reason for earthquakes to go from 2/year prior to 2008 up to over 2/DAY in 2013?

So you are skeptical? That's fine. Have you looked at all the evidence and found a plausible alternative hypothesis we can test?

So what? Either the facts support the claims or they do not. Who it is from is irrelevant to its veracity. There is a reason we insist that scientific findings be repeatable so that others may confirm the findings. The fact that a government agency is involved is irrelevant to the scientific process.

So even if what they are saying is actually true, you plan to dismiss it out of hand because you dislike government in general. This in spite of the fact that you provided no actual reason to dispute the conclusions reached in the study nor any articulated reason to think the USGS is being dishonest in any way.

Of course they have. You'd have to be living under a rock with your fingers in your ears to think otherwise.

More or less, yes this is exactly what they are doing. The playbook is almost identical. Claim that there is insufficient proof, ask for more studies (funded by them frequently), hire "experts" to promote their viewpoint, hire politicians to hinder any regulations, etc. Take the tobacco PR playbook, scratch out tobacco and write in fossil fuels and that is almost exactly what they are doing.

I think it is a rather clear and unsurprising expression of economic self interest which in many cases is contrary to the public interest. I don't think you need to invoke some grand conspiracy theory to understand their actions though I would not be shocked to find out that there was some fossil fuel companies acting illegally in cahoots. Anything that makes it more expensive to drill/refine/sell, increases regulation or reduces fossil fuel use is likely to be opposed by producers of fossil fuels. They all know they basically think the same way on the topic so they're all behaving more or less as expected.

So much this. In the Slashdot echo chamber we presume that everyone in the world should be the security experts we are. No one outside forums like this thinks the way we do. Your average mom & pop grocer doesn't know about security, can't imagine what a "default password" is or why it would be bad, and sees a POS as an appliance much like a refrigerator or stove.

Tell a restaurateur that they're stupid for not changing the default password, and they're likely to tell you how your stupid home food storage and cooking methods are likely to give you listeriosis. We are experts in our domain, and expecting everyone else to care about it (especially while remaining ignorant of their specialties) is a major failing on our part, not theirs.

I bought a MacBook Pro because it gave me hipster cred, not because it runs all the Unix software I need for work better than Windows ever could or because it runs all the desktop software I like that's not available for Linux. I have a daily OmniFocus reminder to use Emacs to write a love letter to Tim Cook.

I certainly didn't buy an iPhone because it's a nice phone that integrates well with my Mac software, and I only bought an Apple Watch because the brain implanted kool aid told me to and not because I think it's an attractive watch with tier-one support from a highly rated electronics manufacturer.

I love only shiny things and I'm a sheeperson with an IQ of 43. Baaah. I'm not influenced by things like "build quality", "enormous ecosystem", or "meets all my requirements better than the alternatives that I've used extensively at work". Those things are crazy talk.

Sounds like you do too.

I don't really give a shit about how people raise their kids until it starts to affect others, myself included. Don't want to vaccinate your kids? Fine. Go live in a shack in Montana and home school so you don't endanger the lives of others because you are squeamish about getting a very safe and effective vaccine against a serious and highly contagious pathogen.

I don't care much what China's government does and it's not really clear what they have to do with this discussion. That said if China want to make birth rates fall the best thing they can do is to improve their standard of living. High GDP per capita almost inevitably leads to falling birth rates. Don't take my word for it, the data is easily available to back me up.

Tell you what. You explain to me how and why measles cares about a form of government and I'll concede the point. Last I checked, pathogens don't really pay much attention to governments.

Again, no. I don't have children and I don't get special treatment so why should he just because he chose to reproduce? Not my problem. Plenty of people don't have children but still pay taxes to support their local schools because it is a public good. An educated populace benefits us all. My education is long since finished and my parents still have to pay taxes to their local school district. In fact I actually went to a private school for good parts of my education and I can assure you that my parents did not get a tax break.

It's not illegal to go out in public with measles. It's just a really dumb idea. Every physician I know will instruct someone with the measles to stay home in most cases because it is ludicrously infectious. Furthermore "a cold" describes a huge number of pathogens whereas measles is one specific germ. If there were a safe and effective vaccine for more serious strains of "colds" then I would support requiring a vaccine if our medical community determined it to be a good idea.

Children are not considered mentally competent to make such decisions. How many toddlers do you know who would volunteer to get a shot?

They are already doing that AND endangering others in the process.

Nobody is being forced to get any vaccine. They can choose not to participate and there should be consequences for that. I have freedom of speech as a guaranteed right but that right has limits and it does not mean I will not suffer consequences for something I say. Same with the right to choose not to vaccinate. They can do it but that doesn't mean they should be able to endanger others without consequence.

No. Your choice, your problem. You don't get special treatment on taxes because you want to engage in demonstrably dangerous behavior.

They aren't forced to have a medical procedure. They just are forced to stay the hell away from the people they put at risk by electing not to have the procedure. They retain their choice but that choice absolutely should have consequences because it can literally have life and death stakes. If they want to elect to live life as a hermit then they should retain that choice.

You cure ignorance by education if and only if the other party is willing to learn. You cannot cure stupidity through any amount of education.

I think the horse is already gone from that barn and has run a long way down the road.

Spare me. There is no slippery slope here. We are talking about extraordinarily safe vaccines which are 100% optional. They can choose not to vaccinate their children, just not without consequence. They do not get the right to endanger others needlessly because they want to hold a ridiculous opinion not supported by scientific fact.