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.

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.

...he says, quoting a malpractice lawyer of all things. By that ludicrous number, one in 680 Americans are killed by doctors each year. If you live to the age of 75, your odds of dying this way would be 1 in 9.

Plenty of people get bad treatment, sure, but you can't make me believe that one in 9 will actually die of it. That would make malpractice nearly as deadly as cancer, and that's just not plausible.

That's an excellent point. Yeah, I think we can cross that off as busted.

The people you're describing drive me insane. We have a pediatrician who said what you did: either you trust her to recommend vaccinations, or you find someone else to work with. She doesn't want patients who continually argue against everything she says.

Here's a test. You know all those godless communist governments that want to take over America and sap our precious bodily fluids? They don't have profits, right, because they hate our freedoms. They also don't care about their disposable citizens. Right? OK. So why is it that those countries vaccinate their citizens? It's not for the profit motive of drug companies, because those are owned by the evil socialists. It's because they cheap out and practice preventative medicine so that they can keep working the proles 112 hours a week, and you can't do that when they're sick.

But tossing aside the Fox-news-watcher-ready wrapper, it's true: absent a profit motive, every organized country in the world immunizes their citizens so that they don't get sick as much. Do you really think China gives a crap about GlaxoSmithKline's margins? Hell no. They use vaccines because it's far and away the best possible investment into keeping people healthy.

There is literally no valid greed-based explanation for vaccinations. It's dumb when you consider the American health system, and utterly braindead when you look at the other 95% of the world's population.

You're so full of shit. According to The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, in 1989 the CDC recommended 8 vaccines for kids (the same 7 it recommended through the 70s, plus Hib). The 2010 schedule includes the 8 from 1989 plus hep A (dangerous in kids, lethal in adults), hep B (40% lifetime risk of liver cancer in 95% of newborns who contract it), flu, varicella (not the innocent, cute little illness antivax wingnuts claim it is), pneumococcus (lethal), and rotavirus (potentially lethal).

The evil drug companies took the 8 vaccines from 1989 and added 6 more potentially lethal or crippling diseases, for a total of 14. One-four. Maybe the 72 number is an innocent mistake reflecting the total number of shots, although I sincerely doubt it's that high as DTaP and MMR are each 3 vaccines combined into 1 (as they have been since the early 80s). That narrows it down from 14 to 10 unique vaccinations, and they simply don't take an average of 7 shots each per vaccine.

Yes, I get testy about this. As many times as antivaxers tell me to "do my research!", it seems that none of them can be bothered to.

How much time do you spend waiting on your "slow" SATA SSDs to answer requests, and how much would migrating to PCIe SSDs lower those waits? That's the subject of the article and what I was discussing. :-)

Darn it, people! I loved SSDs. I use them everywhere. I think they're great. But we're discussing the subject of PCIe SSDs versus SATA SSDs, and I still contend that SATA SSDs are so freaking fast (compared to HDDs) that desktop users are highly unlikely to ever bump up against that interface's limits.

I'm not sure how any of what I said led you to believe that I don't think SSD is an improvement over HDD. I was specifically responding to the guy talking about needing IOPS for IRC, web browsing, and email. I've personally upgraded every computer in my care to use SSDs for local storage (but I keep huge HDDs in the family NAS, because file services over Wi-Fi aren't going to be disk-bound anyway).

Yeah, I exaggerated that for contrast. Most servers are pretty bored, too. But if a build or database server isn't IO constrained, then someone running Photoshop would never notice the difference between PCIe and SATA.

An off-the-shelf SATA 840 EVO SDD hits 98,000 read IOPS, and all those tasks you mention added together wouldn't hit more than 1% of that. They're the very definition of network bound operations. The average email in my IMAP spool right now is 43KB and would take 11 4KB operations to completely read from or write to storage. Browsers site there idle 99.9% of the time. IRC? Not that I've ever seen.

I haven't bothered to look at their methodology but I tentatively agree with their conclusion: almost no desktop users would be able to tell the difference. I mean, even a HDD benching at 103 read IOPS seems spritely for most use cases. A SATA SSD working 950 times faster is as close to instantaneous as most desktop uses could ever hope for.

A guy named Amdahl had something to say on the subject. SSDs excel at IOPS, but that buys you little if you're not IOPS-constrained.

Examples of things that eat operations as fast as you can throw them at 'em: databases, compilation, most server daemons.

Examples of things that couldn't care less: streaming large assets that are decompressed in realtime, like audio or video files. Loading a word processing document. Downloading a game patch. Encoding a DVD. Playing RAM-resident video games.

It should be a shock to roughly no one that buffing an underused part won't make the whole system faster. I couldn't mow my lawn any faster if the push mower had a big block V8, nor would overclocking my laptop make it show movies any faster.

TL;DR non-IO-bound things don't benefit from more IO.