We don't need engineering, we need mind-readers. If users had enough time to sit and be thoroughly interviewed about needs and preferences, they wouldn't need automation to begin with.

And further, how to make software maintainable in the longer run is highly disputed largely because it depends on "wetware" and unknowns, such as developer perception of code, and unknowable future domain changes.

It's more akin to writing technical documentation than to building a bridge: how do you write documentation that's clear to the audience, but flexible enough that it doesn't have to be largely reworked for every change.

There is no magic modularity formula: domain issues inherently intertwine (or can intertwine in the future even if not at original launch.) You can't hide intertwining, you have to find a way to manage it well.

To deal with this what we do is go quickly to the UI.. once you show them they can give you better feedback. There's also some research supporting this.

http://www.construx.com/Though...

My Osborne 1 split the capslock key into two regular-sized keys, one for CTRL and the other for capslock. That worked well. (And I really miss Wordstar. Amazing what they could cram into 64k. They had to play silly games, loading and unloading parts of the software from the floppy disk, a really primitive kind of virtual memory.)

If not, then Microsoft will not have the opportunity "to push the web browsing experience" for me.

No. Windows 7 fell out of mainstream support January 13, 2015. That means no new features. It's currently in extended support, which runs out January 14, 2020, at which point there will be no more security updates, either.

Windows 8 will probably get it as it should be in mainstream support still.

Or you could use an iPhone, which doesn't even support MKV.

Out of the box, no. But there are plenty of apps to solve that problem.

That's precisely my point - the valid reason to regulate here is specific, measurable harm, not "general well-being".

Typically that doesn't happen after you've hovered a drone over someone's yard.

So the moment the ass with the drone said "are you the SOB who shot down my drone" it's pretty much a different thing ... because the confrontation started when you were hovering over his fenced yard filming his family.

I'm simply not buying the boo hoo argument of the guy with the drone. As TFA said .. flying past is one thing, coming back and hovering is going a little far.

This is like demanding to be allowed on my property to retrieve the camera you illegally placed in my yard.

"Well, I came out and it was down by the neighbor's house, about 10 feet off the ground, looking under their canopy that they've got under their back yard," Merideth said. "I went and got my shotgun and I said, 'I'm not going to do anything unless it's directly over my property.'"

That moment soon arrived, he said.

"Within a minute or so, here it came," he said. "It was hovering over top of my property, and I shot it out of the sky."

In this case, hovering 10 feet off the ground within the borders of his fence isn't some incidental flying overhead, it's pretty much entering your property and filming. And that should be a criminal act.

It's not like the guy was shooting down something 100 feet in the air or just flying past.

By the time the owner of the drone was about to indignantly enter the guy's property, he'd essentially trespassed once already, and knew the guy was armed. If that doesn't tell you to approach with caution you're an idiot.

This isn't random gun nut shoots shit for fun. This is someone responding to something which is flying so far into what is reasonably his private property as to be hard to accept any reason other than the guy running the drone is an ass and a peeping tom.

Do you really need an explanation, considering you just shot down their drone?

Starting with WTF was your drone with a camera doing hovering over my backyard taking pictures of my daughters, and moving on to why in hell shouldn't I be punching you, and advancing to why the hell should you expect to come on my property without me shooting you ...

Yes, absolutely the person operating the drone owes an explanation. Rather a lot, actually.

They took pictures in his backyard with no explanation, and now without explanation they want to come onto his property to discuss this.

Identify yourself, state your purpose, and explain to me why I'm not going to hurt you if you keep walking onto my property. You don't get to act indignant when your shit was hovering over my yard taking pictures. Not even a little.

If I found you in my fenced backyard with a camera, I'm also going to hurt you.

Rule 34.

Some things should not be googled. Ever.

Because the world doesn't want every idiot who thinks he's made a better keyboard constantly mucking about with stuff for the sake of it.

Some of us have been typing for decades, and simply don't care that you think it's time to redesign the keyboard.

"It's time to make some changes to keyboards" -- No, that's your opinion, it isn't fact.

You want a custom keyboard, buy it or make it. But don't be such an arrogant ass as to assume we give a damn about you whining about it. We don't need some damned keyboard designed by a fucking committee.

What a stupid article.

"They asked me, 'Are you the S-O-B that shot my drone?' and I said, 'Yes I am,'" he said. "I had my 40mm Glock on me and they started toward me and I told them, 'If you cross my sidewalk, there's gonna be another shooting.'"

ok that's very aggressive.

You know, I generally don't agree with open carry ... most of the world cringes at that, and it's something Americans cherish.

But if your drone was hovering in my backyard looking at my teenage daughters for no good reason, and if I'd shot it down and you were about to come onto my property in a threatening manner without explanation, I can see the point.

The drone pilot was being an ass, and about to trespass in an aggressive manner.

I actually hope the guy who shot it down just gets a small fine and let go. Because the drone hovering in your backyard isn't the kind of shit we should be accepting.

"Because our rights are being trampled daily," he said. "Not on a local level only - but on a state and federal level."

why did he have to bring the tea party into this?

It is entirely possible to think the Tea Party are loons and also think this guy has a point.

There simply can't be a free for all in which anybody for any reason can be going around peering into peoples private yards and houses just because they want to.

And, I'm sorry, but hovering over someone's backyard with a camera falls in the category of "no bloody way". Not for private citizens, corporations, or law enforcement without a warrant.

The article says 40mm Glock - that is a damn big pistol

Which could only be a typo, or a gun carrier who doesn't understand bullet sizing. And I'm going to assume the guy from Kentucky doing open carry knew what he had, in which case, just blame the reporter.

A 40mm bullet would be just over 1.5" in diameter... that would be an enormous round, and probably not something you could fire from a man-portable weapon.

A frigging .50 cal is a half inch in diameter, so that would be 3x the size.

A 40mm bullet? No way.

So below are all the rules for flying an RC plane. Why don't we simply apply the rules to drones? As a matter of fact, you have to explain to me why the don't automatically apply anyway?

Fly below 400 feet and remain clear of surrounding obstacles
Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times
Remain well clear of and do not interfere with manned aircraft operations
Don't fly within 5 miles of an airport unless you contact the airport and control tower before flying
Don't fly near people or stadiums
Don't fly an aircraft that weighs more than 55 lbs
Don't be careless or reckless with your unmanned aircraft Ã" you could be fined for endangering people or other aircraft

They're not rules, they're just guidelines.

I repeat, they are not rules, they are guidelines.

All things in the air are classified under the FAA jurisdiction, including those little toy hobby drones you fly in your backyard.

The reason the FAA released the advisory circular (it's not official law or anything) is because the FAA recognizes the silliness of trying to enforce rules for "normal" aircraft on those who want to fly little models for recreation.

So they released a set of guidelines that generally will keep you safe from the FAA, but not always - the NTSB has ruled that the FAA has the right to charge hobbyists with dangerous flying. (A drone pilot was observed dodging and weaving their drone in a public park at people, buzzing them and flying through an underpass tunnel with people in them. The FAA pressed charges, the initial NTSB official ruled against the FAA (per the advisory circular), and the FAA appealed to the NTSB board saying despite the circular, it's still an aircraft under their jurisdiction and they did have the right to prosecute the owner. The FAA won.).

Anyhow, the guy probably should've swung at the drone - they still are vulnerable beasts and if you can disable a rotor, most will be uncontrollable. Whacking it with a stick is sufficient.

And yeah, I too would like to see the drone owner charged.

Ignore the above, the Glock 40 is what he was open carrying, he did in fact use a shotgun on the drone.

If you read TFA, he was open-carrying a Glock 40, which if Google isn't lying to me is a .40 cal weapon.

A stray .40 caliber bullet isn't birdshot, it's a pretty heavy duty bullet.

This isn't pellets falling out of the sky harmlessly.

You have rather high expectations of the average consumer.

You know what, I don't ... I have exceedingly low expectations of them. I simply don't give a crap any more if people buy this stuff and get hacked.

I tell people I know about the risks, the rest I stopped caring about.

It's not their fault, it's our fault. We need to make products that are secure by default

And for that, I lay the blame squarely at the feet of corporations for not giving a damn, and lawmakers for not holding them accountable.

Yes, I know, it probably makes me a bad person. But I'm afraid my "sympathy-for-the-hacked" is at an all time low, because in a week or so there will be another story just like this one.