It's not so much about what you are able to do one day vs the next... it's when you get caught trying to steal third base, and are sent scrambling back to second, only to find out that it's already occupied. Thinking you're done, you head back to the couch, only to realize that first base is still open... and there you go, safe!

Either the hackers are also great bug fixers, or the game was more ready for prime-time then some of the crap that is marked "gold".

I wish someone would hack my computer, and fix all my bugs :(

She nag nowhere!

i.e. Fur ant abjurer

I hate fur and abjurers

Whoever marked this insightful... good job!

teehee

Not that you really have a choice, but which link in the Humancentipad do you want to be?

Regular users will see the regular increase (roughly the same as the integer increase).

But, anytime a chip releases a new feature that relies on specific code, of course only "certain kinds of apps" will get a boost.

Or maybe I'm misreading the summary (because, I don't read articles)

The mess that used both was using QT for EVERYTHING and Boost for EVERYTHING. It was amazing. Have you ever considered using both QT and Boosts signal/slot mechanisms? Did you know that both Boost and QT have shared pointer classes? Have you ever thought about using both? In the same class...

It was pretty good.

But hey, it made the company a LOT of money.

I've worked on projects that have used QT and ones that used Boost, and one giant mess that used both, and so I have to disagree on the hope that they adopt each other.

Both provide useful tools that don't need to be mixed up. Boost is (afaik) the leading edge for what the next C++ standard will contain. Boost does the crazy things, the good ones get polished and eventually become standard C++.

I love QT, but I can't imagine it becoming part of the C++ standard. So much overhead for things that you don't always need. (even by C++ standards).

A "short" story that sort of takes this is into account. (also, it was only published 23 years ago).
http://books.google.com/books?id=FLNCovxKl7IC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=orson+scott+card+dogwalker&source=bl&ots=a2pcvnSmFx&sig=xIKvpnSdJ01xoxMt2SbkG7XKphM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OB8yUb-bCuLbyQHW24HAAQ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=orson%20scott%20card%20dogwalker&f=false

I was unaware of the dancing pigs. I love that analogy.

user education should be printed in all caps, bold, underlined, comic sans, etc...

At some point, unless we develop new algorithms that utterly break how current encryption algorithms behave (which I know I know, is a possibility... and of course the NSA has it already)... your weakest point is not going to be the computer. It's going to be the lackey at the front-desk happily letting a "tech" in (physically or electronically)

I think what most of the people responding to this post aren't realizing (or acknowledging) is that your security needs to be appropriate for the data it's protecting.

If we're talking about a corporations backbone, then yeah saying "it's not connected to the internet" isn't acceptable.

If instead we're talking about some John Doe's personal data, then you aren't going to be attacked in the same way. Keeping it on a drive that has no internet access is probably good enough.

Perhaps. But that's not because of some technological arcaneness to the stories (which is all my rebuttal was about)

I guess it doesn't seem all that arcane to me.
1) Install an app
2) scan a qr code
3) insert money
4) scan a qr code

and this is slashdot... not the vast majority of the world...