I'm not changing the argument. My position was and remains that I don't use the force touch feature.

If I have a variable speed blender, and I only ever use one speed, then I am not using the variable speed feature.

The variable speed FEATURE is the ability to vary the speed. The fact that I always use one speed means I'm not using variable speed feature.

Then someone comes along arguing that the fact that the one speed I always use is technically a selection of one of the variable speed settings... who gives a shit? I'm still not varying the speed, so the variable speed feature is irrelevant.

Force touch is the same thing. I know damned well I'm technically using the force touch trackpad when I tap on it. I'm not using the force touch feature though, because I never vary the force; nor use variable force to access additional functionality.

You are just being a pedantic twit.

It really doesn't MATTER.

There are two thresholds where it clicks - the fact that its haptic vs mechanical is irreelevent. I never ever touch it with enough force to engage either click threshold.

So any additional functionality mapped to touching with greater force; I'm not ever using. So it may as well not be there.

Nope. My macbook pro trackpad definitely has a haptic click if I acutally push on it, and then a second click if i push harder.

I *never* touch it with enough force to engage either.

The feature is there, and I might be technically using it in the sense that I can't use the trackpad without using it. But the fact that it is 'force touch' is irrelevant to me, I find it no different to the trackpad in my previous macbook pro which didn't have it.

For what its worth, (and probably not much) I have a new macbook pro with the force touchpad. I've never actually used it. Not once. Not ever. I tried it on the demo unit in the store to see what the fuss was... but I count it as a total gimmick.

  I really only ever use the tap-to-click; so I don't even click the touchpad, nevermind force-click it.

I agree with you. Especially about the speculative 'guff' from click-hungry bloggers.

I do have a question though; especially given the content of your post: why did you phrase your subject as a question instead of a declarative statement?

Was it deliberately ironic or just inadvertently so?

That's according to you. Now according to the NSA their mission, from their Mission pagel:

https://www.nsa.gov/about/miss...

Offense is definitely a big part of there job. But right up there with SIGINT is IA (information assurance); so what is IA?

Well I could look in a dictionary but lets see what the NSA thinks it is instead... since they are the ones charged with doing it:

https://www.nsa.gov/ia/ia_bann...

NSA's Information Assurance Directorate delivers mission enhancing information assurance technologies, products and services that enable customers and clients to secure operational information and information systems.

Or to paraphrase: enable its customers (government and its departments, domestic corporations, and our allies) to secure their data and computer systems.*

That is ALSO there mission. They have been so busy with SIGINT that not only have they neglected IA, but they have ACTIVELY subverted and sabotaged it in the process.

*and I'm not just putting words into their mouths when I say their job is to protect our allies (vs spying on them) that's also from them:

"The NSA [...] encompasses both SIGINT and IA [...] in order to gain a decision advantage for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances."

That's entirely at the governments discretion, and there's no public benefit to letting me borrow a fighter jet.

1) Negotiate a flat rate.

It doesn't affect Microsofts costs. They'll do the updates as long as there is enough money in it for them. How many users is really completely irrelevant. If it costs $5 million to maintain XP then it costs 5 million whether there is 100 users or 300 million of them. We know this. Microsoft knows this.

2) Government makes the rules; so it can change the rules. Copyright is there for the public good. If a company is literally using copyright to deny critical security updates (that they have ALREADY been paid by the governement to develop) then make exceptions to copyright law, and then distribute those changes to the public.

Pass a law to strip security related software patches of copyright protection. Now if the company creates them, anyone one who is licensed for the software can have them. Now, the government wants security patches, and is still willing pay 7 figures to get them; does microsoft pass on the cash? Its still pretty lucrative.

Why not? I write software that I only get paid for once all the time, regardless of how many users it ends up with. For the right price, I don't give a shit about licensing. I got paid upfront. That model can work for security patches.

Yeah, I know it won't happen. But it could... perhaps even should.

Yeah +1 for spideroak. But you still do need to trust them.

The source is closed. So you can't inspect and build the client yourself. So you have no way of knowing whether its really zero knowledge or not; or whether the client can or is sending the keys to the server etc.

They also specifically disclaim zero knowledge for web based access and mobile. The former should be obvious, but the latter is a bit of a surprise/disappointment.

Still I -do- generally trust them; and recommend them. Their business model isn't advertising and harvesting data.

But the fact that I've decided to trust them is a far cry from it being a provably trustworthy system.

Yeah, me too. I think part of the problem with recyling is lack of education. I honestly don't know what actually is and is not ok to put into what...

For example I recently bought a mcdonalds meal...

What about a macdonalds bag? Is that ok to put in the paper?
What about Unused napkins? Used napkins?

What about the 'cardboard' thing the bigmac was in? Is that paper or cardboard or is it just garbage?

Can I recycle the the plastic fork? The little plastic bag the fork came in? or the straw? The plastic lid on the cup?

What about the wax paper cup?

Would I need to wash all these things? or does the recyling processes itself mean that a bit of salad dressing on the fork, or a bit cola on the cup is completely irrelevant?

And what the hell am I supposed to do with a pringles can or the containers Ice Tea powder comes in? The ones with the cardboard cylinder (although maybe some sort of foil coating on it?) plus it has a metal ring at the top lid, and a metal base.

Is the plastic lid recycleable? The ice tea has the #4 recyle symbol on it... but the pringles can doesn't have any symbol that I can see... but surely its recycleable? isn't it?

Should I err on the side of caution, and toss anything I'm not 100% sure of in the garbage, or should i err on the side of recycling?

I think most people, like me, simply don't know the answers to these questions and we make a lot of mistakes we'd avoid because of it.

Actually, one of my premises, is that as the government is paying for it, we ARE paying for it.

When that someone is the governent, then yes? Isn't that what a library is?

Again, we are the paying customers.

But Microsoft set a price for doing so, and then it was paid. Its not taking away from anything, its a whole extra revenue stream.

Yes. They set a price to compensate themselves for the time it would take to do that, with enough profit built in to motivate them to do it. Then we paid it.

:eyerolls:

We're all learners. But anyone with more than a passing familiarity with C++ already knows everything in that puff piece of a Dice article.

They never said that. Either of them. A few blowhards and talking heads have made such comments over the years; and the press eats it up because that's what the press does.

The country as a whole is grappling with rather intractable problem. It simultaneously wants it to be possible for the NSA to break encrypted data belonging to terrorists and criminals in general with a proper warrant. But it doesn't want encryption itself to be compromised with a back door so that they can get in whenever they want without leaving so much as a trace. Unfortunately meeting those two objectives right now is a fantasy. So we get loonies at both ends making nonsensical statements.

As long as saner heads prevail who cares. Linux isn't a terrorist front and any honest investigation not run with the same mentality as the spanish inquisition will promptly discern this to be the case.

The thing that irks me is that once various governments and organizations have "sucked-it-up" and ponied up the "ransom" to keep XP going -- why cant the public at large benefit from this. Especially given that we are the ones literally paying for it.

Once the patches are written, tested, and released why aren't they available on Windows update?

Don't get me wrong, I want XP to die in a fire. Cutting over to Vista onward, embracing 64 bit*, leaving the days of "administrator by default" behind, etc were all good things. But still if my government dropped 9 million bucks to get MS to develop some more security patches for XP; it'd be nice if the lathes at work could have them too.

* (yes, yes, i know xp 64 bit existed. shut up. :)

I'm pretty sure those are the sort of things domestic terrorists would actually have... so what exactly is your issue with it?

A bunch of food and a gun doesn't get you classified as a terrorist; its a flag that the group might be worth investigating.

An investigation isn't persecution.

Even a little safer is better. Roundabouts generally bring the speed of traffic approaching the intersection down.

They put one in by the school near where I live, and the new roundabout doesn't take any more space than the old intersection did.

And that's a residential simple one lane going each way intersection, with parking along the curb. At the roundabout the curbs bulb out preventing parking, and create the room for the circular space.

Previously, there was effectively 2 lanes of room at the intersection, so someone waiting to turn left could be driven around on the right side, or cars could make right turns while people were waiting to go through or turn right. This complexity is what often led to accidents both between vehicles and involving pedestrians.

Now, its always one car entering from each side at a time; and it never really stops except for pedestrians. Honestly its been working well.

It seems to scale well to 2 lanes as well We have several 2 lane round abouts and those also work well.