Sounds like a video game.

That's not a knock. Publish a buggy game and watch players complain. Then watch your stock plummet. Then watch the sheriff padlock the doors. And that's just a game.

Software is important.

Lines of code = complexity?

Lemme guess. You're a programmer.

Ignat.

And what would have been the upgrade from Sametime in 1998? Postcards? Voice mail?

Do quit. Other more accommodating individuals will take your place.

Here, on /. , we find people who think you can leave your Windows machine running 24x7 with not a care in the world. As if it would never abend, never update and reboot, nor would any badly behaved app or driver decide to crash and take the kernel with it.

These same people extol the virtues of any Linux distro able to avoid these unpleasant circumstances with aplomb.

So which is it? Is Windows a time bomb waiting to take your data day or night, or is it stable enough to to leave unattended, or does it really matter?

I thought so.

Nor is it a new story, or a new anything.

And this current system is working oh-so- well?

Seriously, you actually believe your own drivel?

"Current speculation points to greater-than-expected lift by the third-stage, because the apogee is 20km higher than planned. The ship does not seem to pose a threat to the ISS at the moment."

Sounds like a safe-ish orbit if all goes haywire after the third stage is done. Good flight plan.

Too bad it didn't get on course, but obviously a major malfunction.

We EXPECT the capitalists to maximize profits.

We EXPECT the government to serve our needs and prevent
abuses such as this.

Which one is not meeting our EXPECTATIONS?

Super Bowl XLIX was broadcast on NBC. What was your point? That people subscribe to ESPN for the Super Bowl?

Not. Reset. Try again.

Your response is typical FB-style. I know how to limit posts and such. I keep lots of people on FB visible to me and skip past the noise, while it seems easier to do so on G+.

On the other hand, plenty of my FB friends point out to me blah blah blah. Your post missed my point, that my G+ circles have more content, and the unspoken point, that G+ gives me more control over content.

But have at it, since if I disagree with you, I must have misunderstood...

Actually, I focus on G+, and mostly ignore the noise on FB.

That's almost funny. The program wasn't as successful as expected because they didn't share the data widely enough.

Almost funny. Like, they couldn't do useful analysis because they didn't share it with all the CIA analysts they should have?

Unconstitutional much?

Ya think?

As if Hillary's server was any more secure than the White House UNclassified system?

If you think Hillary's server wasn't compromised by any government, corporation, or force that cared to, you are naive. It was surely pwned over and over. It was also probably so pwned that it was a good place to study the various attacks.

But I LIKE Google+.

I have much more meaningful discussions on G+ than I do FB, partly because the number of followers on G+ is less, so less crap. But FB is full f people who genuinely can't think. It's sad how hard it is to have useful discussions on FB.

G+ also has much more interesting users. Maybe because they choose to participate, I don't know or care.

I can decline to have photos shared, etc, not much worse than FB.

If they truly hose up G+ in this split, I'll miss it.

I don't care a bit about these 'artificial' accounts. They don't add me to their circles, they don't spam me, they don't beg me to be added.

Now, the flakes that DO spam me are a nuisance, but easily disposed of, as easily as the Facebook beggars.