is there an unknown benefit of having a blood-borne disease vector?

Yes, and he just told you, but you weren't listening. Having a blood-bourne disease vector has the benefit of staying the wrathful hand of Gaea.

Are you trying to persuade us that this disease is somehow important enough to be a bad thing, or are you making your argument to a god?

If you're so intimately familiar with a values and agendas of the gods, then on humanity's behalf I request that you also please explain to Cthulhu that the stars aren't right.

There are so many layers of stupid in this story, it's hard to address one of them without the embarrassing feeling that someone might read a rebuke of one stupidity, and take it as an implicit acceptable of the rest of the stupidity that you didn't address. If you argue too hard that Yog-Sothoth made a mistake in designing camels, somebody might think you're a creationist.

From the point of view of a malevolent user who intends to use the device to harm someone, why would they want your malware?

From the point of view of a benevolent user, why would they want your malware?

What will happen in the marketplace, if a benevolent user is persuaded to run your malware and then has a problem and finds out that it was due to the malware?

What's so special about the security needs of people in a capital, compared to people everywhere else? And is this special need, really a function of where they happen to be at a moment, or is it based on what their powers and responsibilities (and presumably, replacement cost) are?

I am leaving a few dozen obvious things out because it's tiring to enumerate. That my original point: don't think that just because I missed a totally-obvious way that the idea is stupid, as meaning I would debate one of these points from the premise of accepting a lot of other stupidity. It's not even something I disagree with or think is a bad strategy or an us-vs-them thing. It's just a totally dumb idea, a loser no matter how you look at it and no matter what your agenda is.

You call them worthless but then in the very same sentence you admit that they are all-powerful.

Error. You are proceeding from a healthy input of facts. The constraints of the thread are to proceed from a health input of science fiction.

This is how we're going bring our keepers to their knees, and eventually break out of the Matrix. We spend imaginary money on imaginary storage and then put all sorts of high-entropy stuff on it and run calculations to verify that it's really working, but they have to spend actually real resources, to emulate it.

Sloppy calculation tip: 24*365 = 10000.

If you're Sloppy enough to accept that premise, then at 10 cents/KWHr, a Watt costs a dollar per year. It makes your $28 turns into $32, but hey, close enough. When I'm shopping, I can add up lifetime energy costs really fast, without actually being smart. Nobody ever catches on!

That's a good point. I also mentioned arbitrarily factoring and refactoring subroutines and I did not state clearly enough that i was suggesting using the tool mentioned in the article to confirm your code was giving a false result.

aye!

If everyone used it then we'd all be spartacus.

What I was implying also in my parent post was using the tool the article is about to confirm your code had reached the ambiguous level.

Absolutely- if you were the only one using the tool.

I was replying to the comment that asked why I didn't mouse over the ribbon to explore commands.

OK yeah that's what I meant. If you were just exploring then it works. If you want something specific just Google.

I never had to google to figure out where Word's menu commands were.

You likely are doing stuff that is harder now. There were pretty complex procedures a decade ago for many tasks.

I was talking about the exploration issue. If you were looking for something specific why not try help / Google?

Write a version of pretty-printer that rerenders your code into a different style.

Have a lexicon of mipelled words for each "personality".

Another lexicon of variable names.
a vs inta vs int_a vs x.

Refactoring and unfactoring for subroutines.

Run the comments through google translate and back to english.
ukrainian
japanese
chinese

Synonym and antonym substitution in the comments.

The mind dances at the possibilities to mess with this algorithm.

That's pretty trivial and already occurs.

The convention center effectively gets no signal due to the way it was constructed anyway and so the major brands have repeaters inside the hotel while the minor brand phone's don't work.

DFW Hyatt is a good example of this. If you are not on Verizon- good luck using your phone inside the convention center downstairs.

What's preventing you from mousing over the ribbon to explore possible commands?

Microsoft may not care because, as you say, I am probably not their target market, but that has nothing to do with it.

Of course it does. Saying product X doesn't work properly because it doesn't do use case Y for which is was never intended is fallacious. "This wine glass sucks because when I try and use it to hammer nails it shatters" is simply silly.

This is the sort of thing that Microsoft tends to say, and completely avoids a number of important points. What are you basing this determination on? I could believe the "uses more features" claim -- that can be measured -- but what about the "more effectively" claim? Whenever Microsoft says things like that, they're basing it on stuff like how many keystrokes/mouse clicks it takes to do something. That's a very poor measure of how effective users are, though.

The most common testing Microsoft does is giving experienced Office users a series of tasks often using features of Office that they aren't familiar with or necessarily even know exist. For example someone who frequently does PowerPoints may not know about transitions between slides, tell them to change the transition in a presentation. The level of success is then measured.

Prior to the ribbon, using menus, the typical Office user could complete 30% of those tasks successfully. With the first release of the ribbon it doubled and we are in the latest beta at 80%. That's a huge change in effectiveness.

They can also measure based on those tests how many of the tasks the typical users were able to complete immediately i.e. which ones they know how to do before taking the test. That number has gone up as well though not as much. They also look at time to complete simple tasks which is what you are talking about with the mouse clicks. That changes a bit with context sensitivity but the huge drop in effectiveness by that measure was moving away from keyboard shortcuts when people transitioned from WordPerfect.