This is a fantastic piece of literature that you've created. I want to turn it into a pamphlet or something, to pass out to people.

Actually, I'd make this part of the login/click-through screen for uploading anything to FaceBook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. Imagine what it could change!

Instead of VMs, could you use more physical boxes and a KVM? As an ancillary benefit, when management complains that you have six PCs under your desk you can say "Well, I could toss all of these if you buy me one new PC." Alternately, wait until another department tosses a better machine than you're using: four and five year old Dells were running Core 2 Duos and Core 2 Quads, so any day now you should be able to pick up a decent system off the discard pile.

In the United States, all you have to do is reside in a congressional district; you're automatically assigned one, plus two more in the senate!

When I was in high school, that sort of thing got us more homework. Or maybe it was the homework? The memory isn't entirely clear, but I did have a pretty cool AP Chemistry class.

Can people change? Is learning possible? If so, then I think the more useful study is one where they examine the recommended use case. That way, we can test new methods of doing the same thing, and if we find a way that works better, people can adopt the better way! (I know, I know: wishful thinking.)

Your assertion, that researchers should only test "actual use conditions" (I didn't see the study where they surveyed people to find out these actual use conditions, but it must've been done, right?), carries the inherent co-assertion that people can't change, so we shouldn't bother studying new ways of doing things.

All this study shows is adherence to Murphy's Law: if people have the opportunity to do something the wrong way, they will.

I don't get called by friends and family that often, but when I do it's usually because something is very broken. So, if the stereotype is that your mom calls you because she can't download her e-mail, my mom calls me when Exchange throws a rod and 500 people (school district) can't download their e-mail.

So, if defenestration is when you throw someone out a window, what's the term for when you throw out Windows?

I don't think the study was garbage, but I don't think it was all that helpful. They should've tested the recommended configuration and mode; if that turned out to be safer, then you could use the study to encourage people to change their behaviour. This study a) draws blanket conclusions it wasn't designed to test, and b) doesn't answer the most relevant question, i.e., "Is texting still bad if you don't have to look away from the road?"

When using a study such as this, it's important to state the constraints of the study when explaining your conclusion. The headlines don't read "most commonly used mode of Siri/Vlingo not better than texting while driving." They read "Using Siri/Vlingo no better than texting while driving." If they didn't test the version of Siri designed to be used while driving, then this is an inappropriate conclusion; they didn't test Siri, they only tested a particular configuration (just like secure computing certifications only apply to the configuration tested, and can't be generalized to an entire platform).

I would assert that a more useful study would be to test the recommended modes, because the $64,000 question is whether there exists a mode of operation that is better than plain texting. If so, we can use that data to encourage people to stop using things the most common way, and start doing things in a slightly safer way. Is using Siri to text while driving a good idea? Probably not. Is it a less dangerous idea than looking away from the road to stare at a screen? That's the answer that would be useful, and it's not the answer this study was trying to find.

Did you warn them? You didn't?!

http://xkcd.com/875/

For a moment, I seriously wondered whether they could do that. But if anyone could cancel the weather, and the news, it'd probably be Nintendo.

I see your six-digit UID, so you can't be that new to slashdot. I appreciate your optimism, though.

T-Mobile's wifi calling only works with specific T-Mobile branded phones. Additionally, if your cell phone depends on your internet connection, how are you going to call the cable company to get them to fix your net connection?

You had me right up until the end, there. No one loves Server 2012 - it's Windows 8 Server. And if you wonder why, it's because our IPKVMs don't have touch screens, which ruins the experience.

My biggest complaint about BitCoin is that it could very easily be used as a way for BotNet operators to monetize their exploits. The whole idea behind BitCoins' value (as I understand it) is that they should be worth the same amount as the processing power used to compute them would have cost. However, since the BotNet operators don't pay the costs of processing (those costs, in terms of electricity to run the processors are paid by the owners of the compromised machines), they basically get to steal money from people by processing BitCoins with their BotNets, with no recourse.

Of course, in an ideal world people would patch their systems, run effective security software, and make backups so that they could reload their OSes every six months to eliminate the malware that makes it through. I suppose that the existence of BitCoin is just another argument to explain to users that if they're not securing their systems, they're literally letting someone steal their money.