My wife signs all kinds of documents for me.
I accept documents that are signed, but I've never met the person, and I probably won't. I don't have any sort of official signature to compare against. For all I know, someone else other than the 'human authorized' signed the document.
Physical signatures are not perfectly secure. The expectation that digital signatures must be perfectly secure is naive.
I think that society is looking for a 99.9% solution- knowing that there will always be a way to cheat the system. The amount of effort to make ANY system perfect is just not worth the trouble.
I disagree with your comments about the puppy picture. It is not an apology at all, it is a VERY effective means of communicating with your users.
I *do* use this method. I have pictures of cake, a cartoon alien, a dumpster, etc. throughout my systems with different pictures having very specific meanings (to me).
Every error gets emailed to the developers, and also logged, so there is a lot of 'professional' stuff going on behind the scenes.
But here is a scenario I've been in before...you are sitting in a meeting, and the conversation turns to your newest creation, when one of the people says, "I was using the system this morning, and I got an error." Which could be a show-stopper as far as an positive discussion is concerned.
But then they add, "It was a piece of chocolate cake." To which I respond, "Okay, thanks for letting me know about that- I'll get it fixed ASAP."
The conversation moves forward, because confidence was restored in the system. The user did not have to talk about, "I don't know what it said- some computer gobbley-gook," which I would respond with "I will look into it."
With the cake picture, the user tells me everything I need to know, in a very simple and easy to understand way.
Well, that makes sense...since IE6, IE7 AND IE8 have more market share than Firefox, Safari, Opera and Chrome combined.
Not saying it is right, just saying it makes sense.
Just a guess (being that this is Slashdot, it is a fairly educated guess) you spent high school playing computer games, NOT being the captain of the football team. (So did I, so I don't have any problem with it.)
But the point is...the recruiters are going to tell you ANYTHING to get you to join the military.
It's a sales job, and flattering you is part of the job. I wouldn't believe anything a recruiter says. In fact, if you had signed up, you'd know that the entire military jokes about it constantly. "What? Did you believe your recruiter?"
I'm not even disputing the information you are putting out, just pointing out that your source is notoriously bad.
Not quite the same, but...
I work for part of a University that has a name that sounds like a telemarketing firm.
Frequently, one of my high level clients will call me in a panic and leave a message. I call back, but 50% of the time I get screened by a receptionist who just assumes I am trying to sell something.
If the client is a jerk, I don't even bother to explain. I'll wait until they call back and then tell them I got screened.
This happened to one client 5 or 6 times. Finally I explained to the secretary who I was, so the call would go through. The secretary said, "Oh, I know who you are...but she gave me a list of words to use to screen calls with. And your unit has two of those words in the name. Besides, it's fun to watch her get mad when she doesn't get the call."
I don't blame the secretary at all. But then again, you could only get away with that in the public sector.
For a while, when people found out I am a 'computer programmer' their reaction would be, "Ooooohhhhhh." (Like it meant *something*)
Today when people ask what I do, I say, "computer programmer" quietly, almost apologetically...because I know that nobody really cares.
Somehow you are mistaking me for someone who used the word, 'Innovation.'
I said that their handwriting recognition was, 'Good.'
In my rush to beat you at being an insufferable jerk, I forgot to make a good point.
When I said that their tablets and pdas do have good handwriting recognition, I mean exactly that. I mean, it is good. I've used it, it works. It understands what I am trying to write.
I'm not sure why it needs to be relative to anything, but if you NEED a comparison, how about: "It is very good compared to not having handwriting recognition."
Kinda like how 'light' is good...I guess you could say relative to 'dark', but sometimes dark is good too. But I still stand behind the statement that 'light is good.'
Sorry you aren't very good at using the Internet.
But if you 'Google' the term, "handwriting recognition" you will find many other devices/products/software packages that allow for handwriting recognition that are NOT produced by Microsoft.
But if your contribution to the conversation starts and ends with, "Good relative to what?" then I am guessing that the whole purpose of looking up information is lost on you.
You say Windows Mobile Bluetooth stack is lobotomized.
I've been playing full-stereo music on my bluetooth headphones for quite a while on my Windows phone- but they've just added that feature to iPhones. Previously you needed to use a dongle.
So the Bluetooth stack is lobotomized in comparison to what?
Their tablets and pda's do have good handwriting recognition. Use one- they're good.
But for real input, handwriting recognition is eclipsed by having a keyboard, so it's not that big of a deal really.