Not to mention not just barter trade but delays in timing are resolved. You can't keep fresh corn to pay your heating bill in January for example. Having a non-perishable store of value is very convenient.
Let's get one thing straight. I am giving the detractors a pass on the term "hero", but that doesn't mean Snowden is not an admirable and highly effective actor in the current play of tyranny against human rights, and there are sure damn few of those.
I am already kind of regretting paying too much attention to what Wikipedia calls "the will for self sacrifice" as a determinant for who deserves the term "hero". The Greek root for hero means "protector" or "defender".
The best example I can think of for true misuse of "hero" is the pilot of a jetliner whose skill saves the occupants of a jetliner in a ditching or crash landing. That pilot is saving HIMSELF as well as everybody else on the plane. The lives of those other occupants have absolutely zero bearing on what he must do.
I was going to make a reply along those lines; that such are the attitudes that enable tyrannies, but on reflection I reconsidered. It is my belief that AC was driving in a different direction. I believe AC was indicating that governments sometimes have a case to make that one of their prime directives (defense of the nation) may lead them on occasion to skirt legalities. Please note, I am not saying the defense justifies the action in any particular case. I am saying what I believe AC was driving at: the NSA, and the present tyranny, has gone way beyond the point where they can even make that defense with a straight face.
Just to clarify, the constitution is not something to be honored only when convenient. The constitution, underlaid as it is by human rights, does not say whatever the NSA or congress or the president decides it says. It does not even say what the supreme court decides it says. It says what it says. I really mean that. The supreme court is an instrumentality of the constitution, not the reverse. When the supreme court says "the constitution really means X when it says Y", or "it really means Z but it just forgot to say Z", it has gone rogue - the former, since the latter by definition cannot go rogue.
The founders never intended that the integrity of the constitution rely on the supreme court, nor does the constitution say that it does. The only ones who can fix the tyranny uncovered by Snowden and others are the people. The people are the ones who have to fix a presidential institution and congressional institution and judicial institution gone rogue. The constitution is the people's champion and guide, but the supreme court is not a police force they can call up to fix things. Only by asserting their rights and voting with their rights uppermost in their mind can they fix things.
An interesting intellectual point. I take it you think "owning up" to asserting your rights and turning yourself in to a tyrant's forces is more somehow more heroic than doing your level best to expose and undermine the tyrant. That may be true by the definition of "hero", but I believe value to good is more important than pointless self sacrifice.
I would categorically disagree in the strongest possible terms - i.e., vehemently - with your premise that "if one isn't prepared to face whatever the consequences are for the choices that they make, then they probably shouldn't be doing that in the first place". Yes, there is a need for heroes, but asserting one's rights - the rights of the people - should not require every individual to be a hero.
Actually Snowden took a big risk on behalf of championing the rights of the people: the risk that he would be persecuted by a tyranny for the actions he took. Can you say the same? I am not willing to make the claim on my own behalf, so I have a damn high threshold for calling those who stick their necks out for me and my brothers "unheroic".
I'll go further than that. I'll say it is an integer between -1 and +1.
How is this comment not scored 5 yet? Page after page of drivel and misconceptions, and this comment nails it.
I agree with the hints bit. Not as good as some shading or whatever before you try to interact with a control but even if they just did some effect when you moused over things you can click on it would have been nice. It is completely touch on a small screen centric in the OS though. You can't (easily) "hover" with a finger. Your screen is small and/or low res so you can't waste space with silly things like controls: they need to fly in only when necessary. Etc. Yet another reason why there should have been a desktop (mouse and keyboard) vs tablet interface. They could have been similar perhaps the difference would just have been whether or not the Apps menu or charms are visible by default would have gone a long way to make desktop users more comfortable. Similar to the taskbar once they were comfortable and knew where things are they could have enabled autohide.
I thought it was "great success". Now I go have sexy time with my sister.
It is part of the UI design concept: essentially they wanted to break away from trying to mimic the real world (see iBooks for example): which to an extent I agree with, adding a 1 s delay to try to pretend like you aren't on a computer is silly. But window boarder effects: I agree making them pretty doesn't hurt. They could have at least left a "Aero" mode in even if it wasn't the default.
I get sub 10 s boot time. When rebooting my monitor just recognizes no signal and then flickers when it refreshes I'm on the login screen. I don't even get to see the bios anymore because the monitor doesn't detect the computer before it is coming up on the login screen.
Win 8.1 is very usable. Stability: not so much in my experience but could be the apps I'm using. Firefox and Visual Studio generally crash once a day for me at work. That said as long as it recovers well from a crash I don't really care.
Too not much enough coffee happens to all of us.