Ugh. I didn't notice that :-(

When I moved from my iPhone 6 to my Nexus 6 I thought that the rear sensor was gonna be weird, but quickly found that I liked it. Still like it on my 3XL. I too hope the rear sensor returns before I need to upgrade again, but the trend across all MFGs is that once they remove something, it doesn't come back...

I'd have to think that this is a worse result for the companies in question than if NN had stood. Now instead of one set of regulations they have to deal with they'll potentially have 50.

While I don't agree with the FCC, I think the court made the correct decision on both counts here. If it's not codified in law, then it is easy for the next administration to reverse it. And if the federal government isn't going to step in protect it's people, then the states should be able to do so if the so choose (and it only impacts things within that state's borders).

This is one of those areas where it is messier.

While I have no problem with CA suffering under the rule of CARB if that's what they want to do, the reality is that car manufacturers don't want to make 2 (or conceivably 50) versions of the same car to be sold in specific states. It's simply not practical for them on a cost basis. This gives CARB the implicit power to enforce their views on other states and override their rights.

Further, if the manufacturers did actually produce CA and non-CA approved cars (like they did when CARB first got started) you run into the potential problem of CARB ultimately cracking down to the point that non-approved vehicles couldn't enter the state (thus making the family road trip to the Grand Canyon tricky). So in this case we have the potential of impacting inter state commerce which is definitely something the federal government has jurisdiction over.

I have no love for what CARB has become over the last few decades, but they were instrumental during their founding years in cleaning up both CA and the country as a whole. They shouldn't, however, have the power that they have. Regulations that have a multi-state impact should be governed by the federal government through guidance and participation of the states. CARB should be able to propose stricter standards, but all states should be able to have their say.

Yes, but when they give it away for free with few limitations they shouldn't be complaining when someone else figures out how to monetize it or otherwise use it in a manner you object to.

If you don't want others benefiting from your work, don't give it away. That is kind of contrary to the OSS principle though...

A design has failed when it forces people to work around it for common/expected tasks.

That is definitely an option if you know/remember they are going to do it to you. That doesn't always work on phones/tablets, however, as some cases (memory usage) will cause it to reload the page when you go back to the original tab and you are back to square one anyway.

Thank you for proving my point.

Your narrow vision about this one case is part of the problem. It's not just this one thing, it is the sum of all the little things that are known and not known. People seem to be in a mad dash to post as much of their life to the internet as possible. We have cameras in our house and outside watching us. We have fitness trackers and GPS devices tracking our movements. We have devices that notice when we are home or not to determine what our AC/heat should be set at. We have connected fridges and washing machines. We have devices that we know are listening and we actively talk to them and we have devices that we don't know are watching (Samsung TVs was it?) or listening (Nest devices with undocumented microphones) to us. And that is just the passive collection, don't forget all the Twiter/Facebook/etc.. posts people are making which constantly leak useful information.

All that data on it's own is relatively meaningless, but added together it gives a very detailed profile of your life. The likes of Google, Amazon, Facebook, and others have long since said that is the data that they want. That is where they are and will make their money. It's all about controlling the message you see so you will think (buy) like they want. There isn't an argument about this as they have come out and said it (regardless of how they sugar coat it with tales of making shopping and searching easier).

Even beyond the implications of that, you simply have no control over that data. Maybe your data never gets touched. Maybe some anonymous pervert gets access to your more intimate data. Maybe you have a jilted ex that works for one of these data magnets. Maybe law enforcement gets easier access to your information because you freely gave it away to another site that is more cooperative with them than you might be (even if they are mistaken and your are not their actual target of investigation). Maybe you get lucky and go through life with none of your data mishandled, but the reality is that all these things have already happened many times over to many people.

So when their links for more details/references open in the same tab rather than a new one you then have to go through all that scrolling all over again to get back where you were? No thanks. They can auto scroll that "feature" right back up the ass it came from.

And maybe try sites that are interested in presenting you the desired information rather than inserting extra pages so they can stuff extra ad views in. I have yet to run across a news site worth reading that breaks up articles like that. Hell, Fox News doesn't even do that garbage. The only place I'll accept multiple pages for an article is for instructions for how to do something. Anything else where I scroll down and find a "next page" link is a dead giveaway that I'm wasting my time.

I'll give them Obj-C since Apple was the only one really using it and they've now moved on.

I've never followed Ruby (outside of the cross over for writing Puppet and Chef modules) as it never offered me anything significant over languages I was already using, so I can't speak to it's life expectancy.

Haskell and R are too useful for the areas they were designed for, so I highly doubt they are going anywhere. Just maybe they won't be used for things where they aren't the optimal language.

People have been predicting Perl's demise for over 20 years, but it's still kicking. While Python has definitely eaten away at Perl's kingdom, Perl is still kicking.

Even though I think their specific conclusions are incorrect, the suggestion they offer is sound and how I've made a solid and stable career. Don't tie yourself to any one language. Be able to work in anything so you aren't arbitrarily limited in either job selection or picking the best tool for the job.

You overestimate the knowledge and thought of most consumers. Talk to people for 5 minutes and you'll quickly see that the idea that someone else may listen to their Siri/Google query doesn't occur to them. Even when you make that clear, they still need help understanding the implications of that.

The average consumer buys because it has some specific feature they want or out of brand loyalty. Greater implications of features they may not even be aware of aren't remotely part of the equation.

What the data is is irrelevant. It's mine and they have no business looking at it or touching it.

Indeed. Even beyond the potential spying aspect everyone of those agreements I've seen has wording that they can search your device at anytime and destroy any data they choose. Ummm... No!

My response is always "If you want me to respond off hours, then you need to provide me a phone and laptop.". Honestly I look forward to the company that says "OK, you only need to work during normal business hours", but so far they just hand me the equipment I need to do the job...

Just because I have nothing particular to hide at this point in time does not mean that they have any business having access to the information.

And once they have the power, where does it stop? Today it is terrorists and drug cartels. Tomorrow it is identifying white supremacists (when the Dems are in control) or illegal aliens (if the Reps are in control). Later it's flagging any views critical of the government. It's a different scale that they have access to through today's technology, but this path has been followed many times throughout history.

Hell, even now look at what is going on in China with all their surveillance (physical and digital) that they are using to decide if you are a good enough citizen to be allowed to do various mundane things (like have a job, ride the train, etc..).

The UK isn't quite that bad, but they are quite the surveillance state as well yet they still have murders, terrorist plots, white supremacists, and other crimes. So what has all that monitoring really bought them?

No you are lying to us about who you hate as you are willfully ignorant (or lying about being ignorant) of facts on the subject and that shows your bias. You don't even have to go that far back to find the fight between Apple and the FBI over gaining access to the iPhone used by Farook. Surrounding that legal battle were politicians on both sides demanding better access from companies like Apple to the encrypted messages for law enforcement investigation.

Or how about the information that Snowden dumped on us that showed that the NSA and others had cracked the encryption of the phones? That was all well within the last administration too including when the Democrats controlled both chambers and the White House.

Stingray usage started under Bush Jr, but continued and gained popularity well into Obama's administration.

Of course under Jr we have the Patriot Act and all the destruction to our security that spawned.

Farther back and we see that while the Clipper chip was designed under Bush Sr's watch, it was under Clinton's administration that it came to light and was highly promoted.

And those are just the highlights of major items. There have also been countless other cases where the powers-that-be push the notion that encryption is bad and "if you don't have anything to hide...".

Left or Right doesn't matter. They are both corrupt and neither give a damn about your interests unless they happen to coincide with maintaining or expanding the power that they have.

You are naive or blind if you believe that. They know perfectly well what the encryption is good for and that is why they want it broken by design. Talk of criminals, terrorists, and thinking of the children is just a smoke screen to placate the masses that don't understand the scope or implications.