Yes, this is the end of an era. It is worth noting, and we should have serious discussions about the future and direction of American space travel. But this is the last space shuttle spacewalk, not the last NASA spacewalk. Who approves these headlines, anyway?
(NB: the headline comes from TFA, so don't blame
That would be a good feature! The "Sparks" idea has merit, but it doesn't do what you're suggesting, and it probably should.
No, that's the name of the malware, not the apps. FTFA:
"The malware is embedded in a seemingly legitimate application in the market, and once users download and install that app, the fun begins."
It goes on to talk about "the host app" which the malware "piggybacks". Which app? They don't tell you. They'd rather tell you that "The Apple iPhone may still be the gold standard when it comes to smartphones".
Why don't these articles ever tell you WHICH markets and apps are affected? Oh, that's right, they're too busy trying to generate page hits through scare-mongering to care about information.
(I'm not trying to say these aren't legitimate threats: quite the opposite. But, good reporting would help mitigate these threats by publicly shaming and informing.)
Look, nobody's saying this was a good idea on Google's part. It's dumb, and it's worth noting and fixing. But, there was nothing stopping your friends from copying your pictures and sending them to your boss/mother/ex-wife before, and that hasn't changed. If you're willing to chance that and use a social network, Google+ has better control and protection than Facebook, so give that a go. If you aren't, that's fine. But no privacy setting is going to save you from your friends or yourself.
OK, let's break it down.
Option 1: You want nobody to see your pictures. So, you make them private.
Option 2: You want anyone to be able to see your pictures who would want to. So, you make them public. If you're on Google+, maybe they get re-shared.
Option 3: You want your friends to be able to see your pictures, but no one else. Even if you use Google+, you use the Picassa "only those with the URL" privacy setting, and don't post the link to Google+.
Option 4: You want to share your photos with only your friends, but no one else, via Google+, but the privacy settings don't allow for that. You post to Slashdot about how horrifying this discovery was, and declare that you have decided not to join the service for this reason alone.
G+ will automatically link your Picassa account to your G+ account, yes. But it WON'T go and change the settings on all your albums to automatically share them. Those that are currently private will remain so; those that are currently public will remain so, but also be visible via G+.
Now go take off that tin-foil hat before pictures of you wearing it appear all over Google+.
There was also a Canadian federal election yesterday, with many surprising results which were all reported in this exact time slot. I know that's not as exciting as a bunch of commandos shooting a guy, but if we're going to talk facts, let's get them straight.
Availability is only half the problem in Canada. I'm paying extra for an Internet plan that only gets me 60 GB/month. That maxes out pretty quickly with anything HD!
Speed is all well and good, but it's not my main bottleneck anymore. You could make my connection 100x faster tomorrow, and it would only be frustrating because of my bandwidth cap. With that faster connection, I could hit my monthly cap within 5 minutes instead of 8 hours!
You both have a point, but sharing and using knowledge takes energy. Without the cheap energy of oil (or an alternative which has yet to take over) all that knowledge won't go very far or even last very long.
You sound unimpressed with "stuff", so don't buy "stuff". Buy experiences. Take them to the zoo, or a children's show, or a good hands-on science museum. It'll cost the same, they'll get more out of it, and there'll be that much less plastic sitting around your sibling's house.
Maybe because they can be the geekier type that have less social lives, maybe feel alienated from those around them, and thus easier to isolate and brainwash.
In other words, engineers don't get laid enough. Promise them an afterlife full of virgins, and the next thing you know....
That's only true for monoculture fed by petroleum-based fertilizers. As soon as you talk in terms of sustainable farming, with crop rotations and even mixed fields, traditional farming has productivity levels that monoculture can't touch.
It's a moot point, though. Petroleum-based monoculture cannot be sustained indefinitely. Traditional agriculture has been and--unless we continue to destroy our soils--will be.
Wait, they want to turn the International Space Station into a national lab? What about all the other countries with a stake in this real estate?
"Engineering without management is art." -- Jeff Johnson
