To use a car analogy, what you said is like questioning the worth of seatbelts. Just because they don't save every life in an accident doesn't mean that it not worth wearing them.

Let's carry your analogy to its conclusion...

The auto industry fought seatbelts tooth and nail and it took Congressional regulation for them to even consider them. That's part of how Ralph Nader earned his name recognition. Much like the software industry is fighting tooth and nail any attempt to make their software safe.

My way to fix this is much more simpler. Simply make the "AS-IS" clause of their EULA null and void and allow the users to sue for the damages when their defective products really hurts real people. A few high profile suits will make them put more of a priority on these vulnerabilities.

I don't own a smartphone and never will. Hell, I got my first cell phone only last year when I was forced to have a way to communicate when on the road and there are no pay phones anymore. I just don't see the draw in these expensive toys. I got the most stupid phone on the planet (and the cheapest non-contract prepaid one to boot) and I use it *GASP* as a phone! Nothing more. I may rarely send a text but all-in-all I can even do without that. Everything I've been reading about those phones leads me to believe they are too invasive to my privacy for my likes. Most of the time my phone is off (not that it is really off without removing the battery). Everything from geolocation for targeted advertising to the phone provider themselves profiting off the phone's always on monitoring is disturbing to me.

Then the stories like this comes along. Anything that can be remotely controlled by you can also be remotely controlled by someone else. Whether that someone else is good or bad is irrelevant. The fact that they can control it is bad enough for me. So now my crotchety ass will have to check to ensure my other household appliances are just as stupid as my phone is.

:blockquote>I don't think anything will solve any type of police misconduct in one fell swoop, but I doubt a supreme court ruling against this crap would hurt.

We are talking about the same SCOTUS that fucked up Citizen's United right? Are you so sure of that statement? Personally, I hope a case involving the recording of cops NEVER comes before them.

It might be easier to use but it sure isn't cheaper to turn a whole country's system of weights and measures. Right now is NOT a good time to be paying for changing all the signs in the US to reflect metric. Nor is ti time to change all the gas pumps for the same reason. It just plain isn't economical. Besides, that is what God created conversion programs for.

But not having to register property that I legally purchased strikes me as an important part, in particular, of gun ownership.

So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car? It is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.

Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles. Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them. Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing). Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party. In short, take it from a right to a responsibility with real world consequences when that responsibility is violated.

The car doesn't know if you're inside or outside when locking the door with the remote, duh. For all the alarm knows, there's a burglar curled on the seat, waiting to drive off as soon as the owner walks away.

Actually, my Lincoln Town Car does know if you are in the seat when you hit the remote lock. It uses the same sensors used for seatbelt detection. Hit the lock on the remote while you are in the seat and the driver's side door will immediately unlock and the car will beep at you in an annoying way. It wants you out of the car before you can hit that button.

That SOB should have been court-martialed and shot.

"Old soldiers never die. They simply fade away..."

The whole freedom, fsf, whatever claim seems also weird for somebody that mentions different software patents on his resume. I find it kind of hypocritical for somebod with high freedom morals.

True freedom would be donating the code to the public domain so in that regard even the FSF is hypocritical since the GPL itself has restrictions in its use.

Let's go back to the grandparent:

Is that something easy for the average user?

Now let's list those steps again:

1. Admin Powershell prompt (easily available even on Windows RT).
2. Show-WindowsDeveloperLicenceRegistration (yes, this is a PS command. Try "show-wi" + [TAB])
3. Enter Windows Live credentials. They don't have to be the ones you sign in with (in fact, you don't have to be using Windows Live signin at all), and the don't have to be associated with a developer account in any way. In fact, they can be for a throw-away account.
4. Download an APPX package and run its install script. Congrats, sideloading achieved.

The status of the "developer registration" will need to be periodically refreshed, as by default it expires after a month. However, it costs nothing except a trivial amount of time, and you can refresh it repeatedly.

Doesn't look to me like something the "average user" (read Joe Sixpack) can do to me.... Besides, I thought Microsoft hated the command line given their proclivity to denigrate its use in Linux.

Windows 8 is a great OS, better than 7 in every way, but since the start menu changed, its obviously trash. Humanity is just dumb.

Two things come to mind:

He is correct that its usability suffers from Metro and the abrupt changes to the UI when it is being pushed so hard. One of many points made in the video was that people who have never used it will find it very confusing because in more ways than one the UI gets in the way. Microsoft trying to have its cake and eat it too is what is causing all this grief. Instead of doing like Apple did with the change from OS9 to OS10 and dropping legacy and backwards compatibility to go with the new paradigm they want to maintain backwards compatibility. This is because Microsoft fears backlash from both its main customers, big businesses and governments, and the developers for those businesses and governments. Worse, they really made it for the tablet market all the while still trying to hold onto the laptop / desktop market with it. The point made in the video of the differences between a mouse / touchpad and touchscreen are valid.

To do it right, Metro should NOT be the default interface if you are installing it to a machine without a touchscreen just as the "classic" should not be the default if you are installing it to a tablet. They are different beasts. A tablet is more for viewing content than it is a great workhorse for making that content no matter what Microsoft or Apple may think. An even better solution is to do two different products. One for the tablets and one for the desktop / laptop and let the consumers choose which they really want for what products. Again, that too was pointed out in this video.

The second observation of your post deals with your contempt for humans. It is those very humans that Microsoft is trying to impress. There is a very, very large segment of the population that are not pleased with the Metro interface that Microsoft really wants to go with. The so called "fix" of downloading a second application to eliminate it as the advice that is often given is proof enough of that dislike. Calling that many people names isn't the way to win over support.

Here is the part that gets me:

Samsung is expected to

"expected to" != "has done". Call me when they have succeeded.

Sure. Let's joke about posting personal pictures of a non-consenting party.

No, I take issue with this waste of money:

The hackers arrest in October 2011 stemmed from an 11-month investigation into the hacking of over 50 entertainment industry names, many of them young female stars. Hacked pictures of Johansson showed her in a state of undress in a domestic setting.

If they didn't want these pictures out there then they shouldn't have had them taken. They shouldn't have kept them in an electronic form or on any item connected to the internet. It is their own fault.

But the bigger picture is the waste of taxpayer money as the FBI spends 11 months working at the behest of Hollywood. No wonder the people want to disband the federal government with actions like this.

Replying to my own above:

This is an even better response to these idiots:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church-aurora-shooting-vigil_n_1693375.html

This wall of humans should follow these clowns wherever they go.

No one needs to protect speech that does not offend the majority.

And no one needs to protect them when they spew their hate. Let them take the consequences of their speech. After all, speech does have consequences.

I think the best thing that could happen would be for all of the victims families to sue for slander sequentially one after the other. Cost them an arm and a leg defending that. Being tied up in court should keep them off the streets at night.

I can see the OPs point. If you know the subject being lectured then you should be able to clep out of it. Take the exam and if you can pass it then you have the credit and can move on. Having to sit through a lecture that you could probably give is boring as all hell. Attendance policies ensures that people who don't belong there are disrupting the lesson for those that do all because some asshat set a policy of failure if you aren't there.