Two main things:
1 - Laziness
2 - Unreasonable deadlines
Two main things:
1 - Laziness
2 - Unreasonable deadlines
You know advertisements on Slashdot just financed your ability to post that message.
You seem to have artificial and arbitrary barriers confused with "high standards".
Do you think the lottery has a "high standard" for lottery winners? Then why aren't there more winners?
The iPhone offered new things in a phone, things the average consumer didn't realize were possible. The iPad offers... what? I just don't see it. The only significant difference between the iPad and an iTouch is the screen size.
I think you'd be amazed how many people are wishing just for an iPhone with a larger screen... because that's the only thing they see as a real limitation in their iPhone. Well, and that's there no way to attach a keyboard when they have to write some more text.
Like it or hate it, but there are lots and lots of people out there who don't actually want to deal with computers and software and files. They want an appliance that does some simple things in an easy, friendly way, nothing more.
I believe *we* are the ones who have been brainwashed (or brainwashed ourselves) to love "computers". For a while computers were new and full of limitless capabilities. Now they are the most boring things under the sun, complicated tools full of crap, forcing you to solve over and over the same problems that are being solved at the same time all over the world again and again. There's nothing less geeky than computers today. 99% of the time you're wasting with computers does not teach you anything worthwhile or helps you to solve new and interesting problems. Just servicing cheap and crappy machinery and software, that's all.
Well, there are exceptions, but not many.
I'd say yes, that's fair. Windows 7 and Vista and XP are all the same amount of secure because the ship date of the problematic code doesn't change. It's the same problem, same code, same ship date.
If you come across a problem in Windows 8 which exists in XP, you're going to say wait, how can an unreleased operating system be rated on its security? How can a new operating system be at the same risk level as something which has been running and exploitable all these years? Because day 0 when it's finally released, you have brand new systems running, which are vulnerable to a 9-year-old exploit. To me, that magnifies the risk in a way that offsets your claim.
Supplier reaction speed is important, but it's hard to tell when someone tells Microsoft about a bug, MS refuses to fix it because it's just a DOS, then someone turns it into an attack vector, suddenly it's a security patch and the turnaround was 1 week. In reality, they have probably been keeping the bug on the back burner, maybe already fixed it and just running through tests. When the DOS turns into a vector, they just pack it up and ship. Relying on vendor response speed is a nice idea, but I don't think we can trust everyone to give us honest data.
So definitions come into play. How long did the vendor know about a problem, which turned into a security issue? How long did the company withhold information in order to pretend they don't have problems? We'll never know most of that with many companies, unless they have a public bugzilla type environment. MS Connect is getting there, but nowhere near where it needs to be.
I think you have more or less formulated the ONLY viable argument for Google DNS: as a hardened service for their OWN software.
I won't use it because I don't want to provide more data to Google (ditto for not using Chrome, FF works better for me), but I'm not dissing the service itself - it depends on your tolerance for risk, and of your need for a DNS. I'd use OpenDNS in that case.
However I will state that IMHO the attorney advising the 22 year old man take that plea bargain is an idiot.
I still believe that you don't have enough information to make this judgment.
I stated that to be my opinion. I did not state it as fact. From my point of view taking that plea bargain is an idiotic thing to do.
If I were the accused I would plead not guilty and profess my innocence until the end of time. I would plead not guilty, and appeal any verdict other than that.
"I don't like the jury's verdict" is not a valid grounds for appeal. You might just be professing your innocence from the comfort of a prison cell for the following 20 years.
There is always grounds for appeal. You have the right to appeal any conviction if you so choose.
And if you were found to be a guilty felon - by trial or plea bargain - you might as well be there for 20 years. Hell, you might as well be there for two hundred year because you'll have virtually nothing to look forward to upon release. Convicted felons have no credit, no job prospects, and damned near no rights. They can be refused employment from an employer, and terminated from any job at any time with no recourse. They can be refused an education at any institution. The likelihood of a convicted felon being able to earn enough money to keep a roof over his/her head and keep him/herself fed is extremely slim in this country. He would be better off staying in prison where at least he'd be fed.
For the accused, anything less than a not guilty verdict, or dismissal of charges, would be a tremendous failure.
Assuming his version of the story is true and accurate, I would tend to agree. But if you were the accused, you'd have to factor in that the system does fail from time to time, and it might fail YOU. You need to weigh in the consequences of such a failure.
If he were to plead not guilty, and somehow end up convicted, he would be no worse off than if he had plead guilty (for the reasons I just laid out as well as others). However if he pleads not guilty he retains the right to appeal. Most plea bargains involve surrendering your right to an appeal. Sure it is possible that the system could fail and lead to him being convicted but if he pleads not guilty he retains the right to an appeal.
the very thought that a few deleted images could lead to the end of this man's productive life are truly insane.
I would tend to agree with that, however the rationality of the situation the accused is in is not what I was commenting on.
From my point of view it is critical to the situation. We're not talking about a misdemeanor charge here. We are talking about a life-altering (argument could be made for it really being life-ending) charge.
All I'm saying is that, given the reality that the accused currently faces, I can't see how taking the plea bargain is idiotic. It might very well be idiotic, but I if not seen enough information to make that determination.
Place yourself in his situation for the moment. Imagine yourself as a 22-year-old man with no criminal record, facing felony charges. Keep in mind that the job market sucks right now for a lot of well-qualified workers. Would you be willing to sacrifice the rest of your life because your appointed attorney thinks its a good idea? Unless there is a profound change in the criminal justice system (especially with regards to rehabilitation and restoration of rights), this guy might as well go jump off a bridge because he will have virtually nothing to look forward to over the remainder of his life if he is convicted, and the same could be said if he takes the plea bargain. If the plea bargain involved - at the very least - bargaining the charge down to a misdemeanor, then it might be reasonable.
But why on earth someone would ever consider such a plea in such a situation is beyond me.
Oh please. Our system is "working" just fine. 95% of American's get plenty to eat (too much, including me). We get fresh clean water at a moments notice - even the poorest among us can get free clean water. We can even manage jobs for 30+ million illegal immigrants.
My cat gets plenty to eat, fresh clean water at a moments notice (she'll let you know). And, she has a "job" keeping rodents away. But... she desperately wants to go outside, and I won't let her. She doesn't have Freedom, she has creature comforts.
News stories fall under copyright laws, so your ability to hear about the state of the world will be affected by ACTA. I'd say it's a very important, especially since we all know that people like Rupert Murdoch are intent on locking up information as tightly as possible to squeeze every last dime out of your pocket.
I mean Crunchpad, ok, I could buy something like that, but, something named 'joojoo' just isn't that interesting sounding. Hell, that is about as bad as that company "Wang" a couple of decades ago. Did they not have any idea of the connotations of "wang" in the US?
They also believed that every citizen needed to own a gun in order to protect the nation.
In other words, they believed things that were true in the late 18th century.
Owning a gun to protect the nation is as much true today as it was in the late 18th century. In Switzerland, they still believe it, and to this day they don't waste any money on a standing army. Instead, every militia member (which is every male 18-45) has a fully-automatic rifle in his house, ready to defend his nation if necessary. When WWII came around and Hitler and Mussolini invaded almost every country in Europe, he left little Switzerland alone because of this.
They also believed that it was just peachy to own people who's skin was darker than theirs.
No, they didn't. That's another liberal lie. Many of the Founding Fathers were against slavery, and it was strongly debated during the formation of the Union. They decided to compromise and allow the South to keep slavery so that they could keep them in the Union, because if they hadn't, they wouldn't have had a Union at all and wouldn't have been able to stand up against Britain.
You do realize the "Founding Fathers" weren't of one mind about everything, don't you? Anyone who has a clue about American history knows they were divided into two main camps, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
If the machine was clearly marked as having a $99K max payout, he should get the $99K. If it didn't, he should get the $166 million and if the Seminoles won't pay, they should end up in jail as racketeers.
In 1914, the first crossword puzzle was printed in a newspaper. The creator received $4000 down ... and $3000 across.