Without lectures, how will I get any sleep? All the rest of the time is taken up with important activities.

But will they have defocused temporal perception like the rest of the elevators in the galaxy?

Most of the comments so far appear to be anecdotal. What happened to actually applying experimental science? Chiropractors should not have a problem with this if what they do actually works. Generally, I have found (in my unscientific, non-random sampling) that chiropractors and their devotees view the whole thing more like a religion. When the idea of scientific verification is brought into the discussion, the response is to attack the legitimacy of scientific research. Every big lie contains some truth. There is too many faulty medical research studies published, so some criticism is valid. In the main, however, medical science has been advanced by a lot of solid basic and applied research.

Since there is not much financial reward in research that debunks the chiropractic religion, and since there is strong financial incentive for the chiropractic priests to continue, I doubt that we will see much reliable, well done studies on their methods and results any time soon.

If I drop a plugged in, turned on, toaster into a bathtub with someone in it, I am held liable if they die, not the toaster manufacturer. This is because the toaster came with a warning not to do such a thing. If this same toaster (before the terrible bathtub incident) catches on fire and burns my house down while toasting bread, then I can sue the manufacturer. In this case, I am using the toaster for its intended purpose when the mishap occurred.

To say that the software developer cannot know or cannot define how the software will be used is shirking responsibility to customers and the general public. Right now, the software industry is getting away with it. The public will not indefinitely allow us this failure to take responsibility for the products we develop. Those seemingly silly, common sense warnings that come with the toaster are the result of lawsuits and regulations because the public used the toaster in other ways than was intended. People suffered then sued. This means that toasters cost more money. On the plus side, we have (generally) working toasters that do what they are supposed to do without shorting out our electrical circuits or burning our houses down. There will always be exceptions.

Countries that do not have liable laws that protect their citizens and/or whose government does not adequately regulate or enforce safety tend to produce inferior and dangerous products. This is one reason people in some places will pay more for several American products--they tend to be more reliable and safer because our legal system and government force US manufacturers to meet higher standards. This is not what is happening in the software industry. Countries that force higher standards on software used within that country will attract developers who are able to meet the demands of that market. That superior product will eventually be in demand elsewhere.

There is a lot of insecure, crappy software out there that threatens to do much worse than burn individual houses down. Software developers will have to conceive of how their software will be used; they will have to define those uses; and they will need to clearly communicate those uses to the end users in easy to understand language. Eventually, the public will require these things through lawsuits and government regulation. In the long run, it will be good for the software industry and capable developers.

This is true, but mainly because the public is not willing to pay for the value offered. We want our software to be amazing, we want it now, and we don't really want to pay for it. Then we complain when corners are cut (security is just one area). This is not a sustainable model.

The public will pay more if they must. The value of many products far exceed the costs. Financial pressures of security liability would force the production of more secure products. This will drive up the price, but the public will pay for it if the product is truly useful. Those incompetent developers that cannot compete because they cannot create secure enough products will fail, giving more room for the competent to flourish.

Issues of liability vs cost are determined by different factors, people, and institutions. There are a lot of variables in play. There is not one entity who decides, "Perhaps software should assume greater liability for security, but, nah, then it would be too expensive."

Security liability is determined by people suing and winning money for damages caused by insecure software. This will increase costs which will hurt free software, and small developers. For the competent few, this will be a bad thing. For everyone else that has to deal with the crap put out both by large and small groups of developers, this will be a good thing in the long run.

Now ELUAs essentially say, "we are not responsible for damage, data loss, financial loss, or other bad things that happen to you or our customers when you use our buggy, insecure, and poorly designed product that doesn't actually do all we said it does." This is ridiculous, but the uneducated consumer is not putting enough market pressure on the software industry to force better practices. In the long run, this hurts the industry because there is not enough disincentive for the incompetent to get out of the way. Thus, we have to put up with too many sloppy coders, unrealistic schedules, clueless managers, and poor design concepts.

Yes, adding the possibility of being sued for insecure software will make it more expensive. Yes, it will make it harder for freeware, adware, and small developers to compete. Yes, in a minority of cases, this is a loss, but as the majority of inferior developers and their products will be unable to afford the liability of law suits, it will open up more opportunities for the responsible and capable.

People should not have vast amounts of data. Period.

In general, people who remain active in forums do so because either (1) they are extremely determined, or (2) have nothing better to do.

I post here from time to time because I remember when /. was useful, and I remain too idealistic.

A couple of months ago, I was out with some of a client's IT people. One of them started boasting that in his down time he likes to log on to various forums (including /.) and "fuck with the assholes there." There was no agenda. His goal was to just mess up the forum. Over the years, I've come to believe that there is a whole culture that revolves around this philosophy. Some people have actually figured out how to make money off of it, hiring themselves out as trolls. It is so easy to do, and it gives an outlet for venting frustration by angry, incompetent people with nothing better in their miserable lives.

Bottom line though: the quality of the forum depends upon the quality of moderation. Since the /. moderation has steadily eroded over the years, I expect this post will be modded down to a -1 and no one will read it.

... is futile.

There was a time that some of felt we weren't doing anything worthwhile unless the FBI had a file on us. We were young and stupid, but that didn't make us wrong.

Perhaps I can catch me some trolls. All I have to do is snooker them into going to the link and installing the ransomware on their machine. I'll just call it "a personal message from Putin on how you can help make Russia Great Again."

Of all the things wrong with web site design, the spacebar scrolling function is what bothers you? Here's what you do:
1) Install and use Firefox.
2) Tap "Enter Reader View" at the end of the URL box.
3) Use the spacebar to scroll pages if that is what turns you on.

In any case, you'll get rid of all the floating crap that gets in the way of actually reading the article. That stuff is just as bad as the blinking text (I mean the text literally blinked--not kidding) from the 90s.

If Reader View doesn't work on the particular website you care about, then just close it out and go to another. Except for a few cases where organizations do actual journalism, everyone just says pretty much just copies each other.