Dropbox employees are custodians of that data. If they can’t protect it for whatever reason Dropbox is pretty clearly at fault. Their policy on how employees have to treat data is not good enough.
If a user had re-used a password Dropbox wouldn’t be to blame. But we are talking about a goddamn employee here. That makes Dropbox directly to blame.
Hacked is a perfectly valid term to use. Dropbox allowed their employees to have user data just lying around and their policy on how employees have to treat that data seems either ineffective or non-existant.
I don’t really care that a human and not a piece of software written by a human was the point of failure here. Hack seems like the perfectly applicable term.
Scrolling is buttery-smooth on most websites, less so as complexity ramps up. (Some particularly complex Facebook pages, for example, have minor stutters, i.e. dropped animation frames.) Still, it’s minor stutters even on those.
That’s with Mountain Lion. Lion was markedly different.
It has HDMI (as well as not one but two ports that can be used as VGA ports with a simple adapter, but that’s all very much besides the point) – and I’m not sure what you were expecting?
The rMBP is the perfect embodiment of Apple’s laptop philosophy. Apple’s Steve Jobs (maybe even Steve Jobs himself, I’m not sure) pretty clearly said years ago that all laptops will be like the Airs in the future. All flash memory. No optical drive. Thinner and lighter at the expense of upgradeability. This is how they saw the future, this is what they made happen with the rMBP.
I can’t help but think that if anything, Steve Jobs would have pushed the rMBP much more aggressively (but, really, I’m just speculating here).
The rMBP, widely hailed as the best Mac since forever? You seem to be the only person on the planet disappointed by it (besides people disappointed in the glued-in battery – but that’s nothing new).
Besides, there are a few years to go until we run out of Steve Jobs products.
(I think this whole discussion is utterly pointless at this point. Look at Apple’s stock in ten years and you will know the impact of Jobs. I have my doubts that it will be possible to say much meaningful now.)
Removing RSS functionality: A defensible decision, I think. Many excellent third-party RSS readers are available and this fits Apple’s overall theme of simplifying the OS: there are more system apps but each does less and only a very specific thing (Mail was split in Mail and Notes, iCal was split in Calendar and Reminders), iTunes being the big exception. RSS was never a good fit for Mail, why should Apple have to schlepp around that ballast for all eternity?
Removing user data: That is indefensible. There should be a painless way for users to export their RSS feeds on first launch (an OPML file would be minimum, better would be some even tighter solution that is not as painful and annoying as dealing with an OPML file.
(Yes, I know that technically Apple didn’t remove the data – but no one should be expected to conduct such a preposterous rescue mission for their data. This is also not meant as a criticism of her, it’s pretty clear that she is more or less ok with Apple removing the functionality, just not the data.)
What do you want to say with the last four paragraphs? That's value as in monetary value, i.e. about the costs of the calorimeter system described in the report, taking into account labor costs in different countries. It has nothing to do with the other meaning of value, i.e. how the contributions of "non-western members" are valued.
Racism is still pervasive in western countries, so it's certainly possible – my guess is likely – that it plays some role even at CERN, but what you are quoting there is no evidence for racism. That's an absurd interpretation.
No, the subtitle said pretty clearly that Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web. I think confusing that with the Internet has nothing to do with the UK boosting their role in popularizing the Internet (since media outlets all over the world get it wrong all the time) and everything with many people not understanding the Internet.
In Germany it’s €215.76 per year, so about $266. Similar, but I can’t help and feel that value for money is worse here. There is some real cool stuff the BBC does that just does not exist in Germany.
But it seems that the Olympics will get pretty great coverage, also on the web. (There were, e.g., streams with and without commentary available tonight.)
No, I don't. But it doesn't matter. As an organization you have to go where your users are. And they are on Twitter.
This is something no single organization can solve. It's impossible. And email is about the absolute worst example. No, it absolutely didn't solve the problem. First the users had to come. Before that it was worthless.
I think many here are delusional about how this works.
No, you won't. You will be dramatically worse off. You have to go where your users are. And they are on Twitter, not your own hosted thing.
Twitter will not make or break most organizations. If it were to disappear tomorrow most any organization will have plenty of time to look for alternatives. In the meantime Twitter wins. Always. By a mile.
Don’t you browse your music? I’m very particular about my music collection and I definitely need to browse it. Sometimes I just do not know what I want to listen to, so search is useless. And looking at something like all albums from 2009 (because I know some good music came out then) can be very useful for me.
I do not care about the structure on the disc. I use my music library app to browse.
Is it really so hard to see the real value a service like Facebook provides? I’m personally not a fan of Facebook (but found it to be tremendously useful for quite a few things in the past) but I know several people who find it very useful. At its worst it’s a silly diversion (ála Reddit or Hacker News, though certainly not worse than those), at its best it’s a rich communication infrastructure tailor-made for certain kinds of relationships.
Social networks are here to stay. They fix many of the shortcomings of older ways of communicating. Facebook has shown that it’s possible to make money with that. Their current numbers are most certainly not an invalidation of the business model or service, it’s more that they might have wanted too much.
Social networks are a sound idea. Facebook has a competent implementation of a social network. Maybe it’s not enough to rule the world – but I think it’s enough to make some money and be a healthy business (though Facebook seems to want more).
All MRAs I’ve ever heard were downright weird in their worldview. There are some problems worth fighting for (nothing comparable with what women faced and still face), sure, but that doesn’t seem to be their focus. Their focus seems to be demonizing feminists and derailing. (Let’s quickly talk about custody: feminists and MRAs could actually be marching in exactly the same direction: The root cause of the problem are strict gender roles, women are for taking care of children, men are for working. But no, feminists are to blame. MRAs also love using warped statistics, but that is very much besides the point. There is no reasonableness in that movement.)
The text implies that some sort of MR movement would spring up as a widespread reaction to feminism (and it doesn’t have any comparable issues to fight for, it doesn’t have the numbers, it doesn’t have the intellectual depth nor the academic backbone). It did spring up as a tiny reaction to feminism. Wikipedia tells me that the movement has its roots in the 1970s, so it’s not like this would have been something completely new in 1987. It’s hard to say, but I see no reason to believe that the MR movement is that much bigger than it was in 1987. And it still defines itself as a reaction to feminism. Which makes about zero sense. All the issues they are fighting for were not caused by feminism. Far from it. Many feminists will be perfectly capable of recognizing them as valid problems. (But, again, that’s very much besides the point.)
The second point is technically accurate – but does it really count if it’s a delusional movement by a few crazies that is in no way comparable to to the women’s movement and mostly based on a completely weird worldview (all the while many of the legitimate goals of the women’s movement are far from reached)?
If a user had re-used a password Dropbox wouldn’t be to blame. But we are talking about a goddamn employee here. That makes Dropbox directly to blame.