First, no. HDD recovery is expensive but possible in many cases.
Secondly, no one say it should be counted as a weakness, the guy above was just pointing out that it's probably not a strength, as someone above claimed.
That said, you should have seen my face when my ISP emailed me my very password for online access, in plain text. It was something like 123456. Unforgivable double offense.
Their tools truncated my changed password to 25 characters silently (first clue), their password reset tool emailed the plaintext password back to me (second clue), and their "api" endpoint errors out when I use special characters in my password (last clue).
You usually don't get to be a billionaire without spending a lot of time in the office and working pretty hard. To give some apropos examples: Marissa Mayer is reportedly going over every Yahoo hire; _In The Plex_ mentions Page doing the same thing at Google.
"Police had to step in to keep order among investors queuing to buy shares as the internet gold rush swept dramatically into Hong Kong.
A crowd of about 30,000 people formed outside one of the few banks where small investors could apply for shares in internet firm tom.com.
...
Thousands of investors pushed and shoved through queues stretching back as far as half a mile to hand in their forms at the worst hit HSBC branch in Kowloon.
Analysts have predicted that the Hong Kong firm's share sale will prove to have been a record 2,000 times over-subscribed."
I switched from IE to Firefox and, looking back, I don't regret it, for the very same reason. Mozilla is the only non-profit and Mozilla is by far the best FOSS browser. Besides, Mozilla keeps pushing for new and better schemes and is one of the few companies that won't track your web usage.
I just wish more people knew about these. Most people just look at the speed with one tab open and pick Chrome.
>I'll commit suicide long before this kind of "technology" arrives.
That's kind of strong...
>It does nothing to advance the human race except make them lazier.
You seem to believe that humans are supposed to use their muscles to do stuff. But why should we not voluntarily "evolve" to become intelligences that control our environment through our brains and harness it through minimal interactions? Is our goal not to discover everything and discard unimportant distractions such as opening the fridge and going to the mall from the seeking of knowledge?
It's a matter of opinions, but just remember that this is not intrinsincally bad. If we can alter our bodies to become detached from physical needs such as feeding, sleeping and everything that we do to prevent our deaths, I can say I'd embrace it.
While that may be true, your conscious only experiences the Now, and focusing on what other form conscious will take in the future and not enjoying what you are now could rob you of deeply experience what you already are.
One of the things I'm experiencing Now is a sense of limitless unfolding possibility for the future. Ignoring that would also rob me of a deep experience of what I have.
Is it unacceptable laziness to use a dishwasher, even though it's more efficient? A car to travel two miles? A remote instead of walking over to the TV? Cruise control on your car? A riding mower instead of a self-propelled walk behind?
We've always been pushing for ways that let us do things with less effort. I think we just need to accept that in order to stay healthy, we need to be active in ways we enjoy instead of by relying on doing things the hard way/slightly less easy way.
If this is about lack of consistency, then where's the lack of consistency? Did Adria go to a conference (or other professional space) and start telling lewd jokes? I don't think so.
Your argument is basically akin to saying that, because I told some dirty jokes to my friends in private, I'm never allowed to complain when someone tells a dirty joke in public.
>Your argument is basically akin to saying that, because I told some dirty jokes to my friends in private, I'm never allowed to complain when someone tells a dirty joke in public.
Ah, Twitter is now considered private but two devs speaking in their chairs are pretty much delivering a speech.
Besides, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said you're not allowed to do these things, but you shouldn't be allowed to complain about it, just like senators who watch porn lose credibility when passing laws against all forms of porn.
No, Twitter isn't private, but neither is it forcing anyone to read it. Those two guys forced the people around them to listen to a lewd joke, whether or not they intended to.
There's also a matter of context. A personal twitter stream is a very different context than a professional event. If I'm friends with my coworkers, I may hang out with them after work, and a dirty joke then is perfectly acceptable. But with the exact same people, at the workplace, a dirty joke is inappropriate. Exact same people. The difference is context.
Well, yes and no. If you're the kind of person who sometimes, in some contexts makes lewd jokes and is not offended by them, then simply being in another context when hearing them shouldn't offend you. It might make you cringe at the incongruence but it won't offend.
Furthermore, you wouldn't then see yourself as a "hero" for publicly shaming the people who made said lewd joke. Simply turning around and telling them that what they're doing isn't appropriate.
Also, it's not like those two developers were using a microphone or loudspeaker or some such device, they were just chatting away behind her and talking to each other. Sometimes we forget that people may overhear us when we talk to each other in a public setting. In that context is inappropriate speech(not sexist, not outright wrong, just inappropriate for that context) grounds for public shaming and firing when you simply could've forgotten(or not thought about) being overheard?
I just think that she went overboard with the reaction and even seeing herself as heroic for doing something like that. The fact that she makes jokes like that in a different context simply shows that it couldn't have been that offensive to her(maybe just cringe-worthy) to warrant such a reaction.
I've never once in my life met a person that sincerely thinks that each and every inhabitant of a country is evil when their leaders are.
By the way, "Iranians are evil" does not count, as it generally implies "most Iranians are evil", which, if you count it as a democracy (it is to some extent) and consider the elected leaders to be evil (a reasonable claim from a particular perspective), would be true.
Exactly. If they called it Internet Explorer OS, why not? But not while abusively using the Windows brand name that most people would blindly get because they don't know better.
Oh, that's good. Why do we have lawsuits in general then? I'd bet more guilty people are prosecuted than innocents. Let's make the economy of the judge's salary and assume everyone is guilty.
Secondly, no one say it should be counted as a weakness, the guy above was just pointing out that it's probably not a strength, as someone above claimed.