And more mundane items. . . .
Forget sex? Virginity pledgers lie about past
I have several comments about the next link. The first is that devising CAPTCHAs is a fascinating challenge. Secondly, I can't imagine any security mechanism--any invention--that won't be unuseable by some group of disabled. Third (and given my last comment), Judy Brewer's statement that Captchas, "in their current form, are a misnomer," she says. They "don't tell humans and computers apart; instead, they tell able-bodied humans and computers, along with disabled humans, apart." is wrong headed, though well intentioned. Not all disabled humans are affected by visually-based CAPTCHAs (for instance, I'm sure the deaf have no problems). Also, some humans who are are not considered disabled are also unable to manage CAPTCHAs. Finally, the statement from Mr. Reynolds, "The ones they make hard for a computer bot to break are also really hard for us to read,", is, I find, self-centered. Just because they're really hard for Mr. Reynolds doesn't mean they're hard for everyone.
Codes on Sites 'Captcha' Anger of Web Users
I think this is a great article that highlights the issue of quality in software, and doesn't pander to the promotion of mediocrity.
Perspective: The 'good enough' theory of software
After YouTube posted the page "All your video are belong to us", 'at around 10:45 p.m. PT, an additional sentence appeared that let confused users in on the hoax: "No, we haven't be hacked. Get a sense of humor."'
Um, just because you don't make something clearly a joke doesn't mean I don't have a sense of humor. I get lots of email that is just as badly worded by data thieves. Are these all, in fact, merely pranks and jokes? And there have been very recent high profile incidents of data theft. So, no, there was no good reason for YouTube's visitors to think the first page wasn't evidence of a hack.
YouTube: Our humor, not our hack