_Adam

What I don't understand is why humans are so obsessed with labor. Robots are doing stuff for us, and some people are actually complaining about it. To me, this seems really sad. It's like they're saying "I'm so worthless, I can't even compete with a robot."

Maybe that's true for some people. If so, then the problem isn't robots, the problem is that there are people who are less useful than robots. For a human to survive in the era of intelligent machines, he/she needs to have unique skills that are not possessed by robots. If they don't have those skills, they need to find them.

For those in the tech industry, those skills are already there. It will be decades, or longer, until we can automate software/hardware engineers. Entrepreneurship is another unique skill that will be even harder to automate. I believe that once machines are capable of conceiving, starting, and operating businesses, they will no longer be called machines.

What we must never forget is that humans aren't intrinsically special. We just happen to be the most capable organisms on the planet right now. The current rate of technological progression suggests that this will eventually change. When it does, we'll need to adapt or we'll go extinct.

If we cannot adapt to this reality, we will simply end up serving as the spawning ground for a new species (biological or otherwise) that will make humans obsolete. If we survive, it will be as little but a historical curiosity.

To adapt, we cannot look at robotics and automation as an enemy. It IS the future - we need to accept it, exploit it, and ultimately incorporate it into ourselves.

I will argue they've already proven themselves wrong. Nokia has differentiated itself through hardware quite well - the 1020 takes better pictures than any smartphone on the market.

There's a reason why all the Lumia commercials have focused on hardware rather than software. The technical merits of Windows Phone 8 aside, it doesn't seem to have much consumer appeal compared to iOS or Android.

I don't quite understand. Can you explain in detail?

The point to takeaway from this article is that remote attacks are a greater threat than local attacks, so password entry should be optimized for protecting against the former rather than the latter.

For many of us, the point is invalid because we know how to choose good passwords, and we don't need to see them in order to do so.

So instead, think about this from the perspective of the average consumer. A unobfuscated password field makes it a lot easier to use a long and complex password. If the field is hidden, users are more likely to choose something short and easy to remember, making their password vulnerable to dictionary attacks.