while people may cheer for them and call them heroes, little else seems to be happening
It's "hip" to call these people heroes. Even somebody who's flailing and obviously over-blowing the relevance and true informational content of his "whistle-blown" revelations, like Snowden, is unique enough to get branded with the laziest sort of term, "hero".
Remember when Steve Jobs died? Raise your hand, anybody:
* who had friends that you KNEW had no idea who Jobs was until they read his Obit
* and who suddenly (after mysteriously disappearing in their room and heavy internet use for a few hours) waxed eloquent about how Jobs was a masterful genius and true humanitarian...
* In Exactly The Same Words As Hundreds of Thousands Of Others Blogging At That Same Moment About Jobs' Passing
*... who were also totally unaware of the man's real personality, lifestyle, or legacy...
* BUT who all (Your friend and all the bloggers they were emulating) shared one trait: if they had to lose their iPhone or half of their head, they would keep the iPhone.
Jobs was their surrogate teat-mother. The iPhone is a digital Breast. "Mommy" died is about as complex as all those blogs sending up soliloquy and elegy in flowery language rather resembling a lot of weepy William Gibson clones (who they would have avoided sounding like if they had ever read him, out of like, uniqueness.)
Did these people composing funerary fugues about Jobs really know the person? Would they have lifted a finger in memorium if they had been treated like the Foxconn worker who put actual hands on the actual components of the beloved, sacred iPhone the innards of which they did never and will never lay eyes on let alone have a single molecule of interest in?
As I said before, Jobs' legacy has one last bullet-point: completely destroy the common sense of what a tragic loss really is, of what the death of a loved one really feels like, of what a great human being is really composed of, of what genius truly amounts to.
Well, what you mention about hero-calling works the same way.
Hero worship has been dumbed down and emotionally deadened to a form of entertainment. Are we just going to be "nerds" and so engulfed in our selectively chosen media apparatus that we forget, America is on the world's most twisted hay-ride, ever, and it includes the ghosts of MTV and every other mainstream channel-rich junk-heap.
I highly doubt the people who chant "hero" really feel the weight of the word or really think about it. It's a mis-used word. Totally fictitious characters are extremely popular heroes, and by all reckoning, how messed up is *that*? They aren't even real!
I can already hear the comic book nerds creeping up to give me castration by pincher-bot. "Hooww daaare yooou! There's a hero for everybody in the rich pages which I can only afford because I was born in the one place in the world where even if you're homeless you're still relatively more wealthy than 85% of the rest of the entire planet blah blah blaaahhhh! Time for Robot to pinch off your balls!"
How can you expect a bunch of people to "do" something about it when their level of interest and truly their level of participation is about on par with a teeny-bopper at a glam fest?
Google NSA's "Echelon" and CARNIVORE. Not too many years ago the NSA were already world wide web levels of notorious for claims that they were monitoring every single cell phone and internet communication, of domestic and unsuspicious Americans, and that those communications were being converted into text by computer, and that the text was being scanned for keywords.
The process involved searching texts or textualized conversions of voice data, for National Security-sensitive keywords like "bomb", "assassinate", "president", and so on. Then these texts were made all lower-case except for the keywords being upper-case (or something like that, who cares) and they were stored and the keywords were tagged onto the files.
Based on how "weighty" the communication appeared to be -- which was calculated using some telemetrics involving the parties involved, the subjects involved, the timing, and the number of keyword phrases included -- the text might be "flagged" and this might get a person watched by the NSA.
So, there was this huge backlash that used the internet to spread the word about Echelon and CARNIVORE and to create support for a movement against it.
The idea was that people would post an overload of messages with keywords in them like "BOMB", "ASSASSINATE", and "PRESIDENT", for the purpose of creating needless and indeed (given that the authors had no motive of making a bomb, or assassinating anyone, let alone the President) senseless work for the CARNIVORE system to churn through.
I can't remember what such buzzword-loaded messages were called. Carnivore Bombs? Something like that?
Anyways, WHERE THE FUCK is all of that historical context when Slashdot authors post new shit or comment on shit about the NSA?
Where your head at?
I'm not upset that this isn't "NEWS". In the strictest sense, the NSA watching *everything you say* isn't news unless you count things that were apparent over ten years ago. But that's not what's upsetting me, right now. Not slashdot's tendency to feature content not quite "news"-worthy, at all.
Instead, I'm upset that the people who submit and comment either have some kind of inability to connect historical events together and keep a relatively sane sense of the importance and relevance and other things that are really REALLY freaking important when you're critically analyzing a situation, or, they're all simply too young.
Too bad there's not a way to realistically age-filter submissions and comments because frankly anything anybody under 25 has to tell me about the NSA is "cool-talk" that has more to do with posturing and meeting some weirded-out hipster status-quo than anything to do with speculation on directions our country is headed, privacy, etc.
It's like the people who, twenty years ago, were still angrily shouting down and taunting anybody who mentioned the "NSA" as paranoid, crazy, schio, etc.... are today just keeping a low profile and towing the "hip talk" line. Even if not the same individuals, the same personality profile.
They really secretly are like "this is bullshit, this doesn't exist, people who think like this should be zombified and marched into a large oven", but because it's "hip" subject material, they don't really put any thought behind it but hit the "submit" button and are like "hope nobody notices I think they're all batshit crazy."
It's not any good. Google doesn't even have a truly working syntax, any more. You can try and force specific phrase searches all you want and the "AI" or whatever they're using goes out and grabs "similar" terms anyways, to add unnecessary things to your results. You can exclude certain phrases or words all you want BUT if they are one of the "similar" terms to something else you're searching for, they will still show up. Google is totally broken with all of its "smart"-ness!
Meanwhile, this "smart" searching is backed by loads and loads of monitoring. There's I guess what we could call "passive" monitoring, where complete search phrases are stored and used to create some kind of "likelihood" for the sake of "quick searching", where search results are provided for you in a drop-down menu below the text input control on the search page.
But that "quick searching" means there's what we could call an "active" monitoring, where every keypress you enter is being sent to the server that responds with likely search terms based on that database.
So not only is it kind of broken, but it's also kind of Orwellian.
And I thought Google was already on the list of evil corporations that are stealing our privacy and handing it to whatever despots make a demand. So why don't news articles continue that rhetoric instead of sounding so aghast that this company that has been mined for data by the feds in the past is potentially creepy?
Are you saying that if Krebs did what OP is alleging, that makes it a conspiracy? Who would Krebs have to be in with? Krebs, himself? Is this perhaps why you're already implying that if Krebs takes action, that action is necessarily "evil"? Because you see Krebs as an unnatural form of two different people? I don't get it.
The Pope is the de facto authority of the Catholic church. To back up this relationship, the Pope is regarded as infallible within the church. Questioning the Pope's authority over church matters doesn't even make sense, because it's an unquestionable authority.
On the other hand, Krebs is not de facto authority *over* the facts and knowledge of security. If Krebs says encryption doesn't work, that doesn't make encryption fail to work. Whereas if the Pope says e.g. pedophilia is excusable, it becomes so to the Catholic church, despite whatever *beliefs* were held before.
Krebs is an "authority" by one definition of the word; there is an entirely different definition of "authority" that means something else. In fact, depending on which dictionary you refer to, you may find two entries for "authority" considering them different enough as to be homonyms. I'm not going to go through the rigamarole of actually verifying that for you -- it's the same difference, either way.
Being "an authority concerning a field of knowledge" doesn't give a person control over that field of knowledge the same way a person who is "an authority over an organization" gives that person control over that organization.
You tread a really stupid, fine line between idiocy and another different kind of idiocy when you completely mix up science and religion. You should just get away from all of that.
... that's because the article was cut and pasted from the link. Which the author does write (it's Krebs' blog). In the first person, naturally. Whoever wrote the article took the first instance of "me", and replaced it editorially [using braces], and then failed to understand that it would be within acceptable editing as well as much easier to read if they took the liberty of changing the rest of the first-person references to refer to Krebs, as well.
Here, let me help you by offering a spoof of knowledgeable input in an effort to misguide you and hijack your POV rectification.
What this really amounts to is terrorism. See, if it can be done then terrorists can and will do it -- specifically, they'll do it to you, straight at you. Like KAPOW!
So we'll need to police the high seas with constant vigilance. But we can't allow the enemy (that's the terrorists) to identify the anti-terrorism force. Or they'll use the terrorism on the anti-terrorists and it'll be all willy-nilly.
What you can expect is that if you start veering off course in the direction of suspecting terrorism, some plain clothes people with guns and booby trap training will use technological telegadgetry to move your boat in the right direction, and then board your boat and commandeer it for added safety.
Neither we, nor them, can disclose the full details of the safety mission. So don't ask them questions because they are under strict orders to pistol whip anybody who asks questions because that's the terrorists. Always asking questions. That's what gets people misled in the first place.
I'm glad I could clear that up for you. You can rest assured that no, there is no threat, we have it all taken care of.
Consistently, for five years solid, numerous reviews have put Lenovo on my don't-buy list. I see all these comments in here about how it's a great brand but I'm pretty sure that it's just cheap junk.
Then there are all these people going on about "alleged backdoors". It's not about an allegation: it's a genuine concern. Why set up the straw dog of "allegations" to beat down, when the fact of the matter is China has a proven history of not being able to be trusted when they're contracted by the U.S. military?
Between them and the people who think this is some kind of market-shifting PR ploy, you'd think the Chinese are sending spies right here to Slashdot to propagandize on behalf of their red commie government.
.... so I bet your first order of security would be to ensure that none of the sensitive equipment was manufactured by the triad, or by extension any Chinese company at all.
Doesn't anybody remember a few years back when the Chinese-chipped military helicopters were discovered to have backdoors? Not a good thing. Would you want several tons of equipment, much of it explosive, moving at high speeds, featuring a huge spinning propeller, and belonging to the U.S. military, to ever, ever be accessible to the Chinese? Probably not! Probably a really bad idea, so it's a good thing they caught that and it's especially good that they're keeping on top of the game.
Screw a Lenovo. Who cares about brandiness? It's not about being some pseudo prosumer or being brand-loyal. There are loyalties some people have to serve to their countries, first.
Screw any crappy Chinese junk, especially their junk automotives. It might not matter to you where you buy from but then again, you're probably doing business with them anyways. You probably just chuckle and send the part in for another replacement, serially, when you find that they used hot glue instead of solder or don't know the difference between permanent and temporary magnets. Go ahead and let your kids play with lead toys all day, go jump off a cliff, etc.
What the U.S. Military should do is insist on 100% U.S. made equipment manufactured by 100% in-house fabrication. Ditch all the fabless companies, fine, let them prey on the average consumer/prosumer. What's a year in American technology without the revelation of yet another Samsung device spying on you or your social network selling your personal data to domestic spies, cops, and other people who don't value your rights? Using a compromised piece of equipment is just fine for your brand loyalists who really don't have anybody to answer to but yourselves.
What the military should do is only buy equipment from Texas Instruments, manufactured at National Semiconductor. If some other great American company with its own in-house fabrication can also fulfill the contracts, they should get business, too, but I doubt they have the track record or the ability to fill orders like TI.
Granted, it was a straw man argument. All the same, perhaps it's a matter of differences in culture. I know that the culture in Michigan and much of the Midwest, while not exactly as I described, is worthy of the generalization and the crass indictment as I wrote it.
I know things are more "open" and Libertarian on the West coast and out West in general. I'm glad for that and so is my family who live out that way. But towards the East coast, most people are hillbillies and when they're over 40, they're just hermits.
If you have the gonzo to bust my nuts for being under 40 and saying these things, maybe you should redirect your energy and go on a crusade rousing up your Midwesterner age-peers to get them more inspired and more instigative about the issues facing us today.
Well, to my credit I am 35 (hardly a "kid" if being over 40 is somehow magically "adult") but to yours, I know plenty of people over 50 and upwards who are pissed off. But I wrote the comment as a piss-take and the exaggeration and generalization were meant to be comical but also partially honest. Thanks for your feedback.
Oh yeah you must be referring to that same model as those drones that wear the custom-made t-shirts broadcasting to the world that they consider it a very light matter to oppress the citizenry and steal their lives over misunderstandings. Those same model drones that love killing dogs, apparently. I love that model! Wow, what a great model of drone we have enforcing our traffic concerns.
What's worst about all this is that the oldest generations don't give a fuck. Anybody over forty right now could care less about what the police are doing. If you tell them what's going on with innocent people being killed, maimed, hurt, sexually assaulted, etc. they'll just say --
"Good! I like to hear my taxes are working!"
"Good! They're keeping us safe!"
That's why I love it every time I hear about some retiree getting the shit scared out of them and having their head smacked in by a gung-ho, drug-addicted SWAT team. I love hearing about these old worthless shit-eaters who are now sitting there, nursing their concussions, going --
"Oh my god, I was so wrong!"
"They're not police! They're m-m-monsters!"
"Look at this cut on my pretty financial-echelon face! Get my lawyer, I'm withdrawing my yearly donation to the FOP! Not my criminal lawyer you dipshit, my financial attorney! OOF! THE PIGS PUNCHED MY BALLS! Quick get the criminal, tooooo!"
ALL of these old, dried-out sacks of shit should have THEIR shit raided and THEIR asses kicked up and down their neighborhood streets, stripped nude, and then come back around and see if they still vote that way and still donate that money.
Drive the new police force tank up to most of those old fogey's houses and they just go "oh wow cool it's finally here!"
But I bet if they had to lay on the ground with a boot on their head for twenty minutes because they asked why they should be expected to wear handcuffs during a search of their house, and they'll think differently.
One of the above comments raises a great point: the police look, talk, and act like thugs. That's our community police we all get chided so often to hold so dear; but they consider themselves as gangsters "above the law". So how do you think they will choose their actions to portray their image? Police are likely to do the thuggest bullshit to a person just to present a tough-guy, no-holds-barred, untouchable image. It's not necessary, it's not strategically sound, it's not even sociable. It's just thuggery, and the only people interested in police work now-a-days are thugs. People who aren't thugs look into the courses, I'm sure, and if they aren't turned off by their classmates' presentation and attitude, then they get swiftly turned-about by their instructors for not "fitting in". The day isn't too far off when police accountability will be completely nil and police corruption won't be a flash in the pan but will be the daily mire for every community in America. If you don't think so, go ask some affluent, peaceful gardening town what they think of their village police force's latest SWAT team and urban assault vehicle. It's not even an urban area, why the fuck would they need an urban assault vehicle? It's a bunch of townhouses and Victorian cottages. But there you have it -- nobody's policing the police. When your nine year old boy asks for a rocket launcher for his birthday what do you tell him? "Sure, we'll put it in the budget"?
What's worst of all this, in my point of view, is that even when the syndrome is apparent in a person and that person is already being paid by the government for having a disability, and even when that syndrome is likely to be passed onto offspring...... it's still just peachy for them to have children. Two of them together, if they feel like it, though I've seen a lot of retarded guys slugging around with apparently healthy women. It must be very attractive to some women to see that steady, uninterrupted income guaranteed for life, and to jump for it.
At any rate, whether we "fix" it for a developed person or not, unless there's some rule against it, they're still going to have kids. They and their disabled children are still going to represent a demand for other peoples' money. The world is still going to creep towards an unsustainable population and they're still going to just lazily slug slide right on through all of it with little to no cares or worries.
I might actually be trivial with practice, which is also (as you pointed out) not surprising. None of this is very surprising.
I'm guessing if you wanted to add a visiting vehicle's thrust, you'd first have to re-calculate the center of mass given the attached vehicle, and then calculate how much thrust -- and in what direction -- from that vehicle will produce what angles of rotation around which axes.
Not that I could do it all, but I think I might be close, and I can imagine the calculations that go into it and I am, frankly, not at all surprised even in an imaginary sense.
Soooooo to make sure this is always the case, Linus should obviously be reaching out to code obfuscators. Obviously legible, robust code is not at issue -- shorter, smaller code using more geeky twists and obfuscations is the best possible fucking idea for any huge, gigantic-ass code base.
I mean, I can understand getting pissed about new features being added. But obviously the point of a release candidate is to slowly compress and obfuscate the code into smaller and smaller renditions until it's humanly unreadable because, hell, fuck, god damn, that's how progress works in open-source land. Smaller = better.
Oh I dunno, maybe I'm talking out of my ass, here. For all we know, Linus' bottom line is that the same OS works on both smartphones and desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, that's cool. Thanks. Though it is inconvenient that they place this behind an option.
Well. I'm sure it's plenty convenient for their federal information-sharing contract.
while people may cheer for them and call them heroes, little else seems to be happening
It's "hip" to call these people heroes. Even somebody who's flailing and obviously over-blowing the relevance and true informational content of his "whistle-blown" revelations, like Snowden, is unique enough to get branded with the laziest sort of term, "hero".
Remember when Steve Jobs died? Raise your hand, anybody:
* who had friends that you KNEW had no idea who Jobs was until they read his Obit
* and who suddenly (after mysteriously disappearing in their room and heavy internet use for a few hours) waxed eloquent about how Jobs was a masterful genius and true humanitarian ...
* In Exactly The Same Words As Hundreds of Thousands Of Others Blogging At That Same Moment About Jobs' Passing
* ... who were also totally unaware of the man's real personality, lifestyle, or legacy ...
* BUT who all (Your friend and all the bloggers they were emulating) shared one trait: if they had to lose their iPhone or half of their head, they would keep the iPhone.
Jobs was their surrogate teat-mother. The iPhone is a digital Breast. "Mommy" died is about as complex as all those blogs sending up soliloquy and elegy in flowery language rather resembling a lot of weepy William Gibson clones (who they would have avoided sounding like if they had ever read him, out of like, uniqueness.)
Did these people composing funerary fugues about Jobs really know the person? Would they have lifted a finger in memorium if they had been treated like the Foxconn worker who put actual hands on the actual components of the beloved, sacred iPhone the innards of which they did never and will never lay eyes on let alone have a single molecule of interest in?
As I said before, Jobs' legacy has one last bullet-point: completely destroy the common sense of what a tragic loss really is, of what the death of a loved one really feels like, of what a great human being is really composed of, of what genius truly amounts to.
Well, what you mention about hero-calling works the same way.
Hero worship has been dumbed down and emotionally deadened to a form of entertainment. Are we just going to be "nerds" and so engulfed in our selectively chosen media apparatus that we forget, America is on the world's most twisted hay-ride, ever, and it includes the ghosts of MTV and every other mainstream channel-rich junk-heap.
I highly doubt the people who chant "hero" really feel the weight of the word or really think about it. It's a mis-used word. Totally fictitious characters are extremely popular heroes, and by all reckoning, how messed up is *that*? They aren't even real!
I can already hear the comic book nerds creeping up to give me castration by pincher-bot. "Hooww daaare yooou! There's a hero for everybody in the rich pages which I can only afford because I was born in the one place in the world where even if you're homeless you're still relatively more wealthy than 85% of the rest of the entire planet blah blah blaaahhhh! Time for Robot to pinch off your balls!"
How can you expect a bunch of people to "do" something about it when their level of interest and truly their level of participation is about on par with a teeny-bopper at a glam fest?
Google NSA's "Echelon" and CARNIVORE. Not too many years ago the NSA were already world wide web levels of notorious for claims that they were monitoring every single cell phone and internet communication, of domestic and unsuspicious Americans, and that those communications were being converted into text by computer, and that the text was being scanned for keywords.
The process involved searching texts or textualized conversions of voice data, for National Security-sensitive keywords like "bomb", "assassinate", "president", and so on. Then these texts were made all lower-case except for the keywords being upper-case (or something like that, who cares) and they were stored and the keywords were tagged onto the files.
Based on how "weighty" the communication appeared to be -- which was calculated using some telemetrics involving the parties involved, the subjects involved, the timing, and the number of keyword phrases included -- the text might be "flagged" and this might get a person watched by the NSA.
So, there was this huge backlash that used the internet to spread the word about Echelon and CARNIVORE and to create support for a movement against it.
The idea was that people would post an overload of messages with keywords in them like "BOMB", "ASSASSINATE", and "PRESIDENT", for the purpose of creating needless and indeed (given that the authors had no motive of making a bomb, or assassinating anyone, let alone the President) senseless work for the CARNIVORE system to churn through.
I can't remember what such buzzword-loaded messages were called. Carnivore Bombs? Something like that?
Anyways, WHERE THE FUCK is all of that historical context when Slashdot authors post new shit or comment on shit about the NSA?
Where your head at?
I'm not upset that this isn't "NEWS". In the strictest sense, the NSA watching *everything you say* isn't news unless you count things that were apparent over ten years ago. But that's not what's upsetting me, right now. Not slashdot's tendency to feature content not quite "news"-worthy, at all.
Instead, I'm upset that the people who submit and comment either have some kind of inability to connect historical events together and keep a relatively sane sense of the importance and relevance and other things that are really REALLY freaking important when you're critically analyzing a situation, or, they're all simply too young.
Too bad there's not a way to realistically age-filter submissions and comments because frankly anything anybody under 25 has to tell me about the NSA is "cool-talk" that has more to do with posturing and meeting some weirded-out hipster status-quo than anything to do with speculation on directions our country is headed, privacy, etc.
It's like the people who, twenty years ago, were still angrily shouting down and taunting anybody who mentioned the "NSA" as paranoid, crazy, schio, etc. ... are today just keeping a low profile and towing the "hip talk" line. Even if not the same individuals, the same personality profile.
They really secretly are like "this is bullshit, this doesn't exist, people who think like this should be zombified and marched into a large oven", but because it's "hip" subject material, they don't really put any thought behind it but hit the "submit" button and are like "hope nobody notices I think they're all batshit crazy."
It's not any good. Google doesn't even have a truly working syntax, any more. You can try and force specific phrase searches all you want and the "AI" or whatever they're using goes out and grabs "similar" terms anyways, to add unnecessary things to your results. You can exclude certain phrases or words all you want BUT if they are one of the "similar" terms to something else you're searching for, they will still show up. Google is totally broken with all of its "smart"-ness!
Meanwhile, this "smart" searching is backed by loads and loads of monitoring. There's I guess what we could call "passive" monitoring, where complete search phrases are stored and used to create some kind of "likelihood" for the sake of "quick searching", where search results are provided for you in a drop-down menu below the text input control on the search page.
But that "quick searching" means there's what we could call an "active" monitoring, where every keypress you enter is being sent to the server that responds with likely search terms based on that database.
So not only is it kind of broken, but it's also kind of Orwellian.
And I thought Google was already on the list of evil corporations that are stealing our privacy and handing it to whatever despots make a demand. So why don't news articles continue that rhetoric instead of sounding so aghast that this company that has been mined for data by the feds in the past is potentially creepy?
Are you saying that if Krebs did what OP is alleging, that makes it a conspiracy? Who would Krebs have to be in with? Krebs, himself? Is this perhaps why you're already implying that if Krebs takes action, that action is necessarily "evil"? Because you see Krebs as an unnatural form of two different people? I don't get it.
You can't prove the de facto standard to be fake.
The Pope is the de facto authority of the Catholic church. To back up this relationship, the Pope is regarded as infallible within the church. Questioning the Pope's authority over church matters doesn't even make sense, because it's an unquestionable authority.
On the other hand, Krebs is not de facto authority *over* the facts and knowledge of security. If Krebs says encryption doesn't work, that doesn't make encryption fail to work. Whereas if the Pope says e.g. pedophilia is excusable, it becomes so to the Catholic church, despite whatever *beliefs* were held before.
Krebs is an "authority" by one definition of the word; there is an entirely different definition of "authority" that means something else. In fact, depending on which dictionary you refer to, you may find two entries for "authority" considering them different enough as to be homonyms. I'm not going to go through the rigamarole of actually verifying that for you -- it's the same difference, either way.
Being "an authority concerning a field of knowledge" doesn't give a person control over that field of knowledge the same way a person who is "an authority over an organization" gives that person control over that organization.
You tread a really stupid, fine line between idiocy and another different kind of idiocy when you completely mix up science and religion. You should just get away from all of that.
... that's because the article was cut and pasted from the link. Which the author does write (it's Krebs' blog). In the first person, naturally. Whoever wrote the article took the first instance of "me", and replaced it editorially [using braces], and then failed to understand that it would be within acceptable editing as well as much easier to read if they took the liberty of changing the rest of the first-person references to refer to Krebs, as well.
I think it's a , it's a , gh-gh-gh-greenhouse gas global warming monster!
Quick you assclowns! Get into the mystery hybrid mobile! *Vrrrrooooomm*
I think it's still chasing us! How could that be? We left the Hubbert peak way behind with our super efficiency!
Uh-oh, if my calculations are correct, the only people our efficiency was helping was the *gulp* big oil companies themselves.
*poof* The monster appeared in the mystery hybrid mobile! The monster tore its own mask off!
"Will you kids shut the **** up? I'm not global warming I'm your planet's inevitable heat death. In, like, a billion years."
GET HIM! *pow* *kbam* *kick* my glasses!
Here, let me help you by offering a spoof of knowledgeable input in an effort to misguide you and hijack your POV rectification.
What this really amounts to is terrorism. See, if it can be done then terrorists can and will do it -- specifically, they'll do it to you, straight at you. Like KAPOW!
So we'll need to police the high seas with constant vigilance. But we can't allow the enemy (that's the terrorists) to identify the anti-terrorism force. Or they'll use the terrorism on the anti-terrorists and it'll be all willy-nilly.
What you can expect is that if you start veering off course in the direction of suspecting terrorism, some plain clothes people with guns and booby trap training will use technological telegadgetry to move your boat in the right direction, and then board your boat and commandeer it for added safety.
Neither we, nor them, can disclose the full details of the safety mission. So don't ask them questions because they are under strict orders to pistol whip anybody who asks questions because that's the terrorists. Always asking questions. That's what gets people misled in the first place.
I'm glad I could clear that up for you. You can rest assured that no, there is no threat, we have it all taken care of.
Wtfe! Even the article's claim that Lenovo is "quality" makes this whole entire thread REEK of corporate propaganda!
Consistently, for five years solid, numerous reviews have put Lenovo on my don't-buy list. I see all these comments in here about how it's a great brand but I'm pretty sure that it's just cheap junk.
Then there are all these people going on about "alleged backdoors". It's not about an allegation: it's a genuine concern. Why set up the straw dog of "allegations" to beat down, when the fact of the matter is China has a proven history of not being able to be trusted when they're contracted by the U.S. military?
Between them and the people who think this is some kind of market-shifting PR ploy, you'd think the Chinese are sending spies right here to Slashdot to propagandize on behalf of their red commie government.
.... so I bet your first order of security would be to ensure that none of the sensitive equipment was manufactured by the triad, or by extension any Chinese company at all.
Doesn't anybody remember a few years back when the Chinese-chipped military helicopters were discovered to have backdoors? Not a good thing. Would you want several tons of equipment, much of it explosive, moving at high speeds, featuring a huge spinning propeller, and belonging to the U.S. military, to ever, ever be accessible to the Chinese? Probably not! Probably a really bad idea, so it's a good thing they caught that and it's especially good that they're keeping on top of the game.
Screw a Lenovo. Who cares about brandiness? It's not about being some pseudo prosumer or being brand-loyal. There are loyalties some people have to serve to their countries, first.
Screw any crappy Chinese junk, especially their junk automotives. It might not matter to you where you buy from but then again, you're probably doing business with them anyways. You probably just chuckle and send the part in for another replacement, serially, when you find that they used hot glue instead of solder or don't know the difference between permanent and temporary magnets. Go ahead and let your kids play with lead toys all day, go jump off a cliff, etc.
What the U.S. Military should do is insist on 100% U.S. made equipment manufactured by 100% in-house fabrication. Ditch all the fabless companies, fine, let them prey on the average consumer/prosumer. What's a year in American technology without the revelation of yet another Samsung device spying on you or your social network selling your personal data to domestic spies, cops, and other people who don't value your rights? Using a compromised piece of equipment is just fine for your brand loyalists who really don't have anybody to answer to but yourselves.
What the military should do is only buy equipment from Texas Instruments, manufactured at National Semiconductor. If some other great American company with its own in-house fabrication can also fulfill the contracts, they should get business, too, but I doubt they have the track record or the ability to fill orders like TI.
Granted, it was a straw man argument. All the same, perhaps it's a matter of differences in culture. I know that the culture in Michigan and much of the Midwest, while not exactly as I described, is worthy of the generalization and the crass indictment as I wrote it.
I know things are more "open" and Libertarian on the West coast and out West in general. I'm glad for that and so is my family who live out that way. But towards the East coast, most people are hillbillies and when they're over 40, they're just hermits.
If you have the gonzo to bust my nuts for being under 40 and saying these things, maybe you should redirect your energy and go on a crusade rousing up your Midwesterner age-peers to get them more inspired and more instigative about the issues facing us today.
Well, to my credit I am 35 (hardly a "kid" if being over 40 is somehow magically "adult") but to yours, I know plenty of people over 50 and upwards who are pissed off. But I wrote the comment as a piss-take and the exaggeration and generalization were meant to be comical but also partially honest. Thanks for your feedback.
Oh yeah you must be referring to that same model as those drones that wear the custom-made t-shirts broadcasting to the world that they consider it a very light matter to oppress the citizenry and steal their lives over misunderstandings. Those same model drones that love killing dogs, apparently. I love that model! Wow, what a great model of drone we have enforcing our traffic concerns.
What's worst about all this is that the oldest generations don't give a fuck. Anybody over forty right now could care less about what the police are doing. If you tell them what's going on with innocent people being killed, maimed, hurt, sexually assaulted, etc. they'll just say --
"Good! I like to hear my taxes are working!"
"Good! They're keeping us safe!"
That's why I love it every time I hear about some retiree getting the shit scared out of them and having their head smacked in by a gung-ho, drug-addicted SWAT team. I love hearing about these old worthless shit-eaters who are now sitting there, nursing their concussions, going --
"Oh my god, I was so wrong!"
"They're not police! They're m-m-monsters!"
"Look at this cut on my pretty financial-echelon face! Get my lawyer, I'm withdrawing my yearly donation to the FOP! Not my criminal lawyer you dipshit, my financial attorney! OOF! THE PIGS PUNCHED MY BALLS! Quick get the criminal, tooooo!"
ALL of these old, dried-out sacks of shit should have THEIR shit raided and THEIR asses kicked up and down their neighborhood streets, stripped nude, and then come back around and see if they still vote that way and still donate that money.
Drive the new police force tank up to most of those old fogey's houses and they just go "oh wow cool it's finally here!"
But I bet if they had to lay on the ground with a boot on their head for twenty minutes because they asked why they should be expected to wear handcuffs during a search of their house, and they'll think differently.
One of the above comments raises a great point: the police look, talk, and act like thugs. That's our community police we all get chided so often to hold so dear; but they consider themselves as gangsters "above the law". So how do you think they will choose their actions to portray their image? Police are likely to do the thuggest bullshit to a person just to present a tough-guy, no-holds-barred, untouchable image. It's not necessary, it's not strategically sound, it's not even sociable. It's just thuggery, and the only people interested in police work now-a-days are thugs. People who aren't thugs look into the courses, I'm sure, and if they aren't turned off by their classmates' presentation and attitude, then they get swiftly turned-about by their instructors for not "fitting in". The day isn't too far off when police accountability will be completely nil and police corruption won't be a flash in the pan but will be the daily mire for every community in America. If you don't think so, go ask some affluent, peaceful gardening town what they think of their village police force's latest SWAT team and urban assault vehicle. It's not even an urban area, why the fuck would they need an urban assault vehicle? It's a bunch of townhouses and Victorian cottages. But there you have it -- nobody's policing the police. When your nine year old boy asks for a rocket launcher for his birthday what do you tell him? "Sure, we'll put it in the budget"?
How little effect your shame has on those who are warring over square meters of dirt.
What's worst of all this, in my point of view, is that even when the syndrome is apparent in a person and that person is already being paid by the government for having a disability, and even when that syndrome is likely to be passed onto offspring ... ... it's still just peachy for them to have children. Two of them together, if they feel like it, though I've seen a lot of retarded guys slugging around with apparently healthy women. It must be very attractive to some women to see that steady, uninterrupted income guaranteed for life, and to jump for it.
At any rate, whether we "fix" it for a developed person or not, unless there's some rule against it, they're still going to have kids. They and their disabled children are still going to represent a demand for other peoples' money. The world is still going to creep towards an unsustainable population and they're still going to just lazily slug slide right on through all of it with little to no cares or worries.
That black hole really ripped one.
Whoever can patent firing a gun at your own skull first, wins. The trick is to show prior art, so hurry before you opponent gets it done.
* "I might" / "It might"
I might actually be trivial with practice, which is also (as you pointed out) not surprising. None of this is very surprising.
I'm guessing if you wanted to add a visiting vehicle's thrust, you'd first have to re-calculate the center of mass given the attached vehicle, and then calculate how much thrust -- and in what direction -- from that vehicle will produce what angles of rotation around which axes.
Not that I could do it all, but I think I might be close, and I can imagine the calculations that go into it and I am, frankly, not at all surprised even in an imaginary sense.
Soooooo to make sure this is always the case, Linus should obviously be reaching out to code obfuscators. Obviously legible, robust code is not at issue -- shorter, smaller code using more geeky twists and obfuscations is the best possible fucking idea for any huge, gigantic-ass code base.
I mean, I can understand getting pissed about new features being added. But obviously the point of a release candidate is to slowly compress and obfuscate the code into smaller and smaller renditions until it's humanly unreadable because, hell, fuck, god damn, that's how progress works in open-source land. Smaller = better.
Oh I dunno, maybe I'm talking out of my ass, here. For all we know, Linus' bottom line is that the same OS works on both smartphones and desktops.