If someone is determined to steal a corporation's data, they'll be able to find a way to do it regardless. Blocking copy & paste is a good casual reminder to not take work data out of the BlackBerry app.
Or... it's just a pointless inconvenience because, as you said, "If someone is determined to steal a corporation's data, they'll be able to find a way to do it regardless." Why would I need a casual reminder to not do something I'm not going to do, unless I'm going to do it, and am able to find a way?
Why the fuck did we spend the resources and lives to fight those wars to prevent the spread of this 'communist' behavior for again? I mean, was it a war over patents and we had to wait 20 years to implement it here?
It's not entirely clear how best to reform patent law in order to better reconcile it with alternative models of innovation.
I'm not the only sentient being here right? I mean, OK, what's the aim of patents? To give incentivize folks to release technology and ideas into the public domain with monopoly protections. FLOSS should be exempt from patents because it directly meets the goal of patents without desiring any damn monopoly at all.
Oh? What's that? How will businesses compete with the fully open software if they can't sue developers over patent infringements? PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.
After the asteroid, who will be around to control them? We need manned missions if the human race is to avoid extinction. We Have All Our Eggs In One Basket, you FOOL.
Fucking Barbarians. Don't know what the fuck is going on. It's like bloodletting all over again. Brain butchery. I wish they'd Frontally Lobotomize themselves. Just overly energize any cybernetic network, simulate or otherwise, see what happens. Fucking moronic I swear.
was that just another pop-psych regurgitation of 'Primate Power: use these hackneyed verbal tricks to pretend that you are the monkey with the biggest cock in the room!' as seen far too often in the various 'self-help for the painfully mediocre' columns that run in various media?
Hmm, not working for you? Try one of the other columns:
Ten hot buttons to drive your CEO wild.
Managing the Managers Managers for Fun and Profit.
Is your CTO spying on you? Find out using this one weird trick.
Not getting any at home? "Borrow" it from the supply closet.
How To: Turn Heads in your next Teleconference.
Lie with Numbers without getting caught: It's not you, it's them!
Lingo Bingo: Generate More Buzz with less Words.
It's much easier than you think to adopt new platforms. PUTTY runs on Windows, and so does Git and CURL.
The interface doesn't matter -- The guts haven't really changed all that much, and where they have it's been abstracted to provide the same interface again. I used to just LOVE programming a PDP-11, it was Cool, had spinning tape drives and a noisy paper terminal, you could really mess things up big-time! (I'm not that old, it was my step-dad's hand-me-down, but I loved learning to program on old tech as a kid). Then I fell in love with x86 ASM, and now I love ARM.
With each advancement comes limitations and platform growing pains, so we've been limited and had to go back to doing things the old way, until the platforms get fast enough that I don't need machine level optimization, then I write in C, and soon after it's scripting and interpreted languages and VM languages. About that time another platform comes out that does some crazy new thing, like multi-threading, multi-core processors, or the Playstation 3's cell processor, or GPU shading languages.
With the hardware GPU acceleration we initially started off doing pixel overlay math to pull off tricks with the fixed function pipeline -- I used the pixel blending math as my ASM, and colors as my variables -- Reminded me of flipping switches to load accumulators and playing bitwise games with adds to pull off different mathematic operations like multiply and divide on the limited interface, just like in the old days, but now with pixel buffers... Then came pixel shaders, and we got back some more control, it was back to a more ASM like interface, then vertex shaders. Now we're now set to have integrated 'heterogeneous' computing with shared memory architectures to drop the RAM latency back down to where it's like having one big block of RAM again. I still write algorithms in make-shift assembly with pixel values and carve logic and datasets out of a huge slab of RAM, just like in the 16 bit era, before OSs had virtual memory... Although there's languages like OpenCL, you can still be very low level. Soon that'll be high level and we'll have Perl and JavaScript running around inside GPUs. Soon we'll have quantum computers and affordable ASIC -- I'll be programming in NAND gates again, and multiplying by 5 by shifting left two and adding it back to the original number, just like when I used to 'write' programs with a wire twister.
All the while the new tech comes out, goes through its paces, I still have my trusty text editor and multiple terminals. Hell, with GNU screen I have many terminals within terminal tabs within terminal windows -- All color coded, and searchable, with speaker sounds for alerts, spread across multiple monitors all running different OSs with one keyboard and mouse (cross platform or bust). Just like in the good old days with KVM switches and terminal servers. The point is, everything that's old is new again, so there's no reason not to keep reliving the good old days today. If you haven't been keeping up, then you've been missing out -- At the bleeding edge, It's just like way back when!
If you're talking about adopting gadgets like tablets and phones and stuff like that, Well, my phone and tablet have video out and blue..teeth? I use a rechargeable wireless keyboard and mouse with them, and use *nix no matter what OS is in the way of the UI I like... For all the advancement we've done in computing, you still program the damn things by compiling text files. I even twisted a wire on a post the other day to get LIRC talking to my home theater setup.:-)
The ad is simply brilliant. I never thought I'd see Microsoft looking out for my best interests.
It doesn't make me want to use [that which shall not be named], but it had me laughing, and got me thinking.
Which is more than I can say for these comments!
Emboldening mine.
Windows update sends MS a list of every program installed in the registry... I'm sure that's in your best interest.
MS calling out Google over tracking is beyond pots and kettles: The black level here is on par with two neutron stars continuing to argue over who hit who first to cause the blackhole. That is to say: No one can give a damn about the negative light they shine upon each other, until it's too late and they've devoured another damn planet alive.
No. A number is not math. Manipulation of that number is.
Without mathematics, please tell me how to read this number: 123456
Without a description of the symbol mappings to the numeric meanings, how do you read the number? If it's just glyphs then it's not a number, but as soon as you say it's a number, then it has mathematic syntactical symbolic meaning. The mathematic encoding of the number is required to read it. Its numeric base, AKA radix, even the language surrounding it is a form of mathematics that dictate how you lexically analyze the number: Is the text left to right or right to left? Little endian or big endian? Top to bottom or bottom to top? Grammar rules and spelling and pronunciations are all a form of mathematics: Symbol processing.
If you do not believe this, then you have not studied anything to a sufficient degree. Here's how you would typically understand that number, with mathematics: (1 * 100000 + 2 * 10000 + 3 * 1000) + (4 * 100 + 5 * 10 * 6)
One hundred twenty three thousand, four hundred fifty six. <- That's mathematics, you idiot.
The survey, as most open source articles, studies, etc. ignores the elephant in the room: open source leads to loss of competitive advantage for companies. I know I likely won't ever use open source software to run any critical parts of my business, because part of my business model is having a competitive advantage through better software than my competitors.
OK, so then I'll just start at the closest open source thing to yours, add less work to get even more of a competitive advantage than you have. Me and a few other competitors will even split the bill, even on maintenance. Leave you in the dust. Good luck with that.
Protip: Your ability to configure the bits is what's valuable. Free and Open Source software means more folks configuring bits in one place. Also note: Even with GPL'd software you're free to use the software and modify it internally so long as you don't distribute it.
We discovered that eddy currents can excite nearby neurons that aren't even connected by synapses. This means the damn shape and size needs to be the same. Same size because of the inverse square relation of electromagnetic effects...
I believe that any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience, because that's what sentient is. This type of research may help us study our own ethics and theory of the mind, but unless it's built to scale, or the simulation simulates at the quantum level (with the standard model, not an optimized neural network abstraction), then it won't be the same as a human's brain.
Sure, they may build a model of a person, but not all people are human...
You know you're in trouble when they speak of how much money they're saving instead of how much they spent to acquire a feature or benefit. What about the data center that stores every digital interaction in America? I bet that costs a pretty penny to operate, let's shut it down, it's not doing us any good. Didn't stop the Boston Bombing... Hell, zoning laws could have prevented the recent explosion in West, TX (which was more harmful than the Boston bombs), but I don't see them trying to save anything at all anywhere -- Not even lives.
"Honey, look what I got, you wouldn't believe how much money I saved today!" -- No. She spent money, didn't "save" a dime. I'll evaluate cost to benefit ratio to determine if the purchases were wise.
Want to save money? Why not get rid of the DHS? They're not needed. We have FBI and cops already. We don't need a huge cumbersome annoying workforce of security guards who don't actually provide security. You Can't Provide Security for others -- They can only protect themselves, and should be aware of surroundings and cautious of dangers if need be; That saves money and lives.
How much of the money they're spending on 3rd party contractors is wasted by inflating the costs to turn a profit? I'm not stupid. They haven't saved a dime one.
That's funny. I live in Texas, and the University of Houston attendees I queried here say: "Let's test it to be sure!" They suggested that with enough world-wide cooperation we could move enough water with dams to modify the moment of inertia and thus control the movement of the pole -- One small step towards taking the helm of Spaceship Earth. I guess such ideas are to be expected after all those years as the home of NASA's mission control...
Well, one of them did offer that we should check the south pole to corroborate the findings -- "Just because the north pole moved doesn't mean the south one did too."
The thread of comments attached to parent reminds me of folks on Yahoo Answers trying to apply order of operations to basic equations -- Don't look it up, humanity needs your hope.
in the end you're still human... A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering, way above the complexity that we understand.
Look up human. It means something that is exhibits some of the characteristics of a human, any stricter definition excludes folks with disabilities, which are actually human. That lowers the bars for machine intelligence to become human... I digress.
Humans are pretty complex, but it's not above the ability for us to understand the complexity. A single human can specialize on familiarity with a small part of the human structure, there are enough such humans to divide humans into small enough pieces that their complexity can be fully knowable. We do know something of humans, we learn more every day, and what we have discovered doesn't point to them being engineered.
If you were an engineer, would you supply blood to an eye's retina's cones from the back side, to allow the detection cones to be unobstructed, and avoid needing to route the blood through a hole in the visual field? It would seem a cephalopod is more likely to be engineered than a human, their retinas aren't flippin' upside down, so they don't have blindspots in their retinas like humans do!
If you were an engineer, would you use larger longer vertebrae in one's vertical spine structure or a bunch of smaller ones? The advantage of the smaller bones is that they can swivel more, yet humans can turn only around 90 degrees due to the muscle and tendon configuration; The effect is just a series of small weak links in the spine's chain -- why are those lumbar vertebrae so damn small that they don't hold up over the intended lifetime of use and thus cause back problems? It would seem a giraffe is more likely to have been engineered than a human.
The list of horribly inept design flaws in a human is staggering. Nerves, under the feet?! Hair that gets so oily you must wash it regularly? Embryonic yolk sacks that waste energy developing then disappear, unused? No. There is no evidence for an intelligent designer; I just can't believe that ANYONE would be this daft, especially when they supposedly created BETTER designs in other species first -- I mean, unless.... Unless Humans were meant to be the butt of some cruel genetic joke?!
It would seem that if humans were engineered, it was a job undertaken by a malicious spite filled asshole, or an utterly unintelligent designer. This design looks like it was done haphazardly, perhaps by pure random chance, just slapping together features and picking the first model that doesn't break and meets the basic needs.
Humans are not finely crafted organic machines, they're a hodge podge of tacked together features shipped to mother nature with apologies and promises of a patch for the bugs in the next version! It's foolish to think humans are a piece of engineering wonder. Oh, humans are complex, one marvels at the scale of things -- but the wonder is not at the beauty in engineering elegance, it's that they even function at all given the design flaws!
"We suspect this man is spy."
"Take his money, Tell him only lies, see where lies turn up."
"Maybe they know, we know, he is spy?"
"Possible. He has been searched?" "He is carry a compass, torch, map of Moscow, mobile phone..."
"Yes, is spy. They expect we know. Use our lies to deceive. Make false leak to trick us... Kill him -- Wait, he has wig, yes?" "Has not only a wig, but two."
"Two wigs? Ah! Is sign of double agent! Carry one wig, is a risk. Two is job application." "You want I should not kill him then?"
"Of course not. Pay him standard fee; Send back to embassy. Tell this story to news, so CIA know he can not spy here. He can go home, work for us." "Moscow Winter is the Father Land's greatest ally. Thin blooded American will do anything to escape it."
"One thing. Why we must speak filthy English, not Russian?" "Everyone knows. Is basic spy training to trick double agen--- Wait, you are American SPY!" ::BLAM::
"No. I'm a Brit you poor, dead git."
Slashdot Mirror
If someone is determined to steal a corporation's data, they'll be able to find a way to do it regardless. Blocking copy & paste is a good casual reminder to not take work data out of the BlackBerry app.
Or... it's just a pointless inconvenience because, as you said, "If someone is determined to steal a corporation's data, they'll be able to find a way to do it regardless." Why would I need a casual reminder to not do something I'm not going to do, unless I'm going to do it, and am able to find a way?
Information will find a way.
Why the fuck did we spend the resources and lives to fight those wars to prevent the spread of this 'communist' behavior for again? I mean, was it a war over patents and we had to wait 20 years to implement it here?
It's not entirely clear how best to reform patent law in order to better reconcile it with alternative models of innovation.
I'm not the only sentient being here right? I mean, OK, what's the aim of patents? To give incentivize folks to release technology and ideas into the public domain with monopoly protections. FLOSS should be exempt from patents because it directly meets the goal of patents without desiring any damn monopoly at all.
Oh? What's that? How will businesses compete with the fully open software if they can't sue developers over patent infringements? PROBLEM FUCKING SOLVED.
After the asteroid, who will be around to control them? We need manned missions if the human race is to avoid extinction. We Have All Our Eggs In One Basket, you FOOL.
Fucking Barbarians. Don't know what the fuck is going on. It's like bloodletting all over again. Brain butchery. I wish they'd Frontally Lobotomize themselves. Just overly energize any cybernetic network, simulate or otherwise, see what happens. Fucking moronic I swear.
Sounds like a bug. I'm sure it will get fixed.
Yes, Google has bugs.
Well, from what I've seen of this latest batch, our world hunger problems are over...
Orgasmatron?
Yeesh. Sorry I broke it guys. I was just joking when I asked for: 3"; DROP TABLE DRINKS olives.
For someone living in the past, it has been 30 years.
Welcome to Relativity.
was that just another pop-psych regurgitation of 'Primate Power: use these hackneyed verbal tricks to pretend that you are the monkey with the biggest cock in the room!' as seen far too often in the various 'self-help for the painfully mediocre' columns that run in various media?
Hmm, not working for you? Try one of the other columns:
Ten hot buttons to drive your CEO wild.
Managing the Managers Managers for Fun and Profit.
Is your CTO spying on you? Find out using this one weird trick.
Not getting any at home? "Borrow" it from the supply closet.
How To: Turn Heads in your next Teleconference.
Lie with Numbers without getting caught: It's not you, it's them!
Lingo Bingo: Generate More Buzz with less Words.
It's much easier than you think to adopt new platforms. PUTTY runs on Windows, and so does Git and CURL.
The interface doesn't matter -- The guts haven't really changed all that much, and where they have it's been abstracted to provide the same interface again. I used to just LOVE programming a PDP-11, it was Cool, had spinning tape drives and a noisy paper terminal, you could really mess things up big-time! (I'm not that old, it was my step-dad's hand-me-down, but I loved learning to program on old tech as a kid). Then I fell in love with x86 ASM, and now I love ARM.
With each advancement comes limitations and platform growing pains, so we've been limited and had to go back to doing things the old way, until the platforms get fast enough that I don't need machine level optimization, then I write in C, and soon after it's scripting and interpreted languages and VM languages. About that time another platform comes out that does some crazy new thing, like multi-threading, multi-core processors, or the Playstation 3's cell processor, or GPU shading languages.
With the hardware GPU acceleration we initially started off doing pixel overlay math to pull off tricks with the fixed function pipeline -- I used the pixel blending math as my ASM, and colors as my variables -- Reminded me of flipping switches to load accumulators and playing bitwise games with adds to pull off different mathematic operations like multiply and divide on the limited interface, just like in the old days, but now with pixel buffers... Then came pixel shaders, and we got back some more control, it was back to a more ASM like interface, then vertex shaders. Now we're now set to have integrated 'heterogeneous' computing with shared memory architectures to drop the RAM latency back down to where it's like having one big block of RAM again. I still write algorithms in make-shift assembly with pixel values and carve logic and datasets out of a huge slab of RAM, just like in the 16 bit era, before OSs had virtual memory... Although there's languages like OpenCL, you can still be very low level. Soon that'll be high level and we'll have Perl and JavaScript running around inside GPUs. Soon we'll have quantum computers and affordable ASIC -- I'll be programming in NAND gates again, and multiplying by 5 by shifting left two and adding it back to the original number, just like when I used to 'write' programs with a wire twister.
All the while the new tech comes out, goes through its paces, I still have my trusty text editor and multiple terminals. Hell, with GNU screen I have many terminals within terminal tabs within terminal windows -- All color coded, and searchable, with speaker sounds for alerts, spread across multiple monitors all running different OSs with one keyboard and mouse (cross platform or bust). Just like in the good old days with KVM switches and terminal servers. The point is, everything that's old is new again, so there's no reason not to keep reliving the good old days today. If you haven't been keeping up, then you've been missing out -- At the bleeding edge, It's just like way back when!
If you're talking about adopting gadgets like tablets and phones and stuff like that, Well, my phone and tablet have video out and blue..teeth? I use a rechargeable wireless keyboard and mouse with them, and use *nix no matter what OS is in the way of the UI I like... For all the advancement we've done in computing, you still program the damn things by compiling text files. I even twisted a wire on a post the other day to get LIRC talking to my home theater setup. :-)
Did someone redefine the world Win?
First they ignore your desktops, then they laugh at your mobiles, then they fight your on chip DRM, then you win.
The ad is simply brilliant. I never thought I'd see Microsoft looking out for my best interests.
It doesn't make me want to use [that which shall not be named], but it had me laughing, and got me thinking.
Which is more than I can say for these comments!
Emboldening mine.
Windows update sends MS a list of every program installed in the registry... I'm sure that's in your best interest.
MS calling out Google over tracking is beyond pots and kettles: The black level here is on par with two neutron stars continuing to argue over who hit who first to cause the blackhole.
That is to say: No one can give a damn about the negative light they shine upon each other, until it's too late and they've devoured another damn planet alive.
No. A number is not math. Manipulation of that number is.
Without mathematics, please tell me how to read this number: 123456
Without a description of the symbol mappings to the numeric meanings, how do you read the number? If it's just glyphs then it's not a number, but as soon as you say it's a number, then it has mathematic syntactical symbolic meaning. The mathematic encoding of the number is required to read it. Its numeric base, AKA radix, even the language surrounding it is a form of mathematics that dictate how you lexically analyze the number: Is the text left to right or right to left? Little endian or big endian? Top to bottom or bottom to top? Grammar rules and spelling and pronunciations are all a form of mathematics: Symbol processing.
If you do not believe this, then you have not studied anything to a sufficient degree. Here's how you would typically understand that number, with mathematics:
(1 * 100000 + 2 * 10000 + 3 * 1000) + (4 * 100 + 5 * 10 * 6)
One hundred twenty three thousand, four hundred fifty six. <- That's mathematics, you idiot.
... "so long as you don't distribute it [you don't have to release sources]"
The survey, as most open source articles, studies, etc. ignores the elephant in the room: open source leads to loss of competitive advantage for companies. I know I likely won't ever use open source software to run any critical parts of my business, because part of my business model is having a competitive advantage through better software than my competitors.
OK, so then I'll just start at the closest open source thing to yours, add less work to get even more of a competitive advantage than you have. Me and a few other competitors will even split the bill, even on maintenance. Leave you in the dust. Good luck with that.
Protip: Your ability to configure the bits is what's valuable. Free and Open Source software means more folks configuring bits in one place. Also note: Even with GPL'd software you're free to use the software and modify it internally so long as you don't distribute it.
We discovered that eddy currents can excite nearby neurons that aren't even connected by synapses. This means the damn shape and size needs to be the same. Same size because of the inverse square relation of electromagnetic effects...
I believe that any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience, because that's what sentient is. This type of research may help us study our own ethics and theory of the mind, but unless it's built to scale, or the simulation simulates at the quantum level (with the standard model, not an optimized neural network abstraction), then it won't be the same as a human's brain.
Sure, they may build a model of a person, but not all people are human...
You know you're in trouble when they speak of how much money they're saving instead of how much they spent to acquire a feature or benefit. What about the data center that stores every digital interaction in America? I bet that costs a pretty penny to operate, let's shut it down, it's not doing us any good. Didn't stop the Boston Bombing... Hell, zoning laws could have prevented the recent explosion in West, TX (which was more harmful than the Boston bombs), but I don't see them trying to save anything at all anywhere -- Not even lives.
"Honey, look what I got, you wouldn't believe how much money I saved today!" -- No. She spent money, didn't "save" a dime. I'll evaluate cost to benefit ratio to determine if the purchases were wise.
Want to save money? Why not get rid of the DHS? They're not needed. We have FBI and cops already. We don't need a huge cumbersome annoying workforce of security guards who don't actually provide security. You Can't Provide Security for others -- They can only protect themselves, and should be aware of surroundings and cautious of dangers if need be; That saves money and lives.
How much of the money they're spending on 3rd party contractors is wasted by inflating the costs to turn a profit? I'm not stupid. They haven't saved a dime one.
That's funny. I live in Texas, and the University of Houston attendees I queried here say: "Let's test it to be sure!" They suggested that with enough world-wide cooperation we could move enough water with dams to modify the moment of inertia and thus control the movement of the pole -- One small step towards taking the helm of Spaceship Earth. I guess such ideas are to be expected after all those years as the home of NASA's mission control...
Well, one of them did offer that we should check the south pole to corroborate the findings -- "Just because the north pole moved doesn't mean the south one did too."
The thread of comments attached to parent reminds me of folks on Yahoo Answers trying to apply order of operations to basic equations -- Don't look it up, humanity needs your hope.
It's shoulders all the way down.
in the end you're still human... A very complex and wonderful piece of engineering, way above the complexity that we understand.
Look up human. It means something that is exhibits some of the characteristics of a human, any stricter definition excludes folks with disabilities, which are actually human. That lowers the bars for machine intelligence to become human... I digress.
Humans are pretty complex, but it's not above the ability for us to understand the complexity. A single human can specialize on familiarity with a small part of the human structure, there are enough such humans to divide humans into small enough pieces that their complexity can be fully knowable. We do know something of humans, we learn more every day, and what we have discovered doesn't point to them being engineered.
If you were an engineer, would you supply blood to an eye's retina's cones from the back side, to allow the detection cones to be unobstructed, and avoid needing to route the blood through a hole in the visual field? It would seem a cephalopod is more likely to be engineered than a human, their retinas aren't flippin' upside down, so they don't have blindspots in their retinas like humans do!
If you were an engineer, would you use larger longer vertebrae in one's vertical spine structure or a bunch of smaller ones? The advantage of the smaller bones is that they can swivel more, yet humans can turn only around 90 degrees due to the muscle and tendon configuration; The effect is just a series of small weak links in the spine's chain -- why are those lumbar vertebrae so damn small that they don't hold up over the intended lifetime of use and thus cause back problems? It would seem a giraffe is more likely to have been engineered than a human.
The list of horribly inept design flaws in a human is staggering. Nerves, under the feet?! Hair that gets so oily you must wash it regularly? Embryonic yolk sacks that waste energy developing then disappear, unused? No. There is no evidence for an intelligent designer; I just can't believe that ANYONE would be this daft, especially when they supposedly created BETTER designs in other species first -- I mean, unless.... Unless Humans were meant to be the butt of some cruel genetic joke?!
It would seem that if humans were engineered, it was a job undertaken by a malicious spite filled asshole, or an utterly unintelligent designer. This design looks like it was done haphazardly, perhaps by pure random chance, just slapping together features and picking the first model that doesn't break and meets the basic needs.
Humans are not finely crafted organic machines, they're a hodge podge of tacked together features shipped to mother nature with apologies and promises of a patch for the bugs in the next version! It's foolish to think humans are a piece of engineering wonder. Oh, humans are complex, one marvels at the scale of things -- but the wonder is not at the beauty in engineering elegance, it's that they even function at all given the design flaws!
There's no such thing as innate value. Value is context-dependent. All money is funny money. It's just a question of what brand of humor you prefer.
So, basically you're saying it has inane value instead?
The future looks bright for Hardware and Software hackers alike, with new self driving and self flying targets and deployment platforms.
I mean, really...
"We suspect this man is spy."
"Take his money, Tell him only lies, see where lies turn up."
"Maybe they know, we know, he is spy?"
"Possible. He has been searched?"
"He is carry a compass, torch, map of Moscow, mobile phone..."
"Yes, is spy. They expect we know. Use our lies to deceive. Make false leak to trick us... Kill him -- Wait, he has wig, yes?"
"Has not only a wig, but two."
"Two wigs? Ah! Is sign of double agent! Carry one wig, is a risk. Two is job application."
"You want I should not kill him then?"
"Of course not. Pay him standard fee; Send back to embassy. Tell this story to news, so CIA know he can not spy here. He can go home, work for us."
"Moscow Winter is the Father Land's greatest ally. Thin blooded American will do anything to escape it."
"One thing. Why we must speak filthy English, not Russian?"
::BLAM::
"Everyone knows. Is basic spy training to trick double agen--- Wait, you are American SPY!"
"No. I'm a Brit you poor, dead git."