Whichever anti-paranoia medication they have you own... please double it. You can thank me later.
I'm paranoid for suggesting that Apple uses its gateway to neuter competitors, when developer agreement terms have been in place against duplicating functionality in Apple apps? I'm paranoid for accusing Google of cooperating with government for profit, after the Great Firewall of China acquiescence? I'm paranoid for stating that Google sells information about its products to advertisers, when it's owned Doubleclick since 2007? I'm paranoid because I think that Google may accidentally leak information, even when that's precisely what happened in Google China? Even when several vulnerabilities in Android show a distinct lack of engineer perfection? I'm paranoid because I don't trust every Google employee personally? Why am I paranoid, oakgrove?
I'm still waiting for your credit card details. Remember, I promised not to abuse them. My promise is legally binding and nothing can possibly go wrong thanks to a malicious third party either.
Oh, so you were just talking smack when you said:
Take your hand off your cock and on to the braille reader a moment: I mentioned that Office 2000 works great on decade-old PCs. A decade-old PC will enjoy a CPU/memory performance bottleneck with locally hosted Office 2010 (yes, I've tried it), so resource-intensive operations are faster with Google Apps. Something 5 years old will do fine for Office 2010, however, while you've still got to wait for the network on Google. Speed of light's a bitch, and that's just a best case.
For decades, people have been huddling in front of one computer editing the same document. Now they don't have to huddle. They can be on opposite sides of the world.
Get Sergei Brin's dick out of your mouth for a moment and perhaps use his only worthwhile offering to find out how many collaborative editors there are. Hell, fire up emacs right now and make-frame-on-display.
If you don't see the benefit of being able to do that in actual real time then you are just ignoring the blindingly obvious.
Please, please tell me why I would prefer keypress-by-keypress broadcast edits rather than being able to commit when I've finished an atomic unit of work which takes my document from one consistent state to another. It's almost as useful as a transaction processing system which logs and broadcasts the exact position of the drive heads during any operation - useless, distracting noise.
I have next to me an HP Pavilion zt1135 manufactured in '01 or '02. I just tested your theory on a spreadsheet in Google Docs that somebody here is working on. It came up almost instantly and was immediately editable.
Spring '02, it seems. OK, 900MHz Celeron, which actually is a decade old (although manufactured almost 11 years ago now). I have an Office document double-clicked, open and can start editing it (quicklaunch off) about 20 seconds before Firefox has launched, I've gone to the Google Apps URL, I've waited for the Google Apps word processor page to load. Almost any action gives an irritating subsecond delay which is completely absent from local Office. Scrolling is jolty and slow on complex documents, while Office just doesn't bother trying to render if I scroll quickly enough. Office 2010 would likely not behave well on this particular machine, but I have the choice not to use it. What choice do you get in 10 years time if you choose Google Apps today?
I'm saying that Google Docs lacks features because there is no/optional/ and/visible/ locking of/parts/ of the document, and because you don't get a choice about when to commit your changes (making them visible to others). I thought it was Mac users who go about telling you that a lack of features is for your own benefit, but I guess Apple and Google aren't that different.
Anyone who actually uses Office for more than writing employment covering letters knows that the Office 2010 + SharePoint is actually fairly fucking powerful when compared to the Internet based Microsoft Works that is Google Apps.
Where in my post did you see me say anything about putting any client data in Google Docs? That's right; nowhere. Not to mention the fact that we are in the wholesale sports apparel business.
So you do or you don't have clients? I'm confused.
I'm not worried about Google trying to muscle in on that anytime soon.
That's probably not unreasonable - I mean, it's not as if Apple uses its "app store" to knock out competitors to its own offerings, so allowing some big company to be your gateway is always safe. However, why aren't you worried that Google might sell on information to a large competitor? That an individual Google employee will sell it? Accidentally leak it? Provide it to the government without warrant? Google are not audited, they're not regulated, and they're infants in terms of reputation.
And furthermore, Google's stock in trade is using information for targeted ads.
And providing information to help sponsors.
The day that Google decides to abuse peoples' information to compete with them
Arms manufacturers win by selling to both sides.
is the day that Google gets dropped like a rock. Something tells me that they'd rather continue to make billions and actually stick to their privacy policy that by the way exists and is legally binding.
OK, I'll give you $50 in cash if you give me your credit card number. I promise not to abuse the information. My promise is legally binding. Today and for the rest of my soulless, corporate life.
Use some hack to force Office to do what Google Docs does out of the box.
Don't you mean the other way round? MS Office gives proper versioning control, i.e. locking of parts of document (if desired) and commits precisely when the user wants to commit. Whereas Google offers a cheap mess, like giving 10 people a sheet of A4 and allowing them all to write on it at once. Sure, it's fine for kindergarten drawing, but unmanageable for efficient, real work.
So, ignoring that absurd suggestion, the difference between real time and saving from time to time is the difference between CB radio and a cell phone.
Like a bird in a helicopter, that analogy makes no sense.
I also like my documents to be available when I need them.
Yeah. And I don't need or want them accessible at every computer across the world. Can you figure out why, perhaps? Funnily enough, by using a combination of local caching and enterprise serving, I've never found myself unable to access what I need to, even when I'm sufficiently remote that I'd need a satellite phone to get Internet access (not exactly unusual, if you're not a sheltered city troll). Google manage that for ya?
That argument is bizarre. So, what you are saying is Google Apps runs better than Office on an old computer (which is true).
What nonsense. I have 10-year-old machines running Office 2000 perfectly with near-instant responsiveness, while I have to watch the "web page" that is Google Apps redraw. Oh, that's right, another problem with web apps - my choice of versions are the version provided and... well, that's it. And good luck if they're having an off day.
Another bizarre argument. Are you saying cross platform compatibility is a bad thing?
Yes, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim that only Google Apps support realtime collaboration just because the server component forming Microsoft's offering doesn't come by default with its Office packaged product.
Google makes the majority of its money from advertising and from mining your data, i.e. you are the product. You're likely to get everything thrown at you because Google wants as many products as possible to sell to advertisers. Microsoft actually sells software, i.e. you are the consumer, so you need to pay for each product you consume. This is a commercial difference, not a technical one.
It costs too much when the competition is free. Of course my problem solving didn't fail. I successfully moved us to Google Docs.
I hope you're not calling Google Docs "free"! Even if the "standard" edition is satisfactory, your payment right now is supplying your (i.e. your clients') data to Google for mining. What do you think Google are, a charity?
Office doesn't have real time collaborative editing. Google Docs does.
No. Note that, as in any proper versioning system, you sync when you're ready - not with every letter you type - although the areas of a document on which people are working will be shown (and optionally locked) if desired. If you really want "real time" letter-by-letter then you're a time-wasting idiot, but you can script an automatic Ctrl-S after each letter.
When we create documents, we like them automatically shared and accessible from any other computer anywhere. Google Docs does this automatically and instantly. Office does not.
Wow. When I create documents I certainly don't fucking want them "automatically shared and accessible from any other computer anywhere". If that's what I want, I'll enable it for specific documents through appropriate collaborative Office / collaborative text editor / version control - though there are still very few cases when I want something accessible "from any other computer anywhere". You have an awful security policy.
Google certainly doesn't do anything "instantly". If you find the responsiveness of Google Apps better than local software, you need to buy PCs less than a decade old or fire your IT guy (you?).
Google Docs works on the boss's iPad. MS Office does not.
Oh. You got me there. It's like in the early '90s everyone computerising would go Wintel because, well, that's what the guy in the competing firm / in head office was being shoveled, and that's where all the shiny cheap marketing was going on. Despite dozens of options, so many decisions come down to the arbitrary whim of a good feeling. You've just illustrated one.
It's like when MS released Services for Netware/Unix/Mac - a shitty implementation for "legacy" clients as gateway to the full MS experience. In that case, the downgrade was to NT server. In this case, it's via "Appsperience" to Google "Apps".
Google docs has real-time collaboration (you can see other people's edits as they happen).
So if I type "cockcockcockcock" at the keyboard when the boss comes into the room because, well, it helps me think, Sir, anyone else can read that change immediately? Does no-one these days realise how much productivity is lost by the ability for people to instantly and frequently interrupt you?
Just because it's on the Internet it doesn't mean it's "web-powered", Google. Version control isn't the same as a shitty web app, even if this is the embrace&extend Google are trying to subject MS to.
(Of course, unlike regular version control, for some reason a third party is needed and permits itself to datamine your repository.)
Yes, yes, in the tens of thousands of years of human civilisation on a spinning globe over 4.5 billion years old, I am an idiot living in a cave because I don't appreciate a half-decade fad.
In the real world people expect more out of html than simple text.
In the real world shitty corporations didn't know what crap to shovel on consumers next, so came up with the idea of merging the interactivity and responsiveness of an early '90s PC with the service model of a '70s mainframe.
They expect interactive applications with instant gratification. As a developer, if you want to get paid and stay employed, you do what the boss tells you to do, no matter how ridiculous you think it is.
If this is your career and you can't get a better job than one where you feel you have to shovel shit, you're doing your life a disservice. Find something else which you do better, enjoy more and is more in line with your beliefs. If you respond with some excuse for why you "can't do that" then you've already failed life.
If IE6 doesn't support it, then it's probably not a useful feature for the WWW, being either eye candy or stupid "web app" crap. Fuck off with your need to make fancy drop-down menus and pixel-perfect positioning - the whole point is that you give me marked-up information and I render it how I please.
(Of course, IE6 has some irritating crap in it too - but not even ActiveX is as annoying as HTML 5 in terms of fucking up a decent idea.)
Any policy which relies on Apple's software, e.g. its implementation of "cryptographic protocols", must be wrong. The best one can hope for is hardware-based restrictions, i.e. (i) no physical connection to an insecure network; (ii) heavy firewalling and packet inspection to make sure the client system is not misbehaving; (iii) no wireless whatever, because a full analysis of the source is required to make sure nothing in the iPad can be exploited to cause it to retransmit sensitive data.
(assuming every line of iPad software source and firmware isn't being audited, including all updates)
If I was forced at gunpoint to be racist, I'd root for the race which doesn't engage in competitive behaviour. Relax and cooperate. Better to live 30 years in a friendly community than 60 among those who only want to step on you.
I don't remember anything through images. I can't conjure up an image. I have never remembered anything through imagery. I just have abstract ideas, connected together by some smooth flow of thoughts guided by manipulation rules. This means that what comes naturally to many people is difficult to me. On the other hand, what is much harder to other people - because they can't rely on imagery - is no harder for me than the simpler tasks. For example, I might find basic Euclidean geometry harder than the smart high schooler (I don't "see" anything or manipulate it in my head), but find non-Euclidean geometries no harder.
I'm sure it's unusual. It means some people seem to have very polarised views of me as either very smart or very dumb (why do people like pigeonholing so much?). I have consistently good results academically, but I know I work for it. I've got to the point where I'm annoyed when people talk about imagery to think and remember. Why should the brain work like that? We seem to know pretty much fuck all about how the brain engages in complex processes, and humans are all too happy when it comes to mental function to make sweeping statements to suit political aims from all sides. "We can all do it if we try hard enough" / "we're all the same, really" / "I am like this because I worked hard, you're just lazy!" / "I have a natural gift and I deserve to reap reward for it" etc. Yet you won't find many people saying that the difference between a fat slob and an olympic athlete is merely that the latter trains more.
private wireless networks that handle material of national security.
Lol, national security WiFi network.
to use iOS products in a secure manner
OK... what? When was iOS last developed as a military grade secure system?
Both the iPhone and iPad incorporate DSD-approved cryptographic algorithms and DSD-approved cryptographic protocols
Ooo. So does my undergraduate homework. But I sure as fuck hope it's not deployed anywhere, because it's not been designed or audited for anything at this level, and it is sure to have a million implementation problems. Nor am I available to audit every single code fix and functionality update.
You're displaying the common geek rush-to-arms that a potential etymology defines acceptable meaning. English is defined, if at all, by how she is commonly used and understood.
et al. is usually used to mean et alii (in the sense "and the other men/people") or et aliae (in the sense "and the other women"). Though you'll even find dictionaries suggesting that et alia could be the full form, used to refer to groups of both genders, this is nonsense - such a group is considered masculine. Poster was looking for et cetera, meaning "and the other things" (countries, Clinton's complaints, whatever - the ambiguity illustrates why it's not just lazy to have a list of only one item).
I guess he could retort that he was abbreviating et alibi, but the "place" is that sense is not commonly understood to be geographical.
The CIA answers to the government, not to the people. Its business is information, true or false. If making the CIA look like abunch of bumbling idiots while it's actually full of ruthless, effective bastards is what keeps the government happy (and the CIA in business), then that's the impression the CIA will be happy to give. Why would a bunch of unaccountable unstoppables care if occasionally the finger is pointed at them?
Thanks for repeating my criticism. Note the evidence that real calculators support real networking protocols.
you can't just bit bang serial protocols on any modern PC, so you need an intermediary device to have proper drivers for.
What does that mean? Is that marketing speak for "modern computers don't have an RS232 port"? Do you not have serial to USB converters there? If it's not-quite-RS232, can't you just level shift rather than using a whole embedded computer?
Slashdot Mirror
Whichever anti-paranoia medication they have you own... please double it. You can thank me later.
I'm paranoid for suggesting that Apple uses its gateway to neuter competitors, when developer agreement terms have been in place against duplicating functionality in Apple apps? I'm paranoid for accusing Google of cooperating with government for profit, after the Great Firewall of China acquiescence? I'm paranoid for stating that Google sells information about its products to advertisers, when it's owned Doubleclick since 2007? I'm paranoid because I think that Google may accidentally leak information, even when that's precisely what happened in Google China? Even when several vulnerabilities in Android show a distinct lack of engineer perfection? I'm paranoid because I don't trust every Google employee personally? Why am I paranoid, oakgrove?
I'm still waiting for your credit card details. Remember, I promised not to abuse them. My promise is legally binding and nothing can possibly go wrong thanks to a malicious third party either.
Oh, so you were just talking smack when you said:
Take your hand off your cock and on to the braille reader a moment: I mentioned that Office 2000 works great on decade-old PCs. A decade-old PC will enjoy a CPU/memory performance bottleneck with locally hosted Office 2010 (yes, I've tried it), so resource-intensive operations are faster with Google Apps. Something 5 years old will do fine for Office 2010, however, while you've still got to wait for the network on Google. Speed of light's a bitch, and that's just a best case.
For decades, people have been huddling in front of one computer editing the same document. Now they don't have to huddle. They can be on opposite sides of the world.
Get Sergei Brin's dick out of your mouth for a moment and perhaps use his only worthwhile offering to find out how many collaborative editors there are. Hell, fire up emacs right now and make-frame-on-display.
If you don't see the benefit of being able to do that in actual real time then you are just ignoring the blindingly obvious.
Please, please tell me why I would prefer keypress-by-keypress broadcast edits rather than being able to commit when I've finished an atomic unit of work which takes my document from one consistent state to another. It's almost as useful as a transaction processing system which logs and broadcasts the exact position of the drive heads during any operation - useless, distracting noise.
I have next to me an HP Pavilion zt1135 manufactured in '01 or '02. I just tested your theory on a spreadsheet in Google Docs that somebody here is working on. It came up almost instantly and was immediately editable.
Spring '02, it seems. OK, 900MHz Celeron, which actually is a decade old (although manufactured almost 11 years ago now). I have an Office document double-clicked, open and can start editing it (quicklaunch off) about 20 seconds before Firefox has launched, I've gone to the Google Apps URL, I've waited for the Google Apps word processor page to load. Almost any action gives an irritating subsecond delay which is completely absent from local Office. Scrolling is jolty and slow on complex documents, while Office just doesn't bother trying to render if I scroll quickly enough. Office 2010 would likely not behave well on this particular machine, but I have the choice not to use it. What choice do you get in 10 years time if you choose Google Apps today?
I'm saying that Google Docs lacks features because there is no /optional/ and /visible/ locking of /parts/ of the document, and because you don't get a choice about when to commit your changes (making them visible to others). I thought it was Mac users who go about telling you that a lack of features is for your own benefit, but I guess Apple and Google aren't that different.
Anyone who actually uses Office for more than writing employment covering letters knows that the Office 2010 + SharePoint is actually fairly fucking powerful when compared to the Internet based Microsoft Works that is Google Apps.
Where in my post did you see me say anything about putting any client data in Google Docs? That's right; nowhere. Not to mention the fact that we are in the wholesale sports apparel business.
So you do or you don't have clients? I'm confused.
I'm not worried about Google trying to muscle in on that anytime soon.
That's probably not unreasonable - I mean, it's not as if Apple uses its "app store" to knock out competitors to its own offerings, so allowing some big company to be your gateway is always safe. However, why aren't you worried that Google might sell on information to a large competitor? That an individual Google employee will sell it? Accidentally leak it? Provide it to the government without warrant? Google are not audited, they're not regulated, and they're infants in terms of reputation.
And furthermore, Google's stock in trade is using information for targeted ads.
And providing information to help sponsors.
The day that Google decides to abuse peoples' information to compete with them
Arms manufacturers win by selling to both sides.
is the day that Google gets dropped like a rock. Something tells me that they'd rather continue to make billions and actually stick to their privacy policy that by the way exists and is legally binding.
OK, I'll give you $50 in cash if you give me your credit card number. I promise not to abuse the information. My promise is legally binding. Today and for the rest of my soulless, corporate life.
Use some hack to force Office to do what Google Docs does out of the box.
Don't you mean the other way round? MS Office gives proper versioning control, i.e. locking of parts of document (if desired) and commits precisely when the user wants to commit. Whereas Google offers a cheap mess, like giving 10 people a sheet of A4 and allowing them all to write on it at once. Sure, it's fine for kindergarten drawing, but unmanageable for efficient, real work.
So, ignoring that absurd suggestion, the difference between real time and saving from time to time is the difference between CB radio and a cell phone.
Like a bird in a helicopter, that analogy makes no sense.
I also like my documents to be available when I need them.
Yeah. And I don't need or want them accessible at every computer across the world. Can you figure out why, perhaps? Funnily enough, by using a combination of local caching and enterprise serving, I've never found myself unable to access what I need to, even when I'm sufficiently remote that I'd need a satellite phone to get Internet access (not exactly unusual, if you're not a sheltered city troll). Google manage that for ya?
That argument is bizarre. So, what you are saying is Google Apps runs better than Office on an old computer (which is true).
What nonsense. I have 10-year-old machines running Office 2000 perfectly with near-instant responsiveness, while I have to watch the "web page" that is Google Apps redraw. Oh, that's right, another problem with web apps - my choice of versions are the version provided and... well, that's it. And good luck if they're having an off day.
Another bizarre argument. Are you saying cross platform compatibility is a bad thing?
Collect more straw.
Yes, and it is intellectually dishonest to claim that only Google Apps support realtime collaboration just because the server component forming Microsoft's offering doesn't come by default with its Office packaged product.
Google makes the majority of its money from advertising and from mining your data, i.e. you are the product. You're likely to get everything thrown at you because Google wants as many products as possible to sell to advertisers. Microsoft actually sells software, i.e. you are the consumer, so you need to pay for each product you consume. This is a commercial difference, not a technical one.
s/2011/1985/g
s/storage cloud/VAXcluster/g
OK, now I get it.
It costs too much when the competition is free. Of course my problem solving didn't fail. I successfully moved us to Google Docs.
I hope you're not calling Google Docs "free"! Even if the "standard" edition is satisfactory, your payment right now is supplying your (i.e. your clients') data to Google for mining. What do you think Google are, a charity?
Office doesn't have real time collaborative editing. Google Docs does.
No. Note that, as in any proper versioning system, you sync when you're ready - not with every letter you type - although the areas of a document on which people are working will be shown (and optionally locked) if desired. If you really want "real time" letter-by-letter then you're a time-wasting idiot, but you can script an automatic Ctrl-S after each letter.
When we create documents, we like them automatically shared and accessible from any other computer anywhere. Google Docs does this automatically and instantly. Office does not.
Wow. When I create documents I certainly don't fucking want them "automatically shared and accessible from any other computer anywhere". If that's what I want, I'll enable it for specific documents through appropriate collaborative Office / collaborative text editor / version control - though there are still very few cases when I want something accessible "from any other computer anywhere". You have an awful security policy.
Google certainly doesn't do anything "instantly". If you find the responsiveness of Google Apps better than local software, you need to buy PCs less than a decade old or fire your IT guy (you?).
Google Docs works on the boss's iPad. MS Office does not.
Oh. You got me there. It's like in the early '90s everyone computerising would go Wintel because, well, that's what the guy in the competing firm / in head office was being shoveled, and that's where all the shiny cheap marketing was going on. Despite dozens of options, so many decisions come down to the arbitrary whim of a good feeling. You've just illustrated one.
Indeed. The Internet is also powered by AOL.
OOI, which others have you actually tried?
It's like when MS released Services for Netware/Unix/Mac - a shitty implementation for "legacy" clients as gateway to the full MS experience. In that case, the downgrade was to NT server. In this case, it's via "Appsperience" to Google "Apps".
Google docs has real-time collaboration (you can see other people's edits as they happen).
So if I type "cockcockcockcock" at the keyboard when the boss comes into the room because, well, it helps me think, Sir, anyone else can read that change immediately? Does no-one these days realise how much productivity is lost by the ability for people to instantly and frequently interrupt you?
What are your difficulties with MS Office? Be technically honest, IOW illustrate why any problem-solving you have attempted has failed.
Just because it's on the Internet it doesn't mean it's "web-powered", Google. Version control isn't the same as a shitty web app, even if this is the embrace&extend Google are trying to subject MS to.
(Of course, unlike regular version control, for some reason a third party is needed and permits itself to datamine your repository.)
Yes, yes, in the tens of thousands of years of human civilisation on a spinning globe over 4.5 billion years old, I am an idiot living in a cave because I don't appreciate a half-decade fad.
In the real world people expect more out of html than simple text.
In the real world shitty corporations didn't know what crap to shovel on consumers next, so came up with the idea of merging the interactivity and responsiveness of an early '90s PC with the service model of a '70s mainframe.
They expect interactive applications with instant gratification. As a developer, if you want to get paid and stay employed, you do what the boss tells you to do, no matter how ridiculous you think it is.
If this is your career and you can't get a better job than one where you feel you have to shovel shit, you're doing your life a disservice. Find something else which you do better, enjoy more and is more in line with your beliefs. If you respond with some excuse for why you "can't do that" then you've already failed life.
If IE6 doesn't support it, then it's probably not a useful feature for the WWW, being either eye candy or stupid "web app" crap. Fuck off with your need to make fancy drop-down menus and pixel-perfect positioning - the whole point is that you give me marked-up information and I render it how I please.
(Of course, IE6 has some irritating crap in it too - but not even ActiveX is as annoying as HTML 5 in terms of fucking up a decent idea.)
Worrying about strong crypto on a wifi device is like worrying about the locking mechanism on a safe with a window.
Any policy which relies on Apple's software, e.g. its implementation of "cryptographic protocols", must be wrong. The best one can hope for is hardware-based restrictions, i.e. (i) no physical connection to an insecure network; (ii) heavy firewalling and packet inspection to make sure the client system is not misbehaving; (iii) no wireless whatever, because a full analysis of the source is required to make sure nothing in the iPad can be exploited to cause it to retransmit sensitive data.
(assuming every line of iPad software source and firmware isn't being audited, including all updates)
If I was forced at gunpoint to be racist, I'd root for the race which doesn't engage in competitive behaviour. Relax and cooperate. Better to live 30 years in a friendly community than 60 among those who only want to step on you.
I don't remember anything through images. I can't conjure up an image. I have never remembered anything through imagery. I just have abstract ideas, connected together by some smooth flow of thoughts guided by manipulation rules. This means that what comes naturally to many people is difficult to me. On the other hand, what is much harder to other people - because they can't rely on imagery - is no harder for me than the simpler tasks. For example, I might find basic Euclidean geometry harder than the smart high schooler (I don't "see" anything or manipulate it in my head), but find non-Euclidean geometries no harder.
I'm sure it's unusual. It means some people seem to have very polarised views of me as either very smart or very dumb (why do people like pigeonholing so much?). I have consistently good results academically, but I know I work for it. I've got to the point where I'm annoyed when people talk about imagery to think and remember. Why should the brain work like that? We seem to know pretty much fuck all about how the brain engages in complex processes, and humans are all too happy when it comes to mental function to make sweeping statements to suit political aims from all sides. "We can all do it if we try hard enough" / "we're all the same, really" / "I am like this because I worked hard, you're just lazy!" / "I have a natural gift and I deserve to reap reward for it" etc. Yet you won't find many people saying that the difference between a fat slob and an olympic athlete is merely that the latter trains more.
private wireless networks that handle material of national security.
Lol, national security WiFi network.
to use iOS products in a secure manner
OK... what? When was iOS last developed as a military grade secure system?
Both the iPhone and iPad incorporate DSD-approved cryptographic algorithms and DSD-approved cryptographic protocols
Ooo. So does my undergraduate homework. But I sure as fuck hope it's not deployed anywhere, because it's not been designed or audited for anything at this level, and it is sure to have a million implementation problems. Nor am I available to audit every single code fix and functionality update.
You're displaying the common geek rush-to-arms that a potential etymology defines acceptable meaning. English is defined, if at all, by how she is commonly used and understood.
et al. is usually used to mean et alii (in the sense "and the other men/people") or et aliae (in the sense "and the other women"). Though you'll even find dictionaries suggesting that et alia could be the full form, used to refer to groups of both genders, this is nonsense - such a group is considered masculine. Poster was looking for et cetera, meaning "and the other things" (countries, Clinton's complaints, whatever - the ambiguity illustrates why it's not just lazy to have a list of only one item).
I guess he could retort that he was abbreviating et alibi, but the "place" is that sense is not commonly understood to be geographical.
The CIA answers to the government, not to the people. Its business is information, true or false. If making the CIA look like abunch of bumbling idiots while it's actually full of ruthless, effective bastards is what keeps the government happy (and the CIA in business), then that's the impression the CIA will be happy to give. Why would a bunch of unaccountable unstoppables care if occasionally the finger is pointed at them?
The game.
For the third time, this isn't a TCP/IP stack...
Thanks for repeating my criticism. Note the evidence that real calculators support real networking protocols.
you can't just bit bang serial protocols on any modern PC, so you need an intermediary device to have proper drivers for.
What does that mean? Is that marketing speak for "modern computers don't have an RS232 port"? Do you not have serial to USB converters there? If it's not-quite-RS232, can't you just level shift rather than using a whole embedded computer?