Who the hell is going to waste 21 minutes to find out all that was wrong with the Super Mario Bros movie?
It can be summed up as: lame assed live action adaptation of video game which was always going to suck. Nothing about that game was ever going to work in a live action adaptation without being terrible: not the characters, not the visuals, and not the plot. Because NO video game inspired movie had ever been successful before, and I'm hard pressed to think of any since which have been any better.
Same goes for this... I just don't see how you can have a movie about D&D which doesn't quickly devolve into "kids get sucked into game, mayhem ensues, and at the end it either was (or wasn't) just their imagination" (the last bit being determined if there is a lasting momento or not.
But, honestly, "I roll 13 with 3d6, and have killed your wizard" is going to make a terrible movie.
So essentially they want to bypass all forms of spending oversight, and want to be able to freewheel spending money on long bets with nobody telling them how they can spend it.
A paranoid DoD jumping at shadows, and looking to throw money at the private sector for whatever buzzword someone comes up with. Yeah, like this won't lead to massive amounts of utterly wasted money without any adult supervision. This is a license to spent like drunken monkeys on whatever random shit gets in someone's head.
Essentially the military industrial complex is trying to streamline the process and run like a venture capital organization, but with far less concern for the law or the Constitution.
In the books there's always a cigar chomping guy with a bad military haircut who does the reveal that they no longer listen to government.
This has "dodgy actors with slush fund and little oversight" written all over it. And, of course, corporate NDAs will preclude them ever being able to say what they do with all that money. Proprietary information and all that.
*sigh* Time to add another fucking layer of tinfoil.
Bring on the usual/. hatred of liberal arts majors.
We don't generally hate liberal arts... in this case we just have no idea of why tech firms would be hiring people without tech skills.
Of course, in a browser with javascript disabled, the Forbes article renders as the oh-so-poetic "false", and I don't give a damn enough to click the dice link.
So, TFA is pretty much non-existent as far as I'm concerned, and it's mostly yet another article submitted by that Lobster guy which links to dice. At this point I just assume he works for dice but refuses to mention that/
Check out the patch notes for Windows 10 updates (like KB3081452 [microsoft.com]) and all you'll get, and I'm quoting verbatim for that update, is:
Just as annoying.. the page doesn't work without Javascript, needs me to allow onestore.ms to load content and run scripts, let gfx.ms run scripts... in other words, they've got a terribly written website which seems to expect I'm going to trust an entire fucking TLD, and which will eventually probably need a Microsoft sign-in to see anything. Windows 10 is just completely, hilariously broken, to the point that Windows 8 seems amazing by comparison.
Windows 8.1 on a desktop with Classic Shell installed so it looks like Windows always did, and with all the apps, their store, the Metro interface and all of the other crap disabled... and it's a fine OS.
But all of the garbage Microsoft is putting in to copy things everyone else has done... complete garbage.
Yeah? And my existing iTunes library? My tax software? The software to keep my GPS up to date? The home design software I used when I needed to file a building permit?
I've used Linux off and on since Slackware 0.99 in 1993... and there still remain gaps in some places where you find it's not possible to ditch Windows because there's still pieces you need.
There just always seems to be a couple of things you still need, and for which the open source alternatives are either non-existent or absolutely terrible. At a certain point, building something which almost works from a kit ceases to be enjoyable.
And it's those places which put me back to having a Windows machine as my main machine.
Good luck figuring out which ones are safe to install.
Microsoft has promoted them to the point where they show as "Important" and claim to be for the stability of the OS. Unless you literally check every patch on the web to figure out if it isn't related to Windows 10 it's almost impossible.
They're going to shove this turd up people's asses no matter what it takes.
Apparently this is how Microsoft envisions the future... sending a big "fuck you" to their customers and telling them they don't have a choice in how Microsoft runs things, and are re-defining who actually owns the machine.
I'm so damned glad I've not allowed automatic updates. I'm seriously contemplating never applying a damned update to my Windows 8.1 desktop ever again.
Microsoft seems to have simply decided that the user has no choice in the matter, and that Microsoft is going to manage your computer for you.
Throw in all of the telemetry and other shitware they've been putting into the OS and Windows is rapidly becoming very hostile to the people who actually own the computers.
They're really acting like a bunch of assholes in how they're handling this damned update, and making it harder and harder to tell what is a "real" update and what is just shit they've put in for their own purposes.
What part of "this is my Windows 8.1 machine, I am not interested in Windows 10, fuck off and go away" is so hard to understand? Don't keep sneaking it in via stealthy means... because if you have to do this shit behind people's backs, you should take that as a sign nobody wants it.
Microsoft became an OS and PC behemoth in part by relentless focus on business sales
No, they became a dominant player with an abusive contract which said everybody had to pay Microsoft.
Yes, they focused heavily on business, and still see the world as Office and Outlook... but let's not start pretending they got where they are by selling a product in any other way than consumers not having much of a choice.
People had to go to court for the right to buy a computer without paying Microsoft. It's easier to rake in huge piles of cash when your product is contractually obligated as part of the sale.
No, running a smear campaign and hiding where it came from:
One leading public health attorney, asked to review the internal communications, said the egg marketing group was in breach of a US department of agriculture (USDA) regulation that specifically prohibited "any advertising (including press releases) deemed disparaging to another commodity".
You know, snidely suggesting someone else's product is inferior or unsafe. They didn't promote their own stuff, they attacked someone else's.
The AEB contracted Edelman, the world's largest public relations company, to coordinate the attack. One passage within the email tranche suggests that AEB amended its contract with Edelman to include a section called "Beyond Eggs Consumer Research".
"Conduct qualitative/quantitative consumer research to pinpoint and prioritize areas of focus. For example, research will, ideally, provide actionable intelligence on what attacks are gaining traction with consumers and which are not so as to help industry calibrate level of communications response (if any) to ensure a consistent response strategy moving forward," the passage reads.
"Ads considered disparaging are those that depict other commodities in a negative or unpleasant light via either video, photography or statements," said attorney Michele Simon, of the law firm Foscolo and Handel, after reviewing the AEB emails. "The entire contract [amendment] with Edelman violates this rule."
If you have a clause in your contract which says "attack", and the entire point is to literally undermine another industry, this isn't advertising and PR. This is a smear campaign.
If a person did this it would certainly be illegal. As it is when a corporation or lobby group does.
The problem is people keep clinging to an archaic definition which is really only applicable in very specific contexts, and ignoring that an entirely separate expression has also sprung up around it.
So in the context of logic and debate someone can still be "begging the question".
Likewise, if you say "We discovered this weekend Jane is allergic to eating poop". That pretty much begs ("for someone to ask") the question of "what the hell was Jane doing eating poop?"
Trust me, if shizzle is now a word... all you people fixated on this stupid thing about "begs the question" need to get the fuck over your own shizzle and accept that language, especially English, is a thing which changes over time.
The modern usage of "begs the question" has been in print for a very long time. It just happens to be close enough to another expression that the pedants get their knickers in a twist... because pedants like to exhibit pedantry.
I've started a second career, teaching English at a High School in a middle class area. While the large majority of students have a computer and internet access at home, about 10-15% do not. I assign papers that must be typed, I have papers turned in online, and I plan to freely refer to texts, videos, and other resources that are available online. This gives an extra disadvantage to students that may be from the poorer end of the strata, and also means extra inefficiency for me, as I have to make allowances for students who don't have a computer available at home.
At the end of the day, you can't demand parents buy computers or can provide access.
Unless there was a stipulation that the kids have it, you might be stuck.
So, maybe we can rephrase the question: I'm a complete prat who is going to insist my students have access to computers even if they don't now, what's the best way to do this?
Maybe you need to be having this discussion with your principal and/or school board. You simply decreeing students get computers might not actually mean anything other than you want it to be the case, and no matter how good your intentions are it might not be possible.
People living hand to mouth don't need some teacher telling them they need to buy a damned computer.
This whole question smacks of someone who is a little clueless and out of touch with reality due to not enough real experience.
If the DOJ can place Microsoft in an impossible situation they will be forced to move that data back to the US in future... Or at least duplicate it so that it is accessible under US jurisdiction.
Which still won't get them clear of the laws where the data was collected.
Which means Microsoft has one option left: stop doing business in those countries.
No matter how much the US blusters, they can't bypass the local laws. Either Microsoft complies with them, or they face the consequences. What they can't do is say they've got a note from Mommy so it's OK.
It doesn't work that way.
The problem here is the US are trying to enforce a law outside of their own country.
What WOULD be legal would be to have an exclusive contract with a spinoff company called MsCloudEU , which operates in the EU and follows EU laws.
See, Microsoft has incorporated separate legal entities in those countries. They pretty much have to.
And, guess what? They still have to follow the same damned laws.
But that wholly owned subsidiary incorporated in Ireland for the sweet tax laws? It's subject to the damned laws of Ireland.
What the US is claiming is that Microsoft Ireland is under the legal jurisdiction of the US government. Which is complete fucking bullshit.
So, either MS is not in a position where they can offer this service and be compliant with the law... or the US is attempting to claim to have extra-territorial laws.
But there is no sane argument in which the Irish data protection laws do not apply here.
More accurately... either the US government are idiots who are prepared to let Microsoft violate the law in other countries and deal with it on their own... or the US government are morons who think they can absolve Microsoft from the law in other countries.
If the legal argument comes down to "because we're America and we can do anything we fucking want", then the answer has to be an overwhelming "fuck you" in the form of seizing corporate assets, and throwing company officials in prison.
Unless the US wants to make it impossible for US businesses to do business outside of the US... there's no way they can just claim that Irish laws don't apply.
In which case the sooner they admit to claiming they're special and can make up their own rules, the sooner the rest of the world can start kicking out US companies and declaring some treaties null and void.
The US has no choice but to fight this, if Microsoft is allowed, once again, to defy the government of the United States, then we're going to get into really deep troubles with the whole pack of them.
This has always been the problem with international corporations, in making companies able to seek the lowest possible outcome, they essentially make it so that we don't have a rule of law, because we can't expect anyone to obey any of our laws.
I might care about this bit of sarcastic irony if the US government hadn't bee so thoroughly co-opted to serve the fucking interests of international corporations.
The US government pushes treaties which benefit the copyright cartel, which is almost entirely made up of multinational corporations. The US has done tremendous amounts of work to advance the interests of multinational corporations.
Having to deal with the legalities of multinational corporations is just too fucking bad. But it's sure as hell a situation they've helped create.
If Microsoft can only follow the laws of the US by breaking the laws of another country... it's the US laws which are defective by believing they can magically ignore the laws of other countries without penalty.
The US has decided they have the right to have extra-territorial laws.
They also seem to think they can force Microsoft to ignore the laws in other countries -- or at least that if they get forced to comply with the law that's Microsoft's problem to deal with.
Nothing the US government can ever do can absolve Microsoft from being subject to the laws in the countries where they do business. And the US is demanding information about citizens in another country.
If the belief is the US can do this and no other country can.... then America has really gotten themselves an over-inflated sense of self. But then again, I'm sure a lot of people will exactly that; it's OK to spy on other people, but if you do it to us it's an act of war.
Microsoft has no choice but to fight this. Because if they break the law in countries like Ireland they're pretty much going to get into really deep troubles and possibly lose the ability to do business in those countries.
This has always been the problem with the PATRIOT Act, in making American companies part of the spy apparatus, they essentially make it so that other countries simply cannot do business with American companies, because they can't trust American companies.
You didn't seriously think a lock provided any security, did you?
Fuck no. You'll notice I said "TSA morons" twice, as well as security theater, and said this was inevitable. I hadn't thought I'd given any suggestion I had any confidence in the whole thing.
I mean, you're locking the ZIPPER, of a CLOTH suitcase...
Mine aren't cloth.;-)
Do you also padlock paper bags so nobody steals your lunch?
Oh hell yeah, keep those thieving bastards away from my PB&J at all costs... I even put a rabid squirrel in just in case someone gets past the lock.
When I travel with my golf clubs I put tape on all the locks with the combination printed on it... because I'd rather make sure they can easily get into it instead of having to do something more drastic.
And my carry on is where all of my electronics get carried. No way in hell I'd trust the luggage monkeys with that.
Will I stop using TSA approved locks? Nope, because I don't want them to have to cut it if they suddenly feel the need.
Do I think I trust the luggage handlers any more or less with those locks? Hell no. They've been caught stealing and smuggling enough to tell me I don't trust luggage handlers at all... not to be honest and trustworthy, and not to do anything than not give a shit about my luggage. I've seen far too many of them in action.
What's really troubling is these guys aren't under nearly enough scrutiny to know if they're smuggling, stealing, or planting bombs. Because we know damned well they've been caught smuggling and stealing.
I always assumed they had had backdoor access of some sort.
Why would you have had to assume anything... that slot designed to push in a master key and be opened is pretty plain. That this can happen is printed on the instructions of any of them I've ever seen.
Good that its now out in the open completely for those who couldn't read between the lines. And no I'm not some grand conspiracy theorist, I just couldn't fathom why else we suddenly needed 'TSA Approved' locks to fly with.
Dude... are you dense? They've flat out said those locks are designed to be opened by them with a master key.
You never needed to read between the lines, it's been printed on the instructions as long as these have existed. Their entire purpose is to be a lock they don't need to cut off if they want a closer look... and that has been pretty well published.
How you're only now realizing they've had master keys or think they've been hiding this fact is kind of mind boggling.
This has always been out in the open. Which means apparently everybody except you has known this for over a decade.
I'm actually surprised it took this long to compromise the master key. Because that was pretty much always inevitable.
Slashdot Mirror
Who the hell is going to waste 21 minutes to find out all that was wrong with the Super Mario Bros movie?
It can be summed up as: lame assed live action adaptation of video game which was always going to suck. Nothing about that game was ever going to work in a live action adaptation without being terrible: not the characters, not the visuals, and not the plot. Because NO video game inspired movie had ever been successful before, and I'm hard pressed to think of any since which have been any better.
Same goes for this ... I just don't see how you can have a movie about D&D which doesn't quickly devolve into "kids get sucked into game, mayhem ensues, and at the end it either was (or wasn't) just their imagination" (the last bit being determined if there is a lasting momento or not.
But, honestly, "I roll 13 with 3d6, and have killed your wizard" is going to make a terrible movie.
I have a title for them though: Jurassic Dork.
So essentially they want to bypass all forms of spending oversight, and want to be able to freewheel spending money on long bets with nobody telling them how they can spend it.
A paranoid DoD jumping at shadows, and looking to throw money at the private sector for whatever buzzword someone comes up with. Yeah, like this won't lead to massive amounts of utterly wasted money without any adult supervision. This is a license to spent like drunken monkeys on whatever random shit gets in someone's head.
Essentially the military industrial complex is trying to streamline the process and run like a venture capital organization, but with far less concern for the law or the Constitution.
In the books there's always a cigar chomping guy with a bad military haircut who does the reveal that they no longer listen to government.
This has "dodgy actors with slush fund and little oversight" written all over it. And, of course, corporate NDAs will preclude them ever being able to say what they do with all that money. Proprietary information and all that.
*sigh* Time to add another fucking layer of tinfoil.
And without authorization from the owner of the car, or notification it was being done.
So, violation of the computer fraud and abuse act?
Sure sounds like hacking to me. Oh, but it's a corporation, so it's OK.
We don't generally hate liberal arts ... in this case we just have no idea of why tech firms would be hiring people without tech skills.
Of course, in a browser with javascript disabled, the Forbes article renders as the oh-so-poetic "false", and I don't give a damn enough to click the dice link.
So, TFA is pretty much non-existent as far as I'm concerned, and it's mostly yet another article submitted by that Lobster guy which links to dice. At this point I just assume he works for dice but refuses to mention that/
Just as annoying .. the page doesn't work without Javascript, needs me to allow onestore.ms to load content and run scripts, let gfx.ms run scripts ... in other words, they've got a terribly written website which seems to expect I'm going to trust an entire fucking TLD, and which will eventually probably need a Microsoft sign-in to see anything.
Windows 10 is just completely, hilariously broken, to the point that Windows 8 seems amazing by comparison.
Windows 8.1 on a desktop with Classic Shell installed so it looks like Windows always did, and with all the apps, their store, the Metro interface and all of the other crap disabled ... and it's a fine OS.
But all of the garbage Microsoft is putting in to copy things everyone else has done ... complete garbage.
LOL ... but ... but ... no cloud?
Yeah? And my existing iTunes library? My tax software? The software to keep my GPS up to date? The home design software I used when I needed to file a building permit?
I've used Linux off and on since Slackware 0.99 in 1993 ... and there still remain gaps in some places where you find it's not possible to ditch Windows because there's still pieces you need.
There just always seems to be a couple of things you still need, and for which the open source alternatives are either non-existent or absolutely terrible. At a certain point, building something which almost works from a kit ceases to be enjoyable.
And it's those places which put me back to having a Windows machine as my main machine.
Oooh ... a class action lawsuit ... know what you'll get? A fucking voucher for a copy of Windows 10.
Besides, the EULA probably says you have to agree to arbitration. It probably also says you can't do that either.
Ain't it grand?
Good luck figuring out which ones are safe to install.
Microsoft has promoted them to the point where they show as "Important" and claim to be for the stability of the OS. Unless you literally check every patch on the web to figure out if it isn't related to Windows 10 it's almost impossible.
They're going to shove this turd up people's asses no matter what it takes.
Apparently this is how Microsoft envisions the future ... sending a big "fuck you" to their customers and telling them they don't have a choice in how Microsoft runs things, and are re-defining who actually owns the machine.
I'm so damned glad I've not allowed automatic updates. I'm seriously contemplating never applying a damned update to my Windows 8.1 desktop ever again.
Microsoft seems to have simply decided that the user has no choice in the matter, and that Microsoft is going to manage your computer for you.
Throw in all of the telemetry and other shitware they've been putting into the OS and Windows is rapidly becoming very hostile to the people who actually own the computers.
They're really acting like a bunch of assholes in how they're handling this damned update, and making it harder and harder to tell what is a "real" update and what is just shit they've put in for their own purposes.
What part of "this is my Windows 8.1 machine, I am not interested in Windows 10, fuck off and go away" is so hard to understand? Don't keep sneaking it in via stealthy means ... because if you have to do this shit behind people's backs, you should take that as a sign nobody wants it.
No, they became a dominant player with an abusive contract which said everybody had to pay Microsoft.
Yes, they focused heavily on business, and still see the world as Office and Outlook ... but let's not start pretending they got where they are by selling a product in any other way than consumers not having much of a choice.
People had to go to court for the right to buy a computer without paying Microsoft. It's easier to rake in huge piles of cash when your product is contractually obligated as part of the sale.
No, running a smear campaign and hiding where it came from:
You know, snidely suggesting someone else's product is inferior or unsafe. They didn't promote their own stuff, they attacked someone else's.
If you have a clause in your contract which says "attack", and the entire point is to literally undermine another industry, this isn't advertising and PR. This is a smear campaign.
If a person did this it would certainly be illegal. As it is when a corporation or lobby group does.
So, using entirely new words:
decluttering half-ass fap fap fap forensics gunna photobomb retweeting scenarioist twerking shizzle
Ta da ... English is whatever popular usage tells us it is.
Which begs the question ... how did we ever survive before "twerking" and "shizzle" were actually words?
Decades ago. Many many decades ago.
The problem is people keep clinging to an archaic definition which is really only applicable in very specific contexts, and ignoring that an entirely separate expression has also sprung up around it.
So in the context of logic and debate someone can still be "begging the question".
Likewise, if you say "We discovered this weekend Jane is allergic to eating poop". That pretty much begs ("for someone to ask") the question of "what the hell was Jane doing eating poop?"
Trust me, if shizzle is now a word ... all you people fixated on this stupid thing about "begs the question" need to get the fuck over your own shizzle and accept that language, especially English, is a thing which changes over time.
The modern usage of "begs the question" has been in print for a very long time. It just happens to be close enough to another expression that the pedants get their knickers in a twist ... because pedants like to exhibit pedantry.
At the end of the day, you can't demand parents buy computers or can provide access.
Unless there was a stipulation that the kids have it, you might be stuck.
So, maybe we can rephrase the question: I'm a complete prat who is going to insist my students have access to computers even if they don't now, what's the best way to do this?
Maybe you need to be having this discussion with your principal and/or school board. You simply decreeing students get computers might not actually mean anything other than you want it to be the case, and no matter how good your intentions are it might not be possible.
People living hand to mouth don't need some teacher telling them they need to buy a damned computer.
This whole question smacks of someone who is a little clueless and out of touch with reality due to not enough real experience.
Well, if it's a self healing zipper, which it likely is ... I can pop open the zipper, and close it back up and you will never know.
If I cut the luggage, that's pretty much impossible to miss.
Which means I can steal your stuff, and until you get home and unpack your suitcase, you'll never know.
Obviously don't check expensive stuff. But this lock being easier to open than we thought doesn't make you any less secure than it already was.
Which still won't get them clear of the laws where the data was collected.
Which means Microsoft has one option left: stop doing business in those countries.
No matter how much the US blusters, they can't bypass the local laws. Either Microsoft complies with them, or they face the consequences. What they can't do is say they've got a note from Mommy so it's OK.
It doesn't work that way.
The problem here is the US are trying to enforce a law outside of their own country.
See, Microsoft has incorporated separate legal entities in those countries. They pretty much have to.
And, guess what? They still have to follow the same damned laws.
But that wholly owned subsidiary incorporated in Ireland for the sweet tax laws? It's subject to the damned laws of Ireland.
What the US is claiming is that Microsoft Ireland is under the legal jurisdiction of the US government. Which is complete fucking bullshit.
So, either MS is not in a position where they can offer this service and be compliant with the law ... or the US is attempting to claim to have extra-territorial laws.
But there is no sane argument in which the Irish data protection laws do not apply here.
More accurately ... either the US government are idiots who are prepared to let Microsoft violate the law in other countries and deal with it on their own ... or the US government are morons who think they can absolve Microsoft from the law in other countries.
If the legal argument comes down to "because we're America and we can do anything we fucking want", then the answer has to be an overwhelming "fuck you" in the form of seizing corporate assets, and throwing company officials in prison.
Unless the US wants to make it impossible for US businesses to do business outside of the US ... there's no way they can just claim that Irish laws don't apply.
In which case the sooner they admit to claiming they're special and can make up their own rules, the sooner the rest of the world can start kicking out US companies and declaring some treaties null and void.
I might care about this bit of sarcastic irony if the US government hadn't bee so thoroughly co-opted to serve the fucking interests of international corporations.
The US government pushes treaties which benefit the copyright cartel, which is almost entirely made up of multinational corporations. The US has done tremendous amounts of work to advance the interests of multinational corporations.
Having to deal with the legalities of multinational corporations is just too fucking bad. But it's sure as hell a situation they've helped create.
If Microsoft can only follow the laws of the US by breaking the laws of another country ... it's the US laws which are defective by believing they can magically ignore the laws of other countries without penalty.
Short version: too fucking bad.
Pretty much that.
The US has decided they have the right to have extra-territorial laws.
They also seem to think they can force Microsoft to ignore the laws in other countries -- or at least that if they get forced to comply with the law that's Microsoft's problem to deal with.
Nothing the US government can ever do can absolve Microsoft from being subject to the laws in the countries where they do business. And the US is demanding information about citizens in another country.
If the belief is the US can do this and no other country can .... then America has really gotten themselves an over-inflated sense of self. But then again, I'm sure a lot of people will exactly that; it's OK to spy on other people, but if you do it to us it's an act of war.
Microsoft has no choice but to fight this. Because if they break the law in countries like Ireland they're pretty much going to get into really deep troubles and possibly lose the ability to do business in those countries.
This has always been the problem with the PATRIOT Act, in making American companies part of the spy apparatus, they essentially make it so that other countries simply cannot do business with American companies, because they can't trust American companies.
I'm sure the GP knows that.
Splitting open a zipper isn't rocket science ... googling tells me you just need a pen.
Zip tie, padlock ... easily bypassed with a pen and popping the zipper open.
I'm pretty sure your use of zip tie wasn't missed.
Fuck no. You'll notice I said "TSA morons" twice, as well as security theater, and said this was inevitable. I hadn't thought I'd given any suggestion I had any confidence in the whole thing.
Mine aren't cloth. ;-)
Oh hell yeah, keep those thieving bastards away from my PB&J at all costs ... I even put a rabid squirrel in just in case someone gets past the lock.
I also keep my Lucky Charms in a safe.
Pretty much this.
When I travel with my golf clubs I put tape on all the locks with the combination printed on it ... because I'd rather make sure they can easily get into it instead of having to do something more drastic.
And my carry on is where all of my electronics get carried. No way in hell I'd trust the luggage monkeys with that.
Will I stop using TSA approved locks? Nope, because I don't want them to have to cut it if they suddenly feel the need.
Do I think I trust the luggage handlers any more or less with those locks? Hell no. They've been caught stealing and smuggling enough to tell me I don't trust luggage handlers at all ... not to be honest and trustworthy, and not to do anything than not give a shit about my luggage. I've seen far too many of them in action.
What's really troubling is these guys aren't under nearly enough scrutiny to know if they're smuggling, stealing, or planting bombs. Because we know damned well they've been caught smuggling and stealing.
Why would you have had to assume anything ... that slot designed to push in a master key and be opened is pretty plain. That this can happen is printed on the instructions of any of them I've ever seen.
Dude ... are you dense? They've flat out said those locks are designed to be opened by them with a master key.
You never needed to read between the lines, it's been printed on the instructions as long as these have existed. Their entire purpose is to be a lock they don't need to cut off if they want a closer look ... and that has been pretty well published.
How you're only now realizing they've had master keys or think they've been hiding this fact is kind of mind boggling.
This has always been out in the open. Which means apparently everybody except you has known this for over a decade.
I'm actually surprised it took this long to compromise the master key. Because that was pretty much always inevitable.