Exactly my thoughts. I was so envious of my brother who went through school years ahead of me. He was able to take metal shop, learn to run a mill, lathe and to weld. By the time I got to high school the metal shop had been shuttered. I was still able to take auto mechanics for a couple semesters and got good at fixing cars. But I'd really love to learn how to weld properly. Yeah...a 3D printer will allow you to build plastic crap that will break and you'll have to make a new one - which fits our disposable mentality these days - but machining and welding allow you to make something robust that will last for years and can be repaired if it breaks.

Quality is dead. Disposable is king.

Agreed...but apparently throwing iPads at the problem will fix it...or that's what many seem to think.

I did mention it was fiction, btw. I never said that governments or individuals would feel bound by any of those in real life. I totally agree with your analysis - greed and the lust for power trumps decency every time.

Science fiction...

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

I was always amazed that the evasive maneuver employed by the SR-71 in the event of a ground-air missile launch was to simply accelerate away. That is seriously badass. Granted, if you are at 80k feet you will have some time before said missile even gets close.

beat me to it

That too is entirely possible. As always, our conclusions from reading an article depend on our personal biases. That's what leads to healthy debate.

VW owns among others:

Volkswagen
Porsche
Skoda
Audi
Bentley
Bugatti
Lamborghini

Some of these are not cheap cars. Not necessarily all use the same system but if so there's reasonable incentive for building this device if the plans are available.

Not quite.
From the article they did say the modifications were "malicious" which implies that they felt they were deliberate. I didn't actually notice that there was reference to a suspected Chinese Govt. tie-in.

I think (I do not know) they decided to not announce the vulnerabilities because they could be exploited by other parties. This is common with software vulnerabilities where they are not announced but are rather provided to the software company to patch before becoming a problem. This wouldn't generally be as simple with a hardware hole. Besides...they could also be reasonably sure that if the hole was only known by themselves and the entity that created it...any future attack could only come from limited sources which could be valuable intelligence.

Also, if they announced it and someone did utilize it for nefarious means then they would be potentially liable for damages. Not to mention that Lenovo would not be happy about the accusations - I have no idea what recourse they might have though. We may see soon.

Finally...do I "believe that leaving people's computers vulnerable to mass Chinese attack is better than warning people; allowing them to take countermeasures and having some inevitable exploits by individual hackers?" I would say no. Nowhere in my comments did I intend to imply that I was in agreement with the decision to keep it quiet. It's kind of like the NSA...I understand why they record everything...even though I'm not okay with it.

If you read the ORIGINAL article from Financial Review you may note this:

"Members of the British and Australian defence and intelligence communities say that malicious modifications to Lenovo’s circuitry – beyond more typical vulnerabilities or “zero-days” in its software – were discovered that could allow people to remotely access devices without the users’ knowledge. The alleged presence of these hardware “back doors” remains highly classified."

So, they found hardware vulnerabilities but they aren't stating what they are. Probably because they know that people would start exploiting them immediately. There's a reason this stuff stays quiet. Also note that the ban started in 2006. This is pretty old...it only getting reported now.

/. readers are not who they are trying to "help."

We all know many people who don't know the first thing about where to go to find what they are looking for. They don't even use google...they are generally using their ISPs homepage because that's what was set up when they got interweb. To these folks, the site with the biggest flashing ad claiming to have what they are after must be okay...right?

If this was an option in the browser that you had to opt-in to, fine. I certainly don't want it but it might help people who struggle to find their way around.

Wait...does this mean that the Tesla will be subsidized by the power company so I can buy it for $25k? Of course I'll have to sign a 10 year contract with them before I'll be eligible for an upgrade.

I firmly believe that if you are carrying a weapon you have a responsibility to NOT escalate a situation if you can help it. If you can walk away and drop it, then do it. If you just throw fuel on the fire and make it worse and end up shooting the other person then expect to be reamed in court.

I guess the bottom line for me is that a gun should never be used in anger. Defense, yes...anger, no. It's a way to save your life, not settle an argument.

Well, I know I suck at those types of rapid decisions and end up usually paralyzed by indecision and getting a bullet as a result. For that reason I get frustrated by games where I just die repeatedly and make slow, if any, progress.

Subsequently I play games that I enjoy that involve more problem solving (Portal) or have more options for freedom of movement and exploration (Skyrim, Far Cry 3). Unfair weapons (ie: one-shot-one-kill silenced 50cal sniper rifle) also make the game more enjoyable by tipping the balance in my favor.

It's no coincidence my PS tag line is: "I'll let you win."

Does gaming make you better at these tests or is it just that people that have these particular skills tend to gravitate to action video games?