Then the third world can quickly become as woefully unproductive as the first world.

Don't get yourself too excited about what my trolls like to try to rattle my cage with. As usual, when he uses a word derived from "prove" it doesn't mean anything.

That is one way to look at it. A competing hypothesis is that the business line systems are more profitable in general, while the consumer lines are subsidized by the software that they install on them before shipping. Hence the consumer level ones were being consistently filled up with an ever-increasing load of crapware to make them more (if only marginally) profitable. Whether there was ever any ethics considered by the company is not clear.

Well, some people really love to embrace mediocrity.

The business Lenovo systems - ThinkPad laptops and ThinkStation workstations - were not part of this as Lenovo never installed superfish on any of them. This only applied to their mediocre consumer-level units that were sold as Lenovos with other model names.

Just another reason why I only buy ThinkPads for my own use. Home, work, etc; I won't buy anything else. Lenovo knows better than to risk that golden goose.

I was trying to load a lenovo forum on the superfish situation yesterday and was puzzled why it was just showing me G-rated pictures of teenagers staring at cameras. I figured something had gone amiss with the code running the forum, or something was weird with my browser that moment. I then found the information I wanted elsewhere.

In other words, this wasn't a very impressive hack.

I'll leave it up to any other readers to tally up the unsupported claims in that comment you just made. There are at least three that I can plainly see in just that one comment of yours that are completely counter to reality.

Since you seem to love the sound of your own words, go ahead and say something else stupid that is counter to reality. I'll let you have the last word again as I'm tired of your nonsense. Should you ever decide to let up on your trolling and try an actual discussion, you know where to find me.

You are consistently not reading what I write, that is clear.

I'm not squirming. I have held a consistent position and you have consistently not bothered to read it. I'm sorry you keep coming here and making yourself look like such an idiot.

If you can't spare the effort of reading a comment before replying to it, there is no reason to attempt a discussion with you. Come back when you read what I say before you just spew out what you want to say about me.

I've dealt with stoned people before who I am perfectly fine associating with when they are sober, but I find obnoxious when they're stoned. I don't give a damn how stoned they want to be when they are alone, but they don't have any more of a right to interfere with society than any person under any other substance. Just because they aren't violent - and not every drunk is violent, either - doesn't mean they need to be welcomed into society.

And you know I don't support outlawing pot. I have said that many times. I want to see it treated exactly the same as alcohol.

It sounds like someone is trying to force a company to transport a good to a customer. That sounds counter to the free market as I understand it. Under a free market isn't a company free to turn down any business they don't want to be involved with? If FedEx doesn't want to handle and deliver this product, why are people trying to force them to?

Too bad you didn't actually read what I wrote, or you could have spared yourself the embarrassment of writing that comment. I could point out to you how wrong you are, but if you didn't read it the first time why would I expect you to read it later?

Go on, say something else stupid and fact-free; I'll let you have the last word.

I believe I've said this before, but I'll rephrase it. If my neighbor wants to get stoned at home and stay home, I don't care. Hell he can do heroin, coke, whatever he wants at home as long as he stays home. I don't care if he uses a combination of different recreational drugs as long as he stays home.

I have a problem when people who are under the influence go out and interfere with non-intoxicated society. If someone has too much to drink and goes out wandering around they can expect to be charged with drunk in public, if they are stupid enough to attempt to drive a car they get DUI. I want to see the same for all recreational drugs. At that point, we would truly be treating them all the same.

The Pro Pot Propaganda Pushers should support this if they really want pot treated the same as alcohol. Instead we have many people who want pot treated more like water than like alcohol.

I believe I have also stated before that what I want to see is a reliable and quantifiable test for when someone has had too much to be out in public. Again, this is what we do with alcohol - I want to see it for any recreational drug that we legalize for general consumption.

True, you need no purpose. I don't care that you have none, but the lack of a purpose does make you look rather ridiculous.

True, but by never backing anything up you end up supporting the hypothesis that nothing you write comes with any sincerity at all

Considering how often you write replies to what I write - particularly since you reply to what I write without reading what I write - you can't make much of an argument for not caring.