Look, that guy ("Required Snark") might have been an asshole, but you didn't really acquit yourself well either in your original post. I cofounded and work for a real-time telemetry contractor. We use Android, but the Linux kernel isn't built to handle read-time applications reliably. There are too many things to handle in terms of time-safe task-switching, execution, multi-processing, and internal consistency in order for it to be a good RTOS. So keeping that in mind, I had to implement a real time environment in userspace that uses root and some native code in order to collect data, send data, and operate hardware in a safe, timely manner. But this isn't the best solution because I still have to deal with the fact that it's all just a frustrating abstraction sitting on top of a kernel that isn't at all concerned with what I'm actually trying to do, despite my best efforts to single-handedly make the necessary changes.

Your "newer processors" bit is also completely off the mark. Radiation-hardened processors lag generations behind owing to the need for extensive redesign and testing. Complicating this picture is the fact that even then, they still have varying levels of reliability and power efficiency. You don't want a processor that has a microcode architecture that makes your targeted code difficult to semantically evaluate and verify. You don't want (or need) a recent processor that hasn't had extensive real-world user testing. You want a processor in the goldilocks zone, one that you've worked with before and has a community behind it.

Keeping that all in mind, they chose a good processor, and already had an OS largely built for it based on previous missions with earlier versions of the same processor.

You're jumping on a bandwagon, parroting what you've heard others say. The first release had some glaring issues that invited SQL injections, mostly. Then the source was released and others began fixing those issues while keeping the data model and UI work the kids had done. As my parent post indicated, you can't judge Linux 3.6 by looking at Torvald's first shitty Linux release. Same thing here.

Frankly, the whole "better to do nothing" idea is completely asinine. It was first started by a blogger, Peter Cantrememberlastname, that wanted to elevate his pageviews by promoting the sensationalist view that the first release was so broken that it was unsalvageable. Completely wrong. Go look at the crypto section of the Diaspora wiki and the source itself if you still have doubts on the basis of a shitty, condescending blog post from two years ago.

I guess you're the center of the universe, then. It didn't happen if you didn't read it. So I'll provide some tech news/blog posts about the similarity. FYI, Diaspora first released the aspects ("circles") feature and the alpha UI in September 2010. Google+ launched in June 2011.

http://www.gizmag.com/diaspora-google-plus-resemblance/20638/

http://www.launch.co/blog/did-google-copy-diaspora-or-vice-versa.html

http://babyfruit.typepad.com/mediagirl/2011/09/google-meet-diaspora-or-maybe-you-know-them-already.html

http://www.launch.co/blog/diaspora-finally-unveiled-feels-like-google.html

No, it uses different "pods", or diaspora servers. These pods communicate with each other, hence the "decentralized social networking" description. You set up an account with one pod, but you can communicate with people on other pods. You can search for a person faster if you know what pod they're on. I have an account on diasp, so my address is [username].diasp.org, which could help you find me if you're on another pod. As far as I know, all pods achieved federation some time ago, so this shouldn't be a problem.

This is a completely sensationalist and somewhat deceptive post.

First of all, those security bugs existed in the first release, before Diaspora even went open-source. Discussing Diaspora's first bugs without mentioning its current project status is like complaining about the first release of Linux when Linux 3.6 just came out. The author is deliberately leaving out information about the current status of the project in a way that is intended to further a deceptive conclusion in the reader's mind.

Second of all, check out http://diasp.org/ because it seriously works.

Third, Diaspora is still being developed by its community.

Fourth, Diaspora had the equivalent of the "circles" feature before Google+ did. In fact, the first release of Google+ looked so similar to Diaspora that people started to talk. And acting like Google+ somehow made Diaspora irrelevant is totally stupid. Apples and Oranges. Big Data and decentralized social networking. They have different purposes and therefore can't be directly compared.

Quit with the sensationalist tech journalism. I don't even use social networking much any more, but considering the friends I know who swear by Diaspora, I know its far from the idea of "a few young kids" creating a failure, which is what this stupid article champions.

Five years ago I did my IB thesis on this robot. This is very old news.

By pulling an Ad Hominem, you've forever cast your reliability into doubt! You're obviously a person who does nothing but smear people! I can't trust anything you tell me!

Oh wait, that's your logic. Huh. How bout that.

Nope, that's the slippery slope fallacy. You should analyze motives and context to figure out whether a particular action is likely to be a lie instead of perjoratively declaring that an individual's satirical counter-smear ends all possibility of future truth. It was immature, but Assange was never some sort of bastion of perfection and holiness. He does, however, serve a useful function on occasion.

Have they done that on any other occasions? Because if not, you can't declare a trend of "embarrassing and smearing".

Still going on with that silly conspiracy theory, I see. The site is hosted with others by an organization in Sweden at Bahnhof datacenter. Why would the datacenter wish to harm its reputation by going along with such an action? Up-time is a very critical metric for attracting new customers.

Additionally, you haven't addressed by Wikileaks would harm the very site that hosts all of its donation information. How can they "donate now" if they can't get the relevant info? People have short attention spans, when the site comes back up it's not going to be as if there are thousands of people rushing all at once to donate to poor Wikileaks. This is the exact opposite tactic a person would take if they were looking for donations.

Baseless speculation.

First of all, Bill Keller really did write an enormous ad-hominem piece on Assange. The Keller hoax was childish revenge, sure, but it was NOT just done for no reason.

Second of all, the idea that Wikileaks would DDOS itself (thus removing the ability for anyone to actually hit the "donate" buttons on the site) is completely nonsensical. Wikileaks doesn't have the resources to hire a botnet to do that (and they'd need a botnet owing to the secure host Wikileaks uses).

Third, Assange may be vain, but his publicity stunts are mostly confined to revenge and his extradition case. He seems to be pretty preoccupied with getting asylum, his leaks, and his work for RT.

I don't think your conspiracy theory makes sense on multiple levels.

Cutsy sardonic title with no correct assertions made. Please try to familiarize yourself with the project before being a useless contrarian.

This is not a "FOSS" game. It is a reimplementation of the game engine that does not change any of the original visual resources. And it already looks better than the original.

Your comment is therefore irrelevant.

How does that constitute me being "misinformed"?

You're only talking about the internal decision about molestation (which doesn't appear to contradict anything I said), not about the response.

Your claim appears to be contradicted by both the BBC (in one of my source links) and CNN:

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-08-23/world/sweden.wikileaks.assange_1_arrest-warrant-wikileaks-julian-assange?_s=PM:WORLD

http://www.nickdavies.net/2010/08/29/assange-and-the-sex-charges-the-missing-facts/

I don't think it's an "American plot". Just diplomatic pressure. Attempting to influence another country is a sticky business that often happens behind closed doors, and the speed of the negotiations doesn't always correspond to an external timeline. That being said, the US had no idea which cables he had before he released them, and furthermore, he was in negotiations with the Pentagon/State Department which broke down shortly before these allegations. So to me, their delayed action suggests a "wait and see" attitude.

You appear to have some crucial facts wrong.

Sweden dropped the charges on 21 August 2010 as "baseless". He had sex with both women, and neither had a problem until they found out about each other. They then wanted Assange to take an STD test. He refused, and they then went to the police. They reopened the case early in September, but told him he was free to leave the country.

In November, Sweden signaled that it wished to detain him for questioning, despite the fact that he had already been thoroughly questioned and had offered to be further questioned via video link from the UK. No formal charges were/have been pressed.

Interpol approved a Red Notice on Assange on 20 November. Red Notices tend to be used for manhunts of dangerous criminals or notorious fraudsters (A Red Notice was issued for Osama Bin Laden, for example). Assange then turned himself in to the Police in England, and was held in solitary confinement for 10 days (several sources have indicated that this was not standard procedure).

To summarize: It's the inconsistency of the whole affair that looks odd. They seriously reopened a case that was previously said to be baseless, initiated an international manhunt for one of the mildest possible sex crimes defined anywhere in the civilized world, and then put the guy in solitary?

Disclaimer: I don't think there's any conspiracy to actually grab Assange from Sweden and ship him to the US, but I do think this is something the US would do to incapacitate a troublesome individual. The US has certainly done worse. I guess I should also mention that the US has used Sweden for extraordinary rendition in the past. Although I don't think that will happen to Assange, it is indicate of the US's influence over Swedish policy.

Sources:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/08/report-assange-rape-case-sparked-std-fears/

http://thestandard.org.nz/marianne-ny-making-an-arse-of-swedish-law/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11949341

Imagine the looks on the faces of mice as CATCOPTERS rain death from above!

hey guys

geeks have to grill different

because they're geeks and have to be different and stuff

yeah, that makes sense.

1. That doesn't make any sense. By that definition, all major game studios would be independent.

2. Mojang is not a small time player anymore.

3. "Indie" definitely does indeed refer to small time self-owned business encompassing a very small group of people (I usually don't even use the word "studio" unless they actually have a physical studio). There is no other sensical definition.

4. I've been a part of an indie development shops. Mojang is not an indie development shop.