Visiting China with such tools on your laptop? Pretty stupid, unless you're going there to spend a lot of money.

Less mass beneath my feet? That depends very much on how you measure "beneath", right? I'd argue that if your load is being distributed into something, it's beneath you. If I'm standing on a mountain which is sufficiently sharply pointed, then almost the entire mountain might be engaged in supporting my weight — cue fat jokes. But anything it's standing on is going to be the same thing, so wouldn't that make it more mass "beneath" my feet?

Anyway, I RTFA (my geek card is in the mail, it should be back at the processing facility shortly) and the article is all gushily excited that "thereâ(TM)s far more crust underneath the mountains than there is in the oceans!" Wait, was this a surprise to anyone? Mountains happen when earth gets shoved up into the air. They're not pimples.

So in short, the article comes to completely the opposite conclusion of the truth: they say that "if you wanted the least amount of mass beneath your feet, youâ(TM)d climb up to the peak of the highest mountain" when in fact, there is more mass beneath your feet if you stand on a mountain than if you stand on the seabed or in a valley, because of all the mass that by definition can't be beneath your feet if you're standing at a lower altitude.

No, it comes down to explicitness is always better than explicitness. There is no case in which yours is better, or even usable code.

Don't worry- Java people are learning how to make up for that by creating whole incomprehensible sublanguages based on annotation processing that make C macros look good.

Totally disagree. If I see

for(int i: items) {
  if(i<10){
    results.add(i);
  }
}

I know exactly what it does. Anyone who has done any programming in any language can guess what it does. Its simple, easy to read, and if you want can be pulled into a function. Your haskell and Python implementations are unreadable and requires the user to think about each line. They're inferior to straight forward programming by orders of magnitude and should never be used.

Tunneled down into the articles, http://git.neil.brown.name/?p=... has the patch. I'm building a system with 4.0.4 right now so this was material to me

You're a nutter, you are. AVP was actually catching virii for me, so I know it was valuable. Haven't had a valid detection in years, but I still run antivirus... because now I have multicore and SSD and the penalty is low.

I remember when AVP came out, it was both the fastest and best NT antivirus around.

Then they made a few "updates" and we started calling it "a v poo" (IT nerds are known for their maturity) because it would choke your system like a punk.

It's sad that they're still not capable of making an antivirus product that doesn't turn your awesomesauce PC into a turd.

I bought it on launch for the 360 as well and their horrible failure of execution ruined it for me much of the time. I'll wait until the PC version hits the bargain bin before I screw with them again.

They must surely mean that the parts of the system which are not the Linux kernel take up only 10kB. The kernel has crypto services in.

Adblock winds up blocking a lot of scripts, but yes, I use noscript as well since that's its primary purpose.

But that's almost the same conversion factor as between commercial trucks and cars. By the same token, shouldn't the road taxes be divided up by who is actually doing the damage, with the commercial trucks paying vastly more?

It has a better adblock than regular firefox, which is all I meant. Less chance of malware hitting your system.

It was solved in the 80s and then crapped on in the 90s in the name of making ever-cheaper disposable printers for the purpose of selling million-dollar ink cartridges and print heads.