the usa has much better free speech protections than russia

free speech leads to a populace that has a healthier critical eye than citizens in countries where few alternative narratives are allowed

russian government, by controlling media, is breeding flabby, uncritical russian minds

of course there are still critical russian minds. of course there are flabby propagandized americans. but on average, the usa does better than russia on this measure, because russian government's hostile attitude to alternative perspectives

is fox news a product of the us govt? are competing news outlets shut down, harassed, or absorbed?

With 22 different models of crap home routers I would have expected the pen-testing equivalent of clotted rivers of gore pouring through heaps of smouldering rubble and pooling around the skull pyramids that seem to rise higher than the walls that once offered the false promise of shelter. Not merely 60 serious vulnerabilities.

Until then, it's not really any better than vaporware.

Just because something's too expensive for cheap-ass home computer users doesn't mean it's "vaporware". There's a lot of other sectors in the computing market that can afford more.

Well to be fair, according to TFS, this company has done nothing but talk since 2001, almost 15 years now. Now it's finally got something ready for production.

How long has HP been talking about memristors? I don't think it's been this long.

I wonder how this (now proven) technology stacks up against (not yet proven) memristors in terms of density and speed.

and you are an authority because...

well said and absolutely correct

furthermore, it trains critical minds to be exposed to everything. in this world, there is only one guarantor of truth: you. and you only get a good mind that can smell out bullshit by being exposed to all the different bullshit

although, there are minds that would have been great, in less free countries, but those minds are weak and flabby: hopelessly cynical

it is just as dangerous to reject everything as it is to be naive and believe everything. and such once-great minds get that way by being in an environment they see is all lies, but offered nothing valid as an alternative, anywhere. so they become hopeless cynics

such minds in the west can find other sources, and find out the truth, before they become blind kneejerk cynics. by seeing all the different perspectives

all perspectives have an agenda, but by seeing many agendas and perspectives, the depiction of an event can be seen for what it is by comparing the differences. in a controlled environment, with only one perspective, you either are a hopelessly trusting moron, or a hopelessly distrusting cynic, both equally hobbling

only with a plethora of sources and choices is the critical mind trained and maintained

it's a continuum in all countries

1. the naive, who believe what the official channels say

2. the genuinely critical and intellectually honest

3. the hopelessly cynical. too much automatic distrust is not intelligent, it's actually a personality disorder hobbling in the same way naivete is, to automatically reject all info, even something that might be true

the point is, in the west, those who are genuinely critical have more information sources to peruse, and therefore are better able to find out the truth. in controlled environments, places where fear dominates, the critically minded have less chance to find the truth and, as you say, often wind of hopelessly jaded and cynical and don't believe anything

this is weakness, not strength

you're not kidding

there is propaganda and there always will be. but in a more free speech environment, you breed more critical minds, because you expose the minds to more bullshit. as opposed to walled gardens in countries with less free speech, which breeds weak minds

that's all i'm saying. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just *better*

and people like you seem to think because you can't get perfection, then everything is the same. but it's not the same. therefore your criticisms are useless

more free speech means more critical minds. that actually means something. if you rejec tthat as useless, you only announce yourself as naive

it's a continuum. the west falls for plenty of bullshit. it's just that, on the average, the west falls for less

every single example of the west falling for shit you just gave me, can also be shown in countries with less free speech. and they fall for *more*

the perfect is not the enemy of the good. if you gauge all countries against an ideal perfection of a populace of everyone being perfectly rational critical minds, which does not exist and never will, then your criticisms are useless

the west simply edges out countries with less free speech because they train more critical minds. the west is not perfect and never will be. it's just that, until countries that now have very little free speech get more, the west will simply do better than them, not perfect

Don't worry, things will still be nice and confusing: It is valid to use a "Type C" connector in conjunction with a USB2 chipset(at least on the peripheral end, and probably in practice on the computer end). Further, if the "Type C" connector is actually USB3, there is the matter of "Alternate mode".

"Alternate mode" allows the Type C jack and cable to act as a conduit for an entirely different protocol(Displayport and MHL have previously been announced, Intel's announcement presumably means that thunderbolt is along for the ride); but only if the system has the hardware necessary to implement whatever the other protocol is, and that hardware is suitably connected to the Type C jack in question. It doesn't actually give a USB 3.1(gen1 or gen2, yes there's that difference as well) device the ability to natively handle the other protocol in the USB silicon, merely to politely carry it from one end to the other, if the upstream device can generate it and the downstream device can accept it.

So, when you combine this with the inevitable variations in how much power is available(spec allows for up to 100watts; but given that very few laptops, much less littler widgets, even have a hundred watt brick for their own needs, it is clearly the case that most Type C ports will be good for substantially less); a Type C port can do almost anything; but is required to do effectively nothing beyond acting as a USB 2 slave device and not starting any fires when plugged in. It might have full USB 3 silicon, it might not. It might support 10GB/s traffic, it might only handle half that; it might deliver 100 watts of power on request, it might be incapable of doing much besides browning out without a powered hub to protect it. It might have implemented one or more 'Alternate mode' protocols, it might support none.

It will certainly be exciting, at least...

there are no absolutes anywhere. it would be easy to find a person more level headed in russia and china than some people in the usa. but i'm talking about trends and averages

i'm talking about the media environment and what it does to a critical mind. an environment where anything goes means that critical mind is exercised more, exposed to more bullshit and gets more sophisticated and powerful

but a walled garden, where a government controls more of what is officially (and unofficially, as the existence of government troll brigades shows) said, you breed uncritical minds. that muscle is simply less developed because it is worked less

it's a continuum. the west simply edges out other countries on the continuum

i'm not denying that the usa has plenty of hysterical, propagandized morons, and plenty of uncritical minds. it does. a lot of them self-select and out of prideful ignorance choose to live in an ideological bubble where only ideas that support their prejudices is allowed.. *by them*, not by their government. they self-select to remain ignorant. if they hear something that challenges their beliefs, they immediately reject it

but the existence of such losers is an unchanging baseline across all countries: the propagandized fool. you can't do anything about such uncritical minds, and every country has them

we're talking about another population here

there will always be a regular crop of some people who are still intellectually honest and will seek out alternative narratives and alternative sources of news. such people in the west will simply find that a lot easier, and so there will be more critical minds in the west than in countries with less free speech protections. because such intellectually honest minds in more authoritarian countries will not find it as easy to find alternative views, they are trapped. and so they will not develop, and they will fall back into fear and propaganda. their government is purposefully creating a general population of uncritical, weak minds. it's a colossal weakness. the effort is just too hard (and sometimes dangerous) for those *initially* intellectually honest to see more critical views, more alternative views, because their government makes it hard, in countries with few free speech protections. and so such people, who would be the best minds in those countries, fall back into fear and propaganda, and never develop. not so in the west

in the west, the self-selecting propagandized morons will never seek out views that challenge them, yes, but we're not talking about such useless people, and such people exist in all countries

on the average, amongst all minds, not just closed ones, more free speech protections means you are breeding more critical minds, simply because such minds exist in a media environment in the west where they can be challenged more and better develop that muscle

the USA has better free speech protections. therefore, nonsense on the internet has less power

i am certain there is organized political trolling in the USA as well, by the government and by organizations with agendas, but it is less effective in the west

countries with less free speech protection (like china and their 50 cent bullshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5... ) will rely on this sort of organized trolling as a means of persuasion and control, domestically and internationally. more than the west, simply because the west has less need to manipulate these whisper campaigns because nonsense on the internet has less power because are exposed to it more in a free speech environment and are more resistant to it. they simply have better trained more critical minds

the governments of authoritarian countries fear provocative opinions more, therefore they engage in this sort of nonsense more, because they view controlling people's opinions as important. their people wind of living in a walled garden of controlled opinion with less options to consider, and a state that officially endorses and pushes weak minded opinions and fear. the west simply doesn't give a fuck. the opinions and lies of random morons on the internet is exactly that, and most people can see that for what it is. you have to live in a paranoid insecure state to give much credence to inflammatory bullshit from random whispers on the internet

in the end, it weakens these countries, because you are breeding people with weak, easily manipulated minds. people in the west simply have better and more healthy bullshit meters. simply because when you can say anything, people do

expose a socially and psychologically normal person to 4chan for a month, and what do you get? a crackpot? no, a jaded experienced mind that can see bullshit coming from a mile away

exposure to the kind of thinking and commentary that resembles mental illness, amongst the more rational choices of speech, gives one a more critical eye and healthy skepticism. the ability to see the difference between credible words and manipulated words

but in countries where paranoid schizophrenic theories are actually supported and endorsed by the government's official media agencies as a means of control, you breed people to live in panic and fear. weak minds. it's a shame to weaken people's minds like this. russia, china, iran, etc., reap a side effect of their manipulations: a general population more susceptible to idiocies most westerners (not all) would easily reject, simply because westerners (even though some choose to stay within ideological bubbles and never consider other sides out of prideful ignorance, some personality types are universal, but limited) can, and do, see other sources of narrative, good or bad

It's never 'welfare' if it involves defense spending: the spending doesn't have to actually increase security, or deliver a product that actually works(it's even acceptable to putz along for a decade or two until the project becomes so hopeless that it is quietly killed without ever delivering a product); but so long as it's for 'defense' and involves some sort of visible business, it's not welfare.

Since this is bullshit, we simply treat it as axiomatically true, which sidesteps what would otherwise be a tedious and difficult matter of 'proof'.