How are you insightful? I have money to burn on stock speculation, and I would like to know how you know this, and what else you know.

Otherwise, you are a fucking tool on an internet where anyone can type anything for any reason, or no reason at all.

Microsoft is going to deprecate C# in favor of blowing a mule. Spend all of your education on mule blowing and not C#.

Oil is going away in favor of donkey sperm. You heard it first.

Invest in gold, it has no inherent value and is most commonly used to solder computing bits together. But it will go up in value.

Kim Kardashian's ass will have an IPO. Save for the future, don't spend money on the ridiculous claims above.

Also, I'd like to know your current drug regimen and family history of being batshit insane.

I could moderate you 'idiot' but you wouldn't know why.

Apple is unlikely to rewrite a bunch of code. I mean, they did, numerous times, but it worked out for them, so why change?

Oh, you mean everything that makes up their operating system?

Well who in the shit said that Apple would rewrite their operating system in response to one fuckhat on the internet?

You did. You, and pretty much only you, in order to have a straw man to shite upon.

Stay with the program. Is Swift better than Objective-C? Why or why not? I don't care if you write letters in retard language or whatever it is that you understand, I've moderator points and I'm clearly not going to spend them here, on you, and your window-licking idiocy.

Did you read the article, or are you a regular slashdot reader, or are you using crocodil?

Sometimes you sound reasonable, and then you post this horseshit. It's like you found out that disillusionment is trendy, and from time to time post actual information.

Yes, you are right. And obvious. And in no way informative, interesting, nor in any other way add to our conversation.

Mod points are most easily gained through facts, humor, and by meta-moderating. You should try one of those. Or, if you're otherwise not interested, then kindly feck off.

Do I believe? No. But have you read the quality of the replies here in the last many years?

And replies to replies?

It's a fucking garden of idiots. If it is so obvious, why reply to me? Oh yeah, because of the garden, which is made of idiots who read other idiots and make them seem like intelligent beings.

I asked for reasonable things. Was I wrong to demand such?

I wasn't expecting a paranoia induced non-sequitur from a kernel maintainer, but here we are.

Certainly, your source code is public, and I could read every line of it. I have maintained that I could, if I wanted to, read and lean and understand and trust every NSA contribution to cryptography. Many disagreed, that I might need some sort of education in maths or something.

My position is now, I don't want to. I don't care what happens to an infiltrated Russian chip maker. I do care what happens to Intel and AMD, because I have 401(k) holdings in both. Great, I didn't have to, I should have directed, but here we are. I didn't.

I could learn every connection in a production chip, not all of them but just enough to make me feel secure. I put a bet on American producers because the moment one vulnerability hits, the company gets fucked. Maybe you'll mention RSA, aka EMC. The guidance from EMC was to follow NIST guidance, or if you had any knowledge of security, do what you knew what was right. In other words carry on and mind the gap.

So what in the fuck is your point? I need to learn making chips now, in addition to learning crypto?

Or do you have an actual solution instead of an attention whoring, obvious, call to buy chips from dubious manufacturers? I don't trust those fucks, and I never will.

So sell me. I run your kernel, I trust your maintainers, and your merges. I need to know how I should trust your code, and not whatever nebulous announcement here on dashslot, owned by Dice Media, makes me want to shite me collective britches.

Good, so you have not hosted someone's website, designed nor developed, nor in a any fashion done anything for anyone on the internet?

Then you are irrelevant to this conversation.

If you are the sole proprietor of a password, or an account, or the only developer of some uniquely functional site, then your knowledge dies when you do.

It sounds like you are completely useless to humanity, and you might as well jump off something really high while you have the option, lest you burden the rest of us with your care.

Or, if you have something to contribute, then by all means contribute. But you're 0 for 2, and by your own description better off dead. Sounds like this isn't the conversation for you.

I'm not being an asshole here, but "worst case" literally means "it could actually happen".

If you explain it that way, it might help educate a few more people.

"Worst case, I lose a few quid down the loo." Well, do you have anything else in your pocket like a phone or I.D. or more quid? Because worst case could be really devastating.

Worst case is literally the worst thing that could happen within the realm of possibility. Meaning it is possible. Meaning you should try not to get to that point.

You read one thing on the internet, and have since been using it to bestow upon the ignorant masses some sort of wisdom.

What happens when you're wrong? You argue statistics?

Do you have background information on the subject, or are you just going to repeat something that most of the readers here should know? Do you feel better? Do we feel better? What would Betteridge say?

He'd say sod off.

How is it incorrect? I don't know if they stated those predictions in public. The article may give you context, but you are stating context in terms of available data.

If they are successful, it means they can exclude false positives and include false negatives. Some anonymous fuck can't give us context.

3 of 3 failures you say, but what is the success rate? I'm absolutely positive that you're absolutely correct, and this is just the next load that the horse shit out of its arse. But we should, if we in any way resemble the audience that wants news for nerds, require data.

Data is good, lack of data is bad. Leaving out data is incorrect, and does not give you context. Are you a fucking idiot, or just a regular idiot?

No, it is not obvious. Since 1995 we are used to 3% productivity gains, and a general slowdown in innovation means it is harder to squeeze more work out of each person.

Email, word processing, instant messenger, desktop sharing, video conferences, and piles of other stuff that are now commonplace did not exist most places. Sure there were precursors back to the 70's, but I'm talking widespread adoption of all of those and more.

America's productivity is largely due to 50 hour work weeks, and if you measure output per hour, 37 hour weeks take the top 2 spots (year old data).

Increasing education isn't going to give Americans the ability to do 50 hours of work in 40 hours, and innovation from overseas isn't going to just stop at the water, so its not like there is a magical productivity device that America lacks.

Increasing education is incredibly vague, and your understanding is lacking, so "obvious" just means "after little thought and no consideration of alternatives, the only idea that occurred to me."

http://business.time.com/2013/...

It's a real thing, output per employee. I guess you could remain blissfully ignorant and reject new information, or you could learn stuff.

http://www.bls.gov/lpc/

It's much more satisfying to be outraged at anything that confirms your ignorant cynicism, ans easier too

Second thought, something with numerous plausible explanations is news because the news source didn't immediately choose one of them.

It's like those rocks that water ski over the desert when no ones looking, or that fart that totally wasn't mine so must have been a ghost.

Something just happened. Tune in to find out what it was. Click here to see what 300 autistic spectrum disorder sufferers think.

If your job can install software in its own, and is doing so right now, consider a new line of work. Or consider expressing yourself in the same way that someone who might give you a job or raise might.

And acquisitions are often about the indirect products. Consumer base, patents, or just squashing competition. Wall street seemed confused as well. The article suggests a wholly owned subsidiary that would compete with, and gradually replace whatever Microsoft's product is, while being stripped of useful features.

Short term compatibility enhancements might bump the market cap, then a dip as people migrate to anything else, and a rebound as migrations fall apart and the product falls under volume licensing.

Look at salesforce ownership to see if they stand firm or sell out. Salesforce is not looking to sell, but won't ignore a stupid offer.

Fuck off. You should know how reputable Dice reporting is, and if not wait four hours for the dupe when ignorant shits crap out the same crap only stupider.

Oh, good, no one has thought of that. I guess you were right, and everything in the article is a piece of horseshit. Glad it worked out that way, and you were able to figure out the core reason for these false positives, which have never been a concern since 2001, which was at least 14 years ago.

I'm going to hire you to think for me for the next 50 years. Give me your telephone number, and other biometric data to confirm your personality.