This exactly. Encrypt the laptop but don't actually keep anything important on it. Instead use Truecrypt and a USB thumb drive. Have the thumb drive keyed to a different password than the laptop.

Further, as far as customs, drop a live CD of any variety in the CD drive, and have the laptop default to booting the CD. Now when custom guys asks to inspect your laptop, say sure, and let it boot the live CD. You can be amused while they laugh at how slow your laptop boots. In the end let em clone the HD, whatever, even if the NSA cracks it there is nothing on it. Everything important is on the thumb drive that you have "hidden" away (usually in plain sight on a keychain).

As far as the article, carrying your corporate secrets encrypted in your pocket will make any thieves job harder, and having the laptop encrypted will force them to install keylogger hardware, a more time consuming and harder thing to get away with. If I were such an executive and had real concerns I would just get a throwaway laptop, or better yet have some fun and epoxy all the case screws in. There are possibilities.

It causes more than that. This is a good read on the problems caused by CSD.

Well you must not use very many programs. Their ridiculous flat organization method quickly falls apart and looks like crap. Just take a look here (images 3-5 on that page pretty clearly demonstrate). So yeah, you enjoy that needle in a haystack...

You need to install UBitMenu. It creates a new tab with the old 2003 menus, so you can at least find things. Their main site is down at the moment, but if you google it you can find it on a download site.

The courts have painted themselves into this ridiculous corner based on idiotic interpretations of the Constitution. In ascribing to the letter of the law they have completely disregarded the spirit of the law, and in so doing allowed this stupid situation to exist. The fact that patents are granted on a ~20-year duration regardless of field allows companies like Monsanto to lock down the food supply in perpetuity. By contaminating the soybean supply every few years with a new slight derivative, and claiming infringement on natural cross-contamination, they can effectively undercut the patent system and extend their monopoly forever.

Now what do the courts do - they flail about asking other branches for ideas. Seriously? This is the type of gov't / corporation complicity that the 99%ers complain about, and if there is ever another revolution in this country it will be based on stupid crap like this.

I agreed with his review as well. Frankly I found his tolerance far exceeding my own when it comes to GNOME3. Pretty much everything he said on the "Why it Failed" page is spot on. I thought this was insightful regarding their target demographic:

And finally:

Just the reaction the GNOME devs were hoping for, no? I kind of wonder how long Fedora will stick with it given that.

I hate it when museums do this kind of thing to aircraft (or in this case spacecraft). Nothing is more uninteresting than a hollow shell body. Once the problematic liquids are drained there is no reason they can't leave the engines in place. The parts that make things like this interesting are all the mechanical components and displays that make up the actual vehicle. Every time I see this done to an aircraft, I can't help but think of how much of an utterly boring display it makes. They might as well erect a cardboard cutout equivalent, it's nauseating.

I think it's pretty common, and not just with test logic like scan chains. I've worked on numerous ICs where some later project wants to reuse a part of the design, without necessarily using everything. If time and budget allow the unused bits get removed and a smaller design results, but more often the unused logic is tied off (at the board level or via metal mask - board level being cheapest and metal mask being cheaper than cutting a new set of diffusion masks for a potentially small runner) and the same die and package are reused (this may allow test fixture reuse also).

I've seen some pretty egregious cases of this however. I recall opening up a 4-port USB hub once (the cheap $10 ones) only to find a gigantic controller chip on it (something like 80 pins) of which about 10 pins were connected. It was obvious the chip didn't start life as a USB controller, but apparently it was cheap enough to throw down as-is. I always wondered what else was on the chip, perhaps part of something that normally has an embedded USB hub (monitor or keyboard maybe).

IMO, look and feel is hardly the biggest failing of the GNOME system. There are more fundamental problems with their user philosophy. Years ago when a new set of workstations were deployed where I work everyone had the option of running either GNOME 2 or KDE 3. Officially the admins only wanted to support GNOME, but within a short time everyone in our location was on KDE 3.

Why? Well it turns out the admins never really did a thorough test of our tool flow on GNOME. We use a lot of expensive tools that come from legacy Unix backgrounds (they aren't recent GTK devel), so it turns out we had major problems with things like focus stealing. This would be where the app would pop up a messagebox and GNOME would happily yank you from whatever desktop you were working on to wherever the messagebox was. At the time there were no options in GNOME to handle this kind of thing, whereas KDE had a number of focus stealing controls.

Then there was the issue of resizing windows. At the time GNOME had one method of resizing windows, and that was to continually redraw the content in it - no wireframe or outline methods, only continuous redraw. That's great and all if your most complex app is a web browser, but when you got an app showing a couple gigs of visual data and every window resize event triggers a redraw, it quickly locks up the machine.

And then there was the question of the right-click menu. WTF was with this menu. It was loaded with a bunch of useless options for creating folders and crap. It was like someone who had never used a Unix machine before just decided to shoehorn in some crap there so the menu did something. KDE at least allowed the menu to be customized into something useful.

This is all regarding GNOME 2 at the time, but it gets to the core of what I perceive as GNOMEs problem - and as I understand it, this is both widely understood, and truly a development target of GNOME (and I fully expect GNOME 3 to be no different) - and that is that the GUI is not designed to be flexible or changeable, it is designed to be rigid and idiotproof. They are providing a fixed GUI interface for the lowest common denominator of user, and anyone who wants something different can STFU.

This is of course further compounded by their method of burying the GUI settings in a hundred different files across a dozen hidden directories, perhaps wrapping it in some obscure XML pseudo-code, so nobody can figure out WTF the options really are or what they do (perhaps it's some kind of subtle method of eliminating those annoying hacker types who might undo their GUI "vision"). KDE is no better in this regard. I remember when at least one GUI I used to use kept its menus in plain text format that was easily understood and modifiable, what the heck ever happened to that concept?

I'm sure if I were to relate to a GNOME dev the problems I had with focus stealing, he would turn around and tell me the problem was with my app, not the GUI. And if I were to relate how I like to launch programs from the right-click menu I would be told I'm doing it wrong and I should learn how to do it the "right" or "better" way. And thus I become yet another alienated user who has moved on to something else. Radically changing an interface and then pushing it as a rigid right-and-only way is going to piss off a lot of people. Lots of people left KDE when they did it, and the same will happen to GNOME.

Overall terrible news IMO. I wish they wouldn't have focused on the electric aspect so much. Same body design, but with a normal internal combustion engine and a decent price, and I probably would have gotten one as a commuter vehicle (very similar concept to say a T-rex motorcycle, but without the high price). I think there is definitely a market for vehicles like this, lightweight like motorcycles, but enclosed (not always exposed to the environment like on a bike).

I can't believe no one has suggested one of the many MAME interface boards. Arcade enthusiasts have a myriad of inexpensive interfaces for connecting custom controls to a computer. They are cheap and easy to use:
http://www.ultimarc.com/ (follow U-HID links, or the I-PAC, Opti-PAC, etc links)
http://groovygamegear.com/ (follow the controls interfaces link)

Buttons, spinners, joysticks (optical, microswitch, etc), and analog controls - there is almost certainly an off the shelf interface for any kind of basic control like that. Beyond that a microcontroller kit (arduino or other) could fill in anything more exotic. I'm going a similar route to this for a custom CNC control panel I'm building, fun stuff.

Most importantly, non-paying customers only get red shirts and generic names. They also have to be one of the first people to beam down to the planet, and the only sound they can make is the Wilhelm scream.

Indeed. I heard an interesting argument a week or so ago, where one businessman said that one of the problems with banks in the US is that the government insures all deposits (up to a limit). On it's face it sounded possibly terrifying, can you imagine giving your cash to a banker with no gov't insurance. However since the gov't backs the holdings the banks do not need to operate in a low risk manner with that money, since they know regardless they will get bailed out. It made for an interesting thought, in that if the gov't did not insure any of the holdings you can be sure people would only put their money in a bank with an absolutely solid reputation and no tolerance for risk.

There was a similar argument I heard a few years ago regarding insurance companies, in that they also have large holdings which they were investing in ever more risky ventures. The fact that the gov't backs up all deposits implicitly indicates their distrust in the banking system (after all, if it were trustworthy, why would it need backing), but yet they do things like repeal Glass–Steagall which encourages ever more risky behavior. There is a lot the gov't could do to rein in bad bank and investment behaviors. After all if things like derivatives are indeed equivalent to financial mass destruction tools, why not ban them outright. Just because things can be done, doesn't mean they should be allowed.

I saw that in one of their videos and couldn't figure out if the wall of unconnected bricks was just storage for them to be used properly later on, or if they were really intending that to be a structural wall. It was so wrong on so many levels. It was unreinforced, it had no running bond or tie pattern in it, there was little to no "mortar" between the bricks, it didn't even look like they had been dried properly. Even with a proper tie pattern and bricks, from what I've read unreinforced masonry is a lousy construction method anywhere that might have an earthquake risk.

If only Netcraft had confirmed it instead...

Well at least we can all agree BSD is dead.