I understand the idea, yes. But:

1. Most of the time, it doesn't work. Let's face it, at least 95% of the people looking to buy a laptop don't understand this issue. A good amount of people doesn't care about spying either, because they think they have anything to hide, or because the US government is doing it so it must be good, or because the US government doing it makes it impossible to avoid anyway, or for a myriad other reasons. I think Lenovo would have to be in a very weak state for this to do them under.

2. If it worked, it wouldn't be a good thing anyway. The laptop business is a very expensive to enter and competitive one. If people ran a company out of business every time it displeased them enough, despite trying to rectify their mistake, nobody would want to enter the market. Who would want to risk their money in such a way? So the market would eventually stabilize with 2 or 3 remaining companies which are too big to bankrupt, or who people won't boycott because there's too much inertia and not enough alternatives.

If the market settled for instance on Dell and Apple, boycotting one would require rebuilding your entire infrastructure and way of doing things. This won't happen, so if such a situation is reached they can basically do whatever they want.

If we want a consumer friendly environment we need plenty of competition, and this means that bankrupting a company should be the absolute last resort.

That's a counterproductive way of doing things.

Whenever making that kind of statement towards any sort of business you're telling them that there's no point to try to correct whatever upset you, as all resources spent to that end are going to be in vain anyway.

The spyware gives them some money. If all people who hate it put Lenovo in their blacklist forever, then the most sensible business decision is keeping the spyware. The customers that hate it won't come back, and the ones that remain don't care, so nothing is gained by removing it after losing that part of the customer base.

Right, so here is seems how things are:

1. Google seems to have little regard for long term backwards compatibility, at least on the timeframes Debian wants it. Kernel 3.17 came out in October 2014. Fedora has a new enough kernel, but also doesn't have Chromium officially apparently because Google likes to clone various libraries and do API changes, rather than trying to work with the original developers, distributions, etc. So it seems Google mostly does its own thing and lets other people to deal with it.

2. So Google is now releasing browsers that require kernel 3.17 to work properly. Users want to run it on their systems.

3. But Jessie is frozen and so changes only happen for good reasons. The question is then whether to backport the TSYNC feature. On one hand, it's a new feature and it doesn't go in frozen releases, on the other hand it stops new versions of Chrome from running, which is a security concern. Ubuntu seems to have went with the later logic.

4. Ben's reaction is "1. I don't like Chrome, so no", and "2. Distro is in freeze, there needs to be a formal proposal explaining exactly what patch to merge, and a sympathetic maintainer, which I am not".

So really what's going on is a conflict between organizations. Google wants to move faster than Debian does, and Debian (or at least Ben) doesn't want to give Google special concessions.

Digging around a bit this is what I gathered:

TSYNC is some flag added to seccomp to aid in something relating to thread synchronization: http://patchwork.linux-mips.or...

And seccomp is a security mechanism of the Linux kernel used to implement the sandbox in Google Chrome, which it uses for instance to run the Flash plugin in such a way that it doesn't compromise the system if one of its many security weaknesses: http://lwn.net/Articles/347547...

None of this seems to have any relation to spyware, in fact it would seem to have the exact contrary purpose: protecting the system from potentially malicious code and security exploits.

Unless I'm missing something obvious, it sounds like Ben Hutchins (the Debian mailing list guy who made the comment on spyware) just dislikes Chrome for whatever reason unrelated to TSYNC and decided that it would be a fine way to ensure new versions of Chrome don't run.

You have the Part 15 and ISM services for that. You really can buy a microwave link that's metropolitan-distance and legal to use.

We lost much of our 440 capability to PAVE PAWS in California. Remember, Amateur Radio is not the primary service on many bands. The military is on 440.

If you want that nearly infinite microwave spectrum, you have the Part 15 and ISM services. Absolutely nothing is stopping you. Power is not the issue with those frequencies, it's line of sight and Fresnel zones.

No, I absolutely do not have to prefix my words with anything. You do that by posting as an anonymous coward. I use my real name to indicate that I stand behind my words.

Yes. The usual mechanism here would be WiFi security, with HTTPS or SSL inside of it.

OK, no real technical data and some absurd claims here.

First all-digital transceiver? No. There have been others. Especially if you allow them to have a DAC and an ADC and no other components in the analog domain, but even without that, there are lots of IoT-class radios with direct-to-digital detectors and digital outputs directly to the antenna. You might have one in your car remote (mine is two-way).

And they have to use patented algorithms? Everybody else can get along with well-known technology old enough that any applicable patents are long expired.

It would be nicer if there was some information about what they are actually doing. If they really have patented it, there's no reason to hold back.

What do you mean by tech fetichism? Tech places a huge priority on energy efficiency. Computing is going increasingly mobile, lighting is shifting to LED... all of which is high tech by the way. Do you think old incandescents are better?

You don't understand statistics

More than a head per side? It's been attempted, and turned out it's not really worth it. It's a lot of extra complication for not that much benefit. Heads are expensive and generate heat, so it works out to close 2X the price anyway, plus an increased change of failure. Easier and safer to just add another drive.

These days there are SSDs too.

I saw a 'gator right at the edge of the VAB parking lot last month. In a drainage ditch, up to the fence, cars parked right on the other side.

With luck, they'll start incorporating our radio transceivers. I hear that SpaceX flies with several USRPs now, so that's not completely unrealistic. That might be as close as I can get. Anyone who can get me a base invitation, though, would be greatly appreciated and I'd be happy to do some entertaining speeches while there. I need a base invite for Vandenberg, too. I got in to the official viewing site for the first try of the last launch (and that scrubbed too), but this next one is on Pad 6.

I was in Florida to speak at Orlando Hamcation and went to see the DISCOVR launch at Kennedy Space Center. I paid $50 to be at LC-39 for the launch, an observation tower made from a disused gantry on the Nasa Causeway between the pads and the Vehicle Assembly Building. A crawler was parked next door! A hot sandwich buffet, chips, and sodas were served. It was cold and windy! I watched for a few hours and unfortunately the launch scrubbed due to high stratospheric winds.

The next day, Delaware North Corporation, which operates tourism at KSC, decided not to open LC-39 or the Saturn 5 center for the launch. This was the third launch attempt and I guess they decided most people had left. I was annoyed.

The closest beach was going to be closed in the evening, it's a sensitive ecological area. I ended up seeing the launch from Jetty Park. This turned out not to be such a great location, the tower wasn't visible at all and the first 10 seconds of the rocket in flight were obscured before we saw it over a hill.

What's a better viewing location?