No the fallacy is yours in assume I made a claim I didn't. Yes it would be fallacy to claim that because it happens here it must happen everywhere but, there is ample evidence this sort of corruption has happened everywhere humans have had the chance to be corrupt. My own evidence of it going on is only one small confirmation in a several thousand year long history of people using whatever power they are given to their own advantage.

You know, in a way, Facebook is the best thing to happen to web communities in years - the threads are incomprehensible and move so fast but the audience is so large that it's basically flypaper for wingnuts.

Then again, comment blockers and Ghostery make this largely a non-issue for me anyway.

I'm not surprised. A local municipality pushed these through (which I'm not staunchly for nor against the cameras), and there was a bit of public outcry. To be fair, intersections were not configured consistently, and stops often could have been handled as yields, but anyway.

The council proposed putting the item up for vote, Redflex thought it would appropriate to sue the city.

This. I live in MA, and its no different here. Hell, they caught one of our state reps on camera actually stuffing an envelope of cash in her bra. A business my wife used to work at owned the building they were in, right in south boston. They applied for a permit to get a roof deck; and were asked straight out for a bribe to make it happen, when they refused.... so was their permit. This shit goes on everywhere.

You know, if it were a house boat that might make more sense, a friend of mine bought one we liked to refer to as "A one bedroom apartment with a top speed of 20 MPH"

Though, would need to be at least 2 apartments to condo it out.

Reference?

None. The librarian is dead...

Well quite: I share plenty of DNA with the missus regularly, but there ain't much conversation involved.

[...] but given China's track record with censorship and privacy, the explanation rings hollow for some skeptics.[...]

Given the United State's track record, I think the skeptics should worry about data collection at home too.

Why always focus on China when it comes to human rights and privacy issues? Just look at your own navel for a change...

He specifically said MacBook, not "laptop". /s

To be fair, this is a perfectly acceptable reference in the given context, and the age only helps the argument not hinders it as you suggest.

Even at 55 years old, the Feynman paper is based on known technology and physics at the time. This provides a high-end boundary to the answer that is only potentially (in this case definately) inaccurate on exactly how much lower the size can actually get.

Our tech has changed, but physics not quite as much.
What we know today about building at the atomic scale is only slightly more detailed than the rough idea that was known all the way back then.

About the only thing smaller we know of today that we didn't know back then was the details of the sub-atomic world - which I should add we still know very little about over all, and certainly not enough to build useful machines using. At a technological level nothing has changed as the sub-atomic is still out of our reach as much now as it was then.

So the atomic scale is what we are discussing.

55 years ago our photolithography methods had a 20 micron feature limit.
14 years ago our newest photolithography methods have a 0.005 micron (aka 100 nm) feature limit. That is a 4000 fold decrease in size.
Today we have 32 nm and 28 nm photolithography methods, making things about 12000 times smaller than was possible using technology from 55 years ago.

Anyways, there are more recent references out there.

One good recent paper is "Molecular Construction Limits" by Robert Bradbury, if you can find it anymore. Sadly Bradbury passed away a couple years ago and his personally hosted archive of papers fell offline. Most archived ones seem pay-walled :/

Probably the best paper on this subject is "Ultimate physical limits to computation" by Seth Lloyd at MIT.
The paper is from 2000 but his current work is on the worlds largest-qbit quantum computer also at MIT - so he is already making my sub-atomic remarks out of date.

His conclusion is purely based on physics alone and ignoring any/all technological capability.

The 'ultimate laptop' is a computer with a mass of one kilogram and a volume of one liter, operating at the fundamental limits of speed and memory capacity fixed by physics.
The ultimate laptop performs [ 5.4258 x 10^50 ] logical operations per second on 10^31 bits.
Although its computational machinery is in fact in a highly specified physical state with zero entropy, while it performs a computation that uses all its resources of energy and memory space it appears to an outside observer to be in a thermal state at 10^9 degrees Kelvin.

Same here - 8 years in flight design. Cool stuff at the beginning, but then you start seeing that the contractor companies care more about keeping seats warm and not making waves than progress and innovation.

Well I hate to play devil's advocate for the law but, there is a major difference between duhvelopers and muggers.

Muggers tend to work alone or with an accomplice with little whereas Duhvelopers are actually organized groups with policies, rules, and procedures. Muggers don't sit down before they go out for the evening and come up with a business plan; they don't tend to get anyone to insure their project either.

You don't even need to make duhvelopers care. You need to make insurance companies care, then they will make the duhvelopers care by refusing to insure projects.

When you play a bridge tournament, you play as part of a 4-person team. All the cards are dealt and placed in boards such that once they're played, they're replaced back as the North, South, East, or West hand.

Now your team of 4 is split into two partnerships, one playing all the N/S hands, one playing all the E/W hands. For any given hand of N,S,E,W, what counts isn't what your partnership does on your cards (either N/S or E/W), it's the delta between what your other partnership scored and what you scored. So, if you and X are playing North/South, and your other team members are playing E/W, then for every hand its your score - their score becomes your team score for that deck of cards.

In this way, there is no element of luck. Every team plays the same cards, every team plays both pairings (N/S and E/W), and only the difference matters. It's pure skill, both in bidding what you will make, and then playing the cards to actually make your bid. You can "win" the deck by causing someone who bid a grand-slam to lose a trick, and get the maximum points for that deck to your team.

Bridge is a truly excellent game. Simple rules, but incredibly challenging to execute correctly every time.

Simon

You guys realize that slashdot is just as clickbait-y and unreasonable and targeted as Jezebel, right? The headlines here are designed to drive comments and pageviews equally as hard by leaning on the same sorts of buttons, you just don't realize it as often because the buttons they push reenforce your own viewpoints and biases.

Your question is far too generalized. You don't mention what your product is, what your firm does, or what the risks you're trying to protect from. Nobody can give you any meaninful advice unless you provide real details. What is it you're afraid of exposing? What's the IP you're afraid of diluting? Is your company a 100 person shop, or a 10,000 person shop? It matters.

Those risks may be illusory, depending on what this code is. I've had a few project I'd like to release as OSS, but there's zero IP dilution and zero risk of exposing anything. Despite what people tend to think, code isn't a commodity. The specifics matter quite a bit. The only answers you're going to get with the information you provided are very generalized useless ones.