I missed the key point of it being keyboard backlight, lol....

Yes, it is very safe to assume that it's the bios vendor (Lenovo in my case, acer, hp, dell, you name it in the other cases). It boils down to there not being a consistent way to control backlights across laptops.

Actually, with VERY few exceptions, you can run very old userspaces with new kernels. There have been a few 'fixes' that broke old userspaces (by exposing bugs in userspace that weren't triggered pre-fix), but there's a very strict, never break userspace rule. Sometimes you have to set the correct kernel build time options, but it's expected of a person doing that to know what they're doing, or to trust their distro to know what they're doing.

Look at the recent Linux Wireless mailing list... A few weeks ago, the ability to use 'Wireless Extension Compatability' to control wireless was made unselectable. They have been marked deprecated for YEARS(2008), and are now causing problems with supporting newer wifi features. This was very firmly 'NACKED' by Linus, and the wireless tree has to continue supporting an old, broken, way to control wireless devices.

There are also options you can configure in the kernel like 'COMPAT_VDSO' which work around 1 released version of GLIBC (2.3.3), which was also backported to OpenSuse 9.

I know that it may not have been until the 2.6 era that this became truly 'written in stone' law, but it's always been a pretty firm 'rule'. Hence I can still run a.out binaries on my 64bit system. 'ELF' binaries were added around 2.0 (15-20 years ago?), and have been the default since some time between then and now. Still, a.out support will always live on, because you don't break the kernel to userspace abi.

This has been a perpetual problem on my Lenovo W510. In one release, it did multiple steps, in the next one, no backlight control at all. I add some kernel command line options and get a crappy 4 step backlight. In the next release, I have to remove those options because my backlight didn't turn on at all with them. Now no working backlight controls (using the FN+Home/End combo on my laptop keyboard). I poke in the /sys sysfs mount at the backlight control that's registered, and can control the backlight that way. I've been following the ACPI development mailing list and this is a perpetual topic of confrontation.

There are lots of proposed fixes that would just resolve it, but they can't be accepted because they break userspace. The whole problem stems from the Laptop bios. In some cases, the bios will advertise ACPI methods to control the backlight, while the GPU driver exposes the controls as well. Depending on the particular bios version (and sometimes even bios settings), the keypress might, in bios, change the brightness, then report the keypress, or it might report the keypress and depend on the OS to use the ACPI interface to control the backlight, or it might depend on the OS to use the GPU driver interface to control the backlight. On some of the systems, the ACPI interface is sometimes broken, and on some, there are multiple controls (for display port and all the other possible display connections built into the system) with no clear way to determine which one to actually use. Some bioses report to work with 'Windows 2012' but actually completely don't. Some ONLY work with that, but report they work with older ones.

From what I recall of the discussion, Windows 8 deals with this by punting the actual event handling to the GPU drivers, expecting them to know how to handle the hardware.

Similar bugs can be seen in Windows if your run a newer version on hardware designed for a previous version (I saw this running Windows 7 on hardware designed for Windows XP, an old Dell laptop).

I find it kinda crazy that every single other feature of my laptop works perfectly (FIngerprint reader, color calibration, wimax radio {none of which I actually ever use}) while backlight which seems so simple (Press button, change brightness) is in a perpetual state of brokenness.

First of all, you say, "North Korea didn't hack Sony," as if it is an indisputable, known fact. It is not -- by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact is, it cannot be proven either way in a public forum, or without having independent access to evidence which proves -- from a social, not technical, standpoint -- how the attack originated. Since neither of those are possible, the MOST that can be accurate stated is that no one, in a public context, can definitively demonstrate for certain who hacked Sony.

Blameless in your scenario is the only entity actually responsible, which is that entity that attacked Sony in the first place.

Whether that is the DPRK, someone directed by the DPRK, someone else entirely, or a combination of the above, your larger point appears to be that somehow the US is to blame for a US subsidiary of a Japanese corporation getting hacked -- or perhaps simply for existing.

As a bonus, you could blame Sony for saying its security controls weren't strong enough, while still reserving enough blame for the US as the only "jackass".

Bravo.

Many of the same slashdotters who accept "experts" who claim NK didn't hack Sony will readily accept as truth that it was "obviously" the US that attacked NK, even though there is even less objective proof of that, and could just as easily be some Anonymous offshoot, or any number of other organizations, or even North Korea itself.

See the logical disconnect, here?

For those now jumping on the "North Korea didn't hack Sony" bandwagon that some security "experts" are leading for their own political or ideological reasons, including using rationales as puzzling and pedestrian as source IP addresses of the attacks being elsewhere, some comments:

Attribution in cyber is hard, and the general public is never going to know the classified intelligence that went into making an attribution determination, and experts -- actual and self-appointed -- will make claims about what they think occurred.

With cyber, you could have nation-states, terrorists organizations, or even activist hacking groups attacking other nation-states, companies, or organizations, for any number of motives, and making it appear, from a social and technical standpoint, that the attack originated from and/or was ordered by another entity entirely.

That's a HUGE problem, but there are ways to mitigate it. A Sony "insider" may indeed -- wittingly or unwittingly -- have been key in pulling off this hack. That doesn't mean that DPRK wasn't involved. I am not making a formal statement one way or the other; just saying that the public won't be privy to the specific attribution rationale.

Also, any offensive cyber action that isn't totally worthless is going to attempt to mask or completely divert attention from its true origins (unless part of the strategic intent is to make it clear who did it), or at a minimum maintain some semblance of deniability.

At some point you have to apply Occam's razor and ask who benefits.

And for those riding the kooky "This is all a big marketing scam by Sony" train:

So, you're saying that Sony leaked thousands of extremely embarrassing and in some cases damaging internal documents and emails that will probably result in the CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment being ousted, including private and statutorily-protected personal health information of employees, and issued terroristic messages threatening 9/11-style attacks at US movie theaters, committing dozens to hundreds of federal felonies, while derailing any hopes for a mass release and instead having it end up on YouTube for rental, all to promote one of hundreds of second-rate movies?

Yeah...no.

Don't you mean Darth Vader?

These 'trivial' changes often cause merge conflicts with other trees. If people are developing against the 'pre change' tree, any changes around the comments might need manual merging. Manual merging introduces additional opportunities for mistakes. I see trivial comment patches like this bounced on these exact grounds in watching active linux driver changes; particularly if you watch a new vendor driver submitted to the staging tree, and then watch it get cleaned up to be in-line with the kernel's coding style.

As far as this PARTICULAR patch being dropped, it probably could have been handled more in line with 'NACK: We'll set a date in the future to do a comment cleaning and have everyone rebase on that', but my first reaction isn't that the developer who declined it is sexist (or whatever the particular flavor of discrimination is). From my PERSONAL Point of view, a change should provide value, and I *PERSONALLY* don't see value in a change like this. A typo fix maybe, but this is not a typo.

This is why I always pee in the shower. Problem solved!

...than the $65 you already stated you are willing to spend to get her internet in her room.

Enough said.

No, it didn't. It was "some sort" of droplet transmission by monkeys in adjacent cages.

That is NOT -- repeat, NOT -- "airborne" transmission.

And no, it didn't go through the ventilation system; it was later learned that sick monkeys sneezing while they were being transported past well monkeys did indeed transmit the virus in this case.

It was also a completely different strain than the one we are talking about.

Airborne transmission occurs when an infectious agent is able to cling to particulates in the air and ride air currents for significant amounts of time, over significant distances, through ventilation systems, etc., long after the infected person who expelled the virus is no longer in the area.

Droplet transmission is NOT "airborne" transmission. It is projecting bodily fluids directly onto a well person in close quarters...usually less than 3 feet, but under optimal conditions, perhaps further. That is still not airborne transmission.

Furthermore, coughing/sneezing is probably one of the least effective ways to spread Ebola, even via droplets. Blood, feces, and vomit are the primary ways this will be spread. Yes, virus "could" be in saliva, mucous, semen, etc. But that's not the primary way Ebola spreads.

Airborne transmission would be very bad, but the Ebola virus is too large to spread this way. It would have to shed about 75% of its genome to be small enough for airborne transmission in sub-5um droplet nuclei that could ride on particulates. And if it did that, it wouldn't be "Ebola" anymore -- it would be something very different; perhaps still deadly, perhaps not, and so much different from what we are talking about right now that it is next to meaningless to discuss.

So, in closing: no, Ebola is not airborne.

I think you're confusing the US with China, the latter of which did increase its defense budget by 12% (and has for about the last 12 years), and is on track to exceed US defense spending by 2020-2025.

Why don't you read the study for yourself, or look into the veracity and quality of the journal.

What twenty years of research on cannabis use has taught us

Read the full study in the journal Addiction

What twenty years of research on cannabis use has taught us

In the past 20 years recreational cannabis use has grown tremendously, becoming almost as common as tobacco use among adolescents and young adults, and so has the research evidence. A major new review in the scientific journal Addiction sets out the latest information on the effects of cannabis use on mental and physical health.

The key conclusions are:

Adverse effects of acute cannabis use
- Cannabis does not produce fatal overdoses.
- Driving while cannabis-intoxicated doubles the risk of a car crash; this risk increases substantially if users are also alcohol-intoxicated.
- Cannabis use during pregnancy slightly reduces birth weight of the baby.

Adverse effects of chronic cannabis use
- Regular cannabis users can develop a dependence syndrome, the risks of which are around 1 in 10 of all cannabis users and 1 in 6 among those who start in adolescence.
- Regular cannabis users double their risks of experiencing psychotic symptoms and disorders, especially if they have a personal or family history of psychotic disorders, and if they start using cannabis in their mid-teens.
- Regular adolescent cannabis users have lower educational attainment than non-using peers but we donâ(TM)t know whether the link is causal.
- Regular adolescent cannabis users are more likely to use other illicit drugs, but we donâ(TM)t know whether the link is causal.
- Regular cannabis use that begins in adolescence and continues throughout young adulthood appears to produce intellectual impairment, but the mechanism and reversibility of the impairment is unclear.
- Regular cannabis use in adolescence approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with schizophrenia or reporting psychotic symptoms in adulthood.
- Regular cannabis smokers have a higher risk of developing chronic bronchitis.
- Cannabis smoking by middle aged adults probably increases the risk of myocardial infarction.

Professor Hallâ(TM)s report is published online today in the scientific journal Addition.

Wrong. Different strain, VERY bad source, did not happen through ventilation system. It happened to monkeys in adjacent cages without direct contact, through "some sort" of aerosolized transmission in very close quarters. I.e., droplets.

Fearmongers or people who think "the government" is "lying to stem panic" always trot out this story. It does NOT mean "Ebola is airborne".

It took Africa, with some of the worst healthcare, sanitation, and infrastructure in the world, 10 MONTHS to get to the ~7400 cases there are now. If it were airborne, it would be much, much worse. Ebola is not airborne; stop spreading your bullshit.

Thank you.