So I don't want to tell you what to do, but these are highly convenient:
http://www.kohls.com/product/p...

From a comfort/practice perspective I'd take these over pants any day of the week. Additionally as pants also are known to hold wallets, and the traditional manly place of placing a wallet is the right rear pocket which is not ideal from a back health standpoint. A fanny pack can also hold this, and car keys and other famously pocket things.

Of course, as with may things practical, there seems to be a social stigma both with not wearing pants and with wearing fanny packs. To the point that you can't be caught dead with one

You already have a damned smartphone. All the functionality is there without the extra $350 expendature.

Anyone who wears pants is an idiot. You already have underwear, all the functionality is there without the extra [$20,infinity) expenditure.

Never mind that most of us work in such climate controlled environments that clothing has entirely lost functional value and is primarily a vestige of social (read: bullshit) requirements, not actual utility.

So my 5 minute google search, heavily influenced by a blood alcohol level beyond all reason produced this: http://www.state.gov/strategic...

My reading indicates that if anyone is selling the particular xeon's in question to you (note that I believe not all Xeon's are controlled, just a subset), that either your country has treaties with the US that suggest they will in fact come down on you for selling to China, or the seller is committing a US crime and will be penalized for selling to you. I could not sell these to you now that I know your intent, for example. Since the US and UK tend to be as close as the US is to anyone not US, I'm going to assume the UK has the appropriate treaties and will in fact come down on you for reselling this to China. While I totally understand if that upsets you, and I feel much the same when the US government obeys UN regulations *I* don't approve of, it's how The Man works.

As I said, I don't really think you'd necessarily be caught, and I'm confident China will be able to get proc's for it's supercomputers regardless from someone. The issue really is about economic sanctions making it more difficult for China to be a producer of Intel-based server systems, which actually does hit them in the wallet, given how much Foxconn, Quanta and MSI do in the mfg space. China has a big business in the low level PCB mfg & board assy business, which it wants to expand into design & systems, but in this case may not be able to do legally if it continues to pursue nuclear tech. In a similar note, I doubt say, Iran, has any difficulty getting the latest Intel server for it's government operations. But the majority of the country is deprived, and the market is defunct.

Again, I don't care, I am entirely disgusted with anyone having a relationship with China that doesn't involve arm twisting and threats of some form of annihilation, but I feel your anger here is misplaced. I'm with you when some idiot senator decides she wants to erase the anarchists cookbook from the internet and will mock her to infinity when she tries to enforce her idiocy outside the US borders, but in this case we're dealing with China, and fuck China. Call me back when they have some form of believable democracy and even a hint of something like the magna carta. That was from the UK right? I thought your ancestors (and mine, as it happens) thought that was a big enough deal to die over, I'd hate to see it tossed out for cheap shit and rich people getting richer, or an only slightly misplaced anger over my country's ability to bully, which in this case may actually be to our collective benefit. The fewer people with effective nukes, the less likely the world ends tomorrow.

If you are an American citizen and do business in america, you cannot sell to a supplier who you know or have reason to believe is going to export controlled technology elsewhere. You are expected to ask, to inform them of the laws and listen for the answer. This was the training most of us receive on the subject.

Now what stops someone in say, Germany, from bald-face lying about it? I don't know, but I have reason to believe that such transactions are monitored.

As I said elsewhere, China will have no trouble getting these chips for their boutique supercomputers. This has all the smell of a negotiation, and honestly I couldn't care less about China so I'm all for playing hardball.

If a product contains controlled technology, it cannot legally be sold directly, or indirectly to the blockaded country. Any business which doesn't obey that is in violation of federal law and gets in big trouble. This isn't new, it's been going on for a long time.

Is this going to really stop China for building a few boutique supercomputers? No, they'll get the chips they need, this will just slow them down. The real nuisance will be in lost business for China's MFG companies which could take on business that will now have to be done elsewhere. If you can't keep your businesses happy, they threaten to pack their bags and head elsewhere (i.e. our republicans do not have a monopoly on that threat)

If China can acquire the parts illegally somehow, they can of course use them. Export control laws theoretically prevent that, but ...

In terms of all the posts saying China already builds these systems at Foxconn, they're not entirely correct. China builds the motherboards and the systems, but the processors are, in the case of high end machines, often populated elsewhere. At this moment I can't say for certain, but in the past we've had moments where we could not populate them in China and had to have US factories populate them, then at other times they were OK for China and they did it. This really only concerns certain Xeon parts, not even all of them.

I couldn't care less if we block China, I'm all for it for reasons entirely unrelated to national defense. My usual mantra is "fuck China", but it is possible to do and we're hearing noise only because of inconvenience.

That would require a fab in china with Intel's process & capabilities. So far that doesn't exist in China (or Korea).

Nor does it give him the right to put his justin bieber cd on your dashboard.

And for the record, I believe in the state of Texas this may be a capital offense.

Both communism and a free market have been tried just enough for us to decide that we don't want any of that, thank you.

I'd prefer the suckers took off my underwear first.

I absolutely have, and absolutely disagree. Firstly while those posts ARE made, they are frequently not posted in places where engineers are able to see them. Like in a cafeteria in a building of HR and accountants, who don't know the market for semiconductor engineers, for example. The one time I have been able to see one, was a company that is too small to do such things.

I am not going to name names, for obvious reasons. But this whole "market rate" thing is very shady and in the eye of the beholder. As everyone knows, salaries are tightly kept secrets, all you really know is intake rate:
- One large company simply reduced its hiring wages for Americans to about 40% below market. It did so during the heart of economic turmoil. This one was the most bald-faced, and had an interview gauntlet designed for H-1B applicants.
- Another large company just hired with really low wages all the time, kept complaining it couldn't find anyone, kept laying off anyone who got promoted to senior positions with higher wages that were more competitive. Carly Fiorina played in this particular space (not at this company), and was driving this politically
- One start-up was offering about 20-30% below market (startups sometimes have to fight harder)

It's strange that I now work for a company that hires almost no H1B's and make almost 2x what I used to make. We too have a hard time finding qualified people, but the ones we get are well cared for. The whole thing is a scam and it absolutely is a class-war concern, not a labor availability concern.

And thus my solution to this is to give green cards to H-1Bs identified as essential to the tech economy. Let them drag in new blood, and let that new blood instantly be able to compete on wages. The net effect will STILL be bad for the US worker, but not nearly as bad and destructive as H-1B's have been. I suspect that implemented this way, a lot of wind will come out of the sails of the various illicit interests and maybe things will smooth out.

Don't let facts get in the way of business, that's unAmerican and identifies you as an America-hater. In America, we have an established history of screwing over people who work for us in the name of personal benefit.

Nope, circumcision was the recommendation 7 years ago.

A reporter's job is to relay information suitably to THEIR demographic and get them interested enough to dig deeper. John Oliver's demographic is not tech savvy computer types, it's young people who also probably liked the Colbert report or The Daily Show. Boiling down the entire debate into dick pics is probably exactly correct for him. That the problem is much more serious than dick pics, and that people like my mom from another generation would say "well you shouldn't be sending pictures of your dick around to begin with" is probably too heavy for his show. Also, he was right, Americans do not care about international surveillance. Even if you do, that deserves its own topic and it is distracting.

What you want, and also what I want, is for a different newspaper/magazine/tv show to interview Snowden and frame his arguments in a concise and accessible yet thorough manner. They refuse to do so, or clearly act as a mouthpiece for some entrenched power. Clearly Snowden does have the ability and information he needs to present his case, but actual journalists are, I think, too afraid of their boss to do it right.

Even still, Oliver did the basic job of telling Snowden he fucked up badly, or at least misplaced his trust, but also helping us understand why we did it. Previously I was not sure that Snowden didn't sell out (he went to Russia of all places), but now I'm pretty sure he believes in what he's doing. He did the right thing in that he did SOMETHING, I'm not sure he necessarily did the optimal right thing. Still, I would pardon him if I were the president.