If the story wasn't so sort, I'd say it was Bennett Haselton talking out his ass again.

What they are looking for is trustworthiness.

Can they trust you?

EVERYONE has done something illegal, even my 17 month old son who pissed on the sidewalk one evening. What happened since then is more important in almost every case. I've got a criminal record, nothing spectacular, just kids doing things they shouldn't. I've gotten various levels of government clearance and been recleared multiple times because I've done full disclosure from the very start. I hide NOTHING and in multiple instances have been told that I actually told them about more than they found in their own searches (court cases/arrests).

If you're in America and an American citizen, and you say you smoked pot last week, you've most certainly broken the law. You could be arrested instantly. You've just confessed to a crime.

American law doesn't care if you were in another country where its legal to smoke pot when you did it last week, America still considers that to be an offense and you did break they law. We hold you not just to our own laws when you are hear, but also when you are else where, and you are also held to the laws of the country you are visiting.

If you weren't visiting another country, then you've simply broken federal and possibly state and local laws. Pot is illegal across the nation, state laws do not supersede federal law.

He doesn't need to search your car, you just confessed. If he's got a dash cam in his car or on his person, you've got no hope of lying your way out of it afterwords.

What the hell makes you think you've not broken any law? The cop doesn't have to see you do it for you to be breaking the law, its the act of doing it part that matters from a legal perspective. The getting part caught only matters from a getting punished perspective. Getting or not getting punished does not change your guilt in any way.

How the hell is your post insightful?

Re: Obama

I don't think its fair to call him out for being involved in wars on its own. He is, by definition, employed to do so for the US government. Even he has stated that its a bit shocking for the president of a country involved in 2 wars at time to be the recipient.

If you want to call out the Nobel issue, do so because of the fact that he got it and had done nothing but been elected as the president of the US. The committee sited one of the primary reasons being his promotion of nuclear non-proliferation ... which is ironic, because what he really means is that he's fine with HIM having control of massive super weapons, but no one else should. Basically, let me be able to wipe out anyone else in the blink of an eye, but no way anyone else should have the same power as me. That is pretty much exactly the opposite of what I consider peaceful intentions.

The peace prize is a political tool, nothing more. Has been since its inception.

What you're really complaining about is that other prizes are becoming political tools rather than awards for achievement.

... The sad part is that people still think the Nobel prizes are meaningful.

Let me preface what I say with: I don't know the physics involved, I'm just putting out thoughts for the sake of discussion. I think the inventor of the LED deserves respect just due to the way it has become embedded in everything we do even if it were a trivial thing to create. Maybe not a Nobel prize, but something appropriate to 'changing the way we view the world' which is what has happened here, with the help of many people.

However, for the sake of argument, the question becomes was inventing the visible light LED actually revolutionary or what it simply repurposing an existing principal in a minor way, and someone else is really the one who created the idea.

I know blue LEDs were considering 'unpossible' based on the original understanding of the physics involved, though I admit I don't know why. Are blue LEDs using some different method or are they a slight tweak on existing LED tech? Are the physics essentially the same? Or are we talking about the same sort of differences between an infrared LED and visible LED when we talk about going from a red LED to a blue LED?

Except that 'cloud' at Lockheed is entirely 'in house' and not accessible from the outside world at all. Its certainly not available on the Internet. Us old folks call it 'a file server on the internal network'. Of course, us old folks don't call things 'the cloud' either unless talking to people who don't understand networks, so for your case I'll use 'cloud'. Lets not forget that Lockheed is also the one who actually designed and built the thing, so they already have the data by definition.

Lockheed also doesn't want the data getting stolen, they are VERY motivated to protect it. They can't sell F-35s for a ridiculous price if anyone can make them for a lot less. The government doesn't want China getting F-35s, so they are both motivated to work together to make sure that doesn't happen.

Someone else, like Box, Dropbox, Google or Sharefile only have the interest of not getting some bad publicity. If the designs for the F-35 are stolen from one of those systems, at most they are out a single customer, Lockheed, but not enough of the rest of the world is going to give a shit and move as well ... ASSUMING Lockheed would. The sharing services don't care if China gets the plans to the F-35. Worst case, some rogue nation gets the plans, makes a bunch of military assets and then invades the US (I did say WORST case), the execs at the sharing service will have already sold some assets well in advance and moved somewhere they can watch the thing play out from relative safety.

There is practically no real motivation for file sharing services to put more than a basic effort into security other than small amounts of pride. Greed trumps pride.

You don't understand the outrage because you don't understand the pattern and you're simplifying it into something its not.

Of course, you're also just reading the slashdot headline and summary and not the actual article, which states that they are looking for ways to certify contractors to create and work on a DoD private cloud ... NOT outsourcing their data storage to someone else like Box or Sharefile. It'll be in a DoD owned and managed data center at some military installation.

So basically, not only do you not understand why slashdotters with a clue would be outraged, you don't understand what is actually being discussed, partially due to the ignorance of slashdot editors but mostly because you couldn't be bothered to read the story you're commenting on.

Just for reference, multiple UNIX variants supported hot plug before Linux was a thought in Linus's mind. Its not like it hasn't been around since the very beginning of 'UNIX', and really before that. Have you even used a real UNIX? Just because you're used to using desktop hardware on the x86 platform doesn't mean anyone else does it that way.

It doesn't require anything different than a static text file, and hasn't for the last 30-40 years that UNIX has been dealing with dynamic hardware.

I'm not sure why you seem to think that just because startup and configuration happen at the same time (name one OS that doesn't do this? All UNIX variants do, as well as Windows and Linux, I guess embedded ones don't in some specialized cases) that reconfiguration can't happen later?

Hacks? You mean design. Sending signals is the way its intended to be done. You think because someone invents a new way to do the same thing using much more complex code that its magically better?

Let me guess, you also think virtualization and 'hypervisors' are new too?

Except they didn't get all of it up front, it was being given in chunks smaller than $30 million per quarter. Apple has probably given them less than $60 million, possibly a little over $80 million. Pocket change for Tim Cook.

And if you actually understood what was happening, they GT Advanced) are operating business AS USUAL during the bankruptcy. Its not like the company is closing up shop and sending everyone home and shutting down production. This is unlikely to have any effect on their production unless the judge says no. I'd bet a months pay Apple knew this was coming and is prepared for it, probably even helped plan it.

Apple DOES their due diligence checks. They don't wonder into shitty deals with companies that can't keep them. They aren't HP.

Really? The same models that predict that result in the weather man telling you its going to be a beautiful sunny day while it pours down rain?

Weather models are an absolute joke.

Functionally better HOW and by WHOS definition?

From Google's perspective, its the opposite of what they want. They don't want users to be able to have apps stop spying on them, thats how Google makes money.

Users are never going to bother installing something YOU think is superior, or it would be year of the Linux desktop too.

Phone manufactures aren't going to want to cut themselves out of reaping the benefits of Google's spying.

Theres pretty much nothing of value in CyanogenMod outside of geeky techs.

99.99% of the population doesn't give a fuck about the things you care about. If they did, they'd have dropped the extra coin to buy an iPhone and get the things you're saying they want. They want a cheap phone, the only way they're going to get that is by Google spying on them. CyanogenMod becoming a for-profit means its going to actually have to have a business plan. That business plan is either going involve a fee (which anyone who knows anything about android knows Android users don't pay for shit) or its going to involve selling user data. Selling user data makes it just like stock android. Paying extra for it, might as well by an iPhone.

Before you rant about walled garden, again, users don't actually care despite the silly thought on slashdot that slashdot users represent 'the norm' rather than a niche market.

Anyone who thinks CyanogenMod is worth money to anyone other than Google is very confused. Google is the only one who's going to pay for them, and thats just to hide them to avoid people knowing what they do is possible.

Billion dollar valuation? Yea, the turds I just left in the toilet are worth a billion dollars too.

Thats just utterly ridiculous.

Exec command.com or cmd.exe, using a pipe to read the output, parse it.

Or you use some shitty language/library that doesn't give you access to the standard API calls.
A perfect example would be someone using code which depending on other code like this:

http://stackoverflow.com/quest...

Rather than properly handling the response directly and correctly, some apps provide wrappers like this to scripting languages rather than exposing the proper version information.

Bad code is what it comes down to in every case, but in the real world you have to take into account that most users are not recompiling programs to fix bugs due to shitty developers that stopped developing the app 12 years ago and there is no source available. This is something that people have to deal with daily.

Microsoft attempts to work around these problems, as does Apple to a lesser extent. Linux pretty much just says 'fuck'ed', hence the massive number of commercial applications for Linux relative to OS X or Windows (Sarcasm)

...

You too are confusing your own ideology with unrelated things and pretending what the GP is saying is false because you don't like it.

MS extorting money from Android has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they contribute to open source software governed by an open source license.

There can no be any 'suspect' in the 'openness' because they have agreed to the license by contributing and as such the 'openness' is secured by law.

You aren't talking about openness or freedom, you're talking about wanting shit for 0 monetary, and thats entirely different and is purely your own personal agenda and not related to anything in this discussion at all. You're one of those people who just doesn't want to pay for anything but hides it behind OSS.

Hardly.

That means instead of the apps being written for the Win32/MFC/.NET runtime, they are written for the Android runtime ... how is that any different? Please explain how its different other than you're a fanboy for Chrome/Android rather than Microsoft.

Right, except no its not. If you want ad-ladened crap, Android is where its at. The 'market' is everywhere else. There may be a lot of apps there, but that doesn't mean anyone cares, which the stats have shown by the number of apps with exactly no downloads.

So basically, just like Windows now. People don't want 'windows' they want an environment they are used to and works well, and more importantly the apps they've been using for years. You've given no actual reason why people would want new android apps that work entirely differently over what they already have and are used to. On top of that, the end result for those people would be exactly the same as they already have, except now Google would be in Microsofts place.

Thats just stupid. With Microsoft, at least you are the customer and your data is yours. With Google, you're the product and your data is their data. The whole point is to push more advertising on you and manipulate you into spending more money. Awesome.

Awesome, so instead of being locked into desktop apps with 30 years of evolution and growing, we're locked into phone and tablet apps ... on the desktop ... which are still infants made mostly by random people who think installing Eclipse makes them a developer, awesome. Thats my favorite lock-in right there. Lock in and shitty apps made for tiny screens ... on my 27" inch displays.

There is nothing that magically makes this better than just using an OS and skipping the extra layer of crap added by running your tablet app on your desktop. Have you really thought about how silly this actually is? Turn off your fanboy for 15 minutes and think about it. Its a stupid idea that no one is actually going to use for anything other than some very rare instances.

Never before has someones OS runtime layer been a real product on someone elses OS. Java hasn't ruled the world, Android isn't going to magically make that so just because people use it on their phones. Adding another standard on top of existing standards never results in this magical silver bullet that revolutionizes the world and changes everything. Proper design from the bottom up does that.

We should expect more from people who post on slashdot ... sadly, its silly to have expectations.

TLDs have certain requirements associated with them, unless Amazon magically also has some super special secret deal that Google hasn't told the world about after losing ... then Amazon won't be able to monopolize or otherwise use the TLD to an unfair advantage.

They can set certain things related to how the TLD operates, but they don't get it all to themselves. They didn't buy a TLD for themselves, they bought the right to run a TLD under ICANNs guidelines.

It doesn't work that way. Judges don't make rules, they judge the application of existing ones. Apple can not be compelled to do something that isn't already codified into law, regardless of what the judge or enforcement want.

Like wise, the most the cops can do is enforce existing laws.

The federal congress or state congress would have to pass a law requiring back doors. And congress we control. They are elected not selected. What you need to worry about is making sure congress can't do this sort of change in a secret vote and that you will vote them out of office if they try!

Sadly, they know most people don't vote, and most of those that do just check the party checkbox they've been checking since mommy and daddy indoctrinated them into the sport of politics.