Firstly, you are still missing the main point. The "grandparent poster" is factually incorrect in his/her assertion that parenthesis is optional and was added just to camouflage the modification. You simply don't get to side with that poster, regardless of whether you want it or not. The option is simply not on the table, period. The parenthesis is not optional in this case, so the matter of whether the malicious coder was thinking about using it to better hide the change is completely moot. Whatever they were thinking does not matter, since the compiler would force them to add the parenthesis anyway.

Secondly, I suggest you look through a few Linux source code files and observe the styling conventions they use here. You will find massive amount of formally superfluous parenthesis usage in expressions like (a == b) && (c < d). Do you really suggest that this was done by hordes of malicious coders trying to hide something?

Well, firstly, in C it is allowable to use assignments (and other operators with side-effects) within any expression, not just inside "condition tests". Expression in condition tests do not receive any special treatment. Secondly, the whole purpose of expression statements in C is their side-effects, since the result of the full expression in such statement is always ignored. Taking that into account, it becomes obvious that prohibiting side-effects in C expressions would have made these expression completely unusable.

Er... You do realize now that there has never been any "hackers", do you? The whole concept of "hackers" was nothing more than a smoke screen invented by NSA for the sole purpose of creating FUD in situations like this one. Hollywood picked it up and ran with it (maybe on their own accord, or maybe after receiving a few of offers they could not refuse), so the idea of a "hacker" eventually became a part of pop-culture. But it no "hackers" ever actually existed in real life. It is time to wake up, it is 2013 already.

That is actually misguided reasoning. If you remove this parenthesis and write it like that
if ((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && current->uid = 0)
the code will fail to compile for a completely different reason. In C (as well as in C++) the assignment operator has very low priority, lower than `&&` operator. That means that the above code would be interpreted as
if (((options == (__WCLONE|__WALL)) && current->uid) = 0)
A code like that would not compile at all, since it attempts to assign 0 to something that is not lvalue. For this reason (and not some "warning"), you actually absolutely need that extra parenthesis.
Also, note that the first condition is also wrapped in parenthesis, which is formally excessive ('==' has higher priority than `&&`, but some users prefer to add that extra parenthesis since they believe it improves readability). For this reason, it is fairly safe to conclude that both parentheses where there from the very beginning. They were not added by that malicious coder.

So, someone in USA halliburtoned a huge chunk of taxpayer's money into their pockets, and then told American people a pretty fairy tale about how they made "a secret effort to clean up a Soviet nuclear site"? Where did I hear that story before? Please, don't make me laugh. It is 2013 already. Everybody knows what those mythological stories about "USA helping USSR to secure its nukes" are worth.

Well, virtually all such US events are "overrated" in a sense that the equipment is either directly bought from Russia, assembled from Russian components or at least based on Russian designs. This one is no exception. Antares is just another Atlas - an airkit pulled over a Russian main engine. While Russian superiority in this area is undisputed, it's already becoming a commodity. Nothing to write home about.

While this does bear certain similarities with Strava, there's no need to inject false information about the cyclist's death. The cyclist in question did not "break the laws of the road" and was not "killed in traffic". He died in a single-bicycle accident after losing control on a descent. Basically, he fell and got injured pretty badly.

No, no, no. You got it backwards. "Sedan" is what people in some isolated countries call what the entire civilized world knows as "Saloon".

"The Harrier"? Where did that come from? This plane is known as Nakamura lock, although this design is normally recognized as the "defualt" paper airplane design. It doesn't really need a name. When someone simply says "a paper airplane" without providing any specifics, it is universally assumed that Nakamura lock is implied.

Incorrect. The policy obviously does not apply to genuinely defective items, so customer's won't get concerned about that. The policy applies to those who expect to be able to return their items without any reason, i.e. those who consider retail stores their personal "free loaner" service, at everyone else's expense. Amazon will not work for that purpose, for obvious reasons. And if these people try going to Target or Walmart with their abusive practices, the stores will either be forced to implement similar policies or be kicked off the market. Kudos to BestBuy for doing at least something right. Honest people now have at least one store that stands for our principles.

"Neither VISA nor MasterCard have said which U.S.-based processor was the source of the breach" Translation: US State Department dispatched armed propaganda-enforcement teams who are currently holding the PR departments of Visa and MasterCard at gunpoint, forcing them to immediately come up with an official explanation that would tie the crime to "Russian crooks", as is usually required by the State Department's censorship and propaganda guidelines.

So you put a typical camera on a typical RC model - something virtually every single RC pilot has been doing for years already. YouTube is choke-full of such videos. Where's the news? The fact that he call it a "personal surveillance drone"? Or the fact that a Stanford professor is playing with a toy) (He should have bought a real non-toy RC model) P.S. And no, HAM radio licence is not sufficient for BVR operation.

You have to be careful with your statements. In USA people who dare to know history beyond what is transmitted into their heads by "History channel" tend to doubt the "Key Role Of USA In Winning The WWII" (TM). Under the US regime such people usually tend to have unfortunate and completely accidental slip-ups in their bathtubs that tend to lead to unfortunate, completely accidental and deadly breaking of their necks.

Er... WWII was the war between Germany and Soviet Union. What does the "quantity of the Sherman tanks" and the relative technological levels of USA and Germany have to do with winning WWII is not clear to me. And no, it was not about "quantity over quality". Soviets won the war by the tactical and strategic skill. It would simply be impossible for them to win it in any other way.

The facts of first video from another planet in the history of mankind usually induce immense butthurt in "patriotic" Americans, not even mentioning that publishing something like that can lead to serious problems with federal censorship watchdogs. Sing the "Starts and stripes" 11 times and eat two pairs of US-flag-colored underpants to cleanse yourself of your sins!