That wasn't the point being expressed in the quote.

Sure thing, AC...we'll get right on doing that needful for you.

HAH!

LMAO @ "Do The Needful"

The first time I saw that in an email, I was just like, "WTF am I reading?!?"

It's not karma to burn. You're just talking about a completely different aspect (and I agree there are plenty of good foreign engineering resources to be found).

I was taking issue with the surreal falsity of the quote...the guy specifically asserted that the "vast, vast majority of tech *engineers* supported..." blahblahblah.

To me, that's a bald-faced lie. The decision to hire offshore "talent" is driven by MBAs, not MSes or PhDs. Now if he'd said "tech execs" or "CTOs," I would have believed him implicitly.

Anyhow, I just wanted to be clear that my issue with the statement isn't a reflection of any belief that good talent doesn't exist offshore. It was with the preposterous characterization of his "belief" in the apparent superiority of foreign talent being shared by nearly all domestic tech engineers.

"The vast, vast majority of tech engineers that I talked to who are from the United States are very supportive of bringing in people from other countries because they want to work with the very best."

I've worked in tech (SE) for 15+ years now, and I don't know of a single colleague that would agree with the sentiment expressed in that quote.

Not to mention all his wanna-be ripoffs on various talk radio outlets. I can practically hear the frothy apoplexy dripping from my speakers.

You illustrate my point. The suits at Disney responsible for lobbying and litigating IP rules are not the people creating characters and animating stories. And the fact that the company takes creative content (e.g. new stories) and uses their copyrighted character to act them out does not make them creators of content. It makes them thieves.

Show me the independent artist who is being serviced by today's 120-year copyright protections, and I'll show you a BitTorrent user who isn't pirating stuff.

Actually it works against content *publishers* (not creators) who have traditionally been the purveyors of grossly unfair contracts and all manner of unsavory business practices (e.g. we own perpetual license to any works you create, etc.) that leveraged their knowledge and access to distribution channels in order to live off the creative efforts of actual content producers. See also: Payola.

For this no-value-added middleman clown to accuse any other operation of being parasitic is the apotheosis of laughable hypocrisy.

Um, no. A MITM is not necessary for corporations to keep their employees from visiting undesirable content on the internet. Content filtering does not require payload inspection to achieve. I know this because I've worked with clients who use ProxySG devices to help them construct and implement their access control policies.

Your assertion about TP being a "scare about nothing" is incredibly naive...it's only valid if the end user provides informed consent. In practice, there are organizations that silently push their MITM CA certificate into your device/browser's truststore without giving you any opportunity to opt out...and I'm not talking about corporate owned/issued devices, I'm talking about BYOD operations.

Assuming you believe this line, they're only providing countermeasures against data at rest or moving within their networks.

Does anyone remember that whole "trusted proxy" thing that's creeping into the HTTP 2.0 draft spec?

Is anyone else familiar with the MITM capabilities of a Blue Coat ProxySG device, and how widely deployed they are amongst ISPs?

I was referring to the institutionalization of the insanity, not the insanity itself. High courts doing crazy things like declaring corporations to be "persons" under the law, public servants trussing themselves up in military tactical gear and smashing their way into suburban homes to shoot pets and terrorize occupants over their possession of some plants they grew. Fun stuff like that.

You do understand that the peripheral bus is not the same thing as the core logic platform, right?

It's not about the ability of the platform to play PS1/2/3 games, but the ability of the device itself to utilize existing accessory input devices built on STANDARD communication link mechanisms.

You are aware that Sony has a long and storied history of forcing (expensive) unnecessarily proprietary peripheral devices onto their customers, right?

There's really no excuse for this, other than to say this is just Sony still showing complete contempt for their customers.

Around the time of the CD-R rootkit fiasco, I wrote off Sony as a vendor entirely. I simply refuse to do business with a company that shows such complete disregard for its customers. Does this mean I don't own ANY Sony tech? Of course not...but it does mean that I have not given Sony a red cent. My PS3 is a 2nd- (maybe 3rd) hand unit I pick up from Craigslist.

I just don't understand why any thinking person would support a company that still runs its business on the razor/blade model of entrenchment and vendor lock-in, especially for tech. To deliberately cripple functions or expend engineering resources to create obstacles to easy operation is just insane. The entire point of having standards is to make components interoperable. It's this modularity that vaulted the PC clone to the top of the microcomputing world. It's why I will likely never buy anything from Apple.

Ugh. Just UGH. Not knowing the first thing about the PS4, I hope it goes down in flames.

Apparently it isn't just our appellate courts here in the States that have gone batshit crazy. The insanity seems to be spreading.

I've never had that problem using CM7 or CM10,x on my HTC Inspire and Samsung GS3...but I've always used the latest stable builds, even when the RCs got pretty long in the tooth.

That's just my phone. Can you imagine how careful people would be with their cars?