I'm well aware. I was writing software before the IBM PC existed, and before the Apple Lisa hit the market. I didn't mention Tron and the Matrix because I thought they were both released at the same time. I can't imagine why you thought that, even if I didn't already know that information, it would in any way be pertinent.

Thanks for explaining the "joke" ... Now I see why it definitely wasn't funny.

I won't figure it out because the premise of Tron is stupid. I'd sooner watch the Matrix all the way through than Tron and I don't have that much lack of taste. I prefer good movies where off the chart level of suspension of disbelief aren't required.

If you are taking about the shitty remake then you are correct. It doesn't matter though, because protocols can't kill. That's not how protocols work.

MCP and TCP/IP are protocols, and Tron and Kill Bill. Protocols don't want to kill movies. Asking if a protocol wants to kill a movie makes zero sense, which was the point of my initial reply to the GP. The second sentence in my reply to you was rhetorical. It is self evident based on the fact that you couldn't follow the logic.

And there is no T R O or N in MCP. Are you some kind of idiot?

That's like asking if TCP/IP wants to Kill Bill.

"Dunning Kruger the Internet meme is discredited nonsense."

A single study doesn't discredit it. Confirmation bias much?

"Meta glasses also have capability of recording audio and your statement "News flash ... like it or not, in a public place you have consented to, and almost certainly are, being recorded." does not stipulate a specific modality."

This makes it clear that you have no idea what prior restraint means. You consent to video recording, and in most states you also consent to audio recording. Regardless of which state you are in recording audio is not banned because that would be prior restraint. Under United States constitutional law, a blanket ban on recording devices in public would violate the First Amendment, which protects the right to gather information and record matters of public interest.

"In the United States, you do have some expectation of privacy - even in public - and it's important to stand up and protect that right.""

That's right. You have the right to not have your audio recorded without your consent. The right you *don't* have is to ban recording devices in public. It is *more* important that the people who have devices stick up for *their* right to have such devices, and that violation of Freedom of Speech (prior restraint) is not allowed.

"Further my statements were concerning the use of data."

Clearly you don't understand that audio and video recordings are data. Otherwise I have no idea why you would even think that was anything other than a phenomenally stupid thing to write.

Fron the GP:

"Security researchers are actually smart, who knew? So they know where to allocate their time to find the most exploitable bugs."

You can't just read my post out of context and understand the wording, which I admit would have been better written as "Claiming that they know where to pay attention to where others looked and and ignore other areas where people looked." If you read this entire thread that you jumped into the middle of you will clearly see that rsilvergun is an idiot (SURPRISE!!!) and that I was specifically pointing out that he was being ludicrous claiming that there are areas of the kernel where bugs don't matter. As you are probably aware the kernel maintainers had a long standing practice of not categorizing bugs specifically as security bugs because all bugs are important per Linus. This changed early this year (May IIRC) because AI has gotten *much* better, making rsilverguns claims even more ludicrous. Maybe you will find that last part interesting if you were not already aware.

North Philly is a pussy neighborhood you pussy.

Arrests aren't queued. When the opportunity to arrest is presented the authorities don't check a list and then let you go if it isn't your turn to be arrested yet.

No. The "lawfully" confiscated it, because the PATRIOT Act, while clearly unconstitutional, has been upheld by the criminals who sit on the supreme court.

They don't need a warrant. See also the ironically named "PATRIOT Act".

He was stopped because he was flying. That's the only reason they need. Don't be mad at me. I didn't vote for the "PATRIOT" Act.

I'm not going to look too deeply into this because I don't have the time, but I'm almost certain that the Patriot act still invalidates the claim you are making about them needing a warrant in this situation. Of course, that is outrageous, but that doesn't make it untrue. The US hasn't adhered to the Constitution in any meaningful sense for a very long time.