IBM's instructions? Of course they said the licensed compiler is required :-)

Those are all part of gcc.

He sent me the first e-mail I ever received, some 40 years ago...

It was so early that it actually was printed by some service and (snail-)mailed to me...

My guess is he read the first half of the first sentence of my response and concluded that I was just repeating what Google says about the issue, that I mindlessly believed the company line.

Never mind that I personally designed and implemented the feature, so if there's any official Google PR on the issue, it's based on what I told "them", not what "they" told me.

Thanks. There were good reasons to move on from Android, but it was pretty cool being able to work to improve the world's most-used operating system. Relatively small impacts get multiplied by a big number.

Also 100 miles from any international airport. This covers huge swathes of the country.

Atlanta, GA isn't US soil?

But even if this were one of the overseas CBP checkpoints (the ones that do pre-clearance, so you don't have to go through CBP after landing), I think those are considered US soil as well, under an agreement with the host nation.

What I find telling, more about Slashdot than Dvorak but him too, is that someone came along to mod me down for pointing this stuff out... The people defending the worst people are always so petulant.

My problem is that you're presenting yourself as an expert on this subject when you don't even know about the 24 hour delay to enable sideloading which was widely reported and which we discussed here. You want us to believe your experience is relevant to a discussion of user experience when you're not even keeping abreast of the issues which matter to users. That's gaslighting.

Maybe. There are multiple SCOTUS rulings that basically declare border checkpoints to be a 4th amendment-free zone. If that means that the agents are "authorized to make such search or seizure", then 18USC2232(a) looks like a problem for him to me.

I was the TL for hardware-backed cryptography and associated bits. No, I didn't always follow every detail of what others on the large (hundreds of engineers by the time I left, though I was #13 on the team when I joined in 2014) team was doing. However, I do quite fully understand the context in which they were doing it. If you'd actually like to understand more about the thinking that likely underlay whatever you're talking about, please elaborate.

I do know about the planned requirement to require all app developers to identify themselves and pay a $25 fee if they want their apps to be installable via any route (sideload, third-party app store), indeed I even explained in my prior post why that benefits anti-malware efforts. I'm not aware of any 24-hour delay associated with it. If you weren't being such a pissy asshole about it, I might go google it, but you've burned pretty much all of my goodwill, so unless you care to actually explain what your problem is, I'm done here.

I think the most plausibly-deniable strategy is to put the phone into a state where it shows the OS setup wizard when powered on, making it look like you wiped it and powered it down just before going through the border checkpoint. Then to reactivate it you have to go through the "setup" process and when you get to the password configuration if you enter the correct password it unlocks and returns to normal. If not, it boots to an apparently freshly-setup state. I think this would be much easier to correctly simulate than an apparently in-use device.

Of course, the safest strategy is to actually wipe it and power it down before going through the border checkpoint, then restore from cloud backup after clearing the checkpoint.

I recall having readable fonts (and I've got a large collection, I've been into them since forever as my mother was a graphic artist) on Linux long before Ubuntu. Anyhoo, google has /. well-indexed and it is a great way to find the posts of Slashdot history by searching e.g. "john" "dvorak" site:slashdot.org

Thanks for the trip down memory lane, I made this same joke here a bunch of years ago but I can't find it now, alas.

I did find this though :)

I didn't find shit with a web search so I resorted to asking, sigh, gemini.

was john dvorak a sandy hook denialist?Yes, John C. Dvorak frequently promoted Sandy Hook conspiracy theories and denialist talking points.Through his media deconstruction podcast, The No Agenda Show, which he co-hosted with Adam Curry, Dvorak repeatedly engaged in "crisis actor" rhetoric. He routinely questioned the official reality of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, framing it and other mass casualty events as staged "false flag" operations or government-orchestrated psyops meant to push gun control laws.Content and Rhetoric on No AgendaCrisis Actor Claims: Dvorak and his co-host frequently analyzed news footage of grieving parents and first responders, echoing infamous conspiracy theories by claiming individuals were actors playing roles rather than actual victims."Media Deconstruction" Mask: The show framed these denialist viewpoints under the guise of analyzing corporate media manipulation and government propaganda.Public and Fan Backback: This pattern of behavior alienated many long-time followers of his tech-journalism career (dating back to his time at PC Magazine and TechTV), leading numerous listeners to explicitly boycott or stop listening to his content due to his promotion of Sandy Hook denialism.
AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

Well that's a big PITA isn't it? Let's ask this clanker to dig.

on which episodes of his podcast did John C Dvorak engage in Sandy Hook denialism?Because The No Agenda Show does not use traditional episodic show notes detailing their specific conspiracy discussions, there is no official master list tying Sandy Hook denialism to individual episode numbers. However, John C. Dvorak and Adam Curry heavily focused on Sandy Hook throughout the late 400s and early 500s episodes of the podcast.The timeline and structure of how these discussions spanned across specific batches of episodes outline their progression:The Core Range (December 2012 â" Spring 2013)The Sandy Hook elementary school shooting occurred on December 14, 2012. The No Agenda Show broadcasts twice weekly (typically on Thursdays and Sundays), meaning the immediate deconstruction began in mid-December 2012 and peaked over the next four months:Episodes 467 to 470 (December 2012): These episodes marked the immediate aftermath of the tragedy. Dvorak and Curry initially focused on "media anomalies" and quickly transitioned into questioning the physics of the shooting and the rapid political response regarding gun control laws.Episodes 471 to 500 (January â" April 2013): This specific block of episodes contains the bulk of the show's Sandy Hook denialism. During this period, the hosts heavily integrated clips from other conspiracy theorists (such as Alex Jones) and extensively dissected news footage to claim that the parents of the victimsâ"specifically targeting Robbie Parkerâ"were "crisis actors" who were faking their grief.Why Exact Tracking is DifficultFinding a definitive itemized directory of every single episode where Dvorak engaged in Sandy Hook denialism is challenging due to the show's structural formatting:Lack of Topic Indexes: No Agenda deliberately avoids standard titles or detailed topical descriptions in its episode metadata. Episodes are simply titled with numbers and abstract phrases (e.g., Episode 480, Episode 495).Scrubbed and Missing Archives: Over the years, as public backlash against Sandy Hook denialists intensified and led to massive defamation lawsuits against figures like Alex Jones, many third-party directories, YouTube mirrors, and fan-made transcripts featuring the raw 2012â"2013 audio clips were quietly scrubbed, deleted, or left unindexed by major search engines to prevent de-platforming.If you are trying to find specific audio, focusing your search on the archive of Episodes 468 through 490 will cover the exact window where the "crisis actor" and "false flag" rhetoric was most heavily broadcast by Dvorak.I can help narrow this down further. If you are looking for a specific piece of audio or a particular quote from Dvorak, tell me what you remember about it so I can help trace the context.

More PITA factor. Hmm.

Is there anywhere I might find transcripts of The No Agenda Show episodes 468 through 490?Finding official transcripts for episodes 468 through 490 is highly unlikely because automated transcription was not part of the show's infrastructure during that era. While the official No Agenda Show Archive features modern, auto-generated transcripts integrated into its player for newer episodes, this feature was implemented much later in the podcast's multi-year run.To locate information or exact dialogue from that specific late-2012 to early-2013 window, rely on a few alternative methods:1. The Official Audio ArchivesWhile text transcripts are unavailable, the raw MP3 files for these legacy episodes are still fully accessible. You can navigate the complete history via the official No Agenda Show All Episodes Index, which lists early entries like Episode 468: "Meat Hands" (December 9, 2012) and Episode 473: "Mac and Cheese" (December 27, 2012). You can download the audio directly from their index servers to listen to the specific segments.

What the fuck, clanker? You said the episodes didn't have names.

You said the episodes didn't have names. Now you are describing episodes by name.You are completely right to call that out, and I apologize for the confusing contradiction.To correct my previous statements: The No Agenda Show does assign unique titles to its episodes, usually derived from a funny phrase, quote, or topic mentioned during that specific broadcast.My earlier point was poorly phrased. What the show lacks is an organized, searchable text index of the topics discussed within those episodes. While an episode might be titled "Mac and Cheese," that title will not tell you that Sandy Hook or a specific conspiracy theory is discussed inside it.Because the titles are abstract, finding specific discussions requires either listening to the audio or generating your own text transcripts using the tools mentioned above.

Fuck I hate talking to AI. Anyway, I'm definitely not going to go to that much effort to track down whether this is true, but that should be enough info for someone who actually cares to figure out whether it's correct.

Critical thinkers like critical thinkers just fine. Faux critical thinkers that only and exclusively like to shit on things and don't do the thinking part have problems with them.