Posts by Jonathan Schwatrz 152 publicly visible posts • joined 31 Oct 2008
".....some of the dossier is unverified....." Really? Please supply details of a single claim from the dossier that has been irrefutably verified. Even the original Steele/Orbis reports are unconfirmed and are based on hearsay/rumours from Russian "sources", without a single piece of actually confirmatory evidence.
Ahem. This is why Comey had to re-open the Clinton email investigation. I'm sure the fact that McCabe's wife had received $700k from a Clinton ally to run as a Democrat in the 2015 Virginia house race raised a red falg even Comey couldn't ignore - no conflict there! Maybe that was why McCabe did not recuse himself from the Clinton email investigation.
"Apologist"? Not apologizing, just seeing how Intel got hooked on prefetch performance tuning and how that could have blinded them to the problem. I think every Intel slide deck I've seen since the mid-'80s has bragged about their lead in cache hit ratios. Redesigning the cores to hit the same performance levels without relying on prefetch tuning will be an expensive challenge, unless if they can find a way to segregate cache between apps via software.
"The security hole was introduced way after the 8086. Basically, Intel and others screwed up. They're trying to spin this away as a design side effect....." Hmmm, debatable. The hole was predicted by the original HP EPIC design team in the '90s, which is why the EPIC-based Itanium is immune. When Intel bought into EPIC as Itanium they intended that EPIC was going to be their future CPU design and would replace RISC and CISC, only AMD upset the applecart with the 2003 release of the cheaper Opteron CPU with 64-bit extensions to the 32-bit x86 design. In the scramble to get x86-64 CPUs out the door to compete it's not surprising that Intel missed a few points. For all we know, there may be other nasties still hidden in the x86-64 design.
".....I'm solely referring to the common consumer....." Well, the average "common consumer" makes lots of online purchases via browsers these days, and it could be possible for this bug to be exploited so malware could read your saved credit card details or your one-click password out of the bit of cache that it was prefetched into.....
".....The point is that chip engineers left security in the glovebox the day they parked up in the company lot and walked in to design those parts of the pipeline....." True, I suspect security was pretty low on the list in the '70s when the original 8086 was designed. I'm not disagreeing that Intel missed a big security hole, I am just pointing out that Intel got hooked on prefetch performance tuning when CPUs were single cores only, application loads were pretty much one per system, and no-one had even thought of virtualization on x86. It seems Intel did forget to do the design security review they should have done later (IIRC, VMware Workstation wasn't releases until 1999, for example) when customers started sharing CPU time on x86. Before then, virtualization was for big enterprise systems only.
".....So, it seems, is Intel Itanium....." There is a good information in
this explanation by Theresa Degroote at Secure64 of why Itanium's EPIC architecture is immune to Spectre and Meltdown. But it's unlikely that Intel will be shoe-horning Itanium's EPIC architecture into a Xeon package, or that anyone will be rushing out to replace all their Xeon servers with existing Itanium ones. The problem is - and always has been for Itanium - that it's architecture is more expensive to fabricate than x86-64. It would be pretty trivial for Microsoft to get Windows Server 2016 booting on Itanium, it's just would Microsoft be bothered to? Getting the OS to boot is just one problem, after that you have to get all your applications rewritten for the Itanium version of Windows, or accept the probable performance hit of x86-64 emulation on Itanium. After all, the OS and app vendors can simply wait for Intel to temporarily gin up the current Xeon designs with a die-shrink performance boost to alleviate any Spectre fix hit, a temporary cover until the next generation of Spectre-proofed Xeons are designed. Unfortunately for AMD, they seem to be right on the bleeding edge of die shrinkage, so their chance of recovering from Spectre fix performance hits is likely to be harder.
"....the embarrassing design cockup....." Well, to be fair to Intel, they perfected prefetch as a performance boost long before virtualization or containers on x86 were even thought of. IIRC, the first real performance boost from prefetch came with the Intel 8086*, the first real x86 CPU, which had a six-byte prefetch queue. Intel also had the 8088s which had higher core frequencies than the 8086s but performed worse because it only had a four-byte prefetch queue, which meant the faster core was kept idling more than the slower 8086. Intel realized that keeping the core working was more beneficial than just making it fast and kept on tuning the prefetch performance as the x86 CPUs developed, making it a central part of the design. I expect Intel would prefer to try and work out a way to segregate the individual prefetch areas rather than a complete redesign.
*The 8086 was developed from 1976 and released in 1978, long before VMware was even dreamed of.
"..... It certainly seems less important than taking the time to do it correctly." Exactly. I'd be much more impressed by a push to implement 4G (or even 3G, TBH) properly across the States so that it's not just a cr*p experience outside cities and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
".....thanks to the fact that HPE recently came calling with a request to get Samba working on HP-UX...." Hmmmm, did I step into a timewarp?!?!? Samba has worked fine (well, as fine as it can) on HP-UX for years! I remember testing Samba (version 2.something, IIRC) on hp-ux 10.20 with Windows clients for Y2K compliancy, and hp-ux has had a full-blown CIFS capability (named with typical HP "dead-fish" marketing, CIFS/9000) since at least hp-ux 11.0.
As a weird aside, I also (vaguely) recall that HP-UX 9 had some version of Microsoft's lanmanager software to allow it to understand NetBIOS and emulate an NT4 server....? Any hp-ux dinosaurs out there remember that?
"Never could understand what this "third world status" nonsense has to do with the capability of a race or people...." The term "Third World" is from economics and measures whether a country has a primarily agricultural-based (Third World), primarily industrial-based (Second World) or primarily services-based (First World) economy. The pre-WW2 era USSR was arguably between the Third and Second World economic definitions at the time, being highly reliant on copying Western technology. India, whilst having many advanced technological programs, is still massively reliant on primary economy agriculture for a large segment of the rural population, and appalling levels of preventable poverty and disease. India's economy is massive through scale, but is classified as "newly industrialized", which equates to the old Second World at best.
".....reached Berlin first...." The Russians reached Berlin first because the Yanks insisted the Allies sit on their hands at the Elbe River and let the Russians get there first. Eisenhower was determined to let the Russians take Berlin and instead planned to clear the Nazis out of southern Germany and Austria. Indeed, Eisenhower was so terrified that General Patton would disobey orders and go for Berlin (and would also be more popular than Eisenhower back home) that he deliberately stopped fuel and ammo supplies to Patton's Third Army on several occasions. He further stopped Patton from liberating Prague. This political blundering of Eisenhower's was compounded by the Yalta Conference, where POTUS Franklin Roosevelt gifted Stalin half of post-War Europe in the naïve belief that Stalin would just roll his armies back and let the eastern Europeans return to democracy. Roosevelt did so because he wanted Russian assistance in the Pacific, which was doubly stupid as he also then let Stalin interfere in China and Korea at a time when the Japanese were already crumbling.
".....trump is as rascist as... a very racist person.......because they have Muslims in them...." Take a deep breath, try to concentrate, then repeat after me - Islam is not a race.
".....whilst ignoring Saudi Arabia...." Which actually blows a massive hole in your whole point of him being "racist"/islamophobic - if he really only wanted to ban on the grounds of Islam rather than terrorist threat then surely Saudi would be top of his list? But Saudi has gone a long way towards curbing their own extremists since 9/11, far further than the six Islamic states on his list.
"....He slams black people protesting police brutality...." No, he pointed out the use of violence by both BLM supporters, and that the "alt-Left" (AKA Antifa), have a long record of violently "disrupting" any other group they don't happen to agree with (which is every group espousing anything even slightly to the Right of Stalin).
".....and calls white Nazis "very fine people"...." No, he said many of the people at Right-wing marches were "very fine people", he never endorsed Nazism or any individual group at those marches. You may try and claim everyone at those marches was a "Nazi" but then that is probably because you perceive anyone slightly to the Right of Stalin as a "Nazi", right?
".....All - So, US, what happened to all those WMDs?....: The US administration found it politically expedient not to provide details, but plenty of WMDs - especially chemical ones - were found.
"For India they had to do it because the British left them with this mess called Pakistan next door...." Bzzzt! Nil point! The Partition of Imperial India into India and Pakistan was nothing to do with the British, it's completely homegrown due to the inability of Muslims to get along with anyone. If anyone should take the majority of blame it's the Pakistanis seeing as the Aligarh Movement came up with the idea that Indian Muslims should be treated as a separate people as they defined themselves as Muslims first before Indians, and therefore insisted they should have their own country, Pakistan. Nothing to do with Imperial Britian, colonialism or anything other than Islamic intransigence.
"....they are descendants of a Norwegian...." I never said they were - you do understand what diaspora means, right? But, unless you want to also pretend that Norgies breed like superbunnies, there were a lot of Norgies that decided to emigrate to the US. Which implies a lot of Norgies didn't and don't view the US as a sh*thole.
But you are also dodging the real question regarding why the US shouldn't be more selective of the people it gives Green Cards to.
"People from Norway have no problems getting visas. Probably one of the easiest countries to get one from. Supply is not the issue." And the Norwegian diaspora in the US is about 4.5m Norgies, which shows quite a few didn't agree with you about the US. But, there are strict limits on the number of Green cards the US gives out ever year, so it would seem the smart thing to do to make sure those recipients are the best for US rather than a burden. There are three artificial loopholes in the Green Card quotas which are really only for "sh*thole" countries - 50,000 for "diversity immigrants" AKA the lottery, 70,000 for refugees, and supposedly "unlimited" for political asylum. No developed Western country qualifies for the refugee nor political asylum quotas, and the lottery has been tilted for years towards the "sh*thole" countries as people from developed countries are prodded into paying for the "certainty" of the full visa process (which actually isn't certain at all).
But that is merely a deflection from the original question - why should the US burden itself by taking refugees who are unskilled from "sh*thole" countries - such as Haiti - rather than encouraging more immigration of skilled individuals from developed countries - such as Norway?
"Oh look you met 3 people....." I would suggest it was a far more representative set of Norgies living abroad than your own experience.
"....our university system...." Ah, so you are a Norgie, and apparently one with zero actual experience of America. This is my surprised face, honest.
"..... is one of the few things that we really do have going for us to bring in the best and the brightest because its usually not locals...." Hmmmmm, me thinks you need to actually do a bit more research. For example, there are only four traditional unis in Norway, the rest are really colleges and tech schools granting Bachelor degrees, which is one of the reasons many Norgies study in Scotland (actually has more traditional unis than Norway). As for the supposed superiority of Scandinavian education, real World experiences seem to show no real difference in results compared to the US.
"....would not wish to move to the s***hole that is the USA." That is your own and perfectly valid opinion. But the question is not whether you would want to, it is whether you would want to but couldn't because the visa had been given by preference to someone from a less-developed country that would be a burden to the States. Assuming, of course, you yourself would actually bring anything of value, which might be debatable given that Norway has also taken in a lot of refugees from "sh*thole" countries....
"The Norway vs Haiti is a false choice because vast majority of people from Norway take one look at the US in 19th place (bottom of the developed nation list) in everything but GDP per capita...." I personally know three Norwegians that moved to the US for the purpose of higher education (there is limited choice of higher education institutes in Norway, apparently a lot of Norwegians study abroad), and stayed to work there because it gave them better opportunities (in one case with Apple who had virtually zero presence in Norway). I suggest you might need to actually meet some Norwegians before making any further presumptions.
".....I just fucking hate the daily mail.....we are all getting pigeon holed depending on opinions." The problem that arises is when we begin to only seek out information sources that we think will agree with our opinions rather than seeking informed debate. One of the truly immense values of the Internet is that you can seek out sources with a variety of opinions and gain more than one perspective before forming your own, for free, even if it means putting on your mental waders before reading something like the Daily Mail. It seems the problem is too many people think "I don't have time, just give me an instant opinion and some soundbites" rather than forming their own.
History is littered with examples of politically unpopular arguments that were ignored or quashed by the group-think of the day, only for many of those unpopular ideas to eventually gain support and become the norm. If that were not true we'd still be practicing feudalism and slavery, women wouldn't have the vote, and we'd be insisting the Earth was flat.
"Are refugees burdens on the State? Facts? Figures?" Well, for the US that depends on how you do the sums and how you talk about refugees. Not all refugees are illegal immigrants, and not all end up working illegally, but that seems to be where the figures can best be demonstrated, as noted here due to the political focus. With Trump's recent announcements around foreign aid that may soon change!
As regards refugees, the figures are very complex due to the large number of US government agencies involved, and the fact money goes to refugees both abroad as well as those allowed entry to the US. Even the WaPo, who rarely pass up an opportunity to bash Trump, had a hard time arguing against Trump's claim that the US can care for ten refugees in their own country for each one entering the US legally.
But let's look at the famous Trump "sh*thole" question - average Norwegian vs average Haitian. The majority of people in Norway (91%) speak English and they come from a culture that has many similarities to that common in the US; they have a good average measure of education with 42% of work-age adults holding a degree; and if they are an adult they are likely to have already have some positive work experience (unemployment is about 4%). Compare that to Haiti - 90% of Haitians only speak Creole, and the culture is widely different to the US; literacy only 61% and (due to 90% of primary and secondary schools being private in Haiti) most children attend sporadically and often don't leave until in their mid-20's, and then less than 1% achieve a degree; and unemployment 60% so less likely to have ever worked. It would seem logical that, during their first year in the US, the average Norwegian is going to cost a lot less (if anything given that European immigrants to the US have to cover their immigration costs) due to both his/her better employment prospects and his/her easier integration into US society, and is probably going to be of larger economic benefit throughout his/her life if only through income tax payments.
You could argue that the Haitian refugee can be helped as "lifting them out of poverty", but if we could do the same for ten refugees at less cost in their own country....
"UK is like the US asylum seekers are vetted before they even leave their home country...." Ha! That is so much uninformed manure it's staggering that you can even type it without collapsing in a paroxysm of laughter! Plenty of migrants trying to sneak into the UK immediately claim political asylum when caught as they have been well coached to do so. Many do it when caught many years after illegally entering the UK! If they were so bent on gaining asylum why did they not claim it until caught years later?
And please don't jump to the usual Leftie deflective bleat of "Daily Express so just racism!" Try and actually argue the point and figures mentioned for a change.
"You sir are a racist...." Ah, the reflexive bleat of a Leftie do-gooder. It's the standard way you lot attempt to deflect an discussion away from a topic that you have been told is inviolate. Don't like discussing the possibility some asylum seekers are just taking advantage of the system? Immediate response - insist the person raising the point is a racist! The problem is you have over-played that card so much it's beginning to lose any semblance of acceptance in anywhere other than tightly-choreographed Leftie circles.
The best example of this recently has been the response to Trump's enquiring why does the US take so many ill-educated migrants from economically-deprived countries (AKA, "sh*tholes", allegedly), that are burdens on the States, rather than educated people that would be of economic benefit from developed countries? Liberals don't want to discuss that, so they immediately attempt to deflect the question by shrieking: "Rascist! You called those countries sh*tholes! You must be a racist!"
If you are so happy insisting that we must take the "most deprived" then why don't you take them in yourself, or give your money to charities that do so? I personally donate both time and money to charities that help the underprivileged, but I don't reflexively insist that anyone that doesn't do the same is a racist. I consider it a matter of personal choice. Why you think you can insist all taxpayers should unquestioningly watch government money being spent on what you have been told is a "good cause" is the real question, and one you obviously cannot argue beyond reflexive bleating.
".....It's hard to understand how this happens....." It's because we actually have information-sharing agreements with police and security services in a lot of countries in the Middle East. Ironically, should this asylum seeker apply for a British passport, the first place that will get a request for background info will be the same people he claims are out to get him. The information-sharing agreements are in place partially because plenty of previous claimants have turned out to be nothing more than ordinary criminals and/or economic migrants, faking their human rights abuses, and because a number of previous people granted sanctuary then turned to encouraging or participating in terrorism, such as Alaa Abdullah Esayed in the UK or <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_attack#Anis_Amri:>Anis Amri</a> in Germany.
"....how we....." Bzzzzt! Nope, zero points! The Normans are completely different to the modern day Fwench. The Normans were of Viking origin and settled in northern France after repeatedly beating the crap out of the resident Fwench (the Franks). The clue is in the name - Norman = "Norseman".
"In Snowden's case, he's already escaped...." Er, no. Snowden's goal was to get to Ecuador and full political asylum and citizenship, like Assange. Snowden was only passing through Russia when his passport got cancelled, leaving him stranded. He's only surviving in Moscow, not living the life of the Great CIA Tormentor he would have been accorded in Quito. It's not daiquiris on the beach, anyone in the US grumbling about the current cold should remember that's Moscow every year! Kim Philby, possibly the most notorious Russian spy, spent his exile in Moscow trying to get back to the UK.
"....He doesn't need to escape further...." Debatable. In Ecuador he is probably safe for his lifetime from extradition to the US. In the NewSSR he only has "temporary asylum" for three years, which really means he's there as long as it suits Putin. Now, should the US offer something Pootie wants, like extradition of Chechen terrorist/freedom-fighter/politician Ilyas Akhmadov..... So, no, Snowden's position is not totally secure.
"....fly Assange off the roof of the building to a waiting ship offshore..." There are several problems with that scenario. Firstly, Greater London is controlled and restricted airspace, so the minute the helicopter deviated from its filed flight plan it would attract attention. The Police have their own helicopters that can follow the Ecuadorean one, and arrest Assange (and the chopper crew) the minute it landed on land if it is inside the UK territorial limits. Should the helicopter try crossing to another European nation instead of landing on the ship then it gets Assange in more trouble as he then can be charged with illegally entering the new country and illegally exiting the UK - more jail time before extradition back to the UK, more jail time in the UK, and still probable extradition to the US. Secondly, any ship can still be boarded by the RN outside the UK's territorial limits if the ship is thought to be engaged in a criminal act such as people smuggling - Assange leaving the UK without passing through proper immigration checks would count as people smuggling. So more jail time in the UK, and still probable extradition to the US. The right to lodge a complaint against the RN boarding would lie with the country the ship is registered with, in this case Ecuador, which would not have a leg to stand on if it was shown they co-operated in Assange illegally leaving the country. Ecuador would have to balance the value of getting Assange out against the loss of political goodwill and possible retaliatory sanctions against Ecuadorean vessels. The fact they haven't tried it probably says most about the lack of real value they assign to Assange. This is exactly why Putin didn't simply put Snowden on a Russian plane to Ecuador - his presence in the NewSSR has value in how it annoys the West, but not enough value that Putin would risk the fallout from directly helping Snowden escape.
"....I'm pretty sure the Ecuadorian embassy is quite sick of him being there...." By the sounds of it, they are getting very sick of Assange's personal hygiene issues!
Good luck on the passport lark!
".....unless they'd tattooed their visa lists on him...." We could always surgically remove the bits of tattooed skin and send those on to Ecuador whilst detaining the rest. I'm sure we could find some Afghanis that would be quite happy to help with any impromptu surgery. Apparently it's not that uncommon over there.
".... there is no fucking way I am a member of this species, if I was I would have topped myself ages ago...." Ooh, bad news - considering you are using some form of computer to post on an Internet forum you are most definitely human, though probably not exactly the smartest homo sapiens in the room. Probably time to warm up the "phone" booth. Maybe you're a hominid - do you enjoy throwing your faeces at the wall of your pen?
"....The standard punishment for a first time bail offender is a smack in the wrist and being told not to do it again....." True, but the bail-jumping punishment is not the problem for Assange, the problem is when he is under arrest the UK can bring any other charges they wish, including holding him almost indefinitely (no bail for previous bail-jumpers!) whilst an extradition request from the US is considered. And that is ignoring the fact the UK can now press their own prosecution under the Official Secrets Act without having to hand him off to Sweden first if the US takes a pass. If the US did make an extradition request, Lauri Love's extradition took three years and Assange's would take at least that long given his idiotic ability to shoot himself in the feet. That would be three years in a maximum security UK prison, followed by "life" (say 25 years) in maximum security in the US. Or, if the US passes, probably fourteen years of UK maximum security prison if sentenced for breach of the OSA. Not the 26 months average rape sentence in a cushy Swedish minimum security prison Assange was facing at the start of this affair. Julian Assange truly is the Bechtel of people that started digging a hole and just kept on digging themselves deeper!
"....but the case would not go to court in almost any other country....." Not true! Assange's lawyer tried that argument in the UK twice and both times the court replied it would also be rape under English law. Seriously, how many times does that zombie argument need to be slain before the Assange apologists admit it's simply not true?!?!
"....he could exit the embassy, have a quick trial in UK for bail-jumping, spend a few months in jail and then be done with it." Actually probably not. Her Maj's Government are probably quite happy to hand Assange over to the US in the case of an extradition request as it means the Yanks get to handle all the subsequent shrieking and misbehaving of the Resistance/Occupy/Anonymous crowd. However, if the US doesn't issue an extradition request, the UK has it's own axe to grind. You may have missed the David Miranda affair, where it was admitted in court that Miranda had 58,000 highly-classified UK Government documents in his possession that are claimed to have been part of the WikiLeaks trove. WikiLeaks just having those docs without authority, let alone distributing them, puts them in breach of section 6 of the UK's Official Secrets Act, and as Assange has already admitted his part in that leak he will probably be slapped with a charge by the UK if the Americans take a rain check. So, no, it is highly unlikely that Assange will just be getting a slap on the wrist if he leaves the Ecuadorean Embassy, he's probably doing hard time in the US or the UK.
Up-vote for making the calm and rational point that the US is definitely out to get him (possibly more so because Assange is likely to leak plenty more to embarrass the previous Democrat administration rather than Trump's). Unfortunately you negated to mention that it was Assange and his behavior that put him in a mess in the first place, and then made it worse for himself with this silly hiding in the Embassy stunt. If he had gone to Sweden he would not have been extradited to the US as Swedish law prohibits the extradition of political cases, and also because Assange's time "writing" for Aftonblavet (sorry, not sure on the spelling, too lazy to check) gives him added protection under Swedish law for protecting journalists (it's the reason he went to Sweden in the first place). As long as the European Arrest Warrant was in-place it took priority over any English legal matters. Now, however, neither of the Swedish get-outs apply in the UK, and he has royally screwed himself by making himself a fugitive from the law in England by bail-jumping a there would be very little case not to extradite him to the US from the UK! Kind of hard for him to do a Love and claim he's suicidal at the thought of being locked up after he's willingly imprisoned himself for several years already!
"It's a weird world... where the government of a liberal democracy (US or UK) holds a grunge (sic) against an individual citizen of another liberal democracy because he published unpleasant material many years ago....." Nice try at revisionism, but that has nothing to do with the bail jumping charge Assange is hiding from. That is simply a common charge of your average petty criminal. Your "hero" has feet of clay, even before we get round to discussing the accusations of sexual harassment in Sweden that started the whole jaunt.
"Yes, but as a factual organisation, you should really know that generally it's is not known as the sterile "celebgate" name, but as "The Fappening" from slashdot to reddit to the piratebay." Yeah, plus "the Fappening" not just sounds better but is in keeping with El Reg's traditional "one-of-the-lads" tone. Hate to think El Reg was going PC......
"....enemy has to be vilified by all means necessary....." Are you trying to pretend that "honey pots" aren't a specialty of the KGB and FSB? Clayton Lonetree might want to disagree. One of the reasons the CIA found it better to offer freedom and asylum whilst the KGB used honey pots was because Russia was and still is - as Trump would put it - a sh*thole no-one in their right mind would want to "escape" to.
Can't believe El Reg missed this! It has all the juicy quotes that usually trigger a spasm of Brit-, BAe-, MoD- and RN-bashing - ....“These problems stem from Germany not having a strategic vision for its military,”.... “Too complicated, too ambitious, too badly managed.” .... "A litany of bungled infrastructure projects has tarred Germany’s reputation for engineering prowess" ..... "Defense experts cite the warship’s buggy software and ill-considered arsenal".....
"Is this particularly FB's fault?...." Possibly not for the initial posting of the pic, but the same pic was reposted repeatedly after the first call to have it removed. It seems FB puts virtually zero effort into stopping reposting of banned pics, which would seem a trivial thing to stop. Firstly, they have the original pic, and a digital pic is simply lots of numbers in a file - very, very easy to build a bit of software that takes a submitted pic and compares it to a stored set of banned pics, and checks it is not an already banned pic before letting it be posted. Even easier just to make a facial recog map of the face from the banned pic and use that to stop an future repostings, especially as miscreants will try to edit the original pic to get round the first check. Secondly, the person asking for the ban has supplied their name so it would seem trivial to block anyone posting a message attached to a pic saying "Ms X is a slut" because Ms X's name is now on a banned list. But all those require two things - spending on developing the blocking system and slightly slowing submissions of pics. IMHO, FB obviously can't be bothered.
"....violence is shit and does not deserve a place in this world...." And the meek will inherit the Earth? Sorry, but history has shown us countless times that, whilst the majority of the population can get by just fine without violence, there are people that will insist on committing criminal acts that will only be stopped by violent actions. Simply telling them off didn't work.
I think the top people at Google need to read this post by Mike Rowe which neatly and eloquently deals with an "un-fan".
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
