Just so. And this is, in fact, one of the circumstances in which your bank *will not* restore the funds to your account.

If your account is hacked despite reasonable and prudent measures to maintain its security, the bank is on the hook. If your account is hacked because you were an irresponsible idiot, you are.

It escapes me how in the digital age anyone could believe that storing nude pictures of themselves online was anything other than the height of irresponsibility. If you don't want it known, it can never leave your control. Yes the thief is wrong, but like the guy in UHF said: "You so stupid!"

Pretty sure, yeah. Producers of G-Rated shows prefer that the kids not find porn when they search google for their favorite actress. There's often a morality clause in the contract, and your nude photos' presence on the Internet tends to run afoul of it.

If you fire someone who was trustworthy, they're still trustworthy. If you fire someone who wasn't, they probably started walking stuff out the door when they were hired. Either way, creating a culture of mistrust severely hampers your business.

First - Bennett should have said the "probability of them being leaked," not the "risk." Risk has a specific meaning: it's the probability of something happening TIMES the damage that occurs if it does happen.

Celebrities taking nude photos is a HIGH risk. They have a moderate (not low) probability of leaking and a HIGH damage should they leak.

If you write your pin number on your ATM card are you not at least partially to blame when a thief finds the card and cleans out your account? Of course the thief is wrong, but wow you were stupid!

This is a pretty stupid. When an employee decides to leave, anything he chooses to take with him walks out the door *before* he tells you about his plans. Hopefully you hired someone who doesn't choose to walk out with the crown jewels, 'cause you can't prevent it without creating an environment of extreme mistrust... an environment utterly destructive to your business.

The answer is: no, this can not be done with current protocols.

In theory with new protocols that your game doesn't support, sure. But only the end-to-end machines understand latency and jitter (your problem is jitter) so a middlebox won't help you.

Loved my omnikeys. Till they broke. Both of them. After 3 or 4 years. My model M's are nearly indestructable.

The key caps pop off. The little plastic overlays, not the depressable keys themselves. Send them through the dishwasher in the small-items tray. With detergent. Viola! Fresh clean keyboard.

Buy someone else's equipment?

After two years I would hope you understand that this vendor won't meet your needs. Not now. Not ever.

Don't blame CGI for bash idiotically accepting external code from environment variables.

I wonder less whether religions are ready for ET and more whether science is ready for the discovery of inorganic life. Nearly everything I read on the subject carries a stated or more often unstated assumption that evolved alien life will have the same carbon-and-water basis that we do.

Actually, I miswrote it. I meant "kill -HUP 1", i.e. sent the HUP signal to process id #1.

Yes, it was trivial to achieve. With sysvinit. Lots of stuff is trivial with sysvinit and overly complicated with systemd.

If it still doesn't adequately support the "kill -1" functionality of initd (which kills and resets all processes init manages, especially the getty processes on the terminals), I still don't want it.