This, at best, does nothing, because the OS will kill apps itself if needed. At worst, it actually makes it slower, because when she reopens an app later, more work has to happen.

If you have a slam-dunk case, couldn't the lawyer call another lawyer and ask them to represent you on contingency?

I said lz4, not gzip. The difference is massive.

Modern processors can compress with lz4 faster than the disk can handle IO, so it's a net performance increase. That said, as we move into an all-flash world, maybe that doesn't apply.

If someone living knows that their private data could become public after their death, it may affect what they store while they are alive. Thus, providing some level of privacy protection to dead people may be beneficial to living people.

Here's "Eye of the Tiger" on a printer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Digi-Key is always hiring.

A CA never has your private key. You generate it locally and it is never sent to them.

I disagree. Imagine I'm an evil ISP: If I was to throttle HTTP to a certain limit, I'm sure I could break Youtube (and other video sites) without breaking the rest of the Web. And if they switch to some non-HTTP protocol, I'll just throttle that protocol across the board. In all cases, I'm treating hosts equally.

Alternatively, if I prioritize some hypothetical Netflix-specific protocol, that will inhibit competitors from entering that market unless they can and do use the same protocol as Netflix, which might not be the best solution in a world without such prioritization.

At least with DR, the key is to exercise the plan as part of routine maintenance. That is, fail over to the backup (server/site/whatever), work on the primary, fail back. Since this provides immediate value, it'll actually get done. And since people do it regularly, they remember how to do it.

This is interesting. Do you have any examples?

My SMTP server will not accept an email claiming to be from my boss* (in either the envelope or a From: header) unless it was sent by him using SMTP AUTH.

* Or most of my users; this is our default, with an opt-out option.

If this was the case, most students would just default, right? And the debt collectors would go after the school because it's a fatter target.

How about employers pay employees cash and then the employees save 15-20% of their income for retirement?

There are well-understood mechanisms for handling this sort of inventory issue. You simply have two part numbers for each item. (There are pros and cons to the approach of the first revision using the same number for both.) The "marketing part number" doesn't change, as long as it's a drop-in replacement. But if any detail changes, then you issue a new "actual part number" (or whatever you want to call it). I had a bunch of IBM gear that had two IBM part numbers on everything. In telecom, CLEI codes can fulfill this role; I've seen gear where the CLEI code changed even though the vendor's marketing part number did not.