that said, please tell me one sitcom that wasn't designed for you to laugh at the cast?
M*A*S*H, specifically the comedy years. It was nothing at all like the appalling Nerd Blackface that The Big Bang Theory is.
My understanding is that all of the mobile carriers are running CGN these days, so whether or not they support IPv6, they're not consuming much in the way of IPv4 addresses.
Who is the expected user here, and what did they gain by trying to hold on to an existing backdoor so shoddily as to have it detected again?
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is clearly meant to be a remote management backdoor for the ISPs, hence the need to secure it but not remove it. As dodgy as it is, the fact that it can now only be triggered by the local network and can't be passed over IP means that it's probably good enough by ISP and Sercomm standards, especially if it's treated as a little-used feature and not as a security concern.
While I agree that some developers are cavalier with rules, consideration of resources is fundamental to writing software
There have been a number of occasions where I've had to say things like "No, you can't have 10 VMWare instances with 1TB disk and 140GB of RAM each. Because the VMWare cluster doesn't have the resources available, that's why." and "If you'd asked, you'd already know we don't have 2 DL380's with 192GB of RAM and 4TB of RAID1 disk in each datacenter. No I know you 'need' it, but it doesn't exist."
Usually the conversation then has to diverge into an overview of the concept of capacity planning and horizontal scalability.
Thankfully those kinds of conversations are rare these days.
I've worked at a Fortune 100 company
Ditto. My previous role was at HP, and our group couldn't have done the work we did in the time we had if we hadn't have used a DevOps model to do it.
Developers don't know how to run a production environment.
Yes. That's the problem that DevOps attempts to solve. You're supposed to have both "Developers who do Ops" and "Ops guys who develop" in one team to do "DevOps".
If you're working in a place that's done "We'll just get the developers to do Operations" then they're doing it wrong.
Well you're comparing phones/appliances to computers, so yes.
Windows has for many years now used a multiple-tier support strategy (the Windows Lifecycle policy). Microsoft supports an OS for 10 years, and during that period if they issue a service pack then they support the previous sub-version of Windows for 2 years. Windows 8.1 Update is about 30% of a service pack; the update contains a number of feature enhancements and on a code level it becomes a "base" OS that all future updates are built against. So unlike a normal security update, you can't skip Windows 8.1 Update and still get other security updates. This in turn can be interpreted as a violation of the Lifecycle Policy, as it's functionally a service pack and therefore Microsoft should continue providing security updates for Windows 8.1 (sans Update) for 2 years.
iOS on the other hand offers no such policy. You are expected to use the most recent version of the OS and Apple has never said any differently, full stop.
Never mind the huge difference between an OS for a disposable device, and an OS for computers that is expected to last for a decade or more and is interfaced with massive amounts of custom hardware and software. Unsurprisingly, the type of device and the expected use case for it is a big factor in how long an OS is supported and how OS updates are handled.
It would probably be useful to specify the order of events in TFS, as the current summary implies they received campaign contributions after they started investigating the merger.
TFA is focusing on past campaign contributions - that is contributions before the investigation, seeing as how the investigation just started. Everyone on the committee has received a campaign contribution at some point in the past, even Al Franken. Which is more a statement on the fact that Comcast pretty much contributes to every incumbent's congressional campaign, rather than this being a case of where these senators were specifically targeted.
Which to be clear, still isn't a good thing by any means. This means everyone on that committee has received a contribution at some point. But it's not the same thing as giving contributions to someone when an active investigation is going on, something that would be far shadier.
And because most of us like Stephen Colbert. It fits under the "news for nerds" criteria.
If the people on
/. don't see the worth of buying decent mobile apps - what's the point of them other than to advertise and hijack the masses?
Well let's not immediately lump together people who don't buy apps because they're cheap with people who don't buy apps because they don't need them.
I probably didn't spend more than $10 on mobile apps in the last year, but at the same time I only do a handful of tasks on my phone. And even then most of those tasks are covered by the built in email, web browser, and media applications. So the collection of 3rd party apps I do own I pay for as needed, but there just aren't many things I've found I need/want to do on my phone that require a 3rd party application.
But I imagine this also depends on whether we're talking about phones or tablets, and what other computing devices a person may own. I already own a desktop and a laptop, so my phone is a distant third on my computing devices. I only need it to portably run a small number of none the less important tasks, so that's all it gets used for. However if I wasn't a power user and more the type of person that uses a tablet as their primary computing device, then that would represent a far different situation for demand for 3rd party apps.
Indeed.
As a whole, mobile game players don't actually buy anything. It's the tiny, tiny percentage of whales that brings in much of the revenue (and ads fill in much of the rest).
0.22 percent of players account for 46 percent of mobile app revenue
Given this, it's no surprise that mobile game development is so damn broken. It's impossible to have a healthy development environment if most players aren't actually willing to pay for the game.
High frequency trading isn't the issue. The banks are the real "insiders", and are pointing fingers at small, high frequency prop shops to deflect attention from themselves, and to get back to the bad old days when they could really gouge their customers with wide spreads.
High frequency traders make their money by having better pricing models, narrowing spreads in the market, and being able to execute and then get out of a position quickly to lock in their profits and eliminate risk. The banks like to be the middleman, with wide spreads, so that they can pocket the difference.
The net result of high frequency traders is that the rest of us can get a stock much closer to their actual value (due to narrow spreads). Yes, the high freqency traders make good money by selling the stock $0.005 off the "real" value to me and then immediately getting out of the position by reselling it a millisecond later and locking in that $0.005 profit, but I have only paid a premium of $0.005 instad of the $0.35 or worse the banks would love to gouge me for (and used to, a few short years ago).
We get rid of high freqency trading and we'll be back to the bad old days, when the real insiders really did gouge us, and we all paid far too much for our investments, and were able to sell at far too little, with the likes of Goldman Sachs pocketing the enormous difference.
As for the front-running nonsense on 60 Minutes, that's always been illegal (contrary to what we're being told), and it is not at all how high frequency trading works. If someone was in fact doing that, then they're in a whole world of hurt with the SEC (and rightly so), but this entire exercise appears much more like a distraction: blame small outsider firms who've made the marketplace more effecient and tightened spreads for problems created by corruption within the big banks, and hope no one notices...at least until the next bank-induced crash.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
