I don't think there's a single BD player out there that doesn't allow for either software updates or updates to the BD codes that allow/disallow you to decode disks.

One I have requires a USB key to be present to cache validity information for disks you have already watched - without it, it still works, but requires contacting the mothership through Internet whenever re-inserting any disks newer than the latest firmware update.

BD disks these days even come with extras like links to youtube videos, that play on the BD player. That's an attack vector right there. Do they all use https and check the validity of the cert to avoid MITM attacks, using only name servers with signed entries? I highly doubt it.
If I wanted to hack it, I feel fairly confident that I could do so. I'd start by hooking up to the (convenient) JTAG interface, and learn as much as i could that way, before starting to probe from the outside, i.e. through discs, USB or TCP/IP. But it would be low on my list if things I own that I want to hack. My car is more interesting.

But example.com is not like that. It's an actual domain name that was reserved due to developer abuse, mostly out of ignorance that there's the dedicated .invalid TLD already (un)assigned for that use.

That's a shame, but I think there are plenty of precedents of male actors who have likewise done stupid shit because of the bottle, but have gotten help to get out of it, and given second and third chances.

Yeah, she still looks good.
There are many older actresses that still do look great, and who aren't used as much as I think they should be. Like Susan Sarandon, who I think looks so awesome precisely because she has aged naturally, and not been ruined by a plastic surgeon. Diane Keaton and Sally Fields too are easy on the eyes.

I think it's sad that Hollywood continues to make so many movies with elderly gents in the lead role, but never do you see an elderly woman in a lead role. Even the great looking ones.

The ginormous geniuses I've met don't seem to consider themselves intellectuals, geniuses, or whatnot. I've started pointing out that I'm a genius after recognizing that genius is a matter of technique, and so geniuses can be made: we can turn roughly 100% of the population into geniuses by proper training, with strikingly little effort. As such, one of my future political plans is to tweak the education system to normalize geniuses, bringing the baseline up to something most people believe is an inherent force of genetic superbrainism. Maybe then people will stop pestering me or, worse, trying to hire me with the justification that I'm smart and they want smart people on their team; they have smart people, if they would just act like an intelligent species.

Now, having understood that the only thing that ever stood in the way of my dreams was myself, I must go learn to draw. I realize now that I can't draw because I've never put in the exact same effort that career artists and famous painters put into the subject, and so never learned to draw; it's not that I can't, but that I simply decided not to. That changes now.

A... ah. No, not the one. Not the one, no talk, not the one. The one who will be, but not the one who is; so, not the one.

I always thought those were more to show that the replicants had more control over their human++ bodies, being able to bypass feeling pain, or inflict it on themselves voluntarily, like Roy Batty did with the nail.

It would be interesting to see a Blade Runner 2 with Sean Young. What I don't want to see is yet another long overdue sequel where they have kept the male characters but replaced the female characters with younger eye candy. For some reason, women aging appears to be a taboo in Hollywood, and one I thinks needs to die.

> You should visit France, Belgium or The Netherlands. Or the UK before the Thatcher governments.

Or what we call "First world countries".

A core dump is two projects: find out what's wrong, fix it. You cannot estimate how long it will take to fix a problem until you know what the problem is.

How are you an expert when you consider a core dump to be a reasonable place someone would try to estimate bugfix time from? You can't estimate until you can plan the work, until you can draw a work breakdown structure and show what must be done. Even projects are chartered with a big budget and time estimate based on "this is 3x bigger than something else, so it takes 3x longer and is 3x as expensive", and then broken down into work that all comes together and says "okay, it's only going to be 2.1x as expensive and take 2.3x as long". That initial budget estimate? It comes from a dozen or five dozen or hundreds of prior projects, all with varying times, so you can say, "Stuff of this size and complexity has a low-water mark of like 5, a high-water mark of like 11, and tends to take more like 7.2" and decide how important the project is and thus if you want to budget for more like 5 or more like 11--and the same goes for the broken down work.

You can't even estimate what a bugfix is from a core dump. Someone brings you a core dump and says, "I need a bug fixed." They may as well bring you a blueprint and say, "I need a house built." Until you open the damn blue print up and see if you have a 1200sqft row home or a 4500 sqft Victorian, you have no fucking clue what you're doing, and can't tell them how long it's going to take. Once you unroll the damn thing, you can give them a ballpark estimate by glancing at the paper once; take a few hours to study the blueprints and work out what work actually needs to be done, and you can give them a better estimate.

Doing it right.

This is a cultural thing. Asian cultures are strongly hierarchical: you always agree with the guy above you. Never argue. You need to either read the cues or break them of that.

Then the people you are working with are stupid.

Get Rita Mulcahy's PM Crash Course (the green book) or RMC Project's CAPM Exam Prep, and the PMBOK 5th edition. Give a read through. Then you'll understand.

A good project manager uses historical data and the expert judgment of the project team to estimate the complexity of the project and determine the time required to perform the work. This is done in many ways: projects are compared to similar projects and scaled to size for a ball-park figure; projects are broken down into work packages, themselves broken down into activities and tasks, all of which the project team estimates the complexity and time required for, accounting for how long it took them to do similar things; time variance from historical data and current contexts are accounted for, providing a low, most-likely, and high mark (2 weeks in the best case scenario; most likely, based on prior work and known information, 3.5 weeks; some disaster scenarios bring in a 9 week estimate--that kind of lag HAS happened).

The more work is done, the more accurate estimates for budget and time become. Agile projects deliver in phases, iterations, and increments, and so can estimate work later in the project based on risk events earlier in the project--opportunities that cut time and can be exploited to cut more time, threats that cost time and may further cost additional time. In this way, "Historical Information" even includes work performance information for the parts of the project already completed.

It's all probabilities.