Suspense is attempted mostly by a series of last-minute saves and switches

That's like watching a Godzilla movie and complaining that it has an anti-nuclear message.

I haven't seen any of the Hobbit movies in full yet, but I know to expect an action movie.
I wonder what this reviewer thinks of the SuperMoses movie? Put off by too much action hero stuff in action hero movies?

You got to trust them between audits though don't you? You also have to trust the auditors.
Once again, if you can't trust the people with physical access to the equipment with the data on it then you have the wrong people. It doesn't matter how many people you've got, if you have a lot of people all you can do is trust them with a limited amount each.

I suppose a perception problem here is from people coming into the middle layer of workplace on graduation instead of doing low level jobs as a teenager or student and so not getting an understanding of workplaces from several levels. I may have to be blunt. Whoever cleans that place has the keys to the kingdom and can fuck the place over with theft, arson etc in any room, and has plenty of time after hours to break into any room that they don't have a key to, so you have to be able to trust them not to do such things. The same applies to people with the keys to the kingdom of computer networks, server rooms etc. That's one of the reasons system administrators get compared with janitors, they require the same level of trust so you need people that can be trusted in such a role.
There is no effective way to watch them apart from after the fact so depending on audits is not enough.

There is plenty of solutions out there to do this and all this secured from the admins themselves.

There are plenty of salesman that promise such things, however, who is going to have the access to set it up and then how are any of these things going to stop someone with physical access to the equipment? You have to trust somebody in the chain. Just like that guy you've never thought of who cleans the floor with a bunch of keys in his pocket is trusted with full access to the entire building.

So my entire points are:
Somebody is going to be able to get access to anything you can think of in the place, data and/or physical.
Those people had better be people that you can trust.

It applies everywhere. All you can do in large places is divide it into compartments and have decent supervision.

That's something I was not aware of, thanks, I've found intersting stuff about it on wikipedia.

If you're trying to make some kind of reference to a government-run helicopter operation,

Let's see now:

ticket for the last chopper seat out is akin to war profiteering

If it's not obvious from that context I'm going to laugh at you a great deal.

Am I comfortable with what? That society rejects prostitution?

I was very obviously providing an example of the unscrupulous preying on the desperate - the entire point of this thread as you know. I'm staring to think now that you are deliberately being obtuse and pretending to be far more stupid than you are just to try to pretend that there is no pressure from society, morality etc and jsut some form of "pure" economics. You are not fooling anyone, not even yourself I'm sure.

See, his view is that the big problem with the UK education system and boys is that they lose all interest in reading for pleasure right around that 10-11 age range. This is, in part, because the generally approved reading materials in schools have a heavy female tilt (lots of teddy bears and thinking about feelings, not so much on the swords, dragons and robots), but there's not actually a mandatory reading list at this age and teachers (if they're willing to stand up to the senior management in their school if needed) have quite a lot of leeway.

I don't think this is so much about a male/female thing as much as, this is about the age range where teachers start really wanting to "expose" kids to the changes that are comming in their life and give them through story the context to deal with the oncoming turmoil of the teenage years...and frankly.... I think that desire ends up overshadowing other concerns.

It took a bit longer than that but, I can say, that by mid high school the readings we were being assigned were, on the whole, quite boring, and as I went to an all boys school, they were very much geared towards maturing boys.

Frankly if not for a few books, including 1984, brave new world, and some really excellent classes on Shakespear that made his works entirely approachable and enjoyable, I might have never picked up a book for entertainment purposes again. In fact, I didn't for at least 5 years after leaving school....and prior to "young adult reading", as a child, I actually did read for enjoyment and even picked up books on my own outside of class. Hell I read Moby Dick (unabridged) in the 4th grade... my teacher actually tried to dissuede me, but I took it out of the library and did my book report on it anyway. The report sucked, I totally missed many of the important themes of the book and really only was able to focus on some of the action but you know.... I still enjoyed the hell out of it, it still made me want to read more rather than less.

That said, it does seem that a lot more adult women read books for pleasure than adult men, but even that isn't completely cut and dry.... I have seen some of the books some of my female friends read and, they have admitted in their own words that visual porn does nothing for them, and that some of their books really are little more than porn with the same sort of thinly disguised excuse of a plot as the movies about which cities "Debbie Does" (side note: get off my lawn).

Now, I don't really think that "women get their porn in text" explains the difference in at least percieved (I haven't looked for numbers) rates of reading for enjoyment between men and women however; if those differences are real, I would not be entirely shocked to find out that some of the underlying reasons for it turn out to be related.

I probably would be only very slightly less unshocked to find out the differences have no biological basis at all and are primarily culturally driven.

That sounds fine to me.

Also I would like to mention.... the reality is they can already require their guests to agree as a condition of their stay that they will not use external networks. They can already buy equipment to detect and find devices using wifi..... seems they can already handle this by hunting down their own guests and charging them fines and or kicking them out.

Thing is, they know that if they start doing that, they are going to piss off customers. What they really want is stuff to just "not work" so it doesn't look like it is their fault. They don't want you to really know that it is them doing it; they want their customer to get frustrated with other options and grudgingly use their service instead..,..because then they are not the bad guy, or at least....not openly.

What this really is, is them wanting the government to sanction their underhanded activity because doing what they want out in the open is going to look bad.

In principle I agree, in practice, not so much.

For them to actually "do it on their premises" is fine with me, but only if there is no way a person outside their premises or within the publicly accessible entranceway to their premises are under its effect; even if they are simply walking the paths around the outside of the building.

So basically, sure, if they want to shield their entire building from outside RF, with the exception of the entranceway, and as long as its clearly labeled for anyone entering to expect their devices to not work...then fine. However, they don't want to do that at all, they don't want to break cell phones or have to build internal towers with hard lines out, no, they want to just run active jammers out of some sense of monetary entitlement.

"The cost savings is great, but isn't the biggest driver for me, it's mainly the principle that I don't own the device I paid for, and I'm really tired of having cat litter everything in my home."

So exercise your rights as a consumer to research beforehand and not buy it. Or return it. Or modify it, as you have. Or, for god sakes, ask your vet or friends with cats or reddit for advice on having cat litter everywhere (I believe the most common solution is a covered box with fairly high side.) You can also teach your cat to pee/crap in the toilet, believe it or not. There are little "litter box" inserts that reportedly make it pretty easy; the cat goes "oh, another litter box" and uses it for a week or two, and then you remove the insert, and if the cat notices, they go *shrug* and still use it. No more litter, no more stink.

But for god sakes....I was around on Slashdot when the fist inkjet printer companies started chipping their cartridges. I also learned about Gillette in...either middle school or high school. That was a century ago, if not more. The "handle is free, the blades are disposable and we have a very healthy profit margin on them" model is quite, quite old. Why are people surprised? Especially if you read Slashdot, why didn't you do research on it?

Your robotic, do-everything catbox would've cost substantially more if the company were not figuring on a continuing revenue stream. In fact, it might have cost so much that nobody would've bought it.

Try telling this to my boss. I work in finance and have a CFP.
My boss is *crazy* ambitious. Absolutely bonkers.
She grew up poor and now she is so nuts about being #1 that she works our asses into the ground triple/quadrupel checking work sometimes just to be sure we get a few more dollars of business. There is NO WAY to have more downtime. We could close the office a day per week... that;d be nice.

I say we cap how much money people can make, or severely limit it after a certain point. Once someone hits that cap there's no reason to amass more personal wealth, only work on personal accolades and hiring more quality people who can also come up in the world.

I know it's a hamfisted approach, just throwing this out there if anyone's still reading.

all this money floating around had to start making interesting headlines like this eventually.
See headlines from 2008, 1999 also.

I am not questioning the concept of lines, I am asking why this line even needs to be drawn.

Don't you think that before drawing lines there should be a reason? I happen to think so. Wht the fuck justifies these laws? I see no more reason to arrest a person with 100 lbs of pot than to arrest a person with a cup of coffee. I see these laws doing little more than creating black markets for no benefit.

Drug laws have not even been shown to reduce drug use, if they don't do that, then what the fuck point do they even have? If they don't reduce use, then isn't having them drive people to worst drugs, to more underground production....bad. If they can't even do the ONE good thing they intended?

I didn't ask if the form of he law was unusual. I asked what supporters of such a law what they expect it would accomplish, and what they imagine they are protecting us from.

It seems pretty clear to me the ONLY effect such a law will have is to continue a policy of allowing gangs to flousrish and creating black markets for them. I see no benefti at all to such a law in the first place and no danger that it protects anyone from.

In it's prime, the catalog had EVERYTHING.

And IIRC up till the 80's they had a "special request order" thing where you could request something not in their catalog and they'd try to get it for you.

Oh, and give blood regularly. Iron toxicity is a real thing.

So doctors still bleed people for their health?
I'm not going to judge since donating blood saves lives, I just find the reason a bit odd.

Only had one cup. And two girls. But that was back in the days of Rick and Roll.