Or you could read the article (psht this is SLASHDOT, what was I thinking?) and the papers it references which indicate the most likely outcome of an explosion of the craft within 1m of takeoff would still result in 0 deaths. Science, not baseless assertions.

While it's true that it takes months or years for the number to be re-issued, it takes only an hour for it not to be your number any more after you change providers (or, in the US perhaps even area codes?) In Aus we have number portability between the carriers, which is nice when you pay for it - but sometimes you have to change numbers for reasons outside your own control. I trust (from some of the above comments) that this new tool handles what would seem to be a fairly regular occurrence, though the summary suggests otherwise?

Sure - I could. But that's extra devices and usually extra power points at those locations (esp if you want any POE - I doubt there will ever be a switch that can be powered by, AND deliver POE at the same time). So it's extra devices to buy and support and manage which is why I decided against it. Having the extra ports doesn't stop me doing it in the future either.

The flip side of course is that a failure in one of the big switches takes a LOT of things offline and it's more expensive to replace. Not the VM cluster or servers - but about half the other devices (e.g. one of the WAPs, half the desktop points etc).

OK Telstra has to record the source and destination numbers of all the calls - right? Here's a sample record (not that drawing a table is easy so work with CSV here):

FromID, ToID, TimeStart, TimeEnd
0299999999, 0288888888, 20090617135834, 20090617140711

How would you like to determine whether the number 0299999999, which is not owned or operated by Telstra today, and which was not owned or operated by Telstra in 2009 either, was or was not an unlisted number at the time of the call? Because its state right now is completely irrelevant - the state at the time of the call is the important and relevant piece of data, and it doesn't exist. And the reason it doesn't exist is that this is a record designed for billing and cross-checking, not for customer view (if you're arguing against unlisted numbers in toto, you've never been stalked).

I did this when I finally bought a place 15m ago. I went what I considered was pretty "nuts" on the cabling. Cat6A everywhere - 2 in every room except bathrooms, kitchen, laundry and foyer, 6 per room for the entertainment areas. 2 APs at opposite ends of the house, and everything terminates in a 6U cabinet in the garage (26 points total). The sparkie who did the cabling said he's just finished another place with over 50 points, similar approach to mine. So what would I do differently? Most rooms are fine. I find I could use more in one of the entertainment areas, but some of those devices are both wired and wireless (and if push came to shove, I would simply move a device to WiFi). I wish I had thought to put a couple of points near where the solar inverter will be, so I could run a Galileo or similar for monitoring - it'll have to be WiFi. But this gives me at least 1Gb with POE almost everywhere, and I can go to 10Gb if it's ever a requirement.

Look I know it's a tiny thing, and I'm in the "don't like U2 so might have been annoyed" camp. But at least some of the reasoning behind the annoyance is that this has hit a stack of data caps / data plans on mobile devices. "It's only 100MB" you say. But if that's 1/5th your monthly data and you only had 30MB left on the last 2 days of your month - now you have a bill thanks to Apple. And where does it stop? "Here's your free 100MB download" is a possible annoyance or a great thing once. It's a royal PITA for lots of people if it starts being every month or week. Or what if it was a 1GB movie instead? Is that OK because the free 100MB album push was OK, and $producer paid Apple eleventy squillion bucks, and it's free so don't complain? Sorry, there's nuances here you're deliberately ignoring, and it makes your argument look like a baseless whinge.

Oh, like you don't find on the Samsung Note 3 and Galaxy S5, you mean? Yeah no chance of seeing it on a phone.

Actually, combine the Yubikey with AuthLite, and you have 2FA for Windows AD environments. I just implemented for a customer; they use the OTP for the username and the normal password for the password. This has two benefits: first, you don't hit the arbitrary 48 character password length limit for things like VPNs (yeah - you can have a 128 character UTF16 password, just don't try to connect remotely) and secondly, there's no customisation of apps required. It Just Works.

I've seen comments like this a couple of times now and I have an easy way to demonstrate that bullying was (and is) illegal. I believe Aus and US law are not too far apart on this - either the bully hits the bullied, or does not. If he does, he can be found guilty of battery. If not, he can be found guilty of assault, (if the bullied person feels his safety is at risk that's technically enough).

Diversity does not mean tolerating bigotry directed at minorities. It's crazy that you talk about tolerating disagreement when Eich is the one who donated money to criminalize what he disagrees with.

The bug was found due to observed behavior, not due to a code review.

wont: one's customary behavior in a particular situation.

want: have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for.

Sure they do - all the major web servers and hosting platforms can use and define vhosts (it's just that the mechanism for creating them differs on each platform). IIS for example, if you create a new site, using "All IP Addresses" port 80, will require that you designate a host header so that the HTTP engine can route the request to the right Web Site (and corresponding content). All IP Addresses port 80 with an empty Host Header acts as a "catch-all" and is assigned to the Default Web Site. Which you generally disable, and create your own config for, if you know what you're doing. Apache, on the other hand, configures those vhosts in text files (nowadays under sites-enabled, as I recall). But the functionality is all there on pretty much all major platforms.

Now if you're arguing that the administrators of IIS servers are exponentially less likely to have a clue about host headers, when compared to their Apache/nginx counterparts - well then from my experience you're absolutely right (my history is MS consulting, and the number of IIS admins who want 20 IP addresses for 20 sites because they don't get how to do host headers, DNS resolution etc, cannot be counted - the reverse can be counted on both hands over 20 years of doing this stuff).

Boy, boy, stop fighting with yourself.