My mathematical model tells me that they will keep the show going for as long as possible as long as ratings are good. Then it will suddenly end. Maybe on a cliffhanger.

Do you have some remedy for the desire to claw out my own eyeballs that comes from being forced to use Windows?

As the parent pointed out, use of CGI is basically "an existing hole."

I thought it was all a bit silly, but this video made me rethink that position:

http://bergcloud.com/case-stud...

Apple admits your iPhone 6 Plus will bend, but it's extremely rare.

... if you apply pressure in just the right spot, as Hilsenteger has, you can achieve the bend effect with far less force...

Apparently Consumer Reports is no longer a reliable source of information. For example, Consumer Reports gives a high rating to Kwikset Smart Key Locks, but doesn't mention this video: How to Open a Kwikset Smart Key Lock in 10 seconds.

You don't need a test. Check if you allow bash to be invoked remotely by untrusted users, ever, directly or indirectly. If you do, find the responsible architect, pour a cup of soda over his head, demote him to level 1 support, and fix your systems.

Yeah, this is what bothers me about this whole thing. People are acting like this is a terrible security hole outside of anyone's control, but if you're running an environment which allows for remote execution of anything via bash, I feel like Agent Smith said it best: "your men are already dead." That hasn't been a plausible architecture for public-facing applications for at least a decade. I remember working hard to get away from CGI-style approaches in the late '90s - back then, it was more for performance than security, but the security was an added bonus that became more apparent later.

Here are ALL TEN global data sets included in one graph. Every single one shows warming. Can you seriously look at that and still claim no warming over the last 18 years?

-

So, no studying PtoE, company fundamentals, etc. etc. Further proving that the Stock Market is almost entirely disconnected from the underlying companies. Basically, it's a Ponzi scheme.

This is true mostly for new or trendy companies in trendy spaces. Boring companies that have been around for a long time are often priced based on the future dividends they're expected to pay. They don't get any attention, though, because those that make money on speculating can't make any money by trading them. The speculators and brokers don't want people paying attention to fundamentals. Volumes would plummet so how would they make money? There would be no churn. And then they'd have to sell the million dollar Manhattan apartment where they keep their mistress.

It's similar to the difference between trading Beanie Babies (or whatever faddy collectible is popular now) and something like wheat.

The US government would have invested Social Security in the Stock Market, but they can't find a spokesperson from the financial industry you can advocate the scheme without drooling at the prospect.

The US government already invests that money by spending it and leaving a bond in its place.

And how did they invest it? Well, there are some big craters in Iraq and Afghanistan now. Bingo halls and casinos also seem to have profited.

He seems to have intuited this.

Well, just because the missed advertising didn't affect sales yet, there's no guarantee that would continue to hold. Eventually someone would fill the advertising vacuum and they'd have a turf war on their hands.

Wow, that's some comedy gold right there!