He didn't say that he has a problem with hoppers. That may be because he's careful not to employ them.

There's a difference between people growing out of their role and moving on, and people job hopping.

It depends what I'm looking for.

If I'm recruiting someone to deliver a single project, with a skillset we don't have in-house, then I'll look for a contractor and I'll focus on skills, delivery and availability.

If I'm recruiting someone to help progress the company, suggest and lead strategic work, fit into and enhance the culture and cope with multiple complex pieces of work at the same time, I'm going to want someone with a track record of working with a large corporation, that understands how they work and how to work effectively within them, and that has the length of service that suggests that at a minimum they could work the system well enough not to get sacked.

It's destructive and expensive employing people that can't fit into a team, or that wont be happy at the company.

Speak for yourself. My emails are finely crafted works of art. They are culturally significant and future archaeologists will travel the world seeking the remnants of discarded storage drives containing encrypted backups of my Sent Items folder in the hopes of completing their collection.

If I set up malware on my home PC and use DynDNS then DynDNS domains are used 100% of the time to serve my malware.

So maybe Microsoft are saying that 93% of infections come via No-IP domains. That might be a tiny fraction of the overall No-IP domains.

Or for Microsoft?

Most people are however merely stating that the evidence doesn't support the claims, and that it is only sensible to treat this as a scam without further evidence.

That's a very supportable and legally defensible statement, particularly when there is no attempt to refute it.

Flashbacks to Lady Vengeance.

Which fucking law?

Geneva Convention? No.
International law? No.
UN mandates? No.
US Constitution? No.

The US is assassinating people in a foreign country. It is killing innocent people, and it is not obeying anything fucking remotely close to a law.

Who the fuck are you calling an effeminate pansy, while hiding behind anonymity.

Shit, I could be wearing lacy pink panties with a fuckhole in the rear and still be more of a man than you.

What is Lucid Virtu? I did google for it but what appeared to be the manufacturer's page was obscured by some request to "like" something or other on Facebook.

I don't have a facebook account so I closed the browser tab. Stupid fucking company.

I don't get the full detail of your link because Slashdot anti-spam code cuts off the shit at the end.

I also don't need to worry about which site you're linking to as Slashdot helpfully tells me which site the link goes to.

I also don't need you to tell me the link because I'm sensible enough to use a browser that displays the full URL of any links I mouseover.

But hey, paste in the full link if you like. It's lazy and I can't knock that.

Apple makes the vast majority of its $54 billion revenue on gouging its customers and suppliers.

Sorry, no - I'm thinking profit. It makes its revenue on the back of slick marketing.

Doesn't really matter, they're both going to give my data for free to the NSA who will in turn sell it on.

Good. I MAC address ban all iDevices that connect to my access point. If they all started switching MAC address I'd have to switch to something more sophisticated, and if I have to put effort in, I'm going to get nasty.

Rooting it is a choice, not a chore. To root my android phone I merely have to.. unlock the bootloader. Something the manufacturer provides instructions for.

Not really Apple's "use a security hole in the phone.. until they fix it" approach, is it.

I believe it's freedom of expression, which is not necessarily the same thing.

It also has constraints - much as the US freedom of speech doesn't include some vocal emissions.

I'd rather take the risk that innocent people suffer through terrorism than that we remove the safeties and balances of justice.

If these individuals are that dangerous then court orders for ubiquitous surveillance will be trivial, and that will provide the evidence of wrongdoing that can be prosecuted in open court.

If they're not that dangerous then set them free.