Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Patching.... (Score 2) 69

by N1AK (#46777553) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: System Administrator Vs Change Advisory Board

If you have something worthwhile to protect, which is probably the reason why a change review board was established, you do not want add more time to that time window.

No, CABs often get implemented because someone is worried about the damage a borked patch/update could do and doesn't have confidence that it could be reliably fixed quickly. Most of the 'admin' in a change request is things like a process plan (which surely you already know if you're deploying an update to a critical live system) and a rollback process (which again, surely you should be considering before risking fubaring the system).

What I will say is that you should ensure that the CAB members are aware of the need to be able to handle emergency requests (meet, agree and deploy in hours) and should have some process to handle retrospective requests if a business critical update comes out and you can't wait for CAB approval. Normally the requirements for retrospective requests is that it's genuinely critical and that you send a completed request before the update. It might sound odd, but the idea is that they can use that to see if you had properly thought through the process and not just gone Rambo on it.

Comment: Re:Nonsense (Score 1) 69

by N1AK (#46777533) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: System Administrator Vs Change Advisory Board
Any remotely well organised IT department will have processes for handling both emergency deployments and retrospective approval. I'm not going to be cheerleader for the concept of CAB but if you're going to make a case against it then at least make a reasonable one because hiding behind obvious nonsense like this will just make you look stupid and change averse to your employer.

Comment: Re:Are you kidding (Score 1) 704

by N1AK (#46764929) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

I'd also like to suggest that people find it easier to be angry at losing than making an effort to win. Directly related somehow.

This. You are given the opportunity to vote for your elected representatives and leader. There is no threat of violence, discrimination etc for voting for the wrong choice and the results of the votes are honoured without, much, electoral corruption.

America is a democracy. It's pretty pathetic that people who are too apathetic to actually do anything to get candidates that they support elected simply wash their hands of it and claim the system isn't democratic. It's like someone saying that it's all the supermarkets fault they are fat because they position the food and you can't expect the shopper to take some responsibility for picking the right foods for them.

Comment: Re:Nope, not okay for either (Score 1) 565

by N1AK (#46754643) Attached to: Microsoft Confirms It Is Dropping Windows 8.1 Support
Because we, users in general, would rather have some bugs, than have to wait for years for features to be included. When I buy a car I want stability and safety more than I want cutting edge features. When I buy a laptop I expect it to include the latest USB/WIFI/BT specs, modern drivers, new software etc.

Comment: Apps & subscriptions? (Score 1) 240

by N1AK (#46723327) Attached to: How much do you spend yearly on mobile apps?
I don't buy a lot of dedicated phone apps, however I have bought subscriptions to netflix, spotify, lastpass and todoist in part because of mobile functionality that provides. I've also bought a couple of android humble bundles, plex, beyondpod and a couple of apps to make getting info on and off memory cards via cable easier.

Whenever I hear people saying they've never seen an app worth paying for it just strikes me as lack of imagination.

Comment: Might look like less of a (Score -1, Troll) 476

by N1AK (#46713793) Attached to: New French Law Prohibits After-Hours Work Emails
So I'm supposed to take seriously a critical submission about the French from someone ignorant enough not to know that la dolce vita is Italian? It doesn't even sound like it could be French, and there is even a French equivalent "la bonne vie" expression.

time they have been nationally mandated to spend on whatever the French call la dolce vita.

Comment: Re:"derision and scorn when they really shouldn't" (Score 1) 181

by N1AK (#46712059) Attached to: Do Free-To-Play Games Get a Fair Shake?

I've...played Freemium and Pay-to-win. I'm not interested in paying as much as I would for a full game to enjoy said benefits for one or two months. I also hate how it feels not being able to compete because I'm unwilling to pay a bunch of money. If I find the story or mechanics engaging, I'll check it out...but I leave my wallet at home.

To be fair, the have to spend a lot to compete model wasn't invented by p2w games. MMOs and plenty of other games often have a model that requires you to spend ungodly amounts of time grinding for equipment, upgrades, skills etc if you want to play at the top levels and have a chance.

Personally I don't see the difference between a game requiring you to spend $20 to have the best stuff and a game requiring you to spend 400 hours to have the best stuff. In both cases you're leaving a large chunk of players unable to do it.

Comment: I don't accept your premise (Score 1) 181

by N1AK (#46712043) Attached to: Do Free-To-Play Games Get a Fair Shake?

We've all either encountered or heard about a game company using shady business practices to squeeze every cent from their users through in-app purchases (a.k.a. microtransations, a.k.a. cash shops), or a simple pay-to-win format. But these stories don't represent all games — by a long shot. It's something endemic to shady developers and publishers, not the business model.

It is something fundamentally wrong with the business model. Name a recent popular f2p game where the pay element isn't an issue?

f2p is fundamentally flawed because of how people use it. The majority of people who download a f2p game are parasites with no intention of paying, the game company doesn't want these users to stay longer than it takes for them to casually enjoy it, maybe recommend it and possibly change into one of the minority of paying customers. Because most customers will never pay, the few that will have to be taken to the cleaners to make enough revenue to cover for this. For those of us who are happy to spend a moderate amount on games this is a shitty model because instead of paying $5 upfront for a good experience, we need to pay tens of dollars to get an experience that is cheapened by the purchase mechanic.

Comment: Re:where is the controversy? (Score 1) 639

by N1AK (#46711887) Attached to: Scientists/Actress Say They Were 'Tricked' Into Geocentric Universe Movie

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I became an atheist.

As opposed to: When I was a child, the bible talked for me, the bible thought for me, the bible reasoned for me. When I became a man, I remained indoctrinated.

Comment: Re:"smallpox OR guns OR other unknown diseases" (Score 1) 351

by N1AK (#46702617) Attached to: Isolated Tribes Die Shortly After We Meet Them

Either you don't understand Slashdot's native language, or you don't understand English. In any case, the Enlish "nor" is short for "neither", which is true as long as both inputs are false, exactly like a NOR gate.

Odd how you'd accuse him of not understanding English when you yourself then misdefine the same word. As someone who is still trying to break the habit of using it in conversation and baffling southerners I can assure you that it isn't limited to use as a short form of neither, and nor should it be.

Comment: Re:Invented before the age of Dropbox and Facebook (Score 1) 641

by N1AK (#46693151) Attached to: Meet the Diehards Who Refuse To Move On From Windows XP
Pretty much my opinion. I've been using Win 8 on my home pc since release and to be honest the minor irritations would seem irrelevant if Win 7 hadn't been a very well designed OS. If I'd gone straight from XP/Vista to Win 8 then I'd have seen it as a definite improvement.

Comment: Re:Good for you. (Score 2) 641

by N1AK (#46693081) Attached to: Meet the Diehards Who Refuse To Move On From Windows XP
Possibly true (certainly true in all examples I can think of), however inconvenience doesn't automatically mean security. An informed user can likely run a secure Win7/8 enviroment with considerably less inconvenience than running an equally secure Win XP enviroment especially once MS drop security updates.

Comment: Re:Good for you. (Score 1) 641

by N1AK (#46693053) Attached to: Meet the Diehards Who Refuse To Move On From Windows XP
Not turning the box on would protect 100% of users but that doesn't make it a viable solution. He thinks his setup is preferable even without MS updates, in fact he doesn't want windows updates. I don't agree with him but it's irrelevant because his situation isn't one that supports ongoing support from MS or upgrading because of the lack of it.

"There is hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum." --Arthur C. Clarke