Pax vobiscum.

To paraphrase:
Arthur: Who would want a computerized rock?
Ford: Another computerized rock?

I'll take my towel and be off now...

But that won't stop them making another sequel to the "zoo animals on safari" movie!

Why would you slap a single line atop someone's letter and send the entire thing back?

Because we can and bytes are cheap? Hiya! I promise I'm not trying to start a religious war over top-versus-bottom posting or the like, but I'm genuinely curious:

I save all emails. Always have. I can usually find a thread easily enough, but there are times when multiple people are in a thread and the subject gets manually mangled, so Outlook won't incorporate those in its "conversation" search. So having the whole thread, TOP-POSTED, makes it simple to quickly review what was said about whatever we were discussing. As long as the email client clearly marks each message's beginning, how hard is it to read the top one and only scan down if needed?

That said, I'm all for stripping out inline images on reply, and if the topic shifts I have no problem [snip] -ping out the completed thread to make room for the new one. Or if an email thread goes marathon and bounces more than like 10 times...

I'm going to give s.petry the benefit of the doubt here and assume their systems are tightly locked down and they have various antivirus / tripwire / ip rules in place. That said:

If someone got phished leading to trojan installation, *BAM* alerts go off in the NOC. If phishing led to credential leakage, eventual usage of the credentials by the outside attackers would set off alarms in the NOC, assuming we aren't dealing with valid external staff. If phishing led to credit card / invoicing info loss, unauthorized purchases would set off alerts in Finance.

This also assumes an environment where credentials are not shared (the norm everywhere I've ever worked and none of those were DoD postings). It also assumes that pretty much anything of power is tied 1:1 to a person so any kind of abuse (use off-hours or in excess of limits, etc.) would be detectable.

Yeah, fine, I'll get the smallpox blankets ready...

What, too soon?

We have always been at war with Eastasia!

Aliens don't know better than to shit where they eat. We could be the only species in the galaxy that's so stupid.

I don't really see the need for gaming on the go, and if such a need exists, isn't it sufficiently covered by existing gadgets (smartphone or non-gaming tablet)? Furthermore, are the current tablet games worth buying hardware specifically for the job? What would be the point of Angry Birds at 120fps?

Anyway, the hardware looks cool, but the fact that no other manufacturer bothered to use the nvidia hardware is a bit disconcerting. If it were the best thing since sliced bread, many designs would have flooded the market.

But more importantly it doesn't have reaction traction.

http://youtu.be/5ooEz9QtErM

The surprise twist ending is when we end up with an authoritarian regime because too many people just sighed and said, "this is news?" any time something that should outrage us happened.

I think that's a little backwards. We have used math to model the universe. The universe is just the universe. It's an impediment to thinking when you mistake the model for the reality.

Pythagoras, is that you?!

A lot of those early mathematicians were a bit on the crazy side, having come to that realization and not having any of the framework for coping with the idea.

Could you put multiple network cards on your scheduler machine, put the workers on different subnets and randomly dole out the jobs between those subnets? Seems like you'd be less likely to drop UDP packets that way, I'm pretty sure I ran across a utility (lsipc or something) that would list IPC resources, including shared memory. I seem to recall that the segments also show up in /proc somewhere. It's been a while since I've looked at it.

Not being able to ack important message packets seems like a design flaw.

Even though we have a LOT more hardware now than we did back in the day, you still can't BFI your way through a lot of the big data applications that companies are starting to try to get into. In the past, the company would just throw more hardware at a poorly designed application and that would "solve" the problem. I once saw a team throw 48 gigabytes of RAM at a leaky Java program, and schedule weekly restarts for the goddamn thing. But it's a lot easier to hit hard walls with big data, to the point where you absolutely can't throw more hardware at the problem.

Not sure about a movie, but it IS a line from a Firesign Theatre piece. :-)