I'm still looking at low single digit failure rates for WD Enterprise drives. Maybe I've just been lucky? Quantity in the 200-500 range.
Great point! Can't believe I forgot that one.
And I honestly don't think Microsoft are trying to control what you do with their software... All the licensing stuff is about proving you actually did buy it...That said, as a 20+ year user of their products I've had to call for a license activation precisely once and it took maybe 60 seconds. I can live with that.
Then it's fairly safe to assume that you have been using Microsoft software the way they want you to: only reinstalling a couple times (at most) per device, or purchasing systems that include Microsoft's software.
You are almost certainly not doing any of the following:
- reinstalling Windows daily for fun
- regularly moving Windows installs between machines
- renting workstations that include Windows, but must be wiped and reimaged every every rental
- deploying and destroying large quantities of 2012 R2 servers in dev environments
I am not a Windows admin, so I could be ignorant on some solutions to the above, but MS makes all of these scenarios very difficult for paying customers.
Assuming that a stripper will engage in drug use or prostitution is a violation of one of the fundamental principles of American law, "Innocent until proven guilty." And don't give me any bullshit about "It's only a correlation, we're not actually assuming they'll misbehave", because the state assumes misbehavior. If the state actually takes any action based on the simple act of being a stripper, it will quickly become harassment.
It's none of the state's damn business. any more than sugary carbonated beverages or nose-picking.
Isn't that a bit like saying placing a meter in a taxi violates "innocent until proven guilty"?
It is a screening or preventive measure, not an assumption of guilt.
That said, I think this one is stupid. Even if the goal is just to stop underage girls from stripping.
open source doesn't as much need phb's as much as it attracts them.
can't code, want to contribute? become a phb! if someone calls you out on it when you try to make some decision or another so that you can have your name on some decision or another, just call them toxic and quote some club rule!
Is that really what has been happening?
I have never worked with a large open source project (beyond bug reports), but I always suspected they had a real need for project managers, technical writers/documenters, and various other support personnel.
The fact that a POTUS would even understand what a software vulnerability is speaks volumes.
I can't even imagine what this conversation would have sounded like with the two previous presidents.
I don't know, I can imagine a few dozen ways Dubya would have mispronounced "vulnerabilities"
Wasn't there an article years ago about a theoretical test that only required a particle accelerator the size of Mars' orbit?
TBF, I think that would still qualify as "testable, just not with current technology".
Doesn't matter: Based on the summary this isn't new information. If the story matches the summary, then it beats me why anyone would bother to mention it.
Well, given all that, do you think it's more likely that: a) the submitter oversimplified their summary or b) an article in Science both has the intellectual value of "derp" and was accurately summarized on Slashdot?
I read it three times and I still don't understand your point. I know plenty of people in the media industry who are going to love the new 5K iMac. It looks plenty powerful to produce content.
You know a good portion of Hollywood is still running on cheese grater Mac Pros, right?
IIRC, astronauts need to do a lot of exercise to counteract the effects of zero g. Wouldn't being legless make this much more difficult?
I imagine a good deal of their exercise equipment requires legs. I'm not saying this is an insurmountable problem, just that I suspect it would be a problem.
...you definitely want
:O WHAT?! Ok, it's pretty good, but still... textmate deserves a mention as well.
And honestly, who cares what lead to it's discovery?
Me me me me me me me!!!! And anyone else who is interested in making more discoveries.
No, that's how discovery works. People are mucking about doing something and notice something else happening. "Hmm, that's interesting". The science part is often narrowing down a) What's happening, b) what's causing it, c) how to get it to happen by itself.
True, but I think the point is that it could work differently. If we had a more thorough understanding of neurology, we could pinpoint the precise electro-chemical reactions that need to take place. Then we could follow these pathways and determine precisely what was preventing them. Then we would search for the type of chemical/drug/gene that would have the desired effect, AND we would have a pretty damned good idea what other side effects that treatment should have (or how to prevent them).
I'm not saying biology is there yet. Just that I hope to see that in my lifetime.
So what is your point? That there are still 'Mac OS X' server oses around? Or do you really want to claim that there are morons using Mac OS X Server editions to run CGI bash scripts from an Apache web server?
What's YOUR point? Yes, there ARE OS X servers running publicly accessible, vulnerable software. I am not only claiming it but stating I personally know this to be true. And no, I'm sure as hell not going to name names or give you more details than that.
Running shell scripts by a web server as CGI scripts is simply retarded, regardless what flaws the shell might have.
I already said the developers (and companies still using OS X Server) were being stupid. That is irrelevant.
So picking on Apple because a fix is a day later than the hot debian or ubuntu distro is just brain dead.
Apple was too slow. Being days late matters. This isn't kindergarten, and nobody is "picking on Apple". We do need to be honest and critical. And anyone with half a brain should interpret this as one more piece of evidence that Apple is lackadaisical about servers.
Thank you for the well-thought reply, and sorry for the slow one on my end. I was afraid I wouldn't get to this before commenting was closed (again).
I am half playing devil's advocate, half serious. I am not entirely opposed to prioritizing protocols (say UDP over TCP), provided it's done fairly and in a reasonable, objective manner.
However, this still seems to shift the responsibility and open numerous vectors for abuse. If my neighbor decides to run a call center from home, and use 50mbps of VoIP, and my cable provider oversubscribes their node, is all of my traffic constantly throttled? If my ISP also offers TV streaming over RTP, but a competitor uses UDP, the ISP now has an excuse to "prioritize" their own service and harm competitors.
On a sidenote, I don't particularly want my ISP or any of their intermediaries deciding my skype call or streaming video is more important than a deliverable I need to upload over SFTP by 10pm. I'm not a network engineer, but it seems like it would be pretty easy for them to give me 5mbps, 15ms latency, etc. to the appropriate peering. If peering/backbones/whatever are that congested that often... maybe we can address that instead?
I think we both agree, at least, that ISPs have conflicts of interest and should not be trusted.
It was ad after ad for movies from ten years ago.
The worst are the ads telling you not to pirate movies. Since you're seeing the ad, I think it'd be safe to assume you didn't pirate it. Because if you did pirate the movie, you certainly wouldn't be seeing that useless crap.
The stupidity just boggles the mind sometimes.
It's actually kind of brilliant. They want their remaining paying customers to be afraid to pirate. To think it's difficult, immoral, and dangerous. To believe they made the right choice. Bonus points: make them feel superior to those who do pirate.
They should probably include a short video of a an unattractive geek working really hard to hack something, followed by an image of a SWAT team kicking down a door and killing his puppy before arresting him.