Email is a crappy way to send large files so FTP still fills the gap.
That's not exactly a great justification for "random" FTP connections.
At my place I have a legitimate need for FTP, so do a few other people. These people submit a business case to IT and get FTP access. Everybody else does not. It may also be limited to specific sites, I'm not sure.
Btw (and I probably shouldn't say this, considering I'm going through their proxy, and they are probably reading this) - this is coming from a company whose IT dept appear to consider "reboot the server" as a decent first line of problem-solving for pretty much any ticket I submit, even ones where I carefully spell out that it's a client-side issue. So it can't exactly be rocket science to limit FTP to those who need it.)
No, really it's not being nasty for its own sake. It's being nasty for the sake of humour. This is FICTION. Satire, comedy, sketch, vignette, etc.
You might not find it funny, which is fair enough, but at least file the author under "bad comic" instead of "cruel sociopath".
/. is broken.
OR, you need to brush up [thegateway.org] on the very basics of corporate saving face [wikimedia.org] methods. Oh yeah, A letter. They really fought this tooth and nail,
OR, you need to brush up on the meaning of "for example", and follow GP's advice about 2 seconds googling before digging yourself in even further. He didn't say, or even imply, that the letter was the full extent of their efforts, so your cutting sarcasm about how much signing the letter taxed their PR team doesn't do much except make you look even more stupid.
The only time direct, intrusive monitoring is used should be when there is already a credible level of evidence of serious wrong-doing
I strongly disagree.
Do you really?
Any time there's any evidence that you're not doing your job, "intrusive" monitoring is justified.
Don't you think that in this context "not doing your job" and "serious wrong-doing" amount to the same thing?
It sounds to me like you're saying the same thing. When evidence arises that you're not delivering on your responsibilities, monitoring is justified to find out wtf you are doing instead. (As opposed to monitoring everybody, in regardless of evidence they're not performing their duties.)
Racially homogeneous? You have no idea what you're talking about.
Hush now. It's just the standard American Idiot response to these discussions. It comes out like clockwork Every. Single. Time. some facts/statistics are cited which point to <<non US country>> being better in the league tables of <<any quality of life indicator whatsoever>>.
Please don't burst their cute little bubble of everywhere in Europe being essentially a single extended family of identical-looking smiling brothers and sisters. Without that as an excuse for why they have poorer press freedom, incarceration rates, life expectancy, drug addiction, etc, etc, I fear the poor darlings might just implode.
So just hush up and pretend immigration and globalisation somehow escaped Europe altogether, Sweden is entirely composed of cute little matching Scandi-elves, etc.
This may well go on to be the worst World Cup, and after this the Champions League finals may go on to eclipse the World Cup finals.
In terms of quality of football, (as opposed to overall spectacle, etc) the CL has in my opinion eclipised the WC for at least as long as I've watched the CL (which is about a decade).
The WC is not the pinnacle of footballing quality. I know people like to puff it up as "all the best players in the world facing off" and suchlike, but it's really not true.
For starters, there are some of the best players in the world missing because they come from very weak footballing nations. But more than that, we don't even get the best footballing nations - if we had strictly the best teams in the world we'd have mostly Europe and South America. The likes of New Zealand wouldn't get through if it weren't "rigged" with a regional system of qualifying to ensure that someone from each part of the world does get through. So some of the best players are missing because they're from nations located in parts of the world with a surplus of even better footballing nations (random example, Ryan Giggs).
Next, some of the best players in the world are injured right now - whereas leagues spanning a whole season gives time for recovery and at least some sort of appearance in the competition. Next, some of the best players in the world aren't picked for whatever reason: disagreement with their coaches/managers, not enough room in this team for the both of us, etc. Brazil right now would probably be a pretty decent example.
Finally, you get down to the players who are there - and I don't mean to give the impression all the above results in any lack of talent, even despite all that clearly we do see many of the finest players - well, they're still not playing their best football.
National teams simply do not train and play together enough to produce their most dazzling football. Club squads are more consistent and work with each other week in, week out. The level of unspoken understanding between players is almost always visibly higher. England are a good example of this. Players like Gerrard, Lampard, Rooney are creative, free-flowing and often apparently telepathic for their clubs. In the national side they match this slickness only sporadically, more often seeming a bit disjointed.
This is not intended to denigrate the WC. It still scores highly for "big occasion" value. The sheer fact that more people, "normal" people who wouldn't follow domestic or European leagues, get interested in the games makes it interesting. And the national pride angle adds importance, for people who believe in that sort of thing (which is most people, sadly). In that sense the WC is obviously untouchable.
But for pure quality of football? All told, the CL consistently kicks the WC's arse from here to Jo'burg and back, and has done for years already.
Lack of drama is the hallmark of competency.
This is a glorious phrase, thank you. I apologise in advance for using it myself without thorough citation. (Sorry, but "hey! said..." won't scan properly in meetings.)
Setting aside your disregard for the Star Wars reference (turn in your geek card as you leave)
Let's get this straight: referencing the solution to:
Consider an n-dimensional hypercube, and connect each pair of vertices to obtain a complete graph on 2n vertices. Then colour each of the edges of this graph using only the colours red and black. What is the smallest value of n for which every possible such colouring must necessarily contain a single-coloured complete sub-graph with 4 vertices which lie in a plane?
is not geeky, but awareness of a mainstream hollywood kids action movie is?
Someone must have changed the definition of geekiness while I wasn't looking.
They use diesel on the London Underground?
Most subways are electric-powered.
So is the london underground.
Heck, most modern commuter trains run off electricity. Third rail, much?
London Underground actually uses a four-rail system. It's one better.
I don't know whether to blame GP for jamming together two discrete concepts (diesel trains and impure subway air) in such a way that a sloppy reader may infer causation, or to blame you for being a sloppy reader ("similarly" != "therefore") and failing to spend five seconds googling to confirm your healthy scepticism instead of spending it posting "Seriously?".
UNIX enhancements aren't.