That's what you get when you try to buy a complex system that includes software and specialized hardware for what should be viewed as a low price as an off-the-shelf solution: something that doesn't work and has no support.

Why? Where do you see an advantage in not smearing leap seconds?

I currently work in a project where:
- there are no schedules or estimates,
- everyone seems to believe that tickets with a three-word title and an empty description fit the definition of "spec", and
- answering questions with just "yes" or "no" sometimes takes weeks, even if the ticket is urgent and not answering the question blocks further work on the ticket, and
- the codebase shows attempts at following every programming technique, concept, trend or fad from the last 10 years.

Fortunately, it's not as bad as it sounds because all the current BAs, developers and DBAs are making a great effort to improve things, but it's still bad.

I would put it like this: if you have a good PM, he or she will choose the right tools for the project (Scrum, XP, Kanban, pair programming, waterfall, whatever) and the right people (developers, QA, BA, etc), and will customize the tools as needed. If you have a bad PM, or the budget doesn't allow for putting together a good team, then it doesn't matter which tools are used.

Agile is meant to help you learn about the problem domain. If you already know everything about the problem, there's no need for Agile. If somebody else already knows everything about the problem and you can hire him/her, the do it - no need for Agile. If nobody knows everything about the problem because it's a new problem that no one else has worked on yet or a new approach to a known problem, then you definitely need Agile or something similar to help you produce something that works at the same time that you are learning about the problem.

I agree - I live in Argentina, and I have never used a phone that could not be configured to use English. In fact, I always configure my phones to use English for everything except perhaps for the keyboard layout and autocorrect dictionary, because I hate seeing errors in Spanish translations, and menu options tend to be too long and not fit.

Is this "Free software" or a Trojan horse?

The driver running on the PC surely tells the printer the date.

Ubuntu works perfectly fine with my external monitor practically all the time, even if I alternate between HDMI and VGA, suspend, disconnect the monitor to go somewhere else, etc.

I wonder about the morals of this story too. But it looks that the value of the artifact was not preserved by that woman, or by the people that owned the artifact before, and that value was restored by Mr. Wetter - I mean it doesn't have any value if nobody knows what it is and who can put it to use.

I am not a fan of the mobile site, and never have been. It has many glaring faults, and for that I would tend to vote: drop it like a sack of hammers!

But the real question to ask is an internal one: do you want to expend the engineering resources to maintain a separate mobile site? For the last few years, the answer to that was a resounding "No." Nobody (well, nobody with decision-making power) wanted to commit Slashdot's engineering time to it. The faults, obvious though they were, never got fixed unless they directly interfered with ad revenue.

Now, that's not to say the mobile site provided no value. The outcome of this poll is obvious, so I'd suggest just moving on to the next question to put in front of the community: what does the desktop site do poorly on mobile devices? Yeah, going fully responsive is a start, but it's not the end. The comment slider, for example, just doesn't work with a touch interface. The mobile site handles that much better. So, put up a post asking for input about that, prioritize, and start working your way down the list.

Oh, and if you do end up keeping the mobile site, the #1 fix should be getting rid of the "filtered due to preferences" messages.

$150K a year just to push a button?

The last U.S. president to visit was Coolidge in 1928. They mention 1959 because that's when the U.S. effectively lost its influence there.

In their case, it seems it happened because they don't care enough for security. Most of us don't, at least until something bad happens, but the odds are reduced and the consequences are often alleviated because someone else did care and implemented security measures that we depend on, possibly without even noticing. It appears that Mint doesn't have enough resources (if any) devoted to security, at least not like Ubuntu, Apple, Google and even MS do.

So yes, it could happen to anyone, but from what I read it looks like they had it coming.

Perhaps without microprocessors. But certainly not without computers.