And, of course, very few will actually read the article.
This wasn't a 'bug in C#'. Not even close. It's a bug in the programmer. They left a reference hanging around to objects they no longer needed, thus the object never was garbage collected.
"Though we thought we had cleared all references to old entries in the list, because the objects were still registered as subscribers to an event, they were never getting deleted.... We added one line of code to remove the event subscription and, over the next three days, we successfully ran the car for 300 miles through the Mojave desert. "
Re:So what's the point?
on
New X-Files Movie
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Some of the best episodes had nothing to do with the mythology. 'Home', for example, was great, and had nothing to do with aliens. That specific episode wouldn't make a good movie, but still, there really were very few episodes that had to do with the main mythology.
Regardless of how crappy the procedure is (I really don't think it's bad), you're conceeding here that the error was on the part of the user (incorrectly identifying their account type or not taking the steps to verify/validate their account) and not Paypal.
It's easier to blame the corporations, though, than to blame the foul-mouthed blogger.
It's far more likely that the user made an error when creating the account. That is all automated; Paypal doesn't really do anything other than provide the web site sign up. This is why the 'Paypal flagged the account wrong' doesn't fly with me.
And where, exactly, in the article, did they say they couldn't provide such documentation? In fact, I thought the article said that, at least according to Paypal's records, the account was listed as not-for-profit.
That didn't magically happen.
But, this is slashdot, lets just take the smallest amount of biased information and extrapolate that any corporate entity is Satan.
They have every right to withhold the money until they prove it is an error. Just someone claiming there was an error in how the account was flagged isn't enough. It's very likely that on creation, the deadspin inadvertently said they were non-profit, since they are, just not documented.
Paypal has to put these sorts of safeguards in place since, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the way this account was set up looks *exactly* like a phishing scam account.
Did you actually read the article?
Oh wait, this is slashdot. Of course you didn't.
Even the guy's personal blog admits that they will, indeed, get the money, and that they didn't set up their account correctly for this sort of online dontation gathering.
I'm really not seeing how this is Paypal's fault. They have to have some safeguards in place to prevent fraud. And this has nothing to do with Paypal not 'wanting soldiers to get their money'; that implies someone actively made a decision to withhold the money on the basis of where the money was going.
Sure, maybe they're being a bit inflexible, but that might get worked out in the coming weeks. That has nothing to do with Paypal actively withholding money from soldiers.
"It's things like this that cause me to feel shame for being an American."
Do you realize how asinine this sounds? By saying this, you're saying you're ashamed of free speech.
Free speech means you'll hear things that you don't like. You'll hear things that completely and utterly offend you. That you'll hear things that will just make your stomach churn.
Free speech doesn't just include speech *YOU* want to hear.
If this makes you feel shame for being an American, seriously, and this answer ends up being as cliche' as saying you don't like being an American, leave. There are other countries that will protect your concept of 'free speech'.
It's cool to take things out of context, including taking off punctuation, in order to make a non-point.
But, of course, I expect too much in reading comprehension when it comes to the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
And, of course, very few will actually read the article. This wasn't a 'bug in C#'. Not even close. It's a bug in the programmer. They left a reference hanging around to objects they no longer needed, thus the object never was garbage collected. "Though we thought we had cleared all references to old entries in the list, because the objects were still registered as subscribers to an event, they were never getting deleted. ... We added one line of code to remove the event subscription and, over the next three days, we successfully ran the car for 300 miles through the Mojave desert. "
Some of the best episodes had nothing to do with the mythology. 'Home', for example, was great, and had nothing to do with aliens. That specific episode wouldn't make a good movie, but still, there really were very few episodes that had to do with the main mythology.
Regardless of how crappy the procedure is (I really don't think it's bad), you're conceeding here that the error was on the part of the user (incorrectly identifying their account type or not taking the steps to verify/validate their account) and not Paypal.
It's easier to blame the corporations, though, than to blame the foul-mouthed blogger.
It's far more likely that the user made an error when creating the account. That is all automated; Paypal doesn't really do anything other than provide the web site sign up. This is why the 'Paypal flagged the account wrong' doesn't fly with me.
And where, exactly, in the article, did they say they couldn't provide such documentation? In fact, I thought the article said that, at least according to Paypal's records, the account was listed as not-for-profit.
That didn't magically happen.
But, this is slashdot, lets just take the smallest amount of biased information and extrapolate that any corporate entity is Satan.
They have every right to withhold the money until they prove it is an error. Just someone claiming there was an error in how the account was flagged isn't enough. It's very likely that on creation, the deadspin inadvertently said they were non-profit, since they are, just not documented.
Paypal has to put these sorts of safeguards in place since, as has been pointed out elsewhere, the way this account was set up looks *exactly* like a phishing scam account.
Did you actually read the article? Oh wait, this is slashdot. Of course you didn't. Even the guy's personal blog admits that they will, indeed, get the money, and that they didn't set up their account correctly for this sort of online dontation gathering. I'm really not seeing how this is Paypal's fault. They have to have some safeguards in place to prevent fraud. And this has nothing to do with Paypal not 'wanting soldiers to get their money'; that implies someone actively made a decision to withhold the money on the basis of where the money was going. Sure, maybe they're being a bit inflexible, but that might get worked out in the coming weeks. That has nothing to do with Paypal actively withholding money from soldiers.
"It's things like this that cause me to feel shame for being an American." Do you realize how asinine this sounds? By saying this, you're saying you're ashamed of free speech. Free speech means you'll hear things that you don't like. You'll hear things that completely and utterly offend you. That you'll hear things that will just make your stomach churn. Free speech doesn't just include speech *YOU* want to hear. If this makes you feel shame for being an American, seriously, and this answer ends up being as cliche' as saying you don't like being an American, leave. There are other countries that will protect your concept of 'free speech'.
It's cool to take things out of context, including taking off punctuation, in order to make a non-point. But, of course, I expect too much in reading comprehension when it comes to the internet.
The 80 person count probably includes people who aren't old enough to vote.
"monopolistic competition" You do realize how stupid this sounds, right?