The article summary does a good job of making it sound like Costco is the unreasonable bad guy in this, but every story has two sides. Why is Costco insisting on destroying the peanut butter?
Is it to avoid claims for payment on the shipment from the bankruptcy estate? Is it fears for later liability? Is it, as the summary tries very hard to imply, sheer obstinate evil?
If you're not going to even attempt to hide your bias, why even bother?
Once upon a time I had to work out the local cable company's internal network topology to nail down the choke point which was causing my connection to not-infrequently experience >50% loss because the techs they sent out were utterly worthless. I took this information to their office, asked to speak to their general manager, and after explaining what I had done and what I had learned about their severely oversold network in the process he offered me a job... which I promptly turned down, because I refused to work for a company so inept that they intentionally massively oversold their capacity knowing full well it would be 6+ months before they could add any more capacity to their system.
Since when does Comcast force you to use their router? I finally left Comcast two months ago when I moved out of their service area, but for the entire time I had their less-than-satisfactory service they had no problem with me using my own router and modem.
While I'm generally a fan of Google products, their DNS is one thing that has let me down. This may have finally changed again, but a month or so ago Google DNS stopped resolving eztv.it (a torrent site dedicated to TV shows). I added another third party DNS server to my resolve list and that fixed it, but it did make me wonder just how many other sites Google had quietly removed from its DNS entries.
Except the continued viability and value of bitcoin is based entirely on user trust, because there is nothing of inherent value behind it (which could be a somewhat uncommon lump of metal, a considered to be valuable rock, or the promise and legal protection of a powerful group of people who run a country).
And this entire Mt. Gox kerfluffle has seriously eroded the general public's trust of bitcoin, even as it was just starting to catch on.
This may not kill the currency, but it's not going to do it any favors either.
I'm reminded of the Gizmodo redesign. The new site was terrible for readability, destroyed the comment system, and the regular commenters all screamed to high heaven about it.
Gizmodo said they were listening and implementing fixes for the issues, but it would take time, give them two months. Two months passed, nothing changed. Anyone who broached the subject was either outright banned, or shouted down and personally insulted by the editors. The lack of fixes was justified by saying "page impressions are higher than ever", so that must mean the redesign was great. But meanwhile, the long time core of commenters all slowly dribbled away from the site.
That giant pile of bullshit made me leave Gizmodo and never go back. I'm hoping Slashdot doesn't do the same thing with this redesign.
...basically what I'm saying to you, Slashdot, is don't try to fix things based on the complaints and then decide you've gotten close enough and push ahead anyway. If you can't actually get the new features to work correctly without breaking the beloved functionality of the site, then ABANDON THE UPDATE. You're better off losing the work you've put into the redesign than losing the core of your userbase.
Well, the USSR was also an authoritarian state whose leaders remained in power through a combination of fear and enforced ignorance among the population, so it shouldn't be too surprising that another state run in much the same way follows a similar trend. Especially since North Korea is like the USSR on steroids in that respect.
I'll take "never", for that one. Outside of diseased minds and idiot trolls, no one actually thinks that's a legitimate possibility let alone likely outcome.
...because politicians don't run businesses, they run a branch of government, and governments ARE NOT and SHOULD NOT BE businesslike.
Also, a "supermajority of the people in the U.S." don't want the Affordable Care Act, eh? I think you need to take a trip back to reality, where facts are king, and simply inventing "facts" like you're doing is generally frowned upon.
The real idiots are the ones who lump together all levels and branches of government for no rational reason other than they're forms of government.
That makes about as much sense as saying "What do you really expect from the EU, given the way the Chinese government tramples on human rights. Just be glad they didn't ship you off to a concentration camp."
When you say "One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal healthcare.gov website servicing 36 states." and then follow it up with "But Oregon's website problems have forced the state to rely on paper applications to sign up participants." are you actually trying to use one state-run exchange's technical failure to undermine the other states whose exchanges are working just fine?
I ask, because if that IS what you did (and it does appear you did) you need to take a remedial course on logic.
It's more "Cody Wilson" than "Bitcoin". The guy is a shameless attention whore who claims odd political beliefs but is actually doing the things he's doing for the payday.
That is how one of the original iPods had their firmware dumped after all, it was played out through the little piezo click speaker at some absurdly low data rate.
Then you're looking at it wrong. Everyone has a right of privacy, and everyone is entitled to care (or not) about preserving that right. When a portion of a government tries to stomp on that right they've done a serious injury to you, and while you're free not to care about it, I'm also free to care a LOT about it without being faced with the accusation that I must "do wrong or plan on doing wrong" because I care about my rights.
How would the project still be useful? By updating with new, unblocked VPNs? Then Iran (or similar country) can block those, too. Assuming the country in question isn't bright enough to automate the process then there may be a window of usability, but even then it would be quite brief.
If you're so sure your comment is good, and only "morons" can complain about the topic, then why post AC?
If the game mode is single player there's no reason to expect to need an internet connection. If EA wants the game to be partially dependent on a remote server even for single player then it's NOT "single player" and calling it that is extremely deceptive.
Single player = local play. If a company wants to redesign that then they need a new name for it so it's clear.
MMOs do not have single player modes, so there's no expectation of local play.
Slashdot Mirror
The article summary does a good job of making it sound like Costco is the unreasonable bad guy in this, but every story has two sides. Why is Costco insisting on destroying the peanut butter?
Is it to avoid claims for payment on the shipment from the bankruptcy estate? Is it fears for later liability? Is it, as the summary tries very hard to imply, sheer obstinate evil?
If you're not going to even attempt to hide your bias, why even bother?
The same is true of basically any cable company.
Once upon a time I had to work out the local cable company's internal network topology to nail down the choke point which was causing my connection to not-infrequently experience >50% loss because the techs they sent out were utterly worthless. I took this information to their office, asked to speak to their general manager, and after explaining what I had done and what I had learned about their severely oversold network in the process he offered me a job... which I promptly turned down, because I refused to work for a company so inept that they intentionally massively oversold their capacity knowing full well it would be 6+ months before they could add any more capacity to their system.
Since when does Comcast force you to use their router? I finally left Comcast two months ago when I moved out of their service area, but for the entire time I had their less-than-satisfactory service they had no problem with me using my own router and modem.
While I'm generally a fan of Google products, their DNS is one thing that has let me down. This may have finally changed again, but a month or so ago Google DNS stopped resolving eztv.it (a torrent site dedicated to TV shows). I added another third party DNS server to my resolve list and that fixed it, but it did make me wonder just how many other sites Google had quietly removed from its DNS entries.
Except the continued viability and value of bitcoin is based entirely on user trust, because there is nothing of inherent value behind it (which could be a somewhat uncommon lump of metal, a considered to be valuable rock, or the promise and legal protection of a powerful group of people who run a country).
And this entire Mt. Gox kerfluffle has seriously eroded the general public's trust of bitcoin, even as it was just starting to catch on.
This may not kill the currency, but it's not going to do it any favors either.
So... your proposed replacement for money is an outlandish system of universal volunteering which barely even works in theory let alone practice?
The request was that you be less ridiculous, not as utterly absurdly ridiculous as possible.
I'm reminded of the Gizmodo redesign. The new site was terrible for readability, destroyed the comment system, and the regular commenters all screamed to high heaven about it.
...basically what I'm saying to you, Slashdot, is don't try to fix things based on the complaints and then decide you've gotten close enough and push ahead anyway. If you can't actually get the new features to work correctly without breaking the beloved functionality of the site, then ABANDON THE UPDATE. You're better off losing the work you've put into the redesign than losing the core of your userbase.
Gizmodo said they were listening and implementing fixes for the issues, but it would take time, give them two months. Two months passed, nothing changed. Anyone who broached the subject was either outright banned, or shouted down and personally insulted by the editors. The lack of fixes was justified by saying "page impressions are higher than ever", so that must mean the redesign was great. But meanwhile, the long time core of commenters all slowly dribbled away from the site.
That giant pile of bullshit made me leave Gizmodo and never go back. I'm hoping Slashdot doesn't do the same thing with this redesign.
Well, the USSR was also an authoritarian state whose leaders remained in power through a combination of fear and enforced ignorance among the population, so it shouldn't be too surprising that another state run in much the same way follows a similar trend. Especially since North Korea is like the USSR on steroids in that respect.
Due process, for one. And the fact that guilt is rarely obvious enough to justify a lightning quick death.
I'll take "never", for that one. Outside of diseased minds and idiot trolls, no one actually thinks that's a legitimate possibility let alone likely outcome.
Or trickle down economics "Reagonomics".
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.
...because politicians don't run businesses, they run a branch of government, and governments ARE NOT and SHOULD NOT BE businesslike.
Also, a "supermajority of the people in the U.S." don't want the Affordable Care Act, eh? I think you need to take a trip back to reality, where facts are king, and simply inventing "facts" like you're doing is generally frowned upon.
The real idiots are the ones who lump together all levels and branches of government for no rational reason other than they're forms of government.
That makes about as much sense as saying "What do you really expect from the EU, given the way the Chinese government tramples on human rights. Just be glad they didn't ship you off to a concentration camp."
A synergistic reaction that causes a fantastic high and (usually) a painful death soon after.
When you say "One defense was that state-based exchanges were performing a lot better than the federal healthcare.gov website servicing 36 states." and then follow it up with "But Oregon's website problems have forced the state to rely on paper applications to sign up participants." are you actually trying to use one state-run exchange's technical failure to undermine the other states whose exchanges are working just fine?
I ask, because if that IS what you did (and it does appear you did) you need to take a remedial course on logic.
It's more "Cody Wilson" than "Bitcoin". The guy is a shameless attention whore who claims odd political beliefs but is actually doing the things he's doing for the payday.
That is how one of the original iPods had their firmware dumped after all, it was played out through the little piezo click speaker at some absurdly low data rate.
No, really, I'm not kidding, there is no possible additional feature or "exclusive" game or service that could make me EVER buy something like this.
Do not want with a fierce burning passion.
And if you were actually confident in your views you wouldn't be posting AC.
Your comment is fantastically hilarious with the "Dictionary of Numbers" plugin active. The funny part reads:
...although maybe it's only funny to me because I'm sleep deprived.
"And my 2 year old is like 38 pounds [ Medium-sized dog]"
Then you're looking at it wrong. Everyone has a right of privacy, and everyone is entitled to care (or not) about preserving that right. When a portion of a government tries to stomp on that right they've done a serious injury to you, and while you're free not to care about it, I'm also free to care a LOT about it without being faced with the accusation that I must "do wrong or plan on doing wrong" because I care about my rights.
Until someone develops a data weevil to burrow into all cheese-based encryption systems and retrieve the hidden data.
How would the project still be useful? By updating with new, unblocked VPNs? Then Iran (or similar country) can block those, too. Assuming the country in question isn't bright enough to automate the process then there may be a window of usability, but even then it would be quite brief.
If you're so sure your comment is good, and only "morons" can complain about the topic, then why post AC?
If the game mode is single player there's no reason to expect to need an internet connection. If EA wants the game to be partially dependent on a remote server even for single player then it's NOT "single player" and calling it that is extremely deceptive.
Single player = local play. If a company wants to redesign that then they need a new name for it so it's clear.
MMOs do not have single player modes, so there's no expectation of local play.