To me, legislating food beyond "dis shit be lethal, don't sell it" is rather stupid, and people should be allowed to make their own decisions.
It'd be nice if sit-down places made nutritional facts available easily, like the fast-food places do, since most of them are fairly asssembly-line cooking now anyway.
Being Canadian, I *do* live in another country, and so here's my biased outsider view, and feel free to disregard:
Gun ownership shouldn't be a right, but a responsibility. People take their rights for granted. There's a culture of "it's my right, you can't tell me what to do about it" in pretty much *every* country around any right. It just so happens that one of those rights in the US is Gun ownership. So then you get people who think that since it's a right to own guns, they can do whatever they want. They don't treat it with the gravitas it deserves.
Different countries, and different cultures, but I do think you'd be better served by rephrasing it from a "right" to a "responsibility" or any other term that's less "God granted"
Yes, thankfully we've moved beyond knee-jerk ideology to the practical matter at hand.
No we haven't, or the headline would be "Idiot parent causes death of toddler." Instead, video games are tangentially linked because there's something in the house that rather looked like a gun, and it was used for video games. That's still part of culture.
If it's necessary to protect society from them. Which IMHO would not apply here, since the chance of repeat is, well, 0.
Incorrect. He's already proven dangerously negligent once with a weapon, to the fatality of another human. Do we really think that 5, 10 years from now, after the impact's faded, and he's moved on (stepchild, remember, not his own kid) that he won't do something equally stupid? Or possibly willfully stupid? I'm sorry, but when it comes to lives and weapons, I don't really believe in second chances.
Except GP was saying *exactly that.* That it was an intentional act. He purposefully left the gun out where the child could get it.
And really, that's not as tin-foil hat as it sounds. Purchase a peripheral that looks like your weapon, let your child play with it, so that they get used to it, claim you hear a prowler, then leave weapon where child would normally find console peripheral.
After all, it's not HIS kid. It's some other guy's whelp.
So I'm paying $15 a month so that I don't need to have a fancy computer to play all the latest games. Except I'm still paying for the games.
So, say a $1000 computer will last me about four years. I'd save about $280 using this service, but I'd have to get all my games through them, I'd only be able to play when my Internet works (wait, are they Ubisoft in disguise?), and the quality of my experience isn't guaranteed to be as good as playing on a copy running off my own machine.
Rather than votes being anonymous, legislation should be single-issue bills. One topic, and one topic only. If a rider isn't directly necessary to implementation of a bill, it shouldn't be on there.
I think you misread the post. They're not saying that 99% of web sites are on Windows webservers, they're saying that 99% of websites are on webservers. Full stop. Rather than home machines, or dual purposed boxes.
Of course, with that cleared up, I'm still not sure what their point is. If a webserver's running Windows, and their copy of Apache gets hit with this exploit, it's still gonna fuck some shit up.
A person may not, but would Ubisoft's server? Further, just because you have 13 9s service, you're still reliant on every hop along the way working perfectly. One step drops, and you get booted from the game.
Except in North America (and probably other places), you Cannot return open software. They absolutely won't take it. And if you bitch long enough to actually wear the poor clerk down to the point where they do take it, the store will simply write it off. They won't send it back to Ubisoft.
Now, as for profit, that CC agent is there anyway. Regardless whether that angry customer calls. He costs the company neither more, nor less, independent of those angry calls and emails. The only thing that changes is the workload on the CC agent and whether he can take a piss break or whether he gets call after call after call, whether you wait for 2 minutes in the phone loop or for 20. That's what changes.
It's cute that you believe that. People with actual call centre experience know you're completely full of shit. First off, the call centre is outsourced, and the company's probably charged on a per-call-handled basis. Second, even if they're not, and only charged for agent availablity, then for a situation like this, they need to increase the number of agents available, since call centres schedule down to the bone. Scheduling one extra agent is going to destroy a good chunk of profit. For a situation like this, they'd probably need a couple. Or they could not schedule more people, have horrific wait times, piss off customers even MORE, and then *really* lose those customers.
The AC's right. Paying you to use their bandwidth? They would literally be better off with you ignoring them if they had to pay you. Places like Ars are a *business,* out to make money. Not give it away. If the content alone isn't enough to make you visit, your presence there doesn't help them. And then they hope that their content is good enough to either subscribe to, or at least be worth turning off ad block.
Uh, they can tell if your browser pulls the URL for the ad, which counts as a view. So, ad block plus, and Opera's ad blocking method means that you'd not be giving them revenue, whereas Chrome's method of rendering, then hiding the ad would.
It's true in every business - you have to at least spot-check your suppliers or you get screwed over.
And it really is *every* business. My first job at a movie theatre, we opened every box of popcorn bags and soda cups and counted them. In a box of 500 bags, my record was 20 short.
uuuuuuugh. The entire returns process for mail/online ordering is borked in my opinion. If there's an error in the product that prevents it from being used properly, then why the *hell* am I the one paying to get the proper item sent to me? I already paid for it once.
Yes, if I bought something at brick-and-mortar, I'm responsible for getting it back there, but the cost is usually minimal, since I can go when I'm already in the area. Further, I'd have my new product that same day. Doing an RMA or return, or exchange due to defect, and I'm waiting a week or more.
The worst part of my personal online purchasing history is the last thing I bought I had to RMA because it failed about 20 minutes after installation, and since I RMA'd it, I couldn't clip the UPC for the rebate that expired in 3 days.
Slashdot Mirror
"My name is Felix Oritz. You killed my father. Prepare to die."
You betrayed the law!!! :p
Well, to be fair, GP did say "might" make sense.
To me, legislating food beyond "dis shit be lethal, don't sell it" is rather stupid, and people should be allowed to make their own decisions.
It'd be nice if sit-down places made nutritional facts available easily, like the fast-food places do, since most of them are fairly asssembly-line cooking now anyway.
Apparently it's an obscure 3-rd party bootleg accessory, thus it's unlikely to conform to any standards.
Being Canadian, I *do* live in another country, and so here's my biased outsider view, and feel free to disregard:
Gun ownership shouldn't be a right, but a responsibility. People take their rights for granted. There's a culture of "it's my right, you can't tell me what to do about it" in pretty much *every* country around any right. It just so happens that one of those rights in the US is Gun ownership. So then you get people who think that since it's a right to own guns, they can do whatever they want. They don't treat it with the gravitas it deserves.
Different countries, and different cultures, but I do think you'd be better served by rephrasing it from a "right" to a "responsibility" or any other term that's less "God granted"
Yes, thankfully we've moved beyond knee-jerk ideology to the practical matter at hand.
No we haven't, or the headline would be "Idiot parent causes death of toddler." Instead, video games are tangentially linked because there's something in the house that rather looked like a gun, and it was used for video games. That's still part of culture.
If it's necessary to protect society from them. Which IMHO would not apply here, since the chance of repeat is, well, 0.
Incorrect. He's already proven dangerously negligent once with a weapon, to the fatality of another human. Do we really think that 5, 10 years from now, after the impact's faded, and he's moved on (stepchild, remember, not his own kid) that he won't do something equally stupid? Or possibly willfully stupid? I'm sorry, but when it comes to lives and weapons, I don't really believe in second chances.
Criminal negligence causing death? Improper storage of a firearm?
What purpose could it possibly have to add an artificial punishment on top of that?
To give an extra reminder to people beyond the people immediately involved in the case, same as any other artificial punishment.
Except GP was saying *exactly that.* That it was an intentional act. He purposefully left the gun out where the child could get it.
And really, that's not as tin-foil hat as it sounds. Purchase a peripheral that looks like your weapon, let your child play with it, so that they get used to it, claim you hear a prowler, then leave weapon where child would normally find console peripheral.
After all, it's not HIS kid. It's some other guy's whelp.
If more gun owners and parents were like you, I'd probably end up changing a lot of my opinions and stances. You are one of the good ones.
Lesser? Yes. None? No. Jail time (no more than 2 years) and revocation of firearms licence. That's what I'd say.
So I'm paying $15 a month so that I don't need to have a fancy computer to play all the latest games. Except I'm still paying for the games.
So, say a $1000 computer will last me about four years. I'd save about $280 using this service, but I'd have to get all my games through them, I'd only be able to play when my Internet works (wait, are they Ubisoft in disguise?), and the quality of my experience isn't guaranteed to be as good as playing on a copy running off my own machine.
You know what? I'll *pay* that $280, and gladly.
Rather than votes being anonymous, legislation should be single-issue bills. One topic, and one topic only. If a rider isn't directly necessary to implementation of a bill, it shouldn't be on there.
AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
The zombie apocalypse is nigh! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!
I think you misread the post. They're not saying that 99% of web sites are on Windows webservers, they're saying that 99% of websites are on webservers. Full stop. Rather than home machines, or dual purposed boxes.
Of course, with that cleared up, I'm still not sure what their point is. If a webserver's running Windows, and their copy of Apache gets hit with this exploit, it's still gonna fuck some shit up.
A person may not, but would Ubisoft's server? Further, just because you have 13 9s service, you're still reliant on every hop along the way working perfectly. One step drops, and you get booted from the game.
Except in North America (and probably other places), you Cannot return open software. They absolutely won't take it. And if you bitch long enough to actually wear the poor clerk down to the point where they do take it, the store will simply write it off. They won't send it back to Ubisoft.
Now, as for profit, that CC agent is there anyway. Regardless whether that angry customer calls. He costs the company neither more, nor less, independent of those angry calls and emails. The only thing that changes is the workload on the CC agent and whether he can take a piss break or whether he gets call after call after call, whether you wait for 2 minutes in the phone loop or for 20. That's what changes.
It's cute that you believe that. People with actual call centre experience know you're completely full of shit. First off, the call centre is outsourced, and the company's probably charged on a per-call-handled basis. Second, even if they're not, and only charged for agent availablity, then for a situation like this, they need to increase the number of agents available, since call centres schedule down to the bone. Scheduling one extra agent is going to destroy a good chunk of profit. For a situation like this, they'd probably need a couple. Or they could not schedule more people, have horrific wait times, piss off customers even MORE, and then *really* lose those customers.
No, proper means "That which is right, suitable, or appropriate." Digital Restrictions Management is a much more suitable term.
The AC's right. Paying you to use their bandwidth? They would literally be better off with you ignoring them if they had to pay you. Places like Ars are a *business,* out to make money. Not give it away. If the content alone isn't enough to make you visit, your presence there doesn't help them. And then they hope that their content is good enough to either subscribe to, or at least be worth turning off ad block.
Uh, they can tell if your browser pulls the URL for the ad, which counts as a view. So, ad block plus, and Opera's ad blocking method means that you'd not be giving them revenue, whereas Chrome's method of rendering, then hiding the ad would.
It's true in every business - you have to at least spot-check your suppliers or you get screwed over.
And it really is *every* business. My first job at a movie theatre, we opened every box of popcorn bags and soda cups and counted them. In a box of 500 bags, my record was 20 short.
uuuuuuugh. The entire returns process for mail/online ordering is borked in my opinion. If there's an error in the product that prevents it from being used properly, then why the *hell* am I the one paying to get the proper item sent to me? I already paid for it once.
Yes, if I bought something at brick-and-mortar, I'm responsible for getting it back there, but the cost is usually minimal, since I can go when I'm already in the area. Further, I'd have my new product that same day. Doing an RMA or return, or exchange due to defect, and I'm waiting a week or more.
The worst part of my personal online purchasing history is the last thing I bought I had to RMA because it failed about 20 minutes after installation, and since I RMA'd it, I couldn't clip the UPC for the rebate that expired in 3 days.
*applause* Very nice. I prefer Grey's Death Legion though.