If you use electronic payment to obtain physical goods, you are effectively exchanging information for something physical.
No you aren't. The information itself is of no use to the vendor. Indeed, in some POS systems the vendor never even sees it - it's handled by an external processor.
It's simply the old notes and coins scorekeeping system, but automated.
Even if those worked perfectly (and they don't) that's sticking a bandaid on it.
You don't run a business system with free text. You have defined fields, some of which have a limited set of inputs. In a word, structure. Otherwise somebody will type MRA when they mean RMA.
Hasn't the plastic paddy twat got more important things to do? Like increasing the amount of memory firefox uses, removing options that people use and generally fucking up the UI?
You opened the door, you had a good look, and you still walked into it. Perhaps in future you could do some research (I asked for citations, did I not?) instead of repeating shit you heard the bigger kids saying.
... or simply blocking editing if there's already been a reply (should be easy) or if someone has a reply window open (more tricky, but still not difficult).
Slashdot Mirror
No you aren't. The information itself is of no use to the vendor. Indeed, in some POS systems the vendor never even sees it - it's handled by an external processor.
It's simply the old notes and coins scorekeeping system, but automated.
Those rules would be based on some criteria. Call them "critpoints" or "resalls", it's just money in a different form.
I'd go for bracelets. That way you can give them a warning shot and they can still keep working with the other one.
I know, I'm a big softie.
Getting a job as the receptionist at an asshole ark is preparation.
I doubt he has, actually. But in any case your argument is circular by the very definition of an exponential function.
Right, because past performance is always an indicator of the future.
https://xkcd.com/605/
From the linked article:
So people who actually know about something know more about it than people who don't? Amazing!
Odds on it's due to systemd.
Martinis are often dry. Of course we need a reasonable sample size. Ten should do it.
Depends how you define "wet".
Wrong. There are actually people like that out there.
You seem to like logical fallacies. That would be an argument from authority if you actually were one.
You pulled that out of your arse. But thanks for admitting that you lied when you said such people don't exist.
Truth is, I'm some mixture of amused, bemused and baffled (trending towards bored) by the whole crock of shit.
Articles: should they have some actual content, or just a load of speculative waffle that two guys sipping beer could come up with?
It's not just sensible, it's impossible. If your whole raison d'etre is being offended, you will find something to be offended about.
Now excuse me, I need to go and turn off the ... ummm ... green cauliflower.
Even if those worked perfectly (and they don't) that's sticking a bandaid on it.
You don't run a business system with free text. You have defined fields, some of which have a limited set of inputs. In a word, structure. Otherwise somebody will type MRA when they mean RMA.
Hasn't the plastic paddy twat got more important things to do? Like increasing the amount of memory firefox uses, removing options that people use and generally fucking up the UI?
I vaguely remember another organisation that used to say the opposite to Gartner, and yet they usually managed to be wrong too.
Especially if they did it in that order.
That's just oinkredible.
FTFY.
Free text search is great if everyone can spell. Good luck finding a bug about "leep years".
If they're big enough to be worth suing, they're big enough to afford decent lawyers.
(1)It is a defence to an action for defamation for the defendant to show that the imputation conveyed by the statement complained of is substantially true.
You opened the door, you had a good look, and you still walked into it. Perhaps in future you could do some research (I asked for citations, did I not?) instead of repeating shit you heard the bigger kids saying.
In my day we used a magnetised needle and a microscope. And we had to grind our own lenses.
Fail. That was last month. It's like Weimar inflation.
... or simply blocking editing if there's already been a reply (should be easy) or if someone has a reply window open (more tricky, but still not difficult).
I guess this works in the same way as the University of Woolamaloo's Rule 2?