For all I know, they may have done this in some places already.
AT&T Uverse has a forced IVR script you have to go through to get to a human, who then has absolutely no knowledge of what you've done and asks you to do it all over again.
Their competitors are now scared to implement the most basic functions. Congratulations! Everybody else loses out, but fuck those guys and fuck society, am I right?
I'm curious; is it widely accepted that banning women from front-line combat is a good idea? I realize there are biological differences and that men typically are stronger but if that's the only reason, why couldn't there be a strength test?
In my case, the information is not that valuable. I'm a rather easy person to find, it doesn't include my email address, and the address no longer corresponds to me.
Per your first paragraph, yeah, in aggregate, you're probably right. My comment was made with the unwritten suffix "in aggregate" because this is about statistics. Perhaps I should have included it.
I'm not sure where you're going with the second paragraph other than a rail against an all or nothing approach to political positions, and on that I agree with you as well. If it was meant as something personal to me... well, I don't get it.
You are not everybody. The sooner we get this, the sooner we can stop worrying. People don't know and don't care that texting and tethering are effectively free to the carrier, and because of this the carrier charges fees and 99.999% of customers are none the wiser.
You want to change things? Blast your message out to everyone that it's cost-neutral. Here's the thing, though: You won't reach the vast majority of people, and those you reach are likely to completely ignore you. Inertia is a powerful force, and people will fight to maintain their ignorance. Understand this, and you'll understand why political leaders act like morons: because most people don't want to talk about real issues, they want to be entertained and they want to participate in a fight.
Thanks, I didn't know you could do conditional comments that would flow through unless in IE. That's fairly useful and I'll probably use it now. Still, parsing the user agent string on the backend doesn't use a huge amount of CPU power so I mostly see this as a style thing.
Two things. One, asking how to do something somehow makes me a bad web developer? Two, according to your siblings your code does not work. Perhaps you should not be so quick to judge next time.
I hear the people saying that, but what would you do to make the page load either one or the other jQuery, but not both? Loading two jQuery instances causes all sorts of problems if not handled well.
Having done web development for many years, believe me, I'm very familiar with all variety of IE-handling hacks. At the moment I can't think of a way to conditionally load jQuery 2.0 if and only if not using legacy IE, and load jQuery 1.9 if and only if using non-legacy IE or non-IE, using IE conditional comments. Besides, using server-side handling keeps the HTML output cleaner since all the user gets is the single, correct script tag.
While normally useragent-based feature detection is a bad thing, it seems like one could selectively insert a script tag for either jQuery 1.9 or jQuery 2.0 (they are supposed to be API-compatible, yes?) depending on whether or not the user is using a legacy IE, without any performance hiccup.
Did anyone else read the entire summary and still have no idea WTF it's talking about? Something to do with aliasing personal information to merchants... so they can target advertising... when the merchant has all the customer's personal data out of necessity anyway...?
Canadians already primarily use a card system called Interac to make most purchases; granted, it's been a while since I lived in Canada but even three years ago it was very rare for me to make a cash purchase.
Reading TFA it seems like it's talking about cell phone wireless payments, and banks selling your demographic information to retailers. Frankly, if my bank did that, I'd opt out of it immediately, and potentially change banks if they didn't allow the opt-out. This suggests to me that within five years there will be no bank that will allow opting-out unless it's protected by law.
If you reduce the power that the government has, you eliminate corporate abuses because all corporate abuses need the government.
This is an unfounded assertion. A corporation can screw you over without involving the government at all.
Are you next going to state that without the government, the mortgage crisis would not have happened? I argue it would have been much, much worse, and the people involved would likely now still be homeless.
Slashdot Mirror
For all I know, they may have done this in some places already.
AT&T Uverse has a forced IVR script you have to go through to get to a human, who then has absolutely no knowledge of what you've done and asks you to do it all over again.
It's a shame too since they have nice TV service.
Their competitors are now scared to implement the most basic functions. Congratulations! Everybody else loses out, but fuck those guys and fuck society, am I right?
I'm curious; is it widely accepted that banning women from front-line combat is a good idea? I realize there are biological differences and that men typically are stronger but if that's the only reason, why couldn't there be a strength test?
I know if I was a software company I'd want to select for the sort of people who would go on a reality TV show. Wait...
I should be surprised that this hasn't already been done, but given that it's the US military, I'm not surprised at all.
Man, I remember Homesite. Great tool when I was using Windows. Nowadays it's gedit or go home.
In my case, the information is not that valuable. I'm a rather easy person to find, it doesn't include my email address, and the address no longer corresponds to me.
So congratulations to the thief (or finder) for now knowing my birthday and former address.
Per your first paragraph, yeah, in aggregate, you're probably right. My comment was made with the unwritten suffix "in aggregate" because this is about statistics. Perhaps I should have included it.
I'm not sure where you're going with the second paragraph other than a rail against an all or nothing approach to political positions, and on that I agree with you as well. If it was meant as something personal to me... well, I don't get it.
The data is behind a paywall (click the PDF link in the abstract). Welcome to the world of scientific journals.
Conservatives don't believe in climate change. News at eleven.
Awww, I pissed off an Apple fanboi with mod points. Woe is me...
rocket surgery
Scalpel.
Scalpel.
Jet fuel.
Jet fuel.
Sandwich.
Sandwich.
*grills sandwich with jet fuel*
Well, that's lunch taken care of. What were we talking about again? Must not have been that important...
You are not everybody. The sooner we get this, the sooner we can stop worrying. People don't know and don't care that texting and tethering are effectively free to the carrier, and because of this the carrier charges fees and 99.999% of customers are none the wiser.
You want to change things? Blast your message out to everyone that it's cost-neutral. Here's the thing, though: You won't reach the vast majority of people, and those you reach are likely to completely ignore you. Inertia is a powerful force, and people will fight to maintain their ignorance. Understand this, and you'll understand why political leaders act like morons: because most people don't want to talk about real issues, they want to be entertained and they want to participate in a fight.
My kingdom for a mod point.
But why would a non-Trident browser spoof an IE user agent unless it was intentional?
48 states signing a contract that they will make sure all prisons at at least 90% full.
Can you cite / link to that contract?
Thanks, I didn't know you could do conditional comments that would flow through unless in IE. That's fairly useful and I'll probably use it now. Still, parsing the user agent string on the backend doesn't use a huge amount of CPU power so I mostly see this as a style thing.
Two things. One, asking how to do something somehow makes me a bad web developer? Two, according to your siblings your code does not work. Perhaps you should not be so quick to judge next time.
I hear the people saying that, but what would you do to make the page load either one or the other jQuery, but not both? Loading two jQuery instances causes all sorts of problems if not handled well.
Having done web development for many years, believe me, I'm very familiar with all variety of IE-handling hacks. At the moment I can't think of a way to conditionally load jQuery 2.0 if and only if not using legacy IE, and load jQuery 1.9 if and only if using non-legacy IE or non-IE, using IE conditional comments. Besides, using server-side handling keeps the HTML output cleaner since all the user gets is the single, correct script tag.
While normally useragent-based feature detection is a bad thing, it seems like one could selectively insert a script tag for either jQuery 1.9 or jQuery 2.0 (they are supposed to be API-compatible, yes?) depending on whether or not the user is using a legacy IE, without any performance hiccup.
Yep. If my ISP wants to contact me, they've got my mailing address and phone number. If they don't use one of those two, it can't be that important.
I think it depends where you are (where are you?)... I lived in southwestern Ontario.
Did anyone else read the entire summary and still have no idea WTF it's talking about? Something to do with aliasing personal information to merchants... so they can target advertising... when the merchant has all the customer's personal data out of necessity anyway...?
Canadians already primarily use a card system called Interac to make most purchases; granted, it's been a while since I lived in Canada but even three years ago it was very rare for me to make a cash purchase.
Reading TFA it seems like it's talking about cell phone wireless payments, and banks selling your demographic information to retailers. Frankly, if my bank did that, I'd opt out of it immediately, and potentially change banks if they didn't allow the opt-out. This suggests to me that within five years there will be no bank that will allow opting-out unless it's protected by law.
If you reduce the power that the government has, you eliminate corporate abuses because all corporate abuses need the government.
This is an unfounded assertion. A corporation can screw you over without involving the government at all.
Are you next going to state that without the government, the mortgage crisis would not have happened? I argue it would have been much, much worse, and the people involved would likely now still be homeless.