I don't think anyone is really sure what the probabilities are. The speed they are trying to achieve is too fast to simulate on the ground, so there are a lot of unknowns.
People started suggesting that Google would of course support anything that kills IE since MS is now attacking Google's search market.
I don't think Google needs to worry about the new M$ search engine quite yet. You can tell it still has a few kinks in it when they put themselves on top for anal sex.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
Limiting freedoms in grotesque ways like this harms America more than any terrorist action ever could. Further, it permits the terrorists to succeed in their mission by admitting that we are going to change the foundational elements of our society simply to accommodate their existence.
What is the Apple section for anyway? Is it just for a bunch of flamers to sit around bitching? Or are we here to actually help the Mac user community grow a little?
My understanding of/. was that it was "news for nerds" not "a community help forum for the technically illiterate."
Why is Cliff intent on turning apple.slashdot.org into a tech support forum? I mean I could probably point to at least 10 stories he has posted in the last month or two which are basically some random person who needs help with an OS X issue that a two second search on Google or VT or the Macworld of Macfixit forums or any other number of places would have yielded the answer to.
It could be a good thing, as long as the Court can see through the RIAA fud that has been poured out for years now about how file sharing is destroying their product and stealing their revenue. The SC justices are fairly wise though, and given the intelligent discernment of the lower courts I think that they could do a good job on the case. It might shut up the entertainment cartel for a longer period and actually force them to reexamine the quality of their product as the true nature of their declining revenues.
Asking them to give you money through Paypal is a bad idea. These people have a buttload of stolen credit cards and that's what they will use. Ultimately all (or almost all) of it will be charged back by the card owners and removed from your account by Paypal's fraud department.
Don't do it. It would only result in more grief for everyone involved.
They buy products, apply for rebates, return the purchases, then buy them back at returned-merchandise discounts.
I wouldn't even stretch to call people who would do this shoppers. Thats not looking for the best deal, thats borderline robbery. If you engage in that sort of activity, I'm sure you promising to never shop there again is exactly what they want.
No I don't do that kind of stuff. I was referring more to the other parts.
They load up on "loss leaders," severely discounted merchandise designed to boost store traffic, then flip the goods at a profit on eBay.
That's not robbery. It's called commerce. Buy low, sell high. Nothing illegal or shady about it at all. Is Best Buy saying they don't want any of their customers to be able to sell any of the things they purchase?
And then this: They slap down rock-bottom price quotes from Web sites and demand that Best Buy make good on its lowest-price pledge.
Why even have a lowest price pledge if you aren't going to honor it?
Sorry but Best Buy is not the injured party here. They are simply bitching because selling to consumers who exercise some initiative makes it slightly less easy for them to earn maximum profit.
Well, since I can't edit posts on/., I meant to put that as "upstanding policy," but given the topic of the article, I really can't argue with what it turned out as.
What they are basically saying is that 20% of customers are wrong "for Best Buy." In essence, they are trying to rid themselves of intelligent shoppers who look around for the best deal and are usually more knowledgeable about what they buy and instead cater to the sheep and the unwashed masses that will buy anything regardless of features and price simply because a Best Buy salesman tells them too.
This is yet another attempt to dumb down consumers to make the more receptive to truly weak sales pitches. Best Buy won't be getting any more of my business if they value this philosophy.
But Slashdot already printed a retraction on A1 in the original story while it was still there. In fact, it's only 5 stories down. Anyone who reads the/. homepage even semi-regularly would not miss it.
Sure,/. made a mistake but they already corrected it.
He just "blasted the system" on CNN talking about how we all keep voting for the same crap year after year and how the lobbyists control everything and how the major parties rig things to keep others out.
I think that's about the most insightful thing I've heard from any major media outlet this whole election cycle, and it totally blew me away. I never expected anyone from the major media to wise up that much, and even if they did I wouldn't have expected them to air anything like that.
CNN gets my support for political coverage if they keep this up.
from the Lunar Prospector team. They flew a robotic craft around the moon for 19 months and collected detailed surface data all for a cost of only $65 million. Some say this was NASA's most cost effective mission ever. It originally met opposition because no one believed it could be done that cheap. But despite the low price tag, the data it produced was 10 times better than expected.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone is really sure what the probabilities are. The speed they are trying to achieve is too fast to simulate on the ground, so there are a lot of unknowns.
Kirk: Scotty, give me a repair estimate on that plane.
Scotty: My guess is 4 to 6 weeks captain.
Kirk: SCOTTY!!!!
People started suggesting that Google would of course support anything that kills IE since MS is now attacking Google's search market.
I don't think Google needs to worry about the new M$ search engine quite yet. You can tell it still has a few kinks in it when they put themselves on top for anal sex.
And he only sent out some bulk advertising.
Wrong. He also committed fraud. He was selling products that he knew didn't do what he said they did.
most of our living rooms look like electronic junkyards anyway, don't they?
Umm, no.
but it bears repeating.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
Limiting freedoms in grotesque ways like this harms America more than any terrorist action ever could. Further, it permits the terrorists to succeed in their mission by admitting that we are going to change the foundational elements of our society simply to accommodate their existence.
Time Warner isn't AOL's parent company. AOL bought out TW, not the other way around.
What is the Apple section for anyway? Is it just for a bunch of flamers to sit around bitching? Or are we here to actually help the Mac user community grow a little?
/. was that it was "news for nerds" not "a community help forum for the technically illiterate."
My understanding of
I really don't care if I burn Karma here.
Why is Cliff intent on turning apple.slashdot.org into a tech support forum? I mean I could probably point to at least 10 stories he has posted in the last month or two which are basically some random person who needs help with an OS X issue that a two second search on Google or VT or the Macworld of Macfixit forums or any other number of places would have yielded the answer to.
The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.
Does that mean the Patriot Act can be repealed now?
It could be a good thing, as long as the Court can see through the RIAA fud that has been poured out for years now about how file sharing is destroying their product and stealing their revenue. The SC justices are fairly wise though, and given the intelligent discernment of the lower courts I think that they could do a good job on the case. It might shut up the entertainment cartel for a longer period and actually force them to reexamine the quality of their product as the true nature of their declining revenues.
Asking them to give you money through Paypal is a bad idea. These people have a buttload of stolen credit cards and that's what they will use. Ultimately all (or almost all) of it will be charged back by the card owners and removed from your account by Paypal's fraud department.
Don't do it. It would only result in more grief for everyone involved.
They buy products, apply for rebates, return the purchases, then buy them back at returned-merchandise discounts.
I wouldn't even stretch to call people who would do this shoppers. Thats not looking for the best deal, thats borderline robbery. If you engage in that sort of activity, I'm sure you promising to never shop there again is exactly what they want.
No I don't do that kind of stuff. I was referring more to the other parts.
They load up on "loss leaders," severely discounted merchandise designed to boost store traffic, then flip the goods at a profit on eBay.
That's not robbery. It's called commerce. Buy low, sell high. Nothing illegal or shady about it at all. Is Best Buy saying they don't want any of their customers to be able to sell any of the things they purchase?
And then this:
They slap down rock-bottom price quotes from Web sites and demand that Best Buy make good on its lowest-price pledge.
Why even have a lowest price pledge if you aren't going to honor it?
Sorry but Best Buy is not the injured party here. They are simply bitching because selling to consumers who exercise some initiative makes it slightly less easy for them to earn maximum profit.
Well, since I can't edit posts on /., I meant to put that as "upstanding policy," but given the topic of the article, I really can't argue with what it turned out as.
What they are basically saying is that 20% of customers are wrong "for Best Buy." In essence, they are trying to rid themselves of intelligent shoppers who look around for the best deal and are usually more knowledgeable about what they buy and instead cater to the sheep and the unwashed masses that will buy anything regardless of features and price simply because a Best Buy salesman tells them too.
This is yet another attempt to dumb down consumers to make the more receptive to truly weak sales pitches. Best Buy won't be getting any more of my business if they value this philosophy.
But Slashdot already printed a retraction on A1 in the original story while it was still there. In fact, it's only 5 stories down. Anyone who reads the /. homepage even semi-regularly would not miss it.
/. made a mistake but they already corrected it.
Sure,
Seriously why does this need a new story? What was wrong with the update posted to the previous article summary?
I keep hearing that Ion propulsion is faster than what we currently use. What's with the incredibly slow travel time?
I'm aware of all that. I was referring to his apparent multiple personality disorder.
You know you can turn that behavior off if you want right?
tell us if I should go to get it, too.
I wouldn't want to be the submitter's psychiatrist.
1.5 Million dollars for essentially a program that the CIA back in the 1970's decided was full of crap and decided to abandon.
The DIA ran a remote viewing program until the mid-90s and it did have some successes.
a "commie overlord".
I for one would not welcome them.
He just "blasted the system" on CNN talking about how we all keep voting for the same crap year after year and how the lobbyists control everything and how the major parties rig things to keep others out.
I think that's about the most insightful thing I've heard from any major media outlet this whole election cycle, and it totally blew me away. I never expected anyone from the major media to wise up that much, and even if they did I wouldn't have expected them to air anything like that. CNN gets my support for political coverage if they keep this up.
from the Lunar Prospector team. They flew a robotic craft around the moon for 19 months and collected detailed surface data all for a cost of only $65 million. Some say this was NASA's most cost effective mission ever. It originally met opposition because no one believed it could be done that cheap. But despite the low price tag, the data it produced was 10 times better than expected.