I'm glad you like the service you get. That said you're paying 4x as much for broadband than most standard packages in the UK. You're clearly getting a better package for that money, but I doubt the majority of UK users would swap given the price difference. I'm a heavy web user (though I stopped torrenting years ago) and the ~$15 a month package I'm on does what I need. None of that means I don't want lines to improve, better lines will allow more services over the internet etc.
It's the same hyperbolic bollocks that led them to call 3G browsing on the current Kindle "a prominent feature". I bought a 3G kindle in no small part because access to travel information and wikipedia anywhere abroad made the price worthwhile. I wouldn't have bought it if it didn't offer that functionality. However, it was never, NEVER, made out by Amazon to be a prominent feature. I doubt it was mentioned anywhere on the box and the whole fucking brower was a 'test/beta' feature and comparitiely hidden away.
In short. If you can't find something interesting enough to submit that it doesn't require hyperbole, don't submit it.
He said he didn't intend to buy a computer game which required both an upfront purchase and subscription; instead he said he'd choose an alternative that didn't. I don't know if that went straight over your head, or whether you felt the need to rant so produced a strawman to then attack for that purpose.
Also, on the subject of what sounds insightful etc regarding money. Needlessly pointing out cost when referring to an expensive television you claim to own will only harm your argument. It's assumed you're bragging or bullshitting.
Companies are perfectly capable of offering products with ongoing costs without ongoing income even if you can't understand how. The 3G kindle is an obvious example of this.
Thank god we've got true genius available on tap on slashdot. I'm sure the hundreds of incredibly intelligent people who have been involved in this were incapable of questioning any of this before they released it. You're not that smart. Other people aren't that stupid. I don't care what your mum told you to the contrary.
You're welcome to believe you're so much better and 'above' all there ultimately pointless biological and socialogical derived inclinations. Personally, anyone sharing a view like that on a public forum like Slashdot looks like a blatant hypocrite to me. The number of people alive who don't need to validate their existence or care what people think of them and what they do is tiny; in fact they would be the people that society typically brands as having mental issues.
People buy a house because they want to live there. You're right that people are blinkered into only considering # bedrooms in the UK; however number of bedrooms is an important consideration. If I want three seperate places to sleep in my property then it makes very little difference how big the rooms are in a 2 bedroom property, I'm still missing a room.
If you're buying a property and only really need 1 bedroom then of course you can consider whatever you want. Most people buying want/need more than that.
Is the current system of class actions really worth fighting for? Every time a class action lawsuit comes up it seems like the people who had their rights infringed get a free xbox live credit or some random crap game on PSN. It is the lawyer who 'represents' thousands of people who never asked them to who makes off with the cash.
I don't live in America, but if I did then given what I know I'd opt out of any class action I could. If it is worth suing or asking for compensation for it is worth doing it individually.
Thanks for pointing that out to the 2-3 people who weren't aware of this and didn't assume the reason it is only 2/3rds accurate, as noted in the summary, is because of things like this.
At 2/3rds accurate, assuming that's from proper testing it's already more reliable than standard polygraphs; as they're already used it doesn't bode well.
The sad part is that given that there is nothing illegal with the original hyperlink, they'd probably still have sued him if he had implemented a solution like you suggest. It doesn't matter that the entire idea of suing on these grounds is retarded, they know they can make his life hell via the lawsuit anyway.
I really fail to see why so many people are determined to point out the pointlessness of a device that people are happily buying and using. I don't have a netbook or tablet. I do have a laptop and a standard desktop. I have no interest in replacing my laptop with a netbook: I want the screen size, keyboard & performance. I won't be buying a netbook, but I can at least see the appeal of tablets. A lot of what I do on a PC isn't more than watching movies, playing music, browsing the web and email. These are all things I'd rather do on a tablet than a netbook.
Why would we want to downmod you, your post's a great example of just how pathetic some people can be when it comes to a ball being hit/thrown/bounced around.
I'll happily critiscise some of the things that anonymity fosters and am happy to do without ACing. A lot of people do a lot of stupid, malicous, misleading, dishonest things when they're presented with the chance to act 'anonymously'. It doesn't make anonymity inherently bad, in fact I think anonymity is a fantastic thing and should not be quashed across the entire internet. However, although I like the idea that people should be free to setup and use anonymous boards/messaging etc it does not mean I don't support having some sites that try and require users to have a verified identity.
If you don't want to give up your 'anonymity' then Google+ isn't designed for you. Either you accept that and join or you can continue to use other services that support anonymity.
It's actually quite a complex issue. Firstly there are valid points saying that high participation is not, in itself, proof of a good system. A system in which 40% of people vote and those 40% (magically somehow) are unbiased and informed will probably produce better results than 80% where the majority are voting based on widely inaccurate stereotypes and how photogenic candidates are.
In general I have a very big issue with the 'not broke' argument. Nothing is perfect. Landlines weren't 'broke' but mobiles and voip are great. Encyclopedias aren't 'broke' but wikipedia is still handy. Steam engines, candles and horses weren't 'broke' either, but I don't regret that mankind has moved on.
I did vote for AV during the referendum although I knew it was a futile effort. I stand by my position on Labour weighting the system in their favour. You're right about distribution, however I come from an area with a mixture of urban and rural constituencies and the changes to constituency boundaries under Labour were clearly intended to push more conservatitive support into heavily conservative constituencies leaving other constituencies that had been borderline as Labour supporting.
Turning underground antennas on or off has nothing to do with free speech. The government isn't allowed (with certain exceptions) to control what you're allowed to say. They are not obligated to help you make your message heard, which is the most you could claim the BART network was doing.
That doesn't automatically mean they were right to turn the network off. However acting as if it was a gross attack upon freedom is stupid in a way on slashdot can get behind. If the government had credible intelligence that an explosive device with a GPRS trigger was located in, for example, a sports arena, they would be right to shutdown the network in that area. Obviously they should then be required to justify that decision. A lot of people need to get a little perspective.
Don't suppose you'd like to share some reputable sources stating he was unarmed, and for police brutality towards a teenage girl? I'm happy to give you the chance to share them, however my initial expectation is that your either trolling or unable to discern fact from noise so I'll leave it at that for now.
Indeed we did but the combination of a broken system and political backroom deals meant the government we got doesn't really represent the voters.
More people voted for the conservatives (which are part of a coalition government now) than voted for the majority labour government last time. Funny how, as always, closed minded conservative hating people are so blindly hypocritical.
Conservatives got 36.1% of the vote in the last election, Labour got ~35% in 2005. Labour used their time to power to ensure that the geographical constituencies were as biased as possible towards them. It was a blatant example of self interest over democracy and you like many others are far too happy to be ignorant of it.
I expect this merely another consequence of the British austerity package.
I doubt a moral person, faced with higher student loans (even trying to pretend it is harder to find money to attend uni now is a joke, justifying taking on the level of debt however...) would decide that stealing new trainers from JD sports was a logical and reasonable response.
There are underlying issues, there are some genuine grievances and it will be a shame if these are entirely ignored. However, the behaviour over the last few nights has vastly more to do with greed, ignorance and malice than anything else.
I've got my own domain and hosting. I use that to manage all my email addresses and then forward them to Gmail. When I send an email in Gmail, it authenticates and sends it via the email address of my choice. This means that I get the benefit of google's interface, labels, spam filter etc without my email address belonging to them. Effectively, I can get the good stuff now and should they pick up the ball and go home I still have what I really need (access to the addresses people are using).
The above might not be sufficiently independent for you, however running your own solution is going to be a major headache...
Of course there are people today who care enough about our rights to stand up for them. They're called ACLU & other similar organisations.
Fixed that for you. Anonymous is by definition not about any specific cause. Furthermore, most of what they do has nothing to do with protecting rights and is simply the abuse of others for amusement. You just have to look at how they respond to some of their critics (attacks, harassment etc) to see how much they truly value anyone else's freedom of speech.
So your point is that because you have sufficient assets and low enough demands to be able to afford what you want without long/short term credit, anyone who doesn't fit that model isn't managing their money well? That sounds pretty self-absorbed to me.
The only credit I have ever had is a student loan (in the UK where they're basically a no brainer due to interest rate) and now have a 50% mortgage which I'll have paid off by 30. I don't need credit at the moment, but I'm not naive enough to think that means anyone who uses it it isn't managing their money. If my car was to die tomorrow I'd take a short-term loan to buy a new one. I don't have to, but I don't have the ~£10k I'd want to spend available in cash reserves as I used most of it on the house. I could try and get by without a car, buy a cheaper car I don't want or hire, but I don't believe they are the better option. I could have continued to rent, rather than buy, to ensure I had sufficient cash reserves, but then I'd be paying more in rent to avoid a more cost effective solution based on using credit to cover a risk.
Yes, lots of people live beyond their means and use credit to do it. Plenty of people use credit responsibly, in exactly the same way that many companies do.
Really? Surely, how likely the chance is plays into it? I'd like more money, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather have more time to enjoy. I can't imagine how much money it would take to make me risk losing 10 years to prison, unless the odds of being caught were neglible.
Not all of us are such sad, trendy, hopeless cases to have signed up for a google+ account in the first place.
Much better to be backward, pathetic, social incompetents who mistakenly think other people care whether they've joined a social network site so they post about it every time the subject comes up.
He phoned 911 to report that police were coming. He didn't say, and I don't believe him to mean, that he wanted to attend. The reason for phoning 911 was that his call and the audio would be retained on record by a source that couldn't be easily dismissed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad you like the service you get. That said you're paying 4x as much for broadband than most standard packages in the UK. You're clearly getting a better package for that money, but I doubt the majority of UK users would swap given the price difference. I'm a heavy web user (though I stopped torrenting years ago) and the ~$15 a month package I'm on does what I need. None of that means I don't want lines to improve, better lines will allow more services over the internet etc.
It's the same hyperbolic bollocks that led them to call 3G browsing on the current Kindle "a prominent feature". I bought a 3G kindle in no small part because access to travel information and wikipedia anywhere abroad made the price worthwhile. I wouldn't have bought it if it didn't offer that functionality. However, it was never, NEVER, made out by Amazon to be a prominent feature. I doubt it was mentioned anywhere on the box and the whole fucking brower was a 'test/beta' feature and comparitiely hidden away.
In short. If you can't find something interesting enough to submit that it doesn't require hyperbole, don't submit it.
He said he didn't intend to buy a computer game which required both an upfront purchase and subscription; instead he said he'd choose an alternative that didn't. I don't know if that went straight over your head, or whether you felt the need to rant so produced a strawman to then attack for that purpose.
Also, on the subject of what sounds insightful etc regarding money. Needlessly pointing out cost when referring to an expensive television you claim to own will only harm your argument. It's assumed you're bragging or bullshitting.
Companies are perfectly capable of offering products with ongoing costs without ongoing income even if you can't understand how. The 3G kindle is an obvious example of this.
Would you? If you would, why do you think a lot more people, with a lot more time, who are smarter than you wouldn't do something so fucking obvious?
Thank god we've got true genius available on tap on slashdot. I'm sure the hundreds of incredibly intelligent people who have been involved in this were incapable of questioning any of this before they released it. You're not that smart. Other people aren't that stupid. I don't care what your mum told you to the contrary.
You're welcome to believe you're so much better and 'above' all there ultimately pointless biological and socialogical derived inclinations. Personally, anyone sharing a view like that on a public forum like Slashdot looks like a blatant hypocrite to me. The number of people alive who don't need to validate their existence or care what people think of them and what they do is tiny; in fact they would be the people that society typically brands as having mental issues.
People buy a house because they want to live there. You're right that people are blinkered into only considering # bedrooms in the UK; however number of bedrooms is an important consideration. If I want three seperate places to sleep in my property then it makes very little difference how big the rooms are in a 2 bedroom property, I'm still missing a room.
If you're buying a property and only really need 1 bedroom then of course you can consider whatever you want. Most people buying want/need more than that.
Is the current system of class actions really worth fighting for? Every time a class action lawsuit comes up it seems like the people who had their rights infringed get a free xbox live credit or some random crap game on PSN. It is the lawyer who 'represents' thousands of people who never asked them to who makes off with the cash.
I don't live in America, but if I did then given what I know I'd opt out of any class action I could. If it is worth suing or asking for compensation for it is worth doing it individually.
Thanks for pointing that out to the 2-3 people who weren't aware of this and didn't assume the reason it is only 2/3rds accurate, as noted in the summary, is because of things like this.
At 2/3rds accurate, assuming that's from proper testing it's already more reliable than standard polygraphs; as they're already used it doesn't bode well.
The sad part is that given that there is nothing illegal with the original hyperlink, they'd probably still have sued him if he had implemented a solution like you suggest. It doesn't matter that the entire idea of suing on these grounds is retarded, they know they can make his life hell via the lawsuit anyway.
I really fail to see why so many people are determined to point out the pointlessness of a device that people are happily buying and using. I don't have a netbook or tablet. I do have a laptop and a standard desktop. I have no interest in replacing my laptop with a netbook: I want the screen size, keyboard & performance. I won't be buying a netbook, but I can at least see the appeal of tablets. A lot of what I do on a PC isn't more than watching movies, playing music, browsing the web and email. These are all things I'd rather do on a tablet than a netbook.
Why would we want to downmod you, your post's a great example of just how pathetic some people can be when it comes to a ball being hit/thrown/bounced around.
I'll happily critiscise some of the things that anonymity fosters and am happy to do without ACing. A lot of people do a lot of stupid, malicous, misleading, dishonest things when they're presented with the chance to act 'anonymously'. It doesn't make anonymity inherently bad, in fact I think anonymity is a fantastic thing and should not be quashed across the entire internet. However, although I like the idea that people should be free to setup and use anonymous boards/messaging etc it does not mean I don't support having some sites that try and require users to have a verified identity.
If you don't want to give up your 'anonymity' then Google+ isn't designed for you. Either you accept that and join or you can continue to use other services that support anonymity.
It's actually quite a complex issue. Firstly there are valid points saying that high participation is not, in itself, proof of a good system. A system in which 40% of people vote and those 40% (magically somehow) are unbiased and informed will probably produce better results than 80% where the majority are voting based on widely inaccurate stereotypes and how photogenic candidates are.
In general I have a very big issue with the 'not broke' argument. Nothing is perfect. Landlines weren't 'broke' but mobiles and voip are great. Encyclopedias aren't 'broke' but wikipedia is still handy. Steam engines, candles and horses weren't 'broke' either, but I don't regret that mankind has moved on.
I did vote for AV during the referendum although I knew it was a futile effort. I stand by my position on Labour weighting the system in their favour. You're right about distribution, however I come from an area with a mixture of urban and rural constituencies and the changes to constituency boundaries under Labour were clearly intended to push more conservatitive support into heavily conservative constituencies leaving other constituencies that had been borderline as Labour supporting.
Turning underground antennas on or off has nothing to do with free speech. The government isn't allowed (with certain exceptions) to control what you're allowed to say. They are not obligated to help you make your message heard, which is the most you could claim the BART network was doing.
That doesn't automatically mean they were right to turn the network off. However acting as if it was a gross attack upon freedom is stupid in a way on slashdot can get behind. If the government had credible intelligence that an explosive device with a GPRS trigger was located in, for example, a sports arena, they would be right to shutdown the network in that area. Obviously they should then be required to justify that decision. A lot of people need to get a little perspective.
Don't suppose you'd like to share some reputable sources stating he was unarmed, and for police brutality towards a teenage girl? I'm happy to give you the chance to share them, however my initial expectation is that your either trolling or unable to discern fact from noise so I'll leave it at that for now.
More people voted for the conservatives (which are part of a coalition government now) than voted for the majority labour government last time. Funny how, as always, closed minded conservative hating people are so blindly hypocritical.
Conservatives got 36.1% of the vote in the last election, Labour got ~35% in 2005. Labour used their time to power to ensure that the geographical constituencies were as biased as possible towards them. It was a blatant example of self interest over democracy and you like many others are far too happy to be ignorant of it.
I doubt a moral person, faced with higher student loans (even trying to pretend it is harder to find money to attend uni now is a joke, justifying taking on the level of debt however...) would decide that stealing new trainers from JD sports was a logical and reasonable response.
There are underlying issues, there are some genuine grievances and it will be a shame if these are entirely ignored. However, the behaviour over the last few nights has vastly more to do with greed, ignorance and malice than anything else.
I've got my own domain and hosting. I use that to manage all my email addresses and then forward them to Gmail. When I send an email in Gmail, it authenticates and sends it via the email address of my choice. This means that I get the benefit of google's interface, labels, spam filter etc without my email address belonging to them. Effectively, I can get the good stuff now and should they pick up the ball and go home I still have what I really need (access to the addresses people are using).
The above might not be sufficiently independent for you, however running your own solution is going to be a major headache...
Fixed that for you. Anonymous is by definition not about any specific cause. Furthermore, most of what they do has nothing to do with protecting rights and is simply the abuse of others for amusement. You just have to look at how they respond to some of their critics (attacks, harassment etc) to see how much they truly value anyone else's freedom of speech.
So your point is that because you have sufficient assets and low enough demands to be able to afford what you want without long/short term credit, anyone who doesn't fit that model isn't managing their money well? That sounds pretty self-absorbed to me.
The only credit I have ever had is a student loan (in the UK where they're basically a no brainer due to interest rate) and now have a 50% mortgage which I'll have paid off by 30. I don't need credit at the moment, but I'm not naive enough to think that means anyone who uses it it isn't managing their money. If my car was to die tomorrow I'd take a short-term loan to buy a new one. I don't have to, but I don't have the ~£10k I'd want to spend available in cash reserves as I used most of it on the house. I could try and get by without a car, buy a cheaper car I don't want or hire, but I don't believe they are the better option. I could have continued to rent, rather than buy, to ensure I had sufficient cash reserves, but then I'd be paying more in rent to avoid a more cost effective solution based on using credit to cover a risk.
Yes, lots of people live beyond their means and use credit to do it. Plenty of people use credit responsibly, in exactly the same way that many companies do.
Really? Surely, how likely the chance is plays into it? I'd like more money, don't get me wrong, but I'd rather have more time to enjoy. I can't imagine how much money it would take to make me risk losing 10 years to prison, unless the odds of being caught were neglible.
Much better to be backward, pathetic, social incompetents who mistakenly think other people care whether they've joined a social network site so they post about it every time the subject comes up.
He phoned 911 to report that police were coming. He didn't say, and I don't believe him to mean, that he wanted to attend. The reason for phoning 911 was that his call and the audio would be retained on record by a source that couldn't be easily dismissed.