Say it happened in the opposite direction, perhaps a $100 game was listed for $10,000 and some folks accidentally chose to purchase at that price. Would you say the seller is in the right if they say "no take-sie back-sies"?
Do you think the buyers would say, "Sorry for changing our mind, so we will pay the $100 plus an extra $10 for your trouble"? Yeah, right.
How is this different? One party wants to take advantage of an obvious mistake, that simply shouldn't be allowed.
And this software is being licensed as on a non-permanent basis. Just like they can one day turn off the servers, they can revoke your ability to play. If there were a significant reason to suspect that free play were granted, under intent, for a long duration then maybe the consumer has a case. I don't believe that to be the case for a mistaken transaction.
This sometimes happens, but it depends on the size of the mistake. Regardless, there is no expectation, legal or otherwise, that anyone would honor a mistake of that magnitude.
Microsoft is providing a $10 credit to their accounts, after all. It's more than I'm getting (simply because I didn't take advantage of an obvious mistake).
Even if it were as bad as IE 6 (which it isn't), it now has competition. If you don't like it, you can choose from several other browsers that will likely work just as well.
And we have Firefox to thank for doing the hard thing and standing up to Goliath.
You seem to have stopped before reading to the end of the sentence. I went on to say:
but that should be my decision, not theirs.
It's the same reason you give feedback for beta software, you want to help make the final product better. Either way, regardless of whether it's automated, it should still be your choice.
Do you think that "debug performance telemetry" should be in a mission critical embedded application build in release mode? Do you?
I don't believe any mission critical application (or any production application) should be built in unreleased software.
That said, I'm pretty pissed about this, Microsoft is screwing themselves over by withholding things like this until they get found out, and by not making it a simple obvious setting that remains the way you left it. I'm ok with the idea of telemetry, but that should be my decision, not theirs. I'm not ok with how they push it on everyone. Doing this to developers is burning some of the only good bridges they have left.
The wording is not quite clear whether Microsoft withheld those parts or whether FreeBSD simply didn't pull them. Likely it was a bunch of cloud stuff that doesn't make sense to use outside of Azure.
As to choosing a candidate you want, maybe if more people actually tried voting for the candidate they wanted rather than voting against the candidate they dislike the most, we'd all be better off.
Agreed, but the fact that this doesn't happen is a direct consequence of our voting system. It's something that probably couldn't change even if a majority of people want to change it, because plurality voting (first-past-the-post) inevitably ends in a two party system.
The link I posted is a set of videos that outline the problems, and a potential solution or two (out of many possible solutions).
If we had a better voting system, then the party primaries wouldn't really matter all that much. There would be no more voting for the person most likely to beat the guy you hate most on the other side. Instead of literally only having the choice of voting against HRC or Trump, we might actually get to choose a candidate we want.
The problem isn't the candidates. It's the system that inevitably pits these awful candidates against each other as the only choice.
As bad as the old "sticky note password" is always portrayed, it's pretty safe if the password is really good and the only people with access are trustworthy (or you have it behind a physical key lock).
Reusing passwords, making them too easy... those things are unsafe.
Walmart and other employers should bear zero responsibility for the goals of society. Walmart's only purpose for existence is to create profit for its owners... that's it! The fact that they have to employ over 2 million employees to do so, and contribute to our economy in significant ways, is simply a side-effect that happens to benefit society by helping to drive our economy.
Society should pay for social programs. How can we do that? Taxes. Government is the primary vehicle for administering how society serves itself. We pay taxes to government for defense, we vote in government leaders and pay their salaries. Social programs are simply another societal aspect government is in a good position to administer.
Walmart's job is not to pay for what we want. That's our job. And because we should pay for wealth redistribution, our government should administer it.
Reality is the precise opposite. Minimum wage is an example of government forcing Walmart, and other employers who utilize low-skilled labor, to subsidize welfare. The system quite unfairly gives an advantage to businesses who profit from highly skilled workers.
It should be the other way around. Since the government is built to act in the interest of society, it should directly redistribute wealth within society to support welfare values. A progressive tax structure is actually a much fairer way to handle it than minimum wage.
We are committed to providing a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all, regardless of level of experience, gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, personal appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, nationality, or other similar characteristic.
On IRC, please avoid using overtly sexual nicknames or other nicknames that might detract from a friendly, safe and welcoming environment for all.
Please be kind and courteous. There’s no need to be mean or rude.
Respect that people have differences of opinion and that every design or implementation choice carries a trade-off and numerous costs. There is seldom a right answer.
Please keep unstructured critique to a minimum. If you have solid ideas you want to experiment with, make a fork and see how it works.
We will exclude you from interaction if you insult, demean or harass anyone. That is not welcome behaviour. We interpret the term “harassment” as including the definition in the Citizen Code of Conduct; if you have any lack of clarity about what might be included in that concept, please read their definition. In particular, we don’t tolerate behavior that excludes people in socially marginalized groups.
Private harassment is also unacceptable. No matter who you are, if you feel you have been or are being harassed or made uncomfortable by a community member, please contact one of the channel ops or any of the Rust moderation team immediately. Whether you’re a regular contributor or a newcomer, we care about making this community a safe place for you and we’ve got your back.
Likewise any spamming, trolling, flaming, baiting or other attention-stealing behaviour is not welcome.
If this is too burdensome for you, then perhaps you need to get off your phone and listen to the teacher, there may be a long division test tomorrow.
I'm sure the adults won't mind waiting a few years until you claim your adulthood.
The set of things classified as a "revision" is obviously a superset of things classified as "breaking change". If you stay out of the "breaking change" category (e.g. only new syntax that did not previously compile) then it isn't a problem.
Yes, there are plenty of language updates which do not break existing code. When they do, many language design teams strive to limit any breaking changes to concepts that are only used by a very small number of people, or bugs which result in undocumented behaviors that very few or no developers rely on.
Then there's the case at hand, which sounds like nearly all existing code will break in some way. It's completely different.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a license, which makes things at least a bit of not much more complicated. (I haven't read the license agreement.)
How did people get away with the Buy X Get Y Free thing? If they don't actually buy X, how is the Get Y Free part enforceable?
Say it happened in the opposite direction, perhaps a $100 game was listed for $10,000 and some folks accidentally chose to purchase at that price. Would you say the seller is in the right if they say "no take-sie back-sies"?
Do you think the buyers would say, "Sorry for changing our mind, so we will pay the $100 plus an extra $10 for your trouble"? Yeah, right.
How is this different? One party wants to take advantage of an obvious mistake, that simply shouldn't be allowed.
I never said "exception". I said "expectation".
And this software is being licensed as on a non-permanent basis. Just like they can one day turn off the servers, they can revoke your ability to play. If there were a significant reason to suspect that free play were granted, under intent, for a long duration then maybe the consumer has a case. I don't believe that to be the case for a mistaken transaction.
There are free games and apps. $0 is often a legitimate price.
This sometimes happens, but it depends on the size of the mistake. Regardless, there is no expectation, legal or otherwise, that anyone would honor a mistake of that magnitude.
Microsoft is providing a $10 credit to their accounts, after all. It's more than I'm getting (simply because I didn't take advantage of an obvious mistake).
I did not make such a claim.
Even if it were as bad as IE 6 (which it isn't), it now has competition. If you don't like it, you can choose from several other browsers that will likely work just as well.
And we have Firefox to thank for doing the hard thing and standing up to Goliath.
And then they add a non-technical interface to it so normal people can easily use it.
While actively preventing technical people from fully realizing the potential of the device.
Well Firefox *is* the browser that started the demise of IE.
You seem to have stopped before reading to the end of the sentence. I went on to say:
but that should be my decision, not theirs.
It's the same reason you give feedback for beta software, you want to help make the final product better. Either way, regardless of whether it's automated, it should still be your choice.
What in the sweet fucking hell does this even mean? Do you understand words?
It means what it says. It seems you are the only one here who does not understand.
Actually I was wrong, the article mentions both VS "15" and VS 2015.
Oops, I read the article too quickly, as it also mentions VS "15":
while this behavior does currently exist in "15", it will be removed in a future preview release.
I didn't realize the article also was talking about VS 2015.
Do you think that "debug performance telemetry" should be in a mission critical embedded application build in release mode? Do you?
I don't believe any mission critical application (or any production application) should be built in unreleased software.
That said, I'm pretty pissed about this, Microsoft is screwing themselves over by withholding things like this until they get found out, and by not making it a simple obvious setting that remains the way you left it. I'm ok with the idea of telemetry, but that should be my decision, not theirs. I'm not ok with how they push it on everyone. Doing this to developers is burning some of the only good bridges they have left.
The wording is not quite clear whether Microsoft withheld those parts or whether FreeBSD simply didn't pull them. Likely it was a bunch of cloud stuff that doesn't make sense to use outside of Azure.
As to choosing a candidate you want, maybe if more people actually tried voting for the candidate they wanted rather than voting against the candidate they dislike the most, we'd all be better off.
Agreed, but the fact that this doesn't happen is a direct consequence of our voting system. It's something that probably couldn't change even if a majority of people want to change it, because plurality voting (first-past-the-post) inevitably ends in a two party system.
The link I posted is a set of videos that outline the problems, and a potential solution or two (out of many possible solutions).
Off topic but I'll bite...
If we had a better voting system, then the party primaries wouldn't really matter all that much. There would be no more voting for the person most likely to beat the guy you hate most on the other side. Instead of literally only having the choice of voting against HRC or Trump, we might actually get to choose a candidate we want.
The problem isn't the candidates. It's the system that inevitably pits these awful candidates against each other as the only choice.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politic...
As bad as the old "sticky note password" is always portrayed, it's pretty safe if the password is really good and the only people with access are trustworthy (or you have it behind a physical key lock).
Reusing passwords, making them too easy... those things are unsafe.
You are missing the point.
Walmart and other employers should bear zero responsibility for the goals of society. Walmart's only purpose for existence is to create profit for its owners... that's it! The fact that they have to employ over 2 million employees to do so, and contribute to our economy in significant ways, is simply a side-effect that happens to benefit society by helping to drive our economy.
Society should pay for social programs. How can we do that? Taxes. Government is the primary vehicle for administering how society serves itself. We pay taxes to government for defense, we vote in government leaders and pay their salaries. Social programs are simply another societal aspect government is in a good position to administer.
Walmart's job is not to pay for what we want. That's our job. And because we should pay for wealth redistribution, our government should administer it.
stop taxpayers from subsidizing Walmart's profits
Um, what?
Reality is the precise opposite. Minimum wage is an example of government forcing Walmart, and other employers who utilize low-skilled labor, to subsidize welfare. The system quite unfairly gives an advantage to businesses who profit from highly skilled workers.
It should be the other way around. Since the government is built to act in the interest of society, it should directly redistribute wealth within society to support welfare values. A progressive tax structure is actually a much fairer way to handle it than minimum wage.
If this is too burdensome for you, then perhaps you need to get off your phone and listen to the teacher, there may be a long division test tomorrow.
I'm sure the adults won't mind waiting a few years until you claim your adulthood.
The set of things classified as a "revision" is obviously a superset of things classified as "breaking change". If you stay out of the "breaking change" category (e.g. only new syntax that did not previously compile) then it isn't a problem.
Yes, there are plenty of language updates which do not break existing code. When they do, many language design teams strive to limit any breaking changes to concepts that are only used by a very small number of people, or bugs which result in undocumented behaviors that very few or no developers rely on.
Then there's the case at hand, which sounds like nearly all existing code will break in some way. It's completely different.
Please share an example of ads in live tiles specifically, and where they are being expanded in live tiles specifically.
Please don't share examples of Suggested Apps, which I already covered and which are not live tiles.
You can milk anything with nipples.
In this case, due to supply vs. demand (where supply = 1) it is the same as literally the highest price anyone will pay for it.