I personally like to hire people who is willing to tell me I am wrong so I can learn.
Linus didn't hire Garrett. I'm fairly sure Linus is more than happy to be told he's wrong. Problem is, there aren't many people capable of legitimately doing this, and he has to spend far too much of his life dealing with the rest.
I'd say Linus has full emotional maturity. For instance he can use sexual metaphors without it becoming a massive issue for him.
It's not as though it was a personal insult either. He did claim Garrett was bobbing up and down drooling, he merely highlighted that was the choice available.
Which kind of defeats the purpose and convenience of having a credit card.
Hmm, no. Most people travel abroad infrequently and a single contact to their card provider prior to travel is not onerous.
This does not prevent you from benefiting from pre-authorised credit available within a second when you wish to make a purchase for which you do not have the current liquid funds available.
This also does not prevent you from benefiting from the fraud protection offered by credit cards and not necessarily available with other payment cards and mechanisms.
Erm. Everybody. Just that the Russians were the ones to send in underequipped soldiers en mass to overwhelm the enemy with numbers irrespective of casualties, killed a lot of their own people through purges and punishments, and were treated worse by the Germans once captured.
As a political force of will it was impressive. I'm not sure it was right, and it sure as fuck doesn't mean that nobody else was fighting Germany at the time.
Are you a total fuckwit? It'd take me five minutes to fucking find the number for the US embassy, let alone call it, get through to someone that I could talk to about military operations and tell them what was happening.
Now they've got to engage with the entire chain of command to understand who is pursuing those actions, and pass on that message.
30 minutes is not long at all. If you don't believe me, fucking try it.
Technically Russia is supporting a recognised state - Assad is unpopular and (by all accounts) a totalitarian cunt with no respect for humanity, but he's also the recognised head of state in Syria.
30 minutes isn't a very long time. Determining the chain of command, contact details and making contact is a sizeable task, confirming the validity of the information, authorisation of the change in order and relay of those orders to the forces involved?
I'd say 30 minutes is pretty decent. Shit, it took twice that long just to contact military officials in Washington.
The bank the hospital used sold the debt to a collection agency (well, more than one, actually) who wouldn't even take a death certificate as proof that she wasn't him.
Why bother to prove it to them? You've told them, they ignored you, what are they going to do next? Absolutely nothing unless they want suing into oblivion.
from what I understand in one day you can drive and cross 2 or more country borders
In one step I've left one country, crossed another and ended up in a third.
But there are plenty of places in Europe where the quickest route from country A to B is via C, some countries so small that it takes a bad traffic jam to stop you crossing lengthways in a morning and generally it's pretty common to visit neighbouring countries on holiday, or even to go shopping or to visit friends.
A charge-back occurs when a charge is unauthorized.
It's also the mechanism when you disagree with the store about getting a refund.
Last time I asked for a chargeback I'd tried to buy something online and the website used Paypal. Paypal charged my card but refused to pass my funds on to the vendor until I'd opened a Paypal account. I told them that wasn't happening, and to complete the transaction. They refused. I told them to refund my money and they refused.
So I knew who had my cash, I had been in contact with them, and my credit card company were very happy to comply with my request for a chargeback.
"May I please return this game and have a refund" which you're doing leaves Steam in control of the process and is acceptable to them.
"Hi, is that my credit card company? Please reverse this charge on my card" is a chargeback and results in additional costs to Steam, and also damages their relationship with their card acquirer - if it happens too frequently they could even be refused the ability to take card payments.
As a consumer both are valid options, but the latter should always be an approach of last resort. Steam have historically been very negative towards people initiating chargebacks, although this new consumer protection legislation means they'll probably get very few from the UK.
On the flipside, I suspect our game prices will rise to cover the additional overheads. Maybe I should get my friend in Ireland to start buying me gifts.
How's the weather in 2008? A decent gaming PC (read: as good or better graphics/framerate vs. consoles) w/ HDMI output on a midrange graphics card is $500 now.
£445 and I haven't added a fucking graphics card yet. Or just pay £270 for the Xbox One.
I greatly prefer PC games and don't own a console, but do try and have some fucking balance in your response to someone that's looking for useful guidance.
The problem is that the manual claims 35 and your car can only do 25 if it's in low emissions mode. Which is why they disabled low emissions mode for normal driving.
..and BMW, and Vauxhall (I think they're GM?), and Ford, and Jaguar Land Rover, and Toyota, and Fiat, and Citroen, and Renault, and.. well, pretty much everybody.
..who know that the value of shares can go up as well as down, took the risk and should understand that sometimes it doesn't work out.
who had fuck all to do with this
If you're arguing against a stupidly large fine, you're disregarding that this is the primary mechanism governments use to make it clear to large businesses that it's not sensible to disregard law.
Hopefully you're not arguing against VW providing restitution to the people whose cars do not match the advertised and stated performance characteristics that were implicit within their purchase decision.
Why should they lose out and not employees or investors? We should continue to run non-viable businesses just to keep people in employment? We should fund non-viable businesses sufficiently to provide returns to shareholders?
Actually I can think of many examples where that does happen:(
About £200 for me, but that includes broadband and TV and voluntary monthly contributions to two groups in the UK that are working to subvert the government.
Slashdot Mirror
I personally like to hire people who is willing to tell me I am wrong so I can learn.
Linus didn't hire Garrett.
I'm fairly sure Linus is more than happy to be told he's wrong. Problem is, there aren't many people capable of legitimately doing this, and he has to spend far too much of his life dealing with the rest.
I'd say Linus has full emotional maturity. For instance he can use sexual metaphors without it becoming a massive issue for him.
It's not as though it was a personal insult either. He did claim Garrett was bobbing up and down drooling, he merely highlighted that was the choice available.
They just renamed it to BitBucket, so what's the deal there? Rename and kill feels like a losing strategy.
Which kind of defeats the purpose and convenience of having a credit card.
Hmm, no. Most people travel abroad infrequently and a single contact to their card provider prior to travel is not onerous.
This does not prevent you from benefiting from pre-authorised credit available within a second when you wish to make a purchase for which you do not have the current liquid funds available.
This also does not prevent you from benefiting from the fraud protection offered by credit cards and not necessarily available with other payment cards and mechanisms.
I've trained my card company, they let me perform 5-6 consecutive Steam purchases for the same or different amounts with no fuss.
Much the same reason as you, although also because I sometimes buy something then spot something else.
Fine. Design a better fraud detection/prevention mechanism that has fewer false positives and still catches most fraud.
Please, do.
He claimed, Russian use $200 barrel bombs instead of precise guided bombs.
No, he didn't. Your lack of reading comprehension would be comical if you weren't demanding a point by point rebuttal.
You're not getting one. You've failed at the first hurdle.
Erm. Everybody. Just that the Russians were the ones to send in underequipped soldiers en mass to overwhelm the enemy with numbers irrespective of casualties, killed a lot of their own people through purges and punishments, and were treated worse by the Germans once captured.
As a political force of will it was impressive. I'm not sure it was right, and it sure as fuck doesn't mean that nobody else was fighting Germany at the time.
Are you a total fuckwit? It'd take me five minutes to fucking find the number for the US embassy, let alone call it, get through to someone that I could talk to about military operations and tell them what was happening.
Now they've got to engage with the entire chain of command to understand who is pursuing those actions, and pass on that message.
30 minutes is not long at all. If you don't believe me, fucking try it.
You sound like a Russian astroturfer.
Curiously you also sound a bit like APK. Although his non-spam posts tend to be better articulated and considerably more balanced.
Set up a blog on the Syrian war? Please?
Technically Russia is supporting a recognised state - Assad is unpopular and (by all accounts) a totalitarian cunt with no respect for humanity, but he's also the recognised head of state in Syria.
30 minutes isn't a very long time. Determining the chain of command, contact details and making contact is a sizeable task, confirming the validity of the information, authorisation of the change in order and relay of those orders to the forces involved?
I'd say 30 minutes is pretty decent. Shit, it took twice that long just to contact military officials in Washington.
If it goes in your credit history, they've told lies about you. Sue them.
If they keep harassing you, ask the police to arrest them for harassment.
The bank the hospital used sold the debt to a collection agency (well, more than one, actually) who wouldn't even take a death certificate as proof that she wasn't him.
Why bother to prove it to them? You've told them, they ignored you, what are they going to do next? Absolutely nothing unless they want suing into oblivion.
from what I understand in one day you can drive and cross 2 or more country borders
In one step I've left one country, crossed another and ended up in a third.
But there are plenty of places in Europe where the quickest route from country A to B is via C, some countries so small that it takes a bad traffic jam to stop you crossing lengthways in a morning and generally it's pretty common to visit neighbouring countries on holiday, or even to go shopping or to visit friends.
A charge-back occurs when a charge is unauthorized.
It's also the mechanism when you disagree with the store about getting a refund.
Last time I asked for a chargeback I'd tried to buy something online and the website used Paypal. Paypal charged my card but refused to pass my funds on to the vendor until I'd opened a Paypal account. I told them that wasn't happening, and to complete the transaction. They refused. I told them to refund my money and they refused.
So I knew who had my cash, I had been in contact with them, and my credit card company were very happy to comply with my request for a chargeback.
"May I please return this game and have a refund" which you're doing leaves Steam in control of the process and is acceptable to them.
"Hi, is that my credit card company? Please reverse this charge on my card" is a chargeback and results in additional costs to Steam, and also damages their relationship with their card acquirer - if it happens too frequently they could even be refused the ability to take card payments.
As a consumer both are valid options, but the latter should always be an approach of last resort. Steam have historically been very negative towards people initiating chargebacks, although this new consumer protection legislation means they'll probably get very few from the UK.
On the flipside, I suspect our game prices will rise to cover the additional overheads. Maybe I should get my friend in Ireland to start buying me gifts.
They are if VW patch the engines to meet the emissions standards all of the time - loss of power and fuel economy.
They are if VW don't patch the engines to meet the emissions standards, and they're forced to take the car off the road.
They are if VW don't patch the engines to meet the emissions standards and their tax goes up (e.g. in the UK).
Plenty of ways the people that bought the cars can lose out directly, let alone the obvious health implications and loss of resale value.
How's the weather in 2008?
A decent gaming PC (read: as good or better graphics/framerate vs. consoles) w/ HDMI output on a midrange graphics card is $500 now.
http://www.dell.com/uk/p/inspi...
£445 and I haven't added a fucking graphics card yet.
Or just pay £270 for the Xbox One.
I greatly prefer PC games and don't own a console, but do try and have some fucking balance in your response to someone that's looking for useful guidance.
The problem is that the manual claims 35 and your car can only do 25 if it's in low emissions mode. Which is why they disabled low emissions mode for normal driving.
rather than evil intent
Too many people have been sacked already to believe that one.
VW has tens of thousands of employees
..that didn't prevent this fraud..
and hundreds of thousands of small investors
..who know that the value of shares can go up as well as down, took the risk and should understand that sometimes it doesn't work out.
who had fuck all to do with this
If you're arguing against a stupidly large fine, you're disregarding that this is the primary mechanism governments use to make it clear to large businesses that it's not sensible to disregard law.
Hopefully you're not arguing against VW providing restitution to the people whose cars do not match the advertised and stated performance characteristics that were implicit within their purchase decision.
Why should they lose out and not employees or investors? We should continue to run non-viable businesses just to keep people in employment? We should fund non-viable businesses sufficiently to provide returns to shareholders?
Actually I can think of many examples where that does happen :(
About £200 for me, but that includes broadband and TV and voluntary monthly contributions to two groups in the UK that are working to subvert the government.