I'm reading the comments in the linked article, and there are many good explanations of reality. The comparison here, the depth of the troll bench, it is just astounding.
Thankfully RedHat doesn't care about loud noises from the basement. They care about money, and good software costs less to support. Which is to say that those, like RedHat, who are selling support don't have to work as hard for the same money, and the customer is happier too.
As a service developer the network improvements are really great, I can't imagine turning my nose up at on-demand service activation. These mount improvements are right in that direction, too. I'd like to be able to have network filesystems that are only mounted if one of the services using them happens to be activated.
Great! What can we do to speed up this process a bit, its about time that linux started to replace some of its aging, creaking old architecture with new tools liberated of old, out of date practices and effectively made a system which took care of the things I really dont give a shit about.
Good news, you don't need to do anything! Even with mobs of neckbeards in the street holding signs, work hasn't slowed down at all. And if you need paid support, you can always buy or recommend it from RedHat. That's the best way to directly support this stuff, since most of the work is being done by people while at their day jobs.
I'm at the other end; my computer is my work, I don't mind spending time configuring it, I do care how it is configured... and I want the software quality to be high.
Right now, mount/umount hot swapping sucks pretty bad though. Little progress has been made in the past 20 years. I get lots of zombie mounts, where different parts of the system think the wrong disk is in the drive. A couple weeks ago I was watching a DVD on my computer. It stopped half way through; no error message, vlc just stops playing and exits. I try again, stops at the same spot (about an hour in). I take the disk out, clean it (no visible problems) and try again. Same thing. Finally, I try "sudo umount/dev/sr0" and sure enough, it thought the disk had been mounted, though the actual disk was not mounted. Then it played all the way through. Similar errors happen in other places. The problem is that there isn't a standardized system for handling hot-swap. It is just done by whichever thing is installed, and none of the other things have an authoritative way to check the situation on account of not knowing which way(s) you're doing it. Having it in a standardized place is going to make these problems go away over time, because the application has a central place to ask and find out about mounts. It is very similar to the networking support which allows services to only start up after a connection has been received, instead of needing the service to already be waiting for connections. Services can automatically be started when a hot-swap device is inserted, instead of some waiting service needing to know about the hardware and sit there watching it for changes. It isn't just a choice of doing it in the OS or in userspace; doing it in the OS makes possible a lot of automation that doesn't reduce performance, whereas doing that same thing in userspace is guaranteed to require a bunch of extra resources.
I'm not supporting a "conspiracy theory," don't be a blatant tool. I'm saying YOU can't KNOW which conspiracy theory to BELIEVE because you can't CHOOSE between then because the government IS KNOWN (in a non-conspiratorial, "this is their job" way) that spy agencies intentionally mislead you, AND other country's spy agencies mislead too while making it look like somebody else, and PRIVATE PARTIES also offer their own additional lies and propaganda for whatever reasons.
Yes, it is indeed stupid to claim that you actually know what it is going on. But what is even more stupid is your nonsense about assuming "conspirators are all powerful and nothing can be done about them." No, I'm saying you can't even know WTF is going on. No, that should not be "comforting," that is fucking idiotic. Humans are not comforted by confusion. The psychological reaction that is based on comfort is the one where you pretend you know what is going on. (regardless of if you're complaining or not)
You didn't "take what [I] wrote... at face value" at all. You still haven't comprehended it. You grabbed the nearest cliche that you had heard before, and took that at face value. Can you even read?
Right, your ignorance of words do not do anything to change the words.
You actually think that dick-waving over how many places you visited has some sort of protective power that causes you to be less ignorant while not knowing about shit?
You don't know about a common term, and yet you claim to have had every opportunity to learn conversational English, well guess what? Maybe you're just not very good at vocabulary. Did you think of that, Sherlock? Fuck an A, talk about clowning yourself.
Right and you have no way to tell if they're lying to you
Frequently they are but they still have to beg for money in public.
I can hear hamsterdance playing when you say that.
No, actually, they don't have to beg in public. You obviously don't follow politics well enough to already know the details, so you should have looked it up instead of just guessing that it might be the same as with non-secret agencies. But it was an awful guess, not even all members of Congress to get to the see how much money they're giving the NSA! They certainly don't come begging. We're not talking about NASA here.
Blathering about Star Trek doesn't cause a mind meld where suddenly knowledge about government funding enters your brain. You have to actually look it up in order to know about how it works.
You are the one calling us ignorant yet saying they never say stuff in public. Quite funny really and a bit of an own goal on your part. I don't have to be an expert to point out a really obvious fuckup do I?
You're not just ignorant, so fucking ignorant that you think I said "they never say stuff in public." You not only couldn't comprehend what I said, you can't even remember it, and didn't check before responding. You're responding in ignorance to things that where just said in front of you. There is no excuse for that sort of ignorance.
I didn't say They don't say anything in public. I said they say lots of things in public. Notice the small difference between those? What I said was that them saying things in public doesn't tell you shit, because they're actively trying to mislead you (that's part of the their job!) and you're led by the nose very easily. You have no way to differentiate "things they said that are true" and "things they said that are not true." And they have no obligation to even say anything, but they do have an obligation to obscure secrets. There is no way to weigh or measure any purported information about these sorts of secret government activities. Every party who purports to have a version of the truth has an agenda, and every single one of those sources could also have additional unknown agendas. Every party who purports to have information they weren't supposed to have, might have been tricked into believing stuff that isn't true, by the people they're accusing of doing whatever the thing is, simply to mislead them and everybody.
Anybody claiming to actually know anything conspiratorial is a credulous ignoramus. In this case, anybody claiming to know details about what information is or isn't true, is already a credulous ignoramus.
They talk to the press and some of us "ignoramus" types read it.
Right and you have no way to tell if they're lying to you, or to the other guy, or if all of 12 different public theories were presented by them.
The Air Force hiding experimental craft by saying "it was a weather balloon" is beginner stuff, but these are professionals. There is no way you can receive information purported to be from them and have any idea if it is true or which parts are lies and why. There is a long history of the government hiding secrets by encouraging and even inventing conspiracy theories.
And then other countries are inventing conspiracy theories too, sometimes just to make us look bad. There are even NGOs from around the world with various agendas spreading propaganda and edited videos to make countries look bad. There are so many lairs involved, there is no basis to even consider what to believe; you can't believe anything in that environment, and it is probably that way by design.
You don't have to like it, but you still won't be able to make a credible claim to knowledge of the subject. Same as everybody else.
Yep, that's what it says on the tin; "This conspiracy can never be proven or disproven, and you'll never have any way to know what is really going on or which lie is from which of a dozen "sides" are competing to lie to you.
This is why mindless flailing doesn't help the situation. There isn't an obvious direction to flail in.
We have no idea what they want, don't be such an ignoramus. Republicans in Congress want government to have "front door" access to your computer. Nobody knows what the NSA wants, because they don't even talk to the public about what they want, and they don't ask for anything but money, ever. And don't bother asking what they spent it on, they're not going to engage in a conversation with you where they tell you "no."
Not only that, but what sort of idiot is this guy? Does he realize that he's clowning himself when he says, "I would expect relatively bug-free code." Why? Because it is the magic Goobermint, or because unreleased internal tools usually get a large number of extra QA cycles looking for unreported bugs?
The danger to this code of bugs is actually regular OS and network service bugs that let users crack the machine and get access to this code. The danger isn't that a user who already is on the same machine might access the memory and shit. They already have the jewels at that point, there is no need for multiuser security here. It doesn't get installed on the target system, it gets installed on a staging server.
It is like complaining that an ammo dump isn't armor plated. That might not be a mistake.
But Elon promised us it was safer than human driving!
It can both be safer than humans while still not being perfect. I only expect that over time self driving cars will reduce accidents, not eliminate them. Anytime you're moving at high speed there's an element of risk.
Actually it can be buggy as hell and still be safer than these humans, because outside of the mistakes the feedback loops will be fast and accurate. Only a small percentage of human drivers have fast, accurate reflexes that are engaged for the same percentage of the time.
Yemen was not a war zone that the US was participating in on the ground.
Strange equivocation. Why add in words about "on the ground?" Does that make a moral difference? No. Does it make a legal difference? No. Does it make any sort of known difference at all? No.
As your equivocation shows that you knew, Yemen was a war zone; and the recognized government of Yemen approved the operation. No, the US wasn't participating "on the ground" we were participating "from the air." From the air, to the ground.
Being against it is political. Making up lies about the conditions in order to make a faulty legal claim to stupid and pointless. People who make this decisions aren't going to listen to you because you made up some horse shit. You don't disagree that he was planning attacks, you seem to be aware that he was in a war zone, that isn't a gray area. They are clearly allowed to blow him up. All he has to do is be in a war zone, and be believed to be naughty, and it is legal and normal under the laws of war to kill him. That's what happens in a war.
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
He would be in a war zone even if he wasn't in Yemen. You don't have to like it. I certainly don't approve of the government declaring war on non-State entities. I think those should be handled as police actions. But that is a political complaint, not a legal one involving the laws of war. There is not actually any doubt that he was a member of one of the groups that war was declared on, so even if he had been in a different place he would still be a legit military target.
Where is this crazy idea that the military is expected to have legal documentation before shooting people? That is precisely the sort of thing that they don't need. That is the whole point of war, "OK now we're just going to shoot you guys." That's what war is. That is what it means. That is why "war is hell."
There are actual international agreements (aka "laws of war") regulating who you can shoot in war, and who you can't. If you can't shoot them in war, then that nonsense about judges would make a difference. No, nobody at war is required to go to a judge before killing somebody. And if they make a mistake, that is OK too. And if the enemy is parked next to a school, it is legal to blow them (and the school) up. War is hell, but that doesn't automatically mean that war is a war crime, or that hell is a war crime.
Seriously. Look it the fuck up because you're just making shit up like a total asshole. People died, fuckwit. You think people die just to make political points for you that aren't even true?
You didn't know he was in a war zone? That means you didn't even read shit about what happened, what did you do, just repeat shit you heard at the bar? Fuckin' lame. You're just another aliterate moron who won't even look it up even after you're called on your shit.
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. The gubermint is going to do... what? Dress up in a chicken suit? No?
Just waving your hands and saying, "the gubermint will block... something something" doesn't even rise to the level of prognostication. "Block" as a verb has to involve some sort of blocking action. Like an import/export ban, or a prohibition on using phones while wearing chicken suits. Those would be actual attempts to block something. They could be discussed, because they would have details. Real life also has details. If you want to block something, you have to be able to say what it is you're blocking, and how. "Something something to stop the little guy" isn't anything.
You can easily detect that your idea doesn't have any ideas just by checking the specific thing you were saying in the first place. Is it specific? Is it a thing? No? Then there is no need to go into stupid horseshit like "maybe shipments get held up for nonsense reasons in customs." What percent of business shipments even get inspected by customs? And "nonsense patent lawsuits," wtf? That is so broad, you could say that as a reason why a coffee stand might have problems. It is not something specific to building devices that the FSF approves of. You even throw "maybe javascript turns into the boogeyman" at the wall. Guess what? If that happens people running Free Software will just turn it off. Solved.
I didn't have general internet access yet, but one of the local BBSes had a gopher gateway. It seems like ASCII maps for AD&D2 was one of the things we downloaded.
YOU won't believe how ugly this weird secret messagging app is!
I know, right, it is almost like they didn't expect the whole world to look at it and check if they were being trendy enough. As if they just wanted a business tool, or something.
Not doing business in the first place is even more effective. Do it yourself, and you won't get ripped off. If you fail, you get spin it however you want and you're guaranteed to be right. Are you sure you need to pay money for pixels, or to flip bits?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm reading the comments in the linked article, and there are many good explanations of reality. The comparison here, the depth of the troll bench, it is just astounding.
Thankfully RedHat doesn't care about loud noises from the basement. They care about money, and good software costs less to support. Which is to say that those, like RedHat, who are selling support don't have to work as hard for the same money, and the customer is happier too.
As a service developer the network improvements are really great, I can't imagine turning my nose up at on-demand service activation. These mount improvements are right in that direction, too. I'd like to be able to have network filesystems that are only mounted if one of the services using them happens to be activated.
I'm up to page 13 of the comments in the article, and it is endlessly entertaining.
Paid trolls would never provide the same entertainment value, but they'd inject some quality FUD. This is like Elmer Fudd hunting redhat developers.
Great! What can we do to speed up this process a bit, its about time that linux started to replace some of its aging, creaking old architecture with new tools liberated of old, out of date practices and effectively made a system which took care of the things I really dont give a shit about.
Good news, you don't need to do anything! Even with mobs of neckbeards in the street holding signs, work hasn't slowed down at all. And if you need paid support, you can always buy or recommend it from RedHat. That's the best way to directly support this stuff, since most of the work is being done by people while at their day jobs.
I'm at the other end; my computer is my work, I don't mind spending time configuring it, I do care how it is configured... and I want the software quality to be high.
Right now, mount/umount hot swapping sucks pretty bad though. Little progress has been made in the past 20 years. I get lots of zombie mounts, where different parts of the system think the wrong disk is in the drive. A couple weeks ago I was watching a DVD on my computer. It stopped half way through; no error message, vlc just stops playing and exits. I try again, stops at the same spot (about an hour in). I take the disk out, clean it (no visible problems) and try again. Same thing. Finally, I try "sudo umount /dev/sr0" and sure enough, it thought the disk had been mounted, though the actual disk was not mounted. Then it played all the way through. Similar errors happen in other places. The problem is that there isn't a standardized system for handling hot-swap. It is just done by whichever thing is installed, and none of the other things have an authoritative way to check the situation on account of not knowing which way(s) you're doing it. Having it in a standardized place is going to make these problems go away over time, because the application has a central place to ask and find out about mounts. It is very similar to the networking support which allows services to only start up after a connection has been received, instead of needing the service to already be waiting for connections. Services can automatically be started when a hot-swap device is inserted, instead of some waiting service needing to know about the hardware and sit there watching it for changes. It isn't just a choice of doing it in the OS or in userspace; doing it in the OS makes possible a lot of automation that doesn't reduce performance, whereas doing that same thing in userspace is guaranteed to require a bunch of extra resources.
Well, for one thing, windows support of hot-swap mounting sucks.
The problem for linux has always been, while the situation is better than windows, it still sucks.
This will actually fix the problems for linux, and so the MS cruftiness will finally look low-tech.
That's a pretty lame approach, but very ignorant.
I'm not supporting a "conspiracy theory," don't be a blatant tool. I'm saying YOU can't KNOW which conspiracy theory to BELIEVE because you can't CHOOSE between then because the government IS KNOWN (in a non-conspiratorial, "this is their job" way) that spy agencies intentionally mislead you, AND other country's spy agencies mislead too while making it look like somebody else, and PRIVATE PARTIES also offer their own additional lies and propaganda for whatever reasons.
Yes, it is indeed stupid to claim that you actually know what it is going on. But what is even more stupid is your nonsense about assuming "conspirators are all powerful and nothing can be done about them." No, I'm saying you can't even know WTF is going on. No, that should not be "comforting," that is fucking idiotic. Humans are not comforted by confusion. The psychological reaction that is based on comfort is the one where you pretend you know what is going on. (regardless of if you're complaining or not)
You didn't "take what [I] wrote... at face value" at all. You still haven't comprehended it. You grabbed the nearest cliche that you had heard before, and took that at face value. Can you even read?
Right, your ignorance of words do not do anything to change the words.
You actually think that dick-waving over how many places you visited has some sort of protective power that causes you to be less ignorant while not knowing about shit?
You don't know about a common term, and yet you claim to have had every opportunity to learn conversational English, well guess what? Maybe you're just not very good at vocabulary. Did you think of that, Sherlock? Fuck an A, talk about clowning yourself.
http://www.urbandictionary.com...
http://idioms.thefreedictionar...
http://www.thefreedictionary.c...
Figure it out, Charlie Brown. Being ignorant in multiple countries does not grant mystical knowledge of anything.
Frequently they are but they still have to beg for money in public.
I can hear hamsterdance playing when you say that.
No, actually, they don't have to beg in public. You obviously don't follow politics well enough to already know the details, so you should have looked it up instead of just guessing that it might be the same as with non-secret agencies. But it was an awful guess, not even all members of Congress to get to the see how much money they're giving the NSA! They certainly don't come begging. We're not talking about NASA here.
Blathering about Star Trek doesn't cause a mind meld where suddenly knowledge about government funding enters your brain. You have to actually look it up in order to know about how it works.
You are the one calling us ignorant yet saying they never say stuff in public. Quite funny really and a bit of an own goal on your part. I don't have to be an expert to point out a really obvious fuckup do I?
You're not just ignorant, so fucking ignorant that you think I said "they never say stuff in public." You not only couldn't comprehend what I said, you can't even remember it, and didn't check before responding. You're responding in ignorance to things that where just said in front of you. There is no excuse for that sort of ignorance.
I didn't say They don't say anything in public. I said they say lots of things in public. Notice the small difference between those? What I said was that them saying things in public doesn't tell you shit, because they're actively trying to mislead you (that's part of the their job!) and you're led by the nose very easily. You have no way to differentiate "things they said that are true" and "things they said that are not true." And they have no obligation to even say anything, but they do have an obligation to obscure secrets. There is no way to weigh or measure any purported information about these sorts of secret government activities. Every party who purports to have a version of the truth has an agenda, and every single one of those sources could also have additional unknown agendas. Every party who purports to have information they weren't supposed to have, might have been tricked into believing stuff that isn't true, by the people they're accusing of doing whatever the thing is, simply to mislead them and everybody.
Anybody claiming to actually know anything conspiratorial is a credulous ignoramus. In this case, anybody claiming to know details about what information is or isn't true, is already a credulous ignoramus.
clowning himself...
May I suggest ceasing your [unsuccessful] attempts to use words "creatively?" It makes you sound like a clown.
You'd almost think it was a standard phrase in my day. Oh, it was! Oh, it still is!
Trust me, there is no "creativity" required to use a common phrase in the common way. Upgrade your vocabulary, derpus.
With all the drunk drivers on the road, every buggy should have a dash cam and automatic emergency services notification.
And it is probably worth considering a backup camera while you're doing the install.
These people at least have GPS:
http://thefw.com/horse-and-car...
This buggy has lots of electronics:
http://gajitz.com/literal-hors...
If I was the NSA, I wouldn't want all those data streams slipping through the cracks.
In the old days we presumed that everything was compromised, and everything done online recorded multiple times.
They talk to the press and some of us "ignoramus" types read it.
Right and you have no way to tell if they're lying to you, or to the other guy, or if all of 12 different public theories were presented by them.
The Air Force hiding experimental craft by saying "it was a weather balloon" is beginner stuff, but these are professionals. There is no way you can receive information purported to be from them and have any idea if it is true or which parts are lies and why. There is a long history of the government hiding secrets by encouraging and even inventing conspiracy theories.
And then other countries are inventing conspiracy theories too, sometimes just to make us look bad. There are even NGOs from around the world with various agendas spreading propaganda and edited videos to make countries look bad. There are so many lairs involved, there is no basis to even consider what to believe; you can't believe anything in that environment, and it is probably that way by design.
You don't have to like it, but you still won't be able to make a credible claim to knowledge of the subject. Same as everybody else.
Yep, that's what it says on the tin; "This conspiracy can never be proven or disproven, and you'll never have any way to know what is really going on or which lie is from which of a dozen "sides" are competing to lie to you.
This is why mindless flailing doesn't help the situation. There isn't an obvious direction to flail in.
We have no idea what they want, don't be such an ignoramus. Republicans in Congress want government to have "front door" access to your computer. Nobody knows what the NSA wants, because they don't even talk to the public about what they want, and they don't ask for anything but money, ever. And don't bother asking what they spent it on, they're not going to engage in a conversation with you where they tell you "no."
Not only that, but what sort of idiot is this guy? Does he realize that he's clowning himself when he says, "I would expect relatively bug-free code." Why? Because it is the magic Goobermint, or because unreleased internal tools usually get a large number of extra QA cycles looking for unreported bugs?
The danger to this code of bugs is actually regular OS and network service bugs that let users crack the machine and get access to this code. The danger isn't that a user who already is on the same machine might access the memory and shit. They already have the jewels at that point, there is no need for multiuser security here. It doesn't get installed on the target system, it gets installed on a staging server.
It is like complaining that an ammo dump isn't armor plated. That might not be a mistake.
If they had just named it better it would be a lot easier to defend them. Something with the word "cruise" in it maybe, instead of "pilot."
But Elon promised us it was safer than human driving!
It can both be safer than humans while still not being perfect. I only expect that over time self driving cars will reduce accidents, not eliminate them. Anytime you're moving at high speed there's an element of risk.
Actually it can be buggy as hell and still be safer than these humans, because outside of the mistakes the feedback loops will be fast and accurate. Only a small percentage of human drivers have fast, accurate reflexes that are engaged for the same percentage of the time.
This device can determine race when scanning phone calls?
Watch out, they're coming for the Derps next! You thought you were safe?!
You're talking about people overseas in war zones
Yemen was not a war zone that the US was participating in on the ground.
Strange equivocation. Why add in words about "on the ground?" Does that make a moral difference? No. Does it make a legal difference? No. Does it make any sort of known difference at all? No.
As your equivocation shows that you knew, Yemen was a war zone; and the recognized government of Yemen approved the operation. No, the US wasn't participating "on the ground" we were participating "from the air." From the air, to the ground.
Being against it is political. Making up lies about the conditions in order to make a faulty legal claim to stupid and pointless. People who make this decisions aren't going to listen to you because you made up some horse shit. You don't disagree that he was planning attacks, you seem to be aware that he was in a war zone, that isn't a gray area. They are clearly allowed to blow him up. All he has to do is be in a war zone, and be believed to be naughty, and it is legal and normal under the laws of war to kill him. That's what happens in a war.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Especially note that part that says:
He would be in a war zone even if he wasn't in Yemen. You don't have to like it. I certainly don't approve of the government declaring war on non-State entities. I think those should be handled as police actions. But that is a political complaint, not a legal one involving the laws of war. There is not actually any doubt that he was a member of one of the groups that war was declared on, so even if he had been in a different place he would still be a legit military target.
Where is this crazy idea that the military is expected to have legal documentation before shooting people? That is precisely the sort of thing that they don't need. That is the whole point of war, "OK now we're just going to shoot you guys." That's what war is. That is what it means. That is why "war is hell."
There are actual international agreements (aka "laws of war") regulating who you can shoot in war, and who you can't. If you can't shoot them in war, then that nonsense about judges would make a difference. No, nobody at war is required to go to a judge before killing somebody. And if they make a mistake, that is OK too. And if the enemy is parked next to a school, it is legal to blow them (and the school) up. War is hell, but that doesn't automatically mean that war is a war crime, or that hell is a war crime.
persons engaged in combat
Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't in a war zone
Find a brain cell and look that up, moron.
Seriously. Look it the fuck up because you're just making shit up like a total asshole. People died, fuckwit. You think people die just to make political points for you that aren't even true?
You didn't know he was in a war zone? That means you didn't even read shit about what happened, what did you do, just repeat shit you heard at the bar? Fuckin' lame. You're just another aliterate moron who won't even look it up even after you're called on your shit.
I fully expect governments to throw up roadblocks
Yep, that's exactly what I meant. The gubermint is going to do... what? Dress up in a chicken suit? No?
Just waving your hands and saying, "the gubermint will block... something something" doesn't even rise to the level of prognostication. "Block" as a verb has to involve some sort of blocking action. Like an import/export ban, or a prohibition on using phones while wearing chicken suits. Those would be actual attempts to block something. They could be discussed, because they would have details. Real life also has details. If you want to block something, you have to be able to say what it is you're blocking, and how. "Something something to stop the little guy" isn't anything.
You can easily detect that your idea doesn't have any ideas just by checking the specific thing you were saying in the first place. Is it specific? Is it a thing? No? Then there is no need to go into stupid horseshit like "maybe shipments get held up for nonsense reasons in customs." What percent of business shipments even get inspected by customs? And "nonsense patent lawsuits," wtf? That is so broad, you could say that as a reason why a coffee stand might have problems. It is not something specific to building devices that the FSF approves of. You even throw "maybe javascript turns into the boogeyman" at the wall. Guess what? If that happens people running Free Software will just turn it off. Solved.
I didn't have general internet access yet, but one of the local BBSes had a gopher gateway. It seems like ASCII maps for AD&D2 was one of the things we downloaded.
It must be, all the applications I use have had the same UI since the 90s. And Windoze actually had the same UI as us back then!
YOU won't believe how ugly this weird secret messagging app is!
I know, right, it is almost like they didn't expect the whole world to look at it and check if they were being trendy enough. As if they just wanted a business tool, or something.
Worse, he eats toast with a fork.
Not doing business with them again is a start
Not doing business in the first place is even more effective. Do it yourself, and you won't get ripped off. If you fail, you get spin it however you want and you're guaranteed to be right. Are you sure you need to pay money for pixels, or to flip bits?