Comment Re:All your dev are belong to us.... (Score 1) 185
no one company should own or control TLDs. This is for the root servers to control NOT fucking Goog.
That's a statement of your unsupported opinion, not fact.
no one company should own or control TLDs. This is for the root servers to control NOT fucking Goog.
That's a statement of your unsupported opinion, not fact.
It's you that's out of touch. So much so that I wonder if you're in marketing and thus feel somehow entitled to be dishonest. Just look at
On what planet is the branding power of any of those examples derived from a domain name?
You're missing the point of how powerful branding can be.
No, I'm not. But it's not the ".dev" TLD that makes the branding. You're making the assumption that having a ".dev" domain registered to yourself will transform into that branding without any evidence, and against all logic.
Tell that to every good developer who wasn't hired because some shitty developer with an MSDN certification and no experience got hired instead.
So what? Idiot hiring managers will do what they do, and there's a huge list of stupid reasons why they might refuse to hire somebody. The availability of
At first it's not going to be considered an exclusive requirement that good developers have
If Google was capable of doing this, then there would already be a perception that all good developers are Google developers. And that isn't anywhere close to true.
This isn't just speculation, either - the same thing can be seen in the computer world today (or at least recently) with the "XXX Certification" nonsense, be it A+ / MSDN / whatever. I've seen job hiring requirements that require certifications that are pointless to the job, or that focus more on certifications than actual job experience or ability.
Nobody but idiot managers think that not having a particular certification means that someone is a bad developer. This isn't a problem where general perception is concerned.
But why does that matter?
I really can't see any reason why this is any "worse" than a single entity owning, say, http://developer.com/. Domain names really aren't like real estate -- the namespace is so big that you're always going to be able to find an alternative.
If there's some group organization that feels strongly that there should be a TLD reserved for developers, then they should go ahead and register one.
That no non-Google developer can register a
This doesn't make much sense. No developers have a
But dang, MS, you could write a check and it'd be a fucking rounding error on your earnings last year...
Same goes for the government...
And now apparently instead of at least having a sandbox to make changes in, they just dump their untested code into the main Slashdot page.
1c coin exists because there is a zinc lobby though they have agreed to a compromise which is a problem for the vending machine lobby. There is fundamentally no good reason economically and even politically this would be fixable given a less destructive congress.
The zinc lobby is a large part of the reason why the government won't make the change, but not the only one. The last time I discussed it with anyone, I was amazed at the number of seemingly rational people who were convinced that any attempt to get rid of the penny was a conspiracy to drive up prices.
Change of any sort frightens people, even over the stupidest of things.
There's no reason that we can't make our electric companies act as storage for the consumers.
True, but there is a reason why we can't make them do it for free, which is what the complaint is about.
They said that it lowers the risk, not that it eliminates it. This is why they do studies instead of asking Slashdotters for anecdotes.
You're arguing from a misconception, and looking like an idiot doing it. I haven't "lost" anything, because I'm not in a competition with anyone. This war that you think I'm fighting against Microsoft exists only in your own mind.
It is undeniable reality that millions of people, many of them non-technical, use a Linux desktop every day. You can make up your own definition for "year of the Linux desktop" if you like, but good luck getting everybody else to follow your lead.
I won't even throw a temper tantrum if you dare to present an alternative definition.
After a job or three, basically nobody that knows shit cares were you went to school or even if you went to school.
Which suggests that for your first job or three, the people hiring you will, indeed, care where you got your degree.
Wrong. The merchant's agreement says they are required to check. There's anecdotal evidence that CC companies audit merchants for compliance.
This is false. (Where are you getting your information from?) Not only are they not required to check, both Visa's and Mastercard's policies say that although the merchant may ask for ID, they cannot refuse a transaction if you refuse to show it.
Discover apparently does say that they should check alternate ID if there are any suspicions, although it doesn't require it all the time.
Sources:
http://usa.visa.com/download/merchants/card-acceptance-guidelines-for-visa-merchants.pdf
http://www.mastercard.com/us/merchant/pdf/BM-Entire_Manual_public.pdf
While it's common in the US, both Visa and Mastercard policies say that merchants should not accept a card with "see ID" or similar instead of a signature. Technically, the merchant could be on the hook for fraudulent charges if they accept a card without a signature.
From a practical point of view, I've only heard of refusal to accept a payment because of that once or twice. But the cashiers aren't obligated to check your ID to validate the signature, so you don't have much call to get mad at them because of that.
E = MC ** 2 +- 3db
