Indeed. People cringe when you archive data on consumer DVD-Rs, for example.

Most people seem to have a definition of archival that's different than yours?

Sad, but true. Firefox calls the address bar the Awesome bar just so pedants don't confuse it with an address bar. https://support.mozilla.org/en...

I do not know who made this assertion but it does not seem ridiculous since just a few sentences above you seem to have already have a partial opinion before having heard all of the evidence presented to the jury.

No one I know in my industry in the United States has two weeks of vacation. Three and four are the most common, with some long-term company-people getting five.

I was not trying to be pedantic. In fact, the ratio itself is not relevant. If someone says X% of a population does Y but I don't do Y then why should I be offended, they weren't calling me out for doing Y.

There are more gender issues than pay parity. My comment was in fact about a totally different and unrelated issue to pay parity. The fact that he felt the need to justify why he was not the breadwinner points to the issue of society assuming a male in a relationship be a breadwinner (regardless of what desires each partner has for their life).

10 seconds to comply...
8 seconds to comply...
9 seconds to comply...
8 seconds to comply...
4 seconds to comply...
4 seconds to comply...
6 seconds to comply...
1 second to comply...

(Their estimated time to completion was coded by Microsoft).

The fact that you feel the need to justify why your wife makes more money than you do illustrates some of the problems we have with gender issues. It should be perfectly normal for a woman to make more than a man.

He did. He said half. He never said which half belong to. You can claim his 50% is wrong, but it's clearly a SWAG and he stated so. I don't understand how you can be offended here. If someone told me 50% of men are jerks to women, I'm not going to be offended unless they said 50% of men are jerks to women and I am a man so I must be a jerk to women, but no such claim was made here.

I think gstoddart meant "There's so much good toys out there for kinds that unless the child is asking for Barbie, you can skip it altogether", which is what he or she wrote. The implication there is that if the child asks for Barbie, you can't skip it. You seemed to imply that he or she would do all sorts of horrible things to the child and that seems unfair based on what we know of him or her.

Yes, because if each user paid for each connection from his computer to another computer, it would be far more expensive than pooling resources and wiring everyone up and routing traffic. It's the same reason I don't have a road only I own and use to go to work, another to go to the store, etc. Roads are pooled and funded differently than a private ISP but the concept is similar.

Which is a very different thing than government-issued IDs being illegal. Without free, government-issued IDs, voter-ID laws are unfair and the reason I posted my original statement: "The one big problem is that we are not given free government-issued IDs that I am aware of." I did not say why we don't have free, government-issued IDs (I was aware of the reason). I only meant to say that because we don't, voter ID laws are all terribly unfair.

It would be far more excusable if Slashdot did not give you a preview of your comment before you commit it. Type as fast as you want, but read what you wrote slower. You'll find your error rate reduced.

You should travel the world more.