Comment Re:Says Howie. (Score 1) 681
I am unable to explain how dis-appetizing this ending choice of phrasing was.
This may be the first textual diet suppressor.
I am unable to explain how dis-appetizing this ending choice of phrasing was.
This may be the first textual diet suppressor.
Usually, "epoxy" around the edges of a BGA chip is neither an anti-hacking attempt nor a light-proofing attempt. It's called underfill, and its chief purpose is to increase mechanical strength and make the bond more durable than tiny bare solder balls would be on their own.
So, what else will you meekly accept as the majority's will? 100% taxation for anybody, whose Slashdot username begins with "Cyber"? People of certain skin color not allowed to own a computer? See, certain things aren't — nor should be — up to the majority...
That's an argument from absurdity. You see, we have a framework of mutually agreed obligations (we call the "laws") and a process to change them. They are not perfect but they are much better than nothing.
And the framework that you propose quite demonstratably leads to a fucking mess. Yet you persist on forcing it upon everyone. Why? Are you a communist or something?
If you have a connection for a gas stove, you are paying for the connection and the ability to use it. If I traveled for a month I'd not be using my water connection, but it is still connected and it is still available for use with the turn of a tap.
And how is that different from the fast Internet connection?
You want another example? I have lots! Last month my council decided to fund a new park. By your standard it should be a commercial park with fee paid each time you step inside. You see, not everyone will use this new park!
If you think the fees will go down, you're naive. Since your argument depends on an impossibility, your argument fails.
Not true. My new housing development paid quite a bit of money to connect to the electric grid. Once the connection fee was paid (about 4 years) the monthly electricity bill went down. So yes, it happens a lot. So your argument fails.
But just for the sake of argument, let's assume a miracle happens, a green unicorn runs the city and the fees go down. Should newcomers pay the lower fee? OF COURSE. Two reasons. First, their tax dollars paid for the initial build, too.
Certainly. IF the buildout was financed from taxes then everyone is entitled to the same low fee. However, what if it was financed only by the initial subscribers? What should be done in this case?
I lost my five star while Uber's rider ratings were still leaking, because a driver went to the wrong location, and felt that I should walk seven blocks to meet them, and when I said no, they felt that that was worth a one-star.
According to Uber's customer service staff, they even confirmed that as the reason, but Uber still feels that the rating should stand, because as a rider, I should not have the expectation of being picked up within a mile of my location.
My impression of Uber's customer service is rather poor, as a result.
So you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked what is the root of money? -- Ayn Rand