Well isn't it theirs to do with as they please?
Of course it is, and I did not state otherwise.
My point is that Google is actively pursuing a core user strategy, and there are clear winners and clear losers as a result. I have my own personal biases on this topic, and I'll argue that leaving edge cases behind in an effort to solidify the core is not the best path to take.
My being critical of their decision, however, does not indicate that I think they shouldn't be allowed to make it.
Google is aiming more and more for the core, at the edge's expense.
They provide middling accessibility support, because it isn't something most people need. They dropped MathML support, because it isn't something that most people need. Now, they're dropping CSS Regions, because it isn't something that most people need.
It increasingly appears that you can have your Google product in any color, so long as it's red, green, blue, and yellow. One size fits most, and tough for you if it doesn't.
Choose the right tool for the job. The right tool for this job is not Slashdot.
Go see a doctor. A good GP will be able to point you to a specialist who may be able to better pinpoint exactly why you're having these issues and help you sort them out.
Do your research, by all means--you'll need to be your own advocate--but there are people who dedicate their lives to figuring this sort of thing out. Talk to them, not us.
From TFA:
Bitcoin is more of a hybrid system than a true deflationary system. The gold standard is considered deflationary and Bitcoin is often seen as the digital equivalent of gold. Gold has a limited supply, so it is scarce, just like a digital currency. But real gold can only be subdivided so far. It can only be chopped up so far before it’s nothing but dust. Bitcoin has no such limitations. Theoretically, it can be subdivided into fractions of a coin almost indefinitely, growing as needed with people’s demands. Its current limitation is eight decimal places. Even with only 21 million Bitcoins, that’s still 2000 trillion of the smallest unit. The protocol is designed to be upgradeable, so if we ever need to divide it further we can.
The problem with a deflationary system is not one of divisibility. The problem with a deflationary system is that the value of a given amount of currency is basically guaranteed to increase over time, as the total amount of possible currency has a hard limit--by design, in Bitcoin's case. Unless human civilization starts becoming less valuable as a whole (which is BAD), this is basically inevitable.
That you can chop your Bitcoins up into Nanobitcoins doesn't change the fact that the currency will simply continue to increase in real value. That's like saying you can make a ten-ton boulder less heavy by crushing it into pebbles.
That this is advanced as a serious counterargument to deflation should tell you everything you need to know about the author(s) of this piece.
All these cars will religiously follow the speed limit, boxing up roads and not permitting those of us who are in a rush to get around them. The road rage will cause accidents, I guarantee that.
These accidents will likely be mostly minor fender-benders that result in the road-ragers losing their licenses (unless, of course, they get a self-driving car.) Or, That, and you'd also probably see road-ragers driving themselves off the road and into fixed objects. The automatic cars'll generally do a pretty good job of avoiding serious collisions--far better than even a reasonably skillled human driver could.
If a person is so lacking in maturity and self-control that they'd start ramming automated cars for not letting them treat the road as their own personal speedway, it's highly unlikely that these individuals are able to conduct themselves in a mature manner in today's traffic. We're not looking at a substantial net-up of people who have no business driving a car, y'know?
I use, "663 N 7th St (Leave Cookies)". I don't know if no one has left cookies or if someone is monitoring the cookie situation and taking them.
663 N 7th (leave cookies)
I don't believe this answer will be well received on
Slashdot most decidedly believes in project management. In fact, The Slashdot Consensus very fervently believes that project management is too important to be entrusted to project managers; like marketing, sales, management, and pretty much every other non-technical facet of business, project management is doomed to fail unless the technical people are doing it.
We'll call it "Slashdot's Rule of Business": No matter what the task, the only people to which it can be reasonably entrusted are the computer geeks.
I've been this close to purchasing both the compact edition and the full edition (used). My point was that they need a more accessible online pricing structure for people who occasionally "need" access to The Dictionary. It just seems so strange to me that I can't spend $20.00 for access to 20 words or something like that.
I would love to use the OED occasionally and wouldn't mind paying to do so, but who can afford to spend $295 per year for a subscription?
I have to assume that they are not all idiots and that they actually have some subscribers at that price point, but I can't imagine that that model makes the most money possible. I want to look up maybe one word a month, and I would be willing to pay to do so, but I can't pay $295 a year (or even $29.95 per month).
Fast, cheap, good: pick two.