whatever happened to: If you don't like the way a company does business, don't do business with them?
Monopolies happened. A lot of times, there are no compatible substitutes for a particular company's products or services despite the company's poor information security practices.
There are also situations where systems integration must be performed without single sign-on.
And even with single sign-on, there are situations where a system participating in single sign-on needs to store a "client key" and "client secret" for something like OAuth.
So to fix this we added the "get connected" feature. Basically it's a page after the initial login where people can open a session to all their social networks and provide all their frequent email addresses. This way they can login with any of these. This helped a lot.
The Stack Exchange network has a similar feature. Each user can associate a Facebook account, an e-mail address and password, and multiple OpenID identifiers (Google, AOL, Ubuntu, etc.) to his Stack Exchange user account. The one thing I'm surprised they don't support is Twitter login.
They'll learn the bus/train routes and/or get a bicycle pretty quick.
I always find this particular argument horribly ironic on Slashdot, a site just fucking chock-full of commuters. I'll bet a good portion of the portion of the readership of this site which still has a job is driving more than an hour to reach it, and the biggest portion of those people live where there is no public transportation option which covers their entire route, even given a reasonable bicycle ride at the start.
I am all in favor of solving the public transportation problem in this country, but it's one which was deliberately created by the auto companies. We're not about to force them to fix it, and they couldn't afford to if they tried. We're going to have to pay for it.
I love how people referring to "successful" matriarchies always wind up pointing to primitive cultures.
Which cultures develop technologically is only occasionally a result of specific leadership and is typically more a result of resources.
We do need more women in the tech field
Why? Honest question.
For the benefit of the men, of course. But really, everyone would benefit from more integration of more kinds. When businesses more accurately reflect the makeup of the nation, they better serve the nation. Corporations are legal fictions which could not exist without the nation, so they should serve it to some degree.
As to the merits of the interview, that would be making people laugh. And it does... so... you're wrong.
The question is whether enough people who saw it would recommend it to people who hadn't seen it to get this many asses in seats, so that the movie would be successful. This is a question that probably cannot be answered, but I suspect that the answer is actually no. When people come to the theater determined to have a good time, it's more likely that they will, and if they didn't have a good time then the terrists woulda won, by god and all that is holy, et cetera.
You're allowing yourself to get turned off too easily by dirty jokes and violence.
No, I'm turned off easily by crudeness substituted for cleverness, and violence used in lieu of plot. The idea that viewers cannot be arsed to care unless something is exploding and/or someone is dying is insulting.
If you did a Chaplin movie today, everyone would find it very boring and it would be a financial disaster.
And if The Interview were released on its own merits, the same thing would happen.
one of the drivers, the one who killed my niece, and the incident with which I had the greatest level of direct personal involvement, had evidently only had one glass of wine that evening, only further exemplifying the notion that no truly objective standard exists for one to decide if they should be okay to drive or not anyways, so if they moved to a zero tolerance system,
...nobody would ever be allowed to drive, period, because your brain chemistry is variable even without the influence of substances which are acknowledged as drugs. And that does make some sense; if what you want is public safety, then we should eliminate all cars entirely and move to rail-based PRT, which would utterly eliminate most classes of transportation accident.
I'm against the death penalty based on the possibly innocent factor, but the roads must be kept safe for everyone at all hours.
Then they should be converted to rails, because alcohol is a factor in less than a third of accidents. There's just too many reasons why a car can crash. If your goal is safety, then you should ban the car.
Why is that only poor people can drink? I earn close to 6 figures, but I don't drink at all because alcohol is too expensive.
If you're making that much money but can't afford to drink, either you already have expensive hobbies or you've made poor life decisions.
Part of the reason why these machines are so finicky is that they have to be to keep people from gaming the system. The rest, I'll just put down to karma.
The rest is just corruption, and you're okay with that. Which is why you're part of the problem, and not the solution.
Penalizing those of us that walk/cab/transit home from a night out (after leaving the car at home like a responsible human being) is really the best you can think of?
If you're legally intoxicated, then that's against the law.
It's not possible for a patient to be aware of these things in a country where doctors' appointments are 15 minutes or less,
...unless they have internet access. Whoops! Like we all do.
I mean, yes, it's true. And yes, it's interesting. But
Happiness is twin floppies.
