I love their fries.
Maybe he typed it on an iPhone.
No, because I don't get my historical information from fictional films. I watched a fictional movie last year about giant robots landing on the moon but I didn't get upset at Hollywood for claiming that giant robots beat us there. Only a moron gets angry at a fiction writer for writing fiction. Now, if you had said "Ken Burns made a WW2 documentary and got the following facts wrong..." Then yes, I would say you had a legitimate gripe at Ken Burns (and not at "Hollywood"), but I would just tell you to stop watching Ken Burns films.
The whole argument that "Hollywood" always gets history wrong in favor of the Americans when making fictional films is just petty jingoistic whining. If it really bothers you that much, go make your own films and set the record straight.
>And when Americans make movies, three British sailors of whom two died getting secret materials out of a sinking German U-Boot suddenly become Americans!
You know that wasn't a documentary, right?
The Fifth Amendment would like to interject, please.
Scammers, by definition, do not follow the law. What makes you think they'd concern themselves with something as petty as a Do No call law?
And yes, you should consider yourself lucky. These kinds of calls are becoming more frequent and MUCH more aggressive. I had one scammer call me back over a hundred times in one day when I hung up on him. I eventually just routed all incoming calls to my fax machine.
HIPAA, PCI, Sarbanes Oxley, Et. al. I'm seeing more and more call to implement ways to control data in the age of bring-your-own-device and mobile workforces. If a company can let a user work from the coffee shop but still keep the actual data inside the datacenter, then a thin-client solution becomes more and more attractive.
When pay TV was first launched, it was with the promise of commercial-free content. That didn't last long. When satellite radio was launched, it was with the promise of commercial-free content. That didn't last long. Subscription-based streaming TV shows (like Hulu Plus)? That didn't last long.
Once you're used to paying extra for the service, the money grubbers will be back. It's inevitable.
I will sacrifice storage for RAM any day of the week and twice on Sunday. I cannot fathom why portables continue to be shafted with an anaemic 2GB (4 if you're very lucky) of RAM. Memory isn't that expensive these days, but holy crap does the OS run better with 6 or 8GB.
My last one was an 11.1" netbook with 8GB. I bought it because it was the only netbook with 8GB, which meant I could run Windows 7 and also one or more applications AT THE SAME TIME!. It has served me far better than any 15" laptop I ever had. It's going to suck trying to find an adequate replacement when this one croaks.
But that wasn't the question. The question was "Would you pay for a website without trolls?" and my response was that it's not possible.
Why are the only choices perfect moderation or no moderation?
Go back and re-read the whole conversation. People are astonishingly good at trolling. If you can't definitively identify them, they will ALWAYS find that rule loophole that enables them to troll. It's practically axiomatic.
100% perfect black-and-white rules are almost never possible for anything.
Yes, that was exactly my point. When you are trying to define and identify trolls, you have to be 100% or the entire exercise is pointless. If you don't believe me, try moderating a message board sometime.
If they can followup and support their arguments logically, then they're either not a troll or it doesn't matter.
Ok, so a troll always presents an argument? They never just "ask an innocent question"? And, by your definition, all posters must post at least twice since they must "follow up" or they're automatically a troll. Do you see why it's so hard to create a 100% black-and-white set of rules that is always effective in identifying a troll? You've presented one possible identifier of a troll but there are dozens or even thousands of ways that someone can troll.
If they asked you to CC them or if they're in a position where they're likely to need those CC's, then perhaps they'll opt not to use the optional system being discussed.
Troll is a person posting an inflammatory message with the deliberate intent of exciting readers into a controversial response. This is the exact definition.
But the word is misused a lot, indeed. For example, just writing hateful comments, or messages with disinformation, is not trolling.
And that's exactly my point. How do you prove "intent" on a message board? You have to be able to have black-and-white rules that say "This guy is posting a different and unpopular opinion but that guy is trying to stir up trouble." Those rules have to apply one hundred percent of the time because people are REALLY REALLY good at hiding intent and playing innocent when they're serious about trolling. In fact, the internet generally applauds the "masterful troll" who can hook as many people as possible. For all you know, I'm trolling you right now by leading you down a conversational path to an as-yet undisclosed end-game. There's just no way to know and that's why it's so hard to put a stop to it.