CfC successfully raised the anchor of the price a used car should command. It takes time for an anchor to lose effect even if its cause is no longer in force.
After some major disasters, airline disaster begged the governments to regulate them so that users could trust them again. Otherwise in "free market" there is no way new airlines can be blocked from taking some risks with users' safety for saving a few bucks and thus scare users into avoiding ALL airlines.
Advertisers know there are bad apples in the lot, their own brethren. They don't do anything to protect the user. So they are distrusted. So Adblock.
If they want to get back into users' trust, it is their job to figure out how. But taking a leaf out of airlines' book would at least be considered an attempt to win back trust.
Before you dismiss these as dissimilar cases, think this.
Use of a typical advertisement poses a lot less risk than an airline - chance of computer infection vs dying in a fireball. Discontinuation of the use of an advertisement is also a lot easier than that of an airline - installing adblock once vs travelling 5-10 times slower. The ratio of "ease of avoidance" vs "value" is not very different between airlines and advertisements.
Then let the people who want to create angst and false drama create angst and false drama. Why the angst and false drama from you?
It is simple concept, really.
Ya know what is sad? Its the fact nobody can even talk about fucking DESKTOPS here without some FOSSies trying to move the goalposts
Actually people can talk about fucking DESKTOPS, if they fucking make it clear they are talking about fucking DESKTOPS. If you see the your post which you thought was talking about fucking DESKTOPS, it didn't fucking mention fucking DESKTOPS. Its parent didn't, nor grandparent. Grandparent's grandparent mentioned
Linux on all supercomputers, here on slashdot, Google, Amazon, The International Space Station, world governments, Android (eys, it's Linux) on the best phones, etc
- the only post in the ancestry of your post to define any context at all.
TFS and TFA also don't limit themselves to desktops. So it was you who fucking moved the fucking goalposts.
Without looking at it, how can you figure out it is an advertisement or a caution / direction sign / legal announcement / public service announcement? You cannot.
Once you do look at it and it turns out to be an advertisement, you can continue your earlier thought process but your attention has been stolen from you, however little you value it.
You must daydream to be able to live with your own arrogant ignorance.
You could have admitted your ignorance directly. This will also do.
Yes, but the one being discussed here is not really back-to-back. The *middle* seat faces backwards, windows and aisle seat face towards the front.
So everyone looks at the top of the head of the ahole who reclined into your lap, and also exchange sympathetic looks with other people in similar predicament.
No, you just can't admit that you were wrong about law doing almost as much harm to criminals as the criminal did to the victim.
Awesome, the "competent " guy who is afraid of facts!
Proof by false authority. Good defence against facts, unfortunately facts cannot be beaten. Facts are on my side.
If not, give examples where law does as much (or more) harm to the criminal as the criminal did to his victim. For every such example, I can give 2 where law does far less to the the criminal than the criminal did to the victim.
I already gave some examples in my earlier posts in this same thread. You gave none, the hypothetical ones are false which you didn't even bother to defend so you know that they are false. A competent person does not have to plead to get their competence acknowledged, competence is evident from their arguments. It is missing from yours, though.
History and law includes law. Law includes last century of law, at least includes current law. In which you woefully misinformed as I pointed out. Then how does citing Roman law validate any of your statements?
It didn't validate your position in any relevant way because :
1. Your original point was about the present, not a distant past
2. My dispute was also about the last century of western law practice, as I mentioned adequately in my initial post about it.
I prefer my stubborn and right to your stubborn and wilfully-ignorant-even-after-proven-wrong.
Glad that you are accepting that your comment amounts to complaining about WESTERN Roman empire TODAY.