Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
About 40 years ago Radio Shack was actually a place worth going to for electronic components and tools. As a fledgling electronics hobbyist I was grateful to have somewhere to buy parts, especially after the local TV repair supply store closed, and the nearest alternative was 70 miles away and I didn't drive. Back then Radio Shack's selection was decent, and the prices were high but not terrible. Even their audio equipment was often pretty good too. The stores were popular, and the staff were actually somewhat knowledgeable. (Back then an "electronics store" was a place to buy electronic parts, not TV's and stereos).
Here in Canada, Rat Shack stores became The Sores by Circuit City some time around 2005, but long before that they had become annoying places to shop at, with a poor selection of crappy over-priced components, and arrogant staff who knew far less than they thought they did. On the one hand I'm happy to see the beast put out of its misery, but on the other hand I'm sad to see a company that was so important to me and to my eventual career die such an ignominious death.
Requiescat In Pace, Radio Shack.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
Maybe you're trolling here and I'm taking the bait, but in case you really believe what you wrote, here goes...
"The Government", carriers and the manufacture can shut them down right now. They don't because that would be terrible for a number of reasons.
Although carriers can effectively turn off your phone service, and can possibly even brick your phone if you haven't rooted it and disabled automatic OTA updates, they can't currently wipe it clean remotely. The proposed new 'service' would allow them to do that. And where there's some advertised protection against that happening, there's probably a backdoor, or at least an exploit, that can get around it.
And why shouldn't people who have not been paying there bill have their service turned off*?
Um, maybe they shouldn't be allowed to do that because they have a history of abusing their position to overcharge, automatically opting you in to services which they then charge you for, adding 'mistaken' line items that increase your bill, having really shitty dispute resolution mechanisms, etc. Not only giving carriers the ability to wipe your phone, but having customers actually sign up for and potentially pay for this 'service', further tilts the already unlevel playing field in the carriers' favour.
The media companies is a strawman or fear mongering, I can't tell which.
How is it either of these? Major content providers are on record as being in favour of, (for example), disconnecting subscribers' Internet service for even the suspicion of unauthorized copying.
"And this, ultimately, is the problem with those who keep repeating that we should just trust Bruce Schneier. It implies we should also disengage our brains."
Actually, by pointing out potential problems, asking pointed questions, and challenging the status quo, I think Bruce Schneier is encouraging us to engage our brains.
But other automakers are dragging their feet, both because they're worried about security and because they might face resistance from dealers.
Given that the level of security on OBD2 ports has been utter crap for about two decades now, I doubt the automakers' major concern is security. Even with well-publicized stories about car hacking, auto companies seem to persist in the belief that it will never be a major, widespread threat. It's probably dealer pushback that has them concerned - having a car dealership is a license to steal, and I imagine dealers are very resistant to any change that threatens their ability to charge $500 for 15 minutes' worth of work.
DavidHumus notes "Maybe the bigger question is why is CEO pay so entirely disconnected from company performance?"
No, the bigger question is "Why is CEO pay so entirely disconnected from the value of said CEOs to society as a whole?"
Really, do these people contribute 200, 500, or 1,000 times more to society, (or even to their companies), than the average employee? I'd be willing to bet that, in many cases, CEOs make lesser contributions on all fronts than do regular workers making WAY less money. Sure, CEOs often have greater responsibilities, as well as significant skills and talents. But are they really worth that much in the grand scheme of things?
...that the money for this transaction ultimately comes from all of us. We bought the products and services of the companies whose marketing and advertising rely on Facebook. And those of us who have FB accounts, (along with those of us who don't do our best to stop FB tracking us all over the Web), have made Facebook at least look like it's worth the money those companies hand over to it. That's how Facebook can pay almost a thousand years' of WhatApp's current revenue for the fledgling company.
Allow me to recommend for your reading pleasure this particular squirt from the firehose:
Thanks - I think that's a good idea. I meta-modded it up - unfortunately I have no mod points right now. In any case, I fear Dice is so unamenable to reason that your proposal will fall on deaf ears. I'd love to be wrong though.
Forgive me if I'm repeating something that's already been said in the 2,000+ comments made so far; but doesn't this whole affair sound a lot like Gnome3, Unity, and, to a lesser extent, Windows 8?
The fact that this kind of thing happens over and over and over again, in spite of very well-entrenched and eloquent communities that make their profound opposition abundantly and repeatedly clear, suggests some larger cultural, sociological, and/or psychological element at work. In an immediate sense we need to try to protect Slashdot from those who would turn it into an inferior version of the new Yahoo. (Hard work, that...). But over the longer term, shouldn't we try to figure out what's missing in this kind of equation? Clearly, massive user communities such as those represented by Slashdot, Gnome, Ubuntu, etc, aren't managing to hang their considerable weight on the right levers to steer the leaders/stewards/managers/head honchos of those communities in a mutually beneficial direction.
In short, what are we missing here? Let's figure that out so the next time we go through this we can get a better result, sooner in the process, without all the energy lost to (seemingly ineffective) hand-wringing and breast-beating.
This would be VERY problematic - imagine editing your already-submitted post while somebody else is in the process of commenting on it. There could be a total disconnect between your comment and the reply - very confusing and very uncool.
...my first reply got a reply to which I replied.
I had the same thoughts about an hour ago. I'm not sure if you're experiencing the same thing I did - it's hard to believe that someone with such a low User ID has never come across this before - but FWIW I had to go the bottom of the page and click on "Get xxxx More Comments" to find the comment I posted less than 10 hours ago.
It seems to me that this one topic may just result in the Slashdotting of Slashdot. Quite a feat, actually.
They should take this site and give it a new name. Or get Malda to let them use "Chips & Dips".
Leave everything else intact, archives, user ID database, everything except the name.
Then use the Beta code and start a new site and give it the slashdot.org name, and they can have what they want without the embarrassment of having the current userbase escape from the basement or the attic and offend the sensibilities of the yuppies or hipsters or metrosexuals or whoever it is that they really want for an "audience"."
>Precisely which audience is having problems reading slashdot, on precisely which platform?
The kind of audience that loves the new Yahoo. You know, the people used to web sites designed for those with no discernible attention span. The folks for whom conformity is a comfortable and entirely unconscious reflex. In other words, people who would have no interest in what Slashdot has always been, but who might be enticed to visit a 'lowest common denominator' site and bump up Dice's ad revenue.
Corporations tend to like pliable, compliant audiences who don't cause them any trouble. I'm sure a company like Dice is really uncomfortable dealing with smart people who have strong opinions and can defend them intelligently, logically, and rationally. As long as they believe they can replace existing users as we leave, and add new ones to increase readership, it's entirely possible they don't give a rat's ass about the current community.
It's atrocious. Filled out the survey it's so bad, I never voluntarily fill out surveys!
Yes, it IS atrocious - I was unable to even post a comment in Beta. Had to go back to Classic for posting to work.
Thanks for the survey link - I didn't really want to email the bastards, so a few minutes ago I gave 'em hell on the survey instead.