All that Google did here is implement a fifteen year-old RFC. As Benny Hill would've said: "Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig
This is nothing earth-shattering. I coded an unsubscribe link in sqwebmail, for exactly the same thing, circa 7-8 years ago (too lazy to trawl a bunch of dusty CVS logs to get an exact date). Really, every time Google goes ahead and does something related to an obscure, unimportant RFC, it's front page news, these days.
Slashdot users are extremely unhappy with the new Slashdot Beta design. The comment section of every single post is devoted to dissatisfaction with the new design.
... ... The thing to keep in mind about community sites devoted to user generated content is that the users generate the content.
Link to Original Source
Will slashdot alienate existing users of the site and keep pushing the beta OR will it keep the users and boot the beta?"
Agreed that beta blows chunks. It's nothing more than change for the sake of change. It doesn't add any more features, it nothing but eye candy. Well, it's intended to be eye candy, but the problem is that eye candy is in the eye of the beholder. I challenge anyone to find any actual change in beta that's not eye candy.
Having said that, I'm going to demand my money back. Oh wait...
Thinking about this situation, a bit: as much as it sucks, I see no reason to really get excited about it. It's not like I'm paying for this shit. I looked at that eyesore briefly. and I figure this: if, and when, its the only way to waste time, around here, if I find that I can live with it, I'll live. If not, I'll find some other place to waste some time on. I've got plenty of stuff bookmarked. Dropping one entry won't make much of a difference, in the grand scheme of things.
I do agree that the "99% versus the 1%" movement in American politics has some striking historical parallels. However, I don't think that Nazi Germany is the best comparison. A more appropriate historical equivalent would be the Bolshevik/Communist movement that culminated in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolshevik_Revolution).
The contemporary rhetoric from the left wing of America politics: i.e. "the 1%", "make the rich pay their fair share", etc... Is nearly word-for-word the same rhetoric heard on the streets of Russia, adjusted for a century's worth of elapsed history, urging the "proletariat", the working people to rally against the "bourgeoisie", i.e. the rich, and the "kulaks", the ultra-rich. Led by the Bolshevik movement, it culminated in the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. The word "Bolshevik" is directly translated as "ones belong to the majority". In other words, "the 99%". All the great unwashed I saw on the boob tube at various "Occupy " events, in the last couple of years, are the sons and daughters of the Bolsheviks a century ago. Whether they realize it, or not.
Actually what Reagan said was: "My fellow Americans, today I've signed legislation that outlaws the state of Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."
That's how a real leader sounds, instead of President "I don't know/I had no idea/Nobody told me".
Well why should the President know about most of this? If some guy in shipping fucks up your order, are you shocked when the CEO of the company isn't personally aware of the status of your package?
Splendid. So, when "some guy in shipping fucked up", and told that president that Iraq has obtained weapons of mass destructions; and the president went ahead and made some decisions based on that information which later turned out to be wrong -- when that happened, I'm sure you were also defending the president, because he was only acting on the information he received from his subordinates.
That's what his Secretaries of State are for.
I'm genuinely curious: when the president's cabinet, which includes the Sec Of State, and other Cabinet members, informed the president that Iraq has obtained weapons of mass destruction; and the president acted on that information which later turned out to be wrong -- when that happened, were you also defending the president because he was merely acting on the information that he god from his subordinates, and "that's what his secretaries of state are for?
A textbook example of the Limbaugh Doctrine. For those of you in Rio Linda, CA: the Limbaugh Doctrine states the president had absolutely no idea that something bad was going on, he's just as shocked as everyone else, at the turn of events, but he's going to put a stop to it.
The president had absolutely no clue how big of the train wreck the healthcare.gov web site was going to be, until the day of the launch. As far he knew, everything was going just fine, and he was just as shocked as everyone else, how big of a botch it turned out to be.
The president had no idea that the IRS was harassing his political opponents. He read about it in the papers, when the story broke.
The president did not know that our troops on the ground in Libya called for help several times, when the barbarians attacked the Benghazian embassy, but someone in the military chain of command told them to stand down, and that no help was forthcoming. The president found that out only after the fact.
The president did not know that the Dept. Of Justice was sending illegal firearms to Mexican drug gangs. He was shocked, just shocked, to find out about it, in the papers.
Etc... etc... The president never has any idea what's going on in his administration. Who's running the government anyway?
Although my phone is unlocked, if it weren't, and it got unlocked, my choice of a wireless carrier will increase by exactly one carrier. As Benny Hill would've said: biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig
I'm just curious if anyone in the administration actually knows that US wireless companies use different, incompatible technologies. A phone that works on one carrier would, at most, have a chance of working on only one other carrier, and would, most likely, lack the ability to take advantage of the additional carrier's full spectrum, resulting in degraded service.
Here comes step 2:
We'll beam him cheesy movies,
The worst we can find.
It'll have to receive and record them all,
And we'll monitor his hard drive.
And because our robot can't control
Where the movies begin or end.
It'll try to have enough free disk space
With the help of its human friends.
Following the link to TFA, I find myself reading a few pages on some nobody's personal blog, where he fan-wanks off in some general what-if idle speculation.
And the esteemed
"Edward Snowden Files For Political Asylum In Russia"
That was yesterday's news, sorry. Today's news, is that he's not.