I don't know why Uber is complaining. All they need to do, after all, is to recruit drivers with a commercial license; require the vehicles to comply to commercial safety standards; and provide the needed insurance. It's not as if the deck is stacked against them - the other services they compete against all follow the same rules.

For my part as a potential user, liability is the real issue. I would never risk taking a car service where I'm not fully covered in the case of an accident. It's not just medical and other costs for myself; if the driver is not licensed you, as the one paying for the ride, may be regarded as co-responsible if your driver caused the accident in the first place. You want to risk hundreds of thousands of Euro in damages to save a few bucks on a taxi ride?

The basic complaint of the poster seems to be that in a store of hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of titles, only a very small number ever get discovered and successful. Huge numbers of very worthy apps never get a chance.

That problem can't be solved by any reasonable reorganization. We users (I use the Play store, but the same situation applies) have only so many minutes of time to spend looking for and using new stuff. However you make new apps visible to users, you're punishing apps that would have been visible otherwise. Competing for user attention time is a zero-sum game.

The Play store "people you know" ratings are surprisingly helpful. Unlike general user ratings this is not easy to game by the developers. But of course, those people may only have tested that one app because it was already more popular already.

I guess the only way to really fix it is to show each user only a random 0.1% subset of all apps. That would give every app a good chance of being seen and tried. But it would rather annoy all those people looking for irritated avians and not finding them.

Of course. I don't suggest my experience is typical. But I hear the same thing from other places. My wife is a freelancer, so we have a fax machine at home, but again, it is almost never used any longer. She only has it in case some client still want to use it over email. I suspect - and this is of course just my own supposition, nothing else - that people now buy fax machines only to be covered for the rare case of doing business with a technical laggard, not as a daily office tool.

The only thing that made me think of Ender's Game was the word "preteen". Using video games to train/recruit soldiers always makes me think of The Last Starfighter.

Absolutely. There are many advantages to this approach:
* Users can get info they need more quickly as they are already in the correct context to get help on that feature, and don't have to search a document.
* Users are more likely to use integrated help than a huge user manual, saving you support time.
* It is easier to enforce a policy of updating documentation when you update code.

The only thing your separate documentation needs to cover are high-level concepts of the application, and common HOWTOs. If you must have a monolithic reference document, then use a system like docbook that generates HTML and PDF, and integrate HTML help into your application.

Of course this is assuming that these are GUI apps. Server apps or anything that needs configuration outside of a GUI must have full reference documentation.

Stamping documents is seen as a way to say "I have checked this" or "I endorse this", and because you can't stamp an email or text message they print, stamp and fax documents.

I'm working in Japan, and while I almost never get or send a fax any more (it must be years now), it's decently common to send and receive PDF scans over email. In fact, sometimes you need to print out the scan, add your stamp, re-scan and send it back. I do - want to print a reference copy for myself anyhow - but I suspect some people simply add their stamp graphic to the document directly.

That depends. The "filter AAAA on ipv4" option is quite new in bind 9, and probably not available on the majority of DNS installations out there.
My guess is that a majority of ISPs will gladly send IPv4 clients the AAAA records. Which, in my opinion, is a good thing. Just because the query goes through IPv4 doesn't necessarily mean a client doesn't have IPv6.

Why is this "insightful"? By the time the spam is processed by the trap and is blacklisted, the million e-mails have already been delivered.
The next time the spammer sends e-mail, it will be a different e-mail, so the existing rule won't trigger.

The only real effect this has is adding fat to the spam checkers, making mail delivery slower for everyone. Except the spammer.

Wives are like PCs. If you need one, you need several. And you can always hack someone else's to use.

Right, it is irrelevant for the spammer. He's not using his own resources. Whether he sends e-mail to a million real and a million fake addresses, or to a million real and two million fake ones does not matter.

What's "peak stupid" here is the submitter not understanding how spamming works before posting on it.

Once their OS is told that www.google.com has internet address 2607:f8b0:4009:805::1010, they sure do.
Or once their ISP switches to IPv6.

What's sad is that slashdot.org does not have an AAAA address.
News for whom?
Stuff that what?

Just tried it a little. And it really seems to work flawlessly. Smooth graphics and gameplay, and music and sound effects come through just fine. And it's a very nice abstract game too; reminds me more than a little of Osmos in both style and pacing.

That's a Hobson's choice as far as the call goes.
Given that for many of their services, you cannot do them though the web site or e-mail, that's a showstopper. They've pretty much responded with "you have to call us for that" whenever I needed something done and tried to do it online.
If you're disabled or without transportation to get you to an office, that pretty much leaves you with no options at all.