Whatever it is, we have been dealing with this and a host of other issues from them for years.

Absolutely love the boards, and some of the staff is really cool, but the company really is abusive when it comes to this sort of stuff.

Why not put all motorized transportation underground? Trains go the deepest, then cars so they can access the first level of buildings and out-of-the-city roads. Bicycles and pedestrians on the surface.

I would pay considerably more than "£5 a month" for iPlayer (BBC streaming) outside of the UK.

Toys use batteries. Tools plug into the wall.

Schooling time

I am disappointed at the quality of open source software - especially pieces as famous and fundamental as OpenSSL, and I agree, that open source's claimed advantage of there being "thousands of eyeballs" verifying its correctness is overblown.

I cant decide - am I looking at an intentional misrepresentation, or a facepalm-worthy senior moment? Linus' Law had nothing to do with verifying code. From Wikipedia,

The law states that "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"; or more formally: "Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix will be obvious to someone."

I _was_ going to say, "I can't imagine blocking such a product would increase RIM's market share. All this does is make people hate Blackberries even more."

But then I saw what it looks like. It's a freaking Blackberry keyboard rip off! At least take the time to design something a LITTLE new, guys.

gstoddart wrote,

Yeah, yeah, offtopic because I didn't say 'fuck beta' ... I'm just tired of the nerd rage, it gets old after a while.

As long as beta is on the table, nerd anger is appropriate.

No, there isn't a saying.
The tradition in law is that the existence of an exception may be used to infer a rule - e.g. "No Parking: 4pm - 6pm" means that parking IS permitted at other times. Mr. Torvalds may be considered unusual, but his efforts are not part of (or exception to) any rule I can think of, except maybe "being polite and rude consistently gest things done in the long term"

Putting a name behind it should have no influence on the validity of the case being made. Most people can't tell BS from truth on this topic, but they can usually spot a personal attack, like the one I'm going to make on you because you're advocating polluted discourse. So fuck you, you fucking fuck.

There, I stooped to your level for a moment. I'm not proud, but you can't call me on it without dissing your own worthless argument. Now, back to rational discussion: Where did the AC lie?

Opportunity - one free with any internet connection, two if you ever leave your house.

Where is the "+1, Sad" moderation when you need it?

Your guess is far wide of the mark. The styrofoam in conventional bicycle helmets is designed to collapse once. While the size may not change much, the crush absorption is gone. It is for this reason they are discarded after an impact.

No. Argument ad homenium is not needed.

It's got nothing to do with the arrogance or competence of the builders. GUIs tend to suck at automation because of the assumption that each interface, when presented, shall be manipulated by a human. This assumption is a reasonable one, and destroys automation before you start - the best you can hope for is applying the presented default after a timeout period, which makes for exceptionally slow progress. Automation that needs constant human intervention is (and I'll be kind here) not automation.

I see no hypocrisy - the page was never intended to be static text with no records outside of access.log. Javascript is not presented as a bad idea, but a frequently used piledriver where paperweights normally suffice. The claw hammer on that page seems appropriate.