mantraxD

Oh come on, I have one post that's been substantially negatively modded and the little nerd detectives are coming out of their basements to shower me with their investigation insights.

Yes, Sherlock, I have a few accounts, but I do it because the site is so coded that it's easier to make new accounts than to remember my passwords. So sue me.

Why aren't you creating throwaway accounts. Are you here for the achievement badges? Building a legacy? To leave your children one day or something.

I happen to think points are earned so they can be wasted from time to time. It keeps life in balance.

The purpose of me posting is so I can say what I want to say, I don't care about the scores. Most often they're positive, from time to time they're negative. So be it.

And if I wanted to create throwaway accounts, I wouldn't do so with the same name and easily identifiable suffix, so you can then nag me about it, genius.

Those previous accounts all have a positive score, by the way. But since for the first time ever, I was coerced into a rant, I guess this one's a first. I've never went off topic on NewsHackers. You made me do it, so congratulations.

Well there was a complication during his birth that caused extended oxygen deprivation, and he'll never be quite right his entire life. Then people gave him millions worth of their savings. That's what went wrong.

I actually happen to think doing interviews with him, struggling to explain the unexplainable is quite pointless. It's cruel entertainment. It's like asking a baby why are those pants pooped.

Well. It's... it's good he calls it "Summary", because if he called it "Brief" it'd be very ironic, correct?

Like any experienced developer I have a lot of respect for Martin Fowler and his work, but sometimes I wonder if his best skill is saying simple things in many, many, many words.

I know open source folks don't consider branding important, to the point they intentionally give their projects stupid names for the "irony" and so on, but I don't even have this key on my keyboard, and I don't even know how to say this. Mewjee? Mewg? Ug? Come on, folks, you can do better.

Whether you know it or not, this has an actual effect on the ability of the project to spread by word of mouth (online or otherwise), therefore its success and number of contributors it'll get.

The government isn't censoring information here, citizens are.

Any explicit mention of "there is censored information" would mean Google are back in court.

I honestly doubt any big scandal can be hidden by removing it from Google. Scandals spread virally, ear to ear (i.e. social networks, digital or not). This is more useful so embarrassing or false information can't prevent normal folks from getting a job and so on.

It needs to happen more, but there are exactly zero reasons for the U.S. to give a shit about some business Verizon lost in Germany. No taxes go to the U.S., no jobs go to the U.S., and thanks to high taxes, no profits get repatriated in the U.S.

The only one suffering here is Verizon.

Probably if all U.S. based companies suffer enough, they'll start lobbying for change in U.S. but that would have to be some massive wave of upset businesses.

And guess how companies "protest" policies in the U.S. - they pay politicians to lobby for changes. So yeah, the shittier the govt does its job, the more lobbyist money politicians get, funny how it works right?

The more likely situation is the govt keeps not giving a damn, and companies suffer.

Not that Verizon are angels, but notice how all those "government doesn't like another government" passive aggressive actions end up hitting people and companies who have no fault at all for a given government policy.

Case in point, Germany doesn't like what U.S. does - boom, Verizon takes a shot.

U.S. and few other countries don't like the anti-gay laws of Uganda. Boom, poor Uganda citizens take a shot (aids get cut).

U.S. doesn't like North Korea's policy. Boom, poor citizens take one again.

Obviously there's no channel where said governments can express themselves, maybe we should have a social network for governments where they can rant and vent off, instead of having innocent third parties suffer?

What would the benefit of that be?

Don't you know almost every shop tracks you by your CC, and they literally put up fake wireless networks, so they can track your phone MAC address when you walk around a store?

The world on the street is exactly as cynical as the one online. It's the same world. Online it's just easier to track people even more, so they get tracked even more.

So the author thought, "I'll make an article about pro/con lists", but he thought he'd make it sexist and racist while he's at it. That's hilarious.

Couldn't you pick something less controversial, like say, comparing religions, political parties or sports teams?

If machines are flying over your head, would you feel safe going out without a helmet on your head?

Despite all safety measures, you know it'll happen at some point. One of those will fail, its safety will fail and it'll drop on the head of some kid and put it in the hospital.

I can predict immediately that birds and drones colliding will be one of the biggest problems (and it's not something you can fix with frequent tech checkups, as it's not a technical failure, just a fact of life).

Having casualties is the case with cars too, of course, but it's a whole new kind of terror to expect not just cars hitting you coming from the street, but also machines dropping from the sky (where you usually aren't even looking).

I'd take one of those risks, but not both at the same time. I can't look for both at the same time. And I'm not saying "ban them" is the only solution, but this has to be solved somehow.