Re: Why..
Because they like the control of the agency model. It doesn't "devalue" their product more than the publisher is happy with, and they get a bigger cut of the shelf price.
2434 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Jan 2007
I liked the movies.
But the Problem with Peter is he's too much of a dreamer. He talks up his new projects when he's still in his "dreaming" phase, only for them to be hit with cold hard reality later; so we're left with a product that overpromised, and underdelivered....
Yes Terra, because we all know that nothing illegal ever happens.
This is just an extra check, just like the prompt/alarm that appears on some POS terminals when someone tries to buy an age restricted product at the moment. This is just a way to prevent the merchant getting money for an illegal sale.
Why on a PC do I only have 2 window size choices - full and half? I thought that was fixes in Windows 2.
Why on a PC is a supposedly better start menu less efficient at using space?
If its not that big of a deal, let MS admit defeat and make it optional.
"the goal is to terminate under-performing ministers "objectively", using "data". The app isn't news, but the thinking behind it is"
What is the new concept, PMs using "Data"? Sir Humphrey has been supplying the PM all the data PMs need for generations - he even makes sure to leave out the irrelevant bits (not to sway the PMs opinion of course, just to be helpful...).
I disagree there, that business location wouldn't work outside the US was a pretty well known fact - it wasn't kept secret. This was simply raised by a chancer.
And who is to say that they aren't spending the money to make it work? I imagine theres a fair bit of database creation required to make it work, there might be licensing issues to get someone else's data, etc.
"I would expect any government which suffered a data breach to attempt to indict those responsible for the breach"
---
Great, lets start with the guy who thinks its a good idea to send a mentally usnstable man on the fast track to a discharge because of his behaviour into a position where he gets to handle sensitive information.
When his caseworker says he should be out and not deployed and is so outraged when they find out about it they start yelling at the folks in charge, then Matt yes, I think scraping the bottom of the barrell is the only logical explanation.
Dress it up however you like - every expert on manning said bad idea. You ignore the experts, you deserve what you get.
I did think about the situation Matt.
Everyone who knew this kid said BAD IDEA.
You can scream manpower shortages all you like, you put someone with issues in a sensitive position that all of the experts say he shouldn't be in, you reap what you sow.
Surely there was someone else, at home, in a less sensitive position that manning could have subbed for. Someone who wanted to be there, was wanted by the army, and was willing and able to do the job.
Was it wrong?
Is it really that wrong for us to know what the is military is up to?
Is it really that wrong for us to know that for all their tech they can't tell the difference between a video camera, and multiple ak47s and RPGs?
So the fact that the US army sent someone they knew wasn't up to the job to war and put him in possession of classified materials doesn't bother you at all?
Cos it sure as hell bothers me. If they put someone like that in charge of their secrets, how crazy is the guy who fires the mislsles?
You mean "Emotionally troubled and everyone should have listened to his case worker when he was in the discharge unit". He was unfit for service, and definitely unfit to be deployed.
At the end of the day, this is moral retribution to the US AFAIK. They need to review their recruitment and retention policies.