5,121 karma · joined August 8, 2012
Yeah, it sucks when someone comes armed with facts, doesn't it?
It's a shame that your argument fails in the first sentence.
If you don't like that, then perhaps you can unsubscribe from places where people don't want to put up with this kind of behaviour.
I'm assuming the reference is to literally targeting a single person, but how much money can they make selling the 'whale' these additional IAP items, compared to the effort involved in having to research him and create them?
"You will receive a perpetual fallback license once you pay for a year up front or 12 consecutive months."
This is good news - they've listened to their customers and alleviated the key concern - losing access.
"The court ruling said: "The fact that the workers begin and finish the journeys at their homes stems directly from the decision of their employer to abolish the regional offices and not from the desire of the workers themselves."
So, the closure of the office seems to be highly relevant.
However, I cannot subscribe under the new terms, and keep using the software if I decide to stop subscribing. Earlier in this thread you suggested that we could subscribe for a month and keep using the software afterwards. This is incorrect. Once you stop subscribing, you lose the rights to use the software
I'm actually disappointed that JetBrains are trying to spin this as a net positive for most folk, when it seems clear that it isn't.
However, from November, that will no longer be possible. If Jetbrains decides, in 2016, to increase the license fee to $300 per year, or $500, then we will have 2 options: Pay it and continue to have access, or don't pay, and lose all access to the tools, despite the fact that we have already given you money. If I have a cashflow problem, I can no longer decide to stay with last year's version for a while, instead I lose access.
I'm sure you know this, I'm sure everyone at JetBrains knows this.
> Absent a traffic violation, so far as can be gleaned from this record, the only visible attribute of Parker and her passengers that might have distinguished them from other motorists turning on Methodist Parkway was they are all African Americans. There simply is no other distinguishing thing that can be surmised.
No, the root problem is that a police officer decided to unconstitutionally stop a car with 3 African Americans, because they had committed the crime of being African American.
And perhaps this is the first step in that process.
Once you do that, I'll try and explain (mansplain if necessary) how a play of 2 lines and 1 act is probably not a very serious response.
Brilliant mansplaining though!
"Hey Coliin, I've been chatting with a couple of people, and I've got a concern about my salary"
"You're fired"
The End