Slashdot Mirror

The patent in question, 9,535,490 is not nearly a "technology", though. If I skimmed it correctly, it amounts to basically this:

To save power, the device talking to the cellular modem should collect data for a period of time, and then send it as soon as the timer expires or when the cellular modem provides data in the other direction, whichever comes first, to reduce the number of times you have to power up the modem.

And for that trivial idea, Qualcomm wants $13 per device.

I'll let you ponder how bonkers this is for just a moment before noting that the patent in question also appears to basically be nothing more than an "on a cellular modem" version of Intel's 20100241880 Ethernet power management patent.

So not only is the idea trivial, it wasn't even original. Either:

• This idea is so obvious that it should not have been awarded a patent in the first place, having been "invented" by two unrelated people working on unrelated technologies within a few years of each other who probably knew nothing about each other's work, or
• Qualcomm knew that this management technique worked in for Ethernet, and decided to reword the idea in a way that would make it hard to spot using simple text searches and file a patent on its use with cellular modems.

Either way, IMO, they're using what should be an invalid patent to extort the entire industry.

F**k Qualcomm.

The patent in question, 9,535,490 is not nearly a "technology", though. If I skimmed it correctly, it amounts to basically this:

To save power, the device talking to the cellular modem should collect data for a period of time, and then send it as soon as the timer expires or when the cellular modem provides data in the other direction, whichever comes first, to reduce the number of times you have to power up the modem.

And for that trivial idea, Qualcomm wants $13 per device.

I'll let you ponder how bonkers this is for just a moment before noting that the patent in question also appears to basically be nothing more than an "on a cellular modem" version of Intel's 20100241880 Ethernet power management patent.

So not only is the idea trivial, it wasn't even original. Either:

• This idea is so obvious that it should not have been awarded a patent in the first place, having been "invented" by two unrelated people working on unrelated technologies within a few years of each other who probably knew nothing about each other's work, or
• Qualcomm knew that this management technique worked in for Ethernet, and decided to reword the idea in a way that would make it hard to spot using simple text searches and file a patent on its use with cellular modems.

Either way, IMO, they're using what should be an invalid patent to extort the entire industry.

F**k Qualcomm.

Ninety years ago, companies were figuring this out.

Nixon ran with it 65 years ago.

But, what a CRAAZY idea, am I right?

"News for Nerds, Stuff that matters" I seem to have heard that around here once upon a time. Stereotypical nerds are interested in comics.

On a different front, these guys probably didn't want the competition.
Tthe R. Crumb book of Genesis came too late for poor little Sheldon Cooper.

I assume you searched in Google Ngram.
https://books.google.com/ngram...

If you search "set in stone", it appears that usage is a latter day idiom.
But, here is the secret to this conundrum. Language and idioms change - shift, migrate, morph - similar but slightly evolved words to express the same idea.

The inherent idea is that something is immutable, indelible, unerasable, uneditable, irrevocable. It is predicated on the idea that you can write, sketch, mockup, proof all you want and still make corrections, like hitting the preview and edit buttons on a Slashdot post, but once you hit submit, your words are eternal, just like when the stone carver finally etches the words into a stele or tombstone.

Writers write. Typographers set. Artists etch. Stone carvers carve. Through history, all such variations have been used. But since carvers carve, one might think that the classical idiom is carved in stone, with the other variations being corrupted forms based on more modern communication paradigms.

So, do what I did. Too bad I cannot post a screen capture, but you can do this yourself.
Go to Google Ngram Viewer.
Enter (copy-paste) the following line in the search box:

carved in stone,written in stone,set in stone,etched in stone

"Carved in stone" is abundant, going back well before 1800.
The other three have arisen just in recent decades.
So, prior generations used the idiom correctly. Recent generations have used analogous but technically incorrect variants.
Collectively, "written, etched, set" were originally just a tiny fraction of the whole, but recently their usage is rising. This means that current generations have either forgotten the true idiom, have gotten sloppy, or have fallen into a wave of rhetorical monkey-see monkey-do copycat-ism or fadism.

Something else interesting.
The "written, etched, set" curves are quite congruent, all showing a rapid uprise starting 1970,then an inflection circa 1990, and now topping out, with "set in stone" becoming asymptotic with or equal to "carved in stone", thus the dominant modern transmigration of the idiom. The "written, etched, set" curves are the classical sigmoidal curves of the Verhulst equation of population dynamics. These curves imply that usage of these variant terms is reaching population saturation, each term in its own camp, with non-traditional verbiage having overtaken classical verbiage.

So, Google is not broken, in fact could be a rather clever historical research tool.

https://books.google.com/ngram...

I assume you searched in Google Ngram.
https://books.google.com/ngram...

If you search "set in stone", it appears that usage is a latter day idiom.
But, here is the secret to this conundrum. Language and idioms change - shift, migrate, morph - similar but slightly evolved words to express the same idea.

The inherent idea is that something is immutable, indelible, unerasable, uneditable, irrevocable. It is predicated on the idea that you can write, sketch, mockup, proof all you want and still make corrections, like hitting the preview and edit buttons on a Slashdot post, but once you hit submit, your words are eternal, just like when the stone carver finally etches the words into a stele or tombstone.

Writers write. Typographers set. Artists etch. Stone carvers carve. Through history, all such variations have been used. But since carvers carve, one might think that the classical idiom is carved in stone, with the other variations being corrupted forms based on more modern communication paradigms.

So, do what I did. Too bad I cannot post a screen capture, but you can do this yourself.
Go to Google Ngram Viewer.
Enter (copy-paste) the following line in the search box:

carved in stone,written in stone,set in stone,etched in stone

"Carved in stone" is abundant, going back well before 1800.
The other three have arisen just in recent decades.
So, prior generations used the idiom correctly. Recent generations have used analogous but technically incorrect variants.
Collectively, "written, etched, set" were originally just a tiny fraction of the whole, but recently their usage is rising. This means that current generations have either forgotten the true idiom, have gotten sloppy, or have fallen into a wave of rhetorical monkey-see monkey-do copycat-ism or fadism.

Something else interesting.
The "written, etched, set" curves are quite congruent, all showing a rapid uprise starting 1970,then an inflection circa 1990, and now topping out, with "set in stone" becoming asymptotic with or equal to "carved in stone", thus the dominant modern transmigration of the idiom. The "written, etched, set" curves are the classical sigmoidal curves of the Verhulst equation of population dynamics. These curves imply that usage of these variant terms is reaching population saturation, each term in its own camp, with non-traditional verbiage having overtaken classical verbiage.

So, Google is not broken, in fact could be a rather clever historical research tool.

https://books.google.com/ngram...

> Scripting languages, basically do not do threading, of any kind, at all. They're too slow to synchronize across threads, which makes invoking threads inside them fruitless

Bullshit. You CAN do asynchronously loading of assets with JavaScript.

From d3wasm

I did a couple of changes to the idTech 4 engine in order to be able to start the game before all the data have been loaded. So, along with the initial 5MB executable download, there is a first 15MB download to fetch only what is necessary to load the game engine and enter the main menu. Then, the remaining ~380MB are fetched asynchronously.

> While you certainly can write an application or game with a scripting language, it will be slow, it will be limited by the operating system's own libraries (eg 32-bit libraries on a 64-bit OS as just one example) and generally require more maintenance than simply writing it in C to begin with.

I prefer C/C++ myself but you don't know what the fuck you are talking about W.R.T games and scripting:

1. You DO realize that there is a WIDE variety of games from "idle games" and simple puzzle games to full blown First Person Shooters right?

Are you telling me the JavaScript implementation of 2048, xkcd Sand Castle Builder, or Cookie Clicker is slow??

2. You DO realize you can "transpile" C/C++ code into JavaScript right, such as Doom 3, using Emscripten right?

Or how about RollerCoaster Tycoon? Here OpenRCT2 was ported to run inside a browser.

> yet GPU's APIs have standardized more or less on just four API's, OpenGL, Direct3D, Vulkan, and WebGL.

FTFY.

WebGL exists to offload rendering to the GPU inside the browser. There are TONS of playable WebGL Games

3. Lastly, Unity can target WebGL

Wrap the word in quotes.

There's a basic list of search syntax at the below link, however you can find far more if you search "google search syntax".
https://support.google.com/web...

jellomizer opined:

Google is a good search tool, but it isn't a research tool.

Google begs to differ ...

Let me guess, the actual issue is some overly broad software patent.

He scans barcodes on mail and looks up a database.

Umm what?

subsets of evangelicals such as calvinists

a literal requirement of a 6000 year old world

Noahs flood happened

everything else, exactly as described

to arrive at proof of their own personal salvation and the damnation of others, and these are so irreconcilably falsified by science, evolution, etc, that clearly either their beliefs or science must be utterly wrong.

I am not certain why you think of of the things you listed makes someone a Calvinist, but Calvinists tend to be some of the most logical, rational and academically sound theologians out there. I think you may be thinking of Theonomists, which claim to be Calvinists, but Calvinists abjure Theonomy and it is considered as a Heresy.

For the record, Calvinism requires on read scripture literally, not literalistically. This means poetry is treated as poetry, history as history, a metaphor as a well metaphor. Try reading a single article from Turretin's Institutes of Elenctic Theology. It was one of the first systematic christian theologies

Thanks for you feeback. This is my website Phong Kham Da Khoa Hien Dai

Happened here in the Netherlands. And yes, many people were outraged even if officials insisted it was only a friendly warning about possible consequences if things actually got out of hand. Article (from Google Translate)

Dance *moves* cannot be copyrighted.

But, if a device is invented for a move it can be patented.

> Do you really think Avatar, Jurassic World 2, Incredibles 2, and Fast & Furios 14 are anywhere as good, impactful, or significant as Jaws, Star Wars, ET, The Lion King, etc.?

Quit trying to move the goal posts. The OP argument was "Cameron produces shit." I called the AC out with "WHY?"

Getting this back on topic: Were you not paying ANY attention to the impact of Avatar??? Despite having a shallow story it definitely had a social impact:

1. "Avatar depression" shows lots of people were effected -- can you name any other movie that had this effect?
2. It's high box office performance is proof that A LOT people went to see it, and
3. As a result it got a lot people talking about the environment, sustainability, and how we are currently (mis)managing the planet in the name of greed.

Avatar had a deeper layer to it. The "tech" angle is a red herring to its popularity. People who say Avatar was shit are generally clueless about its META narrative as I discussed before.

SW:TLJ, ranked at #11, proof that Quantity != Quality, ALSO got lot of people talking -- specifically at how shitty it was. There have been numerous YouTube reviews dissecting and analyzing it to death such as Maulers, Wisecrack , MisAnthro Pony, etc. It ALSO had an impact on Han Solo and FUTURE Star Wars movies in the franchise. i.e. This one movie potentially killed Star Wars for good -- MANY fans have given up on Disney.

> gross sales don't mean shit

Doesn't change the fact that popular movies are having an impact on culture and on what kind of (future) movies get made. Usually, formulaic ones. :-/ So yeah, popular movies "matter."

The real question is: Will any of these popular movies have any LASTING impact? That remains to be seen. Most of them will probably be forgotten in 40 years as most of them are shallow, mindless violence with little substance.

For convenience here is a list of the movies:

1. Avatar, $2,787,965,087
2. Titanic, $2,187,463,944
3. Star Wars: The Force Awakens, $2,068,223,624
4. Avengers: Infinity War, $2,048,359,754
5. Jurassic World, $1,671,713,208
6. The Avengers, $1,518,812,988
7. Furious 7, $1,516,045,911
8. Avengers: Age of Ultron, $1,405,403,694
9. Black Panther, $1,346,913,161
10. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows â" Part 2, $1,341,511,219
11. Star Wars: The Last Jedi, $1,332,539,889
12. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, $1,309,484,461
13. Frozen, $1,290,000,000
14. Beauty and the Beast, $1,263,521,126
15. Incredibles 2 film currently playing, $1,242,808,192

The argument was NEVER "Popular movies good" but I provided a counter argument to "Avatar is shit and has no impact".

> are anywhere as good

Who claimed they were good???

Did you ignore the part where I said:

Was Avatar formulaic? Yes, extremely derivative.

Maybe worth mentioning: https://sites.google.com/site/...

I believe you meant morons...I don't know what a moran is.

Get a Brain, AC!

and yet they still voted in a dumbass. studies can go fuck themselves in the ass.

Well, when the alternative is a corrupt, unlikeable, socialist, condescending harridan of a dumbass, as opposed to just an obnoxious loudmouth dumbass, I guess it's a good damn thing most of the dumbass voters are so concentrated that their choice lost in the Electoral College.

You know, there are a lot of wackademic studies that basically say "Republicans are mean" or "Conservatives are insecure". It's always something subjective and emotional.

You never see those studies done regarding intelligence.

Do you really think the leftist, "progressive" wackademics have NEVER looked at that?

But you never see any published studies on ideological bent vs. intelligence.

Wanna bet it's because the ones that did get done got shitcanned when the results were

DEMOCRATS ARE DUMB

or

LIBERALS ARE IGNORANT

or

PROGRESSIVES FAIL TO COMPREHEND CAUSE AND EFFECT

Either that, or you really think the wackademics behind shit like this NEVER tried to prove "conservatives are stupid". Because you KNOW they did - and since it's never been published, it must not be true.

Face it - you know it's true.

That's why liberals talk condescendingly to brown people.

White liberals dumb themselves down when they speak to black people

Yep, they do. So says the Washington Post.

Sheltered white "progressives" treat minorities as incompetent.

Conservatives treat them as equals.

So suck my dick, you candy-assed sitzpinkler metrosexual baby.

capcha: contempt HA How'd /. know the perfect word for what you most deserve?

if the median income is anything to go by.

Of course it's down $4k since 2009. The working class never did recover from 2008. And best of all we're heading into another (self inflicted) recession. Hooray.

As the poster below implies, there's a lot more to it than reducing the number of flights. more to it than reducing the number of flights. There's a lot of infrastructure that may or may not be able to handle the large plane. They may be restricted to certain runways & taxiways, and would definitely be restricted to only a few gates. The airlines would have to pick up the tab, one way or another, for reworking jet bridges & gates so that four exits can be used, including the unusually high ones for the second deck. They would need to have a councourse that can handle the exceptionaly large influx of deplaning passengers at once, including mundane things that might not work such as a large-enough waiting space, enough toilets, wide enough aisles. The list goes on.

We have clean diesel technology since 30 or even 40 years.
But the vendors don't want to shift. It is called "water injection" ... you inject water into the burning chamber and reduce fuel usage by 50% and emissions (obviously except CO2 and some NOx) by 95%.
We have some ships on the river Rhine doing it since ages, but as fuel is to cheap to bother, there is no pressure on the vendors to change. It would even work in a small car.

See this one: https://patents.google.com/pat...

There are plenty of other systems.

They already have Google Fi, so your idea is really just one step away for them. In fact I almost tried their service plan around the holidays when some of their phones were half price with a contract that only required to keep their service for a month or two to retain the half price discount on the phone, free and clear.

A large impactor in Greenland would melt the whole icecap immediately but temporarily. Could this be the origin of anomalous warming events like the Younger Dryas?

You don't understand the scale of these things. The largest impactor listed this table is 1 km in diameter and hits with 46300 megaton (1.93719e+20 joules). Greenland has 2,850,000 cubic kilometres of ice. To melt that would take 9.506175e+23 joules. Given that the heat transfer would not be anywhere near 100% efficient, you're off by at least 4 orders of magnitude.

if these numbers are to be believed.

The 770 are folks need to support new product launches. Activision is letting them go because they're not releasing anything next year (except maybe a COD).

This unfortunate fellow uncovered a failure mode of a technology. Pitot tubes icing over (Air France Flight 447 had iced over pitot tubes); faulty sensors and an aggressive safety system (The Lion Air 737 crash); the recent Wells Fargo outage reportedly due to a data center issue highlighted some issues with a cashless econonomy.

Very unfortunate but safety rules are written in blood (and money).

Except that you end up with the guys in office running the show and funnelling money to them selves.

Read about the wealth of the members of the Chinese Communist party:
https://www.google.com/search?...

This page claims Lenin and Putin were/are worth 70 billion:
https://www.idolnetworth.com/v...
https://www.idolnetworth.com/v...

Stalin at 16 million:
https://www.idolnetworth.com/j...

Hugo Chavez who started the problems in Venezuela; 1 billion:
https://www.idolnetworth.com/h...

So instead of having a system where anybody who is worthwhile can make themselves wealthy by creating a company that makes or does something that millions of people want, you have a few dozen politicians who get to the top of the government, and if they're ruthless enough, they get to be super wealthy even if they don't make anybody's life better. But at least they profess they want to help the little guy while they impoverish him so we can feel good because they said nice words instead of protecting the freedoms that have lifted 90% of the world's population out of poverty.

...is Elon Musk building his launchpads partly in Mexico/within feet of the border? Isn't that a security risk to the launchpad?

It's not on the border.
https://www.google.com/maps/@2...

Kind of like all these ACs spamming anti-Trump FUD.

Would someone PLEASE explain how a launch pad would be "cut in two" by a border wall that would sit on the US-Mexico border?

Here is the nonexistent facility in a tricky spot right next to the boundary line in a swamp area. Looks as though the government is doing a survey to figure out what they have to work with. I mean orange man bad.

Location of the SpaceX site: https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

I find 'personalized' adverts to be morally wrong, profoundly so.

Then, with all due respect, you are uninformed, and profoundly so.

Want to know why? Because all advertising has always been targeted. From the dawn of advertising. Don't believe me? Take a look at the types of ads that they run on any TV show. If a show demographically skews to younger women, they show tampon ads. If a show demographically skews to elderly men, they show Viagra ads. I guarantee you if they reversed this, people would scream that the ads aren't targeted enough.

Where the web becomes a problem is that websites tend not to skew strongly to any given demographic, so personalization has to be done in some other way.

Aside from violating my dignity as an individual who can make my own choices, the sheer volume of advertising guarantees that I will block them out, either mentally or technologically, which means they are misrepresenting the value of the services to the businesses buying the advertising.

You see, this is where your argument goes fundamentally off the rails. The sheer volume of advertising exists primarily because the overwhelming majority of advertising is not targeted well enough. If advertisers knew that everyone seeing an ad had a 50% chance of being interested in that product, the ads would cost a lot more money, they would be a lot more effective, and you would see a heck of a lot fewer ads.

So you're really arguing for more personalization, not less. The alternative to ad targeting is for the number of ads you see to increase fairly dramatically.

But more often than not I am finding them to be factually wrong, in the sense that whatever guess their algorithm is making about me is wildly inaccurate.

This is a sign that ads should be personalized better, not that they should be personalized less. It is also a good argument that you should be able to correct those inferred interests. And at least for Google, you can do just that. And Facebook has that feature, too.

For example a few Google searches for the price of an object is far more likely to mean that I have made a purchase of one than it is that I will be highly motivated to make new purchases daily for the following six months.

Often, that is true. This is why you'd be better off if your purchasing history were part of the data feeding into those advertising engines, so that they could see that you already bought it.

That said, even if they knew you had bought the product, that still wouldn't be the whole story. Say you've been searching for information about a Tesla Model X. At some point, you've probably stopped planning to buy one, and you probably own one. But there are hundreds of companies out there making products specifically designed to work well with that Tesla, and those are much more likely to be of interest to you than, for example, products designed to work well with a Ford Model T.

Or their inference is so exact and narrow as to be transparently absurd. E.g. Local women seeking 53-year-old!

And then there's the ones where I try to find a restaurant in a city I'm going to visit and I can't block out adverts for restaurants for the area where I live (you know, the one place I'm guaranteed not to physically be in any time I travel).

All of these things are, indeed, problems, but none of them make targeted advertising morally wrong. If you got advertisements for restaurants in the area where you were planning to visit, at a bare minimum, you wouldn't find the targeting to be useless then. The only reason you're annoyed is because the targeting is suboptimal. Again, this is an argument for more targeting and better targeting, not less.

People have been modifying cars since the dawn of the car. Rooting is just another form of mod. It's actually common to just replace the stock computer and use one of the many after-market computers that allows you to be root out of the box rather than simply modifying the limited factory one. Nothing to see here.

Those are called fiducials. They are used to very precisely determine the location, distance, and orientation of an object when pictures of that object are taken. Because of their contrasting colors, the edges of different "wedges" are easy for a human or computer vision system to pick up; the center point is the intersection of those edges, etc. The "ovalness" of the fiducial can be used to determine the angle to the camera.

The same kind of fiducials are placed all over crash tests to track motion and displacement.

Well, if 90 percent of the Department of Energy budget is for fossil fuel incentives, and their budget is x amount, the math is fairly simple

It's not that simple, because despite it's name, the Department of Energy is not primarily about the production and consumption of energy. Rather, it's primary mission is managing the U.S. nuclear weapons program: the design and manufacture of the weapons, making sure they still work, fundamental nuclear research, etc.

Here is the DoE FY2019 budget request fact sheet. It's a $30.6B department - tiny in the scope of the U.S. federal government. The top line item, fully one half of that budget, is "National Nuclear Security Administration".

Surprised? You're not alone. The present Secretary of Energy, Rick Perry, also apparently didn't know that the DoE, ya know, doesn't do much with energy. That is, of course, when he wasn't forgetting about it entirely. Ooops.

And it's here, at the end of what I hope was an informative post, that I'll point out Obama's first DoE secretary was a Nobel laureate in physics.

It's hard to believe that they thought they could get away with leaving the fiber two inches under the ground.

IKR? Why didn't they just stick with their fiber in sewers plan?

Google, initially honored the flag

That doesn't seem true either. All the documents I saw are unanimous in stating Google never honored the flag, even when they were petitioned to do so. And they only came out publicly about it last year.
So, if you can find any proof that Google used to honor DNT, but stopped doing so after it was enabled by default in IE, please post it.

Love how you quoted that article, as though it supported your claims.

Perhaps you should quote Jordan Peterson instead, he's far more your speed.

"So you are saying ..." nothing, come to think of it. Not even a counter-claim let alone a rational argument. What is the point of posting if you have nothing worthwhile to say?

back in the early 1990s, you could buy photoshop accelerators.. Then again, you could get the same DSP ( AT&T 3210) by using a Quadra 660AV or 840 AV.

That's misstating what has been stated. US is saying China's government owns and operates Huawei as an intelligence gathering inroad. That's proven in public blackletter fact, and you failed to even bother to google it.

Huawei JUST NOW showed a direct willingness to engage in fraud for the purpose of breaking US law on sanctions, including top officers of the company. Fraud, Communist party ownership, history of data theft...

And you're still dithering in defense of that lawless cabal, making false statements and using rhetoric to try to confuse the record instead of even bothering to begin googling it? How do you say "go fuck yourself" in mandarin, comrade?

Here, let me google that for you, fuckwit.

Yep.

https://policies.google.com/terms?hl=en
"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps). Some Services may offer you ways to access and remove content that has been provided to that Service. Also, in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services. Make sure you have the necessary rights to grant us this license for any content that you submit to our Services."

The correct problem to apply pressure to:

1) Crap web code, and specfically better educating the people that write it.
2) Javascripts crappy threads.

I don't think you fully understand what's going on. What happens is a web page with crappy javascript code demands a lot of CPU cycles. Windows says "Oh, this thread needs more CPU. Here you go." Other pages then get starved of CPU and load more slowly.

What this change will do is limit the max CPU any one web page can get in competition with others (e.g. when you put a slow-loading page in the background, and open a new tab to load a different page). That way if a site has crappy javascript code, only that site's pages load more slowly. The speed of other pages loading is less affected by the one page with crap code.

I think this is a great solution to address one part of the problem. I've been dealing with it (ironically mostly with Google's pages) with The Great Suspender extension. That disables background tabs after a few minutes being idle in the background. I was having a problem with the Google App pages sucking up too much CPU when they were doing nothing but sitting there in the background. It also deals with other pages like Amazon and CNN which stay active and auto-refresh every few minutes, presumably so you can instantly get the latest version of the page when you switch to the tab, instead of having to wait for a manual refresh. That idea works if you just put a single tab in the background for a while. But it completely falls apart if I leave a couple dozen Amazon product pages in background tabs while I comparison shop.

I'll still use the suspender to stop auto-refresh of web pages I may not view for hours. But this never-slow thing will be nice for immediately dealing with a recalcitrant page which sucks up so much CPU I have problems getting the browser to respond so I can kill the tab.

Google Security Blog Info.

Chrome Extension

I'll bet that's how it operates.

Tiny program event - hey time to turn up the heat.
Nest: web request to https://www.google.com/search?...
Special hidden result which pipes web assembly back to the thermostat.
Tiny program event - heat good enough

Maybe he has a dead man's switch active on his account, and it hasn't yet noticed that he's dead.

I'm sick of the term "Obama Phones". People need to read some fucking history once in awhile, and crawl down off their high horses. Obama DID NOT start that program. Hell, neither did the bush's or Clinton. The evil republican Ronald Regan started it.

What president started the free phone giveaway? The Lifeline program is a legacy President Reagan could be proud of." Congress first enacted the Lifeline program in 1985, and the FCC expanded the program to cover cellphone service in 2005 during the George W. Bush administration. The program pays for phone service, not the phones themselves.Sep 12, 2013

https://www.google.com/search?...

This bull shit miss representation started when some African American lady was spouting off on TV about her Obama phones. If she only knew who actually started this goverment program, she would shit her pants.

US Population :: 325.7 million (2017).
The rest of your premise is likely about as accurate.

Slashdot headlines never read, "Barack Obama's pen-and-phone lost 9-0 in the Supreme Court (again!)"

Slashdot is now a partisan hack fake-news site?

Webalizer while good for some folks is ancient technology.

The value is analytics has to do with who is funding the website and its development to begin with. Speaking as a professional, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ELK Stack yet in this thread, so here I am. Look at all the pretty graphic dashboards Kibana can be configured to display. It's free, and open-source, with paid support. And it works based purely off of log data, no javascript or magic-bits required, unlike everything else i can think of.

IMHO, I am happy as a developer, when/if I can tweak such wonderful reports, nee(!), dashboards worthy of large monitors in the hallways and lobby of whoever is funding the website.

And for bonus points: everything 'normal' can be removed from the search results, leaving you with every single hacker attempt made; filtered to your heart's content and then you can work to block the MoFo's at the server-level.

Webalizer while good for some folks is ancient technology.

The value is analytics has to do with who is funding the website and its development to begin with. Speaking as a professional, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ELK Stack yet in this thread, so here I am. Look at all the pretty graphic dashboards Kibana can be configured to display. It's free, and open-source, with paid support. And it works based purely off of log data, no javascript or magic-bits required, unlike everything else i can think of.

IMHO, I am happy as a developer, when/if I can tweak such wonderful reports, nee(!), dashboards worthy of large monitors in the hallways and lobby of whoever is funding the website.

And for bonus points: everything 'normal' can be removed from the search results, leaving you with every single hacker attempt made; filtered to your heart's content and then you can work to block the MoFo's at the server-level.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=https://www.heise.de/ct/artikel/PC-Schrauber-zur-Kasse-284482.html&prev=search

"...multiple former Snopes employees criticized Facebook's efforts to stop fake content on its services..."

What, Facebook wasn't willing enough to swallow Snopes bias blindly?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=...