This is common sense. If the page is not visible, then it should NOT do anything. If it's still hogging the cpu when I can't see it then that is lazy ass programming by a wannabe coder. The timer solution idea has been used in many applications and systems in the past, though not exactly the same way. It's hardly a new groundbreaking concept, it's quite like dynamic priorities in unix systems. Better to use have the headline read "Chrome throttles cpu usage of background tabs, but still is unable to completely stop them for fear of angering the advertising overlords."
Tabs are like the piles of papers on your desk. Someone may point to the desk and claim it is inefficient, just file everything into properly labeled folders and put them away when you are done. But in reality it doesn't happen. You're working on one thing and then someone walks by and drops another project on your desk, asks you a question that you have to research before the person leaves, or you get an email that says "please finish filling out form XYZ by the end of the day". After a few iterations of that you've got a pile of stuff on the desk and an empty file folder.
Tabs are the same. You open a new tab not because you are completely finished with the old tab but because you need or want to look at something new. Trying to do it all with bookmarks can be clumsy. "Oh, I need to come back to this page I'm reading after lunch, let me book mark it and give it a suitable name", said no one ever.
I agree. Being CEO of a social media company no longer makes one a tech leader. Maybe it was one day in the past when social media was new and nerds were still impressed by someone having a web site. Zuckerberg makes his money through advertising, period.
But what are the advantages of living in a place like SF? It's ok for tourists but to live there and deal with the trash and dirt every day, the horrendous traffic, the awful mass transit, the high prices, etc...
I can't either. I grew up in a small town, and now live in what I consider the urban wasteland (San Jose) but which the elites in San Franscisco call a suburb with disdain. I can't imagine living in SF, it's painful enough just visiting it.
There seems to be an undertone there too, that propositioning women may be ok, or being propositioned by women is fine too, but being propositioned by a man is wrong. If the propositions from a man make one feel uncomfortable then imagine how women feel every day.
It's impacted in area too. There's not much room to grow as there are mountains on both sides, and a bay down the middle. Growing up is the only option, or having jobs somewhere else in the state. Commute routes are inefficient because of geography.
Shop is at the corner, and is overpriced. But then every single day they still get into their cars and drive 50 miles to get to their job. Driving a mile to go shopping is not a big deal, instead get a cheaper place to live and spend that rent savings on an electric car. And I do have friends in the city, and the local stores they're proud of are not grocery stores or clothing stores or other basic needs, but stupid stuff like cupcakes, coffee shops, bars, and other hipster hangouts. Honest, they drive *farther* to buy groceries in the city than most people who live in so-called suburbs.
Those people don't actually work in SF. Instead that is their bedroom community, and they commute an hour to work sound near San Jose. The reason Google has buses up there is because so many of their special snowflake workers live up there. Never mind that they're stepping over homeless people sleeping on their steps, they just can't even start to imagine living somewhere else. At least in Manhattan it has a lot of jobs for people who live there and commute there, but in San Francisco they commute to other cities to work.
You think those workers in San Francisco paying $5000/mo in rent are going to manual labor? Anyone who thinks living in a suburb is beneath them are above that sort of thing (and no, those towns to the south are not suburbs). I'm not for unfettered immigration, but I think the population needs to get a mindset that low paying jobs are ok, that buying cheaper coffee is ok, that hanging out in a bubble of clones of yourself is very bad. For those that aren't precious snowflakes, they also need to learn that coal is gone and is never coming back, and that automation has taken away the unskilled factory jobs forever even without immigration. Immigrants show up because there are jobs available. If there were no jobs the immigrants wouldn't be so eager to get here in the first place. If you pay attention to the stats, immigration does go down when the economy sucks; and at the moment immigration is net zero.
When I was a kid, teenagers took summer jobs. You saw them in all the stores, and they had to work or not get fired. Today you don't see teenagers in jobs very often, and when you do they're slacking around much of the time (just head into any GAP store and try to get help from the breakfast club that works there). So you see immigrants taking the same jobs that used to be the part time minimum wage jobs, not because McDonalds is working hard to keep Americans out of those jobs, but because native born Americans hold their nose in disgust at the thought of actually having to take those jobs.
They can, but it's useless if that take those jobs and then insist on commuting from the most expensive place in the state. People complain about immigrant labor taking their jobs, but they do seem smart enough to actually live in affordable areas, they don't insist that their morning lattes come from the same block they live on, they're willing to drive a bit if they want to get mini cupcakes, and if they want to see culture in San Francisco then they can take mass transit on the weekend. Seriously, when the mission district is going upscale it's time to realize that the city is screwed up.
Even the stupidest lawmaker has to know we can't go back to the fifties. Coal is not going to be a big job maker ever again. Even if coal use goes up it does not mean we are going to get lots of jobs again. This is anti-conservative. The biggest conservationists I know are western conservatives who like unspoiled nature. Instead this is all about coal companies buying politicians.
Not sure how this would be legal. You can't dictate that a company can't sell a legal product. So how would a wind only operate? Sounds like Republicans for Excessive and Unnecessary Regulation. Doncha love a party that sticks to its ideals instead of pandering to big business interests?
Companies sometimes lie to the managers in order to do this, they don't want the workers to see worry in their boss' face and ruin morale before it's time to crush it. It also causes the workers to be furious at their bottom line managers instead of directing the anger at the board and executives.
Except now we're going to be 4 or 8 years with the executive and legislature convinced that all regulation is evil. Possibly the judicial will go that way too. Time for return of the robber barons.
A lot of stuff like that starts life as a good idea, but then gets totally and completely perverted in practice due to higher ups not understanding things. The registry probably fits in that category. XML as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Not everyone has the opportunity to live in a civlized country. Some of us are American.
This is common sense. If the page is not visible, then it should NOT do anything. If it's still hogging the cpu when I can't see it then that is lazy ass programming by a wannabe coder. The timer solution idea has been used in many applications and systems in the past, though not exactly the same way. It's hardly a new groundbreaking concept, it's quite like dynamic priorities in unix systems. Better to use have the headline read "Chrome throttles cpu usage of background tabs, but still is unable to completely stop them for fear of angering the advertising overlords."
Tabs are like the piles of papers on your desk. Someone may point to the desk and claim it is inefficient, just file everything into properly labeled folders and put them away when you are done. But in reality it doesn't happen. You're working on one thing and then someone walks by and drops another project on your desk, asks you a question that you have to research before the person leaves, or you get an email that says "please finish filling out form XYZ by the end of the day". After a few iterations of that you've got a pile of stuff on the desk and an empty file folder.
Tabs are the same. You open a new tab not because you are completely finished with the old tab but because you need or want to look at something new. Trying to do it all with bookmarks can be clumsy. "Oh, I need to come back to this page I'm reading after lunch, let me book mark it and give it a suitable name", said no one ever.
I agree. Being CEO of a social media company no longer makes one a tech leader. Maybe it was one day in the past when social media was new and nerds were still impressed by someone having a web site. Zuckerberg makes his money through advertising, period.
That's not too far off. If the jobs are impractical, economically, then welfare is the way to keep them.
But what are the advantages of living in a place like SF? It's ok for tourists but to live there and deal with the trash and dirt every day, the horrendous traffic, the awful mass transit, the high prices, etc...
Sure at home is good. But you can't have ALL your normal amenities on the same block, and insisting on it just leads to the problem you have in SF.
I can't either. I grew up in a small town, and now live in what I consider the urban wasteland (San Jose) but which the elites in San Franscisco call a suburb with disdain. I can't imagine living in SF, it's painful enough just visiting it.
There seems to be an undertone there too, that propositioning women may be ok, or being propositioned by women is fine too, but being propositioned by a man is wrong. If the propositions from a man make one feel uncomfortable then imagine how women feel every day.
It's impacted in area too. There's not much room to grow as there are mountains on both sides, and a bay down the middle. Growing up is the only option, or having jobs somewhere else in the state. Commute routes are inefficient because of geography.
Shop is at the corner, and is overpriced. But then every single day they still get into their cars and drive 50 miles to get to their job. Driving a mile to go shopping is not a big deal, instead get a cheaper place to live and spend that rent savings on an electric car. And I do have friends in the city, and the local stores they're proud of are not grocery stores or clothing stores or other basic needs, but stupid stuff like cupcakes, coffee shops, bars, and other hipster hangouts. Honest, they drive *farther* to buy groceries in the city than most people who live in so-called suburbs.
Those people don't actually work in SF. Instead that is their bedroom community, and they commute an hour to work sound near San Jose. The reason Google has buses up there is because so many of their special snowflake workers live up there. Never mind that they're stepping over homeless people sleeping on their steps, they just can't even start to imagine living somewhere else. At least in Manhattan it has a lot of jobs for people who live there and commute there, but in San Francisco they commute to other cities to work.
You think those workers in San Francisco paying $5000/mo in rent are going to manual labor? Anyone who thinks living in a suburb is beneath them are above that sort of thing (and no, those towns to the south are not suburbs). I'm not for unfettered immigration, but I think the population needs to get a mindset that low paying jobs are ok, that buying cheaper coffee is ok, that hanging out in a bubble of clones of yourself is very bad. For those that aren't precious snowflakes, they also need to learn that coal is gone and is never coming back, and that automation has taken away the unskilled factory jobs forever even without immigration. Immigrants show up because there are jobs available. If there were no jobs the immigrants wouldn't be so eager to get here in the first place. If you pay attention to the stats, immigration does go down when the economy sucks; and at the moment immigration is net zero.
When I was a kid, teenagers took summer jobs. You saw them in all the stores, and they had to work or not get fired. Today you don't see teenagers in jobs very often, and when you do they're slacking around much of the time (just head into any GAP store and try to get help from the breakfast club that works there). So you see immigrants taking the same jobs that used to be the part time minimum wage jobs, not because McDonalds is working hard to keep Americans out of those jobs, but because native born Americans hold their nose in disgust at the thought of actually having to take those jobs.
They can, but it's useless if that take those jobs and then insist on commuting from the most expensive place in the state. People complain about immigrant labor taking their jobs, but they do seem smart enough to actually live in affordable areas, they don't insist that their morning lattes come from the same block they live on, they're willing to drive a bit if they want to get mini cupcakes, and if they want to see culture in San Francisco then they can take mass transit on the weekend. Seriously, when the mission district is going upscale it's time to realize that the city is screwed up.
You get all your information from mimeographed newsletters?
Also, San Francisco is NOT silicon valley. It is slowly becoming a bedroom community for silicon valley though, totally bizarre.
Well sure, ask any red white and blue blooded conservative and they'll tell you that Communism means atheist immigrants who want to raise your taxes!
Even the stupidest lawmaker has to know we can't go back to the fifties. Coal is not going to be a big job maker ever again. Even if coal use goes up it does not mean we are going to get lots of jobs again. This is anti-conservative. The biggest conservationists I know are western conservatives who like unspoiled nature. Instead this is all about coal companies buying politicians.
Either way, Trump is still a moron. Deal with it.
Not sure how this would be legal. You can't dictate that a company can't sell a legal product. So how would a wind only operate? Sounds like Republicans for Excessive and Unnecessary Regulation. Doncha love a party that sticks to its ideals instead of pandering to big business interests?
They are if they are a blogger or wannabe journalist on the web.
Companies sometimes lie to the managers in order to do this, they don't want the workers to see worry in their boss' face and ruin morale before it's time to crush it. It also causes the workers to be furious at their bottom line managers instead of directing the anger at the board and executives.
Except now we're going to be 4 or 8 years with the executive and legislature convinced that all regulation is evil. Possibly the judicial will go that way too. Time for return of the robber barons.
Don't worry, Donald Trump will save all those jobs, personally. Just like he's going to make coal relevant again and remove all factory automation.
A lot of stuff like that starts life as a good idea, but then gets totally and completely perverted in practice due to higher ups not understanding things. The registry probably fits in that category. XML as well.