"The worst perpetrator is Google, which tracks people on nearly 80 percent of sites, and does not respect DNT signals,"
From the paper:
While there are a number of companies tracking users online, the overall landscape is highly consolidated, with the top corporation, Google, tracking users on nearly eight of ten sites in the Alexa top one million.
and:
That said, half of the top ten images belong to Google, including the most requested image, the Google Analytics tracking pixel. This image is found on 46.02% of sites, is only 1x1 pixels large, and is utilized solely for tracking purposes.
and:
The most striking finding of this study is that 78.07% of websites in the Alexa top million initiate third-party HTTP requests to a Google-owned domain. While the competitiveness of Google is well known in search, mobile phones, and display advertising, its reach in the web tracking arena is unparalleled. The next company, Facebook, is found on a still significant 32.42% of sites, followed by Akamai (which hosts Facebook and other companies' content) on 23.31% of sites, Twitter with 17.89%, comScore with 11.98%, Amazon with 11.72%, and AppNexus with 11.7%.
There's also this little nugget:
More specifically, internal NSA documents leaked to the Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that a Google cookie named "PREF" was being used to track targets online. Additional documents provided to The Guardian by Snowden detailed that another Google cookie (DoubleClick's "id"), was also used by the NSA; in this case to attempt to compromise the privacy of those using anonymity-focused Tor network [19].
What's your response going to be when >90% of the Internet is denied to you, because you won't give in to their ads and tracking techniques? That's likely what's coming.
We'll have to find out what will happen when >90% of the internet sees large drops in their traffic. People in general are becoming more aware to ad-blockers, it's no longer relegated to niche Firefox extensions. That day is coming. I expect to see new revenue models, which may be a way to continue the tracking, e.g. you pay a monthly subscription to a single "content network" that provides access to thousands of sites if you're logged in, rather than paying sites individually. Obviously that parent network would be able to track which of its sites you're on because you need to authenticate.
They start moving actual content and functionality for their sites to the same servers that are serving ads
I don't think we'll see that happen all over the internet. The lure of advertisers and trackers for site operators is that they get paid for putting a little bit of Javascript on their site. If they have more significant setup, hosting, and maintenance costs then it's not going to be as attractive. If they are paying for the bandwidth for third-party ads to be shown on their site then that is no longer negligible. Only the largest sites which would already have their entire operation hosted on a CDN would be fine with that. People buying virtual hosting to host their small-business site or blog aren't going to be bothered to set up something like that.
As far as I know they give you the option of seeing "trusted" ads (or whatever the terminology is), but last I knew they ask if you want to enable or disable that during setup. At this point I don't think they're turning it on without telling you, and they don't hide the option to turn it off.
they consider as much as a Google tracking cookie to be "leaking your data"
Well it is, so they're right. Shit man, it's right there in the name. It's not the Google Friendly Cookie, it's not the Google Helpful Cookie, it's not the goddamned Google Blowjob Cookie. It's tracking you. It's the very definition of leaking your data. Maybe what you're confused about is the definition of "your data". Hint: "your data" includes where you go online.
Given that I'm not a social networking whore, I'm less worried since I likely am not using sites to start with.
That doesn't matter. If you go to 10 sites and all of them tell your browser to contact Facebook for some Javascript API, then Facebook knows that your browser visited those 10 sites. If you then identify yourself on any of those sites, like logging in to Amazon or Newegg or whatever, then now they know who you are (or at least who is using that browser) and can match that up with their database to know which sites you've visited and what else you've done online. You don't need a Facebook account for that to work, you only need to log in and identify yourself on any "partner" site for the whole network to know who you are. This isn't a reason to not use sites like Facebook or Twitter, it is a reason to use plugins like Ghostery to stop that communication from happening in the first place. Just tell your browser that it's not allowed to contact those sites to download their trackers and beacons, and watch how page load speed increases after that.
That's not what the paper says, they aren't saying that.com is tracking you or leaking your data. It says that they ran their numbers on the entire pool of ~1 million sites, and then ran sub-analysis for the 10 most popular TLDs (plus edu and gov) - com, net, org, ru, de, uk, br, jp, pl, and in. Table 1 in the PDF shows those findings. For the entire data set, 9.47 external domains were contacted on average. Among those TLDs, Brazil had the highest with 11 domains on average, and gov the lowest with 3.61. India was 10.35 and both com and net were 10.2.
And you think Slashdot doesn't share it for some reason?
Ghostery is blocking the following on Slashdot:
Doubleclick (advertising) Google Adwords Conversion (advertising) Google Analytics Janrain Scorecard Research Beacon Taboola
It's on Slashdot, and everywhere else.
Here's a quote from TFA:
Most troubling is that if you use your browser setting to say 'Do Not Track' me, the explicitly stated policy of nearly all the companies is to flat-out ignore you
What we need is 9 out of 10 users to start explicitly blocking tracking and advertising, and then flat-out ignore the companies who complain about their bottom line. That article from the advertising industry group talking about how they screwed up rings a little hollow when they are obviously not interested in respecting the requests of consumers to not track them. Enabling Do Not Track is fine, but that only works with the good actors. For everyone else, see below.
The only area it's weak in is people who manage to get into their adult life without needing credit, but then if you've never had a car loan, a credit card, or any kind of debt, even if it's because you're financially well off, it's still probably a bad idea to hand you a 300k mortgage.
I bought a car a couple years ago and got a loan for it, and I went to my own bank that I've been with for 17 years. They can clearly see my 12-year history of paying a home mortgage, and they've been my bank for my entire professional career and can clearly see my salary going up and even my current salary. They denied the car loan on the basis that I have never had a car loan. My previous car was purchased with a family loan (family member making 3% interest on an account, my loan would have been 6% interest, we settle at 4.5% and both benefit), and my cars before that didn't need a loan. So despite the fact I've been with these people for 17 years and they know my deposit and withdrawal history better than anyone, and the fact that I've been paying a home mortgage for 12 years, the reason why they wouldn't give me an auto loan was because I had never had one of those loans before.
You should just move to the US, where you will have no credit history and a credit score of 0 because the banks don't care what your payment history was in any other country. My girlfriend is from Brazil, and also lived in Finland and Ireland, and when she got to the US on a work visa she had a credit score of 0 with no history. She was unable to get a $300 secured credit card. She couldn't even get a gas card. She was expecting to move here and get a mortgage on a house relatively soon, but she has to be paying taxes for several years in order to qualify for any mortgage. After a year or so she finally got a non-zero credit score, somewhere in the 500s, and at last check it was up to 666 (the credit score of the beast). She had perfect payment history in Brazil, but when she got here legally on a work visa while paying taxes (including social security, despite the fact that she has no social security number and won't benefit) she's treated worse than a kid just coming out of high school regarding credit.
Oh, and once the credit score started changing she saw things on her report that said things like she had too much debt on the $300 secured credit card that she was finally able to get (I have no idea how you can have too much debt on a secured credit card), and then the next report said she didn't have enough. I have a theory that this entire system and all of the rules make sense to someone, but I'm not completely sure. There could be a random number generator spitting out reasons why your score is going up or down and I don't think many people would know the difference.
They would change debate rules to keep him out and deny him access to anyone of significance in the party at any level, local, state, or federal.
...and then all of the supporters that he has been very effective in attracting would be asking questions that the DNC and the RNC do not want to answer. It would be very bad for the DNC to deny him access to the primary. Once he started spreading his message so effectively, and people started listening, then he ensured that he would have a place at the table. The DNC didn't help him get his message out, either, that was all his campaign. The DNC has opted out of putting up their own tables outside of his rallies to sign up voters, because those voters would just vote for Sanders. Think about that one for a second.
They would kill his media coverage more than they have.
"More than they have?" His campaign has survived and prospered despite, not because of, media coverage. He has never had good coverage. The media shows him as being fringe. You could see it in the first debate. The "political insiders", talking heads, networks, etc all declared Hillary the winner. The focus groups on both CNN and Fox, as well as data from Google, Facebook, Twitter, and any number of online polls, all suggested that Sanders had won. The media has been pushing the Clinton narrative since day 1, and Sanders has survived despite the media following the DNC plan, not because of any DNC support.
Everyone in the party would get the message that if they went within ten feet of this guy they would be bucking the party establishment and would not have party support come reelection time.
Which is probably why he has only 1 endorsement from Congress.
That's how major political parties work. They are engines of political control, not of democracy.
No shit.
The DNC missed their chance by killing his campaign before it started. Once his message was out and people were paying attention it was too late. They can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point. They, like everyone else, underestimated the appeal of his message.
It's not like the Democratic party called him up and gave him permission to run. He declared his candidacy and then quickly and effectively put out a message that the majority ofthe country agrees with in a way that caused a lot of people to start talking about him. He forced his way into the Democratic contest, he was not "allowed" in. If they would have tried to push him away then there either would have been a lot of people asking questions about why some candidates aren't allowed to debate (which neither party wants to answer), or he would just run as an independent.
He wasn't "allowed" to run, he made it happen because people agree with his message. The reason why there is so much doubt around his candidacy is because the media and the parties keep telling the public that he is a fringe candidate. He's not fringe, he's mainstream. The media is trying to push fringe candidates like Clinton and Trump/Rubio/Cruz on people and call them mainstream, but the polls show that the majority of the country supports Sanders when people aren't being shoved loaded terms like "socialism", where they think it means something that it doesn't. You can see that in polls where people say that they agree with Sanders' positions, and also that they wouldn't vote for a socialist. The media is controlling the dialog, which is why you think Sanders is a fringe candidate or does not have a realistic chance at getting elected.
Firefox has been relegated to the back burner for years now. It does a decent job as a development tool with Firebug, but otherwise it's pretty slow and clunky. And according to my task manager it still hasn't managed to figure out process separation for tabs.
I'll tell you what this reminds me of. When I was in college I played a lot of a game called Mechwarrior 4. I was good at it, it got to the point where I was consistently ranked as one of the top few scores for each week, if not the first. I just played it a lot and got good at it, that's all. Frequently when I was at my best other people in the matches would accuse me of cheating. I would consistently kill them and they would talk about how I couldn't be doing that unless I was cheating, you can't aim or fire that fast, etc, whatever the excuse. That was the best compliment I got from anyone while playing that game. I was beating those people so badly that they were absolutely positive that I couldn't just do that myself, I had to be cheating somehow. I've never installed or used a game cheat program in my life.
That's what I see from you now. I've given you claims about my life, and not even that great either. I've got a degree, I went from intern to CTO, our company has won awards for the projects I've developed, we've got hundreds of thousands to millions of people using our software, etc. Those aren't even outlandish claims, I'm sure any number of people on this site have similar stories. I don't consider myself any kind of superstar programmer either. I'm very good at what I do in my role as a CTO, but there are plenty of places I can improve as a programmer. I have books on my shelf like The Art Of Computer Programming or Code Complete that I haven't read yet. I've only been to a small number of programming conferences. I don't do much with open source or Github, etc. There are places where I can and want to improve and just haven't been able to take the time to make that happen yet.
Even so, look at you. You appear to be completely convinced that the things I'm telling you can't possibly be true. I've already told you that I'm not going to identify myself, but here you are, demanding proof of my claims. You can't let it go. You're convinced that the things I'm telling you are lies.
I appreciate the compliments, although it's kind of sad what that says about you and your self-confidence.
As for individual work, if you're going to ask for more claims then I'll be happy to give them to you. The company I work for right now runs all of its bookkeeping and project tracking from a system that I personally designed and developed 12 years ago, and all of our clients interact with the same system. There's another company that I was working with briefly who also runs software that I personally designed and developed to do similar things, to interact with all of their clients. Their clients can log on to their site and have access to all of their records and data that would otherwise stay in another third-party proprietary system running on the servers. My software is a link to that data for the customers, and that company has remarked several times that this system is what sets them apart from all of their competitors. The company that the software interfaces with also was interested in getting my software to bundle with theirs but I didn't have time to try and make that happen. And, like I've said before, the main application that our company sells was in fact originally designed and developed by me. I was working on that version for 3 years supporting 30 corporate/military clients using it all by myself before we got another programmer to start helping me. We currently employ 1 additional programmer other than me (good help is hard to find). I'm in charge of all of the company's internal systems and tools and multiple versions of our major application, personally. And yes, I'm also good at working on a team.
Let me know if you have any other questions that you'd like me to answer, or if you just want to keep spending your time throwing out random insults and otherwise spinning your wheels. Like I said, I'm flattered that you find the reality of my life so unconvincing, but again there are many other people li
Yeah, it would have been so much better if they cited "sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity" or "top officials".
Journalistic integrity today is a joke. The real journalists seem to be confined to a handful of organizations, like Vice News, or Brian Krebs (who had too much integrity for the Washington Post to keep around). Journalist ethics went out the door when everyone started re-reporting stories based on information from anonymous unverifiable sources as being factual information.
Did you just make all of that up? I can't find a single source that connects "redneck" with Native Americans, every definition I've seen ties it specifically to white people. Many today claim it as a badge of pride. And the Scopes Monkey Trial? That had nothing to do with unionizing miners, and everything to do with a publicity stunt to draw attention to the town of Dayton, TN. Mr. Scopes was even unsure whether he had ever taught evolution but incriminated himself anyway so that the trial could have a defendant. The miners that you're referring to were trying to unionize 5 years before Scopes and they wore red bandanas around their necks and self-identified as "rednecks" to help themselves organize and have solidarity. That label was not given to them by outside interests, they chose it.
humans are responsible for maybe.001% of fucking up the biosphere.
Citation needed.
One volcanic eruption does far more damage than decades of human activity does.
Volcanoes worldwide, including undersea volcanoes, release between 145 and 260 million tons of CO2 every year. The Taichung Power Plant in Taiwan, the largest coal-fired power plant, releases 40 million tons of CO2 every year. That's 1 powerplant releasing between 15% to 27% of the total volcanic output of the planet. China releases over 10 billion tons of CO2 every year. That's at least 38 times as much as all volcanic activity.
APK, I'm happy for you that you were able to write a piece of software that can read/write to a plain text file. Really, it's fantastic. Those quotes above prove that you are completely capable of being able to write an application that can output to plain text. I don't want to take that away from you. Granted, some of those quotes are talking about using the hosts file in general and nothing that you've actually done yourself, but still, I don't want to take anything away from your achievement of creating an application that outputs to plain text. I'm sorry, read AND write plain text, I don't want to diminish your additional achievement of reading plain text either.
I back myself NO problem, why can't you?
I can. I just won't. What do I gain if I do? Nothing I need. What do I lose? Anonymity.
You're not telling the truth is why I suspect
100% of what I've claimed about myself is true. I'm sorry if you refuse to accept that.
you brought this all on yourself
Yeah, and boy, what a heavy burden. You're really affecting me deeply here.
YOU CAME IN HERE GIVING ME GUFF for things I've actually done
No, I CAME IN HERE GIVING YOU GUFF for trying to claim that you once worked with Mark Russinovich, which was a lie. Putting co-worker in quotes doesn't mean it's not a lie.
but it's simple enough for me to show everyone here just what you are
No it's not, you don't even know who I am, much less what.
I don't see ANYONE on/. prior to this posting EVER speak well of wares you've written, now do they?
I have not identified who I am to anyone on this site. So, no, you won't find anyone here pointing to this account and linking it with anything that I've done outside of Slashdot. You won't find links to my accounts on other programming forums, or any personal website or blog, or a company page, etc. You won't find anyone here linking my account with the work I've done, in either a positive or a negative way. The strength of Slashdot is that people can come together and discuss things without ego getting in the way, what you say here is who you are unless you choose to identify yourself. Assuming you actually bother to register an account, anyway. Without registering an account then you have no accountability at all, you have no post history. I'm choosing to allow people to go back and look at things I've said in order to get an idea about what I believe. You accept no kind of accountability for yourself, people cannot find every post you've made. I understand why, because very shortly you would find yourself always posting at -1, but still, there's no accountability for you.
but I am sure by now with these evasions of yours what OTHERS HERE THINK OF YOU
Saying that you are "sure" doesn't mean anything. If there's one thing I've learned from this episode it is that you are completely delusional. I think that you are willfully delusional, I think that you create your own lies and then invest in them fully. That's part of what makes me so curious about what made you this way. Something in your life happened to make you act like this, because you consistently do it, over and over and over again. It's not a normal way to behave, but you stick to it like stink on shit. It's fascinating.
For an alleged programmer you're not even logical
Coming from you, judging what is and is not logical is pretty rich. The foundation of any post you make is full of random assumptions. Logic has nothing to do with your posts. You're still making assumptions about me. You probably think that you're "winning", or that I'm feeling bad about myself, or ascribing any number of emotions to me that simply aren't true. You're fighting a fight with yourself and claiming victory, you don't even understa
Read above, APK. It's not that I can't back anything up, it's just that I won't. Like I said, I don't care about proving anything to you. I don't care if you believe me. My achievements do not require your belief.
A finalist position? Well done. Several years ago we submitted a piece of technology to the organization that runs the awards for our industry, it was a piece that we developed in partnership with the Air Force. We submitted it in a niche category (specialized technology) that didn't have all that much competition, and the award organization decided to instead put us in the largest category (general) and then give us the gold award. We beat out teams from companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Cisco, etc, in the most difficult category that we didn't even submit our work to. Am I going to prove that either? Nope. But I know it's true. I can walk into the conference room and look at that award on the wall, and see the picture of me and my team on stage with our Air Force partners and the presenters, and I can look at the awards that the Air Force gave us. Do I care if you believe me? No, I don't. Your lack of belief will not make that award or our achievements disappear.
Are you starting to get the idea, APK? Here, I'll write in all caps and bold letters, I know you enjoy things that way:
I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ME
I'm not willing to prove anything. If you want to throw out all of your so-called achievements from 15 years ago (what have you done lately, by the way?), go ahead buddy. If you want to know why I don't want to prove anything, again, read what I wrote in the previous post.
And enough with the posting referring to yourself in the third person as if you're someone else, it just looks desperate.
Slashdot Mirror
I just saw your username. It's kind of ironic.
From TFA:
"The worst perpetrator is Google, which tracks people on nearly 80 percent of sites, and does not respect DNT signals,"
From the paper:
While there are a number of companies tracking users online, the overall landscape is highly consolidated, with the top corporation, Google, tracking users on nearly eight of ten sites in the Alexa top one million.
and:
That said, half of the top ten images belong to Google, including the most requested image, the Google Analytics tracking pixel. This image is found on 46.02% of sites, is only 1x1 pixels large, and is utilized solely for tracking purposes.
and:
The most striking finding of this study is that 78.07% of websites in the Alexa top million initiate third-party HTTP requests to a Google-owned domain. While the competitiveness of Google is well known in search, mobile phones, and display advertising, its reach in the web tracking arena is unparalleled. The next company, Facebook, is found on a still significant 32.42% of sites, followed by Akamai (which hosts Facebook and other companies' content) on 23.31% of sites, Twitter with 17.89%, comScore with 11.98%, Amazon with 11.72%, and AppNexus with 11.7%.
There's also this little nugget:
More specifically, internal NSA documents leaked to the Post by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed that a Google cookie named "PREF" was being used to track targets online. Additional documents provided to The Guardian by Snowden detailed that another Google cookie (DoubleClick's "id"), was also used by the NSA; in this case to attempt to compromise the privacy of those using anonymity-focused Tor network [19].
I want to know which one of the 10 is it?
It's roughly 10% of the top 950,000 sites.
What's your response going to be when >90% of the Internet is denied to you, because you won't give in to their ads and tracking techniques? That's likely what's coming.
We'll have to find out what will happen when >90% of the internet sees large drops in their traffic. People in general are becoming more aware to ad-blockers, it's no longer relegated to niche Firefox extensions. That day is coming. I expect to see new revenue models, which may be a way to continue the tracking, e.g. you pay a monthly subscription to a single "content network" that provides access to thousands of sites if you're logged in, rather than paying sites individually. Obviously that parent network would be able to track which of its sites you're on because you need to authenticate.
They start moving actual content and functionality for their sites to the same servers that are serving ads
I don't think we'll see that happen all over the internet. The lure of advertisers and trackers for site operators is that they get paid for putting a little bit of Javascript on their site. If they have more significant setup, hosting, and maintenance costs then it's not going to be as attractive. If they are paying for the bandwidth for third-party ads to be shown on their site then that is no longer negligible. Only the largest sites which would already have their entire operation hosted on a CDN would be fine with that. People buying virtual hosting to host their small-business site or blog aren't going to be bothered to set up something like that.
As far as I know they give you the option of seeing "trusted" ads (or whatever the terminology is), but last I knew they ask if you want to enable or disable that during setup. At this point I don't think they're turning it on without telling you, and they don't hide the option to turn it off.
Ghostery blocked the following on motherboard.vice.com:
Alexa Metrics
ChartBeat
Facebook Connect
Google Ajax Search API
Google Analytics
Google+ Platform
Krux Digital
Netratings Sitecensus
Pinterest
Quantcast
Sailthru Horizon
Scorecard Research Beacon
Twitter Button
they consider as much as a Google tracking cookie to be "leaking your data"
Well it is, so they're right. Shit man, it's right there in the name. It's not the Google Friendly Cookie, it's not the Google Helpful Cookie, it's not the goddamned Google Blowjob Cookie. It's tracking you. It's the very definition of leaking your data. Maybe what you're confused about is the definition of "your data". Hint: "your data" includes where you go online.
Given that I'm not a social networking whore, I'm less worried since I likely am not using sites to start with.
That doesn't matter. If you go to 10 sites and all of them tell your browser to contact Facebook for some Javascript API, then Facebook knows that your browser visited those 10 sites. If you then identify yourself on any of those sites, like logging in to Amazon or Newegg or whatever, then now they know who you are (or at least who is using that browser) and can match that up with their database to know which sites you've visited and what else you've done online. You don't need a Facebook account for that to work, you only need to log in and identify yourself on any "partner" site for the whole network to know who you are. This isn't a reason to not use sites like Facebook or Twitter, it is a reason to use plugins like Ghostery to stop that communication from happening in the first place. Just tell your browser that it's not allowed to contact those sites to download their trackers and beacons, and watch how page load speed increases after that.
That's not what the paper says, they aren't saying that .com is tracking you or leaking your data. It says that they ran their numbers on the entire pool of ~1 million sites, and then ran sub-analysis for the 10 most popular TLDs (plus edu and gov) - com, net, org, ru, de, uk, br, jp, pl, and in. Table 1 in the PDF shows those findings. For the entire data set, 9.47 external domains were contacted on average. Among those TLDs, Brazil had the highest with 11 domains on average, and gov the lowest with 3.61. India was 10.35 and both com and net were 10.2.
And you think Slashdot doesn't share it for some reason?
Ghostery is blocking the following on Slashdot:
Doubleclick (advertising)
Google Adwords Conversion (advertising)
Google Analytics
Janrain
Scorecard Research Beacon
Taboola
It's on Slashdot, and everywhere else.
Here's a quote from TFA:
Most troubling is that if you use your browser setting to say 'Do Not Track' me, the explicitly stated policy of nearly all the companies is to flat-out ignore you
What we need is 9 out of 10 users to start explicitly blocking tracking and advertising, and then flat-out ignore the companies who complain about their bottom line. That article from the advertising industry group talking about how they screwed up rings a little hollow when they are obviously not interested in respecting the requests of consumers to not track them. Enabling Do Not Track is fine, but that only works with the good actors. For everyone else, see below.
https://www.ghostery.com/
https://www.ublock.org/
https://adblockplus.org/
The only area it's weak in is people who manage to get into their adult life without needing credit, but then if you've never had a car loan, a credit card, or any kind of debt, even if it's because you're financially well off, it's still probably a bad idea to hand you a 300k mortgage.
I bought a car a couple years ago and got a loan for it, and I went to my own bank that I've been with for 17 years. They can clearly see my 12-year history of paying a home mortgage, and they've been my bank for my entire professional career and can clearly see my salary going up and even my current salary. They denied the car loan on the basis that I have never had a car loan. My previous car was purchased with a family loan (family member making 3% interest on an account, my loan would have been 6% interest, we settle at 4.5% and both benefit), and my cars before that didn't need a loan. So despite the fact I've been with these people for 17 years and they know my deposit and withdrawal history better than anyone, and the fact that I've been paying a home mortgage for 12 years, the reason why they wouldn't give me an auto loan was because I had never had one of those loans before.
You should just move to the US, where you will have no credit history and a credit score of 0 because the banks don't care what your payment history was in any other country. My girlfriend is from Brazil, and also lived in Finland and Ireland, and when she got to the US on a work visa she had a credit score of 0 with no history. She was unable to get a $300 secured credit card. She couldn't even get a gas card. She was expecting to move here and get a mortgage on a house relatively soon, but she has to be paying taxes for several years in order to qualify for any mortgage. After a year or so she finally got a non-zero credit score, somewhere in the 500s, and at last check it was up to 666 (the credit score of the beast). She had perfect payment history in Brazil, but when she got here legally on a work visa while paying taxes (including social security, despite the fact that she has no social security number and won't benefit) she's treated worse than a kid just coming out of high school regarding credit.
Oh, and once the credit score started changing she saw things on her report that said things like she had too much debt on the $300 secured credit card that she was finally able to get (I have no idea how you can have too much debt on a secured credit card), and then the next report said she didn't have enough. I have a theory that this entire system and all of the rules make sense to someone, but I'm not completely sure. There could be a random number generator spitting out reasons why your score is going up or down and I don't think many people would know the difference.
So you're thinking that the browser supports Ghostery, but not other extensions? Did you look at that link I posted?
They would change debate rules to keep him out and deny him access to anyone of significance in the party at any level, local, state, or federal.
...and then all of the supporters that he has been very effective in attracting would be asking questions that the DNC and the RNC do not want to answer. It would be very bad for the DNC to deny him access to the primary. Once he started spreading his message so effectively, and people started listening, then he ensured that he would have a place at the table. The DNC didn't help him get his message out, either, that was all his campaign. The DNC has opted out of putting up their own tables outside of his rallies to sign up voters, because those voters would just vote for Sanders. Think about that one for a second.
They would kill his media coverage more than they have.
"More than they have?" His campaign has survived and prospered despite, not because of, media coverage. He has never had good coverage. The media shows him as being fringe. You could see it in the first debate. The "political insiders", talking heads, networks, etc all declared Hillary the winner. The focus groups on both CNN and Fox, as well as data from Google, Facebook, Twitter, and any number of online polls, all suggested that Sanders had won. The media has been pushing the Clinton narrative since day 1, and Sanders has survived despite the media following the DNC plan, not because of any DNC support.
Everyone in the party would get the message that if they went within ten feet of this guy they would be bucking the party establishment and would not have party support come reelection time.
Which is probably why he has only 1 endorsement from Congress.
That's how major political parties work. They are engines of political control, not of democracy.
No shit.
The DNC missed their chance by killing his campaign before it started. Once his message was out and people were paying attention it was too late. They can't put the genie back in the bottle at this point. They, like everyone else, underestimated the appeal of his message.
It's not like the Democratic party called him up and gave him permission to run. He declared his candidacy and then quickly and effectively put out a message that the majority of the country agrees with in a way that caused a lot of people to start talking about him. He forced his way into the Democratic contest, he was not "allowed" in. If they would have tried to push him away then there either would have been a lot of people asking questions about why some candidates aren't allowed to debate (which neither party wants to answer), or he would just run as an independent.
He wasn't "allowed" to run, he made it happen because people agree with his message. The reason why there is so much doubt around his candidacy is because the media and the parties keep telling the public that he is a fringe candidate. He's not fringe, he's mainstream. The media is trying to push fringe candidates like Clinton and Trump/Rubio/Cruz on people and call them mainstream, but the polls show that the majority of the country supports Sanders when people aren't being shoved loaded terms like "socialism", where they think it means something that it doesn't. You can see that in polls where people say that they agree with Sanders' positions, and also that they wouldn't vote for a socialist. The media is controlling the dialog, which is why you think Sanders is a fringe candidate or does not have a realistic chance at getting elected.
The UI looks fine, it's a minimal UI that is to be expected with today's browsers. It doesn't look any less professional than any other browser.
Remind me again why I should change to an ugly Chromium clone without advertising or script blocking features?
...he says, while linking to a screenshot that shows Ghostery installed.
http://www.ghacks.net/2015/03/...
Firefox has been relegated to the back burner for years now. It does a decent job as a development tool with Firebug, but otherwise it's pretty slow and clunky. And according to my task manager it still hasn't managed to figure out process separation for tabs.
You're still humping my leg, are you APK?
I'll tell you what this reminds me of. When I was in college I played a lot of a game called Mechwarrior 4. I was good at it, it got to the point where I was consistently ranked as one of the top few scores for each week, if not the first. I just played it a lot and got good at it, that's all. Frequently when I was at my best other people in the matches would accuse me of cheating. I would consistently kill them and they would talk about how I couldn't be doing that unless I was cheating, you can't aim or fire that fast, etc, whatever the excuse. That was the best compliment I got from anyone while playing that game. I was beating those people so badly that they were absolutely positive that I couldn't just do that myself, I had to be cheating somehow. I've never installed or used a game cheat program in my life.
That's what I see from you now. I've given you claims about my life, and not even that great either. I've got a degree, I went from intern to CTO, our company has won awards for the projects I've developed, we've got hundreds of thousands to millions of people using our software, etc. Those aren't even outlandish claims, I'm sure any number of people on this site have similar stories. I don't consider myself any kind of superstar programmer either. I'm very good at what I do in my role as a CTO, but there are plenty of places I can improve as a programmer. I have books on my shelf like The Art Of Computer Programming or Code Complete that I haven't read yet. I've only been to a small number of programming conferences. I don't do much with open source or Github, etc. There are places where I can and want to improve and just haven't been able to take the time to make that happen yet.
Even so, look at you. You appear to be completely convinced that the things I'm telling you can't possibly be true. I've already told you that I'm not going to identify myself, but here you are, demanding proof of my claims. You can't let it go. You're convinced that the things I'm telling you are lies.
I appreciate the compliments, although it's kind of sad what that says about you and your self-confidence.
As for individual work, if you're going to ask for more claims then I'll be happy to give them to you. The company I work for right now runs all of its bookkeeping and project tracking from a system that I personally designed and developed 12 years ago, and all of our clients interact with the same system. There's another company that I was working with briefly who also runs software that I personally designed and developed to do similar things, to interact with all of their clients. Their clients can log on to their site and have access to all of their records and data that would otherwise stay in another third-party proprietary system running on the servers. My software is a link to that data for the customers, and that company has remarked several times that this system is what sets them apart from all of their competitors. The company that the software interfaces with also was interested in getting my software to bundle with theirs but I didn't have time to try and make that happen. And, like I've said before, the main application that our company sells was in fact originally designed and developed by me. I was working on that version for 3 years supporting 30 corporate/military clients using it all by myself before we got another programmer to start helping me. We currently employ 1 additional programmer other than me (good help is hard to find). I'm in charge of all of the company's internal systems and tools and multiple versions of our major application, personally. And yes, I'm also good at working on a team.
Let me know if you have any other questions that you'd like me to answer, or if you just want to keep spending your time throwing out random insults and otherwise spinning your wheels. Like I said, I'm flattered that you find the reality of my life so unconvincing, but again there are many other people li
I'm not advocating for racial slurs, I'm only questioning the assertions made by the person I responded to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are no journalistic controls in place.
Yeah, it would have been so much better if they cited "sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity" or "top officials".
Journalistic integrity today is a joke. The real journalists seem to be confined to a handful of organizations, like Vice News, or Brian Krebs (who had too much integrity for the Washington Post to keep around). Journalist ethics went out the door when everyone started re-reporting stories based on information from anonymous unverifiable sources as being factual information.
Did you just make all of that up? I can't find a single source that connects "redneck" with Native Americans, every definition I've seen ties it specifically to white people. Many today claim it as a badge of pride. And the Scopes Monkey Trial? That had nothing to do with unionizing miners, and everything to do with a publicity stunt to draw attention to the town of Dayton, TN. Mr. Scopes was even unsure whether he had ever taught evolution but incriminated himself anyway so that the trial could have a defendant. The miners that you're referring to were trying to unionize 5 years before Scopes and they wore red bandanas around their necks and self-identified as "rednecks" to help themselves organize and have solidarity. That label was not given to them by outside interests, they chose it.
The words "IT Outsourcing" in the headline are unnecessary.
humans are responsible for maybe .001% of fucking up the biosphere.
Citation needed.
One volcanic eruption does far more damage than decades of human activity does.
Volcanoes worldwide, including undersea volcanoes, release between 145 and 260 million tons of CO2 every year. The Taichung Power Plant in Taiwan, the largest coal-fired power plant, releases 40 million tons of CO2 every year. That's 1 powerplant releasing between 15% to 27% of the total volcanic output of the planet. China releases over 10 billion tons of CO2 every year. That's at least 38 times as much as all volcanic activity.
APK, I'm happy for you that you were able to write a piece of software that can read/write to a plain text file. Really, it's fantastic. Those quotes above prove that you are completely capable of being able to write an application that can output to plain text. I don't want to take that away from you. Granted, some of those quotes are talking about using the hosts file in general and nothing that you've actually done yourself, but still, I don't want to take anything away from your achievement of creating an application that outputs to plain text. I'm sorry, read AND write plain text, I don't want to diminish your additional achievement of reading plain text either.
I back myself NO problem, why can't you?
I can. I just won't. What do I gain if I do? Nothing I need. What do I lose? Anonymity.
You're not telling the truth is why I suspect
100% of what I've claimed about myself is true. I'm sorry if you refuse to accept that.
you brought this all on yourself
Yeah, and boy, what a heavy burden. You're really affecting me deeply here.
YOU CAME IN HERE GIVING ME GUFF for things I've actually done
No, I CAME IN HERE GIVING YOU GUFF for trying to claim that you once worked with Mark Russinovich, which was a lie. Putting co-worker in quotes doesn't mean it's not a lie.
but it's simple enough for me to show everyone here just what you are
No it's not, you don't even know who I am, much less what.
I don't see ANYONE on /. prior to this posting EVER speak well of wares you've written, now do they?
I have not identified who I am to anyone on this site. So, no, you won't find anyone here pointing to this account and linking it with anything that I've done outside of Slashdot. You won't find links to my accounts on other programming forums, or any personal website or blog, or a company page, etc. You won't find anyone here linking my account with the work I've done, in either a positive or a negative way. The strength of Slashdot is that people can come together and discuss things without ego getting in the way, what you say here is who you are unless you choose to identify yourself. Assuming you actually bother to register an account, anyway. Without registering an account then you have no accountability at all, you have no post history. I'm choosing to allow people to go back and look at things I've said in order to get an idea about what I believe. You accept no kind of accountability for yourself, people cannot find every post you've made. I understand why, because very shortly you would find yourself always posting at -1, but still, there's no accountability for you.
but I am sure by now with these evasions of yours what OTHERS HERE THINK OF YOU
Saying that you are "sure" doesn't mean anything. If there's one thing I've learned from this episode it is that you are completely delusional. I think that you are willfully delusional, I think that you create your own lies and then invest in them fully. That's part of what makes me so curious about what made you this way. Something in your life happened to make you act like this, because you consistently do it, over and over and over again. It's not a normal way to behave, but you stick to it like stink on shit. It's fascinating.
For an alleged programmer you're not even logical
Coming from you, judging what is and is not logical is pretty rich. The foundation of any post you make is full of random assumptions. Logic has nothing to do with your posts. You're still making assumptions about me. You probably think that you're "winning", or that I'm feeling bad about myself, or ascribing any number of emotions to me that simply aren't true. You're fighting a fight with yourself and claiming victory, you don't even understa
Read above, APK. It's not that I can't back anything up, it's just that I won't. Like I said, I don't care about proving anything to you. I don't care if you believe me. My achievements do not require your belief.
A finalist position? Well done. Several years ago we submitted a piece of technology to the organization that runs the awards for our industry, it was a piece that we developed in partnership with the Air Force. We submitted it in a niche category (specialized technology) that didn't have all that much competition, and the award organization decided to instead put us in the largest category (general) and then give us the gold award. We beat out teams from companies like Adobe, Microsoft, Cisco, etc, in the most difficult category that we didn't even submit our work to. Am I going to prove that either? Nope. But I know it's true. I can walk into the conference room and look at that award on the wall, and see the picture of me and my team on stage with our Air Force partners and the presenters, and I can look at the awards that the Air Force gave us. Do I care if you believe me? No, I don't. Your lack of belief will not make that award or our achievements disappear.
Are you starting to get the idea, APK? Here, I'll write in all caps and bold letters, I know you enjoy things that way:
I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT ME
I'm not willing to prove anything. If you want to throw out all of your so-called achievements from 15 years ago (what have you done lately, by the way?), go ahead buddy. If you want to know why I don't want to prove anything, again, read what I wrote in the previous post.
And enough with the posting referring to yourself in the third person as if you're someone else, it just looks desperate.