What I don't get is why people aren't all raging about how broken window focus management has been since Windows 7. It used to be you could <alt>+<tab> and cycle through windows in a predictable manner, so you weren't required to remove your hands from the freakin' keyboard when you're working at 90 miles an hour. Or is this just a dual-monitor fsckup?
Can you be a little more specific ? I've been using Windows 7 for quite some time on multi-monitor setups and don't see anything that's changed with Alt+Tab behaviour.
Average annual pay for my PT waiter about $25k. Average FT Oz pay about $50k.
Actually median salary is around $50k. Average is around $70k. For a skilled, degree-qualified job, teaching is not particularly highly-paid, especially in context of its importance. A schoolteacher's (as in, someone in the classroom) salary in NSW will top out at around $85k, no matter how long they're employed. If you want to go higher than that, you need to look at principal or other administrative positions. *Most* teachers will earn well under $85k.
Don't start me on miners, MUA or union organizers ($100k+),
Indeed, unskilled, uneducated bogans earning six-figure salaries for driving trucks around is absurd. Union organisers are just standard middle-managers, and $100k for one of them is nothing amazing. However, how is the fraction of one percent of the workforce you're complaining about responsible for our economic woes, exactly ?
The system is rorted by a process called "regulatory capture" where laws are passed that favour unions and industries that are unionised.
The increasing proportion of part-time, "flexible" and similarly precarious jobs make this claim laughable. Once again, less than one-fifth (and consistently dropping) of the workforce is unionised. Of those, most are not being paid particularly highly. If the laws are favouring unions, they're doing a pretty shit job at it. Compared to the phenomenal amount of waste going into utterly unproductive rentier industries like real estate and finance, it is absurd to try and blame unions for much of anything at all. On top of all that, you're fundamentally arguing from a logical fallacy: that unionisation is implicitly bad.
Know why your kids know zilch about math and physics?
Because your mate Murdoch - along with most of the right-wing party machine - has been waging war on people like teachers and academics for over a decade. He's front and centre in the ongoing anti-science and anti-intellectual media campaign. No-one wants to be a teacher because it's gone from being a career with high levels of community respect to a dead-end loser's job.
So a math major in industry earns $150k - $200k, why would he go into teaching? OTOH The average historian/geographer/artist/Litt major would be hard pressed to get $40k-$60k. Gee we have plenty of them in schools, I wonder why?
Are you seriously trying to argue schools could pay maths teachers $150k ? Or are you arguing that children shouldn't be taught geography, history and language skills ?
Your statement is ambiguous, but I assume that you are implying that real-estate bubbles were bad for society, but that you believe that profitability as a measure would judge them to be good for society, therefore profitability is a poor measure of benefit to society.
My point is that people have spent huge amounts of money trading houses with each other and inflating huge real estate bubbles (with massively negative effects for contempoary, and particularly future, society) rather than doing anything productive with it.
The GFC never really hit Australia. Our economy has been growing since mid 2009 although a lot of idiots keep saying that it's going to hit us any minute now... Any minute now... We've dodged 20 of these recessions in the last year. Mostly because idiots dont actually know anything about the economy. Our time is coming. Or economy has been almost entirely hollowed out and the ridiculously high real estate prices have massively and unsustainably increased the cost of living, and are now putting a drag on the whole economy as retail struggles to survive. The only thing holding the whole shebang together is the ludicrously high currency. In short, when the mining boom stops, we're fucked. It's going to be painful and, unfortunately, laid almost entirely at the feet of Labor, even though the Liberals are at least, if not more, culpable. The Liberals "hard saved" cash came from selling off public assets. Without selling off Telco assets and the airports, Howard would have left in debt. You forgot the structural deficit Howard's huge cash handouts and entrenched middle-class welfare left behind. Old Labor would have fixed that by cutting back on breeding payments and non-means-tested handouts and raising taxes, but New Labor is just Liberals Lite and thus continued those same unsustainable policies.
Profit is the best measure of benefit to society: how much savings/income are free individuals willing to sacrifice for the benefit of the good or service to their standard of living. Real-estate bubbles the world over demonstrate the foolishness and fallacy of this position.
And that would make you another Labor revisionist? Fuck no. I haven't voted Labor since Keating. Since they've become nothing more than Liberals Lite, I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. My political position is soft-left, and Labor hasn't been anywhere left of centre for a decade.
2009 - Labor was in power... The rot started nearly ten years earlier. "Some sheet home blame to CSIRO's former chief executive Geoff Garrett. Before his appointment in 2000, each division of the organisation directed its own science, and its leaders enjoyed utter autonomy. Garrett bombshelled these silos, introducing a corporate hierarchy that funnelled to him and to his entourage control over funds. With the money went control of the direction of the organisation."
Both the Liberals and New Labor follow the same neo-liberal economic/authoritarian social playbook that's been destroying western civilisation in the name of corporate greed for nearly three decades now. They are practically indistinguishable in their economic policies, though Labor at least having the minor preference of a) being responsible for nearly every positive economic and social improvement in Australian history and b) paying at least lip service to fulfilling the social contract of Government. The Liberals don't even try to pretend, anymore, that they're for anything except greater concentration of wealth amongst few, the gutting of public services and the socialisation of "big capital's" losses.
What we need is a Thatcher to stop all the union rorts. Yeah. That overwhelming ~17% of the workforce that's unionised, mostly in average- to low-paying jobs like teaching and childcare, sure are "rorting" the system. Like the other guy said, stop getting your new from Murdoch. All he wants to do is turn Australia into another America (and he's doing a bang-up job so far, thanks to useful idiots like you). If you want to live in America so badly, move there. It's pretty easy for Australians to emigrate.
Judging by the SMH article, the problems started when a new director came in and started to run the place like a corporation instead of a research facility.
It would appear the CSIRO is - along with the ACCC, and others - another victim of the Howard neocons. New Labor being nearly indistinguishable in this regard, have just kept the ball rolling.
It costs MORE time and money (at a minimum they have filing fees and attorney's fees) for a company to get an H1-B than it costs to get a US resident.
Rubbish. Compared to the time and cost of training people to fill the jobs they have vacant, importing foreigners is chicken feed.
Disclosure: I spent a couple of years working in the US on an E3 visa (which is basically a H1B specific to Australians).
This is hardly a trend unique to the US, either. It's rife throughout the western world, as multi-national corporations seek to further privatise their profits while socialising their costs.
Some people have virtual servers, but what's the point of that if you end up with two servers on one machine that run more than twice as slow than if you just had the same server do both jobs directly. Because 99% of the stuff that is on servers requires <5% of a modern CPU. So you don't get twice as much stuff at half the speed, you get twenty times as much stuff at the same speed. With better reliability and flexibility.
It does line up with my personal beliefs, but all with the political compass. 2010. 2007. I haven't seen a lot to be concerned about with Brown's intended regulations.
Labor "flushed" their "high ground" on immigration (and, indeed, pretty much everything else) a decade ago chasing LNP votes. Since the early 2000s, Labor has been little more than the Liberals with a 5-year time delay. If you want a soft-left party in Australia (ie: Labor's traditional position), your only option is the Greens.
If you have a genuine claim to asylum, then Australia, the USA, and, indeed, any other signatory of the relevant treaties is obliged to take you in.
The proportion of "illegal immigrants" who are not, after processing, granted asylum (or similar) in Australia, is infinitesimal. In the context of the number of "legitimate" immigrants who proceed to overstay their visa, or similar, they don't even qualify as a rounding error.
The complaints against "boat people" in Australia are pure dog-whistle politics. Completely and utterly devoid of any objective rationale. This was true in Howard's day, it remains true in Howard's shadow Government.
You need to actually live here to understand the politics of the situation. The problem is that the government has lost control of illegal immigration [...]
You implication that a parent who is prepared to abort a pregnancy is engaging in an unethical and immoral act [...]
No, my "implication" is that someone who doesn't want children and is prepared to force another person to undergo a potentially traumatic and invasive procedure to maintain that state, is unlikely to have any problems with doing no more than providing the minimum legally required support for that same child.
In simple point of fact they do at least in the legal sense of "right." They have the right to escape parental responsibility without the consent of the man. That is a right, women are granted this right, men are not.
No.
Women are granted the same rights as men to do whatever they want to their own bodies [0]. Some of those things can make their bodies inhospitable for a foetus (or even conception).
A man can not - and most assuredly should not be able to - force a woman to have an abortion, any more than he can force her to stop using contraception. Why ? Because the woman has the final say over what happens to her body.
That is the principle behind "abortion rights".
Even after the birth of the child the man must get the consent of the woman in order to be absolved of his legal responsibilities as a parent.
As must the woman have the consent of the man in the same scenario.
Men can't avoid the child happening altogether but there is no particular reason they shouldn't be granted the same right to escape legal parental responsibility.
They have the same rights women do. Exercising those rights, however, can have different effects. There are contraception methods available to men that are all but foolproof (vasectomy, for example). Combined with either a modicum of communication with the partner about child-rearing desires
You do realize that makes no sense? You abort a pregnancy not a child.
The argument presented was that a child represents a lifetime financial burden. This is false, as a parent (either of them) can cease all financial support when a child turns 18. My point is that a parent prepared to abort a foetus (or force someone else to), is unlikely to have any ethical or moral problems with ceasing financial support at the earliest opportunity if abortion is not an option.
It doesn't really matter. We are at the stage where abortion carries no more health risks than continuing pregnancy.
...If you don't consider mental health to be a "health risk". The physical risk of childbirth is probably higher than the physical risk of abortion. The mental impact of being forced to abort a child you want to have, on the other hand, is probably much more significant.
Women are no longer financially dependent on men in modern society.
Not according to statistics. Women earn less, dominate lower-paid jobs and are almost invariably tasked with child-rearing duties (giving up work in the interim) in most families.
It is her body and her choice to have a child despite that but there is no reason the male should have any further obligation if she makes that choice. She makes the choice knowing and accepting the consequences.
Well there is, and that's because of the possibility of the father decamping after conception (or birth, if you prefer) despite having actively and knowingly contributed, then changing his mind later.
You haven't done anything wrong if you have sex without contraception and then abort it. There is no blame beyond the financial obligation to pay the cost of the procedure. It is no different than having bad brushing habits and having to pay to fill a cavity. It's fair to say that the intelligent and responsible choice for almost every unintended pregnancy is abortion.
You seem to be under the impression I have a problem with abortion. I don't. I consider it a perfectly legitimate form of contraception. I'm merely pointing out a) the stupidity of the original argument that women have "more rights" because they decide whether or not an abortion can proceed, b) that abortion carries non-trivial health risks and c) that in the real world, there are going to be more men who try to escape parental responsibility than there are women who get pregnant knowing the father doesn't want children.
Even without women getting pregnant deliberately the father has the right to make the choice that he isn't in a position to be able to ethically live up to the responsibility that comes with a child and that he doesn't believe it would be fair to the child to bring it into the world with the lifelong trauma of having a father that doesn't want it. Additionally, it is not merely 18 years, that is only the financial obligation. Parenthood is a life long obligation either for the life of the child or the father.
If you're a father that wants your child, sure. If you're a father prepared to abort it, or walk away from any responsibility of raising it, then no.
I don't think the father should be able to force an abortion but the woman should be required to inform him and he should have the option of providing the cost of the abortion and walking away with no future obligation or rights. In this way he meets his minimum obligation without forcing the woman to do anything. A woman should have no more right to force a continued obligation on him than he has to force her to have an abortion.
Once again, the reality of the situation is that there's always going to be far more men who shirk their child support than women who maliciously get pregnant. If for no other reason than it's a lot easier for a man to walk away from the situation than it is a woman. If we assume that the responsibility for contraception falls equally between participants, then the current compromise does not seem unreasonable. Fundamentally, however, women get the final call on abortion (both ways) because it's their body. Every other aspect applies equally to both parents and cancels out.
Slashdot Mirror
Windows from version /386 has handled hardware drivers, process scheduling, memory management and user interface.
Pretty much any OS textbook will identify these as the things an operating system does.
What I don't get is why people aren't all raging about how broken window focus management has been since Windows 7. It used to be you could <alt>+<tab> and cycle through windows in a predictable manner, so you weren't required to remove your hands from the freakin' keyboard when you're working at 90 miles an hour. Or is this just a dual-monitor fsckup?
Can you be a little more specific ? I've been using Windows 7 for quite some time on multi-monitor setups and don't see anything that's changed with Alt+Tab behaviour.
I also struggle to understand the desire for a separate quicklaunch when Windows 7 Taskbar-pinning achieves the same end more efficiently.
Actually median salary is around $50k. Average is around $70k.
For a skilled, degree-qualified job, teaching is not particularly highly-paid, especially in context of its importance.
A schoolteacher's (as in, someone in the classroom) salary in NSW will top out at around $85k, no matter how long they're employed. If you want to go higher than that, you need to look at principal or other administrative positions. *Most* teachers will earn well under $85k.
Indeed, unskilled, uneducated bogans earning six-figure salaries for driving trucks around is absurd. Union organisers are just standard middle-managers, and $100k for one of them is nothing amazing. However, how is the fraction of one percent of the workforce you're complaining about responsible for our economic woes, exactly ?
The increasing proportion of part-time, "flexible" and similarly precarious jobs make this claim laughable.
Once again, less than one-fifth (and consistently dropping) of the workforce is unionised. Of those, most are not being paid particularly highly. If the laws are favouring unions, they're doing a pretty shit job at it.
Compared to the phenomenal amount of waste going into utterly unproductive rentier industries like real estate and finance, it is absurd to try and blame unions for much of anything at all.
On top of all that, you're fundamentally arguing from a logical fallacy: that unionisation is implicitly bad.
Because your mate Murdoch - along with most of the right-wing party machine - has been waging war on people like teachers and academics for over a decade. He's front and centre in the ongoing anti-science and anti-intellectual media campaign. No-one wants to be a teacher because it's gone from being a career with high levels of community respect to a dead-end loser's job.
Are you seriously trying to argue schools could pay maths teachers $150k ? Or are you arguing that children shouldn't be taught geography, history and language skills ?
Your statement is ambiguous, but I assume that you are implying that real-estate bubbles were bad for society, but that you believe that profitability as a measure would judge them to be good for society, therefore profitability is a poor measure of benefit to society.
My point is that people have spent huge amounts of money trading houses with each other and inflating huge real estate bubbles (with massively negative effects for contempoary, and particularly future, society) rather than doing anything productive with it.
The GFC never really hit Australia. Our economy has been growing since mid 2009 although a lot of idiots keep saying that it's going to hit us any minute now... Any minute now... We've dodged 20 of these recessions in the last year. Mostly because idiots dont actually know anything about the economy.
Our time is coming. Or economy has been almost entirely hollowed out and the ridiculously high real estate prices have massively and unsustainably increased the cost of living, and are now putting a drag on the whole economy as retail struggles to survive. The only thing holding the whole shebang together is the ludicrously high currency.
In short, when the mining boom stops, we're fucked. It's going to be painful and, unfortunately, laid almost entirely at the feet of Labor, even though the Liberals are at least, if not more, culpable.
The Liberals "hard saved" cash came from selling off public assets. Without selling off Telco assets and the airports, Howard would have left in debt.
You forgot the structural deficit Howard's huge cash handouts and entrenched middle-class welfare left behind. Old Labor would have fixed that by cutting back on breeding payments and non-means-tested handouts and raising taxes, but New Labor is just Liberals Lite and thus continued those same unsustainable policies.
Profit is the best measure of benefit to society: how much savings/income are free individuals willing to sacrifice for the benefit of the good or service to their standard of living.
Real-estate bubbles the world over demonstrate the foolishness and fallacy of this position.
Some sheet home blame to CSIRO's former chief executive Geoff Garrett. Before his appointment in 2000, each division of the organisation directed its own science, and its leaders enjoyed utter autonomy. Garrett bombshelled these silos, introducing a corporate hierarchy that funnelled to him and to his entourage control over funds. With the money went control of the direction of the organisation.
And that would make you another Labor revisionist?
Fuck no. I haven't voted Labor since Keating. Since they've become nothing more than Liberals Lite, I wouldn't touch them with a ten-foot pole. My political position is soft-left, and Labor hasn't been anywhere left of centre for a decade.
2009 - Labor was in power...
The rot started nearly ten years earlier.
"Some sheet home blame to CSIRO's former chief executive Geoff Garrett. Before his appointment in 2000, each division of the organisation directed its own science, and its leaders enjoyed utter autonomy. Garrett bombshelled these silos, introducing a corporate hierarchy that funnelled to him and to his entourage control over funds. With the money went control of the direction of the organisation."
Both the Liberals and New Labor follow the same neo-liberal economic/authoritarian social playbook that's been destroying western civilisation in the name of corporate greed for nearly three decades now. They are practically indistinguishable in their economic policies, though Labor at least having the minor preference of a) being responsible for nearly every positive economic and social improvement in Australian history and b) paying at least lip service to fulfilling the social contract of Government. The Liberals don't even try to pretend, anymore, that they're for anything except greater concentration of wealth amongst few, the gutting of public services and the socialisation of "big capital's" losses.
What we need is a Thatcher to stop all the union rorts.
Yeah. That overwhelming ~17% of the workforce that's unionised, mostly in average- to low-paying jobs like teaching and childcare, sure are "rorting" the system.
Like the other guy said, stop getting your new from Murdoch. All he wants to do is turn Australia into another America (and he's doing a bang-up job so far, thanks to useful idiots like you). If you want to live in America so badly, move there. It's pretty easy for Australians to emigrate.
Judging by the SMH article, the problems started when a new director came in and started to run the place like a corporation instead of a research facility.
It would appear the CSIRO is - along with the ACCC, and others - another victim of the Howard neocons. New Labor being nearly indistinguishable in this regard, have just kept the ball rolling.
Thinking you shouldn't be able to wander into a 7-11 and pick up an AK47 along with your coke and chips isn't being "anti-gun".
Rubbish. Compared to the time and cost of training people to fill the jobs they have vacant, importing foreigners is chicken feed.
Disclosure: I spent a couple of years working in the US on an E3 visa (which is basically a H1B specific to Australians).
This is hardly a trend unique to the US, either. It's rife throughout the western world, as multi-national corporations seek to further privatise their profits while socialising their costs.
Some people have virtual servers, but what's the point of that if you end up with two servers on one machine that run more than twice as slow than if you just had the same server do both jobs directly.
Because 99% of the stuff that is on servers requires <5% of a modern CPU.
So you don't get twice as much stuff at half the speed, you get twenty times as much stuff at the same speed. With better reliability and flexibility.
Can you summarise that blog to something coherent ?
Not to mention the common problems with VLB cards running at 50Mhz, especially if you have more than one of them.
It does line up with my personal beliefs, but all with the political compass. 2010. 2007.
I haven't seen a lot to be concerned about with Brown's intended regulations.
Labor "flushed" their "high ground" on immigration (and, indeed, pretty much everything else) a decade ago chasing LNP votes.
Since the early 2000s, Labor has been little more than the Liberals with a 5-year time delay.
If you want a soft-left party in Australia (ie: Labor's traditional position), your only option is the Greens.
It's like a redneck, but upside-down.
If you have a genuine claim to asylum, then Australia, the USA, and, indeed, any other signatory of the relevant treaties is obliged to take you in.
The proportion of "illegal immigrants" who are not, after processing, granted asylum (or similar) in Australia, is infinitesimal. In the context of the number of "legitimate" immigrants who proceed to overstay their visa, or similar, they don't even qualify as a rounding error.
The complaints against "boat people" in Australia are pure dog-whistle politics. Completely and utterly devoid of any objective rationale. This was true in Howard's day, it remains true in Howard's shadow Government.
Complete and utter bullshit.
No, my "implication" is that someone who doesn't want children and is prepared to force another person to undergo a potentially traumatic and invasive procedure to maintain that state, is unlikely to have any problems with doing no more than providing the minimum legally required support for that same child.
No.
Women are granted the same rights as men to do whatever they want to their own bodies [0]. Some of those things can make their bodies inhospitable for a foetus (or even conception).
A man can not - and most assuredly should not be able to - force a woman to have an abortion, any more than he can force her to stop using contraception. Why ? Because the woman has the final say over what happens to her body.
That is the principle behind "abortion rights".
As must the woman have the consent of the man in the same scenario.
They have the same rights women do. Exercising those rights, however, can have different effects. There are contraception methods available to men that are all but foolproof (vasectomy, for example). Combined with either a modicum of communication with the partner about child-rearing desires
[0] Laws regarding illegal drugs, etc, notwithstanding.
The argument presented was that a child represents a lifetime financial burden. This is false, as a parent (either of them) can cease all financial support when a child turns 18. My point is that a parent prepared to abort a foetus (or force someone else to), is unlikely to have any ethical or moral problems with ceasing financial support at the earliest opportunity if abortion is not an option.
The physical risk of childbirth is probably higher than the physical risk of abortion. The mental impact of being forced to abort a child you want to have, on the other hand, is probably much more significant.
Not according to statistics. Women earn less, dominate lower-paid jobs and are almost invariably tasked with child-rearing duties (giving up work in the interim) in most families.
Well there is, and that's because of the possibility of the father decamping after conception (or birth, if you prefer) despite having actively and knowingly contributed, then changing his mind later.
You seem to be under the impression I have a problem with abortion. I don't. I consider it a perfectly legitimate form of contraception. I'm merely pointing out a) the stupidity of the original argument that women have "more rights" because they decide whether or not an abortion can proceed, b) that abortion carries non-trivial health risks and c) that in the real world, there are going to be more men who try to escape parental responsibility than there are women who get pregnant knowing the father doesn't want children.
Might be a Canadian problem. I've had numerous hard disks shipped from the USA to Australia (via USPS) without a problem.
If you're a father that wants your child, sure. If you're a father prepared to abort it, or walk away from any responsibility of raising it, then no.
Once again, the reality of the situation is that there's always going to be far more men who shirk their child support than women who maliciously get pregnant. If for no other reason than it's a lot easier for a man to walk away from the situation than it is a woman.
If we assume that the responsibility for contraception falls equally between participants, then the current compromise does not seem unreasonable.
Fundamentally, however, women get the final call on abortion (both ways) because it's their body. Every other aspect applies equally to both parents and cancels out.