Browsers already throttle JS on inactive tabs, and have done so for years. If there's a problem there, it exists already in a far more common context. How many sites break when you switch tabs?
As for an active page you can't close causing problems, as we're only keeping it alive for a brief period (I'd say about a minute) to allow a quick 'forward' to save you from an accidental 'back', it wouldn't be a problem for very long. As the problem here is accidental back navigation, and the backspace key is very rarely used to move back, a more satisfying solution to this is to only save the page if the backspace key is used to navigate back. As it's only a problem if the user has entered information in to a form, you could also only save the page this way if form data has been entered.
Though that brings up another alternative. One that doesn't change a standard navigation key, which is a problem for some users. (Think 'accessibility' here. Not everyone can use a mouse, see, or even easily press two keys simultaneously.) That is, prompt to confirm back navigation if data has been entered in to a form field.
Though I wonder if completely suspending the page would cause many problems at all. I've often put my computer to sleep, traveled to a different location, and resumed without issue, regardless of how fancy the sites pants might have been. (A site that breaks on a failed ajax call would be one awful site!) I could be the exception, but it would be worth investigation if you were tasked with implementing such a thing. I guess all this digression supports my point, as we're getting lost in more complicated solutions when there are far simpler ones that don't share those issues just a few steps away.
Again, the entire point was that there's usually a simpler solution to problems like this when you're faced with an absurdly complex one. You just have to look a little closer. We did look closer, and now we have three possibly solutions to the problem, all much simpler than the above proposed Rube Goldberg page restore approach. I like the 'prompt if form data entered' one a bit more than the simplest (unmapping 'back' function from the backspace key) as it would also save us from the nightmare that is the accidental activation of the back gesture.
I cannot imagine just how the fuck you would store every form value, JS variable, DHTML element state, dynamically loaded resource and HTML5 local store content perfectly back to their original states.
Why would you need to do that? Going back could simply hide the current page for some brief period before closing it. Go forward within that period and just make it visible again.
Or, you know, prevent the problem in the first place by not mapping the backspace key to the back function. (In FireFox: set browser.backspace_action = 2)
When you're faced with a ridiculously complicated solution, look around a bit, there's usually a much simpler one.
Obviously. Anyone who's dealt with teenagers has heard all of those things I've happily put in quotes. Every teenage thinks their parents are horrible and often say those very things when confronted with the typical boundaries their parents have set for them.
I thought it was pretty obvious, but judging from the moderation and the AC below, the intent has been lost. I assume it's because neither you or the AC below have any experience with kids that age.
I'm not seeing the problem here. It looks correct to me. In this case, the 'of' indicates that the 'some' belongs to or originates from 'that punch'.
We can eliminate the 'of' in most cases, but we often lose some meaning: "Now, he's lost some of his tools." -> "Now, he's lost some tools" (The owner of the tools is lost.) Though, in this case, the meaning can be preserved by writing "Now it's lost some punch."
And three, if you count concerns about inhaling products that haven't been studied for long term health effects.
Indeed. Which is why you need to fight against the free sale of scented candles/wax and the dangerously untested "plug in" air fresheners. (The electronic aspect of the latter makes them super-appealing to kids!) To top it off, I've seen parents openly, in public, smelling these things in front of other people's children and commenting on how 'good' those quick chemical-huffs felt.
Don't get me started on sublimating air "fresheners" people stick, without a second thought, in enclosed spaces like cars. The same cars millions of careless parents use to transport their, often very young, children. Do we really know what's in them? Have you ever seen even so much as an ingredient label? What unimaginable harm could those made-in-mystery-factory-in-China air pollution sticks be causing? We don't know because they're completely unregulated and untested!
It was a rousing success. That's why no one drinks any more. The war on drugs equally so. Sure, Nixon struggled a bit, but Nancy Regan put an end to the drug problem once and for all, with zero negative social consequences.
With those out of the way, we're free to work on slightly more trivial, though still important, issues. I move we ban Axe body spray, floral perfumes, and Indian food. Some of those perfumes send me in to quite the sneezing fit, so the danger to public health is obvious.
After all, your freedom ends where my nose begins.
Many, many scientific studies have found all of the usual baddies in the 'vape' from an array of vendors of the little nicotine cells [...] In some cases, more than an equivalent nicotine-dose drag of a "real" cigarette.
From my, admittedly, limited knowledge of the subject (I looked at a few, 10 or so, of the oft-cited studies a few years ago, and it's not my field) these claims are completely false. Unless something dramatic has happened in the past couple years, I can't possibly believe your claim.
Please, post at least a few studies which support your strange assertions.
Rather than go with "most influential" and to avoid a lot of bickering over "gadget" (by conforming to the most cited criteria here) I'll offer a few items more influential than the iPhone, in no particular order:
The walkman
The transistor radio
The pocket watch
The slide rule
The pocket calculator
The mobile phone
The consumer GPS receiver
The microwave oven
I could easily go on. The point, of course, is that the iPhone (or any specific smartphone) shouldn't even make the top 10.
How would you like it if someone just set up a fruit stand right in front of your house?
I'd feel confused, as it would be a terrible place for a fruit stand. As they'd be on my property, I'd ask them to move. If they refused that perfectly reasonable request, I'd call the police and have them handle the situation from that point forward.
If they were on my neighbors property, I'd still feel confused as it's also a terrible place for a fruit stand. As it would be very close, I'd probably buy some fruit if their prices were reasonable and I wanted some fruit.
In neither case would I threaten violence, internet tough-guy style, against them.
I've heard of this thing called the Golden Rule...
The Golden Rule is treat others as you would like to be treated. It's a tool by which you can make moral decisions regarding your behavior toward others. It's not a bludgeon to use against someone who behaves in a way which you personally disapprove. You can't invoke the golden rule here any more that you could, say, against someone who wears tee shirts instead of polo shirts while shopping. By your reasoning, you could say something ridiculous like "How would you like it if someone was just walking around dressed like a bum while you were trying to shop? Haven't they heard of the golden rule?" It doesn't make any sense.
And then if you complain about it at all you'll be demonized and your life threatened; would you like that?
The only person threatening violence here is the CEO. He's being demonized because he behaved in a way that we, collectively, find detestable. Had his threatening rant been socially acceptable, he'd be lauded as a hero, not afraid to speak out against the tyranny of the small-time fruit sellers.
Meanwhile the fruit stand proprietor isn't even supposed to be doing what he's doing in the first place
This is still unknown. If the fruit vendor was actually violating any local laws then the CEO could have simply called the police and had the scofflaws removed. That he did not seems to indicate to me that the fruit sellers were operating well-within the law. (It's possible that he did call the police, and they were found to be operating their fruit stand legally. Having no other recourse, as the vendors were doing nothing wrong, he ranted about those dirty poor people on the internet.)
How would you like it if you worked hard, started your own company, and became successful... and then were demonized as though you had done something heinous to all of humanity simply by having earned more money than most?
He did do something heinous. He's not being demonized because he has money, he's being demonized because he's being an asshole. We don't think it's okay to threaten violence against a harmless fruit vendor (who is likely operating perfectly legally) for any reason. We particularly dislike people threatening violence against the less powerful. Heaven help you if you dehumanize someone lower on the socioeconomic ladder than you.
Remember those two guys who beat and urinated on a homeless guy last year? Would you say that it was the homeless guy's fault that he was abused and humiliated? It's worse that our fruit vendor, as vagrancy is illegal! How would you like to see some dirty homeless guy when you're on your way back from a baseball game?
The elder Leader brother, Scott, later told police they attacked him because he was "homeless," "Hispanic," and an "illegal immigrant."
Of course, the homeless guy in that story wasn't an "illegal immigrant", but he did look a bit Hispanic, so I guess he had it coming right? Did we demonizing these two hard-working, baseball-loving, white guys? (Yes, we did.) Were they demonized because th
Let's pretend that what you're saying is actually true. (I have serious doubts, but will put them aside.)
On that assumption, you fail to mention that you are both able-bodied, of average intelligence, and have no one else depending on you for support. You know this already, but many homeless are not mentally competent, able-bodied, or even only responsible for their own well-being.
You've decided that because "you" both placed yourself in a poor situation, of your own choosing, while being mentally competent, able bodied, and without dependents that everyone else in a similar situation are there because they've placed themselves in such a situation and that they remain their because they're unmotivated.
the unauthorized people set up in front of someone's house. It's right there, in the second line of his "rant."
Sounds to me like his neighbor doesn't have a problem with those "unauthorized people" selling fruit there. Maybe he should talk to his neighbor and convince him that having dirty poor "people" (a term he uses very loosely) in the neighborhood is icky and gross, and they shouldn't allow them to sell fruit there.
For all we know, they are setting up stands on private property, and taking business away from, you know, licensed vendors
For all we know is right. We don't know. We don't know what "unauthorized" means. (I suspect he means "looks Mexican") For all we know, those vendors are properly licensed, and they have the property owner's permission to sell fruit at that location.
You might want to ask yourself why he's ranting online and threatening violence rather than simply phoning the local police. Why is he apologizing, if these folks really are running afoul of the law? The answer here, I believe, is pretty obvious.
This is a hit piece against a rich white guy, clear and simple.
Well, yeah. If what he was saying was popular, though, it wouldn't be. A public shaming is a pretty common way to get people like this to conform to social norms. As threatening violence against poor fruit vendors isn't socially acceptable, the article reads like a hit piece, rather than the profile of an American hero.
In the case of the rental, there are existing protections. In the case of the grocery store, they'd find themselves quickly out-of-business as shoppers take their business elsewhere.
So who's gonna make the food, clothing, and shelter in this world?
People who want more out of life than mere survival?
if 90% of the population just stopped doing anything but consume what's in front of them we would hit mass starvation as we spent the last of the 1%'s remaining money to buy food abroad.
First, no one is taking the "1%'s remaining money" away from them. Second, it is completely contrary to the article, yet you offer no justification. Finally, I have absolutely no reason to believe that this worst case is reasonable at all as I can not believe that 9 out of 10 people would willingly choose to subsist on a pittance, just enough to survive, and live in abject poverty rather than work to improve their lives.
let's not kid ourselves people will abuse the system
I don't care about abuses. I'd rather a few shady people get away with their scam than see people with a legitimate need turned away because of the expensive regulatory gauntlet intended to prevent fraud and abuse.
No matter what system you have in place, you'll find people will find a way to abuse it. We can get over it and focus on the greater good or toss money, people, and regulations on it until it costs more to attempt to reduce the abuse than the abuse itself costs.
This does happen, and it's horrible that people are often forced to go to such lengths to survive.
I know a woman with a useless husband and three children. She works two jobs, her worthless spouse just started working steadily last year, after nearly a decade of short-lived jobs in between long spans of unemployment. She's a savvy shopper, by necessity, so is able to trade food stamps for cash (the rate around here is lower than average at 1:2) to pay for utility bills or rent shortfalls when things get tight.
The right would have you believe food stamps come in such great abundance that you could feed your family Kobe beef and caviar every day, but it's really pretty close to the minimum for the average shopper. She's only able to occasionally trade food for cash because she's very good at shopping and meal planning. I can't imagine how difficult that choice must be for someone who would actually see her family go hungry just so they could meet their other basic needs.
Yeah, Unity is painful. For the casual home user who just needs to launch a browser, it'll do the job, but I can easily understand why it's a deal-breaker for you.
I don't see what all the Ubuntu hate is about these days.
This is normal. Ubuntu was exciting, a Linux distro that was suitable for the desktop. They'd even mail out free disks for you to distribute to friends and family, spreading the Good News, the gospel of Linus. Slashdot loved it. It was easy enough for your grandmother to use, painless to setup, and required very little maintenance. Everyone was happy.
Then, it became popular. It was easy to find answers to questions, support, drivers, whatever you needed.
Slashdot hates popular things -- especially popular things that are easy to use and support. If you want to be cool, be intentionally obtuse. Slack, Arch, and Gentoo are a safe bet for now.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not a native English speaker.
Browsers already throttle JS on inactive tabs, and have done so for years. If there's a problem there, it exists already in a far more common context. How many sites break when you switch tabs?
As for an active page you can't close causing problems, as we're only keeping it alive for a brief period (I'd say about a minute) to allow a quick 'forward' to save you from an accidental 'back', it wouldn't be a problem for very long. As the problem here is accidental back navigation, and the backspace key is very rarely used to move back, a more satisfying solution to this is to only save the page if the backspace key is used to navigate back. As it's only a problem if the user has entered information in to a form, you could also only save the page this way if form data has been entered.
Though that brings up another alternative. One that doesn't change a standard navigation key, which is a problem for some users. (Think 'accessibility' here. Not everyone can use a mouse, see, or even easily press two keys simultaneously.) That is, prompt to confirm back navigation if data has been entered in to a form field.
Though I wonder if completely suspending the page would cause many problems at all. I've often put my computer to sleep, traveled to a different location, and resumed without issue, regardless of how fancy the sites pants might have been. (A site that breaks on a failed ajax call would be one awful site!) I could be the exception, but it would be worth investigation if you were tasked with implementing such a thing. I guess all this digression supports my point, as we're getting lost in more complicated solutions when there are far simpler ones that don't share those issues just a few steps away.
Again, the entire point was that there's usually a simpler solution to problems like this when you're faced with an absurdly complex one. You just have to look a little closer. We did look closer, and now we have three possibly solutions to the problem, all much simpler than the above proposed Rube Goldberg page restore approach. I like the 'prompt if form data entered' one a bit more than the simplest (unmapping 'back' function from the backspace key) as it would also save us from the nightmare that is the accidental activation of the back gesture.
I cannot imagine just how the fuck you would store every form value, JS variable, DHTML element state, dynamically loaded resource and HTML5 local store content perfectly back to their original states.
Why would you need to do that? Going back could simply hide the current page for some brief period before closing it. Go forward within that period and just make it visible again.
Or, you know, prevent the problem in the first place by not mapping the backspace key to the back function. (In FireFox: set browser.backspace_action = 2)
When you're faced with a ridiculously complicated solution, look around a bit, there's usually a much simpler one.
this used to simply referred to as being a parent
Obviously. Anyone who's dealt with teenagers has heard all of those things I've happily put in quotes. Every teenage thinks their parents are horrible and often say those very things when confronted with the typical boundaries their parents have set for them.
I thought it was pretty obvious, but judging from the moderation and the AC below, the intent has been lost. I assume it's because neither you or the AC below have any experience with kids that age.
The cigarette-smoking man, the reptiloids ...
but now that she is a teenager, she thinks I am a terrible parent.
I'm not surprised. How many times has she pleaded with you to stop 'ruining her life'? How many times has she confessed that her 'life is over'?
Those are some pretty dramatic consequences! You must be some horrible tyrant who 'never lets her do anything'.
Now it's lost some of that punch.
I'm not seeing the problem here. It looks correct to me. In this case, the 'of' indicates that the 'some' belongs to or originates from 'that punch'.
We can eliminate the 'of' in most cases, but we often lose some meaning: "Now, he's lost some of his tools." -> "Now, he's lost some tools" (The owner of the tools is lost.) Though, in this case, the meaning can be preserved by writing "Now it's lost some punch."
See the tiny little gray flag in the lower-right corner of every post? You won't believe why it's there! Spammers HATE it!
Arabic numerals, combined with the new evidence he was carrying methods of math instruction, all lead to one conclusion...
And three, if you count concerns about inhaling products that haven't been studied for long term health effects.
Indeed. Which is why you need to fight against the free sale of scented candles/wax and the dangerously untested "plug in" air fresheners. (The electronic aspect of the latter makes them super-appealing to kids!) To top it off, I've seen parents openly, in public, smelling these things in front of other people's children and commenting on how 'good' those quick chemical-huffs felt.
Don't get me started on sublimating air "fresheners" people stick, without a second thought, in enclosed spaces like cars. The same cars millions of careless parents use to transport their, often very young, children. Do we really know what's in them? Have you ever seen even so much as an ingredient label? What unimaginable harm could those made-in-mystery-factory-in-China air pollution sticks be causing? We don't know because they're completely unregulated and untested!
It was a rousing success. That's why no one drinks any more. The war on drugs equally so. Sure, Nixon struggled a bit, but Nancy Regan put an end to the drug problem once and for all, with zero negative social consequences.
With those out of the way, we're free to work on slightly more trivial, though still important, issues. I move we ban Axe body spray, floral perfumes, and Indian food. Some of those perfumes send me in to quite the sneezing fit, so the danger to public health is obvious.
After all, your freedom ends where my nose begins.
Many, many scientific studies have found all of the usual baddies in the 'vape' from an array of vendors of the little nicotine cells [...] In some cases, more than an equivalent nicotine-dose drag of a "real" cigarette.
From my, admittedly, limited knowledge of the subject (I looked at a few, 10 or so, of the oft-cited studies a few years ago, and it's not my field) these claims are completely false. Unless something dramatic has happened in the past couple years, I can't possibly believe your claim.
Please, post at least a few studies which support your strange assertions.
That's good enough for me.
Rather than go with "most influential" and to avoid a lot of bickering over "gadget" (by conforming to the most cited criteria here) I'll offer a few items more influential than the iPhone, in no particular order:
I could easily go on. The point, of course, is that the iPhone (or any specific smartphone) shouldn't even make the top 10.
How would you like it if someone just set up a fruit stand right in front of your house?
I'd feel confused, as it would be a terrible place for a fruit stand. As they'd be on my property, I'd ask them to move. If they refused that perfectly reasonable request, I'd call the police and have them handle the situation from that point forward.
If they were on my neighbors property, I'd still feel confused as it's also a terrible place for a fruit stand. As it would be very close, I'd probably buy some fruit if their prices were reasonable and I wanted some fruit.
In neither case would I threaten violence, internet tough-guy style, against them.
I've heard of this thing called the Golden Rule...
The Golden Rule is treat others as you would like to be treated. It's a tool by which you can make moral decisions regarding your behavior toward others. It's not a bludgeon to use against someone who behaves in a way which you personally disapprove. You can't invoke the golden rule here any more that you could, say, against someone who wears tee shirts instead of polo shirts while shopping. By your reasoning, you could say something ridiculous like "How would you like it if someone was just walking around dressed like a bum while you were trying to shop? Haven't they heard of the golden rule?" It doesn't make any sense.
And then if you complain about it at all you'll be demonized and your life threatened; would you like that?
The only person threatening violence here is the CEO. He's being demonized because he behaved in a way that we, collectively, find detestable. Had his threatening rant been socially acceptable, he'd be lauded as a hero, not afraid to speak out against the tyranny of the small-time fruit sellers.
Meanwhile the fruit stand proprietor isn't even supposed to be doing what he's doing in the first place
This is still unknown. If the fruit vendor was actually violating any local laws then the CEO could have simply called the police and had the scofflaws removed. That he did not seems to indicate to me that the fruit sellers were operating well-within the law. (It's possible that he did call the police, and they were found to be operating their fruit stand legally. Having no other recourse, as the vendors were doing nothing wrong, he ranted about those dirty poor people on the internet.)
How would you like it if you worked hard, started your own company, and became successful... and then were demonized as though you had done something heinous to all of humanity simply by having earned more money than most?
He did do something heinous. He's not being demonized because he has money, he's being demonized because he's being an asshole. We don't think it's okay to threaten violence against a harmless fruit vendor (who is likely operating perfectly legally) for any reason. We particularly dislike people threatening violence against the less powerful. Heaven help you if you dehumanize someone lower on the socioeconomic ladder than you.
Remember those two guys who beat and urinated on a homeless guy last year? Would you say that it was the homeless guy's fault that he was abused and humiliated? It's worse that our fruit vendor, as vagrancy is illegal! How would you like to see some dirty homeless guy when you're on your way back from a baseball game?
The elder Leader brother, Scott, later told police they attacked him because he was "homeless," "Hispanic," and an "illegal immigrant."
Of course, the homeless guy in that story wasn't an "illegal immigrant", but he did look a bit Hispanic, so I guess he had it coming right? Did we demonizing these two hard-working, baseball-loving, white guys? (Yes, we did.) Were they demonized because th
Let's pretend that what you're saying is actually true. (I have serious doubts, but will put them aside.)
On that assumption, you fail to mention that you are both able-bodied, of average intelligence, and have no one else depending on you for support. You know this already, but many homeless are not mentally competent, able-bodied, or even only responsible for their own well-being.
You've decided that because "you" both placed yourself in a poor situation, of your own choosing, while being mentally competent, able bodied, and without dependents that everyone else in a similar situation are there because they've placed themselves in such a situation and that they remain their because they're unmotivated.
You're disgusting.
the unauthorized people set up in front of someone's house. It's right there, in the second line of his "rant."
Sounds to me like his neighbor doesn't have a problem with those "unauthorized people" selling fruit there. Maybe he should talk to his neighbor and convince him that having dirty poor "people" (a term he uses very loosely) in the neighborhood is icky and gross, and they shouldn't allow them to sell fruit there.
For all we know, they are setting up stands on private property, and taking business away from, you know, licensed vendors
For all we know is right. We don't know. We don't know what "unauthorized" means. (I suspect he means "looks Mexican") For all we know, those vendors are properly licensed, and they have the property owner's permission to sell fruit at that location.
You might want to ask yourself why he's ranting online and threatening violence rather than simply phoning the local police. Why is he apologizing, if these folks really are running afoul of the law? The answer here, I believe, is pretty obvious.
This is a hit piece against a rich white guy, clear and simple.
Well, yeah. If what he was saying was popular, though, it wouldn't be. A public shaming is a pretty common way to get people like this to conform to social norms. As threatening violence against poor fruit vendors isn't socially acceptable, the article reads like a hit piece, rather than the profile of an American hero.
In the case of the rental, there are existing protections. In the case of the grocery store, they'd find themselves quickly out-of-business as shoppers take their business elsewhere.
Who the heck is going to buy all these "incredible new products and services"?
People who work.
Basic income means they can't afford to buy anything other than food and housing.
Which is why people will work.
This is why that bizarre belief that most people will stop working under a UBI system is so absurd.
People want more out of life than mere survival.
So who's gonna make the food, clothing, and shelter in this world?
People who want more out of life than mere survival?
if 90% of the population just stopped doing anything but consume what's in front of them we would hit mass starvation as we spent the last of the 1%'s remaining money to buy food abroad.
First, no one is taking the "1%'s remaining money" away from them. Second, it is completely contrary to the article, yet you offer no justification. Finally, I have absolutely no reason to believe that this worst case is reasonable at all as I can not believe that 9 out of 10 people would willingly choose to subsist on a pittance, just enough to survive, and live in abject poverty rather than work to improve their lives.
let's not kid ourselves people will abuse the system
I don't care about abuses. I'd rather a few shady people get away with their scam than see people with a legitimate need turned away because of the expensive regulatory gauntlet intended to prevent fraud and abuse.
No matter what system you have in place, you'll find people will find a way to abuse it. We can get over it and focus on the greater good or toss money, people, and regulations on it until it costs more to attempt to reduce the abuse than the abuse itself costs.
This does happen, and it's horrible that people are often forced to go to such lengths to survive.
I know a woman with a useless husband and three children. She works two jobs, her worthless spouse just started working steadily last year, after nearly a decade of short-lived jobs in between long spans of unemployment. She's a savvy shopper, by necessity, so is able to trade food stamps for cash (the rate around here is lower than average at 1:2) to pay for utility bills or rent shortfalls when things get tight.
The right would have you believe food stamps come in such great abundance that you could feed your family Kobe beef and caviar every day, but it's really pretty close to the minimum for the average shopper. She's only able to occasionally trade food for cash because she's very good at shopping and meal planning. I can't imagine how difficult that choice must be for someone who would actually see her family go hungry just so they could meet their other basic needs.
Yeah, Unity is painful. For the casual home user who just needs to launch a browser, it'll do the job, but I can easily understand why it's a deal-breaker for you.
I don't see what all the Ubuntu hate is about these days.
This is normal. Ubuntu was exciting, a Linux distro that was suitable for the desktop. They'd even mail out free disks for you to distribute to friends and family, spreading the Good News, the gospel of Linus. Slashdot loved it. It was easy enough for your grandmother to use, painless to setup, and required very little maintenance. Everyone was happy.
Then, it became popular. It was easy to find answers to questions, support, drivers, whatever you needed.
Slashdot hates popular things -- especially popular things that are easy to use and support. If you want to be cool, be intentionally obtuse. Slack, Arch, and Gentoo are a safe bet for now.