I've been VERY pleased with it so far, under Windows, OS X and Linux..
It has the one thing that I missed most from the old Opera: Sane/useful tab stacking/grouping built in, with the ability to save and restore such.
Sure, many of you don't care about that, but I do.
At work with the old Opera, I'd create sets of tabs, stacked as I saw fit, for each client and would then save them as profiles named for my clients.
When I got a support call all I had to do was open the saved tab profile for them, and then I'd have EVERYTHING related to them available to me immediately, organized in the way I found most useful to me.
Yes, it took time to set that all up. Yes, it took time to maintain it, but all that time paid for itself, every time I fielded a service call for my customers.
It was an amazingly powerful tool for me, and when Opera dropped it I stayed with the old version until it didn't work anymore.
I looked for similar functionality under Chrome, et al, Firefox and IE but nothing came close.
Vivaldi gave that back to me, and I've switched and will never go back.
It's still very "young", and they are working hard on it. But, they appear to be very motivated and committed.
The current stable release is great, does everything I need, and even better? Since it's multi-platform I get the same basic experience and usability regardless of OS.
While I still use mostly Windows at home, I support Windows, OS X and Linux at work now, and having a web browser that works under all three with the functionality that I want/need allows me to support our users, regardless of OS, without having to switch back and forth between computers
And to bring this back on-topic? Vivaldi is built upon Chromium and still supports the backspace key for going back a page.
The only thing I wish they'd add? Native proxy support, such as Firefox does. I've used Privoxy: http://www.privoxy.org/ under Windows for years, and, while the old Opera had its own proxy support, just as Firefox does? Vivaldi doesn't yet, so I have to resort to an add-on for that, since some of the games that I play at home don't support proxies.
Take all of the above for whatever it's worth to you, but I think that Vivaldi is at least worth checking out.
His solo starts at about 3:26. I recommend watching it from the beginning, because it's a wonderful tribute.
His solo is exquisite, in my opinion, at times at the forefront, extending, expanding upon the lyrics and melody while never overwhelming either, and at times also complementing them, moving back and forth until the end.
No showboating, I think, but verve, gusto, pure enjoyment and musicianship. He was asked there to play, and to solo, and he did both masterfully.
Watch/listen it in its entirety, once. Then just listen to it.
As you watch it, note that Prince is not only soloing GREAT, playing well, he's also engaged with the other musicians. He knows the song, knows that he's playing with some of the best musicians in the rock world and is aware of all of that as he plays.
And you can TELL that he's having a blast being there. He's playing his best, and I think that the others in the band recognize it.
As you just listen, note how well what he plays fits, both solo and together with the rest of the band. Clean, complex, precise, not a missed note, nor a note played that doesn't fit the song overall in some way.
At one point he just vanishes, merges back into the song with the band and then emerges again.
Wonderful!
All that being said, I was never a huge Prince fan over the years, but that video gave me a new appreciation of him, when I first watched it, years ago.
As to whether or not his death deserves to be of note on Slashdot? The most relevant justification would be Prince's stance on digital copyright, and I don't care to discuss that.
I made the mistake of doing that in general here, years ago, and I shan't revisit that here ever again.
All that being said: Say what you will of Prince, but don't ever say he was a "talentless hack".
That's probably because Stalin preferred to kill people instead of incarcerating them. It's estimated that between 3 million and 60 million people died during Stalin's regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin.
I don't have any hard facts concerning China, and so can't rebut your assertion, except to note that you don't offer any numbers of your own for comparison purposes.
And, hey, let's not count the dead in any case, right? After all, they're dead, so who cares?
Now. How can anyone argue that there's no such thing as "brainwashing", or that it only works on stupid or ignorant people?
Well, there's brainwashing, there's stupidity, ignorance and then there's just outright dishonesty, which is what you appear to be engaged in with your hyperbole. Sad that you got modded up, though I certainly understand it. That 3-digit UID pretty much makes all the youngins here swoon, I imagine.
The problem however was that the ARCNET daisy chain had a fairly short maximum physical length before you got signal degradation.
No offense, but, I NEVER deployed ARCNET in a "daisy chain" configuration, EVER. ARCNET, by definition, was a token-passing network, deployed upon a physical star topology [1], and was VERY flexible with regards to cabling..., and it MIGHT have supported such, but *I* never used it, ever, in such a configuration as you state.
We ran RG-62 coax, from end nodes, to active hubs, in the early days, and occasionally split those with 4-port passive hubs, which, while allowed, DID limit overall cable length. By specification, any active to active run (whether end point or active hub ) run could be up to 2000 feet [2], which was one of the great things about ARCNET back then: You could use the same coax cable, everywhere, so long as you abided by the overall length per network segment rules. And, 2000 feet is a LONG distance, in the real world, especially when you're running cable to tie together buildings on a campus, for example. I could do that, with ARCNET, and DID, using just RG-62 coax, and judiciciously-placed active hubs.
I, for one, welcomed Ethernet when it became affordable. I had become so tired of crawling through ceilings and fishing down walls whenever someone moved to a different office
No offense, but that's not a failure of ARCNET, as a cabling system, but rather, a failure of planning, I think. Certainly, I had my share of "cabling angst", back in the day: Ran *miles* of ARCNET coax cabling, NO lie. Later, the same for Ethernet twisted pair: CAT 3, then CAT 5, when I had my own business, I finally subbed it out, because I couldn't do it properly: I couldn't cost-justify the time, labor, nor tools needed to do it properly, for my customers, myself. So, I gave all my cabling jobs, back then, to a small, local company whose owner I knew, and I knew they'd do a good job. Never asked for a kickback, nor anything other than they take care of my customer, and remember me for referring them. Never got a ounce of business from him in return, but it didn't matter to me: He does good work, and so my customers were well served, as I wished.
However, to wrap this up? Regardless of time, network cabling is just something to be done. In the OLD days, we did it ourselves, as part of being nerds, we ran the cabling, connected it, tested it - how else were we going to connect everything, and be sure that it was done correctly?
Now days, it's just another "thing", like electricity.
Still, I *miss* those days, you know: Networking was NEW, and people appreciated it...
,
[3] This note has no reference. However, I have, in a filing cabinet, the complete specifications for ARCNET, as published by Datapoint Corporation, circa 1980. Send me an email at djloweathotmaildotcom and I'll scan them and email them to you:)
In my opinion, you've completely missed the mark, upmods notwithstanding, and here's why:
And underwent surgery in order to get rid of glasses as they were the worst annoyance in my life [1] - so there's no chance of me using this product [2].
Of course, Google Glass has NOTHING at all to do with vision correction, per se... so, this objection is a complete non sequitor, due to its irrelevance.
People don't realise just how much these things are going to negatively affect you
they are going to cause irritation and issue with our hair
Not irritation with our hair, Precious! ANYTHING but that!
and the side of your head
Which side? Not the right side, Precious!
That's my take on it all. The wearable aspect is just a poor substitute for what we have been "promised" in fiction.
And, what, exactly, is that? Have we ever been promised good hair, non-irritated hair, somewhere in fiction? If not, I suppose that I'm fortunate: None of the glasses I've ever worn have irritated my hair, and, I suppose, at this late date, I'm fortunate that I still HAVE hair, which remains unirritated, despite the ongoing presence of glasses, Google or otherwise.
Regards, mostly in jest,
dj
Notes:
[1] Trust me, I understand: I've worn glasses since I was 4 years old, and, now, at age 48, I've had to adopt progressive bifocals. However, my objections to Google Glass have NOTHING at all to do with my having to wear corrective lenses in general.
[2] I'll never use it, because of the privacy issues involved.
Not really. Back then, Ethernet was purely CSMA/CD (and later CSMA/CA), and at 10 Mbps a heavily populated network segment could quickly become saturated. Compare that to ARCNET, which, although it only ran at 2.5 Mbps, was token-based, and so scaled much better as nodes were added to a segment. In fact, overall throughput on an ARCNET LAN was BETTER than that of Ethernet then with equal numbers of nodes per segment as the node count increased.
Later, Ethernet networks would move to twisted pair at 10 Mbps on Category 3 twisted-pair wiring connected to Ethernet concentrators (what you youngins all call "hubs" now)... and performance was easier manage due to centralization of the wiring at the concentrators: You could lower the node count by adding network cards to the server and then having each one connect to a concentrator, and then judiciously daisy-chain concentrators together to increase the node count per segment.
NetWare made this easy to do, as it handled all of the routing internally. Later, it supported IPX load balancing at the server level, and you could have multiple NICs in a server connect to the SAME segment, which helped a LOT (http://support.novell.com/techcenter/articles/ana19941201.html - from 1994, and WOW do I feel old now).
not to mention how one bad spot or flaky terminator could take out an entire LAN whereas with Ethernet if one went down it didn't break.
You seem to be confusing the protocols with the infrastructure. "One flaky terminator" most likely refers to the 52 ohm Thinnet terminators used in 10BASE2 networks.
In any event, once the first 10Mbps Ethernet switches became available, and later 10 Mbps/100 Mbs switches, concentrators and NICs, and prices dropped both for the switches, concentrators and NICs, the end for Token Ring and ARCNET was near.
Still, in the SMB LANs that I installed and maintained back then, I preferred ARCNET over Ethernet or Token Ring, for its lower overall cost, better scalability and reliability at the time. I used to joke "You could run ARCNET on a pair of (metal) coathangers if you had to!"
The corporate world believes that it is immune from petty things like laws that apply to the rest of us.
The corporate world believes that, because it *is* immune to the rule of law, especially here in the US. Having bought off politicians, who then create laws to benefit them, how could they believe otherwise?
(until governments start aggressively targeting corporations for violating the law).
That will never happen: Governments are now so co-opted by corporate interests that they are, in effect, simply tools for them, to further their goals.
The game isn't just rigged, it's now completely controlled. The people that governments were created to represent are now ignored, for the most part, and all of your representatives are corrupt, in one way or another.
Sad, but true.
But, you ALL deserve it: You've gotten exactly what you deserve, here in the US: By your neglect, lack of attention, care, towards your government, at all levels, you've allowed this to happen.
The US was founded upon one simple idea: The rights of the individual should be paramount. The Constitution, its Amendments, were crafted towards that. And of course, it's not the exact fault of any one of you reading this that this has failed. Rather, it's the culmination of YEARS of work, on the part of the greedy, the power-hungry, the mad, to erode the foundation of our country, which was, and IS: The belief that WE, as human beings, CAN, and SHOULD, be able to be free, to live our lives, exercise our skills, knowledge and intelligence to benefit ourselves, our families, our friends, first and foremost,as good people, kind people, with the idea that, in so doing, as good, decent human beings, we would ALL benefit, as we did so, EACH of us, then, now, and in the future, as we lived, trusted, and grew.
Our Founding Fathers created something beyond themselves, and gave it to us, and we as a people, as citizens, neglected it, let it pass into the hands of people that care only for themselves. That framework, as crafted and captured, however imperfectly, within the US Constitution and its Amendments, to permit us our lives, liberties, our pursuit of happiness, has been pre-empted by those that we've elevated by election, time and time again, to the point where such election is no longer under our purview or control.
We are now a nation of servitude, indebted by design, by laws crafted to create and ensure such.
But, all is NOT lost, even at this late date. Trust yourselves, and as you do so, believe in the gift of your life, each of you. And as you do so, KNOW that you share this moment in time, with so many others, so gifted, and that while life in general may not be fair, nor kind? You, each of you, can help make it so, if you only choose to do so.
Ignore those that promote fear, so that they may control you. They cannot help you, and seek only your subjugation. They want you to be afraid, so that they can offer the hope of release from that. Security, if you only give up your liberties, your free will, to them.
Theirs is the certainty that comes from slavery, and you'll only know it, when it is too late to mourn what you have lost.
Well, I suspect that you're being snarky, but you have a point. Sort of, in the sense that "If we can't trust the programmers to write good code, always, then we can force them to use a language that at least forestalls the worst of their blunders."
The real issue, of course, is NOT technical, at the programmer/developer level, for such a project. It's administrative, in the sense that, regardless of the chosen programming language, bad code that would allow this should NEVER have passed review.
Assuming that they set up such properly, of course, which apparently isn't the case.
And the latter, too, isn't a technical matter either, really.
None... The Internet has replaced the function of magazines.
. Your current +5, Insightful moderation notwithstanding, I'm afraid that I must disagree, for one magazine, at least, for me.
That magazine is Maximum PC. Now, before you condemn me for that, let me explain.
I subscribed to boot magazine, from day one.Still have them all, somewhere. When boot was replaced by Maximum PC, I just let it ride: For me, the value was in getting current information delivered to me, in hardcopy, that I could read when I wanted to, WITHOUT needing a computer, Internet access, to do so.
No distractions, while so doing, on my time, spent focusing on things that *I* found cool and interesting.
To generalize this: In my opinion, the very nature of the Internet, it's immediacy, it's never-ending progress, has blunted our ability to reflect, to consider... and, in a very real way, our ability to make good decisions: We are now bombarded by never-ending changing information, from myriad sources of unknown/unverifiable veracity.
Sadly, so many of you, as the parent poster, accept this as the norm. Static sources of information, regardless of truth, usefulness, are discounted, dismissed and disregarded on their face,
And, as I write this, I am reminded of this: "Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". George Santayana, of course.
But, his admonition is even MORE urgent now, in "Internet Time", I think. In "Internet Time, what is current becomes the past, and is forgotten all too quickly, replaced, over and over, until there is NOTHING but a never-ending blur, a never-ending reaction to the present, and no past, no context upon which to rely, after thought, consideration.
But it doesn't have to be that way, you know. You CAN choose. You CAN decide. You can think, reflect and make decisions, and you CAN, each of you, do so with access to the best raw source of knowledge that we, as human beings, have ever created.
What you DO with that is up to you.
Only now, NONE of you have the excuse of ignorance: You have, as I write this, and you read it, access to much of the best knowledge that human beings have EVER learned and recorded, and that grows larger every day.
And it is YOURS, for the taking, for free, at your convenience, should you so desire.
I wrote here, previously, that what saddens me the most is that, having access to an ocean of knowledge, too few of you will even attempt to swim, much less set sail upon it, perhaps beyond its sunset.
People tend to dissect the Constitution to support their own beliefs, when in truth it needs to considered as a whole in order to fully appreciate it and apply it correctly.
Does that not simply lend credence to his claim of "the end of democracy in America"?
No, it does not, because at the Federal level, the government is not, nor ever has been, a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic.
Well, it was *supposed* to be that. Now it's more akin to a fascist state, where corporations pay federal politicians via campaign donations, lobbyists, etc., to enact laws to their benefit.
And, in that light, he, you, I and pretty much everyone else are in the same boat: We're all being slowly crushed, as individuals, by what the US Federal government has become.
I suspect that Mr. Card doesn't object to that, so much as he does the fact that he's not a member of the "winning team".
Here's an easy answer: Add "Anyone interested is welcome".
There you go.
"Embrace Diversity?" A conference of any kind is targeted to its topic(s), first, as well it should be.I don't see that including non-relevant matters such as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or anything else should have ANY bearing upon it.
Embrace the conference's subject matter, and welcome anyone that chooses to attend.
Witch hunts are great fun. We should all get on-board and burn this guy.
That's a waste of a perfectly good witch. Sure, he might keep you warm for a few hours, but if you build a bridge out of him, you'll get years of use out of him!
I'm going to get pounded for this post, but that's OK - this is a subject with which I am familiar, and I'd like to share my perspective nonetheless.
I have always felt that Cisco had the same sort of following as Novell. Senior IT people certified up the wazoo yet unable to explain to me why Cisco was so much better.
Your current "+5 Insightful" upmods notwithstanding, the fact that you need someone else to explain this to you tells me that, by your own admission, you don't have the knowledge required to make these decisions yourself. That alone makes me wonder why your post got upmodded... but, this is Slashdot in the 21st century, so what can you do, right?
If you had the requisite knowledge, I imagine that you'd be posting from that viewpoint, e.g. "I evaluated Cisco's offerings for my company, and after comparing them to other vendors, decided that they weren't worth the premium price for us." Or something similar, rather than stating: "I have always felt that"... this isn't something subject to feelings. IT/MIS is a technical profession, and cost/benefit analysis with regards to network and computer infrastructure is something that is done every day in the real world, though apparently not by you.
The bits that leak out of big data people like Facebook and Google seem pretty lacking in the big names. I don't see gear from HP, IBM, Dell, Cisco, etc. What I do see is white boxish or custom gear that they seem perfectly happy with.
What you don't appear to understand is that Googles and the Facebooks of the world are basically large enough to be OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) in their own right, and have the money and technical resources to pursue that path, and so your attempt to apply their approach to this particular case is flawed. Certainly CSU is large, but they aren't "Google large", when it comes to network infrastructure and servers, and you'll note that they went with a name-brand vendor, rather than rolling their own solution, which makes your statement doubly inane.
Just a guess
You appear to be good at that.
but my bet
What bet? How much? What are the terms? I'm sorry to sound confrontational, but you do realize that such is a null statement? It costs you nothing to say, and there's no penalty if you're wrong. Why not replace it with something more honest, such as "I think that", or, better, in your case: "I believe that"?
much of the business that big old companies like Cisco come from single skill IT people combined with kick ass sales people.
Actually, much of Cisco's success, and sales, come from corporations with mission-critical networks, regardless of scale. They pay a premium for Cisco's hardware, and pay for SmartNet contracts, to ensure their network operations. This may not be worth it to you, but, I have to tell you, their support and logistics when it comes to SmartNet are amazing, and "4 hour parts on site"? The last time I opened a Cisco TAC case for a device so covered, I had a callback in 10 minutes from the person assigned to the case, parts dispatch was under an hour, and the longest delay was on our side: The person that was on-call to open the office (It was a Sunday) didn't answer her cell on the first try, and I left a message with the engineer's cell number, and called him back and gave him her number so he could call her directly to arrange to meet at the office. Once he got onsite, I emailed the backup copy of the router config to him, and he took care of the rest.
Total time was just over three hours, and the following Monday morning everyone came to work and the network was working.
THAT, in my opinion, is worth paying for, when needed, as it was in this case: That office is in Washington State and I'm in New York State.
Now, many companies don't need that, and that's fine. And, based just
Sorry, but "social media", et al? Yet another venue for manipulation, especially Facebook.
Consider the latter: It's primary focus is social. This is by no means a bad thing: Human beings are social creatures, and Facebook is a great place for social interaction [1].
However, social interaction doesn't necessarily translate to "informed political awareness" [2].
My impression is this: Yes, the campaign managers are savvy about social networking, yes, they will use this, and, given the nature of social networking, properly manipulated? They will not only get more people to vote (a good thing, in general), but they will get more people to vote the way they want, so long as they get enough presence... if they look good to "someone" on Facebook? Well, odds are they're going to look good to that someone's friends, too, right, wrong or indifferent.
In many ways, leveraging Facebook and other social networking sites is the best way for any politician to go now: The cost to do so is next to nothing [3] and the impact is not only nation-wide, it's also self-selecting and self-perpetuating.
And, cynically? Where else are you going to find more "warm bodies" with so little effort?
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Or so I've been told. I'm proud to admit that I don't have, nor ever will have, a Facebook account, nor accounts on similar services. And no, that doesn't mean that I don't have friends, it just means that I don't have any Facebook friends.
[2] Hell, I'd argue the contrary: People gathering together socially for extended periods of time tend to have similar views in most things, and so their political views will be similar and fairly immutable. So, they're self-selecting, and easily targeted and leveraged.
[3] After all, Facebook doesn't charge for an account... so, it's every politician's campaign manager's wet dream: Free, unfettered access to an enormous number of voters, who will also, potentially, recruit their friends, family, etc.? Hell, from their perspective, Facebook is an ocean, and its members are chum that willingly gather together to be eaten.
Sadly, the Obama Administration does not considering Game Mastering in their employment statistics.
That should be: "Sadly, the Obama does not consider Game Mastering in their employment statistics."... it started out as "is not considering", and I messed up the editing.
We don't need a longer school year, we need schools that actually TEACH.
Not teaching to tests, not spewing data by rote, but schools that impart the foundations of learning, first.
How to learn, how to reason, how to think, how to analyze information gained from ANY source, and use it to make informed decisions. In short, we need schools that create knowledgeable, thoughtful, responsible citizens, capable of making informed decisions, and desirous of such.
I consider myself lucky to be as old as I am. I graduated High School in 1982. With honors, much to the surprise of my guidance counselor, who, despite my tested IQ and being place in honors and "gifted" classes, thought I was basically white trash... on the day of graduation he tracked me down, handed me a set of honor cords and said "Here. I don't know how how you managed it, but these are yours" [1].
Now, why I say "lucky"? While the overall quality of eduction wasn't all that great, there were still many great teachers, who, not having to worry about standardized tests, actually TAUGHT, and I was fortunate to have been in their classes.
Today, many of them wouldn't have jobs in the education field: My Freshman year Honors Social Studies teacher would, by today's standards, be deemed a "bad influence" at best, and subversive at worst: He tended to pepper his lectures based upon the official study materials with cynical observations as to their biases, and it was from him that I learned to "read between the lines", and look elsewhere for what wasn't mentioned in the official histories.
My Sophomore year Gifted English teacher started the school year by saying: "I've a list of books that I'm supposed to cover, here it is. However, since you're all supposedly gifted, I'll leave those to you to read." Then he handed out copies of James Joyce's "Dubliners" to each of us, which he'd bought with his own money, since it wasn't part of the official curriculum, and said "This is one of the greatest works of literature in the English language, and this is what we're going to study."
And study it we did. He was brilliant, imperviously knowledgeable in his field and cynical beyond belief... but, he did one thing that so few of my teachers did at that point: He made us think, and had no problem explaining in great detail why were were wrong. At one point, he was expostulating upon one of the themes in Dubliners, that of self-perception, and especially how such tends to be different from reality, and how many of the images in the stories show that. I don't remember which story it was that we were studying, but, something within me "clicked", as he was talking, and, as I glanced around, I saw another student with that same look. He looked at me, I looked at him, and nodded... there's a description where the protagonist is looking at a copper kettle... and I knew that he knew, too, and he raised his hand and asked "Wouldn't the reflection from the copper kettle be an example of that? It's convex, and so his reflection would be distorted..."... and the stunned look on our teacher's face, as he realized the import of that question, was priceless: He'd never seen that, nor, apparently, had anyone else so far as he knew. He said that he was going to write it up and submit it, but I don't know if it ever went that far.
Regardless, that one moment drove all of us to learn it, experience it, know it for what it was: Life, in fiction created, captured, and made real in words. It was, for me, the moment when I SAW, for the first time, beyond just the words, above them, between them, behind them, and learned that how truly powerful and wonderful words can be.
My Sophomore year Honors Biology teacher was HOT. She also told me that I was her only hope for a perfect score on the NYS Regents Biology exam... which drove me to study HARD. Sadly, I only got a 93%.
My Senior year Honors Physics teacher was as smart a human being as I've ever met, ever. He was in his 60's, then, had retired from industry after selling
I'm not saying get rid of the Internet either, Jesus! I'm saying people get worked up over cracked pot conspiracies. Couple that with PTSD or God knows what other kind of stress these vets have to deal with. Throw in some injuries, some pain, some medication, and you have a recipe for trouble, no?
Not necessarily.
You need to stop generalizing, stop extrapolating your opinions and beliefs upon others, and most importantly? Stop pretending that you have a clue about any of this, or that you've a right to chime in about things you don't, and cannot, ever understand.
"Let's build it here, fuck them". I mean Afghanistan and Iraq. We build the living shit out of those countries, costing our tax payers fortunes that should have been spent here. They meaning Iraq and Afghanistan need to build something, pony up, be worthy of the sacrifices, don't just let it all fall to shit. Add to the sum of what has been done, that kind of thing.
Nice attempt at revisionist history, but I'm not buying it, unless you're saying that you're so stupid that you didn't re-read your post to ensure that it was as you intended... I've read, re-read your original post, and it flows properly, and the overall message that results is quite clear.
So, do you honestly think that all of those military veterans are going to say "Hey, yeah, let's build roads after spending 10 years fighting!" How else would you get them to do so? Many of them have highly advanced technical skills, after all, even though they're "only in the military", and those skills are valuable, far more valuable than building roads, no matter what you think.
You're a hysterical fucking retard, do yourself a favor and STFU.
Gosh, that hurts! I should probably just skulk away, now that you've pwned me! Please, don't say bad things about my Mom!
Slashdot Mirror
Hi,
Check out Vivaldi: https://vivaldi.com/
I've been VERY pleased with it so far, under Windows, OS X and Linux..
It has the one thing that I missed most from the old Opera: Sane/useful tab stacking/grouping built in, with the ability to save and restore such.
Sure, many of you don't care about that, but I do.
At work with the old Opera, I'd create sets of tabs, stacked as I saw fit, for each client and would then save them as profiles named for my clients.
When I got a support call all I had to do was open the saved tab profile for them, and then I'd have EVERYTHING related to them available to me immediately, organized in the way I found most useful to me.
Yes, it took time to set that all up. Yes, it took time to maintain it, but all that time paid for itself, every time I fielded a service call for my customers.
It was an amazingly powerful tool for me, and when Opera dropped it I stayed with the old version until it didn't work anymore.
I looked for similar functionality under Chrome, et al, Firefox and IE but nothing came close.
Vivaldi gave that back to me, and I've switched and will never go back.
It's still very "young", and they are working hard on it. But, they appear to be very motivated and committed.
The current stable release is great, does everything I need, and even better? Since it's multi-platform I get the same basic experience and usability regardless of OS.
While I still use mostly Windows at home, I support Windows, OS X and Linux at work now, and having a web browser that works under all three with the functionality that I want/need allows me to support our users, regardless of OS, without having to switch back and forth between computers
And to bring this back on-topic? Vivaldi is built upon Chromium and still supports the backspace key for going back a page.
The only thing I wish they'd add? Native proxy support, such as Firefox does. I've used Privoxy: http://www.privoxy.org/ under Windows for years, and, while the old Opera had its own proxy support, just as Firefox does? Vivaldi doesn't yet, so I have to resort to an add-on for that, since some of the games that I play at home don't support proxies.
Take all of the above for whatever it's worth to you, but I think that Vivaldi is at least worth checking out.
Regards,
dj
You can say many things about Prince, but "talentless hack" isn't among them.
I think that his fame came more from singing and songwriting, but Prince was greatly underappreciated as a guitarist.
Proof: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SFNW5F8K9Y
His solo starts at about 3:26. I recommend watching it from the beginning, because it's a wonderful tribute.
His solo is exquisite, in my opinion, at times at the forefront, extending, expanding upon the lyrics and melody while never overwhelming either, and at times also complementing them, moving back and forth until the end.
No showboating, I think, but verve, gusto, pure enjoyment and musicianship. He was asked there to play, and to solo, and he did both masterfully.
Watch/listen it in its entirety, once. Then just listen to it.
As you watch it, note that Prince is not only soloing GREAT, playing well, he's also engaged with the other musicians. He knows the song, knows that he's playing with some of the best musicians in the rock world and is aware of all of that as he plays.
And you can TELL that he's having a blast being there. He's playing his best, and I think that the others in the band recognize it.
As you just listen, note how well what he plays fits, both solo and together with the rest of the band. Clean, complex, precise, not a missed note, nor a note played that doesn't fit the song overall in some way.
At one point he just vanishes, merges back into the song with the band and then emerges again.
Wonderful!
All that being said, I was never a huge Prince fan over the years, but that video gave me a new appreciation of him, when I first watched it, years ago.
As to whether or not his death deserves to be of note on Slashdot? The most relevant justification would be Prince's stance on digital copyright, and I don't care to discuss that.
I made the mistake of doing that in general here, years ago, and I shan't revisit that here ever again.
All that being said: Say what you will of Prince, but don't ever say he was a "talentless hack".
Regards,
dj
That's probably because Stalin preferred to kill people instead of incarcerating them. It's estimated that between 3 million and 60 million people died during Stalin's regime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin.
I don't have any hard facts concerning China, and so can't rebut your assertion, except to note that you don't offer any numbers of your own for comparison purposes.
And, hey, let's not count the dead in any case, right? After all, they're dead, so who cares?
Well, there's brainwashing, there's stupidity, ignorance and then there's just outright dishonesty, which is what you appear to be engaged in with your hyperbole. Sad that you got modded up, though I certainly understand it. That 3-digit UID pretty much makes all the youngins here swoon, I imagine.
Regards,
dj
No offense, but, I NEVER deployed ARCNET in a "daisy chain" configuration, EVER. ARCNET, by definition, was a token-passing network, deployed upon a physical star topology [1], and was VERY flexible with regards to cabling..., and it MIGHT have supported such, but *I* never used it, ever, in such a configuration as you state.
We ran RG-62 coax, from end nodes, to active hubs, in the early days, and occasionally split those with 4-port passive hubs, which, while allowed, DID limit overall cable length. By specification, any active to active run (whether end point or active hub ) run could be up to 2000 feet [2], which was one of the great things about ARCNET back then: You could use the same coax cable, everywhere, so long as you abided by the overall length per network segment rules. And, 2000 feet is a LONG distance, in the real world, especially when you're running cable to tie together buildings on a campus, for example. I could do that, with ARCNET, and DID, using just RG-62 coax, and judiciciously-placed active hubs.
No offense, but that's not a failure of ARCNET, as a cabling system, but rather, a failure of planning, I think. Certainly, I had my share of "cabling angst", back in the day: Ran *miles* of ARCNET coax cabling, NO lie. Later, the same for Ethernet twisted pair: CAT 3, then CAT 5, when I had my own business, I finally subbed it out, because I couldn't do it properly: I couldn't cost-justify the time, labor, nor tools needed to do it properly, for my customers, myself. So, I gave all my cabling jobs, back then, to a small, local company whose owner I knew, and I knew they'd do a good job. Never asked for a kickback, nor anything other than they take care of my customer, and remember me for referring them. Never got a ounce of business from him in return, but it didn't matter to me: He does good work, and so my customers were well served, as I wished.
:)
However, to wrap this up? Regardless of time, network cabling is just something to be done. In the OLD days, we did it ourselves, as part of being nerds, we ran the cabling, connected it, tested it - how else were we going to connect everything, and be sure that it was done correctly?
Now days, it's just another "thing", like electricity.
Still, I *miss* those days, you know: Networking was NEW, and people appreciated it... ,
Regards,
Notes:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARCNET
[2] ibid
[3] This note has no reference. However, I have, in a filing cabinet, the complete specifications for ARCNET, as published by Datapoint Corporation, circa 1980. Send me an email at djloweathotmaildotcom and I'll scan them and email them to you
In my opinion, you've completely missed the mark, upmods notwithstanding, and here's why:
Of course, Google Glass has NOTHING at all to do with vision correction, per se... so, this objection is a complete non sequitor, due to its irrelevance.
Not irritation with our hair, Precious! ANYTHING but that!
Which side? Not the right side, Precious!
And, what, exactly, is that? Have we ever been promised good hair, non-irritated hair, somewhere in fiction? If not, I suppose that I'm fortunate: None of the glasses I've ever worn have irritated my hair, and, I suppose, at this late date, I'm fortunate that I still HAVE hair, which remains unirritated, despite the ongoing presence of glasses, Google or otherwise.
Regards, mostly in jest,
dj
Notes:
[1] Trust me, I understand: I've worn glasses since I was 4 years old, and, now, at age 48, I've had to adopt progressive bifocals. However, my objections to Google Glass have NOTHING at all to do with my having to wear corrective lenses in general.
[2] I'll never use it, because of the privacy issues involved.
Not really. Back then, Ethernet was purely CSMA/CD (and later CSMA/CA), and at 10 Mbps a heavily populated network segment could quickly become saturated. Compare that to ARCNET, which, although it only ran at 2.5 Mbps, was token-based, and so scaled much better as nodes were added to a segment. In fact, overall throughput on an ARCNET LAN was BETTER than that of Ethernet then with equal numbers of nodes per segment as the node count increased.
Later, Ethernet networks would move to twisted pair at 10 Mbps on Category 3 twisted-pair wiring connected to Ethernet concentrators (what you youngins all call "hubs" now)... and performance was easier manage due to centralization of the wiring at the concentrators: You could lower the node count by adding network cards to the server and then having each one connect to a concentrator, and then judiciously daisy-chain concentrators together to increase the node count per segment.
NetWare made this easy to do, as it handled all of the routing internally. Later, it supported IPX load balancing at the server level, and you could have multiple NICs in a server connect to the SAME segment, which helped a LOT (http://support.novell.com/techcenter/articles/ana19941201.html - from 1994, and WOW do I feel old now).
You seem to be confusing the protocols with the infrastructure. "One flaky terminator" most likely refers to the 52 ohm Thinnet terminators used in 10BASE2 networks.
In any event, once the first 10Mbps Ethernet switches became available, and later 10 Mbps/100 Mbs switches, concentrators and NICs, and prices dropped both for the switches, concentrators and NICs, the end for Token Ring and ARCNET was near.
Still, in the SMB LANs that I installed and maintained back then, I preferred ARCNET over Ethernet or Token Ring, for its lower overall cost, better scalability and reliability at the time. I used to joke "You could run ARCNET on a pair of (metal) coathangers if you had to!"
Regards,
dj
The corporate world believes that, because it *is* immune to the rule of law, especially here in the US. Having bought off politicians, who then create laws to benefit them, how could they believe otherwise?
That will never happen: Governments are now so co-opted by corporate interests that they are, in effect, simply tools for them, to further their goals.
The game isn't just rigged, it's now completely controlled. The people that governments were created to represent are now ignored, for the most part, and all of your representatives are corrupt, in one way or another.
Sad, but true.
But, you ALL deserve it: You've gotten exactly what you deserve, here in the US: By your neglect, lack of attention, care, towards your government, at all levels, you've allowed this to happen.
The US was founded upon one simple idea: The rights of the individual should be paramount. The Constitution, its Amendments, were crafted towards that. And of course, it's not the exact fault of any one of you reading this that this has failed. Rather, it's the culmination of YEARS of work, on the part of the greedy, the power-hungry, the mad, to erode the foundation of our country, which was, and IS: The belief that WE, as human beings, CAN, and SHOULD, be able to be free, to live our lives, exercise our skills, knowledge and intelligence to benefit ourselves, our families, our friends, first and foremost,as good people, kind people, with the idea that, in so doing, as good, decent human beings, we would ALL benefit, as we did so, EACH of us, then, now, and in the future, as we lived, trusted, and grew.
Our Founding Fathers created something beyond themselves, and gave it to us, and we as a people, as citizens, neglected it, let it pass into the hands of people that care only for themselves. That framework, as crafted and captured, however imperfectly, within the US Constitution and its Amendments, to permit us our lives, liberties, our pursuit of happiness, has been pre-empted by those that we've elevated by election, time and time again, to the point where such election is no longer under our purview or control.
We are now a nation of servitude, indebted by design, by laws crafted to create and ensure such.
But, all is NOT lost, even at this late date. Trust yourselves, and as you do so, believe in the gift of your life, each of you. And as you do so, KNOW that you share this moment in time, with so many others, so gifted, and that while life in general may not be fair, nor kind? You, each of you, can help make it so, if you only choose to do so.
Ignore those that promote fear, so that they may control you. They cannot help you, and seek only your subjugation. They want you to be afraid, so that they can offer the hope of release from that. Security, if you only give up your liberties, your free will, to them.
Theirs is the certainty that comes from slavery, and you'll only know it, when it is too late to mourn what you have lost.
Regards,
dj
Well, I suspect that you're being snarky, but you have a point. Sort of, in the sense that "If we can't trust the programmers to write good code, always, then we can force them to use a language that at least forestalls the worst of their blunders."
The real issue, of course, is NOT technical, at the programmer/developer level, for such a project. It's administrative, in the sense that, regardless of the chosen programming language, bad code that would allow this should NEVER have passed review.
Assuming that they set up such properly, of course, which apparently isn't the case.
And the latter, too, isn't a technical matter either, really.
Just my opinion.
Regards,
dj
. Your current +5, Insightful moderation notwithstanding, I'm afraid that I must disagree, for one magazine, at least, for me.
That magazine is Maximum PC. Now, before you condemn me for that, let me explain.
I subscribed to boot magazine, from day one.Still have them all, somewhere. When boot was replaced by Maximum PC, I just let it ride: For me, the value was in getting current information delivered to me, in hardcopy, that I could read when I wanted to, WITHOUT needing a computer, Internet access, to do so.
No distractions, while so doing, on my time, spent focusing on things that *I* found cool and interesting.
To generalize this: In my opinion, the very nature of the Internet, it's immediacy, it's never-ending progress, has blunted our ability to reflect, to consider... and, in a very real way, our ability to make good decisions: We are now bombarded by never-ending changing information, from myriad sources of unknown/unverifiable veracity.
Sadly, so many of you, as the parent poster, accept this as the norm. Static sources of information, regardless of truth, usefulness, are discounted, dismissed and disregarded on their face,
And, as I write this, I am reminded of this: "Those that cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". George Santayana, of course.
But, his admonition is even MORE urgent now, in "Internet Time", I think. In "Internet Time, what is current becomes the past, and is forgotten all too quickly, replaced, over and over, until there is NOTHING but a never-ending blur, a never-ending reaction to the present, and no past, no context upon which to rely, after thought, consideration.
But it doesn't have to be that way, you know. You CAN choose. You CAN decide. You can think, reflect and make decisions, and you CAN, each of you, do so with access to the best raw source of knowledge that we, as human beings, have ever created.
What you DO with that is up to you.
Only now, NONE of you have the excuse of ignorance: You have, as I write this, and you read it, access to much of the best knowledge that human beings have EVER learned and recorded, and that grows larger every day.
And it is YOURS, for the taking, for free, at your convenience, should you so desire.
I wrote here, previously, that what saddens me the most is that, having access to an ocean of knowledge, too few of you will even attempt to swim, much less set sail upon it, perhaps beyond its sunset.
But, it is, what it is.
Regards,
dj
Alas, if only that were the only Amendment to consider. The Tenth Amendment mentions something about rights not ennumerated, I think.
People tend to dissect the Constitution to support their own beliefs, when in truth it needs to considered as a whole in order to fully appreciate it and apply it correctly.
Regards,
dj
No, it does not, because at the Federal level, the government is not, nor ever has been, a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic.
Well, it was *supposed* to be that. Now it's more akin to a fascist state, where corporations pay federal politicians via campaign donations, lobbyists, etc., to enact laws to their benefit.
And, in that light, he, you, I and pretty much everyone else are in the same boat: We're all being slowly crushed, as individuals, by what the US Federal government has become.
I suspect that Mr. Card doesn't object to that, so much as he does the fact that he's not a member of the "winning team".
Regards.
dj
That's bullshit. Having a mental health problem doesn't automatically mean that a person isn't capable of responsibly owning a firearm.
You need to learn some critical thinking skills and to develop some intellectual honesty.
Regards,
dj
You point a loaded gun at people when you intend to shoot them, otherwise you do not.
Any questions?
Regards,
Here's an easy answer: Add "Anyone interested is welcome".
There you go.
"Embrace Diversity?" A conference of any kind is targeted to its topic(s), first, as well it should be.I don't see that including non-relevant matters such as race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or anything else should have ANY bearing upon it.
Embrace the conference's subject matter, and welcome anyone that chooses to attend.
Regards,
dj
That's a waste of a perfectly good witch. Sure, he might keep you warm for a few hours, but if you build a bridge out of him, you'll get years of use out of him!
Regards,
dj
I'm going to get pounded for this post, but that's OK - this is a subject with which I am familiar, and I'd like to share my perspective nonetheless.
Your current "+5 Insightful" upmods notwithstanding, the fact that you need someone else to explain this to you tells me that, by your own admission, you don't have the knowledge required to make these decisions yourself. That alone makes me wonder why your post got upmodded... but, this is Slashdot in the 21st century, so what can you do, right?
If you had the requisite knowledge, I imagine that you'd be posting from that viewpoint, e.g. "I evaluated Cisco's offerings for my company, and after comparing them to other vendors, decided that they weren't worth the premium price for us." Or something similar, rather than stating: "I have always felt that"... this isn't something subject to feelings. IT/MIS is a technical profession, and cost/benefit analysis with regards to network and computer infrastructure is something that is done every day in the real world, though apparently not by you.
What you don't appear to understand is that Googles and the Facebooks of the world are basically large enough to be OEMs (Original Equipment Manufacturers) in their own right, and have the money and technical resources to pursue that path, and so your attempt to apply their approach to this particular case is flawed. Certainly CSU is large, but they aren't "Google large", when it comes to network infrastructure and servers, and you'll note that they went with a name-brand vendor, rather than rolling their own solution, which makes your statement doubly inane.
You appear to be good at that.
What bet? How much? What are the terms? I'm sorry to sound confrontational, but you do realize that such is a null statement? It costs you nothing to say, and there's no penalty if you're wrong. Why not replace it with something more honest, such as "I think that", or, better, in your case: "I believe that"?
Actually, much of Cisco's success, and sales, come from corporations with mission-critical networks, regardless of scale. They pay a premium for Cisco's hardware, and pay for SmartNet contracts, to ensure their network operations. This may not be worth it to you, but, I have to tell you, their support and logistics when it comes to SmartNet are amazing, and "4 hour parts on site"? The last time I opened a Cisco TAC case for a device so covered, I had a callback in 10 minutes from the person assigned to the case, parts dispatch was under an hour, and the longest delay was on our side: The person that was on-call to open the office (It was a Sunday) didn't answer her cell on the first try, and I left a message with the engineer's cell number, and called him back and gave him her number so he could call her directly to arrange to meet at the office. Once he got onsite, I emailed the backup copy of the router config to him, and he took care of the rest.
Total time was just over three hours, and the following Monday morning everyone came to work and the network was working.
THAT, in my opinion, is worth paying for, when needed, as it was in this case: That office is in Washington State and I'm in New York State.
Now, many companies don't need that, and that's fine. And, based just
I agree with your girlfriend and would like to subscribe to her newsletter.
Hi,
Sorry, but "social media", et al? Yet another venue for manipulation, especially Facebook.
Consider the latter: It's primary focus is social. This is by no means a bad thing: Human beings are social creatures, and Facebook is a great place for social interaction [1].
However, social interaction doesn't necessarily translate to "informed political awareness" [2].
My impression is this: Yes, the campaign managers are savvy about social networking, yes, they will use this, and, given the nature of social networking, properly manipulated? They will not only get more people to vote (a good thing, in general), but they will get more people to vote the way they want, so long as they get enough presence... if they look good to "someone" on Facebook? Well, odds are they're going to look good to that someone's friends, too, right, wrong or indifferent.
In many ways, leveraging Facebook and other social networking sites is the best way for any politician to go now: The cost to do so is next to nothing [3] and the impact is not only nation-wide, it's also self-selecting and self-perpetuating.
And, cynically? Where else are you going to find more "warm bodies" with so little effort?
Regards,
dj
Notes:
[1] Or so I've been told. I'm proud to admit that I don't have, nor ever will have, a Facebook account, nor accounts on similar services. And no, that doesn't mean that I don't have friends, it just means that I don't have any Facebook friends.
[2] Hell, I'd argue the contrary: People gathering together socially for extended periods of time tend to have similar views in most things, and so their political views will be similar and fairly immutable. So, they're self-selecting, and easily targeted and leveraged.
[3] After all, Facebook doesn't charge for an account... so, it's every politician's campaign manager's wet dream: Free, unfettered access to an enormous number of voters, who will also, potentially, recruit their friends, family, etc.? Hell, from their perspective, Facebook is an ocean, and its members are chum that willingly gather together to be eaten.
And of course, "the Obama" is a Freudian slip *grin*.
Regards,
dj
That should be: "Sadly, the Obama does not consider Game Mastering in their employment statistics."... it started out as "is not considering", and I messed up the editing.
Regards,
dj
Sadly, the Obama Administration does not considering Game Mastering in their employment statistics.
Purposely obtusely yours,
dj
We don't need a longer school year, we need schools that actually TEACH.
Not teaching to tests, not spewing data by rote, but schools that impart the foundations of learning, first.
How to learn, how to reason, how to think, how to analyze information gained from ANY source, and use it to make informed decisions. In short, we need schools that create knowledgeable, thoughtful, responsible citizens, capable of making informed decisions, and desirous of such.
I consider myself lucky to be as old as I am. I graduated High School in 1982. With honors, much to the surprise of my guidance counselor, who, despite my tested IQ and being place in honors and "gifted" classes, thought I was basically white trash... on the day of graduation he tracked me down, handed me a set of honor cords and said "Here. I don't know how how you managed it, but these are yours" [1].
Now, why I say "lucky"? While the overall quality of eduction wasn't all that great, there were still many great teachers, who, not having to worry about standardized tests, actually TAUGHT, and I was fortunate to have been in their classes.
Today, many of them wouldn't have jobs in the education field: My Freshman year Honors Social Studies teacher would, by today's standards, be deemed a "bad influence" at best, and subversive at worst: He tended to pepper his lectures based upon the official study materials with cynical observations as to their biases, and it was from him that I learned to "read between the lines", and look elsewhere for what wasn't mentioned in the official histories.
My Sophomore year Gifted English teacher started the school year by saying: "I've a list of books that I'm supposed to cover, here it is. However, since you're all supposedly gifted, I'll leave those to you to read." Then he handed out copies of James Joyce's "Dubliners" to each of us, which he'd bought with his own money, since it wasn't part of the official curriculum, and said "This is one of the greatest works of literature in the English language, and this is what we're going to study."
And study it we did. He was brilliant, imperviously knowledgeable in his field and cynical beyond belief... but, he did one thing that so few of my teachers did at that point: He made us think, and had no problem explaining in great detail why were were wrong. At one point, he was expostulating upon one of the themes in Dubliners, that of self-perception, and especially how such tends to be different from reality, and how many of the images in the stories show that. I don't remember which story it was that we were studying, but, something within me "clicked", as he was talking, and, as I glanced around, I saw another student with that same look. He looked at me, I looked at him, and nodded... there's a description where the protagonist is looking at a copper kettle... and I knew that he knew, too, and he raised his hand and asked "Wouldn't the reflection from the copper kettle be an example of that? It's convex, and so his reflection would be distorted..."... and the stunned look on our teacher's face, as he realized the import of that question, was priceless: He'd never seen that, nor, apparently, had anyone else so far as he knew. He said that he was going to write it up and submit it, but I don't know if it ever went that far.
Regardless, that one moment drove all of us to learn it, experience it, know it for what it was: Life, in fiction created, captured, and made real in words. It was, for me, the moment when I SAW, for the first time, beyond just the words, above them, between them, behind them, and learned that how truly powerful and wonderful words can be.
My Sophomore year Honors Biology teacher was HOT. She also told me that I was her only hope for a perfect score on the NYS Regents Biology exam... which drove me to study HARD. Sadly, I only got a 93%.
My Senior year Honors Physics teacher was as smart a human being as I've ever met, ever. He was in his 60's, then, had retired from industry after selling
Not necessarily.
You need to stop generalizing, stop extrapolating your opinions and beliefs upon others, and most importantly? Stop pretending that you have a clue about any of this, or that you've a right to chime in about things you don't, and cannot, ever understand.
Basically, STFU.
Seriously.
Regards,
dj
Nice attempt at revisionist history, but I'm not buying it, unless you're saying that you're so stupid that you didn't re-read your post to ensure that it was as you intended... I've read, re-read your original post, and it flows properly, and the overall message that results is quite clear.
Regards,
dj
So, do you honestly think that all of those military veterans are going to say "Hey, yeah, let's build roads after spending 10 years fighting!" How else would you get them to do so? Many of them have highly advanced technical skills, after all, even though they're "only in the military", and those skills are valuable, far more valuable than building roads, no matter what you think.
Gosh, that hurts! I should probably just skulk away, now that you've pwned me! Please, don't say bad things about my Mom!
Regards,
dj