How about muting all tabs except the one currently open with the option of enabling/disabling any tab explicitely?
I like this, but the problem I see is the unexpected suddenly blast of noise when you switch tabs--if the irritating people who use sound on their web-site to grab your attention know most browsers are "muted by default" their tendency will be to have a constantly looping message playing (braying) at maximum volume so that if you switch to that tab you almost certainly hear the message. Or they'll figure out how to discern if their tab is "muted" and wait to start the noise until you shift focus to that page and "unmute" it.
All things considered, it seems unfortunate that web-developers can't just get the message: "NO WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR FUCKING NOISE!"
The car in question was an automatic, so no neutral.
Since when? The N in PRNDL stands for neutral.
It cracks me up that a neighbor of mine recently suggested that our schools could "save money" by eliminating driver education. Shit, I think they should make it a four-year course the way kids drive these days.
Also, that was the moment I officially became old: I'm complaining about how "these kids drive."
I'd rather have an entry-level H1B here, earning and spending money in the US (and paying taxes), than to have the same guy over in India or wherever.
(I'm sure being in India does constrain his ability to compete with my technology skills somewhat, but not enough that I can stop worrying about him.)
Since most H1-B's are entry level, not "advanced" workers at all, and we have millions of fresh grads chomping at the bit for the few entry level positions available, what sense does it make to then import people to drive down wages and increase competition for a group that can barely get employed in the first place?
Split it demographically by age and you find that unemployment for "techies" north of 40 is significantly higher--closer to double the national unemployment for all industries. The problem this creates is that these are educated, skilled people who expected another 20 "high-earning" years before we put them on an ice floe.
Who's to say immigration won't benefit all, or at least most citizens?
Modern history. Specifically, the scandal of H1-B abuse in this country which is used by our largest corporations to artificially deflate the market-price for high-tech labor by importing cheap foreign labor to replace Americans. The "you must exhaust all opportunities to hire an American!" rule of H1-B hiring is just a fig-leaf that these companies get around by posting a role that NOBODY meets the requirements for, then using the fact that none of the applicants met the (insane) criteria for hiring as an excuse to import a much-cheaper H1-B.
"Steals" jobs from Americans? really? You need to have a legal title for something for it to be stolen, which you don't.
You may fall in whatever side of the issue you might want, but using the phrase "stealing jobs from America" is just inflammatory propaganda.
Think about it.
Yes, really.
Althought "jobs" aren't actually what are being stolen: Its prosperity. And it isn't being stolen by the immigrants, but by the bloodsucking corporations that want to grind all of our pay down so low by flooding the market with third-world-educated-on-governmen-tax-dollars-so-they-don't-have-student-loans folks that we're glad--even ecstatic!--to accept third-world plus 25% wages.
It's a naked attempt to flood the market and thereby drive down wages, period.
But the bigger the number, the bigger the chance that someone like them will be among them.
Of course, the corollary to this is that the bigger the number the fewer actual Americans will get an opportunity to shine, too....And isn't the government of this country supposed to be working int he best interests of actual citizens first?
How about no STEM visas for anyone? Instead, throw the effort at growing these folks at home
Could the mod who moderated "flamebait" on this please anonymously post justification? We have 20 million unemployed, many of them techies over 40 who can't get a call back because the employer prefers cheaper (pronounced "younger") people who don't have as many family complications and the expectations of good benefits (like health insurance and pension/401k match.)
It seems to me that it is a perfectly legitimate point of view, and not an invitation to flaming, that we shouldn't be importing something we already have a supply of (and the capacity to generate more of) just to depress wages. Part of the problem is the attitude that an employee must either have the sun, moon, and stars (and often in quantities that don't jive with reality--i.e. a demand for 15 years of.Net experience, for example) to earn a competitive salary (i.e. one that would entice you to leave your current job) or be willing to work so cheaply that the employer would be foolish not to pay for a little training to "catch them up" on the job.
In this context it clearly is intended to imply a person is reading it: The advertisement and smear campaign aren't related to "linux manuals pages"--it is directed at an audience that would unquestionably infer that their messages were being "read" by a person.
It's a disingenuous lie to say they're being "read" by a person because they aren't. It is even more disingenuous because what Google is doing is "parsing" the messages, not reading them, and achieves galactic levels of hypocrisy when you realize Microsoft's cloud services parse your email too.
Really? Are you aware that SMTP transactions are, at heart, a parsing of your message? That an automated program is parsing through the message to figure out where the headers end and the body begins? To do this they must parse the message.
So if they're not parsing your email, how is it being delivered? Osmosis? Telepathy? Carrier pigeon?
Google might even change it's policy and let humans read your e-mails.
So might Microsoft in their cloud hosting service!...Your point?
You gave them permission. How do do you know what google will do int he next ten years?
Once again you gave the same permission to Microsoft, specifically the clause that lets them change TOS at will with your only recourse being to stop using the service.
Maybe some credit agency will pay them $100 per user account to see all your e-mails.
Mean while microsoft is actually promising in their user agreement that they will never ever do that to you. There's thus a big difference.
Of course, that same user agreement also give Microsoft the option of changing those rules at their convenience, and the burden is on you to discover the change, not on them to reveal it.
The more you know about someone the easier it becomes to ruin them. Imagine a world where any sufficiently motivated extortionist could have their pick of targets. Eventually those extortionists would infiltrate whatever system was overseeing the information aggregation
It gets worse: An infiltration wouldn't even be needed--a successful extortionist could simply use his profits from the previous extortion attempt to BUY access to the data since these databases would undeniably be "commercialized" by some scum-bag looking to make a quick buck.
In the hands of some ideally benevolent government, all data may be benign. In the hands of a despotic one, it can be used to detect and eliminate any and all opposition - a witch hunt to end all witch hunts.
And when you factor in the "transnational" status of our world's largest corporations (i.e. they aren't "American," "British," or "French" companies anymore but "multinationals") the number of governments that you could be targeted by is essentially unlimited, since corporations have no conscience (by definition they don't: They aren't living things) they'll sell the product to anybody they can legally sell to that has money to spend.
Had a conversation about this recently and was pretty shocked at the apathy. Granted, I was talking to a Facebook addict at the time, but its shocking how little people think about what permanent records exist of their private lives.
I'm paying 10% more (roughly) in income taxes now than i was three years ago, with no rise in income. President's fault!
There are a lot of Obama-hating Bullshit Artists on here today: Obama didn't raise taxes, so what did you change? Did you pay off a large mortgage that gave you a large tax deduction? Did you stop donating to charity? The rates are (literally) IDENTICAL to what they were when he took office, so you're either lying or omitting a crucial detail.
Bullshit: Please cite how your taxes have "shot-up" since Obama took office. Is it because you have a job now, and thus are paying more in taxes than you were while unemployed during the Bush administration that makes you believe your taxes have "shot up?"
Does anybody really expect Sweden to say "yeah, fuck all our treaties with America, we'll protect a guy we think raped a couple of our citizens." Really?
First, he's not charged with rape, nor even CHARGED with anything... They're asking for a conversation about "continuing sex after a condom broke." In any other scenario (i.e. the U.S. wasn't out to get this guy) he would have been interviewed via phone and have had ticket mailed to him.
Second, I've never had a condom break in my entire life, let alone had two breaks with TWO CONSECUTIVE WOMEN. It is almost as if they were honeypots to trap Assange... Then we find out one of them has ties to the CIA, and both sent messages bragging about their exploits in star-fucking to all their friends... How is this rape? It isn't, and indeed, "not stopping when a condom breaks" isn't a crime in any other country on earth that I can name.
America's cock is so far down Britain's throat they're willing to damage any relationship, violate any state's sovereignty just to appease them.
On the other hand, those accidental sells significantly affected the price of certain stocks. If you are an average investor holding onto one of those stocks, wouldn't you rather the trades were canceled so you didn't take a bath due to someone else's error?
I think you might fundamentally not understand the value of stock shares. If the share were under-priced by a "mistake" trade the market would pretty quickly figure that out and value-seekers would flood into the issue and bring the price back to where it needs to be.
However, this is not an endorsement of high-speed trading via algorithm... That's just market-rigging with a fancy name. This is just a reminder that the "market" part of "stock market" still plays a role, even if GS et al are gaming the shit out of the system.
Having really dumb terminals does simplify end support though. Computer not working? Pull it out, put in a new one. Send the old one back to the manufacturer. It means one IT worker can support many more computers, and needs less training thus lower pay.
Only if you've divided up your roles... But so many companies have people "wearing many hats" that, in practice, it will be the same person doing the virtualization AND the "desktop" support of the virtual-desktops... Which means he'll need far MORE training than current helpdesk people. In fact, what it really does is makes IT hiring that much harder for most organizations because now you can't just hire somebody who knows Windows desktops for the helpdesk/workstation VM admin role--you would need to hire somebody who knows VDI or Xen Desktop (or something else.)
Yeah, I just slipped right out of the kid's school locker and manged to hop a bus to Oakland. That Siri is far more adept than I ever expected.
That Siri is a wild bitch... One weekend a few years back, she and I rented a convertible, drove out to Vegas, and took mushrooms with 8 strippers. Yadda yadda yadda, three days later Siri has maxed all her (and my) credit cards, done all 8 strippers (and me) and passed out naked on a craps table. I might hang with her again, but I'm not bringing my credit cards... I just now got out of debt.
The worst part is I she talks like that during sex, too. The bonging gets a little old...
What sort of response would you have the police make?
You do realize it is possible to have an investigation and not file criminal charges, right? That there is no requirement to file criminal charges just because there has been an investigation, correct? That prosecutors aren't just "allowed" but are "expected" to not file charges in unwinnable cases because the defendant in question is somebody who has ridiculed them publicly for years. Don't you?
That prosecutors and cops pressing an un-winnable case to the hilt, and just happen to be doing so against somebody who has been criticizing them publicly for years is a pretty large coincidence. But you're right, I'm sure his years-long criticism of Canadian anti-terrorism "security" theater had nothing to do with the reason he was used (correctly) to "send a message" to anybody else that might say the "wrong" things and "reveal our weaknesses" to "terrorists."
You're right, nothing to see here: Big Brother always knows whats best, and ours is not to reason why.
Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making.
So what? Not illegal to purchase those components if you aren't making a bomb. In fact, it isn't even illegal to buy those things even if you're "thinking about" making a bomb. Possessing these things isn't a crime unless he actually builds a bomb. He didn't build a bomb, never had any intention of building a bomb, and the cops KNEW full-well he had no intention of building a bomb.
So why the charges, if not to silence a critic?
He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit.
Not illegal. Ever heard of "Freedom of Speech?"
Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing).
More like they saw that a guy who'd been criticizing them publicly for ineffective security regimens and saw an opportunity to tarnish his reputation and chill his speech in the future by branding him a terrrorist. Even though he's been acquitted, the damage is done: In the narrow-minds of many this man is now a "terrorist" and damaged goods as a security analyst....All because he criticized the wrong person.
And really, how anybody can claim it is anything else than that is beyond me: Almost every advanced nation factors a defendants INTENT to commit a crime into the equation of whether they're guilty or not. In no scenario can anybody claim this guy had intent to blow anything up: He's said he never intended to, and no investigator when pressed has EVER presented evidence he intended to build a bomb. This is a "wink-and-nod" between the cops involved to strike-back at somebody who is critical of their security-theater gravy-train--nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
How about muting all tabs except the one currently open with the option of enabling/disabling any tab explicitely?
I like this, but the problem I see is the unexpected suddenly blast of noise when you switch tabs--if the irritating people who use sound on their web-site to grab your attention know most browsers are "muted by default" their tendency will be to have a constantly looping message playing (braying) at maximum volume so that if you switch to that tab you almost certainly hear the message. Or they'll figure out how to discern if their tab is "muted" and wait to start the noise until you shift focus to that page and "unmute" it.
All things considered, it seems unfortunate that web-developers can't just get the message: "NO WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR FUCKING NOISE!"
I want to make a joke about his name, but I just can't bring myself to take such an easy shot.
True. The poor guy has probably been the... uh... you-know-what (wink-wink) of jokes for many years...
The car in question was an automatic, so no neutral.
Since when? The N in PRNDL stands for neutral.
It cracks me up that a neighbor of mine recently suggested that our schools could "save money" by eliminating driver education. Shit, I think they should make it a four-year course the way kids drive these days.
Also, that was the moment I officially became old: I'm complaining about how "these kids drive."
His name is Hash isn't it?
Of course! My good friend Hash Tag! We went to university together--great guy... Can really wail on the guitar.
I'd rather have an entry-level H1B here, earning and spending money in the US (and paying taxes), than to have the same guy over in India or wherever.
(I'm sure being in India does constrain his ability to compete with my technology skills somewhat, but not enough that I can stop worrying about him.)
Since most H1-B's are entry level, not "advanced" workers at all, and we have millions of fresh grads chomping at the bit for the few entry level positions available, what sense does it make to then import people to drive down wages and increase competition for a group that can barely get employed in the first place?
Techies have a 3.3% unemployment rate
Split it demographically by age and you find that unemployment for "techies" north of 40 is significantly higher--closer to double the national unemployment for all industries. The problem this creates is that these are educated, skilled people who expected another 20 "high-earning" years before we put them on an ice floe.
Who's to say immigration won't benefit all, or at least most citizens?
Modern history. Specifically, the scandal of H1-B abuse in this country which is used by our largest corporations to artificially deflate the market-price for high-tech labor by importing cheap foreign labor to replace Americans. The "you must exhaust all opportunities to hire an American!" rule of H1-B hiring is just a fig-leaf that these companies get around by posting a role that NOBODY meets the requirements for, then using the fact that none of the applicants met the (insane) criteria for hiring as an excuse to import a much-cheaper H1-B.
First, it doesn't steal jobs from Americans.
"Steals" jobs from Americans? really? You need to have a legal title for something for it to be stolen, which you don't.
You may fall in whatever side of the issue you might want, but using the phrase "stealing jobs from America" is just inflammatory propaganda.
Think about it.
Yes, really.
Althought "jobs" aren't actually what are being stolen: Its prosperity. And it isn't being stolen by the immigrants, but by the bloodsucking corporations that want to grind all of our pay down so low by flooding the market with third-world-educated-on-governmen-tax-dollars-so-they-don't-have-student-loans folks that we're glad--even ecstatic!--to accept third-world plus 25% wages.
It's a naked attempt to flood the market and thereby drive down wages, period.
But the bigger the number, the bigger the chance that someone like them will be among them.
Of course, the corollary to this is that the bigger the number the fewer actual Americans will get an opportunity to shine, too. ...And isn't the government of this country supposed to be working int he best interests of actual citizens first?
How about no STEM visas for anyone? Instead, throw the effort at growing these folks at home
Could the mod who moderated "flamebait" on this please anonymously post justification? We have 20 million unemployed, many of them techies over 40 who can't get a call back because the employer prefers cheaper (pronounced "younger") people who don't have as many family complications and the expectations of good benefits (like health insurance and pension/401k match.)
It seems to me that it is a perfectly legitimate point of view, and not an invitation to flaming, that we shouldn't be importing something we already have a supply of (and the capacity to generate more of) just to depress wages. Part of the problem is the attitude that an employee must either have the sun, moon, and stars (and often in quantities that don't jive with reality--i.e. a demand for 15 years of .Net experience, for example) to earn a competitive salary (i.e. one that would entice you to leave your current job) or be willing to work so cheaply that the employer would be foolish not to pay for a little training to "catch them up" on the job.
No, it does not.
In this context it clearly is intended to imply a person is reading it: The advertisement and smear campaign aren't related to "linux manuals pages"--it is directed at an audience that would unquestionably infer that their messages were being "read" by a person.
It's a disingenuous lie to say they're being "read" by a person because they aren't. It is even more disingenuous because what Google is doing is "parsing" the messages, not reading them, and achieves galactic levels of hypocrisy when you realize Microsoft's cloud services parse your email too.
My email providers don't.
Really? Are you aware that SMTP transactions are, at heart, a parsing of your message? That an automated program is parsing through the message to figure out where the headers end and the body begins? To do this they must parse the message.
So if they're not parsing your email, how is it being delivered? Osmosis? Telepathy? Carrier pigeon?
Google might even change it's policy and let humans read your e-mails.
So might Microsoft in their cloud hosting service! ...Your point?
You gave them permission. How do do you know what google will do int he next ten years?
Once again you gave the same permission to Microsoft, specifically the clause that lets them change TOS at will with your only recourse being to stop using the service.
Maybe some credit agency will pay them $100 per user account to see all your e-mails.
Mean while microsoft is actually promising in their user agreement that they will never ever do that to you. There's thus a big difference.
Of course, that same user agreement also give Microsoft the option of changing those rules at their convenience, and the burden is on you to discover the change, not on them to reveal it.
The more you know about someone the easier it becomes to ruin them. Imagine a world where any sufficiently motivated extortionist could have their pick of targets. Eventually those extortionists would infiltrate whatever system was overseeing the information aggregation
It gets worse: An infiltration wouldn't even be needed--a successful extortionist could simply use his profits from the previous extortion attempt to BUY access to the data since these databases would undeniably be "commercialized" by some scum-bag looking to make a quick buck.
In the hands of some ideally benevolent government, all data may be benign. In the hands of a despotic one, it can be used to detect and eliminate any and all opposition - a witch hunt to end all witch hunts.
And when you factor in the "transnational" status of our world's largest corporations (i.e. they aren't "American," "British," or "French" companies anymore but "multinationals") the number of governments that you could be targeted by is essentially unlimited, since corporations have no conscience (by definition they don't: They aren't living things) they'll sell the product to anybody they can legally sell to that has money to spend.
Had a conversation about this recently and was pretty shocked at the apathy. Granted, I was talking to a Facebook addict at the time, but its shocking how little people think about what permanent records exist of their private lives.
I'm paying 10% more (roughly) in income taxes now than i was three years ago, with no rise in income. President's fault!
There are a lot of Obama-hating Bullshit Artists on here today: Obama didn't raise taxes, so what did you change? Did you pay off a large mortgage that gave you a large tax deduction? Did you stop donating to charity? The rates are (literally) IDENTICAL to what they were when he took office, so you're either lying or omitting a crucial detail.
So, the government is going to start conscripting medical professionals under your plan?
So I read his link and am not sure how you came to that conclusion.
My taxes have shot up
Bullshit: Please cite how your taxes have "shot-up" since Obama took office. Is it because you have a job now, and thus are paying more in taxes than you were while unemployed during the Bush administration that makes you believe your taxes have "shot up?"
Does anybody really expect Sweden to say "yeah, fuck all our treaties with America, we'll protect a guy we think raped a couple of our citizens." Really?
First, he's not charged with rape, nor even CHARGED with anything... They're asking for a conversation about "continuing sex after a condom broke." In any other scenario (i.e. the U.S. wasn't out to get this guy) he would have been interviewed via phone and have had ticket mailed to him.
Second, I've never had a condom break in my entire life, let alone had two breaks with TWO CONSECUTIVE WOMEN. It is almost as if they were honeypots to trap Assange... Then we find out one of them has ties to the CIA, and both sent messages bragging about their exploits in star-fucking to all their friends... How is this rape? It isn't, and indeed, "not stopping when a condom breaks" isn't a crime in any other country on earth that I can name.
America's cock is so far down Britain's throat they're willing to damage any relationship, violate any state's sovereignty just to appease them.
On the other hand, those accidental sells significantly affected the price of certain stocks. If you are an average investor holding onto one of those stocks, wouldn't you rather the trades were canceled so you didn't take a bath due to someone else's error?
I think you might fundamentally not understand the value of stock shares. If the share were under-priced by a "mistake" trade the market would pretty quickly figure that out and value-seekers would flood into the issue and bring the price back to where it needs to be.
However, this is not an endorsement of high-speed trading via algorithm... That's just market-rigging with a fancy name. This is just a reminder that the "market" part of "stock market" still plays a role, even if GS et al are gaming the shit out of the system.
Having really dumb terminals does simplify end support though. Computer not working? Pull it out, put in a new one. Send the old one back to the manufacturer. It means one IT worker can support many more computers, and needs less training thus lower pay.
Only if you've divided up your roles... But so many companies have people "wearing many hats" that, in practice, it will be the same person doing the virtualization AND the "desktop" support of the virtual-desktops... Which means he'll need far MORE training than current helpdesk people. In fact, what it really does is makes IT hiring that much harder for most organizations because now you can't just hire somebody who knows Windows desktops for the helpdesk/workstation VM admin role--you would need to hire somebody who knows VDI or Xen Desktop (or something else.)
Yeah, I just slipped right out of the kid's school locker and manged to hop a bus to Oakland. That Siri is far more adept than I ever expected.
That Siri is a wild bitch... One weekend a few years back, she and I rented a convertible, drove out to Vegas, and took mushrooms with 8 strippers. Yadda yadda yadda, three days later Siri has maxed all her (and my) credit cards, done all 8 strippers (and me) and passed out naked on a craps table. I might hang with her again, but I'm not bringing my credit cards... I just now got out of debt.
The worst part is I she talks like that during sex, too. The bonging gets a little old...
What sort of response would you have the police make?
You do realize it is possible to have an investigation and not file criminal charges, right? That there is no requirement to file criminal charges just because there has been an investigation, correct? That prosecutors aren't just "allowed" but are "expected" to not file charges in unwinnable cases because the defendant in question is somebody who has ridiculed them publicly for years. Don't you?
That prosecutors and cops pressing an un-winnable case to the hilt, and just happen to be doing so against somebody who has been criticizing them publicly for years is a pretty large coincidence. But you're right, I'm sure his years-long criticism of Canadian anti-terrorism "security" theater had nothing to do with the reason he was used (correctly) to "send a message" to anybody else that might say the "wrong" things and "reveal our weaknesses" to "terrorists."
You're right, nothing to see here: Big Brother always knows whats best, and ours is not to reason why.
Mr. Sonne went out of his way to purchase specific chemicals that are integral components in bomb-making.
So what? Not illegal to purchase those components if you aren't making a bomb. In fact, it isn't even illegal to buy those things even if you're "thinking about" making a bomb. Possessing these things isn't a crime unless he actually builds a bomb. He didn't build a bomb, never had any intention of building a bomb, and the cops KNEW full-well he had no intention of building a bomb.
So why the charges, if not to silence a critic?
He went out of his way to express his intentions to "test security" at the G-20 summit.
Not illegal. Ever heard of "Freedom of Speech?"
Security took notice of those activities (which he apparently assumed they wouldn't), and they responded as if he posed a threat to bomb the G-20 summit (which was exactly what he tried to make it look like he was thinking of doing).
More like they saw that a guy who'd been criticizing them publicly for ineffective security regimens and saw an opportunity to tarnish his reputation and chill his speech in the future by branding him a terrrorist. Even though he's been acquitted, the damage is done: In the narrow-minds of many this man is now a "terrorist" and damaged goods as a security analyst. ...All because he criticized the wrong person.
And really, how anybody can claim it is anything else than that is beyond me: Almost every advanced nation factors a defendants INTENT to commit a crime into the equation of whether they're guilty or not. In no scenario can anybody claim this guy had intent to blow anything up: He's said he never intended to, and no investigator when pressed has EVER presented evidence he intended to build a bomb. This is a "wink-and-nod" between the cops involved to strike-back at somebody who is critical of their security-theater gravy-train--nothing more.
Sounds like a confession to me. Lock him up, boys!
Is that you, Chief Wiggum?