Wrong. Even today, the Fraser Institute (which is by no means a left-wing thinktank) calls the situation "Canada's Aparteid". I suppose your rosy outlook on our native reserves conveniently ignores the fact that the poverty comes out of the poor treatment of 30 years ago. Even today we can't be bothered to make sure that they have sanitary drinking water.
This is where I get confused. Are we supposed to maintain their standard of life (ie; interfere with their lives), or give them money and leave them alone?
The politics and nonsense surrounding reserves is exactly why every status indian I know (and their children) live in cities and towns abroad and work regular, non-reserve jobs, pay regular taxes and fund their own education. Yes, they do have status cards and gas cards and when they drive through a reserve they fill their tanks for a lower cost (and the smokers among them pick up a carton or two) but hey - wouldn't you?
Face it; Indians (aboriginals, native Canadians) are a conquered race. They do not roam the land freely any more, nor would it be possible for them to return to their old ways (nor would most of them actually like to for that matter) so their choice is to integrate with society, carve out their own corner of it and live in harmony with everybody else just as the immigrants from all nations have done. Canada is a collage of races and religions of which natives are only one.
In the past we have had indiscretions. We did stomp all over native lands during our discovery and exploration of this land, we had black slavery, internment of Japanese during WWII and for that we are actually rather proud - because we've learned from it and value human rights higher than, I'd say, most nations as a result. I'll qualify that; it was our forefathers who instituted all of these policies, not us; we're the ones who've learned from their grave indiscretions.
You can't possibly be asserting that cops/security only taser violent dangerous people. Peruse youtube a little and you will see a bunch of thugs making copious over-use of their authority.
Great. So a few officers make poor (or even just plain bad) judgments and we should take a non-lethal alternative weapon out of the hands of all officers?
What, then, is your alternative suggestion for safely detaining a violent suspect without using a baton, pepper spray or a firearm?
mod parent up, parents get upset when another adult has a stern talking to their child for doing something nasty, and police can put 50kvolts through a child instead of taking the piece of glass off him? bullshit.
Sorry, but the fact that some parents have a ridiculous obsession with their child's sense of self worth is completely irrelevant to this situation. This child was threatening to harm himself, had already cut himself more than once, and was successfully subdued by the police on scene and went away without any serious injuries.
The article and in fact posters on this site are suggesting that the adults on scene should have been able to control the child on the scene. Sure thing. They could have approached from two or three sides and grabbed the child's arms and torso just as the glass entered his neck and blood spurted all over them. How would the news article read then?
But hey, like all of us here, you weren't there so feel free to comment on how much better you would have handled the situation than the trained officers who responded to the call.
Correct me if I'm wrong (as if people wouldn't), but doesn't the Gmail system scan your emails so that it can send you targetted ads? Doesn't that make taking the piss out of Microsoft's security a lot hypocritical?
Yes, but Google are not evil.:)
Seriously, yes, Gmail does scan your e-mails and send targeted ads to you. They also scan your search results and send targeted ads. They also scan web pages you visit and send you targeted ads based on the content therein (providing the web page belongs to Google Adsense).
This is their business model. Ads on the Internet, much like ads on television are inevitable. The difference is in the degree. Just exactly how invasive are the ads - are they flashing banner ads that are totally irrelevant to you and your life, sponsored spam that makes it into your inbox (or just due to really lousy spam filters) or are they small relatively harmless textual ads that correspond to your general interests?
Gmail is, IMHO, the least invasive alternative. Now, myself, I just have my Gmail account forwarded to my home server where it's parsed by my own local spam filters (second round) and sorted into its own folder on my IMAP server so I never see their ads (or, in point of fact their interface) so it's all moot to me.:)
Not any more. Before I used msn@joe-baldwin.net or somesuch, but one day I got a message at sign in telling me I had to either get a Hotmail account or change my Passport to something under the messengeruser.com domain (e.g. joebaldwin@messengeruser.com is the one i picked).
I've been using my @Yahoo.com e-mail address as my MSN passport forever. Basically I signed up for MSN a while ago because, hey, everybody uses it {sigh} and in my old {cough} age I now prioritize the ability to communicate with people over and above the dusty 'ol soapbox. However I cancelled my Hotmail account the day Microsoft bought it out and I refuse to get a new one.
As somebody else suggested, you may have been singled out, or they may have put a baited hook out there and you chomped on it. On and off I've seen mysterious login failures and other peculiarities that made me think it would be easier to just get a Hotmail account and a proper Passport ID but lo and behold another try or two and I was logged in anyways.
I think it also helps that I don't use their official client on any platform so it makes it more difficult for them to turn the screws. MSN for me is nothing more than an address book and a protocol and I'm quite happy with my arrangement.
They also do well charging $4.00 for an 80-cent bottle of beer. It probably has to do with the temporary brain impairment their customers experience as a result of alcohol consumption and/or trying to get laid.
If you've ever wanted to see a nerd's take on social behaviour you've just found it. Priceless.
Re:do not stop progress by not wanting 'bloat'...
on
KDE 4.0 RC 1 Released
·
· Score: 1
If KDE/Gnome can be developed to run on low-end machines and still feel "good enough", then they should be blazingly fast on the ungodly-overpowered desktop machines that are the high end of today's desktop market.
When you first start KDE, or even after it's already configured there's an option to scale up/down the intensity (bloat) of the Window Manager from the left hand side which is very basic, low bloat all the way to the right side which is all the glitz and glamour enabled. Or you can go through and en/disable each individual feature to suit your tastes.
I have the same experience. I figure it's either some rogue extension, or some weird webpages that people visit that actually lead their browser to consume gigabytes of RAM.
I do not now, nor have I ever installed a single third party (or otherwise) Firefox extension since day one yet I still see it consuming hundreds of MB worth of RAM on a regular basis.
So now that we've eliminated the extensions scapegoat, and the scapegoat about the users being obviously too stupid to control their web browser, can we get on to the part where the problem of memory leaks, fragmentation, whatever is actually solved?
If you want a car analogy, fine, I'll give you one; if a fire keeps popping up under the hood it doesn't matter how long my morning commute is or where I stop for coffee; the damn thing's broken! It just shouldn't bloody well do that!
I don't understand why people leave a web browser open for days at a time, especially firefox, with its built in session saver.
Close firefox when you are done for the day. When you start it back up it can show you all your tabs from last time. That does help with the memory usage issue.
If you don't trust the session saver, then bookmark all tabs into a folder with the date. Then tomorrow you know which folder has all your bookmarks from yesterday.
What are the reasons for leaving it running while you are asleep?
The more I hear this, the more I think back to another ages old argument.
If you're not using your computer at night, why not shut it down? I mean, no operating system should have to deal with the stress of keeping itself together for more than 8 hours at a time.
It's inexcusable behaviour for an operating system, a database server, a web browser, an MP3 player or any other tool we have. It should just work. Period. The fact that it doesn't and yet there exist other tools out there that do is a case-in-point proof that Firefox is broken and needs repair.
Here's one for you. There exist web based network monitoring apps that refresh either the page or specific elements within on a set time period to alert administrators to problems in and around their network. These therefore require a web browser to have a page loaded for perhaps as long as months at a time without rest. Should each shift really be responsible for "rebooting" a session that should otherwise just sit there looking green all day and all night? Is that reasonable?
What browser is crashing your whole machine? Are you running Windows 98 and browsing with Internet Explorer?
When your machine is thrashing because a single process just ate up three times the installed physical memory and the only way to get it back is to hit the small button beside the power button on the front of the case, it's just as good as a "crash" in most peoples' books.
What relevant use cases are there for keeping your browser open for days? I would think you're either too lazy to turn it off, or you're using the wrong tool for the work at hand.
If I have to alter how I use my tool, chances are it's the tool's fault.
The issue at hand here is that Firefox can (and quite often does) saturate a computer's available RAM (and much of its swap) in a matter of hours or days where other browsers do not.
There was a time when I could browse the web graphically on a computer with 32MB of RAM and less than 200MB of hard disk space (thus no room for gigabyte swap files). Are we really to believe that the web is now exponentially more resource intensive to the degree that a web browser requires gigabytes of RAM dedicated to it?!?
I love Firefox, but their number 1 biggest top of the heap (no pun intended) problem is the memory consumption. Number 2 right behind it is the memory consumption.
Version:Avg Mem Usage(KB):Peak Mem Usage(KB):CPU time/day average (minutes, I'm a heavy user)
Wow. Those figures are incredible, even after I convert them to MB.
Incredible in that even if I could get the memory usage that low (I'm using 122MB right now with 6 tabs open. No flash, no plugins, no third party extensions) under Windows XP Pro SP2.
Now, that being said, I'm using 2.0.0.9. I had 3.0b1 installed for about 15 minutes. Let me break down the time frame for you;
3 minutes to download + install.
1 minute to load my homepage, open a second tab and go to another webpage.
10 minutes for XP to stop thrashing as it swapped everything out of RAM to make room for Firefox as it spiralled out of control sucking up all of my available 512MB of RAM and went looking for more as I tried repeatedly to kill it.
1 minute to uninstall it and delete the remaining shortcuts and installer package.
I do believe this is the shortest, most curt, worst experience with a software package to date. Seriously. If this is their version of a leaner, meaner Firefox I'm scared to see the end results.
(n.b. I've been using Firefox as my exclusive browser under Linux and Windows since around about v0.86)
While I don't agree with what these parents have done.. its being done every day on the internet. 95% of the profiles you see are probably fake to some degree
While I agree with what you say, there's still a significant difference between pretending to be younger or better looking (or even more interesting) than you are in real life, portraying the opposite sex for a laugh, or any number of other things people do on the Internet and what these parents did. They had direct knowledge of this girl's mental state and they used that against her in a very real harsh way that inevitably led to her death.
There's fake because you don't have to be 100% honest and then there's just plain malicious.
I am highly skeptical of any claims that a disappearing online friend could drive someone to suicide unless there were already some very, very major issues where just about anything else could also have that result.
It wasn't a "disapearing online friend" at all. It was a contrived effort by a small group of adults and other teenagers, combining their intellects and talents to ruin a young girl. Mental instability or otherwise, that's horribly dispicable.
Take a pair of adults. They form a profile for a "hot" young male. They make the now deceased fall in love with him; the first boy to find her physically attractive, as it was told. This is a significant moment in any young person's life - especially someone outside of the norm. People on this site should understand that better than most.
Now these adults make the boy very convincingly friendly, the girl practically lives to see what he'll say next; it's pure infatuation for her. Hell, she's in love (or so her hormone filled brain would have her believe) and she's happier than she's ever been in her life.
From there, you get the involvement of several of her peers. Vindictive, mean teenaged girls who know every detail about this girl and her life. Now they're not only posting this vitriol from her love interest, they're also posting public polls, surveys and notes bringing to light everything that this girl is self conscious about. Bringing to light personal, intimite things she's shared with this "boy" for all her school peers to see. Mocking her every word. Now she's not only heartbroken and unable to cope with it, but she knows that she'll be mocked and insulted and stared at by her entire neighborhood and school. She doesn't understand why this boy would turn on her and bring all her peers with him. She's gone from a girl with a love interest and something to live for to a girl nobody likes who will never fit in. Nobody will love her again.
Teenage boys tend to take out their angst on one another with physical violence. Teenage girls tend towards crushing, emotionally crippling forms of psychological attack. This isn't the first time this has happened and certainly won't be the last.
The most disgusting element to all this is the parents who started this in the first place. It's one thing to create a profile and befriend your daughter's former friend in order to dig up dirt, but it's another entirely to involve several teenage girls in the neighborhood (a clique, if you will) and not only allow, but encourage them to have their way with this girl's emotions.
This goes beyond a stranger pretending to be something they're not. This was a contrived, deliberate attack on somebody by someone who had the ammunition to cause real harm. These adults should be tried and convicted of contributing to the girl's death. What they did was repugnant and should not be socially acceptable. The fact that their details leaked, largely due to their filing charges against the parents of the daughter they killed over something as trivial as a toy - a toy they had asked them to store for them?!? How low can you get? You kill peoples' daughter than ask them for favours like that? These people are sick and twisted and for what they've done to destroy another family I hope their lives are ruined. I feel no compassion for them and anybody who does is sorely misguided.
It always amazes me that the people so vehemently opposed to socialized medicine are nearly always the ones who have proper health insurance through work and don't need it anyways.
...
Oh, and I pay 100% for my own health insurance. I'm a contractor, so I pick up the tab, completely. I've paid for most of my own things since I was 16. Don't talk to me about not knowing what it's like to bear the cost.
I didn't talk about bearing the cost, I talked about having health insurance, which you clearly do.
By the way, I've paid for everything in my life since I was 16. What do I win?
Life isn't fair, goods and services are scarce, nothing balances these inequalities better than a truly free market. I'm not talking about socialism, fascism or even corporatism. I'm talking about the ability to openly trade and set prices so the citizen has full knowledge of price and differences in services.
There's two things I see here that are completely counter intuitive. You say you want to help the less fortunate, but clearly that's only when you want to feel good about yourself, not necessarily when they need your help the most. Secondly, there's enough trouble with informed consent in the medical industry today - but you seriously want people to start price shopping their procedures? Who truly understands the difference between an MRI, CAT, or PET scan and which situation necessitates which test?
Wow. I hadn't realized the nature of your published "work". A quote from your most recent, and the only podcast of yours I could stand to fast forward through pretty aptly sums it up (paraphrased); "Everybody with a megaphone believes they have something to say that people want to listen to."
Well, my friend, it appears that the Internet is your megaphone, and I wish you luck on your corner of it. Always remember; your blog is unique, just like every other one out there. Keep up the... work.
I was publishing back when it was virtually unknown. Now with the rise of Linux and the self publication model, you surely have done something, anything, to get some recognition.
So you were publishing when nobody knew about the publication, and now people are publishing and nobody cares? Wow. That's a hell of a sweep.:)
Sorry chum, but your pithy little articles and your own self aggrandizing tactics on Slashdot still don't make you more worthy of an opinion than Mr. Simmons. But hey, thanks for playing.:)
No, because decades of false information have told them latent print identification works. It doesn't. The courts are beginning to figure this out.
Actually, it seems to me as if the judge doesn't want a man convicted based primarily on the evidence of a partial print lifted from a crime scene.
I know a lot about fingerprint identification. I've worked on electronic fingerprint identification, in QA. If you had done my work you would know that the ID software, which was far superior to the human eye, needed multiple high-quality images of prints to get a match. If it was smeared, it wouldn't work. Ever. What does that tell you?
That the software isn't terribly good?
Fingerprint technicians seem to do a good job "matching" black men with criminal records and a lousy job "matching" anyone else.
Ahh, there we have it, there's the strawman that ignited the remainder of this discussion.
Mr. Have, meet the Have-Not family. They outnumber you ten to one. Good luck.
Here's the crux of the issue; we have a couple different kinds of "haves" here. There are those like me who've worked no less than 5 days out of the week since I was 16 years of age; sometimes working 2 or even 3 jobs equalling more than 14 hours work most days, working no less than 12 hours every day out of a 7 day week for months on end without a break to support myself. I've scrimped and saved, sacrificed some of the frills in life and believe I've genuinely earned my place in life, the things I own and the property I'm going to buy in a few months time. Should I be penalized for that? Should I give it away to someone who has less than me?
I will grant you that people who have due to lucking out in the genetic lottery aren't necessarily as grateful for everything they own but what of their parents? Should they be penalized for providing for their children?
Latent print identification is snake oil. Lifting prints from the crime scene doesn't accomplish anything because for identification prints have to be near-perfect, even slight smearing will make them useless. Such prints simply do not appear in the field.
So what, the police print every major crime scene because they like the smell of the powder?
Any time our on site body shop deals with a stolen recovery they have to clean up a ton of print powder and wash off the wax pencil marks they use to highlight the areas that have usable prints.
Do you get off on posting factually incorrect information, or are you just severely confused? Are you trolling or genuinely know nothing about the subject?
and I have a documentation technique named after me.
I also have written about twenty or so articles about computer programming and object-orientation and have a few bogs about things.
Some people who post to/. actually have brains.
And what have YOU managed to talk a publisher into?
I've written articles, too (published even!). I can create a blog also, but I know that nobody really cares how spicy my curry was today, or how many red cars I passed on my way into work, or any other mundane nonsense that goes on in my life.
See, once you realize you're just like everyone else around here, sitting at your keyboard staring blankly at your monitor killing time between working and whatever else you do in life rather than making hundreds of millions of dollars like Gene Simmons you'll be much happier and in the process you'll look like less of a heel when you wave your "accomplishments" in people's faces. For the record, BTW, unless people know who you are by the mere mention of your name, nobody's impressed.
This is why, IMO, things like universal healthcare are evil.
Well, I've never been turned away from a hospital because I didn't have an insurance card or my AmEx handy. I also never hear about my fellow Canadians bankrupted because of a critical illness. None of my friends, family or co-workers have lost (or heavily mortgaged) their homes because they got cancer. (FWIW, I know personally no less than six people who have had various forms of cancer in the past decade)
Health care (the ability to be healthy) should be a fundamental right for everybody - not just those fortunate enough to be able to afford it.
Whereas, in a country like we have in the U.S., people can mostly volunteer their resources to help someone out, to better society as a whole, and feel really fulfilled about the act. Better society as a whole should never, ever be coerced.
...
They remove choice, they remove people's chance to be warm and loving to those less fortunate, and it alienates those who adversely react to this robbing from those who have to give to those who might not have right now.
This idea always sounds great on paper but in reality how many people donate their time, energy, efforts, money and skills to the less fortunate? How many doctors go through med school only to open clinics that give health care away to the poor and needy? Atleast in a socialized health care system they get paid for their efforts at walk-in clinics.
It always amazes me that the people so vehemently opposed to socialized medicine are nearly always the ones who have proper health insurance through work and don't need it anyways. Speaking of the definition of greed. Find me a hundred single parents who can barely afford to buy used clothing for their child(ren) who are strongly opposed to socialized medicine and there's a hero cookie in it for you.
We're at the point where we only pick up the phone if we recognize the caller ID. Otherwise, they can talk to the answering machine.
People like you and my mother, and by extension now my younger brother annoy the hell out of me with this behaviour. What if I'm stranded at the side of the road using a pay phone and need you to come provide assistance? (Same goes if I'm using someone elses cell phone, or one of the OTHER work lines than the main number), or if a friend/relative moved and wants to phone you with a "This is my new number, oh, and here's my new address" or a long lost relative/friend wants to phone and chat, or a son/daughter/niece/nephew/grandchild is in dire need of assistance and calls from a strange phone, or your doctor/dentist/whatever following up on an appointment, or the video store calling to remind you about a late rental, or a store phoning to let you know your pre-order is in, or someone following up on a recent visit/inquiry, or your bank or credit card company phoning to let you know about potential fraudulent activity, or or or or or...
Just answer the bloody phone. If you want to be removed from the calling list, find out your local regulations and use them accordingly. The difference between answering the phone and being removed from calling lists (or added to internal 'do-not-call' lists) could be the difference between a dozen calls in a night and rarely seeing more than 1-2 unsolicited calls in a month.
I had something similar happen the other day and then the telemarketing person came on the line and started in which his pitch. Perhaps someone here on/. can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was federal law that if I request it, the telemarketer has to provide me with their name, the name of their employer, and the street address of the company so that I can have the first clue who is calling me (and so I know who the complaint with the FTC will be about). But what if the person hangs up when you start asking questions and the number from which they are calling appears to be overseas -- even after the marketing person confirmed they were in the US to begin with. What recourse is there in such a case?
I'm in Canada and our CRTC (Canadian FCC equivalent), bless their hearts, have all kinds of unenforceable regulations much like you all south of the 49th.
One thing we've been getting directly to our work numbers (not the ring-down number, but directly to lines 2, 3 and 4) are automated "Congratulations! You have won a free vacation! Press 1 to claim your prize!" with no "Press # to never hear from us again." option. So, I press 1. The guy answers and starts immediately with "Congratulations, and thank you and..." and I request sternly that he remove us from his phone list to which he responds "Suck my f&*#@ing balls!" and hangs up. {sigh!}
I'm not legal exsphurt, but that can't be right.:)
Slashdot Mirror
This is where I get confused. Are we supposed to maintain their standard of life (ie; interfere with their lives), or give them money and leave them alone?
The politics and nonsense surrounding reserves is exactly why every status indian I know (and their children) live in cities and towns abroad and work regular, non-reserve jobs, pay regular taxes and fund their own education. Yes, they do have status cards and gas cards and when they drive through a reserve they fill their tanks for a lower cost (and the smokers among them pick up a carton or two) but hey - wouldn't you?
Face it; Indians (aboriginals, native Canadians) are a conquered race. They do not roam the land freely any more, nor would it be possible for them to return to their old ways (nor would most of them actually like to for that matter) so their choice is to integrate with society, carve out their own corner of it and live in harmony with everybody else just as the immigrants from all nations have done. Canada is a collage of races and religions of which natives are only one.
In the past we have had indiscretions. We did stomp all over native lands during our discovery and exploration of this land, we had black slavery, internment of Japanese during WWII and for that we are actually rather proud - because we've learned from it and value human rights higher than, I'd say, most nations as a result. I'll qualify that; it was our forefathers who instituted all of these policies, not us; we're the ones who've learned from their grave indiscretions.
Great. So a few officers make poor (or even just plain bad) judgments and we should take a non-lethal alternative weapon out of the hands of all officers?
What, then, is your alternative suggestion for safely detaining a violent suspect without using a baton, pepper spray or a firearm?
Sorry, but the fact that some parents have a ridiculous obsession with their child's sense of self worth is completely irrelevant to this situation. This child was threatening to harm himself, had already cut himself more than once, and was successfully subdued by the police on scene and went away without any serious injuries.
The article and in fact posters on this site are suggesting that the adults on scene should have been able to control the child on the scene. Sure thing. They could have approached from two or three sides and grabbed the child's arms and torso just as the glass entered his neck and blood spurted all over them. How would the news article read then?
But hey, like all of us here, you weren't there so feel free to comment on how much better you would have handled the situation than the trained officers who responded to the call.
Correct me if I'm wrong (as if people wouldn't), but doesn't the Gmail system scan your emails so that it can send you targetted ads? Doesn't that make taking the piss out of Microsoft's security a lot hypocritical?
Yes, but Google are not evil. :)
Seriously, yes, Gmail does scan your e-mails and send targeted ads to you. They also scan your search results and send targeted ads. They also scan web pages you visit and send you targeted ads based on the content therein (providing the web page belongs to Google Adsense).
This is their business model. Ads on the Internet, much like ads on television are inevitable. The difference is in the degree. Just exactly how invasive are the ads - are they flashing banner ads that are totally irrelevant to you and your life, sponsored spam that makes it into your inbox (or just due to really lousy spam filters) or are they small relatively harmless textual ads that correspond to your general interests?
Gmail is, IMHO, the least invasive alternative. Now, myself, I just have my Gmail account forwarded to my home server where it's parsed by my own local spam filters (second round) and sorted into its own folder on my IMAP server so I never see their ads (or, in point of fact their interface) so it's all moot to me. :)
I've been using my @Yahoo.com e-mail address as my MSN passport forever. Basically I signed up for MSN a while ago because, hey, everybody uses it {sigh} and in my old {cough} age I now prioritize the ability to communicate with people over and above the dusty 'ol soapbox. However I cancelled my Hotmail account the day Microsoft bought it out and I refuse to get a new one.
As somebody else suggested, you may have been singled out, or they may have put a baited hook out there and you chomped on it. On and off I've seen mysterious login failures and other peculiarities that made me think it would be easier to just get a Hotmail account and a proper Passport ID but lo and behold another try or two and I was logged in anyways.
I think it also helps that I don't use their official client on any platform so it makes it more difficult for them to turn the screws. MSN for me is nothing more than an address book and a protocol and I'm quite happy with my arrangement.
If you've ever wanted to see a nerd's take on social behaviour you've just found it. Priceless.
When you first start KDE, or even after it's already configured there's an option to scale up/down the intensity (bloat) of the Window Manager from the left hand side which is very basic, low bloat all the way to the right side which is all the glitz and glamour enabled. Or you can go through and en/disable each individual feature to suit your tastes.
Strange. It uses 80 MB on my machine after an hour of browsing.
I assume you used a fresh profile? An old profile might have extensions that misbehave in development versions.
Since I've never installed an extension in my life I find that rather doubtful.
I do not now, nor have I ever installed a single third party (or otherwise) Firefox extension since day one yet I still see it consuming hundreds of MB worth of RAM on a regular basis.
So now that we've eliminated the extensions scapegoat, and the scapegoat about the users being obviously too stupid to control their web browser, can we get on to the part where the problem of memory leaks, fragmentation, whatever is actually solved?
If you want a car analogy, fine, I'll give you one; if a fire keeps popping up under the hood it doesn't matter how long my morning commute is or where I stop for coffee; the damn thing's broken! It just shouldn't bloody well do that!
Close firefox when you are done for the day. When you start it back up it can show you all your tabs from last time. That does help with the memory usage issue.
If you don't trust the session saver, then bookmark all tabs into a folder with the date. Then tomorrow you know which folder has all your bookmarks from yesterday.
What are the reasons for leaving it running while you are asleep?
The more I hear this, the more I think back to another ages old argument.
If you're not using your computer at night, why not shut it down? I mean, no operating system should have to deal with the stress of keeping itself together for more than 8 hours at a time.
It's inexcusable behaviour for an operating system, a database server, a web browser, an MP3 player or any other tool we have. It should just work. Period. The fact that it doesn't and yet there exist other tools out there that do is a case-in-point proof that Firefox is broken and needs repair.
Here's one for you. There exist web based network monitoring apps that refresh either the page or specific elements within on a set time period to alert administrators to problems in and around their network. These therefore require a web browser to have a page loaded for perhaps as long as months at a time without rest. Should each shift really be responsible for "rebooting" a session that should otherwise just sit there looking green all day and all night? Is that reasonable?
When your machine is thrashing because a single process just ate up three times the installed physical memory and the only way to get it back is to hit the small button beside the power button on the front of the case, it's just as good as a "crash" in most peoples' books.
If I have to alter how I use my tool, chances are it's the tool's fault.
The issue at hand here is that Firefox can (and quite often does) saturate a computer's available RAM (and much of its swap) in a matter of hours or days where other browsers do not.
There was a time when I could browse the web graphically on a computer with 32MB of RAM and less than 200MB of hard disk space (thus no room for gigabyte swap files). Are we really to believe that the web is now exponentially more resource intensive to the degree that a web browser requires gigabytes of RAM dedicated to it?!?
I love Firefox, but their number 1 biggest top of the heap (no pun intended) problem is the memory consumption. Number 2 right behind it is the memory consumption.
Wow. Those figures are incredible, even after I convert them to MB.
Incredible in that even if I could get the memory usage that low (I'm using 122MB right now with 6 tabs open. No flash, no plugins, no third party extensions) under Windows XP Pro SP2.
Now, that being said, I'm using 2.0.0.9. I had 3.0b1 installed for about 15 minutes. Let me break down the time frame for you;
I do believe this is the shortest, most curt, worst experience with a software package to date. Seriously. If this is their version of a leaner, meaner Firefox I'm scared to see the end results.
(n.b. I've been using Firefox as my exclusive browser under Linux and Windows since around about v0.86)
While I don't agree with what these parents have done.. its being done every day on the internet. 95% of the profiles you see are probably fake to some degree
While I agree with what you say, there's still a significant difference between pretending to be younger or better looking (or even more interesting) than you are in real life, portraying the opposite sex for a laugh, or any number of other things people do on the Internet and what these parents did. They had direct knowledge of this girl's mental state and they used that against her in a very real harsh way that inevitably led to her death.
There's fake because you don't have to be 100% honest and then there's just plain malicious.
It wasn't a "disapearing online friend" at all. It was a contrived effort by a small group of adults and other teenagers, combining their intellects and talents to ruin a young girl. Mental instability or otherwise, that's horribly dispicable.
Take a pair of adults. They form a profile for a "hot" young male. They make the now deceased fall in love with him; the first boy to find her physically attractive, as it was told. This is a significant moment in any young person's life - especially someone outside of the norm. People on this site should understand that better than most.
Now these adults make the boy very convincingly friendly, the girl practically lives to see what he'll say next; it's pure infatuation for her. Hell, she's in love (or so her hormone filled brain would have her believe) and she's happier than she's ever been in her life.
From there, you get the involvement of several of her peers. Vindictive, mean teenaged girls who know every detail about this girl and her life. Now they're not only posting this vitriol from her love interest, they're also posting public polls, surveys and notes bringing to light everything that this girl is self conscious about. Bringing to light personal, intimite things she's shared with this "boy" for all her school peers to see. Mocking her every word. Now she's not only heartbroken and unable to cope with it, but she knows that she'll be mocked and insulted and stared at by her entire neighborhood and school. She doesn't understand why this boy would turn on her and bring all her peers with him. She's gone from a girl with a love interest and something to live for to a girl nobody likes who will never fit in. Nobody will love her again.
Teenage boys tend to take out their angst on one another with physical violence. Teenage girls tend towards crushing, emotionally crippling forms of psychological attack. This isn't the first time this has happened and certainly won't be the last.
The most disgusting element to all this is the parents who started this in the first place. It's one thing to create a profile and befriend your daughter's former friend in order to dig up dirt, but it's another entirely to involve several teenage girls in the neighborhood (a clique, if you will) and not only allow, but encourage them to have their way with this girl's emotions.
This goes beyond a stranger pretending to be something they're not. This was a contrived, deliberate attack on somebody by someone who had the ammunition to cause real harm. These adults should be tried and convicted of contributing to the girl's death. What they did was repugnant and should not be socially acceptable. The fact that their details leaked, largely due to their filing charges against the parents of the daughter they killed over something as trivial as a toy - a toy they had asked them to store for them?!? How low can you get? You kill peoples' daughter than ask them for favours like that? These people are sick and twisted and for what they've done to destroy another family I hope their lives are ruined. I feel no compassion for them and anybody who does is sorely misguided.
...
I didn't talk about bearing the cost, I talked about having health insurance, which you clearly do.
By the way, I've paid for everything in my life since I was 16. What do I win?
There's two things I see here that are completely counter intuitive. You say you want to help the less fortunate, but clearly that's only when you want to feel good about yourself, not necessarily when they need your help the most. Secondly, there's enough trouble with informed consent in the medical industry today - but you seriously want people to start price shopping their procedures? Who truly understands the difference between an MRI, CAT, or PET scan and which situation necessitates which test?
Wow. I hadn't realized the nature of your published "work". A quote from your most recent, and the only podcast of yours I could stand to fast forward through pretty aptly sums it up (paraphrased); "Everybody with a megaphone believes they have something to say that people want to listen to."
Well, my friend, it appears that the Internet is your megaphone, and I wish you luck on your corner of it. Always remember; your blog is unique, just like every other one out there. Keep up the ... work.
So you were publishing when nobody knew about the publication, and now people are publishing and nobody cares? Wow. That's a hell of a sweep. :)
Sorry chum, but your pithy little articles and your own self aggrandizing tactics on Slashdot still don't make you more worthy of an opinion than Mr. Simmons. But hey, thanks for playing. :)
Actually, it seems to me as if the judge doesn't want a man convicted based primarily on the evidence of a partial print lifted from a crime scene.
That the software isn't terribly good?
Ahh, there we have it, there's the strawman that ignited the remainder of this discussion.
Thanks for coming out. Try again some other time.
Here's the crux of the issue; we have a couple different kinds of "haves" here. There are those like me who've worked no less than 5 days out of the week since I was 16 years of age; sometimes working 2 or even 3 jobs equalling more than 14 hours work most days, working no less than 12 hours every day out of a 7 day week for months on end without a break to support myself. I've scrimped and saved, sacrificed some of the frills in life and believe I've genuinely earned my place in life, the things I own and the property I'm going to buy in a few months time. Should I be penalized for that? Should I give it away to someone who has less than me?
I will grant you that people who have due to lucking out in the genetic lottery aren't necessarily as grateful for everything they own but what of their parents? Should they be penalized for providing for their children?
So what, the police print every major crime scene because they like the smell of the powder?
Any time our on site body shop deals with a stolen recovery they have to clean up a ton of print powder and wash off the wax pencil marks they use to highlight the areas that have usable prints.
Do you get off on posting factually incorrect information, or are you just severely confused? Are you trolling or genuinely know nothing about the subject?
I also have written about twenty or so articles about computer programming and object-orientation and have a few bogs about things.
Some people who post to
And what have YOU managed to talk a publisher into?
I've written articles, too (published even!). I can create a blog also, but I know that nobody really cares how spicy my curry was today, or how many red cars I passed on my way into work, or any other mundane nonsense that goes on in my life.
See, once you realize you're just like everyone else around here, sitting at your keyboard staring blankly at your monitor killing time between working and whatever else you do in life rather than making hundreds of millions of dollars like Gene Simmons you'll be much happier and in the process you'll look like less of a heel when you wave your "accomplishments" in people's faces. For the record, BTW, unless people know who you are by the mere mention of your name, nobody's impressed.
Well, I've never been turned away from a hospital because I didn't have an insurance card or my AmEx handy. I also never hear about my fellow Canadians bankrupted because of a critical illness. None of my friends, family or co-workers have lost (or heavily mortgaged) their homes because they got cancer. (FWIW, I know personally no less than six people who have had various forms of cancer in the past decade)
Health care (the ability to be healthy) should be a fundamental right for everybody - not just those fortunate enough to be able to afford it.
This idea always sounds great on paper but in reality how many people donate their time, energy, efforts, money and skills to the less fortunate? How many doctors go through med school only to open clinics that give health care away to the poor and needy? Atleast in a socialized health care system they get paid for their efforts at walk-in clinics.
It always amazes me that the people so vehemently opposed to socialized medicine are nearly always the ones who have proper health insurance through work and don't need it anyways. Speaking of the definition of greed. Find me a hundred single parents who can barely afford to buy used clothing for their child(ren) who are strongly opposed to socialized medicine and there's a hero cookie in it for you.
People like you and my mother, and by extension now my younger brother annoy the hell out of me with this behaviour. What if I'm stranded at the side of the road using a pay phone and need you to come provide assistance? (Same goes if I'm using someone elses cell phone, or one of the OTHER work lines than the main number), or if a friend/relative moved and wants to phone you with a "This is my new number, oh, and here's my new address" or a long lost relative/friend wants to phone and chat, or a son/daughter/niece/nephew/grandchild is in dire need of assistance and calls from a strange phone, or your doctor/dentist/whatever following up on an appointment, or the video store calling to remind you about a late rental, or a store phoning to let you know your pre-order is in, or someone following up on a recent visit/inquiry, or your bank or credit card company phoning to let you know about potential fraudulent activity, or or or or or ...
Just answer the bloody phone. If you want to be removed from the calling list, find out your local regulations and use them accordingly. The difference between answering the phone and being removed from calling lists (or added to internal 'do-not-call' lists) could be the difference between a dozen calls in a night and rarely seeing more than 1-2 unsolicited calls in a month.
I'm in Canada and our CRTC (Canadian FCC equivalent), bless their hearts, have all kinds of unenforceable regulations much like you all south of the 49th.
One thing we've been getting directly to our work numbers (not the ring-down number, but directly to lines 2, 3 and 4) are automated "Congratulations! You have won a free vacation! Press 1 to claim your prize!" with no "Press # to never hear from us again." option. So, I press 1. The guy answers and starts immediately with "Congratulations, and thank you and ..." and I request sternly that he remove us from his phone list to which he responds "Suck my f&*#@ing balls!" and hangs up. {sigh!}
I'm not legal exsphurt, but that can't be right. :)