2. Regional pricing gives greater access to consumers in poorer countries.
It also give more access to businesses in poorer countries. Those businesses then use those lower costs to undercut businesses in the USA and hence move more jobs abroad.
There are a LOT of fake job ads are out there right now that employers are only posting so they can run crying to Congress and the Labor Dept. later, claiming that they can't get enough "qualified applicants" (and to beg for more H1B visas). You know, that ad that asks for a programmer with 20+ years of Java programming experience, or with qualifications so specific that it HAS to be tailored to a specific H1B candidate,
There is another reason for this type of advert: Labor Certification in support of a green card application. Making the ads too specific isn't actually allowed, but I have no doubt that it happens.
Probably not a good idea. From TFA: "it is illegal to tamper with a boarding card under U.S. law."
As already pointed out, if you are a terrorist cell, you don't need to alter the boarding passes, just buy enough and see which ones have the minimum screening. Heck, the people selected for maximum screening could make the proccess longer (carry some items that are not allowed but are common and largely innocuous, such as scissors, bottles of water, etc..), thus reducing the likelyhood of the minimum screening catching anyone because of the distraction.
I think you'll find there are far more people doing this via RDP, ICA or VNC, quite happily than there are via X11.
RDP on a Linux server? I don't think so.
As I pointed out, VNC is a solution to admin a single server, as soon as you have more than one, then you need multiple VNC sessions, which is ugly.
What I typically use is a single VNC session on one machine in the LAN, from which I run lots of X11 programs on various different systems (sending their displays to the VNC session). Then I can access the VNC session from home or work, giving me persistent sessions, reasonably fast WAN access, all my admin programs grouped together in one set (the VNC session) all without having to deal with multiple VNC sessions.
Every time Wayland comes up, people come out of the woodwork to declare it a failure because it won't run over a network, but that's the only real gripe I've seen. You say there are others, I'm curious to know what they are.
Network transparency is very useful for administering servers. It is very useful to run the various GUI programs that I run on various servers on our office network. Wayland supporters have suggested using VNC for that, but it misses the point, since that implies one VNC session per remote machine, which means multiple VNC sessions, each with its own window manager, issues with copying and pasting, etc..
The other key advantage that X11 has: if the application is mis-behaving the application's window can still be controlled by the window manager. Ever seen windows on a Windows desktop that cannot be minimized? Wayland is bringing that to Linux.
Your post displays ignorance about BIS vs BES, and how blackberries work in general.
Apparently you have difficulty with the concepts of sets. "Some emails" refers to the emails that are not accessed via BES.
Let's be clear though, the non-BES email setup is less secure than is provided on Android and IOS devices because it provides an extra (and very convenient central) point at which emails can be snooped upon.
but how much longer will it take to replace X11 on the Linux desktop? Quite a while seems likely."
Try never. Yes, I know that it should be possible to write a Wayland client that provides X11 server capability, but in that case, it is the Wayland client that is replacing X11, not Wayland.
Seriously, though, the Wayland effort appears to be throwing out every advantage the X11 display had over the Windows display for a replacement that will probably never be quite as good as a Windows. I just hope that developers of programs which currently support X11 continue to support X11, or my life will get much more difficult. In fact, for much of what I do, without X11 support (and only Wayland display supported), I would probably be better off with a Windows desktop instead of a Linux desktop.
I use SSL, but I certainly dont trust if it the entitiy Im worried about is the government. SSL has gigantic flaws that are widely recognized; one is that the signing authorities tend to be incompetent, and one bad authority can completely wreck your day if someone wants to spy on you.
As opposed to BlackBerry, where we know that some governments have access to at least some emails sent to/from blackberries. If we know that this capaiblity has been provided to the Indian government, do you really think that it hasn't been provided to the US government?
search for data in those computers, and destroy data.
Give the police the power to destroy evidence. Yeah! That will always end well. I am sure that the power to destroy possibly exonerating evidence will never be misused.
Wall Street, read this: if you continue to stack the deck against retail traders, mom-and-pop investors are going to look harder and harder for alternative places to put their money.
Wall Street doesn't care. Mom and Pop investors don't have enough money to matter and as wealth concentrates even more with the.1% (not even the 1%), Mom and Pop investors become ever more irrelevant.
You'd think that doctors, having all those years of college and medical school, would know better than to browse the internet on a medical device
IMHO, doctors have over-inflated views of their own abilities outside the narrow field of their medical training. For example, this respected neurosurgeon claims to have scientific evidence of the existence of an afterlife, based on his own experiences.
So, your premise is that somehow Hamza is worse than van Impe and Falwell, because the mosque he preaches/preached at was funded and attended by the congregants, whereas van Impe and Falwell's churches were/are... funded and attended by the congregants?
I can only conclude that you have problems with reading comprehension because that was not my premise at all.
I know you're trying desperately to draw some distinction between Muslim and Christian extremists (and somehow imply that the Muslim extremists are 'worse'), but I ain't seeing it.
Once again, you are arguing against things that I have not written. I condemn religious intolerance and I condemn any person who claims to be religious yet advocates violence and hate, irrespective of what their religion is.
There really is no point arguing any further with you because: a) you are an idiot. and b) why should I keep discussing points that you think I am trying to make, but in fact came from your imagination?
Jack van Impe has his own television station. Jerry Falwell is (was) one of the most well known, well respected (at least in Christian fundie circles) hate-mongers our society has ever seen.
What part of own in " own television station." do you not understand? Jerry Falwell also founded his own church.
The venue is very important. If someone preaches in my church, then I am implicitly agreeing with their philosophy. If they create their own venue in which to preach, I do not provide either explicit or implicit support for their philosophy.
Abu Hamza did not build his own mosque. He preached hate and violence in a mosque built with funds and support from mainstream muslims.
Abu Hamza preached hate and violence in the biggest Mosque in London for 5 years, Muslims did not stop him from preaching his message of hate (eventually he was arrested). The inaction by muslims shows that hate and violence are part of Islam.
So, I take it you condemn all Christians for "allowing" people like Terry Jones, Jack van Impe, Jerry Falwell, and a host of others to preach hate and violence in churches? If so, you're being a douche. If not, you're being a hypocritical douche.
I condemn anyone who allows Terry Jones and others to preach in their church. What you overlooked was that the people you list mostly preach in their own churches, while Abu Hamza preached in the largest mosque in London. When Terry Jones and others preach for 5 years in Westminster Abbey, or whatever is the largest christian church in Washington D.C., then it may be equivalent. Until then, you are being intellectually dishonest if you claim equivalence.
What I expect is that a "peace-loving religion" would not allow someone to preach hate an violence in a mosque. But they did, and we are not talking about a single event in a small mosque in a small town.
Abu Hamza preached hate and violence in the biggest Mosque in London for 5 years, Muslims did not stop him from preaching his message of hate (eventually he was arrested). The inaction by muslims shows that hate and violence are part of Islam.
Just look at Abu Hamza was able to do: preach violence hatred in the biggest mosque in London for 5 years. Did Muslims ever stop him? No. He was stopped by the police.
Muslims have no moral grounds on which to complain about anything said about Islam because of their inaction relating to Abu Hamza
Slashdot Mirror
It also give more access to businesses in poorer countries. Those businesses then use those lower costs to undercut businesses in the USA and hence move more jobs abroad.
There is another reason for this type of advert: Labor Certification in support of a green card application. Making the ads too specific isn't actually allowed, but I have no doubt that it happens.
As already pointed out, if you are a terrorist cell, you don't need to alter the boarding passes, just buy enough and see which ones have the minimum screening. Heck, the people selected for maximum screening could make the proccess longer (carry some items that are not allowed but are common and largely innocuous, such as scissors, bottles of water, etc..), thus reducing the likelyhood of the minimum screening catching anyone because of the distraction.
The article does not describe any actions they take to make the above not true, so it appears that they broke Apple's rules. What can they expect?
In my experiance, it is a lot easier to setup and manage VMs using virt-manager than virsh.
RDP on a Linux server? I don't think so.
As I pointed out, VNC is a solution to admin a single server, as soon as you have more than one, then you need multiple VNC sessions, which is ugly.
What I typically use is a single VNC session on one machine in the LAN, from which I run lots of X11 programs on various different systems (sending their displays to the VNC session). Then I can access the VNC session from home or work, giving me persistent sessions, reasonably fast WAN access, all my admin programs grouped together in one set (the VNC session) all without having to deal with multiple VNC sessions.
Network transparency is very useful for administering servers. It is very useful to run the various GUI programs that I run on various servers on our office network. Wayland supporters have suggested using VNC for that, but it misses the point, since that implies one VNC session per remote machine, which means multiple VNC sessions, each with its own window manager, issues with copying and pasting, etc..
The other key advantage that X11 has: if the application is mis-behaving the application's window can still be controlled by the window manager. Ever seen windows on a Windows desktop that cannot be minimized? Wayland is bringing that to Linux.
Apparently you have difficulty with the concepts of sets. "Some emails" refers to the emails that are not accessed via BES.
Let's be clear though, the non-BES email setup is less secure than is provided on Android and IOS devices because it provides an extra (and very convenient central) point at which emails can be snooped upon.
Try never. Yes, I know that it should be possible to write a Wayland client that provides X11 server capability, but in that case, it is the Wayland client that is replacing X11, not Wayland.
Seriously, though, the Wayland effort appears to be throwing out every advantage the X11 display had over the Windows display for a replacement that will probably never be quite as good as a Windows. I just hope that developers of programs which currently support X11 continue to support X11, or my life will get much more difficult. In fact, for much of what I do, without X11 support (and only Wayland display supported), I would probably be better off with a Windows desktop instead of a Linux desktop.
It's wonderful haw people cannot read posts here at /.. From my posting:
Did you notice the "some" in there? "Some" doesn't mean "everything, including emails sent via BES".
As opposed to BlackBerry, where we know that some governments have access to at least some emails sent to/from blackberries. If we know that this capaiblity has been provided to the Indian government, do you really think that it hasn't been provided to the US government?
The downfall of the Venetion republic provides another example, or perhaps prediction of how all of this will play out
It won't be just $35.
It will be $35 plus give up all your rights .
Parent post is inaccurate. GS2 variant SGH-T989 has a Qualcomm processor.
T400s can have either ATI graphics or Intel graphics. Important to check exactly what is installed when checking specs.
What do the elites care if a few plebs get sent abroad?
Mods: Before you mod me down, google "plebgate" or "pleb uk"
That's what they want you to believe, in fact it does .....+++ carrier lost +++
Give the police the power to destroy evidence. Yeah! That will always end well. I am sure that the power to destroy possibly exonerating evidence will never be misused.
Wall Street doesn't care. Mom and Pop investors don't have enough money to matter and as wealth concentrates even more with the .1% (not even the 1%), Mom and Pop investors become ever more irrelevant.
IMHO, doctors have over-inflated views of their own abilities outside the narrow field of their medical training. For example, this respected neurosurgeon claims to have scientific evidence of the existence of an afterlife, based on his own experiences.
I can only conclude that you have problems with reading comprehension because that was not my premise at all.
Once again, you are arguing against things that I have not written. I condemn religious intolerance and I condemn any person who claims to be religious yet advocates violence and hate, irrespective of what their religion is.
There really is no point arguing any further with you because: a) you are an idiot. and b) why should I keep discussing points that you think I am trying to make, but in fact came from your imagination?
What part of own in " own television station." do you not understand? Jerry Falwell also founded his own church.
The venue is very important. If someone preaches in my church, then I am implicitly agreeing with their philosophy. If they create their own venue in which to preach, I do not provide either explicit or implicit support for their philosophy.
Abu Hamza did not build his own mosque. He preached hate and violence in a mosque built with funds and support from mainstream muslims.
I condemn anyone who allows Terry Jones and others to preach in their church. What you overlooked was that the people you list mostly preach in their own churches, while Abu Hamza preached in the largest mosque in London. When Terry Jones and others preach for 5 years in Westminster Abbey, or whatever is the largest christian church in Washington D.C., then it may be equivalent. Until then, you are being intellectually dishonest if you claim equivalence.
What I expect is that a "peace-loving religion" would not allow someone to preach hate an violence in a mosque. But they did, and we are not talking about a single event in a small mosque in a small town.
Abu Hamza preached hate and violence in the biggest Mosque in London for 5 years, Muslims did not stop him from preaching his message of hate (eventually he was arrested). The inaction by muslims shows that hate and violence are part of Islam.
Just look at Abu Hamza was able to do: preach violence hatred in the biggest mosque in London for 5 years. Did Muslims ever stop him? No. He was stopped by the police.
Muslims have no moral grounds on which to complain about anything said about Islam because of their inaction relating to Abu Hamza