"I wrote this program for myself. You want Feature X, you code it!"All I have to say is that if the program was written for your own use and you didn't want people filing bug reports, why the hell did you release it to the world?
I've found lots of such programs useful, if the features in already don't do it for me I can either modify the code nyself and add it.
All you're doing then is giving open source a black mark.
Oh, I'd say you were. Open Source isn't about having someone do something for you, its about having the ability to do it yourself (ie: have source code and can modify it). How about instead of telling someone who is likely busy and gains almost NOTHING (save an ego boost) from more users to code something for you for free you instead do it yourself or maybe pay them for it. Hell many of these people are getting paid for the parts they're coding for their own use so you essentially want them to work for free to implement what you do while they'd get paid to implement what they need.
They're simply being honest about who they're coding the project for, not everyone is unemployed and has 60 hours a week to burn on a hobby.
The final type of person, the one that bothers me perhaps the most, is the coder or contributor who simply doesn't answer bug reports or emails (whatever the appropriate method may be) at all, even after several weeks of waiting. Are you guys *trying* to turn your users away!?
It's likely that many gain very little from users, they're not a company and have no incentive to reply to you. It's likely, as someone else, mentioned that if your email was more useful then they would answer. Possibly they already know of the issue and are too busy to answer, that's life.
Yes, I'm well aware of that but he's more specifically talking about certain uses of AJAX. The poster I replied to said dynamic content which is a whole lot more than either the original poster meant or even what AJAX encompasses. Databases and non-flat things are not AJAX and not in any way what the original poster meant. I was simply pointing out that the person I replied to can't read.
AJAX should degrade gracefully, if you don't have javascript things should still work which means that search spiders should have no trouble on AJAX websites.
*shrug* Extensions seems like pretty much the only thing FF has going for it now. IE has ubiquity while opera covers built in features, speed and memory footprint. The only reason I use FF is the extensions but I'm starting to wonder if FF will last all that long on just that.
Extensions development for beginners is akin to bashing your head against a brick wall for 2 weeks (there is no good documentation and questions to the community go unanswered), people simply get fed up after a while and give up. That is probably hurting the community a lot but no one who can actually do something seems to cares.
Huh? He's talking about browser generated content, most dynamic content is server side generated (like slashdot but I think slashdot may have flat files as cache for speed reasons). No one said that nice xml file can't be generated by the server when the page is called.
Neither do a number of public buses in the Bay Area, the system (even the public one in some ways) is there to get you from home to work on most days. Otherwise you just take your car or if you're unlucky enough to not have one a taxi.
If you really want to you can take public transportation between 11am and 3:30pm but it just takes (in some cases a lot) longer. On the plus side soon CalTrain will have fast internet access so at least that's good.
Google and other companies (Yahoo is another that has shuttle to SF) aren't making a public transportation system, they're making a home-to-work shuttle and thats it. How often do you get into work after 11am or leave before 3:30pm anyway?
Right, so of course, the rest of the population should subsidise business transport instead? Public transport is useless for 85%-90% or so of journeys, it's a bad deal for the vast majority of the population.
New York City will disagree with you. As will most of Europe probably. Much of the US may not but then again they have shit for public transportation, even the Bay Area which has a decent system by US standards is barely usable for a lot of trips.
Sure you can move out a moments notice or rather in whatever grace period you're given. Rent storage unit, rent a u-haul, put everything in said u-haul and the put everything in storage unit (optional: pay someone to help carry the heavy things). Temporary housing can be a hotel/motel at worst but other options exist, not perfect options but many do exist in any location especially when "closeness to work" is no longer a restriction.
So at worst you can be out and be living somewhere else within a few days, then you get to worry about long term.
From there its a short step in my mind to the return of the company store and the sort of employee dependencies upon that particular company that can easily change into a very bad thing. You're just paranoid, I mean this is like a perfect example of using a slippery slope argument badly (and stupidly). If any company did that, guess what? All those employees would move to another company.
Unlike you many people do like convenience. They don't like wasting their time commuting, cooking or going out to eat (which in the Bay Area isn't always as trivial as in NYC with 10 places on every square block). Yahoo for example also offers an ATM (with no surcharge), dry cleaning, car tuneups, a gym and a few other things I don't remember. All those would usually take a lot more time to do otherwise.
Tabs at the side - it could put the window tabs down the side of the browser window. I can read them faster here, and with a lot open, still see the labels without having to put the mouse over them to see the tooltip
Google for this, I've seen a few methods and I think one extension that does this.
Grouped tabs - with the tabs down the side, it would use indentation to maintain tab groups. Pop-up windows would thus be associated with the window they came from, rather than appear somewhere unrelated on the tab bar. Then I can close them all in one go, hide all the pop-up windows or move them all to a new location on the tab bar in one go
Tab Groups is the closest one to real tab grouping but the current version is very minimal (but free of major bugs), and probably doesn't really do what you want. They'll be another version in mid-April likely and probably a faster release schedule after that.
Better control over new windows - basically every window operation can be forced in to a tab, or new window as desired. Nice
Look at Tab Mix Plus.
Session management - Firefox seems to restore my session after it crashes or is killed. Otherwise on normal exit it just tells me that it's closing the tabs. This extension always restores the session with each tab's browse history. It looks like the extension in article for session management actively requires saving the session - true?
Session Manager or Tab Mix Plus will do what you want.
1. It doesn't work with FF 2+ 2. Probably, hell it may cause problems all on it's own. I mean let me quote it's webpage "This extension strongly unrecommended. Tab Mix is recommended instead of this, because it is stable, light, and it covers most useful features of this."
I don't think anyone says its not doable (it's been done with diesel generators for decades in some places, even say Iraq) but simply that for the vast majority of people (who already have a grid hookup) its just not cost effective.
Actually while to us building such a system is cost effective since its used for many things in poor countries it wouldn't be since it'd be used for very few things. The same thing holds in the US, in some places its cheaper to have your own power generation than to extend the grid simply to cover a single house in the middle of nowhere. Also in such countries getting fuel to such a site reliably would be much harder than in the US.
I've had one of the more famous professors in data mining directly tell us how stupid it is to try and find "terrorism" in these sorts of data sets. There are too few training data points (actual terrorists) and too much data with a lot of variability. In essence false positives alone would make it all worthless. Now of course some people in the field disagree but those are also usually the ones who stand to make a pretty penny if governments do go this route.
So soon we may no longer have many freedoms but at least I'll have guaranteed employment.
I am also aware that terrorists aren't stupid, including the ones that intentionally kill themselves.
There is a difference between an idiot, an average person and a genius. Your scenarios require the later, in some cases they require him to be in the line of fire/committing suicide.
The fact that terrorists took the easiest method to take the planes suggests they are not stupid at all.
And the guy blowing himself up wasn't the same one safely in a cave who came up with the idea. They use simple methods because most of their members would fail at anything else (the pool of members who can blend into US society and lack anything that would alert border checks isn't that large I'd figure) and because they work. Why in god's name would they spend the resources to bring down a few planes in some horribly unlikely and convoluted method when they could instead just set off a dozen dirty bombs or detonate 100 regular bombs in subways for the same cost. So yes they're not idiots but 9/11 worked because it was simple and unexpected. They didn't even need to acquire any illegal materials, even legal materials aren't easy to hide when you don't have a lot of local connections (ie: difference between a local mobster and a terrorist).
Refueling in space isn't really that hard unless you are using cryogenic propellants. And in this case, the satellites use hydrazine, so its all good. I can't wait till somebody gets cryogenic propellant transfer working, because that will have so many more uses than what you can do with hydrazine. Do they even use cryogenic fuel on non-short term sats? I'd assume that they wouldn't hold out very well when talking about years of sitting in a tank.
Life isn't an action movie, terrorists aren't some sort of computer geniuses and especially not the ones who blow themselves up. 9/11 didn't succeed because of technical ability or skill on the part of the hijackers.
Whats to stop the signal being hijacked?
Encryption, I ca give you all my ssl encrypted traffic for example and unless you got a few million years of time it won't give you anything.
Or for that matter how about 1 hijacker to each plane rushes the cockpit and causes the remote control system to activate while his friends on the ground either sabotage the remote control or take control (like siege the control towers). Hey presto they take down a whole load of planes in one go.
If no control signal is received I assume the plane will continue to be under pilot control. And siege control towers? I mean come on, see above about life not being a crappy action movie. Fuck, if they can take the control tower without anyone noticing (otherwise someone will either disable the transmitter or whatever backup system, likely army controlled, will take over) then they can just have all the planes crash into each other by giving them bad landing/takeoff directions.
Heck what if they hack the system and activate the remote control on all nearby planes?
See above, it's like saying that the army should not use autonomous drones because terrorist could take over the impossibly to hack encrypted system that is used. See yet again how life isn't a badly written action movie where you can hack the NSA with a 10 year old palm pilot via an atm machine.
I really think this hasn't been thought through.
Sure it has, making up downright amusingly implausible and easy rectifiable situations/problems simply means you haven't though this through not that the designers haven't.
By definition, the GPL removes freedom because it does not allow you to do whatever you want.
By that definition so does the BSD license as it forces you to credit the original author which clearly is removing a freedom (ie: ability to not credit anyone). Anything except public domain is by your definition a removal of freedom.
You assume that the default level of freedom is no copyrights but to many people the default level (ie: the one in practice) is the existence of copyright laws. Hell by your logic giving any sort of new freedom of speech to people in china would be limiting their freedom despite them being able to say more than they used to (since they are still limited). It's sheer idiocy honestly, apparently your hate of RMS or the GPL has more or less removed most shreds of rationality in your brain.
I am convinced that part of the reason the terrorists succeeded is because they told the passengers to behave and they will be fine. Since the passengers had no reason to believe otherwise, they sat still. It's even possible three of the five hijackers on each plane also believed they would survive too.
I thinks thats the general view now, before 9/11 hijackings generally ended safely for most of the passengers and baring an exception or two (not well known about even) didn't end with the plane used as a flying bomb. It was perfectly logical for the passengers to think this would be the case again, at worst they'd die when some swat team attempted to retake control at some airport (with far far better odds at succeeding than the passengers had). I think it was even the advice of law enforcement to cooperate in such situations.
Humans do stupid things in the heat of the moment (adrenaline, etc.) but sometimes those aren't exactly bad, and can be quite different from how someone would act at other times.
Also the passengers on flight 93 didn't expect to have their plane be a flying weapon when it was first taken over. It takes one guy to start it and the other passengers have little choice but to help him (or cower in fear but there are likely enough who will fight). I really doubt hijackers would even have much chance to get control of the cockpit but they may have a chance to kill the pilots or crash the plane. If the hijackers already have the cockpit its not really about regaining control as much as about crashing the plane sooner than the hijackers want (with a very small chance of regaining control). Given time the passengers will regain control or just kill the hijackers but the hijackers won't be stupid enough to give them that chance.
There have been a few incidents of attempted or thought to be plane hijackings or bombings in which the passengers likewise reacted.
And while the hijackers are jacking around with the system the passengers rush them, due to the system now having little chance of the plane crashing or changing course as a result, thus ending the threat permanently. The only real threat would be if the hijackers could quickly take over the system thus preventing anyone from stopping the plane (short of shooting it down) but that is very unlikely. Terrorists aren't geniuses any more than the average person (likely less so) and the ones that are close to that probably are back in the middle east making plans and figuring out new ways to make cheap weapons.
United flight 93 would disagree with you, 9/11 happened because up to then almost all plane hijackings led to few if any casualties. If you cooperated then you'd all likely leave alive and if you didn't you'd likely be causing the death of 200+ people due to your own stupidity. As its been pointed out in other places, the problem is that there is a big difference between stopping terrorists in a plane and regaining control of the plane as again flight 93 illustrated. Contrary to some people terrorists aren't idiots (or geniuses) and its downright stupid to assume they'd even attempt to hijack a plane now instead of simpyl crashing it the first chance they get.
This system would be a lot more effective than a passenger attempt to stop the hijackers.
Exactly. Even if the pilots are alive a struggle with the terrorists in the cockpit will simply cause the terrorist to point the plane straight down if at all possible. At that point its unlikely that anyone will be able to stop them in time to save the plane. Hell after United flight 93 they may do that right of the bat as only 200+ dead isn't exactly a bad result for them.
And I much rather opt for heavier enforced cockpit-doors and an inability for the pilots to open those doors for the entire flight.
It's far more likely that an accident or emergency will bring down a plane than a terrorist so congratulations of having become a pawn of the fear mongers and politicians. I so need to make a golden sheep award photoshop so I can link to it for posts like yours.
Many planes have landed safely or close to it only due to the help of a passenger in the cockpit and I should note that after 9/11 the only people endangered by a hijacked plane are its passenger (and unlucky bystanders at the crash site but that applies to all airplane crashes).
The GP asked about essentially negotiations and trading for a single position not about the market as a whole (specifically how does who says their offer first effect the outcome for a single position, his example had nothing to do with large scale job economics. Since people are not rational and psychologists seem to be bored people (At least as grad students) its likely that negotiations of this sort have been studied extensively. If nothing else economic theories require psychological studies to base their expected reactions on, as assuming rationality is not exactly the best method always.
In other words your comment makes no sense as it has nothing to due with the topic at hand.
Slashdot Mirror
"I wrote this program for myself. You want Feature X, you code it!"All I have to say is that if the program was written for your own use and you didn't want people filing bug reports, why the hell did you release it to the world?
I've found lots of such programs useful, if the features in already don't do it for me I can either modify the code nyself and add it.
All you're doing then is giving open source a black mark.
Oh, I'd say you were. Open Source isn't about having someone do something for you, its about having the ability to do it yourself (ie: have source code and can modify it). How about instead of telling someone who is likely busy and gains almost NOTHING (save an ego boost) from more users to code something for you for free you instead do it yourself or maybe pay them for it. Hell many of these people are getting paid for the parts they're coding for their own use so you essentially want them to work for free to implement what you do while they'd get paid to implement what they need.
They're simply being honest about who they're coding the project for, not everyone is unemployed and has 60 hours a week to burn on a hobby.
The final type of person, the one that bothers me perhaps the most, is the coder or contributor who simply doesn't answer bug reports or emails (whatever the appropriate method may be) at all, even after several weeks of waiting. Are you guys *trying* to turn your users away!?
It's likely that many gain very little from users, they're not a company and have no incentive to reply to you. It's likely, as someone else, mentioned that if your email was more useful then they would answer. Possibly they already know of the issue and are too busy to answer, that's life.
Yes, I'm well aware of that but he's more specifically talking about certain uses of AJAX. The poster I replied to said dynamic content which is a whole lot more than either the original poster meant or even what AJAX encompasses. Databases and non-flat things are not AJAX and not in any way what the original poster meant. I was simply pointing out that the person I replied to can't read.
AJAX should degrade gracefully, if you don't have javascript things should still work which means that search spiders should have no trouble on AJAX websites.
*shrug* Extensions seems like pretty much the only thing FF has going for it now. IE has ubiquity while opera covers built in features, speed and memory footprint. The only reason I use FF is the extensions but I'm starting to wonder if FF will last all that long on just that.
Extensions development for beginners is akin to bashing your head against a brick wall for 2 weeks (there is no good documentation and questions to the community go unanswered), people simply get fed up after a while and give up. That is probably hurting the community a lot but no one who can actually do something seems to cares.
Huh? He's talking about browser generated content, most dynamic content is server side generated (like slashdot but I think slashdot may have flat files as cache for speed reasons). No one said that nice xml file can't be generated by the server when the page is called.
Neither do a number of public buses in the Bay Area, the system (even the public one in some ways) is there to get you from home to work on most days. Otherwise you just take your car or if you're unlucky enough to not have one a taxi.
If you really want to you can take public transportation between 11am and 3:30pm but it just takes (in some cases a lot) longer. On the plus side soon CalTrain will have fast internet access so at least that's good.
Google and other companies (Yahoo is another that has shuttle to SF) aren't making a public transportation system, they're making a home-to-work shuttle and thats it. How often do you get into work after 11am or leave before 3:30pm anyway?
Right, so of course, the rest of the population should subsidise business transport instead? Public transport is useless for 85%-90% or so of journeys, it's a bad deal for the vast majority of the population.
New York City will disagree with you. As will most of Europe probably. Much of the US may not but then again they have shit for public transportation, even the Bay Area which has a decent system by US standards is barely usable for a lot of trips.
Sure you can move out a moments notice or rather in whatever grace period you're given. Rent storage unit, rent a u-haul, put everything in said u-haul and the put everything in storage unit (optional: pay someone to help carry the heavy things). Temporary housing can be a hotel/motel at worst but other options exist, not perfect options but many do exist in any location especially when "closeness to work" is no longer a restriction.
So at worst you can be out and be living somewhere else within a few days, then you get to worry about long term.
Unlike you many people do like convenience. They don't like wasting their time commuting, cooking or going out to eat (which in the Bay Area isn't always as trivial as in NYC with 10 places on every square block). Yahoo for example also offers an ATM (with no surcharge), dry cleaning, car tuneups, a gym and a few other things I don't remember. All those would usually take a lot more time to do otherwise.
Tab Groups does this to some degree.
Tabs at the side - it could put the window tabs down the side of the browser window. I can read them faster here, and with a lot open, still see the labels without having to put the mouse over them to see the tooltip
Google for this, I've seen a few methods and I think one extension that does this.
Grouped tabs - with the tabs down the side, it would use indentation to maintain tab groups. Pop-up windows would thus be associated with the window they came from, rather than appear somewhere unrelated on the tab bar. Then I can close them all in one go, hide all the pop-up windows or move them all to a new location on the tab bar in one go
Tab Groups is the closest one to real tab grouping but the current version is very minimal (but free of major bugs), and probably doesn't really do what you want. They'll be another version in mid-April likely and probably a faster release schedule after that.
Better control over new windows - basically every window operation can be forced in to a tab, or new window as desired. Nice
Look at Tab Mix Plus.
Session management - Firefox seems to restore my session after it crashes or is killed. Otherwise on normal exit it just tells me that it's closing the tabs. This extension always restores the session with each tab's browse history. It looks like the extension in article for session management actively requires saving the session - true?
Session Manager or Tab Mix Plus will do what you want.
1. It doesn't work with FF 2+
2. Probably, hell it may cause problems all on it's own. I mean let me quote it's webpage "This extension strongly unrecommended. Tab Mix is recommended instead of this, because it is stable, light, and it covers most useful features of this."
I don't think anyone says its not doable (it's been done with diesel generators for decades in some places, even say Iraq) but simply that for the vast majority of people (who already have a grid hookup) its just not cost effective.
Actually while to us building such a system is cost effective since its used for many things in poor countries it wouldn't be since it'd be used for very few things. The same thing holds in the US, in some places its cheaper to have your own power generation than to extend the grid simply to cover a single house in the middle of nowhere. Also in such countries getting fuel to such a site reliably would be much harder than in the US.
I've had one of the more famous professors in data mining directly tell us how stupid it is to try and find "terrorism" in these sorts of data sets. There are too few training data points (actual terrorists) and too much data with a lot of variability. In essence false positives alone would make it all worthless. Now of course some people in the field disagree but those are also usually the ones who stand to make a pretty penny if governments do go this route.
So soon we may no longer have many freedoms but at least I'll have guaranteed employment.
I am also aware that terrorists aren't stupid, including the ones that intentionally kill themselves.
There is a difference between an idiot, an average person and a genius. Your scenarios require the later, in some cases they require him to be in the line of fire/committing suicide.
The fact that terrorists took the easiest method to take the planes suggests they are not stupid at all.
And the guy blowing himself up wasn't the same one safely in a cave who came up with the idea. They use simple methods because most of their members would fail at anything else (the pool of members who can blend into US society and lack anything that would alert border checks isn't that large I'd figure) and because they work. Why in god's name would they spend the resources to bring down a few planes in some horribly unlikely and convoluted method when they could instead just set off a dozen dirty bombs or detonate 100 regular bombs in subways for the same cost. So yes they're not idiots but 9/11 worked because it was simple and unexpected. They didn't even need to acquire any illegal materials, even legal materials aren't easy to hide when you don't have a lot of local connections (ie: difference between a local mobster and a terrorist).
Life isn't an action movie, terrorists aren't some sort of computer geniuses and especially not the ones who blow themselves up. 9/11 didn't succeed because of technical ability or skill on the part of the hijackers.
Whats to stop the signal being hijacked?
Encryption, I ca give you all my ssl encrypted traffic for example and unless you got a few million years of time it won't give you anything.
Or for that matter how about 1 hijacker to each plane rushes the cockpit and causes the remote control system to activate while his friends on the ground either sabotage the remote control or take control (like siege the control towers). Hey presto they take down a whole load of planes in one go.
If no control signal is received I assume the plane will continue to be under pilot control. And siege control towers? I mean come on, see above about life not being a crappy action movie. Fuck, if they can take the control tower without anyone noticing (otherwise someone will either disable the transmitter or whatever backup system, likely army controlled, will take over) then they can just have all the planes crash into each other by giving them bad landing/takeoff directions.
Heck what if they hack the system and activate the remote control on all nearby planes?
See above, it's like saying that the army should not use autonomous drones because terrorist could take over the impossibly to hack encrypted system that is used. See yet again how life isn't a badly written action movie where you can hack the NSA with a 10 year old palm pilot via an atm machine.
I really think this hasn't been thought through.
Sure it has, making up downright amusingly implausible and easy rectifiable situations/problems simply means you haven't though this through not that the designers haven't.
By definition, the GPL removes freedom because it does not allow you to do whatever you want.
By that definition so does the BSD license as it forces you to credit the original author which clearly is removing a freedom (ie: ability to not credit anyone). Anything except public domain is by your definition a removal of freedom.
You assume that the default level of freedom is no copyrights but to many people the default level (ie: the one in practice) is the existence of copyright laws. Hell by your logic giving any sort of new freedom of speech to people in china would be limiting their freedom despite them being able to say more than they used to (since they are still limited). It's sheer idiocy honestly, apparently your hate of RMS or the GPL has more or less removed most shreds of rationality in your brain.
I am convinced that part of the reason the terrorists succeeded is because they told the passengers to behave and they will be fine. Since the passengers had no reason to believe otherwise, they sat still. It's even possible three of the five hijackers on each plane also believed they would survive too.
I thinks thats the general view now, before 9/11 hijackings generally ended safely for most of the passengers and baring an exception or two (not well known about even) didn't end with the plane used as a flying bomb. It was perfectly logical for the passengers to think this would be the case again, at worst they'd die when some swat team attempted to retake control at some airport (with far far better odds at succeeding than the passengers had). I think it was even the advice of law enforcement to cooperate in such situations.
Humans do stupid things in the heat of the moment (adrenaline, etc.) but sometimes those aren't exactly bad, and can be quite different from how someone would act at other times.
Also the passengers on flight 93 didn't expect to have their plane be a flying weapon when it was first taken over. It takes one guy to start it and the other passengers have little choice but to help him (or cower in fear but there are likely enough who will fight). I really doubt hijackers would even have much chance to get control of the cockpit but they may have a chance to kill the pilots or crash the plane. If the hijackers already have the cockpit its not really about regaining control as much as about crashing the plane sooner than the hijackers want (with a very small chance of regaining control). Given time the passengers will regain control or just kill the hijackers but the hijackers won't be stupid enough to give them that chance.
There have been a few incidents of attempted or thought to be plane hijackings or bombings in which the passengers likewise reacted.
And while the hijackers are jacking around with the system the passengers rush them, due to the system now having little chance of the plane crashing or changing course as a result, thus ending the threat permanently. The only real threat would be if the hijackers could quickly take over the system thus preventing anyone from stopping the plane (short of shooting it down) but that is very unlikely. Terrorists aren't geniuses any more than the average person (likely less so) and the ones that are close to that probably are back in the middle east making plans and figuring out new ways to make cheap weapons.
United flight 93 would disagree with you, 9/11 happened because up to then almost all plane hijackings led to few if any casualties. If you cooperated then you'd all likely leave alive and if you didn't you'd likely be causing the death of 200+ people due to your own stupidity. As its been pointed out in other places, the problem is that there is a big difference between stopping terrorists in a plane and regaining control of the plane as again flight 93 illustrated. Contrary to some people terrorists aren't idiots (or geniuses) and its downright stupid to assume they'd even attempt to hijack a plane now instead of simpyl crashing it the first chance they get.
This system would be a lot more effective than a passenger attempt to stop the hijackers.
Exactly.
Even if the pilots are alive a struggle with the terrorists in the cockpit will simply cause the terrorist to point the plane straight down if at all possible. At that point its unlikely that anyone will be able to stop them in time to save the plane. Hell after United flight 93 they may do that right of the bat as only 200+ dead isn't exactly a bad result for them.
And I much rather opt for heavier enforced cockpit-doors and an inability for the pilots to open those doors for the entire flight.
It's far more likely that an accident or emergency will bring down a plane than a terrorist so congratulations of having become a pawn of the fear mongers and politicians. I so need to make a golden sheep award photoshop so I can link to it for posts like yours.
Many planes have landed safely or close to it only due to the help of a passenger in the cockpit and I should note that after 9/11 the only people endangered by a hijacked plane are its passenger (and unlucky bystanders at the crash site but that applies to all airplane crashes).
The GP asked about essentially negotiations and trading for a single position not about the market as a whole (specifically how does who says their offer first effect the outcome for a single position, his example had nothing to do with large scale job economics. Since people are not rational and psychologists seem to be bored people (At least as grad students) its likely that negotiations of this sort have been studied extensively. If nothing else economic theories require psychological studies to base their expected reactions on, as assuming rationality is not exactly the best method always.
In other words your comment makes no sense as it has nothing to due with the topic at hand.