Don't let it get you down. It seems to be improving enough that I actually remarked on it in my journal earlier. I've noticed a bunch of familiar faces coming back and posting again (though some of them seem a bit sheepish at first). I've noticed a LOT more lower ID numbers in the threads. The quality of conversation and comments has gone up, quite a bit actually, in just the past week and a half. I'm not sure what that says about the person asking about a DLL but it does mean that there *might* be good things in the future.
Besides, it's not as if you were doing anything better or more constructive.;-)
I dunno about all the rest but I just recently had a new laptop built and shipped to me. Well, it's not a laptop per se - it's a mobile workstation. At any rate, I've yet to figure out what to do with more than 16 GB of RAM. I don't notice much of a speed increase when I go from there to 32 GB of RAM. My laptop has 64 GB of RAM and, try as I might, I've not yet found one useful way to use that RAM and I've not noted one bit of speed increase from 32 GB - at all.
Oh, it's fast. It's blazingly fast. It has a couple of SSDs in there so I can keep the OS and/home on one drive and I've not actually got it configured with a/swap at all. I have the OS set to push about as much as it possibly can to RAM and have a dozen applications open, across three virtual desktops, and a few browsers on top of that and I'm at 7.5 GB of reported RAM usage.
WTF are they doing on a workstation that needs that much RAM? (Not wants, needs.) That's well into fairly healthy server territory.
No, I don't use Windows on my computer... No, I am not a shill.
But...
At some point, it's time for the programmers to do things the right way and not expect the OS to prevent them from making mistakes. I know it's fun to blame Microsoft when you don't know better or understand the problem but, really, this should not be a problem because the people writing the program are responsible for their DLLs and their usage. I know, I know... That does actually mean that they're accountable and accountability is a scary thing.
That said, there's likely a legitimate way to use implement it this way. It's probably for legacy support. You know, that thing everyone complains about if they don't do it for their 30 year old application (and sometimes that complaint is justified but Microsoft is not unique in that area)? I'd guess, I've not researched it, that this was for legacy reasons and I'm sure MS would love to force strict adherence to the use of ASLR, for example. Hell, it'd probably make their lives easier. Not to mention, you'd just be bitching if they had - "Why are they taking choice away?!?"
So, no... No, no, no... Anyone who has seen my posts knows that I hold programmers, of a certain capacity, on a pedestal and that I hold them in high esteem for good reason. However, at some point the responsibilities are with the coder.
> Actual Libertarianism is not compatible with the Republican party.
I knew there was a reason I like you. It's funny. You can fit almost any political ideology into Libertarianism *except* for the Randian and the modern US Republican. But, somehow, they managed to do it. Neither one of those two groups is the least bit interested in liberty, not even close. (Though they'll scream and yell about being supporters of freedom, while not actually understanding what the word means.)
The other day, I wrote a piece (a long novella - surprise!) to David T. on this site. I can dig it out if you're interested in figuring out ways to polish it up. I'm one of those strange people who's actually willing to evaluate their position and change it as new information is gathered. So, insight is always a good thing. (But, a lot of work.) It was long because it was trying to articulate what it was that makes a Libertarian. That's not exactly easy as there are some pretty basic things to cover that lots of people don't seem to have spent much time thinking about.
However, that's the most intelligent thing that I've read on Slashdot all day. Oddly, in a politics article...
But you're not only correct, you're completely correct. I'm really not sure who had the bright idea of trying to shoehorn the most inappropriate political ideologies into Libertarianism. Somehow, they've not only managed to do so but they've managed to make it stick. At one time, I was pretty well considered to be on the "loony left" (even by the Democrats) by virtue of my party affiliation. That really wasn't all that many years ago. Today, someone finds out that I'm a Libertarian and they automatically assume that I'm some sort of ultraconservative fan of corporatism who wants to make people adhere to a bunch of religious beliefs. Err... That's so far wrong that it's about as far from correct as possible.
I've been trying to clear up the misconception for years. Ah well...
Many of the people who self-identify as Libertarians are actually just Republicans with a little bit of shame and don't actually know where they belong. I'd suggest they try to make the Tea Party sane. But, it's not like we can stop them from claiming to hold the affiliation and thus representing the party and ideology. We're a bit pragmatic and not really about to institute a "purity test" or take away the microphone.
The time for unions is long-since past. Even if there were unions, most people are missing the key point. The reasons for unions was "solidarity."
The time for a formal union has passed. The time for solidarity is now. The problem is, few are willing to risk what they have for the sake of what another is losing. (Oddly, they still wonder why nobody comes to their aid when it is their turn to be the loser and some are inclined to think they'll never be the loser.)
Now's the time for solidarity and that's just not going to happen. Are you going to walk off your job to support these guys? Not a chance. Even if you would, someone will happily take the job you vacated and probably do it for less than you. Solidarity is a big, and difficult, thing. You do not see it often. Sadly, even with ubiquitous communication, instances of solidarity seem to be decreasing as opposed to increasing. A union can't fix that.
Hmm... Yeah, sounds mostly spot-on. Additionally, some information is considered classified, even without having been marked as such specifically, because of where it came from. I've no idea if any of the content was on that level but an example is that unedited photos from certain satellites is classified by default. She had an obligation (a lawful mandate, as I recall) to stop and classify that material herself, if authorized to do so, or to hand it back if not - then filling out the spillage forms just in case.
However, I'd like to remind folks that she did so because the internal email system was difficult to work with. She was not the only person to do this. Others did the same, or similar, things as it was a bitch to deal with the email system that they had.
Why point that out? Well, she was wearing the boss' hat. As such, she had the obligation to have that system repaired. She had the duty to delegate authority to have it fixed and the obligation to work within the system and follow-up to ensure those tasked with the repairs did their job properly. That's what bosses do. Presidents don't fix email systems themselves. They tell someone else to fix it and make sure it gets fixed. Or, more accurately, someone else does that at their behest but the boss is still accountable as they're the one that picked the person to do that job.
That, even as much as the content itself, is significant. Instead of fixing a known broken system, she worked outside of the system (and was not alone in doing so), and allowed the poor system to remain in place which led to this even being a conversation in the first place. Rather than argue about the classification level of the data, how about we acknowledge that the lady has clearly demonstrated that she is incapable of being a leader? That's not even something that any reasonable person would try to debate.
Ah well... I'm still pissed about the OPM attack. Why the hell they had my data on a live, networked, system some 15+ years after its use is beyond me. However, in all fairness, that's not her fault and only tangentially related. I do not recall all of the training on handling classified data, it has been a long time, but I'm pretty sure that I'd be in a heap of trouble for having just risked data spillage. More importantly, I'd have been in all sorts of trouble (multiple times in multiple ways) for failing to be a responsible leader. There are repercussions for doing poorly while you're supposed to be delegating authority and making decisions. At least there have always been repercussions in my life.
However, I don't think I'll post this as an AC. Fuck it... I said it. I own it. I might even make a mistake sometimes. I own those too and I'm not the boss of anything important. It's accountability, though trivial, and a good thing. She's demonstrated she doesn't want to be accountable and is not an acceptable leader. Leaders make choices and delegate authority, not work outside the system while the system languishes. Leaders make choices and then accept responsibility for them. Leaders don't have to know everything, they have to know that they're not smart enough to know everything and to be willing to ask for, and accept, advice. Hillary is not an acceptable leader and her race, gender, or even her political philosophy have not one damned thing to do with that.
As an outsider looking in, retired but was very much involved for my entire career, I hate to say this but it's starting to look a bit like some of you are just plain fucked. No, I don't just rely on just Slashdot postings to make that observation. However, between things like the trend to train your replacements, H1-B visas being abused, and a belief that everyone should be trained to code by means of mandatory public education, it really doesn't look like the industry has a very healthy future.
I urged my kids to actually do something other than tech-specific but to find something they can be passionate about and hope like hell it wasn't directly tech-related. Thankfully, they listened. This isn't entirely new, it's been going on for a while now. The writing is on the wall and has been for a while. There are still some niche areas but programmers, developers, and IT staff are pretty much commodities now.
At a rough guess of about ten years ago, I had, and shared, some ideas that might have helped prevent some of this but it's far too late for change now. The sad truth is that there's not now a whole lot that most folks can do or will do to try to make this better. The time for action was quite a while ago, it's too late now.
And no, complaining isn't "raising awareness" or helping (not directly related to your comment but salient, nonetheless). I don't expect to be listened to now but, if I can offer just one piece of advice to you and the rest, look for ways to strike it out on your own and start your own business. Admittedly, working for the landed gentry has some potential benefits but I think you'll find there's greater liberty (and responsibility) in ownership.
You'd be mistaken. One (or more) was posted by The New Guy on Saturday. You probably have more excitement in your life than I have and missed it. There was at least one, maybe two, that were posted by someone other than Timothy. If you've more energy than I, you can scroll back and find it. I'm pretty sure it was Saturday but I'm often on page 1 so it might have actually been posted on Friday.
Not only have I never used it, I don't think I've ever used an app like it? Maybe I'm missing something? I probably am... I don't use a whole lot of apps. (Sorry App Guy!®)
So... Umm... I don't really use apps but why, exactly, do I need permission to use multiple accounts? Shouldn't I be able to login and logout of the thing as much as I want and to use any damned (authorized) account on it that I please? Why is there even a limit, anyhow?
I dunno, it seems pretty stupid to me. It's none of their damned business if I use more than one account or if someone else uses my phone to do whatever it is people do on that site. Given the name, I'm going to speculate that whatever it is that people do there really is insignificant and if multiple parties use the same application it's irrelevant. So long as nobody's violating any sort of multiple username per person then whose damned business is it anyhow?
Then again, maybe that's why I never got into apps? The idea of something you can log into but not out of is confusing to this old man.
I live in one of those "unincorporated" areas. In fact, I not only mention it often - I've publicly given directions to my home. It's very much in an unincorporated township with no municipality of its own.
No, I still had to file for an apply for all the various permits to build. No, I can't just construct a tower (but I own a disassembled one). No, I'm not exempt from the various regulations and that's probably for the best.
Yeah, that has to suck. You're busy, trying to take over the world, and someone keeps blowing up your refineries plus they take back any of the oil fields you took over!
As an aside: I've seen an Me-262 in the flesh and it is was beautiful. I've seen a recreated model of it in flight at an air-show and it was also beautiful. For such a rudimentary (by today's standards) knowledge of aerodynamics and such a hindered design process, it's really an impressive craft. However, if I had to pick any one craft and fly it to my doom (and it had to be German from WWII) then I think I'd go out, screaming in terror, in the Comet.
The founders of hundreds of Indian startups signed a letter calling for net neutrality.
The regulatory authority TRAI received 2.4 million public submissions, mostly favoring net neutrality.
Let me get this straight... The people who can afford internet complained about people who could not afford the internet getting a sub-set of the internet for free. Is that because they don't want increased competition, because they want to restrict access, or because they are trying to still find ways to institute the caste system?
I understand, while not agreeing with, their sentiment. To them, the 'net is shiny and good. They really don't want the untouchables on it, now do they? They obviously think poor people shouldn't get anything at all, it's not going to benefit those startups any if they do - so why should they support it? And no, no other company is offering free, unfiltered, mobile 'net access.
This doesn't look like freedom. It looks like protectionism, spite, and disallowing choice. And yes, yes I do say that as someone who's pretty outspoken about not using or liking Facebook. "No, you can't offer poor people a free ride to the library, the school, and your store unless you're going to let them go anywhere they want." So, no free rides for the poor people at all and they weren't even obligated to shop in the sponsor's store. Why? Well, the simplest reason would be that wealthier people don't want poor people in *their* library, school, or store.
We still get complaints like that (though less public) in my country. It's usually reserved for not wanting "those kinds of people" moving into their neighborhood and using their library, school, and store. We just don't usually let the bigots set policy, at least not often. Then again, there are still people actively practicing the caste system in India - even though it's outlawed. It appears the government supports them, even if just tacitly and by deed. They should probably just be more honest about it.
How would the responses be if they'd asked the types of people this service was targeting? Nah, fuck that. Who cares what they think? Besides, you're already *got* internet and have a vested interest in less competition. "Which do you prefer, no internet because you can't afford it or limited internet because a company is going to give it to you in order to facilitate your use of their services?"
"We'd like to give hungry people a free cookie if they visit our store." "If they're hungry, you must give them a full meal. A cookie is not a nutritionally balanced meal." "Isn't a cookie better than nothing and we're only going to give free cookies, sorry." "We told you once, a cookie is not a nutritionally balanced meal!" "We understand that but we also know they're hungry and we're prepared to give them a cookie. That cookie is sure to help at least a li..." "We said, NO COOKIE! No CHOICE! No!"
I'm not really one to support a government abusing its populace and taking away their choices - in most cases. It's the country, their government, and they can do what they want and all but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If I had time and inclination, I'd look to see who it was that had an official's ear and was profiting off of cookies or who had motivation to keep the hungry from eating cookies. I consider myself a fairly well-reasoned individual and I am usually pretty good, I think and am told, at understanding the views offered by others but, try as I might, I am unable to understand what the actual value is here. What value do they get in denying hungry people a cookie, for free, when nobody is offering them a full, balanced, meal?
They're not targeting the absolute poorest, no. However, they're offering aid to those who are not so wealthy that they can comfortably afford any access at all. No, it's not altruism, not entirely. However, I'm not sure why taking the choice away is beneficial nor do I understand why helping people is...
This is very much aimed at the poor. It is not aimed at the poorest-of-the-poor, no. It is almost as if there are varied degrees of wealth! Imagine that.
This is aimed for those who have phones but can not afford access. This gives them limited access for free. This gives them an option. No, it's not entirely altruistic but it's an option. Why people are advocating against freedom, the freedom to choose, is beyond me. I am not, however, really all that surprised.
I will not use the "modern web" without an ad blocking utility, at least not for very long. I've yet to have anyone tell me that I could not enable ad-blocking on their computer and I've yet to have someone ask me how to undo it afterwards. You're very much right - you just need to let them see the difference and the difference is often profound, especially on slower connections. It's amazing how much bandwidth is consumed for needless stuff. I don't need all the libraries, scripts, frames with content from other sites, things being pulled in from other sites, images that blink with monkeys to hit, or a button (and scripts) to share on a third party site. I can cut and paste just fine.
As I mentioned above, I've been blocking ads since the mid 1990s. It's hard to imagine that it has been that long but it has. Oh, there were ads before that. I even recall seeing ads in some BBSs (Call This New BBS - lots of Warez, power-users wanted!!!) At some point, I just got frustrated with them all. They slowed things down and got in the way of letting me do what I wanted to do - namely, read. Yes, yes I still read a whole lot of content and am particularly partial to comments made by real people. It's an added bonus if they're intelligent people but that's not always easy to find.
At any rate, I've been turning people on to blocking ads for a lot of years now and it's fun to watch their face as they learn the web can be a whole new experience. It's a bit like teaching somebody that they don't actually have to pay for movies and music - if they don't want to - though that's a bit more ubiquitous today. It's kind of a bit strange to me that there are people who do not block ads by default.
Lest anyone claim that I'm killing web content, I'd like to point out that today (while a bit exceptional but not entirely unknown) I've already donated $50 (25x2) to two sites today. I may not even revisit those sites but the two of them had donation buttons and both of them had information that I was, very specifically, looking for. I was more than happy to support their efforts and to enable them to share with others who have the same needs I had. I should also point out that any site that asks me to disable my ad-blocking, if I want to access their hardware, gets listened to and I've a strict personal policy of adherence to that request.
So, you're very, very much correct - in my observation and I dare say that I've got quite a bit of observation to back that up. Literally, not one single person has ever asked me to undo the ad-blocking, ever. I've been at this for somewhere near 20 years now. I've shown (and helped) loads of people do this - often just in passing. I'm going to guess, not counting web-influence, I've done so hundreds of times in all those years. Yes, hundreds. I've even had people contact me when they got a new computer and ask me to help them block the ads again - more than once. Not one person has complained or, as far as I know, gone back to not blocking ads as the default.
It might be important to add that a good portion of the above is because I'm a complete idiot. Never position yourself as "a computer guy who'll give you a hand." Do not do it! Lesson learned.
I am no expert but I think they call that the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Of course, it's not always a fallacy but it *might* be in this case. Note the use of the word "might" in that sentence.
That said, I've no problems with ads - at all. I block each and every one. If a site requests that I disable ads in order to aid them then I make a decision at that point. If the site's content is valuable enough, to me, then I'll disable it. If not, then I close the tab or hit the back button. To date, not one site's had content that was important enough for me to disable my ad blocker - ever.
Also, err... I used to have dial-up at home. Somewhere around 1995-1998 I used an ad blocking application on Windows. So far, we've been unable (a few of us have tried to find it again - and two other people were able to recollect the same software) remember it or find it. It ran as a proxy (no, it wasn't Proximatron) and had a yellow icon in the corner of the system tray. You could block 'em based on size, wild-card supported domains and subdomains, and I think they had a list of known ad servers that could be updated - except that updating that list (I think) meant you updated the whole application and only so many updates were included in the purchase price and your key only worked for so many new versions. At the time, an update wasn't a.dif or anything but a whole *new* 3-5 MB in size which was quite a pain in the ass.
As an aside and only tangentially related: I know that dial-up users still exist. I can't imagine browsing the web on dial-up these days. Never mind how large a browser update is, how large anti-malware updates are, and how much software has bloated - it's gotta be painfully slow, even with half the crap blocked. uBlock tells me that 24% of the web is blocked for me, as my current average. Note: It works fine. uMatrix has to block even more (it does far more) and I did a test of a few pages a while back and those tests indicated that it was blocking just a bit below 70% of the content. Also, note that too still means the web works just fine for me. Much of what the two block would overlap but not all. So, no... I don't think I'd like dial-up much at all today and certainly not without blocking all that stuff.
For client-side blocking (or just not loading) there's uMatrix and the guy's made a Firefox version now. It's a bit like NoScript and RequestPolicy but a bit more flexible and with a marginally higher learning curve. It's a whitelist approach and I'm pretty fond of it - once I dug into the abilities. It's really good at being what it is - simply client-side filtering by stopping requests.
I liken it to an old-school Windows software firewall, sans presets, and closer to Outpost than to ZoneAlarm. The configuration is not dissimilar to that of an older hardware firewall. The flexibility and default of no-third-party is rather nice. It's available along with his other stuff - uMatrix and HTTP Switchboard. The compute resources used are pretty minimal and I've found that just using uMatrix blocks the ads well enough that I've just used it and no ad blocking software at all.
I dunno what it is but "scientific racist" is now associated with you in my mind and vice versa. 'Snot my fault, blame them - you evil scientific racist!
I read a few more of their comments, how could I not notice their name after that? I have decided that they were drunk. I hope so. Heh... Ol' Olsec the Scientific Racist. Chances are, ten years from now, someone will use that term of phrase and I'll recollect this very thread. That may not have been their intent but it's how it's gonna be. I'll refresh later and see if you've said anything that made 'em cry or if they double-down on the accusation. That's rich, it really is.
Other than my fairly new laptop, most of what I buy is AMD and I can easily afford the Intel offerings. Though, I usually go with nVidia GPUs when I'm making that choice and not just buying the whole system. I get more than adequate performance for everything I do, at a fine price, and I get to support AMD by doing so. I do buy some Intel products, I'm not some sort of zealot - I don't think. I'm just quite content with AMD and have had good luck with them since I tried my first one back at the K6-II time.
The difference? Well, my laptop is really a mobile workstation and I could probably have bought 5-6 fairly acceptable laptops for what I paid for this. It's nice and I liked it, so I bought it. It's stupidly expensive, however. (Over $5500 before shipping.) So, I think there's a time and place for Intel - it's just that I really don't normally even notice much of, if any, difference in performance anymore. In case you're curious, it's a Titan X4K and yes, yes it is just what I was looking for.
It just looks like he's changed his homepage (your homepage URL is used in that field) and his actual profile is not, in fact, blocked. http://slashdot.org/~Timothy
That'll take you right to his profile. If you hover over his name you'll see that's his monkey URL. You're probably not a monkey so you probably don't have much of anything at the monkey site. Of course, if you were a monkey then you'd know all about monkeys.
I don't really use all the features but I'm told they're all pretty good. I only use it to communicate with a few people. What is it? uTox or, in my case, qTox.
I guess it does what Skype does (whatever that is - it was "famous" for being able to get around firewalls last time I paid attention to it) but it's really encrypted.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't let it get you down. It seems to be improving enough that I actually remarked on it in my journal earlier. I've noticed a bunch of familiar faces coming back and posting again (though some of them seem a bit sheepish at first). I've noticed a LOT more lower ID numbers in the threads. The quality of conversation and comments has gone up, quite a bit actually, in just the past week and a half. I'm not sure what that says about the person asking about a DLL but it does mean that there *might* be good things in the future.
Besides, it's not as if you were doing anything better or more constructive. ;-)
I dunno about all the rest but I just recently had a new laptop built and shipped to me. Well, it's not a laptop per se - it's a mobile workstation. At any rate, I've yet to figure out what to do with more than 16 GB of RAM. I don't notice much of a speed increase when I go from there to 32 GB of RAM. My laptop has 64 GB of RAM and, try as I might, I've not yet found one useful way to use that RAM and I've not noted one bit of speed increase from 32 GB - at all.
Oh, it's fast. It's blazingly fast. It has a couple of SSDs in there so I can keep the OS and /home on one drive and I've not actually got it configured with a /swap at all. I have the OS set to push about as much as it possibly can to RAM and have a dozen applications open, across three virtual desktops, and a few browsers on top of that and I'm at 7.5 GB of reported RAM usage.
WTF are they doing on a workstation that needs that much RAM? (Not wants, needs.) That's well into fairly healthy server territory.
Just earlier today, I ran this very command:
sudo ln -sf /lib/$(arch)-linux-gnu/libudev.so.1 /lib/$(arch)-linux-gnu/libudev.so.0
I did not read the article but the above command not only was acted on - it had the effect I wanted. I better go file a bug report!
No, I don't use Windows on my computer... No, I am not a shill.
But...
At some point, it's time for the programmers to do things the right way and not expect the OS to prevent them from making mistakes. I know it's fun to blame Microsoft when you don't know better or understand the problem but, really, this should not be a problem because the people writing the program are responsible for their DLLs and their usage. I know, I know... That does actually mean that they're accountable and accountability is a scary thing.
That said, there's likely a legitimate way to use implement it this way. It's probably for legacy support. You know, that thing everyone complains about if they don't do it for their 30 year old application (and sometimes that complaint is justified but Microsoft is not unique in that area)? I'd guess, I've not researched it, that this was for legacy reasons and I'm sure MS would love to force strict adherence to the use of ASLR, for example. Hell, it'd probably make their lives easier. Not to mention, you'd just be bitching if they had - "Why are they taking choice away?!?"
So, no... No, no, no... Anyone who has seen my posts knows that I hold programmers, of a certain capacity, on a pedestal and that I hold them in high esteem for good reason. However, at some point the responsibilities are with the coder.
You again!
> Actual Libertarianism is not compatible with the Republican party.
I knew there was a reason I like you. It's funny. You can fit almost any political ideology into Libertarianism *except* for the Randian and the modern US Republican. But, somehow, they managed to do it. Neither one of those two groups is the least bit interested in liberty, not even close. (Though they'll scream and yell about being supporters of freedom, while not actually understanding what the word means.)
The other day, I wrote a piece (a long novella - surprise!) to David T. on this site. I can dig it out if you're interested in figuring out ways to polish it up. I'm one of those strange people who's actually willing to evaluate their position and change it as new information is gathered. So, insight is always a good thing. (But, a lot of work.) It was long because it was trying to articulate what it was that makes a Libertarian. That's not exactly easy as there are some pretty basic things to cover that lots of people don't seem to have spent much time thinking about.
However, that's the most intelligent thing that I've read on Slashdot all day. Oddly, in a politics article...
But you're not only correct, you're completely correct. I'm really not sure who had the bright idea of trying to shoehorn the most inappropriate political ideologies into Libertarianism. Somehow, they've not only managed to do so but they've managed to make it stick. At one time, I was pretty well considered to be on the "loony left" (even by the Democrats) by virtue of my party affiliation. That really wasn't all that many years ago. Today, someone finds out that I'm a Libertarian and they automatically assume that I'm some sort of ultraconservative fan of corporatism who wants to make people adhere to a bunch of religious beliefs. Err... That's so far wrong that it's about as far from correct as possible.
I've been trying to clear up the misconception for years. Ah well...
Many of the people who self-identify as Libertarians are actually just Republicans with a little bit of shame and don't actually know where they belong. I'd suggest they try to make the Tea Party sane. But, it's not like we can stop them from claiming to hold the affiliation and thus representing the party and ideology. We're a bit pragmatic and not really about to institute a "purity test" or take away the microphone.
The time for unions is long-since past. Even if there were unions, most people are missing the key point. The reasons for unions was "solidarity."
The time for a formal union has passed. The time for solidarity is now. The problem is, few are willing to risk what they have for the sake of what another is losing. (Oddly, they still wonder why nobody comes to their aid when it is their turn to be the loser and some are inclined to think they'll never be the loser.)
Now's the time for solidarity and that's just not going to happen. Are you going to walk off your job to support these guys? Not a chance. Even if you would, someone will happily take the job you vacated and probably do it for less than you. Solidarity is a big, and difficult, thing. You do not see it often. Sadly, even with ubiquitous communication, instances of solidarity seem to be decreasing as opposed to increasing. A union can't fix that.
Hmm... Yeah, sounds mostly spot-on. Additionally, some information is considered classified, even without having been marked as such specifically, because of where it came from. I've no idea if any of the content was on that level but an example is that unedited photos from certain satellites is classified by default. She had an obligation (a lawful mandate, as I recall) to stop and classify that material herself, if authorized to do so, or to hand it back if not - then filling out the spillage forms just in case.
However, I'd like to remind folks that she did so because the internal email system was difficult to work with. She was not the only person to do this. Others did the same, or similar, things as it was a bitch to deal with the email system that they had.
Why point that out? Well, she was wearing the boss' hat. As such, she had the obligation to have that system repaired. She had the duty to delegate authority to have it fixed and the obligation to work within the system and follow-up to ensure those tasked with the repairs did their job properly. That's what bosses do. Presidents don't fix email systems themselves. They tell someone else to fix it and make sure it gets fixed. Or, more accurately, someone else does that at their behest but the boss is still accountable as they're the one that picked the person to do that job.
That, even as much as the content itself, is significant. Instead of fixing a known broken system, she worked outside of the system (and was not alone in doing so), and allowed the poor system to remain in place which led to this even being a conversation in the first place. Rather than argue about the classification level of the data, how about we acknowledge that the lady has clearly demonstrated that she is incapable of being a leader? That's not even something that any reasonable person would try to debate.
Ah well... I'm still pissed about the OPM attack. Why the hell they had my data on a live, networked, system some 15+ years after its use is beyond me. However, in all fairness, that's not her fault and only tangentially related. I do not recall all of the training on handling classified data, it has been a long time, but I'm pretty sure that I'd be in a heap of trouble for having just risked data spillage. More importantly, I'd have been in all sorts of trouble (multiple times in multiple ways) for failing to be a responsible leader. There are repercussions for doing poorly while you're supposed to be delegating authority and making decisions. At least there have always been repercussions in my life.
However, I don't think I'll post this as an AC. Fuck it... I said it. I own it. I might even make a mistake sometimes. I own those too and I'm not the boss of anything important. It's accountability, though trivial, and a good thing. She's demonstrated she doesn't want to be accountable and is not an acceptable leader. Leaders make choices and delegate authority, not work outside the system while the system languishes. Leaders make choices and then accept responsibility for them. Leaders don't have to know everything, they have to know that they're not smart enough to know everything and to be willing to ask for, and accept, advice. Hillary is not an acceptable leader and her race, gender, or even her political philosophy have not one damned thing to do with that.
As an outsider looking in, retired but was very much involved for my entire career, I hate to say this but it's starting to look a bit like some of you are just plain fucked. No, I don't just rely on just Slashdot postings to make that observation. However, between things like the trend to train your replacements, H1-B visas being abused, and a belief that everyone should be trained to code by means of mandatory public education, it really doesn't look like the industry has a very healthy future.
I urged my kids to actually do something other than tech-specific but to find something they can be passionate about and hope like hell it wasn't directly tech-related. Thankfully, they listened. This isn't entirely new, it's been going on for a while now. The writing is on the wall and has been for a while. There are still some niche areas but programmers, developers, and IT staff are pretty much commodities now.
At a rough guess of about ten years ago, I had, and shared, some ideas that might have helped prevent some of this but it's far too late for change now. The sad truth is that there's not now a whole lot that most folks can do or will do to try to make this better. The time for action was quite a while ago, it's too late now.
And no, complaining isn't "raising awareness" or helping (not directly related to your comment but salient, nonetheless). I don't expect to be listened to now but, if I can offer just one piece of advice to you and the rest, look for ways to strike it out on your own and start your own business. Admittedly, working for the landed gentry has some potential benefits but I think you'll find there's greater liberty (and responsibility) in ownership.
"by the book,"
Reason 5383 to not have 'the book.'
You'd be mistaken. One (or more) was posted by The New Guy on Saturday. You probably have more excitement in your life than I have and missed it. There was at least one, maybe two, that were posted by someone other than Timothy. If you've more energy than I, you can scroll back and find it. I'm pretty sure it was Saturday but I'm often on page 1 so it might have actually been posted on Friday.
Not only have I never used it, I don't think I've ever used an app like it? Maybe I'm missing something? I probably am... I don't use a whole lot of apps. (Sorry App Guy!®)
So... Umm... I don't really use apps but why, exactly, do I need permission to use multiple accounts? Shouldn't I be able to login and logout of the thing as much as I want and to use any damned (authorized) account on it that I please? Why is there even a limit, anyhow?
I dunno, it seems pretty stupid to me. It's none of their damned business if I use more than one account or if someone else uses my phone to do whatever it is people do on that site. Given the name, I'm going to speculate that whatever it is that people do there really is insignificant and if multiple parties use the same application it's irrelevant. So long as nobody's violating any sort of multiple username per person then whose damned business is it anyhow?
Then again, maybe that's why I never got into apps? The idea of something you can log into but not out of is confusing to this old man.
Umm... I do believe they were talking about the person exploding and not the meteorite.
I think I can add to this...
I live in one of those "unincorporated" areas. In fact, I not only mention it often - I've publicly given directions to my home. It's very much in an unincorporated township with no municipality of its own.
No, I still had to file for an apply for all the various permits to build. No, I can't just construct a tower (but I own a disassembled one). No, I'm not exempt from the various regulations and that's probably for the best.
I'm pretty sure that oloorie is just an idiot.
Yeah, that has to suck. You're busy, trying to take over the world, and someone keeps blowing up your refineries plus they take back any of the oil fields you took over!
As an aside: I've seen an Me-262 in the flesh and it is was beautiful. I've seen a recreated model of it in flight at an air-show and it was also beautiful. For such a rudimentary (by today's standards) knowledge of aerodynamics and such a hindered design process, it's really an impressive craft. However, if I had to pick any one craft and fly it to my doom (and it had to be German from WWII) then I think I'd go out, screaming in terror, in the Comet.
The founders of hundreds of Indian startups signed a letter calling for net neutrality.
The regulatory authority TRAI received 2.4 million public submissions, mostly favoring net neutrality.
Let me get this straight... The people who can afford internet complained about people who could not afford the internet getting a sub-set of the internet for free. Is that because they don't want increased competition, because they want to restrict access, or because they are trying to still find ways to institute the caste system?
I understand, while not agreeing with, their sentiment. To them, the 'net is shiny and good. They really don't want the untouchables on it, now do they? They obviously think poor people shouldn't get anything at all, it's not going to benefit those startups any if they do - so why should they support it? And no, no other company is offering free, unfiltered, mobile 'net access.
This doesn't look like freedom. It looks like protectionism, spite, and disallowing choice. And yes, yes I do say that as someone who's pretty outspoken about not using or liking Facebook. "No, you can't offer poor people a free ride to the library, the school, and your store unless you're going to let them go anywhere they want." So, no free rides for the poor people at all and they weren't even obligated to shop in the sponsor's store. Why? Well, the simplest reason would be that wealthier people don't want poor people in *their* library, school, or store.
We still get complaints like that (though less public) in my country. It's usually reserved for not wanting "those kinds of people" moving into their neighborhood and using their library, school, and store. We just don't usually let the bigots set policy, at least not often. Then again, there are still people actively practicing the caste system in India - even though it's outlawed. It appears the government supports them, even if just tacitly and by deed. They should probably just be more honest about it.
How would the responses be if they'd asked the types of people this service was targeting? Nah, fuck that. Who cares what they think? Besides, you're already *got* internet and have a vested interest in less competition. "Which do you prefer, no internet because you can't afford it or limited internet because a company is going to give it to you in order to facilitate your use of their services?"
Let me try?
"We'd like to give hungry people a free cookie if they visit our store."
"If they're hungry, you must give them a full meal. A cookie is not a nutritionally balanced meal."
"Isn't a cookie better than nothing and we're only going to give free cookies, sorry."
"We told you once, a cookie is not a nutritionally balanced meal!"
"We understand that but we also know they're hungry and we're prepared to give them a cookie. That cookie is sure to help at least a li..."
"We said, NO COOKIE! No CHOICE! No!"
I'm not really one to support a government abusing its populace and taking away their choices - in most cases. It's the country, their government, and they can do what they want and all but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If I had time and inclination, I'd look to see who it was that had an official's ear and was profiting off of cookies or who had motivation to keep the hungry from eating cookies. I consider myself a fairly well-reasoned individual and I am usually pretty good, I think and am told, at understanding the views offered by others but, try as I might, I am unable to understand what the actual value is here. What value do they get in denying hungry people a cookie, for free, when nobody is offering them a full, balanced, meal?
They're not targeting the absolute poorest, no. However, they're offering aid to those who are not so wealthy that they can comfortably afford any access at all. No, it's not altruism, not entirely. However, I'm not sure why taking the choice away is beneficial nor do I understand why helping people is ...
NO COOKIE!
This is very much aimed at the poor. It is not aimed at the poorest-of-the-poor, no. It is almost as if there are varied degrees of wealth! Imagine that.
This is aimed for those who have phones but can not afford access. This gives them limited access for free. This gives them an option. No, it's not entirely altruistic but it's an option. Why people are advocating against freedom, the freedom to choose, is beyond me. I am not, however, really all that surprised.
I will not use the "modern web" without an ad blocking utility, at least not for very long. I've yet to have anyone tell me that I could not enable ad-blocking on their computer and I've yet to have someone ask me how to undo it afterwards. You're very much right - you just need to let them see the difference and the difference is often profound, especially on slower connections. It's amazing how much bandwidth is consumed for needless stuff. I don't need all the libraries, scripts, frames with content from other sites, things being pulled in from other sites, images that blink with monkeys to hit, or a button (and scripts) to share on a third party site. I can cut and paste just fine.
As I mentioned above, I've been blocking ads since the mid 1990s. It's hard to imagine that it has been that long but it has. Oh, there were ads before that. I even recall seeing ads in some BBSs (Call This New BBS - lots of Warez, power-users wanted!!!) At some point, I just got frustrated with them all. They slowed things down and got in the way of letting me do what I wanted to do - namely, read. Yes, yes I still read a whole lot of content and am particularly partial to comments made by real people. It's an added bonus if they're intelligent people but that's not always easy to find.
At any rate, I've been turning people on to blocking ads for a lot of years now and it's fun to watch their face as they learn the web can be a whole new experience. It's a bit like teaching somebody that they don't actually have to pay for movies and music - if they don't want to - though that's a bit more ubiquitous today. It's kind of a bit strange to me that there are people who do not block ads by default.
Lest anyone claim that I'm killing web content, I'd like to point out that today (while a bit exceptional but not entirely unknown) I've already donated $50 (25x2) to two sites today. I may not even revisit those sites but the two of them had donation buttons and both of them had information that I was, very specifically, looking for. I was more than happy to support their efforts and to enable them to share with others who have the same needs I had. I should also point out that any site that asks me to disable my ad-blocking, if I want to access their hardware, gets listened to and I've a strict personal policy of adherence to that request.
So, you're very, very much correct - in my observation and I dare say that I've got quite a bit of observation to back that up. Literally, not one single person has ever asked me to undo the ad-blocking, ever. I've been at this for somewhere near 20 years now. I've shown (and helped) loads of people do this - often just in passing. I'm going to guess, not counting web-influence, I've done so hundreds of times in all those years. Yes, hundreds. I've even had people contact me when they got a new computer and ask me to help them block the ads again - more than once. Not one person has complained or, as far as I know, gone back to not blocking ads as the default.
It might be important to add that a good portion of the above is because I'm a complete idiot. Never position yourself as "a computer guy who'll give you a hand." Do not do it! Lesson learned.
I am no expert but I think they call that the Slippery Slope Fallacy. Of course, it's not always a fallacy but it *might* be in this case. Note the use of the word "might" in that sentence.
That said, I've no problems with ads - at all. I block each and every one. If a site requests that I disable ads in order to aid them then I make a decision at that point. If the site's content is valuable enough, to me, then I'll disable it. If not, then I close the tab or hit the back button. To date, not one site's had content that was important enough for me to disable my ad blocker - ever.
Also, err... I used to have dial-up at home. Somewhere around 1995-1998 I used an ad blocking application on Windows. So far, we've been unable (a few of us have tried to find it again - and two other people were able to recollect the same software) remember it or find it. It ran as a proxy (no, it wasn't Proximatron) and had a yellow icon in the corner of the system tray. You could block 'em based on size, wild-card supported domains and subdomains, and I think they had a list of known ad servers that could be updated - except that updating that list (I think) meant you updated the whole application and only so many updates were included in the purchase price and your key only worked for so many new versions. At the time, an update wasn't a .dif or anything but a whole *new* 3-5 MB in size which was quite a pain in the ass.
As an aside and only tangentially related: I know that dial-up users still exist. I can't imagine browsing the web on dial-up these days. Never mind how large a browser update is, how large anti-malware updates are, and how much software has bloated - it's gotta be painfully slow, even with half the crap blocked. uBlock tells me that 24% of the web is blocked for me, as my current average. Note: It works fine. uMatrix has to block even more (it does far more) and I did a test of a few pages a while back and those tests indicated that it was blocking just a bit below 70% of the content. Also, note that too still means the web works just fine for me. Much of what the two block would overlap but not all. So, no... I don't think I'd like dial-up much at all today and certainly not without blocking all that stuff.
For client-side blocking (or just not loading) there's uMatrix and the guy's made a Firefox version now. It's a bit like NoScript and RequestPolicy but a bit more flexible and with a marginally higher learning curve. It's a whitelist approach and I'm pretty fond of it - once I dug into the abilities. It's really good at being what it is - simply client-side filtering by stopping requests.
I liken it to an old-school Windows software firewall, sans presets, and closer to Outpost than to ZoneAlarm. The configuration is not dissimilar to that of an older hardware firewall. The flexibility and default of no-third-party is rather nice. It's available along with his other stuff - uMatrix and HTTP Switchboard. The compute resources used are pretty minimal and I've found that just using uMatrix blocks the ads well enough that I've just used it and no ad blocking software at all.
I dunno what it is but "scientific racist" is now associated with you in my mind and vice versa. 'Snot my fault, blame them - you evil scientific racist!
I read a few more of their comments, how could I not notice their name after that? I have decided that they were drunk. I hope so. Heh... Ol' Olsec the Scientific Racist. Chances are, ten years from now, someone will use that term of phrase and I'll recollect this very thread. That may not have been their intent but it's how it's gonna be. I'll refresh later and see if you've said anything that made 'em cry or if they double-down on the accusation. That's rich, it really is.
Other than my fairly new laptop, most of what I buy is AMD and I can easily afford the Intel offerings. Though, I usually go with nVidia GPUs when I'm making that choice and not just buying the whole system. I get more than adequate performance for everything I do, at a fine price, and I get to support AMD by doing so. I do buy some Intel products, I'm not some sort of zealot - I don't think. I'm just quite content with AMD and have had good luck with them since I tried my first one back at the K6-II time.
The difference? Well, my laptop is really a mobile workstation and I could probably have bought 5-6 fairly acceptable laptops for what I paid for this. It's nice and I liked it, so I bought it. It's stupidly expensive, however. (Over $5500 before shipping.) So, I think there's a time and place for Intel - it's just that I really don't normally even notice much of, if any, difference in performance anymore. In case you're curious, it's a Titan X4K and yes, yes it is just what I was looking for.
Yeah, reality doesn't much like the theory.
It just looks like he's changed his homepage (your homepage URL is used in that field) and his actual profile is not, in fact, blocked.
http://slashdot.org/~Timothy
That'll take you right to his profile. If you hover over his name you'll see that's his monkey URL. You're probably not a monkey so you probably don't have much of anything at the monkey site. Of course, if you were a monkey then you'd know all about monkeys.
I don't really use all the features but I'm told they're all pretty good. I only use it to communicate with a few people. What is it? uTox or, in my case, qTox.
http://utox.org/
I guess it does what Skype does (whatever that is - it was "famous" for being able to get around firewalls last time I paid attention to it) but it's really encrypted.