"In the U.S., 16.4% of all personal computers ran Windows XP in July."

I mean seriously, it isn't like you even had to click on the article.

Ya the county range I shoot at his little buckets at each station for brass. If you don't reload (I don't, since I don't shoot enough to wish to spend the time on it) you scoop your casings in there before you leave. They then sell it and use the money to help pay for the range. There are trash cans too for trash, but no brass in the trash. It is valuable, either take it or put it in the buckets.

The thing is you can't bring in an H1-B visa person just because you want them, or feel like they are a "better fit" or any of that. You can only do it if you cannot find a qualified US candidate (citizen, permanent resident, etc). If you get an applicant that is qualified and wants the job, you have to take them over getting someone on a visa. You can't argue that they are overqualified, because you have to take them if they are qualified.

That's the whole deal with the H1-B visa program: It is supposed to be for jobs you can't fill locally, either because there is too much demand for that kind of worker, the skill set isn't around, whatever. You can't find a qualified candidate, so you get one on a visa.

Police and private citizens have different rules. So if the police break in your house, without a warrant, and find evidence of a crime, well sorry that evidence, and anything resulting from it, can't be used. They didn't follow the law. Likewise if the police pay (or force, or ask, or whatever) someone to break in to your house and that person finds evidence of a crime, it again can't be used. While the person wasn't a cop, he acted as their agent.

However, if someone breaks in to their house all on their own and finds evidence of a crime and turns it over to the police, that they can use. The person still broke the law and can and should go to jail for breaking in to your house, but because they were acting of their own accord, it doesn't taint the evidence for use in a case against you.

"Nothing is perfect"

That's the problem here. Geeks seem to think there is such a thing as perfect security, they delude themselves in to thinking that if people just weren't so lazy, so stupid, so whatever that we could have perfect security. Now with computers that is at least a theoretical possibility. It can't happen really, but in theory one could make a perfectly secure computer system.

Well that can't happen in reality. There is -no- perfect security in the physical world. It is just about trying to make shit happen less, about trying to make your security good enough that it can ward off the best attack you are likely to face. No matter how much you spend, what you do, there is always a way around it.

That is something geeks just can't seem to handle. They just can't deal with the idea that physical security is imperfect, and so they hate on the solutions as being not good enough, as though they could magically be perfect if only they tried hard enough.

How do you develop apps on computers? Those seem to be the ultimate of non-standard display sizes. You can find displays of anything from about 1024x768 up to about 2560x1600 on most modern systems, with anything in between. Lots of aspect ratios too, 4:3, 5:4, 16:9, 16:10, 21:9. Yet somehow lots, and lots and lots of developers seem to be able to make their stuff work. It can deal with the concept of repositioning elements, scaling UI (games in particular are often quite good at this) and relative positioning.

It is just on mobile devices that devs seem to want to assume everything should be one size, and they can just make everything in an absolute fashion.

This is particularly amusing because such game theory examples have been proved to only apply to WEIRD (white educated industrialised rich and democratic) nations.

Quite possibly not only WEIRD, but perhaps only for college students from those countries as well. From What happens when actual prisoners play The Prisoner's Dilemma?:

See here's the deal: Just because one person discovers something, it doesn't magically mean that everyone else can figure it out right away. It might be the person who discovered it is pretty clever, and has done a lot of work in that field. So it may well take others quite some time to find it out. If you want to see some examples, look at various military technologies, in particular stealth technology. You might note that that US had working stealth systems long before anyone else.

Now as this relates to security, what it means is that disclosing right away may not be that useful. Perhaps if you give some time for a fix to be implemented, or at least a mitigation, then things could be a little better. Remember with cars it isn't like one can just post a bug fix on a website. All other things aside in terms of what has to be changed, there is pretty extensive testing and certification.

So one can well argue if you've found a flaw in a car you need to notify the manufacturers and give them time to fix it or mitigate it, which may be a good deal of time, rather than running out and telling the world so people know how clever you are.

Like say I discovered that if I pushed on a particular spot in your house, the whole thing would come crashing down on your head. Turns out, said spot is not easy to fix, you can't just go and spend $5 and an hour to do it. It will take a good bit of time and money to fix the problem. Would you like me to let you know, quietly, or would you like me to stick up a poster letting anyone who sees it know, and how that nobody does anything?

They could post whiny comments on Slashdot trying to make false equivalences to steer any and all discussions to the US rather than talking about the fact at hand!

Seriously, quit with this shit. One of the most annoying things about Slashdot these days are the folks like you that just can't deal with any discussion that isn't about the US, in particular how bad the US is. It is a sort of arrogance that if the discussion isn't about something you know and care about, you can't deal with it and thus have to steer it back around.

Stop it. Discuss the article in question. Stop twisting everything back around to your pet topic.

So it looks like this all may be an over-blown non-story.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/government-knocking-doors-because-google-searches/67864/

Supposedly, the cops got a tip from their former employer that they'd found these searches and then went to investigate. If that is the case, well then it is pretty much a non-story. Some employers regularly do look at what is done on their computers because they are paranoid employees are wasting time, stealing, whatever.

You prepare for things you don't imagine could actually happen, particularly when you are talking the government of a country. You want to have contingency plans in place, even for disasters you say "There's no way that is going to happen."

And by nailing this family they're up to 59! Well, maybe not this one (today at least) as they seem to have gotten to the newspaper faster than they could run them through a secret court. But I'm sure there are other serious googling terrorist plotters when the stats need padding and the budget needs justification.

I can see taking exception to the pay. It is valid to have the position that we should be more socialist, that people in lower skill jobs should make more. Not everyone will agree, of course, but it is a valid position to have and to argue. However this concept that there is something bad about having to stand and move all day for work, or that it won't be in a climate controlled office. Oh give me a break.

It is just part of this bias that Mike Rowe calls a "war on work" as though only jobs sitting at a desk are real jobs. That if you are out doing any sort of physical work, then your job sucks and you should aspire to something better. No, actually, it is perfectly valid to work like that and you can be quite happy. One thing I'll say for sure is it helps keep you in better shape when you are active like that. I was a surveyor's assistant for a while, which meant working outside doing physical things. Man was I in good shape. I felt good too, had more energy than I do now where I sit at a desk all day. This is not to say I hate my desk job, I love doing computer support, but I am realistic about the benefits I got from being active all day.

So ya, I don't see what is wrong with these Amazon warehouse jobs, other than perhaps the pay. Trying to make it seem bad because people are standing and moving just smacks of laziness. "Oh those poor people, they have to actually use their bodies, which is actually healthier! Whatever will they do!"

If Amazon treats them well and their workplace is safe, then what is to complain about, environment wise?

I guess it depends on how you define "middle class". The traditional definition would more or less be people who are not rich, nor poor. That is how it came about in the first place. Back in the day, you were one or the other and the difference was stark. The rich had everything, the poor had nothing, the rich needed to do nothing, the poor had to do everything, etc, etc. The poor had at least one, and usually more than one, basic need un or under fulfilled. The poor generally belonged to the rich, literally, they were slaves or indentured to the land.

Well as time went on a "middle" class came about and grew. They weren't rich, they had to work for a living, but they weren't poor either. They had their needs met, they had some measure of independence and self determination, and so on.

By that standard, the vast majority of America is middle class. We have some actual poor, and some actual rich, but most people would be in a wide band that is the middle. There's great variance in that band, but the general statements of the original middle class are true.

Now some people believe that definition is (or should be) changed. That you divide it down further. A frequent term you see for people who are not poor, but are only a bit above it is "working class". Middle class is then something higher up above that.

The big problem is most people don't actually think as to how they define it. Online, people seem to define "middle class" as some nebulous kind of good lifestyle that they can't really define what it entails or what it takes to have, but that they think they should have and are mad they don't.

At any rate, it depends on how you wish to define things. There is no international standard or anything so really, you need to decide for yourself what terms and levels you think make sense. But yes, $24k/year can be "middle class" by some definitions, at least in cheaper areas of the country.

Consumers demand it. People love "unlimited". Even when they don't need it, even if you can give them proof positive a metered plan will save money, they don't want that. Consumers want a flat rate to pay, period.