seems like the way ikea classifies their furniture is merely a suggestion. for example i've always used their dining tables as desks, as their "desks" are too small and flimsy and relatively expensive.
rich people are susceptible to the same herd/exclusivity psychology the rest of us are.
to those who don't know, fund management firms have plenty of sales people, except they're not called sales people, they're called VPs, managing directors, partners, etc. but their job is to sell their services and bring new assets (MONEY) under management. they do this through social interaction and posturing. a lot of these people don't even actually manage the money, they just outsource it to hedge funds and banks with high end management services. they're constantly being wined and dined by bankers and traders, people they claim to hate yet they keep shoveling money in their direction. hmm.
why else do you think they have "minimum" asset requirements? there's no logical reason to have one -- once your client's money is in your pocket you can shift it around from a single pool of capital no matter how big or small the transaction. which is basically what an ETF is. there's software to keep track of all the individual deposits and returns. the truth is they market that exclusivity and they sure as hell don't want to talk with anyone who doesn't have millions of dollars. i can't say i blame them.
one thing they all have in common is they all look down their noses at "retail" financial services. it's just a big social game played by very smart people, like venture capital.
I would assume minimum asset requirements largely exist because, if you want to raise a $100m dollars, collecting it in chunks of $5 or 10k is not a great idea.
this is another data point that supports my personal, hare-brained theory that the expectation of privacy on the internet is simply naive, a fool's errand. it never existed, and never will.
this is despite (or maybe because) of my best efforts to secure systems as a major part of my job.
requesting a page with a specific combination of broken tags, when done through cloudflare, will cause neighboring memory to be dumped into the response. op suspects this is due to a bounds checking bug on a read or copy. one can imagine this can be potentially kilobytes of data in one go.
since anyone can put a broken page behind cloudflare, all you need to do is request your own broken page through cloudflare, and start collecting the random "secure" data that comes back.
I'm generally pro immigration and didn't vote for Trump (partly for these reasons). But there are valid points to be made about:
* what a healthy level of immigration is
* what a healthy immigration process looks like
* how much should family concerns affect immigration chances
* how much should professional skills affect immigration chances
* how to enforce immigration laws
The above are entirely about law and social norms. Just because you disagree doesn't mean there are no valid points.
Not engaging those points is just retrenching people, promoting more division, and making reasonable people side with unreasonable ones like Trump. I'm gathering that most people who voted for Trump voted for the least bad option in their minds, not because they wanted a buffoon for a president.
specifically, what reasons is it being used for? It's been discussed here many times that the H1B program for tech workers is being used to depress wages and remove the immigrants' rights to competition. So while a politician may seem so shiny and "progressive" for increasing immigration, you never know if their back pockets are being padded by the tech corporations who save billions of dollars by not paying the "free market" rate for the skilled work.
Stephen Bannon stated that having Asian CEOs running 2/3rds of the companies in Silicon Valley was bad for civic society.
Are unskilled workers sneaking in from Asia illegally to run Google and Microsoft or are you wrong about whether it's only unskilled, illegal immigrants that are being targetted?
(We'll ignore for now the fact that 2/3rds is an incorrect figure, he was presumably intentionally exaggerating to inspire fear in his base.)
i'm saying that legal and illegal immigration are two different things. the fact that steve bannon dislikes both types and probably (almost certainly) dislikes non-white people has nothing to do with my point.
let's say all your worst fears are true, and bannon secretly is literally hitler. does that change the fact that legal vs. illegal immigrants are different, and should be treated differently, with a different set of laws and social acceptance? because i would say that even if he is literally hitler and mussolini combined, that would still hold true.
i mean, what is your actual point here? that you don't like steve bannon? okay, great.
You were clearly trying to paint "the other side" as unreasonable zealots, who pretend that upstanding, hardworking immigrants are under threat, when really it's only the classic illegal immigrant stereotype that your side have a problem with. (This stereotype is also BS but that's a different story...)
Unfortunately for you, someone right at the very top of the Republican party that is in charge right now said something that blatantly contradicts your stated claim that this is an invented concern. Trump has also made comments about the 1965 change in immigration laws that makes it clear that the skin color of immigrants is more important to him than their legality, numbers or skill level.
So feel free to apologize for misrepresenting their opinions or defend your original claim, rather than pretend you said something else.
Hardly. He stated that there is a difference between illegal and legal immigration, and that right now, somehow, that distinction is being lost in the hyperbole. One side of the argument is being unfairly portrayed as a horde of white supremacists/nationalists/racists/etc, because they make this distinction. At the same time, amnesty for illegal immigrants is being pushed by the other side as a humanitarian concern. Both sides are right to feel as they do, but good luck trying to find common ground in this current political environment.
This. Without an installer that puts a link into the start menu, everyone I've ever worked with just dumps it on the desktop. I used to throw a symlink into the start menu, but when other devs used my machine they expected it to be on the desktop. Just one of those quirks of using PUTTY
For a long time, there wasn't an installer for putty, so a lot of us became accustomed to just dropping the binary on our desktop or "bin" folder", but there is an installer now. Also, certain corporate environments that preclude the installer from working correctly, but won't mind you "installing" a program to your desktop/local app data.
I find the corporate environment thing suspicious. I could imagine that if you don't have admin access, you can't install to Program Files, but couldn't you still install to your home directory, and still get those lovely start menu shortcuts?
Windows, by default requests elevated rights from the user (the UAC dialog) if you run any exe that has 'setup' or 'install' in the name, or if the manifest inside/alongside the exe defines a requirement for elevated rights.
You can spot these files as they have a little Windows 'shield' overlay on their icons (Windows overlays that itself if it detects a file needing elevated rights).
So, unless you can elevate your rights (i.e. be admin, or type in admin credentials), you can't run most installers.
However, prior to Windows 7 your personal start menu folder wasn't locked down - and as a non-admin you could easily add/remove shortcuts from it. Since Windows 7 onwards it's now protected, so you need to elevate to be able to write to it.
Windows allows you to run (by default) software from ANY folder you like, but you can only (by default, again) write to some of your user folders and the the %TEMP% location.
So downloading the PuTTY exe and running it from the downloads folder or desktop is perfectly legitimate, although not good practice.
As an aside: I'm not sure if Chrome still does it, but I recall that if you try to install it and you don't have admin rights, it just puts an icon on your desktop, and installs all the chrome files into a folder under ProgramData which resides in your user hierarchy, instead of the locked down Program Files area. Which is one way of getting around the lack of admin-rights.
