But changing it to another weak password has essentially no effect on the effectiveness of a dictionary attack. There is a certain probability of the attacker guessing it each attempt, and that probability doesn't change no matter how often you change your password
Effectiveness of a dictionary attack = (probability of the attacker guessing it each attempt) * (number of attempts)
So the statistics don't work out the same. You missed the (number of attempts) part.
Memory usage isn't very significant unless the system is low on memory. Otherwise, I prefer that the browser uses as much memory as it can to cache things
I guess this decision should be left to the OS. The way it should be done is: instead of caching in memory, the browser should cache in filesystem. If the OS is generally experiencing an abundance of memory, the filesystem dump would remain in OS cache and this filesystem dump is as almost good as caching in memory. If OS is facing a memory-crunch, the filesystem caches will be discarded and browser doesn't take up scant memory for its own good.
Not a very popular configuration, but since you asked: I run an Ubuntu 8.04 VM(VirtualBox) on Fedora 12 host. I use both chrome and firefox browsers in the VM, and tab switch times on Chrome are much higher than on firefox. Chrome is much less responsive in this respect than firefox.
My approach would make them get real jobs, or at least make them start over from scratch
You are yet to tell me who gives jobs to insane people with criminal background. But that would make your argument hand-waving because it would be akin to saying 'focus on jobs'. Not sure if you understand what you are posting but I sure hope you do.
I challenge you to find a continuously-maintained linux distribution from October 25, 2001... from March 5, 2010.
Why would you want to do this for Linux distributions, when there are better solutions to get an updated OS? For debian, I could simply download the latest CD and be done with it. Many distributions support downloading latest updated version of the latest release.
Where do I legally download XP SP3 with all the updates, if my laptop came with XP SP1, or if I bought XP SP1 around 8 years ago?
6 months ago I had installed WindowsXP(which had SP2 within it) in a VM. Update needed 3 reboots over next 24 hours, and I am not sure it was finished. I just gave up at that point and deleted the VM.
Instead of going back to his old contacts, he'll have to find a real job.
Quote from parent post by you:
saying 'focus on jobs' is just hand-waiving
It is you who said 'focus on jobs'. That was what I was answering. You pretended your "solution" would make them get jobs. I just showed that it is false: insane people get no jobs.
But after a few years of isolation, most criminals would go (clinically) insane. Who gives a "real job" to insane people with criminal background?
Secondly, in most "real jobs" you have to interact with people. If only to just take orders from the boss, take salary, make (feeble) salary negotiations etc. By your solitary confinement, you have robbed the criminal of all ability for reasonable inter-person interaction. Even if he does not go clinically insane, he is definitely not fit for human interaction. I am appalled at the inhumanity in you which made you suggest this "solution".
Yup, and they never have Linux Plumbers Conferences to try to get parts of the platform that need to work together to work together well. Perhaps not "central leadership", but not "chaos", either.
Very funny. Not sure how to begin, but.... 1. You seem think the conferences (or any other conferences) actually accomplish something. 2. So maybe Android stakeholders might also have "Android Plumbers Conferences", 5 years hence. How does that invalidate the analogy? 3. These conferences concentrate on the kernel. I never said anything about the kernel alone. I said GNU/Linux is chaotic, and then further explained in the GP post that when I say GNU, I include other open-source non-GNU software too, which are typically used along with Linux.
there are a few more points but let us leave it there for now.
As for Apache, it's an app that runs atop a number of platforms
Linux, and Apache (and this, and that, and.....) run together. They might run separately too, but that is beside the point. So, Apache is a part of, and contributes to the success of the "ecosystem of open-source software that typically run with Linux". Apache and other members of "ecosystem of open-source software that typically run with Linux" do not have a central leadership. The "ecosystem of open-source software that typically run with Linux" is successful. Hence "ecosystem of open-source software that typically run with Linux" is an example of success of a system without central leadership.
I was thinking of project GNU. It started out as nothing more or less than creating a Unix clone. You do know what the initials stand for?
Haha. I guess this confusion illustrates my point in a way. Forget about any leadership, there is not even a canonical name for what I wanted to point out: all the open-source software that typically works along with Linux. It is loosely called Linux, and more specifically you could call it by its distribution name. To be more precise than Linux and yet not a pedant, I called it GNU/Linux. But even this caused a confusion. So, I am done with the fruitless search for exact names, and going with loose names from now on.
Some projects belong to GNU, some pretty huge projects lie outside GNU. Notably, the following come to mind: X, Apache, Firefox. Yet others remain dominated by a single company, but yet open enough: QT & Nokia come to mind. Without all these, we can't really celebrate the success of what is colloquially called Linux. If this is not successful chaos, what is?
We're talking about about the invention of modern capitalism
We are not. Given that modern capitalism has already evolved / been invented; a small but yet chaotic sub-ecosystem can evolve relatively quickly. That, is what would possibly be Android. In fact, the chaotic "Linux" world could not have been possible without biological evolution as well as the capitalistic society. Which, in turn, were possible only because earth came into being with so-and-so properties. That does not mean we cannot talk about the "Linux" revolution without talking about these larger "evolutions", does it?
Similarly, given that here we are: evolved, capitalistic, intelligent; a subsystem of this can evolve without taking millions more of years. Even though our evolution up to this point from, say, maybe the Big Bang, did take much longer.
I have an app idea, and I know I can't write it without using a private framework or API. So I stick my idea back on the shelf and go work on something else. But then I see other apps with similar functionality, and I know they didn't do it while playing by the rules. At that point I'm a little irked at Apple when the rules apparently don't apply evenly.
Maybe they shouldn't have let in those other apps with similar functionality in the first place. So you wouldn't feel a little irked, and they wouldn't need to relieve your irkiness by removing lots of apps from the app-store.
That is why I didn't say Linux. I am not Stallman, so I typically don't call it GNU/Linux. I wanted to emphasize on GNU/Linux. For that reason, I would like to use the word Linux as to mean only the kernel. Note also, that I use the word GNU here for the non-GNU open-source software systems also. Stallman sure would be angry with me. Ok, with that out of my system, I begin.
Look, the kernel rarely works on its own. Leaving aside the embedded stuff, what has been successful, has been a combination of lots of userland applications and the Linux kernel. You are right in saying that most successful Open-Source project have strong central leadership. But GNU/Linux as a whole? Not a chance. So Gnome project goes one way, X(org) goes the other way. Apache goes one way, kernel goes the other way. Millions of such examples where 2 loosely related items in GNU/Linux have their independent leadership, do what they damn please. Yet, GNU/Linux as a whole works. This is one, which didn't take millions of years, and is arguably progressing faster than some proprietary systems with strong, central leadership.
Similarly, maybe every single successful Android application will have a different single central strong leadership. But maybe Android ecosystem overall might be better off for it.
Economy / Capitalism also, does not take millions of years. It only takes a few decades of freeing an economic system from the "planned development" idea, when it shows unmistakable signs of tremendous progress.
Biological Evolution, I admit, does take millions of years. And we don't even know with how many "failed experiments on the way" as you aptly put it. But its achievements have also been equally astronomical, so I wouldn't take it too lightly.
So yeah, central leadership works. But more times than would be obvious, chaos work too.
lot of independent programmers each doing their own thing. So there's no central vision to the product
I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with this, but: The disorder is the central vision to the product. Only, the vision is not owned by a single company/person. There are many successful things in this world which came out of an apparent disorder:
1. GNU/Linux - not that successful on the desktop, but very successful in some fields 2. Biological evolution - Some absolutely amazing life forms have come about due to it 3. Capitalism, and economy in general - What happened to all the "planned development" countries? Most successful countries have a chaotic business environment.
On linux, there is ionice which solves this problem conveniently. Just run the file-share program (e.g. ftp server, CIFS server etc.) with a lower IO priority, and there is no effect on the person working on it. Isn't there anything comparable for Macs?
You neither defined nor differentiated between "bloat" and essential settings
What does the user care? For users, there is a difference between these two. If they cannot be separated after going into the registry, this is a weakness of the registry framework. If they can be, I have not come across a way to do so yet, and that includes your idiotic knowledge base link.
Its not user-unfriendly because *YOU* are not the intended user. The intended USER of the registry was the OS itself
Absolutely. Windows 98 was the best OS ever. Crashed? User's fault. The OS is not intended for the user. The OS was just having fun by crashing. Why do pesky users have to come butting in, while OSes have fun?
Registry is not meant for the user? So in windows, a user has no way of retrieving user settings? That even worse than I thought.
How would I migrate the essential settings but leave behind the bloat?
I found it in a few seconds by going to support.microsoft.com and searching for "migrate windows vista settings" which brought up http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928634 as the first hit.
I guess that was too hard:P
This doesn't distinguish between bloat and essential settings. Reproduced my original statement again, hope you can at least read bold. Maybe you were concentrating on colons and Ps, whatever they mean.
the registry was an designed to be internal storage for OS settings and not meant to be user editable
How else do you define "deliberately user-unfriendly"? That is exactly what I have said.
Not that I use windows much, but few of my experiences with it taught me very different things.
convenient central location (with redundancy ofcource) to enable easier migration from PC to PC, easier group policy management, etc
1. Convenient? Never felt it to be so. Reason follows.
2. Migration? I have yet been unable to do so. Say, when one PC becomes bloated, slow and generally hell, I want to re-install onto another PC/partition. How would I migrate the essential settings but leave behind the bloat?
I also feel that this "obfuscation" of complicating the registry is deliberate on the part of Microsoft. Else, what business does a genuine system registry value have, to carry a value like : "7c5f219b67516f24" ? This suggests that user-unfriendliness was the very goal of Microsoft in designing the system.
On the other hand for unixes: even a file like/etc/passwd has quite a user-friendly structure. A user can edit it with some confidence. Its man page is remarkably simpler than the help files describing registry values like "7c5f219b67516f24". Moreover, most such cryptic values are not even described in help files on the system and one typically needs a working internet connection to be able to debug it. Lack of an internet connection might very well be the reason why you are trying to debug it in the first place.
I emphatically agree with all your points, and well put.
But one problem with doing this windows in a VM thing is: windows updates. You will have to periodically update your snapshot windows. Not impossible, nor absolutely necessary (because it is only a use-and-throw OS), but definitely recommended and inconvenient. You would have to keep around last 3 snapshots just to be safe from a failed/bad update.
Ideally, you would want your snapshot windows installation not to change at all. But still, I agree this is one of the best approaches.
But don't such "free" software make a huge amount of noise (dangerous looking pop-ups everywhere, boot time messages etc.) when they stop working? That is the whole business opportunity for which McAfee pays Dell (et al), right?
You yourself noted its important properties. I'll be glad to have cheaper catalytic converters. I use some steel utencils, and steel is, I guess, much less tarnish resistant than platinum. I might use platinum utencils if platinum becomes reasonably affordable. I don't like the smell of steel made articles (e.g. dumb-bells), maybe platinum wouldn't have much of a smell; but I am not sure on this point. Platinum is also quite heavy, so might make shiny, compact and tarnish resistant paperweights, dumb-bells etc.
Platinum is not as useless a metal for everyday articles as, say gold. Gold, while good for some electronic purposes; is too weak for everyday materials. A pure gold goblet definitely wouldn't hold its shape for long. I hate the colour of Gold anyway.
And then, of course, platinum might just be an example. There are many items, which are difficult to get on earth but might be "easily" available once we develop good space-faring capabilities. Not to mention, space might make for a good dump for our waste material which we have this awful propensity to pile upon ourselves.
Your examples of carbon nanotubes, diamonds and aerogel are nice. They are super-materials for which the ingredients are fairly abundantly available on earth but we are still perfecting the technology to manufacture them cheaply. But this doesn't mean there aren't other materials which cannot (as of, say, year 4000, when we might somewhat of space travel) be easily produced for which there is a good alternative "out there".
I had made multiple points in my post. Which of them does this post of yours address? Which of my questions does this post answer? Do you read a post before replying to it?
Many things wrong about your posts in this thread. I'll point out a few:
1.
Denying people to drive (safely) with their sports cars to save fuel
Congrats, you have bruised this strawman pretty badly. This post, especially, is full of "save fuel" references, and it is irrelevant. No one (here, in this thread) is advocating doing anything to save fuel. Specifically, take the example of GP. He talked about "carbon footprint". Not the same as saving fuel. (If you do not understand the difference, it may not be worthwhile to read further of this post of mine.) Hence, the GP poster enclosed the "use up" in quotation marks: it is not something physical that is being used up. But it is the greenhouse gas carrying capacity of the atmosphere (while still retaining sustainable climate, of course) that is being "used up".
2.
When law enforcement is called to prevent the non-threatening use of a luxury item, paid-for in full through lawfully acquired funds
Poor strawmen, don't you pity them? When did law enforcement get called to do such a thing? Since everything in your example is lawful, how can "law-enforcement" possibly be "called to prevent" it? Do you understand what you are writing? Who, apart from your strawmen, in this thread, is advocating that this be done, anyway?
People here are just saying that what some think is "paid-for in full", may not in fact be so. Do people "pay" for the possible climate effects of the CO2 released by their SUVs? Even if they want to pay for it, how would they do that. Suppose total land mass submerged due to CO2 in 200 years is a million square km, comprising of peoples' home, workplace, playgrounds etc. Suppose one Square cm is a particular person's contribution. He would need to negotiate the price of that land with the 200 year hence person whose land he submerged into water due to his CO2 emission. For this, he would need to invent a time-machine first. To the best of my knowledge, it has not yet been done. On what basis, do you then claim, that the luxury item (or any item) is "paid-for in full"?
And that is just one possible effect of your "luxury item". We do not even know all the effects, so any idea about them being "paid-for in full" is absurd. We just know that there is a pretty strong likelihood of some serious effects.
Yeah, but John Connor when sending the guy back, knew that he "was" born successfully and grew up to be a man. So even if he didn't send anyone, the terminator would be sure to fail. Maybe the terminator would have a bug and end terminating itself. Maybe John's young self or some other contemporary of John's young self would terminate the terminator. The means are not important, but the end result is that it is certain that John grew up.
Time paradoxes create logical contradictions, and therefore they cannot exist.
Logic is just a way we try to understand reality. Time paradoxes are logical contradictions, but they might happen anyway. This just means that we will not be able to understand them using logic as it stands today. But it doesn't mean that it cannot happen.
I feel Chrome is behind the times. Firefox has good solutions for these problems:
1. Tree-style tabs: Maintain related tabs in a group, with tree-like relationships between different tabs. When done with a subject, close the whole tree related to that subject. I use Tab Kit, which provides some other functionality in addition to tree-style.
2. Temporary bookmarks: For bookmarks that are of interest now but may not be in a few weeks
Slashdot Mirror
But changing it to another weak password has essentially no effect on the effectiveness of a dictionary attack. There is a certain probability of the attacker guessing it each attempt, and that probability doesn't change no matter how often you change your password
Effectiveness of a dictionary attack = (probability of the attacker guessing it each attempt) * (number of attempts)
So the statistics don't work out the same. You missed the (number of attempts) part.
Memory usage isn't very significant unless the system is low on memory. Otherwise, I prefer that the browser uses as much memory as it can to cache things
I guess this decision should be left to the OS. The way it should be done is: instead of caching in memory, the browser should cache in filesystem. If the OS is generally experiencing an abundance of memory, the filesystem dump would remain in OS cache and this filesystem dump is as almost good as caching in memory. If OS is facing a memory-crunch, the filesystem caches will be discarded and browser doesn't take up scant memory for its own good.
Not a very popular configuration, but since you asked:
I run an Ubuntu 8.04 VM(VirtualBox) on Fedora 12 host. I use both chrome and firefox browsers in the VM, and tab switch times on Chrome are much higher than on firefox. Chrome is much less responsive in this respect than firefox.
My approach would make them get real jobs, or at least make them start over from scratch
You are yet to tell me who gives jobs to insane people with criminal background. But that would make your argument hand-waving because it would be akin to saying 'focus on jobs'. Not sure if you understand what you are posting but I sure hope you do.
I challenge you to find a continuously-maintained linux distribution from October 25, 2001 ... from March 5, 2010.
Why would you want to do this for Linux distributions, when there are better solutions to get an updated OS? For debian, I could simply download the latest CD and be done with it. Many distributions support downloading latest updated version of the latest release.
Where do I legally download XP SP3 with all the updates, if my laptop came with XP SP1, or if I bought XP SP1 around 8 years ago?
6 months ago I had installed WindowsXP(which had SP2 within it) in a VM. Update needed 3 reboots over next 24 hours, and I am not sure it was finished. I just gave up at that point and deleted the VM.
Quote from your GGP post:
Instead of going back to his old contacts, he'll have to find a real job.
Quote from parent post by you:
saying 'focus on jobs' is just hand-waiving
It is you who said 'focus on jobs'. That was what I was answering. You pretended your "solution" would make them get jobs. I just showed that it is false: insane people get no jobs.
But after a few years of isolation, most criminals would go (clinically) insane. Who gives a "real job" to insane people with criminal background?
Secondly, in most "real jobs" you have to interact with people. If only to just take orders from the boss, take salary, make (feeble) salary negotiations etc. By your solitary confinement, you have robbed the criminal of all ability for reasonable inter-person interaction. Even if he does not go clinically insane, he is definitely not fit for human interaction. I am appalled at the inhumanity in you which made you suggest this "solution".
Yup, and they never have Linux Plumbers Conferences to try to get parts of the platform that need to work together to work together well. Perhaps not "central leadership", but not "chaos", either.
Very funny. Not sure how to begin, but....
1. You seem think the conferences (or any other conferences) actually accomplish something.
2. So maybe Android stakeholders might also have "Android Plumbers Conferences", 5 years hence. How does that invalidate the analogy?
3. These conferences concentrate on the kernel. I never said anything about the kernel alone. I said GNU/Linux is chaotic, and then further explained in the GP post that when I say GNU, I include other open-source non-GNU software too, which are typically used along with Linux.
there are a few more points but let us leave it there for now.
As for Apache, it's an app that runs atop a number of platforms
Linux, and Apache (and this, and that, and .....) run together. They might run separately too, but that is beside the point. So, Apache is a part of, and contributes to the success of the "ecosystem of open-source software that typically run with Linux". Apache and other members of "ecosystem of open-source software that typically run with Linux" do not have a central leadership. The "ecosystem of open-source software that typically run with Linux" is successful. Hence "ecosystem of open-source software that typically run with Linux" is an example of success of a system without central leadership.
I was thinking of project GNU. It started out as nothing more or less than creating a Unix clone. You do know what the initials stand for?
Haha. I guess this confusion illustrates my point in a way. Forget about any leadership, there is not even a canonical name for what I wanted to point out: all the open-source software that typically works along with Linux. It is loosely called Linux, and more specifically you could call it by its distribution name. To be more precise than Linux and yet not a pedant, I called it GNU/Linux. But even this caused a confusion. So, I am done with the fruitless search for exact names, and going with loose names from now on.
Some projects belong to GNU, some pretty huge projects lie outside GNU. Notably, the following come to mind: X, Apache, Firefox. Yet others remain dominated by a single company, but yet open enough: QT & Nokia come to mind. Without all these, we can't really celebrate the success of what is colloquially called Linux. If this is not successful chaos, what is?
We're talking about about the invention of modern capitalism
We are not. Given that modern capitalism has already evolved / been invented; a small but yet chaotic sub-ecosystem can evolve relatively quickly. That, is what would possibly be Android. In fact, the chaotic "Linux" world could not have been possible without biological evolution as well as the capitalistic society. Which, in turn, were possible only because earth came into being with so-and-so properties. That does not mean we cannot talk about the "Linux" revolution without talking about these larger "evolutions", does it?
Similarly, given that here we are: evolved, capitalistic, intelligent; a subsystem of this can evolve without taking millions more of years. Even though our evolution up to this point from, say, maybe the Big Bang, did take much longer.
I have an app idea, and I know I can't write it without using a private framework or API. So I stick my idea back on the shelf and go work on something else. But then I see other apps with similar functionality, and I know they didn't do it while playing by the rules. At that point I'm a little irked at Apple when the rules apparently don't apply evenly.
Maybe they shouldn't have let in those other apps with similar functionality in the first place. So you wouldn't feel a little irked, and they wouldn't need to relieve your irkiness by removing lots of apps from the app-store.
Linux lacks a central vision?
That is why I didn't say Linux. I am not Stallman, so I typically don't call it GNU/Linux. I wanted to emphasize on GNU/Linux. For that reason, I would like to use the word Linux as to mean only the kernel. Note also, that I use the word GNU here for the non-GNU open-source software systems also. Stallman sure would be angry with me. Ok, with that out of my system, I begin.
Look, the kernel rarely works on its own. Leaving aside the embedded stuff, what has been successful, has been a combination of lots of userland applications and the Linux kernel. You are right in saying that most successful Open-Source project have strong central leadership. But GNU/Linux as a whole? Not a chance. So Gnome project goes one way, X(org) goes the other way. Apache goes one way, kernel goes the other way. Millions of such examples where 2 loosely related items in GNU/Linux have their independent leadership, do what they damn please. Yet, GNU/Linux as a whole works. This is one, which didn't take millions of years, and is arguably progressing faster than some proprietary systems with strong, central leadership.
Similarly, maybe every single successful Android application will have a different single central strong leadership. But maybe Android ecosystem overall might be better off for it.
Economy / Capitalism also, does not take millions of years. It only takes a few decades of freeing an economic system from the "planned development" idea, when it shows unmistakable signs of tremendous progress.
Biological Evolution, I admit, does take millions of years. And we don't even know with how many "failed experiments on the way" as you aptly put it. But its achievements have also been equally astronomical, so I wouldn't take it too lightly.
So yeah, central leadership works. But more times than would be obvious, chaos work too.
lot of independent programmers each doing their own thing. So there's no central vision to the product
I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with this, but: The disorder is the central vision to the product. Only, the vision is not owned by a single company/person. There are many successful things in this world which came out of an apparent disorder:
1. GNU/Linux - not that successful on the desktop, but very successful in some fields
2. Biological evolution - Some absolutely amazing life forms have come about due to it
3. Capitalism, and economy in general - What happened to all the "planned development" countries? Most successful countries have a chaotic business environment.
On linux, there is ionice which solves this problem conveniently. Just run the file-share program (e.g. ftp server, CIFS server etc.) with a lower IO priority, and there is no effect on the person working on it. Isn't there anything comparable for Macs?
You neither defined nor differentiated between "bloat" and essential settings
What does the user care? For users, there is a difference between these two. If they cannot be separated after going into the registry, this is a weakness of the registry framework. If they can be, I have not come across a way to do so yet, and that includes your idiotic knowledge base link.
Its not user-unfriendly because *YOU* are not the intended user. The intended USER of the registry was the OS itself
Absolutely. Windows 98 was the best OS ever. Crashed? User's fault. The OS is not intended for the user. The OS was just having fun by crashing. Why do pesky users have to come butting in, while OSes have fun?
Registry is not meant for the user? So in windows, a user has no way of retrieving user settings? That even worse than I thought.
How would I migrate the essential settings but leave behind the bloat?
I found it in a few seconds by going to support.microsoft.com and searching for "migrate windows vista settings" which brought up http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928634 as the first hit.
I guess that was too hard :P
This doesn't distinguish between bloat and essential settings. Reproduced my original statement again, hope you can at least read bold. Maybe you were concentrating on colons and Ps, whatever they mean.
the registry was an designed to be internal storage for OS settings and not meant to be user editable
How else do you define "deliberately user-unfriendly"? That is exactly what I have said.
Not that I use windows much, but few of my experiences with it taught me very different things.
convenient central location (with redundancy ofcource) to enable easier migration from PC to PC, easier group policy management, etc
1. Convenient? Never felt it to be so. Reason follows.
2. Migration? I have yet been unable to do so. Say, when one PC becomes bloated, slow and generally hell, I want to re-install onto another PC/partition. How would I migrate the essential settings but leave behind the bloat?
I also feel that this "obfuscation" of complicating the registry is deliberate on the part of Microsoft. Else, what business does a genuine system registry value have, to carry a value like : "7c5f219b67516f24" ? This suggests that user-unfriendliness was the very goal of Microsoft in designing the system.
On the other hand for unixes: even a file like /etc/passwd has quite a user-friendly structure. A user can edit it with some confidence. Its man page is remarkably simpler than the help files describing registry values like "7c5f219b67516f24". Moreover, most such cryptic values are not even described in help files on the system and one typically needs a working internet connection to be able to debug it. Lack of an internet connection might very well be the reason why you are trying to debug it in the first place.
I emphatically agree with all your points, and well put.
But one problem with doing this windows in a VM thing is: windows updates. You will have to periodically update your snapshot windows. Not impossible, nor absolutely necessary (because it is only a use-and-throw OS), but definitely recommended and inconvenient. You would have to keep around last 3 snapshots just to be safe from a failed/bad update.
Ideally, you would want your snapshot windows installation not to change at all. But still, I agree this is one of the best approaches.
But don't such "free" software make a huge amount of noise (dangerous looking pop-ups everywhere, boot time messages etc.) when they stop working? That is the whole business opportunity for which McAfee pays Dell (et al), right?
But maybe I need to read this How Do You Get Users To Read Error Messages?
You yourself noted its important properties. I'll be glad to have cheaper catalytic converters. I use some steel utencils, and steel is, I guess, much less tarnish resistant than platinum. I might use platinum utencils if platinum becomes reasonably affordable. I don't like the smell of steel made articles (e.g. dumb-bells), maybe platinum wouldn't have much of a smell; but I am not sure on this point. Platinum is also quite heavy, so might make shiny, compact and tarnish resistant paperweights, dumb-bells etc.
Platinum is not as useless a metal for everyday articles as, say gold. Gold, while good for some electronic purposes; is too weak for everyday materials. A pure gold goblet definitely wouldn't hold its shape for long. I hate the colour of Gold anyway.
And then, of course, platinum might just be an example. There are many items, which are difficult to get on earth but might be "easily" available once we develop good space-faring capabilities. Not to mention, space might make for a good dump for our waste material which we have this awful propensity to pile upon ourselves.
Your examples of carbon nanotubes, diamonds and aerogel are nice. They are super-materials for which the ingredients are fairly abundantly available on earth but we are still perfecting the technology to manufacture them cheaply. But this doesn't mean there aren't other materials which cannot (as of, say, year 4000, when we might somewhat of space travel) be easily produced for which there is a good alternative "out there".
I had made multiple points in my post. Which of them does this post of yours address? Which of my questions does this post answer? Do you read a post before replying to it?
Many things wrong about your posts in this thread. I'll point out a few:
1.
Denying people to drive (safely) with their sports cars to save fuel
Congrats, you have bruised this strawman pretty badly. This post, especially, is full of "save fuel" references, and it is irrelevant. No one (here, in this thread) is advocating doing anything to save fuel. Specifically, take the example of GP. He talked about "carbon footprint". Not the same as saving fuel. (If you do not understand the difference, it may not be worthwhile to read further of this post of mine.) Hence, the GP poster enclosed the "use up" in quotation marks: it is not something physical that is being used up. But it is the greenhouse gas carrying capacity of the atmosphere (while still retaining sustainable climate, of course) that is being "used up".
2.
When law enforcement is called to prevent the non-threatening use of a luxury item, paid-for in full through lawfully acquired funds
Poor strawmen, don't you pity them? When did law enforcement get called to do such a thing? Since everything in your example is lawful, how can "law-enforcement" possibly be "called to prevent" it? Do you understand what you are writing? Who, apart from your strawmen, in this thread, is advocating that this be done, anyway?
People here are just saying that what some think is "paid-for in full", may not in fact be so. Do people "pay" for the possible climate effects of the CO2 released by their SUVs? Even if they want to pay for it, how would they do that. Suppose total land mass submerged due to CO2 in 200 years is a million square km, comprising of peoples' home, workplace, playgrounds etc. Suppose one Square cm is a particular person's contribution. He would need to negotiate the price of that land with the 200 year hence person whose land he submerged into water due to his CO2 emission. For this, he would need to invent a time-machine first. To the best of my knowledge, it has not yet been done. On what basis, do you then claim, that the luxury item (or any item) is "paid-for in full"?
And that is just one possible effect of your "luxury item". We do not even know all the effects, so any idea about them being "paid-for in full" is absurd. We just know that there is a pretty strong likelihood of some serious effects.
Yeah, but John Connor when sending the guy back, knew that he "was" born successfully and grew up to be a man. So even if he didn't send anyone, the terminator would be sure to fail. Maybe the terminator would have a bug and end terminating itself. Maybe John's young self or some other contemporary of John's young self would terminate the terminator. The means are not important, but the end result is that it is certain that John grew up.
So why did he send someone?
Time paradoxes create logical contradictions, and therefore they cannot exist.
Logic is just a way we try to understand reality. Time paradoxes are logical contradictions, but they might happen anyway. This just means that we will not be able to understand them using logic as it stands today. But it doesn't mean that it cannot happen.
I feel Chrome is behind the times. Firefox has good solutions for these problems:
1. Tree-style tabs: Maintain related tabs in a group, with tree-like relationships between different tabs. When done with a subject, close the whole tree related to that subject. I use Tab Kit, which provides some other functionality in addition to tree-style.
2. Temporary bookmarks: For bookmarks that are of interest now but may not be in a few weeks