Not a good idea; it'll probably be taken down by Google sometime in the near future. I've never heard of Keep, and I've noticed that Google frequently discontinues products I haven't heard of, so I expect to see an announcement any day now, now that I've heard of it thanks to you, that Google Keep is being shut down as it wasn't popular enough.
Relying on any Google product for long-term use is a bad idea for this reason alone, unless it's one of their extremely core products (search, mail, maps).
No, if you want to meet single women, you have to find the "beginner's" or less-strenuous hikes. You're probably not going to meet many women at the advanced, technical hikes. I don't like the 20-milers either; 5 miles is good for me, 10 is the absolute max. People don't go on the fast-paced hikes to chit-chat and meet people. Just join all the hiking (or general outdoors) meetups in your area, and ignore the hikes that say "no beginners", "fast paced, no sweeper", "advanced", have a huge elevation change, etc. Here in NJ, there's a bunch of groups that are "hiking" groups but don't do anything very strenuous.
Aha: the 5GHz thing might be your problem. 5GHz has poorer range and is more attenuated by walls than 2.4GHz. I'm only using 2.4, so I'm not seeing these problems.
Actually, I just thought of something for you: have you tried Meetup.com? Around my area, there's tons of hiking/outdoor groups on Meetup, and a lot of people (of all ages) seem to use these hiking groups as singles mixers. You don't have to be single to go on hikes, but a lot of the people I meet on there seem to be. I've met lots of older (50+) women on the hikes I've been on.
Well we're talking about Linux here, not Windows, so Windows security problems aren't really relevant (though another post here says that Windows does essentially the same thing, storing WiFi passwords unencrypted in the registry).
But still, if someone on the internet hacks your system and gets your WiFi password, what good does that do them? They have to physically travel to your home to do anything with it. And even there, what is that going to gain them that they don't already have, since they've apparently hacked into your system?
Being recently divorced (last year), I started poking around at the various dating sites. Let's see, I don't smoke, I effectively don't drink alcohol (one beer a year doesn't make me a "drinker"), I'm a gamer (you'd be amazed at the number of women who think gamers are "childish"), and I'm not into sports (lots of women who go to football/baseball/hockey games). I do like going hiking in the mountains, snowshoes, skiing, I like bicycling. But I'm not a fitness fanatic which also eliminated quite a few women. I'm not religious which eliminated a few more.
Some of this stuff varies a lot by region (or proximity to a major city), but I hear you. I'm the same way on much of it (except the gaming part, and I do drink a half-glass of wine now and then, though again nothing approaching drunkenness, so not much of a "drinker"), and I've always found it difficult to meet women and to keep them interested. There do seem to be an absurd number of women interested in sports online from what I've seen, and sometimes I wonder if they say that just to attract men who like sports. And yes, lots of women seem to be very religious, much moreso than men. I've heard before of churches where single women outnumber single men 10-to-1, with the single men being weirdos with handlebar mustaches, and the preacher telling the single women not to date outside that church or else they're "unequally yoked".
Amusingly on my birthday (hit 56),
This is probably part of your problem. I hate to say it, but you're too old for online dating: women in your age group aren't very internet-savvy, unlike the 20- and 30-somethings. The women you'd be interested in might use Facebook to keep up with their kids and grandkids, but that's about it.
There's a couple of problems here. 1) OKC doesn't have any way of blocking or filtering out people with kids, which apparently you're not open to (which is fine, it's a valid choice as a single man, esp. if you're younger; it gets unrealistic as you get older). From what I've seen, they only let you block people's messages if they're too far away from you. It'd be nice if there were more controls this way to block out people with deal-breakers (smoking, etc.) 2) There's no way for OKC to tell if someone is financially/emotionally unstable that I can think of. I don't even know how you would tell this about someone before meeting them in person and getting to know them, unless they're brazenly hitting you up for money when they first message you.
I seldom see drop-dead gorgeous female engineers or scientists.
That's because smart and gorgeous women know that those professions are underpaid and undervalued in Western (particularly American) society, so they avoid them (they also want to avoid all the sexual harassment). Instead, these women go into the medical field. I've met several nearly drop-dead gorgeous female physicians. And they certainly get better pay and better job security than I do as an engineer, while not being surrounded by creepy men or brogrammers.
Totally wrong. Arrogance and lying actually work really well for many men. Those men get laid a lot more than the honest and humble men. You can debate whether it's worth it in the long term or not (he might be stuck with multiple child-support payments in his 40s), but it is a winning reproductive and dating strategy.
Looks are pretty much unimportant, or rather if you are halfway sane you do not want to date anybody looking like a "supermodel". It either comes with neuroses or a huge ego not justified by anything.
There's a big difference between only dating supermodels and refusing to date someone who's extremely unattractive (for instance, morbidly obese). A lot of men avoid overly-attractive women as they assume they're "high maintenance", and look for women in the next tier down (the "girl next door" type); they want someone who's attractive, but not so beautiful that they're going to be a PITA and have those neuroses you talk of (and demand he spend all kinds of money on her so she can have weekly spa treatments, ridiculously expensive designer clothes, etc.). This doesn't mean they're willing to date a woman who's 300 pounds.
Looks are important: if you're not at all physically attracted to someone, you're not going to have an easy time maintaining a romantic relationship with them. For men, you may have serious problems "getting it up" if you don't find the woman at least somewhat attractive.
What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.
The problem here is that there's no way for an algorithm to know these things about someone. No one puts on their online dating profile, "I'm a cheap-ass, I have terrible manners, and I still have issues about my ex-wife even though we divorced 15 years ago." They only put the good parts. They even dress up the photos, like showing only their face in particular artful poses if they're obese, so you can't easily tell that from the photos.
If someone has physical access to your drive, you have much, much worse problems than someone sniffing your WiFi traffic. To do this, someone has trespassed into your house. I'm much more concerned with strangers stomping around my living room than I am about someone sniffing my WiFi traffic.
Why do you have two APs? WiFi penetrates to adjacent floors on a typical residential home with no trouble. I have a 3-story (including the basement) house with my AP on the middle floor, and I have no connectivity problems at all. The problem with WiFi is line-of-sight distance; if your house is a giant 6000sf McMansion and is really spread out, you could have a problem, but as long as you're not far away from the AP it should be fine.
I'll spell it out for you, idiot, because you and the other Obamabots are obviously too fucking stupid to understand if I don't: no one is required to have a car. So no one is required to have auto insurance. The government regulates lots of voluntary activities because of the need for safety: if you run a farm and sell food, they have regulations about how you can safely grow and process that food, so no one gets sick and dies from your food. If you build cars, they have regulations about how safe your cars must be so people don't get killed in fender-benders in your cars. If you run financial services companies, they have regulations to make sure people aren't throwing their money away and thus harming the economy (too bad Obama doesn't believe in actually enforcing those laws, but I'm sure the Obamabots like you have some lame excuses for this). None of these things are required of everyone or involuntary; they only affect you if you decide to start companies and go into these industries. Most citizens, who are just employees, will never be affected by these requirements, except for the auto insurance requirement. Instead, when the government required something of citizens, they normally make it a government service, to make sure some private company isn't being enriched unjustly. Everyone has to get a government ID for instance (which is frequently, but not always, combined with driver's licensing; not everyone drives, so those people just get a government ID): to get one, they go to a government office (usually called "DMV") and pay a small fee. This was true until Obamacare, which now requires everyone, no matter what, to buy insurance from a private corporation and thus enrich that corporation.
No one is required to own a car or drive. Clothing is the only thing the government actually requires you to purchase, and that's pretty hard to get around in most places anyway because you'll get hypothermia if you're outside for too long without it, at least during some parts of the year.
What does that have to do with anything? Lots of non-profit organizations have directors and executives who are paid obscene amounts of money. Non-profits are in fact, frequently scams themselves, because naive people like you see the "non-profit" moniker and assume that they must be doing something holy or wholesome, when in fact the people in charge are just using it to make themselves rich. At least with a regular for-profit corporation, there's some reins on the upper management in the form of shareholders who expect to make money on the venture; not so with a non-profit. Goodwill for instance is famous for making its management rich while paying its employees less than minimum wage due to a legal loophole.
I'm not sure why Google would "give it up as a failed venture".
Because that's common with Google: they decide that some service isn't popular enough, and they shitcan it. Heck, I've even seen Google cancel services I had never even heard about. Yeah, if you don't leave something out there long enough for people to hear about it and try it out, of course it's not going to become super-popular.
The way Google is being run, I expect them to collapse not too long after Facebook dies out.
Email works fine for long messages and really doesn't need yet another incompatible reinvention.
Maybe not, but it really does need a backwards-compatible reinvention. Email is neither reliable nor secure; it was never designed for those things. We could really use a new email infrastructure that guarantees delivery, and which has end-to-end encryption so the NSA can't read all our emails so easily.
Facebook tries to be the broadcast version of email and largely exists because email sucks if you want to share photos and setting up a mailing list is hard for non-techy people (even with Yahoo / Google groups).
Both of these show more reasons why email needs to be redesigned. And from what I'm seeing with Yahoo Groups, using that doesn't really work anymore either because Yahoo has botched up that service so badly with their "NEO" redesign.
It also has burned a lot of working people, when their employer saw something on FB they didn't like and fired them. I know at least one person this happened to.
It's "dead" in the same sense that MySpace and AOL are "dead", it just hasn't gotten as far-gone as those two, yet. It's headed there. All the teens and early 20-somethings have abandoned it, and that means it's going to go the way of AOL in the future. The question is, how quickly? These young people aren't going to change their mind in 5-10 years and come back to it in droves.
The Tea Party doesn't stand for reducing the national debt or budget deficit any more. It started out as a populist movement with those goals, but it was hijacked by religious nuts and far-right politicians. Do you hear any TP politicians calling for a massive reduction in military spending? Of course not. You can't be simultaneously in favor of reducing the budget and maintaining military spending.
Slashdot Mirror
Not a good idea; it'll probably be taken down by Google sometime in the near future. I've never heard of Keep, and I've noticed that Google frequently discontinues products I haven't heard of, so I expect to see an announcement any day now, now that I've heard of it thanks to you, that Google Keep is being shut down as it wasn't popular enough.
Relying on any Google product for long-term use is a bad idea for this reason alone, unless it's one of their extremely core products (search, mail, maps).
No, if you want to meet single women, you have to find the "beginner's" or less-strenuous hikes. You're probably not going to meet many women at the advanced, technical hikes. I don't like the 20-milers either; 5 miles is good for me, 10 is the absolute max. People don't go on the fast-paced hikes to chit-chat and meet people. Just join all the hiking (or general outdoors) meetups in your area, and ignore the hikes that say "no beginners", "fast paced, no sweeper", "advanced", have a huge elevation change, etc. Here in NJ, there's a bunch of groups that are "hiking" groups but don't do anything very strenuous.
Aha: the 5GHz thing might be your problem. 5GHz has poorer range and is more attenuated by walls than 2.4GHz. I'm only using 2.4, so I'm not seeing these problems.
Actually, I just thought of something for you: have you tried Meetup.com? Around my area, there's tons of hiking/outdoor groups on Meetup, and a lot of people (of all ages) seem to use these hiking groups as singles mixers. You don't have to be single to go on hikes, but a lot of the people I meet on there seem to be. I've met lots of older (50+) women on the hikes I've been on.
Well we're talking about Linux here, not Windows, so Windows security problems aren't really relevant (though another post here says that Windows does essentially the same thing, storing WiFi passwords unencrypted in the registry).
But still, if someone on the internet hacks your system and gets your WiFi password, what good does that do them? They have to physically travel to your home to do anything with it. And even there, what is that going to gain them that they don't already have, since they've apparently hacked into your system?
Being recently divorced (last year), I started poking around at the various dating sites. Let's see, I don't smoke, I effectively don't drink alcohol (one beer a year doesn't make me a "drinker"), I'm a gamer (you'd be amazed at the number of women who think gamers are "childish"), and I'm not into sports (lots of women who go to football/baseball/hockey games). I do like going hiking in the mountains, snowshoes, skiing, I like bicycling. But I'm not a fitness fanatic which also eliminated quite a few women. I'm not religious which eliminated a few more.
Some of this stuff varies a lot by region (or proximity to a major city), but I hear you. I'm the same way on much of it (except the gaming part, and I do drink a half-glass of wine now and then, though again nothing approaching drunkenness, so not much of a "drinker"), and I've always found it difficult to meet women and to keep them interested. There do seem to be an absurd number of women interested in sports online from what I've seen, and sometimes I wonder if they say that just to attract men who like sports. And yes, lots of women seem to be very religious, much moreso than men. I've heard before of churches where single women outnumber single men 10-to-1, with the single men being weirdos with handlebar mustaches, and the preacher telling the single women not to date outside that church or else they're "unequally yoked".
Amusingly on my birthday (hit 56),
This is probably part of your problem. I hate to say it, but you're too old for online dating: women in your age group aren't very internet-savvy, unlike the 20- and 30-somethings. The women you'd be interested in might use Facebook to keep up with their kids and grandkids, but that's about it.
There's a couple of problems here. 1) OKC doesn't have any way of blocking or filtering out people with kids, which apparently you're not open to (which is fine, it's a valid choice as a single man, esp. if you're younger; it gets unrealistic as you get older). From what I've seen, they only let you block people's messages if they're too far away from you. It'd be nice if there were more controls this way to block out people with deal-breakers (smoking, etc.) 2) There's no way for OKC to tell if someone is financially/emotionally unstable that I can think of. I don't even know how you would tell this about someone before meeting them in person and getting to know them, unless they're brazenly hitting you up for money when they first message you.
I seldom see drop-dead gorgeous female engineers or scientists.
That's because smart and gorgeous women know that those professions are underpaid and undervalued in Western (particularly American) society, so they avoid them (they also want to avoid all the sexual harassment). Instead, these women go into the medical field. I've met several nearly drop-dead gorgeous female physicians. And they certainly get better pay and better job security than I do as an engineer, while not being surrounded by creepy men or brogrammers.
Totally wrong. Arrogance and lying actually work really well for many men. Those men get laid a lot more than the honest and humble men. You can debate whether it's worth it in the long term or not (he might be stuck with multiple child-support payments in his 40s), but it is a winning reproductive and dating strategy.
Looks are pretty much unimportant, or rather if you are halfway sane you do not want to date anybody looking like a "supermodel". It either comes with neuroses or a huge ego not justified by anything.
There's a big difference between only dating supermodels and refusing to date someone who's extremely unattractive (for instance, morbidly obese). A lot of men avoid overly-attractive women as they assume they're "high maintenance", and look for women in the next tier down (the "girl next door" type); they want someone who's attractive, but not so beautiful that they're going to be a PITA and have those neuroses you talk of (and demand he spend all kinds of money on her so she can have weekly spa treatments, ridiculously expensive designer clothes, etc.). This doesn't mean they're willing to date a woman who's 300 pounds.
Looks are important: if you're not at all physically attracted to someone, you're not going to have an easy time maintaining a romantic relationship with them. For men, you may have serious problems "getting it up" if you don't find the woman at least somewhat attractive.
What we need is an algorithm to convince people to lower their expectations when they're unattractive, boring, unmannerly, old, poor and/or cheap, have baggage, etc.
The problem here is that there's no way for an algorithm to know these things about someone. No one puts on their online dating profile, "I'm a cheap-ass, I have terrible manners, and I still have issues about my ex-wife even though we divorced 15 years ago." They only put the good parts. They even dress up the photos, like showing only their face in particular artful poses if they're obese, so you can't easily tell that from the photos.
If someone has physical access to your drive, you have much, much worse problems than someone sniffing your WiFi traffic. To do this, someone has trespassed into your house. I'm much more concerned with strangers stomping around my living room than I am about someone sniffing my WiFi traffic.
Why do you have two APs? WiFi penetrates to adjacent floors on a typical residential home with no trouble. I have a 3-story (including the basement) house with my AP on the middle floor, and I have no connectivity problems at all. The problem with WiFi is line-of-sight distance; if your house is a giant 6000sf McMansion and is really spread out, you could have a problem, but as long as you're not far away from the AP it should be fine.
I'll spell it out for you, idiot, because you and the other Obamabots are obviously too fucking stupid to understand if I don't: no one is required to have a car. So no one is required to have auto insurance. The government regulates lots of voluntary activities because of the need for safety: if you run a farm and sell food, they have regulations about how you can safely grow and process that food, so no one gets sick and dies from your food. If you build cars, they have regulations about how safe your cars must be so people don't get killed in fender-benders in your cars. If you run financial services companies, they have regulations to make sure people aren't throwing their money away and thus harming the economy (too bad Obama doesn't believe in actually enforcing those laws, but I'm sure the Obamabots like you have some lame excuses for this). None of these things are required of everyone or involuntary; they only affect you if you decide to start companies and go into these industries. Most citizens, who are just employees, will never be affected by these requirements, except for the auto insurance requirement. Instead, when the government required something of citizens, they normally make it a government service, to make sure some private company isn't being enriched unjustly. Everyone has to get a government ID for instance (which is frequently, but not always, combined with driver's licensing; not everyone drives, so those people just get a government ID): to get one, they go to a government office (usually called "DMV") and pay a small fee. This was true until Obamacare, which now requires everyone, no matter what, to buy insurance from a private corporation and thus enrich that corporation.
No one is required to own a car or drive. Clothing is the only thing the government actually requires you to purchase, and that's pretty hard to get around in most places anyway because you'll get hypothermia if you're outside for too long without it, at least during some parts of the year.
auto insurance is mandatory in all states, isn't it?
No, it's not. Come over here to Manhattan and ask some people on the street if they have auto insurance.
Are you really that stupid?
I live next door to tens of millions of people who don't have a driver's license (or liability insurance): they live in NYC.
What is it with morons like the OP who trot out the liability insurance thing every time this comes up? Lots of people don't have cars.
Either you support democracy or you don't.
So is genocide OK in your mind as long as a majority of voters vote for it?
It's a non-profit organization
What does that have to do with anything? Lots of non-profit organizations have directors and executives who are paid obscene amounts of money. Non-profits are in fact, frequently scams themselves, because naive people like you see the "non-profit" moniker and assume that they must be doing something holy or wholesome, when in fact the people in charge are just using it to make themselves rich. At least with a regular for-profit corporation, there's some reins on the upper management in the form of shareholders who expect to make money on the venture; not so with a non-profit. Goodwill for instance is famous for making its management rich while paying its employees less than minimum wage due to a legal loophole.
I'm not sure why Google would "give it up as a failed venture".
Because that's common with Google: they decide that some service isn't popular enough, and they shitcan it. Heck, I've even seen Google cancel services I had never even heard about. Yeah, if you don't leave something out there long enough for people to hear about it and try it out, of course it's not going to become super-popular.
The way Google is being run, I expect them to collapse not too long after Facebook dies out.
Email works fine for long messages and really doesn't need yet another incompatible reinvention.
Maybe not, but it really does need a backwards-compatible reinvention. Email is neither reliable nor secure; it was never designed for those things. We could really use a new email infrastructure that guarantees delivery, and which has end-to-end encryption so the NSA can't read all our emails so easily.
Facebook tries to be the broadcast version of email and largely exists because email sucks if you want to share photos and setting up a mailing list is hard for non-techy people (even with Yahoo / Google groups).
Both of these show more reasons why email needs to be redesigned. And from what I'm seeing with Yahoo Groups, using that doesn't really work anymore either because Yahoo has botched up that service so badly with their "NEO" redesign.
You might as well be arguing with a wall. The OP is obviously an American.
It also has burned a lot of working people, when their employer saw something on FB they didn't like and fired them. I know at least one person this happened to.
It's "dead" in the same sense that MySpace and AOL are "dead", it just hasn't gotten as far-gone as those two, yet. It's headed there. All the teens and early 20-somethings have abandoned it, and that means it's going to go the way of AOL in the future. The question is, how quickly? These young people aren't going to change their mind in 5-10 years and come back to it in droves.
The Tea Party doesn't stand for reducing the national debt or budget deficit any more. It started out as a populist movement with those goals, but it was hijacked by religious nuts and far-right politicians. Do you hear any TP politicians calling for a massive reduction in military spending? Of course not. You can't be simultaneously in favor of reducing the budget and maintaining military spending.