Ok, I've switched to VLC for some time now. But...if VLC is so great, how come it does the following:
I run a video full screen.
The video ends.
I end up with a green window covering 90% of the desktop. It can't be Alt-F4'd. It is forced on top of everything else so I can't even see what is running in Task Manager.
The only way it goes away is I load -- from memory, mind you because the green monster is covering 90% of the screen -- another video in vlc. Then hit escape to get out of full screen. Then hit the stop button.
I wish I was making all of that up.
I'm not.
It is really annoying. And I can't find an answer online.
I was taught this in second year Organic Chemistry...in 1978.
We were told you needed two things: beer and meat pizza. The nitrites were in the meat in the pizza. The beer provided the amines. Combine the two and you get the nitrosamines.
Pretty unforgettable lesson.
BTW, it is not really surprising this is only coming out now. Chicken feed contained an arsenic compound...for forty years.
Some winters back I was shoveling snow around our house (corner lot) and a car comes along. Our intersection's snow had turned to ice. Somehow the guy gets stuck in the intersection. His solution (like his cause) was to gun it.
He polished the ice for several minutes.
People came over to help push.
Finally I went over, got in, put the manual in 2nd, let out the clutch slowly and the car was free in 5 seconds. Only words exchanged were "Let me give it a try".
And further to Bill's "just use another computer" comment...
Yesterday I got slow rolled on YouTube, probably for posting too many comments. As it was the first time it happened to me, I wanted to study it a bit.
I was curious if my most recent comments had been shadow banned so I went on other computers in the house.
We are talking about computers I never log in to, and where the other users are not logged in either.
So I brought up 3 or 4 of the channels I had been commenting on most recently. On two different computers. Not logged in on either, I got the exact same shadow banning on recent videos. Only my recent videos. When I randomly clicked other videos, everything was normal.
FWIW, the form of shadow banning was I could only see my own comments, but no one else's. It would say X,xxx comments, then only show mine.
The behavior went away a short while later.
Still, sure sounds like Google is following me, and in an even worse way than this DuckDuckGo study found.
The reason, in a word? Agadmator. A channel just 18 months old and today it is just a few weeks away from being the largest chess channel on YouTube.
I grew up with an older brother who was rated at the master level while still in high school. He once spotted me a queen and rook, and still won. Easily. That sucked.
My father would spot me a rook, and win. That sucked.
In short, I never liked chess. And most YouTube chess channels did nothing to change that. Most analysts feel like Noam Chomsky.
Then along comes Agadmator. His rise in popularity is as deserved as anyone's. He is loved throughout the world and has helped me to love chess. Finally. After the age of 60.
I would have thought it was impossible.
Today, in our living room, sits a large 4-tall-stool table & chairs thingy...with a chess board built into it.
Why use an app for weather? I type the first 3 letters of my city into Google and the "my city weather" suggestion pops up. Click on that and I get an in-Google summary of weather for the next 10 days. Why go anywhere else?
Typically, for the major movie releases, there is no commentary track. When that comes later, in a special edition, they can make a second sale.
Rentals have always not had commentary tracks. That would encourage people to watch a DVD twice, and that is undesirable.
The less the movie, the more extras. Studios know they have to work harder to peddle higher grades of manure.
Movie extras are essentially unchanged in the last decade, with perhaps a slight trend toward less extras, simply because we have all stopped watching most of them, simply because we are drowning in more TV/video choices than ever.
even a thing like finding a unified model or disproving the standard model isn't necessarily in line with what the Nobel prize is supposed to be awarded for.
The scientific hegemony would never allow any disproving of the Standard Model to occur. Instead it would be "new results" which "extend" it, and may "hint" at "dark matter", "dark energy" and "exotic new particles".
As to a unified physics model not winning, if that doesn't win a Nobel prize in physics it ain't much of a prize, is it?
- - - - -
Nobel specified "greatest benefit on mankind"
My new (and unified) model of physics provides great potential benefit to mankind because it steers physics away from the lunacy of particle smashing & endless star cataloguing, and toward valid models & simulation. With zero tolerance for ludicrous fudge factors. The economic benefit of that would be in the billions (to tens of billions) of dollars a year.
But let's be frank here. The physics shell gamers don't want a unified theory. They have managed to transform a scientific field to a science fiction cash cow and want status quo (or SNAFU) until the end of time.
- - - - -
The Nobel prize has a fairly absurd list of rules that effectively snuff out true innovation.
(1) "Nomination forms are sent by the Nobel Committee to about 3,000 individuals, usually in September the year before the prizes are awarded. These individuals are generally prominent academics working in a relevant area."
So if one is working in a completely new way (i.e. area), then no one else is and so none of the 3,000 will nominate you. In this method the Nobel mirrors the Oscar process. An elite club decides which person becomes part of the elite club.
(2) "The Nobel Committee then prepares a report reflecting the advice of experts in the relevant fields."
Again, true innovations will be specifically avoided by this approach. The Higgs monstrosity will succeed, though.
(3) Why no posthumous award? What does that have to do with anything? Great innovators have families, or at least relatives. What am I missing here?
(4) "Nobel's will provided for prizes to be awarded in recognition of discoveries made "during the preceding year"."
Again, why? If it takes 366 days to figure out how advanced someone was, then too bad? Idiotic.
At least this last one has morphed -- "According to Ralf Pettersson, former chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology or Medicine, "the criterion 'the previous year' is interpreted by the Nobel Assembly as the year when the full impact of the discovery has become evident."
Clearly what is needed is more input from the general public. Not a popularity contest, but at least some way to break through the decades of dust and repetition that cloud the minds of most.
Theorists who prove to be right should be valued about cataloguers.
The "maximum of 3" constraint should be dissolved in battery acid. The cash amount is fixed, and that is enough. If more win, they get less each. Simple.
- - - - -
Radical ways to improve the Nobel process...
(a) If there is no real winner that year, the prize money carries forward to the next year.
(b) People nominated but not winning get an automatic re-nomination the next year.
(c) People from other disciplines get to judge the merits of a nominee. I've found alleged scientists to be the most closed-minded group I deal with on a day-to-day basis. They have found their religion and have turned off the "Welcome" sign. Artists are wide open and often on the same wavelength as myself, because they are creative dreamers with vision. I'm pretty sure the world needs more of those.
Everyone has some experience. Everyone has plenty of advice. Lots of absolutes (like the parent's) come out.
Point number one, always, is to check our assumptions. We assume we know how to code. We assume others know how to code. We assume libraries work as documented. We assume compilers are logical. We assume we are.
Men assume women are logical. Fun ensues.
Kids assume parents are good examples. And waste decades of their lives.
Physics drifts away from the best model for one hundred years. Everyone drifts into the ditch with it.
Little to nothing is learned because...follow the money.
Real problem one in programming / languages is lack of examples. Commands are introduced, and given a 10 line example. And off we run.
Real problem two in programming / languages is lack of incentive to do the right thing for the programmer. Microsoft is famous for its excrement. Because if it actually delivered something that was near perfect, who would ever upgrade?
Real problem three in programming / languages is no one gives a crap. For each person weighing in on this thread, one hundred won't. For each person at least reading this thread, one hundred won't. For each person seeking the best language, one hundred will choose the one that gets them a good job. And then all these randomly compromised and diluted groups are placed under a PHB who is more concerned with breaking things -- by making things "better" -- than anything else.
Given the randomness of this forum, the deliberate trash that passes for programming languages and the throw-away nature of advice, we might as well be asking "What good books have you read this year?" The winner so far for me is "Strange Chemistry". Who knew that Visine and Bengay could be so dangerous?
I was the DESQview guy -- and it was way too unstable for me.
Their system involved a swap that might take...a while...but other than that they could have DevEnv, Compiler (Clipper), BLink, Application all a few keystrokes away.
There was a time when we appreciated a pause here and there. Time for a coffee or bathroom break. Today we drink K-Cups that take 30 seconds to brew, suck a few times on our vape cigarette and we're back to work much too soon.
Agreed. Currently I professionally care for a person that needs 24x7 care. It is a very bohemian situation and they all have a great time drinking and smoking and THCing. Well, I have a great time right along with them and at no time do I wish I was drinking or smoking.
Drinking is like tattoos. One can somewhat justify it during one's teens, but that is about it.
It is not even about how harmful it is, which any LD50 analysis will tell you. It is about how insidious it is -- slowly enslaving you over a period of decades. It is about how harmful it is to newborns -- you haven't lived until you've had to care for a fetal alcohol syndrome person for a year or two -- woo hoo! And it is about the gigantic amounts of money involved in the booze industry that push everyone involved to do the ugliest things.
My dad made homemade wine for decades. Never over-consumed. Profited no one. His consumption was as close to balanced as it gets. But the thing is, his wine tasted awful...because alcohol tastes awful. In every single form. Not to see this is to lie to yourself.
Alcohol is a microcosm of society. All the best lies are said about it. People do the worst possible things to other people because of it. And for what? To be "loose"? Why not just be loose, when the situation dictates it?
While I'm at it, please allow me to take a giant dump on Lifehacker, who promote booze as if it is, in any way shape or form, a life hack. May they die in a pool of their own vomit.
Slashdot Mirror
You want the truth?
We take your privacy and security. Seriously.
Ok, I've switched to VLC for some time now. But...if VLC is so great, how come it does the following:
I run a video full screen.
The video ends.
I end up with a green window covering 90% of the desktop. It can't be Alt-F4'd. It is forced on top of everything else so I can't even see what is running in Task Manager.
The only way it goes away is I load -- from memory, mind you because the green monster is covering 90% of the screen -- another video in vlc. Then hit escape to get out of full screen. Then hit the stop button.
I wish I was making all of that up.
I'm not.
It is really annoying. And I can't find an answer online.
Latest VLC btw.
I was taught this in second year Organic Chemistry...in 1978.
We were told you needed two things: beer and meat pizza.
The nitrites were in the meat in the pizza.
The beer provided the amines.
Combine the two and you get the nitrosamines.
Pretty unforgettable lesson.
BTW, it is not really surprising this is only coming out now. Chicken feed contained an arsenic compound...for forty years.
Come to think of it, 1978+40=2018.
Bias ply tires were replaced radial tires.
Thing is that bias ply tires failed (slipped, when going around a corner too fast) in a progressive way.
Radial tires provided more grip than bias ply tires, right up until they failed completely at providing traction.
You realize a YouTube channel is equal to a TV show, right?
So the comparison would be, say, 5 YouTube videos per hour, times 24 hours per day versus individual TV channels.
So that works out to 120 YouTube channel videos on one TV channel.
That would become the most watched TV channel overnight.
Some winters back I was shoveling snow around our house (corner lot) and a car comes along. Our intersection's snow had turned to ice. Somehow the guy gets stuck in the intersection. His solution (like his cause) was to gun it.
He polished the ice for several minutes.
People came over to help push.
Finally I went over, got in, put the manual in 2nd, let out the clutch slowly and the car was free in 5 seconds. Only words exchanged were "Let me give it a try".
What is the next thing we forget how to do?
I'll bet you didn't read my full comment.
DIFFERENT computer, unrelated to me.
Nobody logged in on it (on YouTube).
And further to Bill's "just use another computer" comment...
Yesterday I got slow rolled on YouTube, probably for posting too many comments. As it was the first time it happened to me, I wanted to study it a bit.
I was curious if my most recent comments had been shadow banned so I went on other computers in the house.
We are talking about computers I never log in to, and where the other users are not logged in either.
So I brought up 3 or 4 of the channels I had been commenting on most recently. On two different computers. Not logged in on either, I got the exact same shadow banning on recent videos. Only my recent videos. When I randomly clicked other videos, everything was normal.
FWIW, the form of shadow banning was I could only see my own comments, but no one else's. It would say X,xxx comments, then only show mine.
The behavior went away a short while later.
Still, sure sounds like Google is following me, and in an even worse way than this DuckDuckGo study found.
The reason, in a word? Agadmator. A channel just 18 months old and today it is just a few weeks away from being the largest chess channel on YouTube.
I grew up with an older brother who was rated at the master level while still in high school. He once spotted me a queen and rook, and still won. Easily. That sucked.
My father would spot me a rook, and win. That sucked.
In short, I never liked chess. And most YouTube chess channels did nothing to change that. Most analysts feel like Noam Chomsky.
Then along comes Agadmator. His rise in popularity is as deserved as anyone's. He is loved throughout the world and has helped me to love chess. Finally. After the age of 60.
I would have thought it was impossible.
Today, in our living room, sits a large 4-tall-stool table & chairs thingy...with a chess board built into it.
That is the answer to the submitter's question.
Almost a penny a person affected seems entirely reasonable.
Why use an app for weather? I type the first 3 letters of my city into Google and the "my city weather" suggestion pops up. Click on that and I get an in-Google summary of weather for the next 10 days. Why go anywhere else?
Like this one?
Video 9,223,372,036,854,775,807 did it.
Because in fact nothing has changed.
Typically, for the major movie releases, there is no commentary track. When that comes later, in a special edition, they can make a second sale.
Rentals have always not had commentary tracks. That would encourage people to watch a DVD twice, and that is undesirable.
The less the movie, the more extras. Studios know they have to work harder to peddle higher grades of manure.
Movie extras are essentially unchanged in the last decade, with perhaps a slight trend toward less extras, simply because we have all stopped watching most of them, simply because we are drowning in more TV/video choices than ever.
And it is Caesar, not Ceasar.
And that printer probably prints on BPA receipts, thus causing a controversy.
You are right, "$5 per hour in expenses" is a ridiculous metric. Which is why no one else uses it.
More typical is a mileage rate. That is ~ 50 cents per mile.
Now imagine driving at Lyft / Uber customer at 60 mph. In one hour your vehicle will have incurred $30 worth of cost, not $5.
The scientific hegemony would never allow any disproving of the Standard Model to occur. Instead it would be "new results" which "extend" it, and may "hint" at "dark matter", "dark energy" and "exotic new particles".
As to a unified physics model not winning, if that doesn't win a Nobel prize in physics it ain't much of a prize, is it?
- - - - -
Nobel specified "greatest benefit on mankind"
My new (and unified) model of physics provides great potential benefit to mankind because it steers physics away from the lunacy of particle smashing & endless star cataloguing, and toward valid models & simulation. With zero tolerance for ludicrous fudge factors. The economic benefit of that would be in the billions (to tens of billions) of dollars a year.
But let's be frank here. The physics shell gamers don't want a unified theory. They have managed to transform a scientific field to a science fiction cash cow and want status quo (or SNAFU) until the end of time.
- - - - -
The Nobel prize has a fairly absurd list of rules that effectively snuff out true innovation.
(1) "Nomination forms are sent by the Nobel Committee to about 3,000 individuals, usually in September the year before the prizes are awarded. These individuals are generally prominent academics working in a relevant area."
So if one is working in a completely new way (i.e. area), then no one else is and so none of the 3,000 will nominate you. In this method the Nobel mirrors the Oscar process. An elite club decides which person becomes part of the elite club.
(2) "The Nobel Committee then prepares a report reflecting the advice of experts in the relevant fields."
Again, true innovations will be specifically avoided by this approach. The Higgs monstrosity will succeed, though.
(3) Why no posthumous award? What does that have to do with anything? Great innovators have families, or at least relatives. What am I missing here?
(4) "Nobel's will provided for prizes to be awarded in recognition of discoveries made "during the preceding year"."
Again, why? If it takes 366 days to figure out how advanced someone was, then too bad? Idiotic.
At least this last one has morphed -- "According to Ralf Pettersson, former chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology or Medicine, "the criterion 'the previous year' is interpreted by the Nobel Assembly as the year when the full impact of the discovery has become evident."
Clearly what is needed is more input from the general public. Not a popularity contest, but at least some way to break through the decades of dust and repetition that cloud the minds of most.
Theorists who prove to be right should be valued about cataloguers.
The "maximum of 3" constraint should be dissolved in battery acid. The cash amount is fixed, and that is enough. If more win, they get less each. Simple.
- - - - -
Radical ways to improve the Nobel process...
(a) If there is no real winner that year, the prize money carries forward to the next year.
(b) People nominated but not winning get an automatic re-nomination the next year.
(c) People from other disciplines get to judge the merits of a nominee. I've found alleged scientists to be the most closed-minded group I deal with on a day-to-day basis. They have found their religion and have turned off the "Welcome" sign. Artists are wide open and often on the same wavelength as myself, because they are creative dreamers with vision. I'm pretty sure the world needs more of those.
These are always humorous comment threads.
Everyone has some experience. Everyone has plenty of advice. Lots of absolutes (like the parent's) come out.
Point number one, always, is to check our assumptions. We assume we know how to code. We assume others know how to code. We assume libraries work as documented. We assume compilers are logical. We assume we are.
Men assume women are logical. Fun ensues.
Kids assume parents are good examples. And waste decades of their lives.
Physics drifts away from the best model for one hundred years. Everyone drifts into the ditch with it.
Little to nothing is learned because...follow the money.
Real problem one in programming / languages is lack of examples. Commands are introduced, and given a 10 line example. And off we run.
Real problem two in programming / languages is lack of incentive to do the right thing for the programmer. Microsoft is famous for its excrement. Because if it actually delivered something that was near perfect, who would ever upgrade?
Real problem three in programming / languages is no one gives a crap. For each person weighing in on this thread, one hundred won't. For each person at least reading this thread, one hundred won't. For each person seeking the best language, one hundred will choose the one that gets them a good job. And then all these randomly compromised and diluted groups are placed under a PHB who is more concerned with breaking things -- by making things "better" -- than anything else.
Given the randomness of this forum, the deliberate trash that passes for programming languages and the throw-away nature of advice, we might as well be asking "What good books have you read this year?" The winner so far for me is "Strange Chemistry". Who knew that Visine and Bengay could be so dangerous?
Crane truck chase scene in T3 used an estimated 1,000 sound segments...and the results were perceived as crashy.
Back in 80s (and 70s) I was watching a ton of video games -- was supposed to be studying but I found something more interesting.
People not understanding the attraction of someone playing video (or pinball) games...probably suck at video (or pinball).
Chop off the decimals 2 at a time, and add back 1 decimal to the answer in the end. That brings those tiny SR fractions down to more manageable sizes.
No molecule can be a point.
An H2O molecule is a bent line.
An atom can be a point.
I was the DESQview guy -- and it was way too unstable for me.
Their system involved a swap that might take...a while...but other than that they could have DevEnv, Compiler (Clipper), BLink, Application all a few keystrokes away.
There was a time when we appreciated a pause here and there. Time for a coffee or bathroom break. Today we drink K-Cups that take 30 seconds to brew, suck a few times on our vape cigarette and we're back to work much too soon.
Agreed. Currently I professionally care for a person that needs 24x7 care. It is a very bohemian situation and they all have a great time drinking and smoking and THCing. Well, I have a great time right along with them and at no time do I wish I was drinking or smoking.
Drinking is like tattoos. One can somewhat justify it during one's teens, but that is about it.
It is not even about how harmful it is, which any LD50 analysis will tell you. It is about how insidious it is -- slowly enslaving you over a period of decades. It is about how harmful it is to newborns -- you haven't lived until you've had to care for a fetal alcohol syndrome person for a year or two -- woo hoo! And it is about the gigantic amounts of money involved in the booze industry that push everyone involved to do the ugliest things.
My dad made homemade wine for decades. Never over-consumed. Profited no one. His consumption was as close to balanced as it gets. But the thing is, his wine tasted awful...because alcohol tastes awful. In every single form. Not to see this is to lie to yourself.
Alcohol is a microcosm of society. All the best lies are said about it. People do the worst possible things to other people because of it. And for what? To be "loose"? Why not just be loose, when the situation dictates it?
While I'm at it, please allow me to take a giant dump on Lifehacker, who promote booze as if it is, in any way shape or form, a life hack. May they die in a pool of their own vomit.
Cheers!