What you have just said is tantamount to saying this:
"I'm not smart enough to figure it out and if I was then the first thing I'd do is shoot myself in the foot because I want to be the boss of me. You're not the boss of me!"
You *can* (fairly easily) do each and everything you're complaining that you can't do. It's not even difficult. That you don't know how to is a good indicator that you're unqualified to do so. However, if you want to do so then you can - it just means that you're an idiot. It is not complicated - I know how to do it (at least I know the process) and I'm not even an OS X user.
Sure, it is a fine sentiment to want to be in control. And you can be. You're just not qualified to be. We can tell you're not qualified to be. If you were, you'd know how to do this.
Now that has to get annoying after a while. I donated a sizable amount when I sold and they've been begging ever since. I get much, much more email from them than I did prior - though I don't think I signed up for anything new and the volume of snail mail is much greater. I do get the newsletter, and I did before, but now I get more than just the newsletter. I can unsubscribe to that but I'm not sure if that will take care of the rest - those don't have an "unsubscribe" link at the bottom.
I think that means that you should probably never, ever, donate - unless you want the volume to increase. If it's every other day, it'll probably be every day if you donate. Sadly, I'm not kidding.
As an aside, I didn't know you'd earned your Ph.D. When people introduce me as Doctor, I end up getting asked medical questions - way too often for it to be unique. A few times have been frustrating enough that I've given them "medical advice." Back when I was still gainfully employed, I'd considered giving them my work number and telling them to schedule an appointment. As you are still working, you might want to get creative and take advantage of that. Your spouse is bound to have some stupid friends and dinner parties - I highly recommend such a time and place for experimenting with that. "Oh gosh! I have to tell you, that looks deadly!" How much disruption you cause with this is up to you and how willing you are to irritate your spouse but I'm sure there's some wiggle room in there.
There you go again. You seem confused as to who the customer is and, by extension, who gets the prioritized attention and care. (Hint: It's not the people who have 'user' accounts.)
Meh, their taxes are so high they just write it off or write it down - if it's already covered and they can not reduce their tax burden any further then they just defer it or push it to a "wholly owned subsidiary" that is in a different country and reduce their burden there. They have (and continue to make) gobs of cash and have a whole lot of assets.
> If I press really hard during those, it almost stings a tiny bit.
Err... I can save you the expense of a doctor's visit! It's stinging because, you know, you're pressing really hard. Just a guess. Don't do that and the problem will go away.
"Doctor, it hurts when I hit myself with a hammer." "Don't hit yourself with a hammer."
That'll be $50 and schedule a follow-up in six months with the secretary out front.
Disclaimer: I am, technically, a doctor. I am not a medical doctor. Consult a qualified medical professional before deciding to stop pressing on an old injury really hard to see if it stings. My daughter is a real medical doctor. She is not my doctor. She probably is not your doctor unless you're a child in a trauma/intensive care unit.
Opera, Vivaldi, and (I think) most browsers based on Chromium use the same extensions so it may work with other browsers but probably isn't directly supported. I don't imagine there will be much problem using it with any of them unless it has Chrome-specific hooks that I'm unaware of. For example, I've yet to find any extension for Chrome that did not also work with Opera.
I used to need an extension to import them easily but I could always unpack them, enter developer mode, and add them that way. The Opera extension allows me to just click on them and install them like normal (but needing to still manually enable them). I'm pretty sure that they've now changed this so that they just work without needing the extra extension but I have to be honest and say that I've not actually checked that out as there aren't any Chrome-only extensions that I use.
That's a good question and the AC has not returned to tell you. I'm a bit curious as to why they'd say such a thing. I might be a bit biased but I'm just not seeing any real reason to complain about MIT. Well, not any major reasons. They're pretty aggressive with asking alumni for financial assistance but I'm told that's common - except MIT is pretty damned spamy about it. I sent them a bunch when I sold, they've been begging ever since. *sighs* It works more often than it probably should.
I don't have anything to compare it to. I've also not kept track. I'd guess that they average one serious plea each month and there's a mention in most communications. I probably give in once out of every six requests. I could unsubscribe and just not open snail mail. I'm a sucker, they're hardly impoverished. I know, I've seen their finances.
These appear to be ads. Ads for politicians. "Promotions." What makes this different is, as near as I can tell, it's never been easier than this to buy a politician.
Try OED. It's still a word. Expand the refreshed thread if you can't see my prior response. It's just not in common usage. Which is one of the reasons to use things like Wiktionary. I guess you could argue with OED, if you want? My prior response includes a citation or, better, it gives a couple of hints as to how to access the site.
Hmm...
hertsb0000xxxxx
Change the "x" to a five digit number. If the first couple don't work, try again - bad luck and you've (maybe) picked on that's already in use and they've changed the settings. There are alternative prefixes.
hertsb - is the library identifier. 0000xxxxx is library card number.
Err... You need a "library card" for that. Maybe. They're easy to "hack."
Impuled: Etymology: < impulse n. or < Latin impuls- , participial stem of impellre to impel v.; compare obsolete French impulser.
trans. To give an impulse to; to impel; to instigate. Also intr.
Citation: "impulse, v.". OED Online. December 2015. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/... (accessed March 07, 2016).
Note the citation says 'impulse' but look at the URL. It hasn't been updated since 1869. According to their little image, it's not a frequently used word. I did have to poke at the formatting. Slashdot ate some of it. It also made me use HTML entities for < characters. Mouse over the URL and you'll see it. If you want, hack an OED account and have all the access you want. (I don't know my library card number, so I am some guy out of Surrey. At least OED thinks I am.)
That's right. I pronounce my name as "Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Beyond, bow when You Gaze Upon Me" and anyone who pronounces it as "David" is wrong!
Err... I actually remember the Slashdot thread. Other than some who haven't got a clue or refuse to get a clue, everyone that opined said he was full of shit. I think my dog even farted upon hearing the news. I believe that the majority even speculated that he was saying it for attention.
So, you might be right? People might want to refer back to the original thread and point out that they were witty and just knew it was a hoax, and for attention, all along. Of course, that'd not be much better than me speculating that Trump's going to say something to piss off the Democrats in his second-to-next campaign speech. I'd probably be right, but I sure as hell won't be intelligent for having said so and being right.
Pretty much. I think McAfee is awesome and we've got a few things in common - including a love of South America (and I'll leave it at that). However, he's a lunatic. We might also have that in common but my shrink assures me that I'm sane.
At any rate... I've been earnestly asked why I'd not vote for him as president. At the time, I said (I was being polite) that I figured he should start with a lower office and demonstrate capability because he hadn't yet shown any capacity to be a politician. In hindsight, I should have said I couldn't vote for him, even if I wanted to, because the country shouldn't be run by lunatics.
If you read this John, you're a great person and I'm in Florida right now - we should hang out and I'll be here until spring. But, seeing as you're reading this, I really can't support your candidacy 'cause you're a lunatic. Don't take that the wrong way, but you are. Live with it, revel in it, and shine on you crazy diamond. But no, no you can't be in charge of the country - yet. Start with governor or some small State or Senate or something. It's great to shoot for the moon but you don't have a shot in hell - 'cause you're a lunatic. We'll vote for a lunatic so long as they're a good (we think) and likable politician.
Muros' link is perfect. Note, it's important to read all of it. As the robe and wizard hat make multiple appearances. Two, to be exact. However, the whole thing is fantastic. I'm gonna read it again.
I have done quite a bit of reading. I wouldn't say that it's over-hyped so much as it's poorly understood. It's a bit like science and science journalism, at least as near as I can tell.
Hmm... As I mentioned in an above post, one of the things that I've read was a paper that did indicate some value. In theory, at least, one can use quantum computing to ensure there's no MitM attack/interception. So, the communication (as a process) might be secured.
I am a mathematician but I am not a cryptologist, not even remotely. I am also a bit of a geek with some extensive computer knowledge that includes things like securing (hardening really, nothing is ever secure so long as it is functional) computers and networks, though such was a matter of necessity and not an academic pursuit.
One of the things that has intrigued me is how, exactly, we'll be able to secure our data once quantum computing becomes widely available at reasonable costs. I've read a few papers about how we can (maybe!) ensure an uninterrupted stream, for example. Yet, not long after reading any of those papers, I return to them thinking that there's probably going to be a way around those checks.
I've pondered the math that's going to need to be done, I'm not a theoretical maths type of guy and prefer more practical applications for my own needs, and I'm really not sure how we're going to be able to do it unless we're truly able to achieve true-random. (And I do not mean pseudo-random, it's a bit philosophical.) I'm not sure that I haven't overlooked something, I am not a crypto-geek. However, it's fine mental bubble-gum.
I was alive in 1972, albeit just 15. I attended a fairly well-to-do preparatory school. At that school we actually had a connection with a distant university, a forerunner of the Internet. I was not nearly as interested in computers then as I am today, but that's okay because I'm not professing to be an expert on the subject.
What I am saying is that if there were any serious talk about quantum computers in 1972 then there's a good chance I'd have heard about it. I was (and still am) an avid fan of science fiction and I don't even recall reading about any quantum computing in science fiction, at that time. Granted, there are still vast numbers of bodies of work that I've not read. Again, I don't claim to be an expert on the subject.
So, if you don't mind... Who was telling you, in 1972, that quantum computers were five years away? I recall Feynman talking about it in the early 80s and I want to say that he wasn't quite the first but one of the first to theorize about them. There was some ado about them in a very specific task, as I recall, a few years prior to 1972 but that was not something that anyone was proposing would be in just five years.
As near as I remember, even Feynman was cautious about such - including his concepts of nano-technology and, in the early/mid-1980s was postulating that such were, "50 years out, at least." One of his lectures, a neat one by the way, had horribly drawn machines comprised of just a few atoms and the machines were doing replication and building smaller machines out of atoms. I'm just a layperson, or so I claim and believe, but I'm going to add that his time-frame estimates might not be all that far off.
Anyhow, if anyone was saying that they were five years away, in 1972, you were either listening to crazy people or are taking things woefully out of context. The device proposed (maybe even built) in the late 1960s was so different from this as to be an entirely different concept. I do not recall any serious speculations about a time-frame until the mid/late-2000s but, again, I am not an expert on the subject.
I have a house in PCB, Florida. I am at it right now. I've even got my own private beach and live rather close to a few gated communities and things like that.
I'm not going to nitpick but I will take a minute to point out that this behavior you describe does not, in fact, appear to be limited by age.
Slashdot Mirror
What you have just said is tantamount to saying this:
"I'm not smart enough to figure it out and if I was then the first thing I'd do is shoot myself in the foot because I want to be the boss of me. You're not the boss of me!"
You *can* (fairly easily) do each and everything you're complaining that you can't do. It's not even difficult. That you don't know how to is a good indicator that you're unqualified to do so. However, if you want to do so then you can - it just means that you're an idiot. It is not complicated - I know how to do it (at least I know the process) and I'm not even an OS X user.
Sure, it is a fine sentiment to want to be in control. And you can be. You're just not qualified to be. We can tell you're not qualified to be. If you were, you'd know how to do this.
Now that has to get annoying after a while. I donated a sizable amount when I sold and they've been begging ever since. I get much, much more email from them than I did prior - though I don't think I signed up for anything new and the volume of snail mail is much greater. I do get the newsletter, and I did before, but now I get more than just the newsletter. I can unsubscribe to that but I'm not sure if that will take care of the rest - those don't have an "unsubscribe" link at the bottom.
I think that means that you should probably never, ever, donate - unless you want the volume to increase. If it's every other day, it'll probably be every day if you donate. Sadly, I'm not kidding.
As an aside, I didn't know you'd earned your Ph.D. When people introduce me as Doctor, I end up getting asked medical questions - way too often for it to be unique. A few times have been frustrating enough that I've given them "medical advice." Back when I was still gainfully employed, I'd considered giving them my work number and telling them to schedule an appointment. As you are still working, you might want to get creative and take advantage of that. Your spouse is bound to have some stupid friends and dinner parties - I highly recommend such a time and place for experimenting with that. "Oh gosh! I have to tell you, that looks deadly!" How much disruption you cause with this is up to you and how willing you are to irritate your spouse but I'm sure there's some wiggle room in there.
No, that's what the HOSTS file is for. Kill Files are different.
> ... your production customers ...
There you go again. You seem confused as to who the customer is and, by extension, who gets the prioritized attention and care. (Hint: It's not the people who have 'user' accounts.)
Meh, their taxes are so high they just write it off or write it down - if it's already covered and they can not reduce their tax burden any further then they just defer it or push it to a "wholly owned subsidiary" that is in a different country and reduce their burden there. They have (and continue to make) gobs of cash and have a whole lot of assets.
Cock, alternating, cycles... I'm pretty sure there's a retort about how your dick hertz in there somewhere.
> If I press really hard during those, it almost stings a tiny bit.
Err... I can save you the expense of a doctor's visit! It's stinging because, you know, you're pressing really hard. Just a guess. Don't do that and the problem will go away.
"Doctor, it hurts when I hit myself with a hammer."
"Don't hit yourself with a hammer."
That'll be $50 and schedule a follow-up in six months with the secretary out front.
Disclaimer: I am, technically, a doctor. I am not a medical doctor. Consult a qualified medical professional before deciding to stop pressing on an old injury really hard to see if it stings. My daughter is a real medical doctor. She is not my doctor. She probably is not your doctor unless you're a child in a trauma/intensive care unit.
> people like to go outside
You do know where you are, right? ;-)
Opera, Vivaldi, and (I think) most browsers based on Chromium use the same extensions so it may work with other browsers but probably isn't directly supported. I don't imagine there will be much problem using it with any of them unless it has Chrome-specific hooks that I'm unaware of. For example, I've yet to find any extension for Chrome that did not also work with Opera.
I used to need an extension to import them easily but I could always unpack them, enter developer mode, and add them that way. The Opera extension allows me to just click on them and install them like normal (but needing to still manually enable them). I'm pretty sure that they've now changed this so that they just work without needing the extra extension but I have to be honest and say that I've not actually checked that out as there aren't any Chrome-only extensions that I use.
That's a good question and the AC has not returned to tell you. I'm a bit curious as to why they'd say such a thing. I might be a bit biased but I'm just not seeing any real reason to complain about MIT. Well, not any major reasons. They're pretty aggressive with asking alumni for financial assistance but I'm told that's common - except MIT is pretty damned spamy about it. I sent them a bunch when I sold, they've been begging ever since. *sighs* It works more often than it probably should.
I don't have anything to compare it to. I've also not kept track. I'd guess that they average one serious plea each month and there's a mention in most communications. I probably give in once out of every six requests. I could unsubscribe and just not open snail mail. I'm a sucker, they're hardly impoverished. I know, I've seen their finances.
> What's new?
These appear to be ads. Ads for politicians. "Promotions." What makes this different is, as near as I can tell, it's never been easier than this to buy a politician.
Try OED. It's still a word. Expand the refreshed thread if you can't see my prior response. It's just not in common usage. Which is one of the reasons to use things like Wiktionary. I guess you could argue with OED, if you want? My prior response includes a citation or, better, it gives a couple of hints as to how to access the site.
Hmm...
hertsb0000xxxxx
Change the "x" to a five digit number. If the first couple don't work, try again - bad luck and you've (maybe) picked on that's already in use and they've changed the settings. There are alternative prefixes.
hertsb - is the library identifier.
0000xxxxx is library card number.
OED lists it as a word. I have no idea if either of these will work:
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/...
http://www.oed.com/search?sear...
Err... You need a "library card" for that. Maybe. They're easy to "hack."
Impuled:
Etymology: < impulse n. or < Latin impuls- , participial stem of impellre to impel v.; compare obsolete French impulser.
trans. To give an impulse to; to impel; to instigate. Also intr.
Citation:
"impulse, v.". OED Online. December 2015. Oxford University Press. http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/... (accessed March 07, 2016).
Note the citation says 'impulse' but look at the URL. It hasn't been updated since 1869. According to their little image, it's not a frequently used word. I did have to poke at the formatting. Slashdot ate some of it. It also made me use HTML entities for < characters. Mouse over the URL and you'll see it. If you want, hack an OED account and have all the access you want. (I don't know my library card number, so I am some guy out of Surrey. At least OED thinks I am.)
I was actually going for a Green Eggs and Ham kind of thing. :-/
That's right. I pronounce my name as "Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Beyond, bow when You Gaze Upon Me" and anyone who pronounces it as "David" is wrong!
Err... I actually remember the Slashdot thread. Other than some who haven't got a clue or refuse to get a clue, everyone that opined said he was full of shit. I think my dog even farted upon hearing the news. I believe that the majority even speculated that he was saying it for attention.
So, you might be right? People might want to refer back to the original thread and point out that they were witty and just knew it was a hoax, and for attention, all along. Of course, that'd not be much better than me speculating that Trump's going to say something to piss off the Democrats in his second-to-next campaign speech. I'd probably be right, but I sure as hell won't be intelligent for having said so and being right.
Pretty much. I think McAfee is awesome and we've got a few things in common - including a love of South America (and I'll leave it at that). However, he's a lunatic. We might also have that in common but my shrink assures me that I'm sane.
At any rate... I've been earnestly asked why I'd not vote for him as president. At the time, I said (I was being polite) that I figured he should start with a lower office and demonstrate capability because he hadn't yet shown any capacity to be a politician. In hindsight, I should have said I couldn't vote for him, even if I wanted to, because the country shouldn't be run by lunatics.
If you read this John, you're a great person and I'm in Florida right now - we should hang out and I'll be here until spring. But, seeing as you're reading this, I really can't support your candidacy 'cause you're a lunatic. Don't take that the wrong way, but you are. Live with it, revel in it, and shine on you crazy diamond. But no, no you can't be in charge of the country - yet. Start with governor or some small State or Senate or something. It's great to shoot for the moon but you don't have a shot in hell - 'cause you're a lunatic. We'll vote for a lunatic so long as they're a good (we think) and likable politician.
That's perfection. I think that's the whole collection. I'm gonna read 'em again. I can't help it. I'm a five year old.
*holds up his hand with his fingers spread* I'm this many years old!
I must be 'cause that's funny as hell.
Muros' link is perfect. Note, it's important to read all of it. As the robe and wizard hat make multiple appearances. Two, to be exact. However, the whole thing is fantastic. I'm gonna read it again.
I have done quite a bit of reading. I wouldn't say that it's over-hyped so much as it's poorly understood. It's a bit like science and science journalism, at least as near as I can tell.
Hmm... As I mentioned in an above post, one of the things that I've read was a paper that did indicate some value. In theory, at least, one can use quantum computing to ensure there's no MitM attack/interception. So, the communication (as a process) might be secured.
I am a mathematician but I am not a cryptologist, not even remotely. I am also a bit of a geek with some extensive computer knowledge that includes things like securing (hardening really, nothing is ever secure so long as it is functional) computers and networks, though such was a matter of necessity and not an academic pursuit.
One of the things that has intrigued me is how, exactly, we'll be able to secure our data once quantum computing becomes widely available at reasonable costs. I've read a few papers about how we can (maybe!) ensure an uninterrupted stream, for example. Yet, not long after reading any of those papers, I return to them thinking that there's probably going to be a way around those checks.
I've pondered the math that's going to need to be done, I'm not a theoretical maths type of guy and prefer more practical applications for my own needs, and I'm really not sure how we're going to be able to do it unless we're truly able to achieve true-random. (And I do not mean pseudo-random, it's a bit philosophical.) I'm not sure that I haven't overlooked something, I am not a crypto-geek. However, it's fine mental bubble-gum.
I was alive in 1972, albeit just 15. I attended a fairly well-to-do preparatory school. At that school we actually had a connection with a distant university, a forerunner of the Internet. I was not nearly as interested in computers then as I am today, but that's okay because I'm not professing to be an expert on the subject.
What I am saying is that if there were any serious talk about quantum computers in 1972 then there's a good chance I'd have heard about it. I was (and still am) an avid fan of science fiction and I don't even recall reading about any quantum computing in science fiction, at that time. Granted, there are still vast numbers of bodies of work that I've not read. Again, I don't claim to be an expert on the subject.
So, if you don't mind... Who was telling you, in 1972, that quantum computers were five years away? I recall Feynman talking about it in the early 80s and I want to say that he wasn't quite the first but one of the first to theorize about them. There was some ado about them in a very specific task, as I recall, a few years prior to 1972 but that was not something that anyone was proposing would be in just five years.
As near as I remember, even Feynman was cautious about such - including his concepts of nano-technology and, in the early/mid-1980s was postulating that such were, "50 years out, at least." One of his lectures, a neat one by the way, had horribly drawn machines comprised of just a few atoms and the machines were doing replication and building smaller machines out of atoms. I'm just a layperson, or so I claim and believe, but I'm going to add that his time-frame estimates might not be all that far off.
Anyhow, if anyone was saying that they were five years away, in 1972, you were either listening to crazy people or are taking things woefully out of context. The device proposed (maybe even built) in the late 1960s was so different from this as to be an entirely different concept. I do not recall any serious speculations about a time-frame until the mid/late-2000s but, again, I am not an expert on the subject.
> do any editing around here?
No, whatever gave you that idea?
> this site is so shit
Yet here you are, rolling in what you believe to be shit. That tells us more about you than it does about the site.
> you get no visitors anymore.
Yet here you are and here I am.
That's three strikes. What else can I find in such a short post?
> you dumb fucking idiots
I'm pretty sure you completely whiffed on that one. The irony is thick. Thick enough to cut with a knife, perhaps.
I have a house in PCB, Florida. I am at it right now. I've even got my own private beach and live rather close to a few gated communities and things like that.
I'm not going to nitpick but I will take a minute to point out that this behavior you describe does not, in fact, appear to be limited by age.