I have no idea if that was, or was not, their motivation but I suppose you can look at it that way. I suppose just renaming it to hosts.bak might work - if file protection service allows it. That or editing the contents... Assuming, of course, the user is smart enough to realize that they've a compromised hosts file.
That is true and, if you remember, there were loads of people who violated their local blue laws that faced successful prosecution. I doubt that I'd be prosecuted but I'd rather avoid anything that sullies the reputation in that particular direction and at this current time.
Are you sure? Here's one mentioning the plan to look through an eyepiece at a Magellan but not the giant honking thing they're making now: http://www.space.com/31079-gia...
I was under the understanding that even the large ones had had an eyepiece attachment. I'll take your word for it (I just pulled that one up from Google) as I am not an astronomer. I just worry that you might not actually know about them and that they actually *do* have 'em. Buggered if I know but I've heard them mentioned in numerous documentaries and recordings of opening ceremonies. (Pretty much the only things I watch are educational in nature, usually documentaries and the things those may lead to by suggested videos.)
Wait... You said, "wicked good." I'm not there and won't be until spring, nor am I (technically) a native, but my home is in Maine. I sometimes here the "wicked good" as far south as Massachusetts. Once in a while I hear a non-native say it. Sometimes I hear it as far off as Vermont and I hear it in New Hampshire quite a bit.
But, most of the time, it's a Mainah. Ayuh. Maine, being home of the "wicked good," does not have many Slashdot users though your name rings a bell. Perchance, are you a Mainer and I've forgotten? And yes, I have a "house" here but my "home" is in Maine. I have a few houses that belong only to me and only one of them is home.
Anyhow, sorry for the OT reply but I get curious. I also figure the thread's a couple of days old now so it should be all good.
The quote is "liberties" and that is essential. You have lost no freedoms. I'll explain...
You have the freedom to kill me. You are not at liberty to do so. If I threaten your life, you have the right to kill me.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
You might be familiar with another one?
Give me liberty or give me death.
Or, if you'd like a good understanding of the difference and how people don't really seem to understand that the two words aren't really interchangeable:
Live free or die.
While that might not seem important, it's vital. It is of great importance to understand the difference(s) between the words. Freedom is taken by physical force. If you are incarcerated, you have lost your freedom - but you still have some rights. If you are incarcerated, you may get be at liberty to take advantage of those rights. Unless you are physically restricted, you have not lost your freedom.
Yeah, they have sensors that exceed human capacity but that doesn't mean that I'd not like to spend some time at an attached eyepiece. The telescope we had at school (I went to Kents Hill - it's a preparatory school in Central Maine and was what inspired me to return and retire to Maine) had an eyepiece and a camera attachment. (This was in the early 1970s.)
The modern ones are all just grabbed with sensors and no eyeballs are directly used any more but I understand that all the big telescopes do actually have eyepieces that they can attach. You've got to be some special to get access to them as there are some serious time constraints and they're highly sought time slots on some (all?) of them - especially the major or specialist ones.
I will have to look. It'd be kind of neat if they gave public access via the web - to real time results. No, obviously the general public wouldn't be able to control it but watching the real time results (perhaps with some sort of scheduling so you could see what was going to be done in the future) as the data came in, in real time or with a slight delay. It shouldn't be hard to push it to a caching server and then just give the public access. I've wanted to be able to see the live data feed since the Hubble went up and then was really keen on the idea when it got fixed.:/
That said, the telescope was pretty new when I got there. I think it had only been installed a few years prior to my arrival but I don't recall the dates or anything. I do remember that it was in the Dunn Science building. It was named after the alumni who donated the money for the construction. I believe that, since that date, they've actually made a number of discoveries in their astronomy department. It's a pretty decent academic environment and I gained a lot by attending. They stay on campus and have good educational facilities as well as some interesting sports facilities. They have their own giant ice arena and alpine ski slope, complete with a lift now. (It used to be a tow lift, now it's a chair lift.)
It's not a prohibitively expensive place but merit is an important factor for entrance. Some anonymous donor has done well for themselves and has set up a trust which has enabled merit and income based scholarships at the current rate of three students per year. I'd speculate that the anonymous donor would be quite pleased to find out that a child of a Slashdot member had applied for and been granted a scholarship. Of course, that's just speculation as they prefer their anonymity but that'd give a child access to a nice observatory and telescope as well as all the other facilities and a nice education.
Ah - I just checked. The observatory was earlier - the telescope went in in 1972. You can read a bit about it here: http://www.kentshill.org/page....
So, the observatory was built a few years earlier and it was the telescope that was added a little while later. That kind of matches my memories so I'll assume their published history is correct. I'm guessing that more pictures can be found online or, if you're close enough, you could just drive by and see it. That's probably not an option. But, if someone applied for and was granted entrance with a scholarship they'd be able to see it daily or when they dropped their kids off.
I have no idea what it is you're actually trying to say. I'm not sure that you actually read (and understood) my post. For example, I did not advocate violence. Nowhere in my post did I even remotely indicate that I was suggesting a violent solution? So, I have no idea what you mean when you say, "If it would be like you say..." It is like I said. I'd also prefer that they were tried and sentenced in an impartial court of law in the world courts but that's extremely unlikely as I have no control over such things.
At any rate, if you'd be so kind as to tell me what it is you think I said then we might be able to actually communicate. I've access to machine translation if English is not your native language. I've no idea who you are but, if you're willing to take some advice, it might be prudent to consider avoiding assumptions in the future such as assuming that I am connotations included with using violence to stop violence. I have no idea where you even came up with an idea like that. Hell, I even went so far as to point out that I *disagreed* with the OP AC. That person, not me, is potentially advocating violence. I, on the other hand, have done no such thing. Pointing out reality does not make me agree that it is as it should be nor does it mean that I hold any particular opinion about it unless I expressly state such.
Trust me on this one... If I hold an opinion, I've either mentioned it or I will mention it. You don't really have to guess, assume, project, or surmise my opinion because I'm more than happy to share my opinion. You don't need to add things that I did not say, I say what I mean and mean what I say. (That does not mean that I don't make mistakes. I'll add that so you don't feel obligated to assume that I think I am without error.) In fact, you don't even need to guess my sentiments on this subject because I have a pretty big comment history that should be indicative of my held opinions or state said opinions outright.
If you've something salient, I'd be more than happy to have a conversation. However, do try to not read into what I say and make assumptions. Chances are very good that you'll make the wrong assumptions. It's hardly conducive to good communication to do so and text is notably poor at conveying tone.
Yeah, it doesn't like it if you do the U+12345 type of method but they like it just fine if you use the layout. The subject bar seems to work the same - except it counts the characters in the HTML entity towards the character count limit. In the body it doesn't matter but if you look at the resulting HTML it's using the entity instead of the character itself - just like in the subject bar, it's just not counted against a total.
If there's a limit to character counts in the body, I've not met it. I guess I could test for it. I just might do that the next time I'm that bored. However, when you hit reply and then hit quote parent, it converts then back to what the original poster used. That sentence is as clear as a mud-puddle when I read it.
So, that's still about as clear as mud. Yeah, that's as good as it's gonna get as for an explanation for me. I'm just not that articulate.;-) It's also just an observation and I have no idea why. It also seems to matter if you copy/paste but not always and I've not yet figured out the mechanism for that. I've just not yet been that bored. It could happen but I'm pretty sure that entropy is my natural state so it's a bit unlikely. I only discovered the above because I'd seen the very truncated subject lines that contained the ampersand. That was enough to overcome my lethargy.
Like you alluded to, 'snot our problem. It's whipslash's problem now and I wish 'em luck with it.
If you use a browser based on Chromium (I use Opera) you can just copy the URL, paste it into the address bar, and change http:/// to cache:// so, in this case, it is: cache://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/05/the-future-of-astronomy-the-giant-25-meter-magellan-telescope/#68d3f8536899
It takes a minute but both scripts and ads are blocked. It probably wouldn't take a whole lot to automatically do that using GreaseMonkey. I've never tried it but I imagine I can hack someone's script into one that works here. I imagine it's not much more complicated then doing a find/replace from https://www.forbes/ to cache://forbes* and maybe adding a few more just in case they decide to drop the www on the links?
At any rate, it automatically resolves (if cached - and the Forbes links usually are) to the appropriate URL at Google. It also means that Forbes doesn't get to count the traffic and they don't get any ad revenue because you can still do your ad blocking. I guess Forbes could stop Google or block them from caching via the robots.txt but that seems like a drastic step for them to take.
Alternatively, they could just stop serving malware and using stupid scripts. If they want to block me from visiting then I'll respect their wishes and not visit with an ad blocker. I'll not circumvent their scripts at all. I'll just get it another way - by way of Google.
Not necessarily? I just watched the TED talk that was presented by the lady who is kind of in charge of the GMT. I think you're correct, given her verbiage, but we might still be able to detect something. She said that if someone were to light a candle on the moon that the telescope would be able to detect it. Another metric given was that at 200 miles away, you'll be able to clearly make out the face on a quarter. I suspect that you're still correct in that they won't get the resolution they're expecting but they might be able to make out something - adaptive optics and whatnot might help that to some extent.
Probably salient, the particular verbiage used. She didn't say they'd be able to see the candle but that they'd be able to "detect it." What that means, exactly, is not something that I know. I also lack the expertise to speculate on the clarity. But, I suppose, perhaps they'll be able to make out some of the larger items that were left behind? I really have no idea and only know what I know 'cause I watched the TED talk.
Also, I'm not sure what the value of that would be. The goal is to look at things with scientific value with the telescope and there are surely time constraints. There's limited value in it when we've already got the ability to look at it with closer telescopes. Not even the Hubble can see the landing sites but this is supposed to be significantly higher resolution. If I understand correctly, it's the size and the added light that they're able to collect.
*snickers* Truncated. 50 characters is the max, if I recall correctly. Yes, yes I do suffer for insomnia and the curiosity of a cat. I was curious one late night and counted 'em. Being an insomniac (and hating the way the sleeping pills make me feel when I wake up) and being curious does have some benefits. I'm not entirely sure that counting characters is a benefit -- but this was a curious finding:
There's an oddity with the character count. If you use the "&" character, it's supplanted by the HTML entity (which, oddly, contains the ampersand) and the entity is counted against the limit. So, it is "& amp;" (sans spaces) to make & which is four extra characters, or counts as five characters against the fifty character limit.
** No, using the target="_blank" does not work so that will open in the same tab/window, even if I told it to open in a new window/tab. No, I have no idea why that is stripped out.
I'll give 'em all the acreage they want in NW Maine and let 'em flatten a mountain top to do it. I ask only that they pipe a feed to my house via fiber and occasionally let me take a peek out of it. However, I'm pretty sure they don't want to put it there considering that it's up above the 45th and the mountains aren't exactly very tall as glaciers have worn 'em to stumps over the years.
And no, there are no glaciers currently in Maine. Yes, yes I have been asked that question.
At school, we had a tiny (compared to those) telescope in the observatory. I think it's just a 10" telescope? I used to get stoned and go play in the observatory but I never took any astronomy courses. 'Twas in the Dunn Science Building. I should think it would be kind of fun to use one of these giant ones but I'm damned near positive that they'll never let me have so much as a peek out of one. I'm also positive that I'd have no idea how to use it nor would I know what I was looking at without guidance.
I suspect that any site, with sufficient content/activities, can be used in lieu of Facebook. Hell, one could say that the internet could be used instead of just narrowing it down to one site.
As it is 0400 and I'm still awake. I do not even have a Facebook account.
Yeah, I like Linux just fine. Hell, I like most any OS but I don't think I'd like Windows 10 much - simply because off means off. Now, if they asked then I'd probably let them have the data. Don't get me wrong, I would let them have the data 'cause I really don't mind and I'm not doing top-secret stuff on my computer. However, if they're not respecting that decision, what else aren't they respecting?
No, I don't mind telemetry. I mind a lack of respect.
Linux works just fine for a home user. Unless you're trying to play with the OS itself, it just works. In theory, you shouldn't even really need to interact with the OS much and these days that's even less. These days, most people interact with not much more than a web browser at home. (We are not most people.)
Assuming you're not just kidding, I... I... I don't know if that means I need to get out more or if that means I should do no such thing!:/ Do they mean like regular dairy consumption is bad for you or consumption of absurd amounts is bad for you? Do I really want to know? I'm not even gonna Google that.
Heh, I saw the writing on the wall and stopped playing with them fairly early on. However, I'd mined a stack of 'em. 48, I think? I didn't want to pay the taxes on the income and I didn't want to be associated with them in a manner that I might have to account for later, so simply avoided the taxes and donated them all to EFF over the period of a month and a half. Yeah, they were stupidly high value when I donated them too. I figured they might as well be worth it for EFF. At this point, social stigma prevents my association really.
For now, they're associated with crime - perhaps improperly but that doesn't change the fact that they are. That and I'd rather just avoid the taxes. Who knows what kind of impact it would have had to cash 'em out. Taxes are already a complicated thing and it's not entirely clear (or wasn't - I don't think it is yet) exactly how they'd be taxed. So, off they went to EFF. I'm sure they had more use for them than I and I like EFF. I might have split them with the ACLU but the ACLU did not take BTC at the time. I'm not sure if they accept it now.
LOL Except Windows 10 doesn't actually use the hosts file for this. They're hard-coded IP addresses and you can't block them with the hosts file. You can add 'em all you want, it won't help. Folks have shown video of this. They've added the domains to the hosts file and then used Wireshark (that's what the interface looked like, as I recall) and there's still outbound communication with the very same IP addresses at the very same level. Nope, hosts isn't gonna cut it.
I don't think I've ever once said this -- or anything like it. But, it's seemingly reached that point. I guess, if I'm going to say it, I should make it a point to say it differently, perhaps better, than others. So...
If you have to go through all of that just to have your OS behave the way you tell it to behave, if you have to use hardware to stop your computer from doing what you tell it to do, if you have to work to keep things from the OS vendor, then do you *really* trust the OS at all? Do you really feel so compelled to use it?
That said, I don't use Windows. If I were using Windows, I'd leave the telemetry data enabled. Yes, I'd let them collect that data - knowingly and willfully. I'd rather they have my data (it's seemingly anonymous and they've a decent history at keeping that data in their own hands and a vested interest in keeping that data for themselves) about my computer usage so that they could understand how I used my computer and what hardware I was using. It'd mean a greater potential for a better computing experience.
So, I'd leave it enabled. However, I can understand that some folks don't want it enabled and I think the OS should obey that choice. Off means off - not partially off. I use Linux but not because I want to keep my computer usage metrics from Microsoft nor because I have a dislike for proprietary software. I use Linux because I like to break stuff and learn new things. Breaking and fixing is how I learn.
But, if you've gotta go through all those hoops then should you trust it at all? At that point, you might as well go with a whitelist approach. Or, really, you might as well find an alternative even if it means some sacrifice. I wasn't learning anything new with Microsoft products so I simply stopped using them. I doubt you'd have the same motives as I. I do know that if I wanted to disable telemetry and had to go through all of that, I'd use a whole other OS instead.
You made me curious so I went looking. The prices aren't that bad though I don't see any options for open source. I wonder (I looked and didn't find any) if there are any projects doing this with open source? It seems like you could patch something like that together for less money and the software would then be the only real hard part. (Unless I'm missing something.) An above poster, seemingly in a university and working with this sort of thing, indicates that you can do that with a standard web cam.
I've no need for such a device but I'd be interested in supporting such a project - depending on a few things. It seems a noble quest and I'm not purely altruistic - I want to, someday, be totally "jacked in" to the 'net and simply use my brain instead of an external computing device. I think that would be awesome. I'd even let 'em stuff an ethernet port in my neck and a wireless antenna on the top of my skull. I imagine the results look better in my imagination than they'd really be but I think it'd be awesome to have near instant access to Google. I'd not need software so much, I'd just need logic (as I'm envisioning it) though filtered at the external hardware level might keep the noise to a dull roar. No display, pure internal "vision." It'd be great...
So, the more we move in this direction of alternative inputs and control. The closer we get to my brain-as-a-computer-with-internet point. The closer we get to that point, the closer I get to being able to rule the world! Or, more likely than that, post stupid shit to the internet. But, it'd enable communication, education, and creation levels hitherto unknown. Well, it would if it turned out to be as awesome as it is in my imagination. And yes, yes I really would let 'em mount a wireless antenna on my head. If they had a decent plan, I'd even volunteer to be a test subject. I'd *pay* to be a test subject.
I've never been to Cheyenne. I've never had cause to be invited. I would find such a trip fascinating. I've been in the area and, as I recall, they weren't doing public tours at the time. While I spent eight years enlisted, it was as a Marine. I don't think they'd really have much use for my skills there - though in my career I did go on to model traffic. That might seem an odd thing to mention, but modeling pedestrian and vehicle traffic (probably prior to design) might have some value in a limited space like that. I believe it's mixed traffic (both pedestrian and vehicular)? If so, it would have been a fascinating project to work on. Alas, I was never consulted on it nor anything really like it.
Hmm... I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I did do some work at a military base which is, oddly, classified. No, I have no idea why it has that status but it has that status. I think it's safe/secure to say that the data should have been FOUO and the access to the data would have been much better. I'm not sure that the typical footpath taken to the chow hall and the times taken should be classified as secret when it's on a base, with public access, in the US. But, there you have it. With that, I also got to take a look at and consult on some plans for a mine. That included optimization, scheduling, and evacuation and emergency routes. So, nothing quite like Cheyenne Mountain but separate parts that have some similarity. I think I'd have liked Cheyenne. When I'm next out that way, I'll have to see if they're a bit less secretive and allowing public access tours. I've seen a few documentaries that include or are about them. The individual rooms being housed on giant springs would be neat to investigate but a public tour probably don't afford one the chance to stomp around unsupervised and make discoveries as you go.
That said, I've stomped all over the areas you mention. I've toured various WWII sites on my own or in tours. I've hit many of the islands (including Iwo and Okinawa) and I've stomped across parts of Europe. I've even been to some WWI sites like the Somme but that's mostly just fields where I was. I did a lot of that particular touristy behavior just after selling my business. My house was being built, things were in motion, and I didn't have a whole lot to do for a while so I spent just under six months bouncing around and finding new things to look at. The Pacific was nice as I really prefer an unguided tour and self-discovery. I don't know if that makes sense or how much sense it makes but I've never been a huge fan of going somewhere only to hang out and interact with other tourists or to have someone tell me where to look and when. Now that I've accumulated a few dollars, I do like hiring a local/knowledgeable guide where applicable.
True but I believe(d) you were referencing this specific instance which is not, in fact, automatic. As viewing also enables torrenting, I imagine some folks would be right pissed if it were done without user interaction but that too isn't really germane to the topic.:/ However, if you're talking about a hypothetical that is not this particular instance then it might be a valid defense. I'm not sure how well a judge would take it considering that such would be a civil offense and the burden of proof for a civil offense is much lower than that for a criminal offense. (Civil offenses need only be proven that you "more likely than not" committed the offense, very unlike criminal matters where they must prove "beyond all reasonable doubt.")
Seeing as I'm off-topic... With some work and dedication, this could lead to good things - maybe. Instead of using YouTube to host your video, you can use torrents. Though it might be good if something like a seed box were maintained in an effort to prevent/reduce what I believe they're calling "link rot." Coupled with, maybe, having an/option/ to keep files, in part or in whole, on disparate systems by means of a browser addition would work though I imagine there's a limit to how much space people would offer for such a task. Basically, "You watched it, now share it." At least sharing it for a set period of time might work? But, as fewer people watch and the unpopular videos having few at all would probably limit the functionality. On the other hand, it might be nice as an option.
Either way, I've yet to try this. I should shuffle over and see if they've anything of value to watch. I can't say that I've used TPB much in ages. If I do torrent, it's usually via Kick Ass Torrents. Normally, I don't torrent anything other than varied Linux distros - and I torrent a whole lot of those even if I do not intend to use them. I am, however, a fan of documentaries. So, I'll meander over and see. Maybe...
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, we make nets in the US now? ;-)
I have no idea if that was, or was not, their motivation but I suppose you can look at it that way. I suppose just renaming it to hosts.bak might work - if file protection service allows it. That or editing the contents... Assuming, of course, the user is smart enough to realize that they've a compromised hosts file.
That is true and, if you remember, there were loads of people who violated their local blue laws that faced successful prosecution. I doubt that I'd be prosecuted but I'd rather avoid anything that sullies the reputation in that particular direction and at this current time.
Not according to my accountant, no. I never "realized the asset." Thus it needn't reported.
Are you sure? Here's one mentioning the plan to look through an eyepiece at a Magellan but not the giant honking thing they're making now:
http://www.space.com/31079-gia...
I was under the understanding that even the large ones had had an eyepiece attachment. I'll take your word for it (I just pulled that one up from Google) as I am not an astronomer. I just worry that you might not actually know about them and that they actually *do* have 'em. Buggered if I know but I've heard them mentioned in numerous documentaries and recordings of opening ceremonies. (Pretty much the only things I watch are educational in nature, usually documentaries and the things those may lead to by suggested videos.)
Wait... You said, "wicked good." I'm not there and won't be until spring, nor am I (technically) a native, but my home is in Maine. I sometimes here the "wicked good" as far south as Massachusetts. Once in a while I hear a non-native say it. Sometimes I hear it as far off as Vermont and I hear it in New Hampshire quite a bit.
But, most of the time, it's a Mainah. Ayuh. Maine, being home of the "wicked good," does not have many Slashdot users though your name rings a bell. Perchance, are you a Mainer and I've forgotten? And yes, I have a "house" here but my "home" is in Maine. I have a few houses that belong only to me and only one of them is home.
Anyhow, sorry for the OT reply but I get curious. I also figure the thread's a couple of days old now so it should be all good.
The quote is "liberties" and that is essential. You have lost no freedoms. I'll explain...
You have the freedom to kill me. You are not at liberty to do so. If I threaten your life, you have the right to kill me.
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
You might be familiar with another one?
Give me liberty or give me death.
Or, if you'd like a good understanding of the difference and how people don't really seem to understand that the two words aren't really interchangeable:
Live free or die.
While that might not seem important, it's vital. It is of great importance to understand the difference(s) between the words. Freedom is taken by physical force. If you are incarcerated, you have lost your freedom - but you still have some rights. If you are incarcerated, you may get be at liberty to take advantage of those rights. Unless you are physically restricted, you have not lost your freedom.
Yeah, they have sensors that exceed human capacity but that doesn't mean that I'd not like to spend some time at an attached eyepiece. The telescope we had at school (I went to Kents Hill - it's a preparatory school in Central Maine and was what inspired me to return and retire to Maine) had an eyepiece and a camera attachment. (This was in the early 1970s.)
The modern ones are all just grabbed with sensors and no eyeballs are directly used any more but I understand that all the big telescopes do actually have eyepieces that they can attach. You've got to be some special to get access to them as there are some serious time constraints and they're highly sought time slots on some (all?) of them - especially the major or specialist ones.
I will have to look. It'd be kind of neat if they gave public access via the web - to real time results. No, obviously the general public wouldn't be able to control it but watching the real time results (perhaps with some sort of scheduling so you could see what was going to be done in the future) as the data came in, in real time or with a slight delay. It shouldn't be hard to push it to a caching server and then just give the public access. I've wanted to be able to see the live data feed since the Hubble went up and then was really keen on the idea when it got fixed. :/
That said, the telescope was pretty new when I got there. I think it had only been installed a few years prior to my arrival but I don't recall the dates or anything. I do remember that it was in the Dunn Science building. It was named after the alumni who donated the money for the construction. I believe that, since that date, they've actually made a number of discoveries in their astronomy department. It's a pretty decent academic environment and I gained a lot by attending. They stay on campus and have good educational facilities as well as some interesting sports facilities. They have their own giant ice arena and alpine ski slope, complete with a lift now. (It used to be a tow lift, now it's a chair lift.)
It's not a prohibitively expensive place but merit is an important factor for entrance. Some anonymous donor has done well for themselves and has set up a trust which has enabled merit and income based scholarships at the current rate of three students per year. I'd speculate that the anonymous donor would be quite pleased to find out that a child of a Slashdot member had applied for and been granted a scholarship. Of course, that's just speculation as they prefer their anonymity but that'd give a child access to a nice observatory and telescope as well as all the other facilities and a nice education.
Ah - I just checked. The observatory was earlier - the telescope went in in 1972. You can read a bit about it here:
http://www.kentshill.org/page....
So, the observatory was built a few years earlier and it was the telescope that was added a little while later. That kind of matches my memories so I'll assume their published history is correct. I'm guessing that more pictures can be found online or, if you're close enough, you could just drive by and see it. That's probably not an option. But, if someone applied for and was granted entrance with a scholarship they'd be able to see it daily or when they dropped their kids off.
I have no idea what it is you're actually trying to say. I'm not sure that you actually read (and understood) my post. For example, I did not advocate violence. Nowhere in my post did I even remotely indicate that I was suggesting a violent solution? So, I have no idea what you mean when you say, "If it would be like you say..." It is like I said. I'd also prefer that they were tried and sentenced in an impartial court of law in the world courts but that's extremely unlikely as I have no control over such things.
At any rate, if you'd be so kind as to tell me what it is you think I said then we might be able to actually communicate. I've access to machine translation if English is not your native language. I've no idea who you are but, if you're willing to take some advice, it might be prudent to consider avoiding assumptions in the future such as assuming that I am connotations included with using violence to stop violence. I have no idea where you even came up with an idea like that. Hell, I even went so far as to point out that I *disagreed* with the OP AC. That person, not me, is potentially advocating violence. I, on the other hand, have done no such thing. Pointing out reality does not make me agree that it is as it should be nor does it mean that I hold any particular opinion about it unless I expressly state such.
Trust me on this one... If I hold an opinion, I've either mentioned it or I will mention it. You don't really have to guess, assume, project, or surmise my opinion because I'm more than happy to share my opinion. You don't need to add things that I did not say, I say what I mean and mean what I say. (That does not mean that I don't make mistakes. I'll add that so you don't feel obligated to assume that I think I am without error.) In fact, you don't even need to guess my sentiments on this subject because I have a pretty big comment history that should be indicative of my held opinions or state said opinions outright.
If you've something salient, I'd be more than happy to have a conversation. However, do try to not read into what I say and make assumptions. Chances are very good that you'll make the wrong assumptions. It's hardly conducive to good communication to do so and text is notably poor at conveying tone.
Yeah, it doesn't like it if you do the U+12345 type of method but they like it just fine if you use the layout. The subject bar seems to work the same - except it counts the characters in the HTML entity towards the character count limit. In the body it doesn't matter but if you look at the resulting HTML it's using the entity instead of the character itself - just like in the subject bar, it's just not counted against a total.
If there's a limit to character counts in the body, I've not met it. I guess I could test for it. I just might do that the next time I'm that bored. However, when you hit reply and then hit quote parent, it converts then back to what the original poster used. That sentence is as clear as a mud-puddle when I read it.
If you hit reply and quote the parent text using the quote parent button it quotes what was actually typed. Meaning, if I typed © with the keyboard, it will just show the symbol in the body text input field. If I used the HTML entity, © (& copy ; but without the spaces), and you quote the parent then it will show the actual HTML entity that I typed out. In both cases, the resulting HTML entity is used in the resulting page. So, if you view source, you'll see the "& copy ;" entity used no matter what method I used type it.
So, that's still about as clear as mud. Yeah, that's as good as it's gonna get as for an explanation for me. I'm just not that articulate. ;-) It's also just an observation and I have no idea why. It also seems to matter if you copy/paste but not always and I've not yet figured out the mechanism for that. I've just not yet been that bored. It could happen but I'm pretty sure that entropy is my natural state so it's a bit unlikely. I only discovered the above because I'd seen the very truncated subject lines that contained the ampersand. That was enough to overcome my lethargy.
Like you alluded to, 'snot our problem. It's whipslash's problem now and I wish 'em luck with it.
If you use a browser based on Chromium (I use Opera) you can just copy the URL, paste it into the address bar, and change http:/// to cache:// so, in this case, it is:
cache://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/02/05/the-future-of-astronomy-the-giant-25-meter-magellan-telescope/#68d3f8536899
That makes the browser automatically resolve to:
http://webcache.googleusercont...
It takes a minute but both scripts and ads are blocked. It probably wouldn't take a whole lot to automatically do that using GreaseMonkey. I've never tried it but I imagine I can hack someone's script into one that works here. I imagine it's not much more complicated then doing a find/replace from https://www.forbes/ to cache://forbes* and maybe adding a few more just in case they decide to drop the www on the links?
At any rate, it automatically resolves (if cached - and the Forbes links usually are) to the appropriate URL at Google. It also means that Forbes doesn't get to count the traffic and they don't get any ad revenue because you can still do your ad blocking. I guess Forbes could stop Google or block them from caching via the robots.txt but that seems like a drastic step for them to take.
Alternatively, they could just stop serving malware and using stupid scripts. If they want to block me from visiting then I'll respect their wishes and not visit with an ad blocker. I'll not circumvent their scripts at all. I'll just get it another way - by way of Google.
Not necessarily? I just watched the TED talk that was presented by the lady who is kind of in charge of the GMT. I think you're correct, given her verbiage, but we might still be able to detect something. She said that if someone were to light a candle on the moon that the telescope would be able to detect it. Another metric given was that at 200 miles away, you'll be able to clearly make out the face on a quarter. I suspect that you're still correct in that they won't get the resolution they're expecting but they might be able to make out something - adaptive optics and whatnot might help that to some extent.
Probably salient, the particular verbiage used. She didn't say they'd be able to see the candle but that they'd be able to "detect it." What that means, exactly, is not something that I know. I also lack the expertise to speculate on the clarity. But, I suppose, perhaps they'll be able to make out some of the larger items that were left behind? I really have no idea and only know what I know 'cause I watched the TED talk.
Also, I'm not sure what the value of that would be. The goal is to look at things with scientific value with the telescope and there are surely time constraints. There's limited value in it when we've already got the ability to look at it with closer telescopes. Not even the Hubble can see the landing sites but this is supposed to be significantly higher resolution. If I understand correctly, it's the size and the added light that they're able to collect.
*snickers* Truncated. 50 characters is the max, if I recall correctly. Yes, yes I do suffer for insomnia and the curiosity of a cat. I was curious one late night and counted 'em. Being an insomniac (and hating the way the sleeping pills make me feel when I wake up) and being curious does have some benefits. I'm not entirely sure that counting characters is a benefit -- but this was a curious finding:
There's an oddity with the character count. If you use the "&" character, it's supplanted by the HTML entity (which, oddly, contains the ampersand) and the entity is counted against the limit. So, it is "& amp ;" (sans spaces) to make & which is four extra characters, or counts as five characters against the fifty character limit.
I seem to recall that the other whitelisted entities are processed the same way. So "& copy ;" (also sans spaces and to make ©)* would actually count as six characters, which means a total of five extra characters being counted against the limit.
However, to the point! Err... I don't have a really good point but... What you did there? I see it.
* If you use an International Keyboard Layout then you can just insert the © symbol by using the appropriate shortcuts. In this layout it is Right ALT + C. It also enables you to type € £ ¥ and ® with the use of the Right ALT or Right Alt + Shift, depending on the desired symbol. You can even do diacritics (i think that's what they're called) such as é, í, ñ, ú, ü, and whatever else is whitelisted by the overlords. However, Rei's "thorn" does not work. If one does not wish to use the alternative keyboard layouts then you can click here** and use the table to find the HTML entity.
** No, using the target="_blank" does not work so that will open in the same tab/window, even if I told it to open in a new window/tab. No, I have no idea why that is stripped out.
I'll give 'em all the acreage they want in NW Maine and let 'em flatten a mountain top to do it. I ask only that they pipe a feed to my house via fiber and occasionally let me take a peek out of it. However, I'm pretty sure they don't want to put it there considering that it's up above the 45th and the mountains aren't exactly very tall as glaciers have worn 'em to stumps over the years.
And no, there are no glaciers currently in Maine. Yes, yes I have been asked that question.
At school, we had a tiny (compared to those) telescope in the observatory. I think it's just a 10" telescope? I used to get stoned and go play in the observatory but I never took any astronomy courses. 'Twas in the Dunn Science Building. I should think it would be kind of fun to use one of these giant ones but I'm damned near positive that they'll never let me have so much as a peek out of one. I'm also positive that I'd have no idea how to use it nor would I know what I was looking at without guidance.
We won't know until we read the article!
I suspect that any site, with sufficient content/activities, can be used in lieu of Facebook. Hell, one could say that the internet could be used instead of just narrowing it down to one site.
As it is 0400 and I'm still awake. I do not even have a Facebook account.
Yeah, I like Linux just fine. Hell, I like most any OS but I don't think I'd like Windows 10 much - simply because off means off. Now, if they asked then I'd probably let them have the data. Don't get me wrong, I would let them have the data 'cause I really don't mind and I'm not doing top-secret stuff on my computer. However, if they're not respecting that decision, what else aren't they respecting?
No, I don't mind telemetry. I mind a lack of respect.
Linux works just fine for a home user. Unless you're trying to play with the OS itself, it just works. In theory, you shouldn't even really need to interact with the OS much and these days that's even less. These days, most people interact with not much more than a web browser at home. (We are not most people.)
Assuming you're not just kidding, I... I... I don't know if that means I need to get out more or if that means I should do no such thing! :/ Do they mean like regular dairy consumption is bad for you or consumption of absurd amounts is bad for you? Do I really want to know? I'm not even gonna Google that.
Heh, I saw the writing on the wall and stopped playing with them fairly early on. However, I'd mined a stack of 'em. 48, I think? I didn't want to pay the taxes on the income and I didn't want to be associated with them in a manner that I might have to account for later, so simply avoided the taxes and donated them all to EFF over the period of a month and a half. Yeah, they were stupidly high value when I donated them too. I figured they might as well be worth it for EFF. At this point, social stigma prevents my association really.
For now, they're associated with crime - perhaps improperly but that doesn't change the fact that they are. That and I'd rather just avoid the taxes. Who knows what kind of impact it would have had to cash 'em out. Taxes are already a complicated thing and it's not entirely clear (or wasn't - I don't think it is yet) exactly how they'd be taxed. So, off they went to EFF. I'm sure they had more use for them than I and I like EFF. I might have split them with the ACLU but the ACLU did not take BTC at the time. I'm not sure if they accept it now.
LOL Except Windows 10 doesn't actually use the hosts file for this. They're hard-coded IP addresses and you can't block them with the hosts file. You can add 'em all you want, it won't help. Folks have shown video of this. They've added the domains to the hosts file and then used Wireshark (that's what the interface looked like, as I recall) and there's still outbound communication with the very same IP addresses at the very same level. Nope, hosts isn't gonna cut it.
I don't think I've ever once said this -- or anything like it. But, it's seemingly reached that point. I guess, if I'm going to say it, I should make it a point to say it differently, perhaps better, than others. So...
If you have to go through all of that just to have your OS behave the way you tell it to behave, if you have to use hardware to stop your computer from doing what you tell it to do, if you have to work to keep things from the OS vendor, then do you *really* trust the OS at all? Do you really feel so compelled to use it?
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/lubu...
That said, I don't use Windows. If I were using Windows, I'd leave the telemetry data enabled. Yes, I'd let them collect that data - knowingly and willfully. I'd rather they have my data (it's seemingly anonymous and they've a decent history at keeping that data in their own hands and a vested interest in keeping that data for themselves) about my computer usage so that they could understand how I used my computer and what hardware I was using. It'd mean a greater potential for a better computing experience.
So, I'd leave it enabled. However, I can understand that some folks don't want it enabled and I think the OS should obey that choice. Off means off - not partially off. I use Linux but not because I want to keep my computer usage metrics from Microsoft nor because I have a dislike for proprietary software. I use Linux because I like to break stuff and learn new things. Breaking and fixing is how I learn.
But, if you've gotta go through all those hoops then should you trust it at all? At that point, you might as well go with a whitelist approach. Or, really, you might as well find an alternative even if it means some sacrifice. I wasn't learning anything new with Microsoft products so I simply stopped using them. I doubt you'd have the same motives as I. I do know that if I wanted to disable telemetry and had to go through all of that, I'd use a whole other OS instead.
You made me curious so I went looking. The prices aren't that bad though I don't see any options for open source. I wonder (I looked and didn't find any) if there are any projects doing this with open source? It seems like you could patch something like that together for less money and the software would then be the only real hard part. (Unless I'm missing something.) An above poster, seemingly in a university and working with this sort of thing, indicates that you can do that with a standard web cam.
I've no need for such a device but I'd be interested in supporting such a project - depending on a few things. It seems a noble quest and I'm not purely altruistic - I want to, someday, be totally "jacked in" to the 'net and simply use my brain instead of an external computing device. I think that would be awesome. I'd even let 'em stuff an ethernet port in my neck and a wireless antenna on the top of my skull. I imagine the results look better in my imagination than they'd really be but I think it'd be awesome to have near instant access to Google. I'd not need software so much, I'd just need logic (as I'm envisioning it) though filtered at the external hardware level might keep the noise to a dull roar. No display, pure internal "vision." It'd be great...
So, the more we move in this direction of alternative inputs and control. The closer we get to my brain-as-a-computer-with-internet point. The closer we get to that point, the closer I get to being able to rule the world! Or, more likely than that, post stupid shit to the internet. But, it'd enable communication, education, and creation levels hitherto unknown. Well, it would if it turned out to be as awesome as it is in my imagination. And yes, yes I really would let 'em mount a wireless antenna on my head. If they had a decent plan, I'd even volunteer to be a test subject. I'd *pay* to be a test subject.
I've never been to Cheyenne. I've never had cause to be invited. I would find such a trip fascinating. I've been in the area and, as I recall, they weren't doing public tours at the time. While I spent eight years enlisted, it was as a Marine. I don't think they'd really have much use for my skills there - though in my career I did go on to model traffic. That might seem an odd thing to mention, but modeling pedestrian and vehicle traffic (probably prior to design) might have some value in a limited space like that. I believe it's mixed traffic (both pedestrian and vehicular)? If so, it would have been a fascinating project to work on. Alas, I was never consulted on it nor anything really like it.
Hmm... I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. I did do some work at a military base which is, oddly, classified. No, I have no idea why it has that status but it has that status. I think it's safe/secure to say that the data should have been FOUO and the access to the data would have been much better. I'm not sure that the typical footpath taken to the chow hall and the times taken should be classified as secret when it's on a base, with public access, in the US. But, there you have it. With that, I also got to take a look at and consult on some plans for a mine. That included optimization, scheduling, and evacuation and emergency routes. So, nothing quite like Cheyenne Mountain but separate parts that have some similarity. I think I'd have liked Cheyenne. When I'm next out that way, I'll have to see if they're a bit less secretive and allowing public access tours. I've seen a few documentaries that include or are about them. The individual rooms being housed on giant springs would be neat to investigate but a public tour probably don't afford one the chance to stomp around unsupervised and make discoveries as you go.
That said, I've stomped all over the areas you mention. I've toured various WWII sites on my own or in tours. I've hit many of the islands (including Iwo and Okinawa) and I've stomped across parts of Europe. I've even been to some WWI sites like the Somme but that's mostly just fields where I was. I did a lot of that particular touristy behavior just after selling my business. My house was being built, things were in motion, and I didn't have a whole lot to do for a while so I spent just under six months bouncing around and finding new things to look at. The Pacific was nice as I really prefer an unguided tour and self-discovery. I don't know if that makes sense or how much sense it makes but I've never been a huge fan of going somewhere only to hang out and interact with other tourists or to have someone tell me where to look and when. Now that I've accumulated a few dollars, I do like hiring a local/knowledgeable guide where applicable.
True but I believe(d) you were referencing this specific instance which is not, in fact, automatic. As viewing also enables torrenting, I imagine some folks would be right pissed if it were done without user interaction but that too isn't really germane to the topic. :/ However, if you're talking about a hypothetical that is not this particular instance then it might be a valid defense. I'm not sure how well a judge would take it considering that such would be a civil offense and the burden of proof for a civil offense is much lower than that for a criminal offense. (Civil offenses need only be proven that you "more likely than not" committed the offense, very unlike criminal matters where they must prove "beyond all reasonable doubt.")
Seeing as I'm off-topic... With some work and dedication, this could lead to good things - maybe. Instead of using YouTube to host your video, you can use torrents. Though it might be good if something like a seed box were maintained in an effort to prevent/reduce what I believe they're calling "link rot." Coupled with, maybe, having an /option/ to keep files, in part or in whole, on disparate systems by means of a browser addition would work though I imagine there's a limit to how much space people would offer for such a task. Basically, "You watched it, now share it." At least sharing it for a set period of time might work? But, as fewer people watch and the unpopular videos having few at all would probably limit the functionality. On the other hand, it might be nice as an option.
Either way, I've yet to try this. I should shuffle over and see if they've anything of value to watch. I can't say that I've used TPB much in ages. If I do torrent, it's usually via Kick Ass Torrents. Normally, I don't torrent anything other than varied Linux distros - and I torrent a whole lot of those even if I do not intend to use them. I am, however, a fan of documentaries. So, I'll meander over and see. Maybe...