Posts by lorisarvendu

Re: Xtree Gold ftw.

I'm a major Xtree fan, which is why I have been using Ztree for probably going on 10 years now.

http://www.ztree.com/html/ztreewin.htm

Re: Work down the list ...

"P.s. in where did that statement refer directly to Trump?..."

Well not by name, but the following does prettty much imply the current incumbent.

"The big dog in DC is in bed by 6:30PM and still snoozing around 10AM. During the awake period, he's not too bright so please don't bring in any critical items, other than USA Today and his standings with the fox viewers."

Re: What unpleasant memories?

"...missed the chance to pay of their mortgages by risking only a few tens/hundreds/thousands of quids..."

"What are the odds that if you had some bitcoins that you'd mined (or bought to buy drugs) in 2010 that you still have them today, as opposed to either losing them or cashing out when it hit $100?"

I've just heard of a FOAF who has recently done this. He mined 65 BTC back in the day and has just paid off his mortgage with half of it. Of course all that money has come from all those thousands of punters who have bought into tulips- sorry, Bitcoin- over the past few years.

Re: "Roll on the next general election, and get these shower of bastards away from the NHS."

"And Yes, Minister DELIBERATELY didn't have any scenes in either House."

Not only that, but it was never made clear what political party was in Government at the time, and hence what party Hacker was in. In some ways that was the scary icing on the cake, the fact that it didn't actually matter who was in, because they all behave exactly the same.

I second the comment earlier that the NHS episode is very good - a half-hour of comedy that explains more about the NHS than a hundred documentaries ever could.

Re: This one, every time

"sending a screenshot by saving it inside a Word document"

Worse than that is when they screenshot an error for us, paste it into an email, and then drag the corner anchors to resize it down.

We then receive a shrunken screenshot that is blurred and indecipherable if we try to enlarge it.

Re: That putrid patch

Perhaps they should p-p-pick up a p-p-penguin?

Re: Nice article, Ms. Quatch!

" I don't remember any character EVER finding it necessary to point out they were not gay."

Well certainly not in Doctor Who, where prior to the new series the subject of romantic or sexual relationships was strictly off-limits, but scenes where a heterosexual character has to continually fight off persistent advances from a stereotypical gay character who won't take no for an answer were 10 a penny on US and UK TV even as late as the 1980s (particularly in comedy shows). Characters like Bill Potts are simply redressing the balance.

Re: Debian SID

"This is why I use Linux Mint."

Should there be a "Godwin-type" Law that states if a thread continues long enough, the probability of someone mentioning Linux Mint approaches 1?

Re: Not surprising

I'm not sure when the early birds are cashing out and burning all those that bought in much later..."

That supposed lump sum of 14,400 BTC that was cashed out yesterday at $15400. That equals over $200 million. How? What exchange could provide that much cash? This is where I think things might go wrong. Once the value has inflated beyond the fiscal capacity of any one organisation to trade, what happens then? Actually while writing that I realised what they'd do - continue dealing in fractions of BTC, but have a slowly-lowering ceiling of the highest amount they'll trade in.

Google "bbc bias against labour".

The New Statesman, the Indy, and the Guardian seem to agree the that BBC (and other media) have given Corbyn and the labour party a bad time.

Now Google "bbc left-wing bias"

The Daily Mail and the Express run with this one. Oh and the Independent...hang on...

Basically if you think the BBC has a bias against your personal political leanings, you will find "evidence" (mainly in the tabloids and social media) to support your assertion...no matter what your political leanings actually are. In the same way as you will find evidence to support your view that the Moon Landings never happened, that JFK was killed by the Mob/CIA/FBI/Oswald, that the World is flat, and that the British Royal Family are all lizards.

"This is new territory to say the least and the DOJ isn't helping matters by defending the one account with two opposite defenses."

So does this mean that whichever case they win (or lose) first will automatically lose them (or win them) the other one?

Re: Antimatter black holes

"What if most of the antimatter ended up in black holes?

No idea why it would, however it would be convenient."

It certainly would. Imagine at the end of Time all the black holes evaporate, and the universe finally collapses into the Big Crunch. Now play that backwards, and there's your anti-matter, all being tidily locked up into black holes in a second universe that is really only our own universe seen from an altered perspective. Very neat...in a sci-fi kind of way.

Re: Remember back when "sense of proportion" was a thing?

"How about we review your life history and for everything we deem wrong we get to punch you."

I assume you don't have kids, seeing as you think "smack" means the same thing as "punch". I have two children (14 and 19) and although I have on occasion smacked them, I have never punched them. And before you say it's the same thing...it isn't.

Re: Am I right?

I think the AC means we can't increase the Moon's gravity to 1G by spinning the Moon.

"I care that we have a world leader that is taking the piss out of everyone and leading us down the path to war while the stupid main stream press allow him to do it. I also care that I make a valid point which everyone seems to disagree with though that is your right to do so however I'm not going to change my mind because carrying on down the same path we are going is not going to change anything. It's like bashing your head against a brick wall. Trump is clearly a master at playing negative press and turning it into a positive."

I actually agree with your initial point, which seems to me not to be a case of "don't keep attacking Trump" (which invites downvotes) but the rather more subtle "attacking Trump isn't working, so let's try something different."

Trump may not be quite suited to the Presidential role, but as a businessman he knows exactly how to deal with an attack, which is shout loudly so nobody can hear what his opponent is saying, and then punch back.

The problem is, as you say, that attacking him in the way everyone has...simply doesn't work. People have been trying it for the last year and it's not affected him one bit. Trump has contradicted himself, gone back on promises, and even shown evidence of being a deplorable human being with misogynistic, xeonphobic, sexist and racist tendencies. All these things he has done publicly, and yet still manages to successfully deflect any criticism. So yeah I agree that everything everyone has tried just bounces off him. But I don't think changing tack is going to work either. Trump's too clever for that (we're talking animal cunning here, not IQ). Frankly I believe there are only two things that will see Trump off. The first is a changing tide of public opinion, and the other is simply time. He's only got two terms, and if the vote doesn't get rid of him after his first term, you'll have to wait 8 years to finally see the back of him.

I'd like to say thank God he's not my President, but unfortunately our UK Government isn't much better.

Re: The trouble with technology

"Get some advice from experts, and try actually listening to it for once."

I think this is just what we've seen before with the big Encryption arguments from governments on both sides of the Pond. I strongly suspect that the politicians have already got the correct advice from their Civil Servants (and whatever the equivalent is in the US).

In other words, what the Public want done isn't possible (you can't compromise encryption without compromising internet banking for example, and you can't block all suspect content without also blocking legit content), and the politicians know this.

However if they come out and say this, the Public will just blame them for not making the effort. So they do the next best thing: charge 3rd parties with doing it (Google & FB must block terrorist content, ISPs must block encryption).

That way, when nothing happens, the politicians did what the Public wanted, and the evil Internet companies are therefore to blame for not making it so.

Further examples are Trump's calls to shut down the Internet (it's Bill Gates' fault that it isn't happening), block Muslims (that's the fault of the Justice Department) and repeal Obamacare (the Democrats are to blame for that not happening).

Re: Go Samsung!

I suspect the manufacturers had no choice but to remove the ability to get YouTube because Google either wanted an exorbitant price for the licence or (more likely) wanted them to remove it. Google would probably prefer you watch YouTube on your Smartphone or your PC or your tablet, most likely because they get far more data back from those devices than they do from a SmartTV. It's also likely that there's the lingering threat of legal action if any comment from the Manufacturers over the reasons for removing YouTube serve to show YouTube or Google in a bad light. Hence LG remove YouTube from your Smart TV but don't tell you why. Doubly sad for Samsung as they need to keep sweet with Google or they might lose the YouTube app on their Android phones.

This is of course only speculation, but you got to admit it sounds more likely than Samsung just deciding to remove one of the biggest assets of a Smart TV (the ability to play videos from YouTube) for no reason other than shits & giggles.

Re: Big Old Nope

"As far as i am concerned the internet should be open to all no matter what they think, its only with the rise of social media that we are getting all this red tape, im a true supporter of " if you cant handle what your reading, close the page and walk away" i dont agree with neo nazi's, and i also cant abide the antifa thugs either but im happy to let them all write whatever they please, just like being allowed to comment right here, with my opinion."

The problem comes when people either believe what has been written as truth, or use it as justification for their acts. Not because they're evil and malicious, but because they're ill-informed.

Think about it, nobody's opinion comes from nowhere. From the past to the present, a person's opinion has been formed from what they are told by another person in authority (be it a teacher, or a politician), or what they have read in a book, or seen on the stage, or in a movie, or on TV, or by conversations with their friends, neighbours and peers.

Now we have a new information source - the Internet. Your opinion (which you are free to express) seems to be that anyone should be free to write whatever they want on the Internet and that if the person who reads it doesn't like it, they should be allowed to either walk away or stay and either agree or disagree with what is written.

But this supposes that the person who reads what is written, already has a formed opinion that either agrees or disagrees with what they are reading. But what if the person is not sure what they think about race or gender issues? Or equality? Or rights? If we leave it up to them to make their own choices from what they read, what kind of person do we end up with? The Internet has evolved from being a niche preserve of nerds and geeks to the most ubiquitous and powerful source of information on the planet, but is unique in that it is arguably more influential and far-reaching than TV or politicians, but is almost totally devoid of any checks or balances.

I don't agree with Donald Trump's policies or attitudes, but he's nailed one thing on the head - Fake News. Only it doesn't quite exist where he thinks it does. It doesn't just come from the right or left wing, or anyone with an agenda. Absolutely everything on the Internet has the potential to be Fake News, and there's nothing to help anyone identify which is and which isn't. How does a person struggling to make sense of the world separate out the honest opinion from the outright lies, when everything they read is followed by an endless stream of comments, 50% of which debunk what they're reading, and 50% support it?

Re: Political Correctness and my previous post.

@Palpy. You do your Uncle proud sir! You damn well better not get any downvotes for that post.

Re: So no service for the White House then...

"Trying to define hate is rather difficult - because you tend not to see the hate you perpetrate..."

I hate that black guy over there. Because he's less intelligent/educated/civilised than me. Also he hates me back because I'm white. Oh and there's his religion too. And the fact that he has more rights than me. But actually this is just post-hoc justification. I really just hate him because he's different to me.

You hate me because I hate him. You think you are right to hate me because I am wrong to hate him, and all the things I say about him are incorrect.

I disagree with you, and show sources that prove my facts are correct. You dispute my sources and show yours that prove I am wrong. But really you just hate me because I think differently to you.

We meet in the street and fight.

The rest of the world endlessly debates who's right and who's wrong.

Does that sum it all up pretty well?

Welcome to Humanity.

We should only try a "nudge" if it's definitely going to hit, because "trying it out" on one that is going to safely miss might result in it's next pass being "on target".

Though of course then we'll be able to give it another nudge, and since we've had practice we'll be more confident that it will work.

I don't know which scenario is for the best...

Re: Legal Question..

<i<"Get Iplayer aint just for linux, its available for windows and works bloody well!!!</i"

Shhhh!!!!

Re: Wading in late

"Not really fair to compare all of the new ones with all of the old ones."

Difficult one this. Although I'll agree that many Doctor Who episodes between the 60s and 80s were indeed very well acted and produced for the time , they can be difficult to watch after being used to the snappier direction and editing of modern Who.

Much as I love the programme myself, I find them slow and padded in comparison to the sometimes breakneck pace of the new series. Since I was "brought up" on late Troughton, all of Pertwee, and early Tom, I find those the easiest to watch. Whether that is due to them actually being "snappier" than Hartnell's stories, or whether it is due to watching them through nostalgia-tinted glasses is difficult for me to determine, though I suspect it is the latter, because I have made several abortive attempts to watch Davison, Colin, and McCoy, and I just can't manage to get through them.

You would expect that the closer you get to the present, they would be easier to watch, but for me they're not, so I can only put this down to the fact that I never saw them when young, and therefore there is no "inner child" to offset my 21st Century expectations.

This was particularly noticeable with the 1996 release of "Tomb of the Cybermen". I watched it both through the eyes of an adult (who was appalled at the slow pace and bad acting) and the inner child of the 1960s who was still thrilled and scared by it.

To be honest I have the same problem with Shakespeare. I know that it is classic literature, but I just can't sit through all that iambic pentameter.

Re: We are all monkeys...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--szrOHtR6U

Re: video-taped?

Yeah. Like you "wind the window down" in your car, whilst listening to an internet "Radio station" and "dialing" a friend on your cellphone...who tells you they've just booked a cruise on an ocean liner that's going to "sail" round the world. Then, after you've "hung up" on them, you decide to read some emails that have been "carbon copied" to you.