* Posts by Fluffy Cactus

57 posts • joined 8 Jul 2015

Page:

Bloke thrown in the cooler for eight years after 3D-printing gun to dodge weapon ban

Fluffy Cactus

Re: There's a lot more heat than light in this thread, mostly from gun owners of the USA.

Anything going fast enough is trouble to whatever is just standing there.

These guys from "Mythbusters" sort of proved that by shooting a two-by-four inch piece of wood through

a brickwall, and , if I am not mistaken, they also shot a head of lettuce through something that was not strong enough to resist a head of lettuce going 1000 miles per hour, or something...

Fluffy Cactus

There are some things to consider: "The way people wrote and spoke in 1776", and the "situation the US was in as a country in 1776".

The 2nd amendment first states "the reason why", i.e. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", for doing something, and it then states "the thing to be done or not done", which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

To me, "a well regulated militia" means "not necessarily a loosely organized group of guys doing shooting practice in the woods and calling themselves a militia, because 'hey, we had a meeting or two'."

No, "a well regulated militia" means, in 1776, what is meant TODAY by a "legally authorized police force, a police department, or a County Sheriff's department" or a "legally authorized military force" (i.e. Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, etc.) In 1776, the US had trouble to maintain a standing army, because it costs money. The UK was the rich Top Dog of the world, in 1776.

Likewise, the USA of 1776 was for several decades in a state of war or rebellion with the United Kingdom of England. Back then, the US had good reason to believe that the UK would strike back and re-conquer those darn rebel Americans at any moment (as proven by the raid in 1812 by the Brits, that burned down the White House, 36 years after 1776).

For that reason the ability to pull together forces that "already had arms" was an important factor in writing the 2nd amendment the way it was written. This was the easiest cheapest method they had back then to raise an army. But things are different today. We got Police, we got Sheriffs, the National Guard, we got the US Armed Forces.

Your own so-called "well-regulated militias" are no longer being called up to serve, as such. Can you see that? I can.

I know that fact will make you sad, because anyone wants to be part of some "history-changing" movement, and everyone wants to believe that what they are doing is the absolute right thing. I get that. I know you won't like my reasoning, because you are a true believer in the "mindset" of 2nd amendment fans.

You think that your guns ("those toys") are what keep a state free of tyranny? Well, let me see. From your mindset, it seems likely that you think that "Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama" were trying to set up a tyrannical state. So, what would happen if you used your guns to "end the tyranny"? You'd get the death penalty or life in prison, depending on the state you live in! And for some folks on the left, "Reagan, Bush, Bush 2 and Trump" were the ones who

were trying to set up a state of tyranny. If they used guns to "end the tyranny", they'd get the same death or life in prison sentence. So it is not altogether THAT easy to "keep a state, a country free from tyranny" just by owning guns, don't you think?

Todays tyrannical leaders get "elected", somehow, by "pushing the right (or wrong) buttons of the electorate. (Maybe I should not mention that Hitler was initially elected into power, because it's always wrong to mention him. oops. It's like mentioning underwear in church.)

Like Detective Columbo, there is one more thing

"Let's look at what the 2nd amendment DOES NOT SAY":

It DOES NOT say "A slightly unwell de-regulated marauding militia, being necessary to the paranoia of a weird state, the right of crazy mass-murderers to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Say what you will, but I am 100% certain that it never said that. It just didn't! No, no, no! Seven times no!

So, WHY didn't it say that? Because, WHATEVER the actual 2nd amendment means, it could not have meant that "crazy people shall be allowed and encouraged to have guns to kill others, especially innocent kids, like a freakin' monster from hell".

And WHY could it not have meant that?

Because laws must be interpreted for the most reasonable, most beneficial, most likely INTENT!

Because LAW WITHOUT REASON IS FOR NAUGHT!

LAW WITHOUT REASON IS WORTH NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, DE NADA! Alright, I stop yelling.

Whenever laws have unintended side-effects, any reasonable and lawful governing body is under an obligation to change the laws in such a way that the "unintended effect" goes away. Of course, I am idealist when I say that, since wherever I look, laws are being made by short-sided, and possibly corrupt lawmakers who somehow never get the time, the money or the votes to fix the laws they have made. (Similar to software companies, or the pharmaceutical industry, etc....)

Thus, because of all of the above, you are not convincing me that your ideas are right. They may sound great, strong, manly and patriotic, but once you think about them, they are not all that smart. And that's why I think that crazy people should not have guns. I hope I made myself clear.

As long as you are not insane, you can keep your guns, but please lock them up. As soon as you turn insane, please turn yourself in!

You can see why I am not a politician or a lawyer. Too effing honest. "Vote Fritz, because at least he is honest", or "Vote Fritzie, because he means well" are not the best campaign slogans for myself, but that's all I got in the short run.

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Because

Well, you can read it your way, and you can read it my way.

There are some things to consider: "The way people wrote and spoke in 1776", and the "situation the US was in as a country in 1776".

The 2nd amendment first states "the reason why", i.e. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", for doing something, and it then states "the thing to be done or not done", which is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

To me, "a well regulated militia" means "not necessarily a loosely organized group of guys doing shooting practice in the woods and calling themselves a militia, because 'hey, we had a meeting or two'."

No, "a well regulated militia" means, in 1776, what is meant TODAY by a "legally authorized police force, a police department, or a County Sheriff's department" or a "legally authorized military force" (i.e. Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, etc.) In 1776, the US had trouble to maintain a standing army, because it costs money. The UK was the rich Top Dog, in the world, in 1776.

Likewise, the USA of 1776 was for several decades in a state of war or rebellion with the United Kingdom of England. Back then, the US had good reason to believe that the UK would strike back and re-conquer those darn rebel Americans at any moment (as proven by the raid in 1812 by the Brits, that burned down the White House, 36 years after 1776).

For that reason the ability to pull together forces that "already had arms" was an important factor in writing the 2nd amendment the way it was written. This was the easiest cheapest method they had back then to raise an army. But things are different today. We got Police, we got Sheriffs, the National Guard, we got the US Armed Forces.

Your own so-called "well-regulated militias" are no longer being called up to serve. Can you see that? I can.

I know that fact will make you sad, because anyone wants to be part of some "history-changing" movement, and everyone wants to believe that what they are doing is the absolute right thing. I get that. I know you won't like my reasoning, because you are a true believer in the "mindset" of 2nd amendment fans.

You think that your guns ("those toys") are what keep a state free of tyranny? Well, let me see. From your mindset, it seems likely that you think that "Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama" were trying to set up a tyrannical state. So, what would happen if you used your guns to "end the tyranny"? You'd get the death penalty or life in prison, depending on the state you live in! And for some folks on the left, "Reagan, Bush, Bush 2 and Trump" were the ones who were trying to set up a state of tyranny. If they used guns to "end the tyranny", they'd get the same death or life in prison sentence. So it is not altogether THAT easy to "keep a state, a country free from tyranny" just by owning guns, don't you think?

Todays tyrannical leaders get "elected", somehow, by "pushing the right (or wrong) buttons of the electorate. (Maybe I should not mention that Hitler was initially elected into power, because it's always wrong to mention him. It's like mentioning underwear in church.)

Like Detective Columbo, there is one more thing

"Let's discuss what the 2nd amendment DOES NOT SAY":

It DOES NOT say "A slightly unwell de-regulated marauding militia, being necessary to the paranoia of a weird state, the right of crazy mass-murderers to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Say what you will, but I am 100% certain that it never said that. It just didn't! No, no, no! Seven times no!

So, WHY didn't it say that? Because, WHATEVER the actual 2nd amendment means, it could not have meant that "crazy people shall be allowed and encouraged to have guns to kill others, especially innocent kids, like a freakin' monster from hell".

And WHY could it not have meant that?

Because laws must be interpreted for the most reasonable, most beneficial, most likely INTENT!

Because LAW WITHOUT REASON IS FOR NAUGHT!

LAW WITHOUT REASON IS WORTH NOTHING, ZERO, ZILCH, DE NADA!

Whenever laws have unintended side-effects, any reasonable and lawful governing body is under an obligation to change the laws in such a way that the "unintended effect" goes away. Of course, I am idealist when I say that, since wherever I look, laws are being made by short-sided, and possibly corrupt lawmakers who somehow never get the time, the money or the votes to fix the laws they have made. (Similar to software companies, or the pharmaceutical industry, etc....)

Thus, because of all of the above, you are not convincing me that your ideas are right. They may sound great, strong, manly and patriotic, but once you think about them, they are not all that smart. And that's why I think that crazy people should not have guns. I hope I made myself clear.

As long as you are not insane, you can keep your guns, but please lock them up. As soon as you turn insane, please turn yourself in!

You can see why I am not a politician or a lawyer. Too effing honest. "Vote Fritz, because at least he is honest", or "Vote Fritzie, because he means well" are not the best campaign slogans for myself, but that's all I got in the short run.

Google offers to leave robocallers hanging on the telephone

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Remember the olden days...

Actually I forgot the olden days

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Remember the olden days...

That you can easily counteract by picking up and hanging up in a second.

Fluffy Cactus

I don't have a blacklist, so unless I am working, or sleeping, or eating, or dealing with a host of necessary bodily functions, I'll still pick up the phone and say nothing at all. The robo calls appear to be voice activated, or even geared towards responding to something like "Hello", or "Hi this is ..." or "is this you, baby?"

When I say "meeeow!", or "Woof, woof, woof" they hang up quickly. Currently I am experimenting to see which bird call, elefant sound, lion roar, frog or duck sound, etc. confuses the robo caller the most.

I also confuse people by using manners: When someone calls and says "Is this Bobby?" without introducing themselves, then I say "The international standard of phone manners requires that the caller introduces themselves first! Without being properly introduced I cannot talk to you!" Not even legitimate callers can handle that sort of a lesson.

I should mention the most hilarious call situation I had in about 2015, when Obama was still president:

A "cold calling" guy from some mortgage company gave me this line: "Hi, we are working alongside president Obama to get you the lowest government guaranteed rate for your next mortgage,..."

and I interrupted him and asked "You are working alongside president Obama? Can you put him on the line? " ... and the guy was cracking up, laughing out loud and hung up.

I got both artificial and natural stupidity working for me. It doesn't get me a job, but it's entertaining.

And if it's not funny, it's just not worth it.

The butterfly defect: MacBook keys wrecked by single grain of sand

Fluffy Cactus

Re: "Der Reg" actually

No it's "Das Register" in German. And it's "Der Standard". Even if you has German as your first language, just like I do, you can still get it wrong. And that's in part because, like you said, inanimate things tend to carry a rather random grammatical gender in this weird language. I posted another item on this blog to explain more clearly why this is so. But, LeoP, if you talk about grammar and what is or is not right, it would help if you spelled "gramatical" as "grammatical, and "definitly" as definitely.

Your homework shall be to determine the proper grammatical gender of Jogurt (or Joghurt) in German.

Woo-yay, Meltdown CPU fixes are here. Now, Spectre flaws will haunt tech industry for years

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Was Intel Aware?

I don't know how address spaces inside Intel CPU's are accessed, and I don't know how they are protected from any access. With the benefit of wonderful un-informed ignorance, I am here to help!

(Cue Andy Kaufman's "Here I come to save the daaaay!!" )

So anyway, I remember when, in the 1980's and 1990's certain tricky viruses and worms would use "specific spaces" on a given hard drive, and would take advantage of the then existing technology of "hard-drive-management" which marked certain spots (clusters, specific hard drive memory areas, etc) as bad and unusable if they could not be read after a certain number of unsuccessful read attempts. So, these viruses would install themselves, and then mark the locations where they were hiding out, as "bad and unusable" to the system, while they themselves could still access their nasty programs.

Given this flashback down memory lane, I now am wondering whether the various memory units (clusters, registers, whatever you call it) inside Intel CPU's have a similar method of denying memory

access to the system? That is, an area marked unusable that actually is still good. Effectively invisible, but still accessible to those parts of the system that are informed about the "good bad spots".

That's how i imagine one could fix this problem, together with another system of pseudo-randomly storing the vulnerable data in pseudo-randomly different spots.

Anyone think this is possible, or able to tell why it's impossible?

Parity calamity! Wallet code bug destroys $280m in Ethereum

Fluffy Cactus

Re: TOld is when you remember the invention of the 8" floppy

No, the Winchester 73, from 1873 - definitely was before 8" floppies. I know because I am 198 years old,

and I exaggerate.

Cops hate encryption but the NSA loves it when you use PGP

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Warranted

I am sorry sir, but it is not very smart to reveal such secrets as the 'graphite nanoparticles in writing instruments'. Now that they know that, they are going to using stolen pencils from the "mini-golf-course'.

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Ah, Traffic Analysis

No, it's not a "mostly ill reason". There are several good reasons.

Let me give you a few examples: An accountant wants to share tax data with the client - that's sensitive private data, that is required by law to be kept safe, so it should be encrypted.

A doctor wants to send health data to a patient, again, it's data that is required by law to be kept private.

Without encryption it cannot and should not be sent by e-mail.

A lawyer wants to send sensitive court or law-suit data to a client. It would be stupid, wrong and possibly malpractice to send such info unencrypted.

A business company making widgets sends the latest data about how well the newest widget performs

from the engineering department to the accounting department. They would be idiotic if they did not

encrypt such data.

A secretary of state, say Hillary Clinton, sends sensitive government data from her private e-mail account

unencrypted. It would be goofy if she really did that. Oh, what? oh she really did? oh, that's a bad example then. (Let's blame it on Microsoft and its spirit of openness.)

Alrighty then, several US embassy operators were sending sensitive government data home to Washington DC in plain text, without encryption. It'd be sort of dumb if they did that. Oh they did, that's another bad example. Sorry.

Or let's say the US FDA sends info about approving the latest drug from Pfizer or Merck, etc unencrypted to their clients. That would be dumb. Not sure if they do that. I am not on their list of clients.

Or the US Army cables that they are going to "Attack at dawn" in plaintext. That would be stupid.

At any rate, I believe I made my point that there are many reasons why certain data should be

transmitted only in a safely encrypted fashion, and that these many reasons have nothing to do with

terrorism or weird anarchist ideas.

Now do you get it?

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Show me

Twenty year ago, I looked into PGP to see if I could use it to safely send "tax-return information to customers". So, as I could not explain it to human clients, that was a useless undertaking.

Knowing nothing about decryption or PGP or metadata here, my best three, no four, guesses about the famous 16 digits contained in the "Show me" post are

1) PI: 3.141592653589790

2) The number e: 2.718281828459045

or may be, something more computer related like

3) 248163264128256 , or

4) 1234567890ABCDEF

Let me know about any prices I may already have won!

Brit moron tried buying a car bomb on dark web, posted it to his address. Now he's screwed

Fluffy Cactus

At the very least, the guy seems to be a bit old to act like a 10 year old who wants to build a rocket with

a chemistry set, which was possible and legal back in the 1960's, in a small European county. But it of course was rather stupid, as we could have hurt or killed ourselves and others.

At that age I and my brother learned that a rocket made of several rolled up newspapers paper, using

weedkiller and aluminum paint powder, and a couple other ingredients, has serious burn-thru issues. And since "dumb luck was the only guidance system" our rocket had, it ended up landing in the neighbors vegetable garden and destroyed a couple tomato plants. Our dad had to pay for the plants, and we tried to stay out of sight for several days. All the required parts and supplies were available to anyone, even kids, at garden and hobby stores. Fifty or sixty years on, and we could be considered not just stupid kids, but terrorists, and end up in jail, and such.. Just because we were inspired by the

Apollo Space program.

This story did not make into my "What I did on my summer vacation" assignment.

Boffins: We can identify you by your typing, and we're gonna sell the tech to biz, govt – yay!

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Accelerometer data

Several thoughts are streaming through my mind like rivulets

of cascading insights leading to a plethora of splendiferous

perceptions. . .

1) I always could tell whether it was Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, or Wagner who

were hitting the keys just so, same with KISS and Norah Jones, the Sex Beatles,

no, wait, the Beatles and the Sex Thistles, no Pistols, .... so I guess we'll all be famous.

Which is as useful as everyone winning the lottery at the same time.

2) W h a t i f I t y p e d r e a l l y s l o w l y

aaaa nnnnnn ddd m aa d e ma n n y m ee s t a k e ss

w o u l d "they" s t i l l f i g u u rr e o u t i t ' s m e?

What if I were rich and used a different secretary from the typist pool

each time? Oh wait, that was in the 50's. Forget it. End of story.

I got a "non-smart phone", I use "speed-dialing", and I don't text. Does that help?

3) I read somewhere that credit card companies can often determine who

is using a credit card by analyzing a mere three purchases. Pattern recognition, baby!

One particular credit card company needed only one (1) purchase to figure out my card info had been

snatched, because the hapless thief made a purchase at a "sports equipment store".

(Since "sport" costs money, is exhausting, can hurt you, can even kill you, such a

purchase was "so totally obviously not me", that this ID thief was busted on the first try. Ha!)

4) Isn't anything you do online already tied to some sort of global user id, in addition

to all sorts of IP address stuff? And aren't we already identified by the same old and tired

web-sites we visit each time? Plus, if I go online and check my e-mail, then MI6, the

NSA, Putin, Jong-Il, along with Google-Face-Apple-MSFT will know that it's me.

If they are interested in me. Which I bet they are not, because I know nothing, and

I got nothing.

5) I don't understand how VPN works, because if something is not encrypted from beginning to

end with a password that ONLY I and the FINAL RECIPIENT know, how can it be possibly safe?

Can anyone explain that to me?

Linus Torvalds may have damned systemd with faint praise

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Cannonlake, kabylake, coffeelake, skylake

I am sorry if this is off topic, but... since you brought up Emerson Lake and Palmer,

let me give you my "memory" version of the ending of the song "Lucky Man" circa 1970:

Lake: oooooooooooooooooooooh, what a luckkky maaaan, he waaaa-aaaas!

Emerson: ooooouuuuaaaaaiiiiiiiiiii badabad oooooeeee oooooeeeee

bididibaaaadaaaabooooodeeebaaadaaaa schawwwuuuuuooooowwwwongg...

Palmer: tit ka tit kat tit ka tit

Emerson: pscheeeooooo dscheeeiiooo booding ka tish ka tish badadada ting

pipipipiee didieieid badschuuung badschuioop tschhh bussschhh

Palmer: tit ka tit ka tit . . .

Emerson: dididi dididi bibaooobibaabaadschoooob oooooooeeeeee badschoooonnngg

ooooooohh waaaaaaaaay teep teep teip tip tip didl did did foooob

Palmer: tit ka tit ka tit dsch busch booof tsssooop

It sounded ok while it was in my head. It's hard to explain if you don't know the song.

If that doesn't make you happy, then I don't know what I am doing.

Ubuntu Linux now on Windows Store (for Insiders)

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Mensa

With regard to Windows PowerShell: I must be very, very dumb, because I don't understand

it. Or else Windows & MSFT did not ever explain it properly.

I do not know what "very standard object orientated interface and scripting approaches" actually means.

I do remember what I could figure out all by myself: DOS 3 up to DOS 6.22, when the "help system"

actually did help. Also the Lotus 123 "Macro programming language", it make sense from just trying

it out. Worked nicely.

Those were the days when you could actually "update and re-install the operating

system" without having to re-install each and every program on your computer. In other words, those were the days when MSFT still honored that it was "YOUR COMPUTER, YOUR DATA, AND YOUR PROGRAMS", and that it was not proper or even remotely "normal" to "DESTROY YOUR DATA AND YOUR PROGRAMS" willy nilly simply because your came up with a new OS (Operating system).

The "Windows Registry" was a total and complete step away from that: Instead of MSFT honoring

YOUR DATA and YOUR PROGRAMS, it instead took the simple liberty to destroy them whenever and wherever possible. I hate them for that, and I still hate them for that. I consider MSFT still to be as

honorable as a "used car dealer repair shop" that "destroys and switches out perfectly good parts"

all in order to sell you new stuff for no good reason. May they roast in hell for that, except Satan Nutella doesn't believe in hell, or customer service or anything else.

Consider, if you will, an alternative to the "Windows Registry" approach: Every program existing currently on your computer could be "polled, analyzed, and made standardized" so that the Windows

Registry COULD EFFING REBUILD ITSELF, WITHOUT A SINGLE PROGRAM HAVING TO BE

REINSTALLED due to a change in the OS. That would be be possible by using transparent standards. INSTEAD, MSFT is effing with every computer, every user, and every program. Do you see? Can you think? Can you think this through? Consider the hours, days, nights and weeks of re-installing stuff, simply because MSFT acts like the elephantine gorilla in the china store! There is a difference between being a careful and considerate servant and a gorilla. I am sorry if I accidentally insult gorillas. MSFT is worse than gorillas, more like ISIS or DAESH or something creepy like that. Destructive is the word.

So let me ask you again: What is the "object" of "object oriented programming"? To me it is sheer and

utter mean-spirited and unnecessary obfuscation, without any good explanation available anywhere.

If you ask MSFT any questions, you are considered an ignorant customer, not worthy of attention.

Anyone who tells me different is a paid lackey of MSFT. Essentially, MSFT destroyed "personal computing" as much as possible, preventing people from fixing their own, making their own, deciding what goes on their own computers. I hate them for this.

Currently I use Windows 7. I got 2 more years. Because it's cheap, and I could not get clear info on whether my programs would work on Linux. Linux people don't want to talk about that, or else they might appear too helpful. Meanwhile, Win 8 and Win 10 is useless, unless you are a mindless gamer and/or facebook/smart-phone consumer. ("Me big indian chief, and me say: Smart-phone make people stupid!" So what if it comes across as dumb, racist and ignorant, because kernel of truth is paramount.)

I may have to go to Linux, but it is too late, because MSFT has their tentacles already around them. With MSFT, partnership means one thing: "sneaky, slowly embracing overbearing control, until you give up." The people inventing and supporting Linux are blind, because they don't see what's happening there. They are also ignorant, because they did not see that a simple

measure of basic paid marketing and support would have helped Linux greatly to become a workable alternative. Instead, they kept Linux their own little secret, that way preventing it from becoming clear, obvious and commonplace. Ask any Linux genius a question, and you can see how "annoyed they are that anyone would admit to not knowing as much as they", and thus their and Linux's independence will end because they are "too smart to be kind". They do not understand the difference between "being uninformed" and "being a complete idiot". If you refuse to properly inform your potential customers, that does not make them idiots. You'd think people could see that. But they don't.

To end this post properly, here is something timeless

from "The Who" - "My Generation"

People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

Just because we get around (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

Things they do look awful c-c-cold (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

I hope I die before I get old (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

This is my generation

This is my generation, baby

Why don't you all f-fade away (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

Don't try to dig what we all s-s-s-say (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

I'm not trying to 'cause a big s-s-sensation (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

I'm just talkin' 'bout my g-g-g-generation (Talkin' 'bout my generation)

My Microsoft Office 365 woes: Constant crashes, malware macros – and settings from Hell

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Yo we heard you like broken!

I think what's going on is that "Carefully trying to find out what the customer, or "the various target markets", would like has gone "completely out the window".

Good, smart, careful, ingenious people are fired, and ignorant, careless, carefree pretenders and buffoons that are good with "the lingo", "the latest smartipants talk" are being hired.

Think about it: Is or was your boss a complete idiot who fired you because you disagreed, or were joking,

or were sarcastic? Well, if yes, then guess what kind of person that boss will hire to replace you, assuming you will be replaced at all?

That should explain a lot of what the heck is going on.

Fluffy Cactus

Not sure what you did there.

Fluffy Cactus

Never used Exchange, but I think that angry venting is good for your soul.

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Visio and Project are the only thing keeping me tied to Windows

My guess is that MS management is trerribly impatient, and employees there get unexpectedly yanked from one project to work on another, and the next person does not know, and has no way of knowing

what the prior person intended to accomplish, and as a result everything becomes haphazard, half-finished, untested, half-assed job. I keep on guessing that there is no clear chain of command, as whole departments are eliminated or repurposed, there are changing alliances, the new supervisors don't know what the old supervisors did, and on and on. Business plans change daily, what ya didn't know?

I think they laid off more than 10,000 employees in the last two years, or a bit over 10% of their work force. That is tough. I've been a couple times working in companies that purge employees, it's terrible for everyone in the company, everything is in flux, here today, gone tomorrow, who's in charge now?

Creative distruction? I need no part of it. Inhumane smallminded stupidity? I can do without it.

Fluffy Cactus

Re: I remember Lotus 1-2-3 and Word Perfect in the DOS days

Yeah, really, the DOS days. In Lotus 123, and Wordperfect you could figure out how the macros worked,

simply by trial and error. Because their macro languages were devised with the customer in mind. When you told the cursor to go from here to there, it would do it.

Then came Word and Excel, and those days were over. The cursor cursed you, because neither relative or absolute addresses made any difference. No amount of trial and error could overcome the macro languages in Word and Excel, as there was neither reason, logic or instructions. As much as possible it was devised so un-intuitive to make it impossible to work with. Those are my true memories, and they are true because they are based on feelings, and you can't argue with feelings.

Just imagine, in DOS 3 or 4 or 5 or 6.22 one could install or upgrade an operating system without having

to re-install every other application. You could install any application, and the idea that Microsoft needed

to know what that application was, and why, and wherefore thou werest running it, was completely unthinkable. Then came Windows 1, then 2 then 3.1 and tadaa, the windows registry made sure that

there were so many more ways for any program to malfunction. What was before a library of different and separate software applications, became now a Rube Goldberg machine of interdependent yet inscrutable logic. Before, if a program malfunctioned, you could re-install and be done in 20 minutes. THEN, if the windows registry became corrupted, everything had to be redone, from scratch. What great progress! It meant fully employment for even the least informed computer person, but absurdly horrendous expenses for businesses large and small. Yes, back then, if you merely had the patience of waiting for a computer to go thru install after install, that was enough to be considered one of the few, the proud, the very patient IT people. 1+1 = 10 was magic.

Sorry, I get carried away with nostalgia. It's easy to see why some people think that the past was better

than it was. Because it's already gone, and there is no chance it'll come back again, at least not on this

planet, not this galaxy.

Fluffy Cactus

Just being reminded of the "spacing after the paragraphs" MS Word weirdness makes me still want to catapult several banana cream pies via the prevailing jetstreams in the general direction of Seattle. If that is taken as a veiled death threat, I will say in my defense that there are no known deaths ever caused by

banana cream pies thrown in anyone's face, and that my "only theoretically contemplated action" is to be

understood as a mild criticism from a suffering MS customer.

Or the thing with "the line that suddenly appeared in Word" and there was no way to get rid of it, because its magical appearance was not logged in the 100 levels of undo. And the MS Office Help system would have no clue about how to deal with this. No idea about the simple logic of: If you got an on switch, then there also must be an off switch.

Why can't I let go off an old grudge? Because with MS there are so many things that were not working

as promised, no fixed as promised, fixed but the fix ruined several other things, plus then there were those things that worked, but were taken away for no other reason than that, seemingly, only 8% of MS users used them, and so MS logically assumed that out of its 1 billion customers, offending only 80 million customers would be pretty much ok. And they repeated this thought process with so many other

features, that over the years, they must have offended about 96.97% of their customers, which was statistically ok in their minds, but not if you were the customer.

You can tell that I am not an IT person, but I appreciate the sarcasm and humor on this website.

Thieves can wirelessly unlock up to 100 million Volkswagens, each at the press of a button

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Just give me a physical key, please

Kill switch, huh?

Well, you could attach a mechanical device that cuts the battery cables, the radiator fan belt and a few

spark plugs, when you pull on that string. Or install a hand grenade that literally blows the engine exactly when you want it to happen. The "sugar in the tank", "sand into the crank case", or "sausage into the

exhaust pipe" methods work slower, but could also be updated and robotized. So many ways to kill an engine.

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Just give me a physical key, please

Yup, that's right. The battery on my FOB died, and I haven't found the time to replace it, so I am using my physical key again.

It's a whole new world, because no sneaky FOB-radio-listening-hacker can ever get my code. They can of course use physical methods to steal my car, but, hey, who would want to steal a 20 year old rust bucket with a resale value of close to nada, zero and zilch. I am so safe, it's unbelievable.

But merely as an engineering idea, I think one could come up with an ever-changing random code, such that each time the FOB is used, the code changes. Something with PGP and such with an extra allotment of whatnot.. With radio waves that lie when listened to, in a quantum jumpy sort of way.

(Yes, your honor, my FOB is smarter than me, yes, my FOB lied, because we told it to.) With a code that is embedded in a bunch of random garbage, and only the car and the FOB knows where it begins or ends. As in: 512 bits of garbage, 5 bits of code, 463 bitsa garbage, 7 bits of code, 585 bits of garbage, 39 bitsa code, 4567 bitsa garbage, 85 bitsa code, plus extra garbage, with the beginning and end of garbage changing based on random crap, time of day, the measurment of marigolds and the weight of sunspots. How hard can it be, when you are inspired?

Like tomato sauce, except without garbage, it's all in there, salted, spiced, amazing and undoable.

I wish I wan't too dumb to be a genius.

Of course, anything will eventually get cracked, just to keep people on their toes.

Until then, thieves have to go for the obvious and quietly break the mostly still breakable windows.

Shhhhhh! Be very very quiet, we are hunting VW's...

Don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump? How about this woman who says Wi-Fi melts kids' brains?

Fluffy Cactus

Re: I am getting old.

Me too. But here is my 2 cents worth about anti vaxxers:

I am vaccinated. My kids are vaccinated. My parents were vaccinated. OK, that should tell you

that I am not an anti-vaxxer.

The first explanation is totally unscientific. A child/baby that was already on the way to be autistic

gets vaccinated. There are side effects. Cramps, contortions, screaming, blue in the face, etc.

The parents go through this, and then after the child is diagnosed autistic, they go through a full on

"post hoc ergo propter hoc" conniption. Meaning, they believe that since the bad stuff started right after the vaccination, it must have been because of the vaccination. Easy mistake to make. Now if the same thing happens per chance several times in one smaller community, people get together, and talk, and

compare notes, and before you know it, the anti vaccination movement is born. Add the internet, stir and

it makes 1,000,000 servings of a great conspiracy theory. That's one way of looking at it.

The second explanation is a bit more complicated:

a) Since we scientifically know and appreciate as a fact, that a properly working immune system is necessary for vaccinations to work (meaning, a working immune system has to react and produce the antibodies, that actually make the vaccination work.),

AND,

b) since we also know that in this day and age, some babies will be born with a compromised, or not yet

fully working immune system (in part because nursing a baby from the mothers breast is not even considered "proper" anymore, in some parts of the world at least, such as USA),

AND

c) as we know for a fact that the immune system of the mother literally gets transferred via the mother's

milk, which does not happen without natural nursing,

AND

d) doctors and hospitals willl want to vaccinate the baby as soon as possible after being born, in part

due to legal liability concerns, (Baby dies unvaccinated, you pay, baby dies vaccinated, you're OK).

it could potentially dawn upon us that the vaccination of babies with compromised or not yet fully developed immune systems could lead to a variety of unexpected side effects.

To this day, I think, no specific method exists to determine whether the baby is either

"immune compromised" or "not yet ready for vaccination". Correct me if am wrong on this.

Because, I am not a doctor, and I don't even play a doctor on TV. But trying to reason things out

has always fascinated me. If what I know is wrong, or incomplete, then I am wrong, of course.

Yet it's always nice to be right, in an effortless genius sort of way.

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Now That Bernie is Out....

I am sorry, Mr. Sanders, but it seems you are not paying attention.

Regarding your question of: "What has he said that is extreme?" I can think of several weird and oddly strange things Trump said:

1) "Why don't we give nuclear weapons to South Korea, so they can fight it out with North Korea?"

This is not quoted verbatim, but it is the gist of what he said.

Now, may be Mr. Trump loves to see a "good fight", but may be that was not such a good idea.

2) "It's ok that Mr. Putin took over Crimea." Now, again, my quotes are not verbatim, but as a candidate

for US president, you should think before you talk. It may be ok for some drunk dude in a bar to say the very same thing, because "ya know, who the heck wants to fight for that god forsaken island in the black sea, which was russian several times over, and changed hands at least 20 times in the last 1000 years!?

(I was wrong here, I am sorry: A drunk guy in a bar would never ever know that the friggin' island was

russian several times and did indeed change hands more than 20 times in the last 1000 years).

But, geopolitically, strategically Crimea is important, because it provides the russian Navy a harbor that is

OPEN 12 months out of the year. (Many of the northern russian harbors freeze over in winter, which is nice for the West, but not so much for the Russians. See. some things are a bit more complicated.)

3) Trump said something disparaging about Nato, saying, roughly "Why are all these, or some of these small Nato countries not contributing at least 2% or 3% of their Gross National Product GDP towards defense? They are freeloaders, and the US pays for their defense! May be I wouldn't defend some of

those small states, if they don't pay."

Well, once again, it is not as easy as that: Some of the smaller Nato countries, say Greece, etc. are not paying because they already have trouble paying their teachers, garbage collectors, pensions, and so

forth. Next, and even more importantly, the well-off nations in Europe are continually buying the bonds

of the USA, which translated into Trump-level speak, they lend the United States their extra cash. And not only that, they are more or less expected to do so, why, because this is what keeps Nato and

other things going. And in addition, think clearly, can any off these European nations go and cash out

the US Bonds? No, because that would destroy the market for these bonds. So, whenever some of these US bonds mature, they role it over into new US bonds, to keep the "them doggies rolling". It's

sort of like when you borrow money from your dad, and your dad is not going to ask for it back, because that would cause you to default on other loans, and what not. You can research this via the various websites of both Fed and foreign central banks/governments. 5th grade math is sufficient to add things up. Overall, it is not that hard to understand these things, if someone explains them in clear language. As a result, for a person like Trump to not know and understand these things is utterly stupid for a presidential candidate.

4) There are several things like "senseless wars" and "continued outsourcing" that Trump may be right

about. I give him that. There was a politician in the 1930's who was right about building German freeways, and who was trying to make "Germany great again" after WW1 and depression, etc., but we can all agree that the means and methods he used were, overall, not that right, and not that good.

"He means well" and "at least he is honest" were not his slogans, if I remember this right.

5) The silent majority, what does it think? I am not sure it is the majority, or else Trump would get 70% in the polls. And what does it silently think, this majority? 'I hate foreigners, and people of other races, other religions, and them terrorists, and I hate the government, and I am angry because I have a bad job, or no job, and I am mad as hell, and not gonna take it anymore." Is that it?

There were numerous statements by Trump that were incoherent and discriminatory on the basis of race, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, and on and on. And he was incapable of even understanding and learning that what he said was not proper in the context of running for president. So, you want a person who shows themselves "proudly as ignorant" and "incapable of learning", "incapable of apologizing" and living in his "own imagined bubble" to be president of the US? A person who openly attacks judges, who makes absurd racist, pigheaded remarks, who pretends to be more successful than he really is, and who generally shows that he does not give a damn about anyone else? I do not understand the average Trump voter.

6) None of the above means that I'd vote for Hillary. I'd like to say that many accusations against her were "trumped up", but now that Trump has destroyed the meaning of that word, I'd have to find a better one. But, let's take things one by one: The Benghazi attack: An intelligence failure to not anticipate a terrorist attack on one of the US embassies around the world. Who is in charge of overseas intelligence?

Is it the secretary of state, per se, or is it the CIA, secret service, and the US military, etc? Now, how often has the CIA and US military failed to anticipate something, under both Republican and Democrat administrations? More times than I can count. Secondly, terrorist attacks are surprise attacks, prepared in secret by secret participants. In the best conditions, these are hard and even impossible to predict. So it's not a particular failure by Hillary herself, and that's that.

Next: Hillary's e-mails: a) I delete about 25 e-mails a day, mostly junk or stuff I don't need anymore.

So 25 x 365 days x 4 years = 36,500 emails deleted. So, there are Hillary's 30,000 deleted emails.

Everyone does that, except for people who don't know how to delete an e-mail. Trumped up agian.

b) I understand that Hillary sent and received official possible sensitive government e-mail, unencrypted, without password. To me, this is fairly ignorant behavior. No excuse for that. But I also learned that many members of congress, senate, CIA, FBI, military, foreign embassies, have indeed sent sensitive data on unencrypted e-mails without passwords on regular e-mail systems, on a regular basis. This includes sensitive data sent by higher level CIA officials. This includes both republicans and democrats. So, I conclude that all these people are guilty of the same stupidity that Hillary committed, and it is possible that the Department of Justice did not indict her SIMPLY because then they would have to indict half the government. That's how smart our government is. Un-smart. The more you know, the more you shake your head.

May be all this makes sense.

The bigger they get, the harder we fall: Thinking our way out of cloud crash

Fluffy Cactus

Simply put

Given: The fact that every EULA is geared towards any and all software companies "Never ever really being legally responsible for anything".

Given: The fact that big players rarely if ever truly care about any of their paying customers.

Given: The software arena always being full of promises, but a bit short on delivering.

Given: The IT industry, software industry, computer industry being fairly used to not being held responsible for anything. (Compared to car, airplane, tractor, refrigerator, etc. industry)

Desired result: Reliable cloud data centers that keep working under difficult, unpredictable, iffy conditions.

I have my doubt about this. Sorry.

Uber's dud private dick given a hard time by judge in stiff surge case

Fluffy Cactus

Re: typo

I am sure there are rules against beginning a sentence with "And".

So that bible verse in Genesis 1, 3 is grammatically totally wrong:

"And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

Not only that, but the same mistake is repeated in verse 6, 9, and 14.

We must fix that NOW!

Quick someone notify the pope, and the Church of England, and the Evangelists

in the States, and the Baptists, and and and...

And what not!

Buwahahaahaha!

Fluffy Cactus

Re: typo

Sorry, but anomoly is spelled anomaly.

I often amuse myself by replying to comments on comments that complain about a typo, and then commit the "crime of a typo" themselves. Or is it themself? No, wait, let me think. it's definitely themselves. Right, it's "why don't you go impeach yourself !" and "They went and impeached themselves". Sometimes you have to test it in a sentence, to be sure.

You know what I mean. At least you should know what I mean, because there are several types of typos, to be specific:

1) Typos that are caused by typing on a tiny smart phone, with autocorrect going haywire. Garsh how I hate these tiny keyboards! If anyone told me in 1993 that in 15 years people will type messages on tiny

keyboards, using just their thumbs, and would find people who didn't like this totally uncool, then I'd have

told them they were crazy. But they have been un-crazy, the way cancers are described as non-small.

Beep beep digression alert.

2) Typos that are just typing speed related, but you still get what they are saying.

3) Typos that show that you are uneducated, like you are sounding out words as if you never read a book.

4) Typos that show you spell the same word in different ways, which show a free spirit of experimentation with poetry, song, theatre, dance, music and art involved, and anyone who is against that is just not with it. Scoff, eyeroll, bananas. (Is theatre spelled theater in the UK? I use US English, at least I try.)

4a) Typos that mean well, but at least they are honest, even if they are just dumb.

4b) Typos that are cute because you love her, him, them, it, everyone. Well not everyone.

4c) Typos that make you wanna punch someone because you are a Trumpelstilzkin.

5) Typos that don't cahnge teh maenign of a sentnece copmleltey.

6) Typos taht actaully do chagne tha meowing oif oe smelter or seltzer compeltetly. Like saying "do" when you mean "don't".

In my mind then, only the #6 variety require specific correction. I am fully convinced that is utterly useless amd wholly abnormal of me to remind the commentor that anomoly is spelled anomaly, because we all could have figured that much out.

Florida Man cleared of money laundering after selling Bitcoins to Agent Ponzi

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Hmmm....

Actually, in the US, if you drive around with a lot of cash, it can be confiscated at a highway traffic stop, if the Police Officer has "reason to believe that it either was obtained illegally, or that it will somehow likely be used for an illegal purpose". How the police officer backs up that "belief", I don't know. But under US civil forfeiture laws, no crime has to be committed, no crime has to be proven, just your money is guilty.

I don't understand how the money can be guilty. I used to go and buy a used car with cash, way back when you could buy a decent used car for $2,500. But now it's more comlpicated.

These days, the safest way to do that seems to require several steps:

1) I go to the bank.

2) I call the police.

3) I ask the police officer to first ask the bank official if the money in my account appears to have any traces "of being guilty", and if the bank official declares my money to be innocent, then I ask the police to witness my withdrawal of e.g. $4,500 from my bank account.

5) I then ask the police officer to seal the wad of cash with an "official not guilty by US police seal", which expires within an hour, as they can't be sure what I might do with it..

6) I ask for a police escort to the used car dealer, so the police can witness the transaction.

7) I then pay the police their customary "witnessing fee", because, hey, it's a "user fee" and

I am wasting their time, and they could have gone after actual criminals in the meantime.

The above are the steps to buy a used car with cash in the USA, without running the risk of having

your cash taken away by police, with no trial, no crime, no problem. It's all very civil.

If any of this seems weird to you, then please research "US civil forfeiture laws", "US money laundering laws" and prove me wrong (except for the "witnessing fee" or "user fee", which could be mistaken for a bribe, and we don't want to get in trouble with the law.) If "civil forfeiture" works like that, I don't really want to encounter "US 'criminal forfeiture' laws".

I hereby pledge allegiance to humor, satire, wit, exaggeration, insanity, comedy, hilarity, silliness, goofinity, and to the astonishing laws that still stand and prompted me write this in the first place. I also plead not guilty to anything, because the spirits of Jonathan Swift and Mark Twain have entered my body against my will, and have declared themselves captains of my soul. I am trying to fight them off, but they won't let go. You could say, more or less, that I am writing this under "undue influence". So I am totally safe.

Microsoft won't back down from Windows 10 nagware 'trick'

Fluffy Cactus

Re: don't run windows update until august 1

Dear AlbertH,

Your landlord owns your apartment, your just renting/leasing it. But over time laws were passed that told the landlord that despite owning the apartment, he was not allowed to come in unannounced, especially not between 8pm and 6am. These laws were not made to make the landlord happy, but because landlords turned out to be "overbearing meanspirited asses". That's your landlord is not allowed to

break your windows, not allowed to turn off your water and electricity, not allowed to flood your basement

or blow up your stove. Right? Of course I am right.

Your car, you might just be leasing it, but as long as you pay the monthly payments, is the lessor allowed to rummage through your trunk without your knowledge and permission? Hardly. Never. Nowhere.

I think it is time that laws against destructive software behavior be passed. Enough already. In the US, it works like this: Microsoft, I am guessing, supports each elected congress-person's campaign with something like $30,000 per each. For this money, it appears that the elected officials are supposed to look the other way. Well, thus, if everyone of these loyal elected officials is provided with, e.g. $40,000 per each, and a simply request to stop Microsoft's evil behavior, then that's what it takes. 435 congress members and 100 senators - that makes 535. 535 x $40,000 = $21,400,000. So, for only $21 meeellion and 400,000 we could make Microsoft behave like normal human beings.

The US full-time working population is currently 122,740,000.

$21,400,000 / 122,740,000 = 0.17. So, in theory, one could accomplish this by collecting 17 cents from

every working stiff in the US and sending the total, with easy to follow instructions, down to Washington DC. One could also do this by getting $1.70 from 10%, or $17 from 1% of the same population.

Just think about this.

I don't know how it works in Great Britain, or Europe, but somehow I feel that money tends to talk

everywhere.

'I thought my daughter clicked on ransomware – it was the damn Windows 10 installer'

Fluffy Cactus

Right, and overall, it seems to me that anyone who wants to upgrade an "actually working Windows Operating System" to a new one should be required to sign and initial 30 pages of complicated legal disclaimers, like they were signing up for a new mortgage, a new brokerage account, signing themselves into an insane asylum or agreeing to an experimental type of cancer treatment, ... just so they realize that they might lose their data, their life, their money and their freedom (which they might still care about), and that the process is more likely than not irreversible.

That's how much I like upgrading a Windows Operating system.

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Forgive me for not understanding how this happened

I understand how stuff happens. Someone clicks on something to see what that thing does. And as a completely ignorant person I can see how that might be a problem.

The other thing is: After suffering through various Microsoft updates, MS Security updates, and MS upgrades, (3.1, 95, 98, XP) I have learned, from experience, that one has to set the automatic update on Windows 7 to the setting "Do not download or install updates, let me decide whether to download and install'. Because I want to see what trouble other people run into by installing unproven, untested, undebugged updates from Microsoft. That saves me a lot of trouble.

After that, MS did trick me into installing KB4952664. That's the one that seems to put the little "upgrade to windows 10 thingi" on the thing called a "Taskbar". So, I uninstalled that, and when I look for updates, I have to uncheck that thing KB2952664 in the update list each time. Even though I uncheck it, it checks itself again. I know it by heart now, the good old KB2952664 trickster, the way I know my own phone number. It helps to actually click on the "More information" button for each and every Win update, to see

what it is, and whether it has "issues", and whether it looks "suspicious" simply from the file names being

used in it. Because, so far,software programmers do have to name their files in a way that tells them what each file does, and that way you can guess that the item called "Appraiser..." or "Telemetry3000" or whatever, is something that phones home early and often and makes you do things you don't want to

do, at least not now, at least not yet. That's how I keep Satan-Nutella out of my fairly frazzled registry.

Austrian mayor spunks €40k on virgin-eating dragon

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Klagenfurt?

Even the Austrians are not certain what the name Klagenfurt means, or where it comes from.

From Wikipedia, here are some arguments and ideas: "Carinthia's eminent linguists Primus Lessiak and Eberhard Kranzmayer assumed that the city's name, which literally translates as "ford of lament" or "ford of complaints", had something to do with the superstitious thought that fateful fairies or demons tend to live around treacherous waters or swamps. In Old Slovene, cviljovec is a place haunted by such a wailing female ghost or cvilya.[5] Thus they assumed that Klagenfurt's name was a translation made by the German settlers of the original Slovene name of the neighbouring wetland. However, the earliest Slovene mention of Klagenfurt in the form of "v Zelouzi" ('in Celovec', the Slovene name for Klagenfurt) dating from 1615[6] is 400 years more recent and thus could be a translation from German. The latest interpretation, on the other hand, is that the Old Slovene cviljovec itself goes back to an Italic l'aquiliu meaning a place at or in the water, which would make the wailing-hag theory obsolete.[7]

Scholars had at various times attempted to explain the city's peculiar name: In the 14th century, the abbot and historiographer John of Viktring translated Klagenfurt's name in his Liber certarum historiarum as Queremoniae Vadus, i.e. "ford of complaint", Hieronymus Megiser, Master of the university college of the Carinthian Estates in Klagenfurt and editor of the earliest printed history of the duchy in 1612, believed to have found the origin of the name in a "ford across the River Glan",[8] which, however, is impossible for linguistic reasons. The common people also sought an explanation: A baker's apprentice was accused of theft and executed, but when a few days afterwards the alleged theft turned out to be a mistake and the lad was proved to be totally innocent, the citizens' "lament (= 'Klagen') went forth and forth". This story was reported by Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, who later became Pope Pius II.[9]"

Sorry if that's too much information. You may now continue the main purpose of theregister, which is

"who can make the snarkiest remarks", almost to the point of hilarious.

'You've been hacked, pay up' ... Ransomware forces your PC to read out a hostage note

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Bah!

It means simply that the scammers do not want to get hunted down by their own people, by their own uncles, by their own police, by their own mafia, by their own secret police.

Ich nicht bin Charlie: Facebook must crack down on racists, says Germany's Merkel

Fluffy Cactus

Right, misdiagnosing the problem. In my opinion, the fugitives from the war in Syria are just that: People

who lost their home, their families, their jobs, their possessions. If there are some radical islamists within

that group, then don't you think that Germany will "have methods" to deal with that problem? Why are you even worried about that, when you are sitting somewhere in the UK?

Fluffy Cactus

Ok, in response to everyone here:

A) It's complicated. You can't do anything constructive without someone else calling you a traitor, a lier,

a freak, a nutcase.

B) Freely quoting Monty Phython: "Now lets stop bickering over who killed who and get on with it."

Next, to defend both the US, Germany, the UK, France, Spain, and what have you: "Every country has its fair or unfair share of racists and xenophobes." These are very difficult people to deal with. Just 5% or 10% of the population is in such a permanent state of hatred of other races, other religions, other political beliefs, etc, such that, if they got into power, really bad things would happen, here, there, everywhere.

In other words, if you are a kind and nice person, your race, religion, national origin, gender, beliefs, or whatever attributes you can think of, will not matter. And, if you are a mean @ss4ole, no amount of

religion, race, gender, belief, national origin will make you any nicer.

So, you can't just judge by all these labels, judge by personal experience with people. Whether you like

it or not, you already are judging, because that's part of the human condition.

There I was, trying to make the world a better place, when suddenly ....

Does this even make sense?

PDF redaction is hard, NSW Medical Council finds out - the hard way

Fluffy Cactus

One the free and easy ways to do this is to get

1) a free E-Fax Messenger (which allows you to receive Faxes, but not send them)

2) the free Microsoft Office Document Image Writer, which installs as a printer, by downloading the free Microsoft Office Sharepoint Designer 2007. This prints from a PDF to a flattened TIF format.

3) The free E-Fax Messenger comes with a Free Fax editor that edits the free TIF format which you save, and then it lets you print it to a free PDF format, at free fax quality 100 or 200 dots per inch.

Even an idiot like myself can do it.

Another method is to get the totally free and Open Source GIMP picture manipulating program, which

will let you open PDF's and make it into a picture of about 27 different file types. But since it's open source, the instructions on "how to edit" are so terribly complicated and unexplained, that an idiot like me

doesn't have the patience to figure it out.

Anyway, if you are cheap or patient, those are some ways to go.

Fluffy Cactus

Re: OOPS

No he doesn't win. Because I don't pay for Adobe, only use the free Adobe Reader. The winner is the one

who knows how to do this without paying. As if this isn't obvious.

Eighteen year old server trumped by functional 486 fleet!

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Windows not running for longer than 49.7 days.

Sorry, but, you mean 4,294,080 seconds, not 2 billion seconds.

Because, 2 billion seconds = 2.000.000.000 or (2,000,000,000 in US lingo) , and that

then turns out to be 23148 days, and that will be about 63.41 years.

But don't worry about it, easy mistake to make, I make them all the time!

Google forked out a whopping $16m on govt lobbying last year

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Is that all?

I don't know for sure whether that's just for the US, but if it were so, then consider that there are 435 elected officials in the US Congress and 100 Senators in the US Senate. So that's 535 people.

Now take the 11.2 million pounds and divide by 535 peeps, and you get 20,934 some pounds per official. That's about 29,800 US dollars. Really, it seems that our elected officials are selling us down the river for WAY TOO CHEAP.

They do not value our rights, our votes, our constitution highly enough. I'd feel much better if they sold us out for like a meeeellion dollars per each bribe, oops, I mean donation to the re-election campaign or PAC (Political Action committee).

But there is hope: Given that it's that cheap, relatively speaking, any grass-roots political organization can likely come up with $30,000 per each politician, and walk in, and say: Here Mr. Politician, we got $30,000, while these other cheap skates only got you $29,800, so who are you gonna listen to, us or them?

But wait, there is less hope, because the above would likely result in a bidding war, and we all know

how the "deepest pockets win" in that, so may be that's not how it's going to work. Seems it would be

enormously more profitable for politicians to publicly sell off their voting powers, in an "open outcry fashion", instead of the usual "hush-hush affair". I can just see it and hear it: "That gentleman from the Oil Industry just offered me 3 million pounds for my vote, to vote for the complete destruction of the planet, so do I hear a higher bid from the environmental gentle person on the left, yes, you can save the planet for just 3 million and 100,000 pounds, $3,100,000 is all it takes, do I hear more?" "What?"

"3 million and 25,000 pounds?" - "Sorry no, the minimum increment is 100,000 pounds now, we can't waste time with itsy bitsy increments, really!" - - - Ok, 3 million and 100,000 pounds it is to the wonderful gentle person, yes, yes, congrats, winning bid, fantastic, money well spent!" On to the next vote now! -

Sometimes my imagination just runs way ahead of me...

Microsoft steps up Windows 10 nagging

Fluffy Cactus

Re: needless updates

I agree that MS updates on Windows 7 have been doing the following:

Ruining installations of MS Excel and MS Word 2010.

Destroying Macros running on MS Excel.

Making the Win 7 Pro installation that was heretofore

"Genuine Microsoft" suddenly and strangely become "no longer genuine".

Ruining other non-Microsoft installations such as Quickbooks.

I am genuinely disgusted with Microsoft.

Fluffy Cactus

Re: I don't respond well to force

I thought his name was "Satan Nutella", but I might be totally wrong.

Fluffy Cactus

Upgrade tonight

I suggest that Mickeysoft change their Upgrade to Win 10 screen by including the following options

Upgrade in the morning

Upgrade aroung brunch time

Upgrade as a nooner

Upgrade in the early afternoon

Upgrade at Tea Time

Upgrade while at the Loo

Upgrade at the Pub

Upgrade in the Tub

and what not...

Of course, it would never occur to them to say: Upgrade to Win10 while making the whole

"Graphical User Interface" aka GUI "look and work like Win 7. That would be too easy.

Likewise, it would never enter their mind to say: "For every installed piece of software and for

every connected piece of hardware (printer, scanner, screen, mouse) that stops working after

installing Win 10, we will give you 200 British Pounds". Because that would be like "putting your

money where your big mouth is".

Plus, it would not ever be possible for them to say: "We want you to be in charge of your computer. We want you to decide how it looks, how it works, how it functions, how many windows it has open, whether you can have tabbed browsing, whether you can play a CD or DVD, what colors it has got, where the control panel is, whether you want this or that update, we want you to be utterly comfortable with Windows 10!"

Noooo, that would be impossible to promise to customers! Utterly impossible, Raven, Nevermore! Betcha a billion bucks!

SlemBunk slamdunk: Mobile banking Trojans found worldwide

Fluffy Cactus

Which ones

Ok so you told us: "Cybercrooks have put together a dynasty of Android Trojan apps in a bid to imitate the legitimate apps of 33 financial management institutions across the globe. "

Now, would it be too hard to tell us which ones these "33 financial management institutions" are indeed

affected by this? Or are you not sure? Or are you afraid you get sued? Or are you afraid of being useful?

Or what?

Periodic table enjoys elemental engorgement

Fluffy Cactus

Since you guys can't agree on anything, let me contribute

to the confusion with the following suggestions:

113: Fujiyamium, Tsunamium, Quakium, Origatonium, Sushium

115: Zarbombakaboom, Riotpussium, Putinium, Rasputinium

117: Rockridgium, Unnecessarium, Dollypartonium, Cubanrum

118: Barackiputinion, VladiObamion, Putinohillarion, Notonthephon

Obama calls out encryption in terror strategy speech

Fluffy Cactus

I just sort of disagree with what you kind of disagree...

You say: "On terrorism, the scary truth is that the terrorists will always win."

I say, well, that's not necessarily so. One can always take defensive steps that are both legal, reasonable and give you, as a human being, some sense of control. For example, if you think about the massacre in Paris, the one where about 80 people were killed by two or three shooters at a rock concert, and you use some imagination here: What if, of the about 1000 people there, a mere 10% had with them a wooden sling shot, with rubber band and leather patch, (like kids used to have 50 years ago) with just 5 golfball sized rocks. What if only 10% of people there were courageous enough to shoot their 5 rocks against these shooters. Out of 1000 people, 10% is 100 people, with 5 rocks each. That is 500 rocks! If only 5% of these 500 rocks hit the shooter in the head, that's 25 rocks in the head. Knocks them out. A simple approach like that could have saved about 50 or 60 people.

Now, I expect that there will so many 100 other people against that idea, and I understand that, yet I have to emphasize that this would be purely a defensive measure, that involves homemade almost toy-like tools, that are legal, easy to carry. In addition this approach does not involve any guns or ammo, or bombs, and any super-sophisticated, super-expensive, yet complicated and slow government actions.

Well, when I was a boy, I used a slingshot, with dried chest nuts, and within a few tries I learned to shoot

a chestnut accurately about 60 yards at a bottle target. That was fun. Meanwhile you can all say oh, this is just a fuddy duddy idea that will never work. But if you got 100 people with 5 rocks and a sling shot against 3 terrorists, the terrorist will bite the dust much, much earlier than you can even imagine.

Just an idea, not a command. If it doesn't make sense to you, it will to others. Ok, that's that.

--------

Now, with regard to encryption: Even if the governments outlaws any and all encryption, which they, rather without foresight, could do, then any terrorist sleeper cell could still communicate by use of a variety of so-called "one-time pads". The most famous "one-time pad" in recent history (i.e. the last 250 years) was George Washington's "One if by land, two if sea" (which related to 1 candle in the window, if the attach was going to be by land, two candles if the it was to be by sea). Only the person in the know

about what the signal means can understand its meaning, and, in addition, by the time anyone else can discern what the code meant, it is too late to do anything about it. The tricky thing about one-time pads is that the code changes with each and every use of it, which has to be agreed upon beforehand, and if you run out of iterations, you start over, at which point it becomes less safe. Nonetheless, with a bit of imagination, you can see that "secret messages" can be exchanged without any "electronic encryption system" at all. As a result, I figure that all the politicians are more or less talking "uninformed nonsense".

----------

You also say: "This isn't about protecting people. This is about control. Terrorism is the government's friend: the more we are scared, the more we turn to the government to protect us."

To that I say: Well, not all terrorism is a "false flag operation". It's just difficult to figure out who is behind what. Some terrorists are simply the secret extension of another unfriendly government that wants to

accomplish something, whatever. It seems odd to me that "radical islamists" want to "take over the world

by randomly killing people in other countries". What do they expect? That we say: "Oh you now killed 120 of our people, so that makes us really mad!" and "Wait a minute, you now killed 20,000 of our people, so now I really want to join your religion!!" Like, heck, totally absurd, not going to work, altogether

majorly dumb and dumber. So, back to rocks and slingshots we go.

Tablet computer zoom error saw plane fly 13 hours with 46cm hole

Fluffy Cactus

Uhm, isn't the sarcasm sign always on, on this site?

At least I assume it is, so, yes there are several reasons why all this happened: May be the pilot was just a wee bit drunk, so that, uhm that's always worked as an excuse in some courts in Montana, I think, but I could be wrong.

The traffic controllers may not have seen the plane hitting the lights. Because it was dark, and they

look at their screens which does not show any of these lights. So I give them a pass on that.

But yes, does it make sense to build any takeoff and landing strip anywhere - with lights that a plane actually could hit? Shouldn't these lights be further away? Or further down? So they cannot be hit?

This alone makes you wonder how far out of the usual path this plane must have been...

And how do I explain the luck that this plane didn't fully decompressurize during its flight? Well, there

must have been a cage of 17 chinchillas in the baggage hold, who escaped early on, before takeoff and these fluffy creatures must have been sucked towards the 46 cm gash during the flight and prevented more rapid decompression. Upon landing, these poor chinchillas crawled back into their cage, and none of the passengers and crew ever found out that their lives were saved by 17 chinchillas. Perfect explanation. Makes as much sense as any political statement.

How do I think that I know this? Because if a passing crew member checked out the baggage hold, on a mere hunch, saw the gash, and decided to fix it with duck-tape (Hmm, do the Brits know what duck-tape is?), then we would not have heard the end of "The amazing duck-tape hero of flight # XYZ".

Ok, ok, it could have been the outflow control valve, but that's a cold, prosaic, technological explanation. Chinchillas are much fluffier, fuzzier, newsworthier, so I have to stick with my story. Overall, we have to be glad just to be lucky.

MORE Windows 10 bugs! Too many Start menu apps BREAK it

Fluffy Cactus

Re: I have 600

If I remember right, Billy boy said back then "640K of memory ought to be enough for everybody". Which is right up their with the famous IBM prognosis that went somewhat like "There is a market for may be 50 to 100 so-called personal computers, so we won't invest in that.."

Funny, that a 512 limit would crop up again. The whole thing with the "512 limit" does remind me of the movie "The Andromeda Strain" (after the book by Michael Crichton) that came out in 1971. That was a cool movie. Awesome. Weird virus from outer space kills villagers by turning their blood into a dry corn-flake crunchy red substance. But the "US scientists" had a lab, where they did scientific research to kill the virus, and in that lab they had "computers", and those computers had an "aura of never-failing utterly fantastic scientific exactitude and invincible amazement". These computers had a working memory of 512K, and if you went beyond that, it would stop and "beep and blink an ominous neon green 512K" on the screen (both the computer and the movie screen) accompanied by scary creepy movie music, as if a "the freakishly holy limit of 512K meant that the problem was insolvable" as well as "that the computer had crashed!". And the movie actually ended on one of these "512K blinkies" and left you scared of outer space viruses, inadequate science, and what not. In 1971 Bill Gates was, uhm (thanks Google-Siri-Cortana) 16 years old. Meanwhile, today, computers and operating systems have an "aura of never ending utterly fantastic bugs and more trouble than you can shake a stick at".

Plus the "endlessly pliable changeable promising attributes of software" have been turned into an eternal "my MSFT, Adobe, Oracle, IBM, etc software is cast in stone, and it does not play well with others", and if you don't like it, go away or pay me the big bucks.

Stop climate change by drinking Coca-Cola says Oz government

Fluffy Cactus

Re: Carbon sequestration?

Wait I got some input on that.

In the USA, there is an actual tax credit. It is claimed on form 8933, Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Credit. The credit is $20.73 per metric ton of Carbon Dioxide put into secure geological storage. But you have to store at least 500,000 tons of CO2 to be eligible for the credit.

So, my plan to ceremoniously encase 24 cans of Coca Cola into a cement block and properly sequester it by letting it "swim with the fishes" was not enough for the Sequestration credit to kick in. Then I thought: What if we outlaw all champagne? Would that work? The environmentalists are sure-fire kill-joys, and will try anything, just like the temperance folks of old, which in turn provided us with drive-by shootings, Al Capone & the Kennedys. So, if that happens, it's "no champagne for you!", and you no longer can "pop the question", "this question", or "any question", because that would release CO2. Instead, they'll pop you if you do that. Then we certainly won't get a kick from champagne, but a sure kick in the head from the environmental protectorizers.

Where will this lead to? : Breathing in will be tax free, but breathing out will require a "CO2 release permit" with the related fees and taxes. Just put the needed tax stamp right near your mouth, so the tax man can see that you are "legally breathing out". Holding your breath does not work to well in the long run. Which of course brings us to the fact that, yes, sexual activity does involve a certain time period of fairly heavy breathing, which releases more CO2, which kills the planet, which requires a "temporary heavy breathing license, fee, tax and insurance". For those purposes, the specific tax stamp can be affixed to your ass, not my ass, or may be the back of your hand, which you know like the back of your hand. Of course, we are not inhumane, so there will be a special form "3210 - Short sex affidavit" in which married couples can apply for a refund by certifying that the whole thing didn't last longer than 2 minutes - hence, they'd be eligible for a full refund. The usual "de minimis" exception.

It all makes sense now.

Page:

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019