Posts by Fluffy Cactus 117 publicly visible posts • joined 8 Jul 2015
On average, if a person stands with one foot on a hot stove, and with the other on a big ice cube, government statistics will always report that they ought to feel just fine. On average!
By the same token, if the standard of living of a bunch of billionaires went up, and it went down for everyone else, there will, sure as hell, be a government report to tell us that the "economy is doing just great".
Except, who believes that sort of stuff?
I am not sure.
Honestly, I hate Microsoft, and Bezos almost equally, but I disdain the evil orange greed-monster even more, so is it wrong to say that I want all three of them disappear from the planet, all at the same time?
Like, poooof!
But then again, I don't want to give Apple, Google, Oracle an unfair advantage either, so I am really, really confused about the situation. Would it be allowable to say: "May they all die and roast in hell or at least in the core of the sun, or something?" Is that such a bad thing to wish for?
Is this what Pink Floyd meant, when they made that song: "Set the controls for the heart of the sun"?
Let me know!
I know next to nothing about how to build a jet engine and a jet airplane. Yet I also like Mr. Feynman, who knew nothing about Space-shuttle Challenger, yet he figured out how it happened and why. From folding paper airplanes and letting them fly, both into the wind and against the wind, I know just a wee bit about airworthiness. With that knowledge, I'll say:
It's about BALANCE. In theory and in practice, you want a plane that "sits in the air comfortably". Anytime a plane either is too heavy at the front, or in the back, you got a problem with BALANCE. Kindly use your imagination, and keep your sense of humor handy as well.
With paper planes, it's easy to counteract a paper plane's tendency to fly up too steeply into the air, (especially against the wind) and to enter a stall condition, making it dive deeply, only to go up steeply again. That results in an "upsy, downsy, upsy, downsy" flight path, which can be fixed either by a counterweight (a paper clip, generally) at the nose, or by "ripping some wing-flaps (aka elevators) into the back-wings" and to adjust these "elevators on the back wing slightly downward" (via trial and error), to make the flight path smooth, easygoing, long-lasting and super-cool.
With jet planes, a gigantic paper clip attached to a B 737 Max to the nose, or thereabouts, is generally out of the question. Neither Office Depot, Office Max, or anyone carry such sufficiently gigantic paper clips, and even if they did, the result would be a type of "doo-hicky, duct-tape like" solution that does not inspire the desired confidence in the flying public. Thus, we can disregard the paper-clip solution from the start.
Clearly, Boeing tried to produce a solution that involved the elevators on the back wing, and a type of air-flow measuring device in the front, (which in essence functions like a weather vane or wind vane), that is electronically transmitting input to the flight computer. MCAS then tries to put together the info about speed, angle of the plane, stalling limits, and the level of change in how fast it's moving upwards or downwards, and provides automated output, leading to automated corrective action. Fair enough.
But then again, in practice, if the plane is flying in a type of weather, such as when either hot air over a desert, or humid hot air over an ocean, or a T-storm, is rising rapidly, would the weather vane input show false info, simply by being pushed slightly upward? I'd say that's a consideration. Has that been considered? Just wondering! Testing in Washington State, but then flying over Sahara or over tropical seas? Think!
Likewise, the elevator flaps in the back wings are really important to any pilot, because they make the plane either move up, or move down, or stay level. If I were a pilot, and some flight computer suddenly overrules my ability to maneuver the plane, I'd be more than slightly concerned, especially if Boeing, as it turned out, did not even inform me about this possibility. I am not accusing Boeing of wrong-doing, I am just reporting ideas.
Sure, is man always right? No! Is the computer always right? No again! Man vs machine, an age old problem. Lot's of variables to consider, such as balance, fuel use, profitability, etc.
Next, has Boeing considered refining the way the input from the weather vane indicators is handled? This type of input appears to be subject to more random moves by the elements, weather, etc. Updrafts, downdrafts, water, rain, ice, storms, etc... how are these factors weighing in on how the raw data is being used?
Has Boeing considered actual counterweights to the forward position of the new more efficient jet engines? Yup, weight costs money, but sometimes a small change makes a big diff.
Also, could the position of the thrust reversers be changed, such that only one part, one half of them, could be used to provide slight upward thrust as a corrective action, (as opposed to MCAS interfering with the elevators in the back wings). I think that the thrust reversers currently are used only horizontally, providing breaking action to the forward left and to the forward right upon landing, with each half of them fully deployed. A 45 degree rotation of the reverse thrust "thingies", and revamping, so that they could independently provide a bit of either upward or downward thrust could be a solution to that MCAS dilemma. Can you imagine what I say here?
Cost? I don't know! Come on, I started with paper airplanes, how should I know cost accounting? That's your job.
Sure, for the military, nothing appears to be too expensive to try, while for the commercial market nothing appears to be too cheap to try. How about some balance between the two? Really now, Boeing, can't you use some of your military profits to make your commercial planes a wee bit safer? Give yourself a push and do it. Without imagination, you got nothing.
There are numerous laws, especially tax laws, that are interpreted differently in the US than anywhere else. By law, for example, you become subject to US tax laws "simply by being there long enough", regardless of whether you are a US citizen or not. They do this by saying "Once you have been here a certain number of months, you are a resident and subject to US tax laws". And, you would think that this "residency" would stop automatically by simply "no longer being there for a sufficient number of months, but, nooo, you have to let them know that you are gone and won't come back, or else the long arm of US tax law can still get you". True in fact, and by law. Luckily, if you are a poor sap with nothing but a silly pay-check to your name, they won't come after you. But, if you are a "worthwhile billionaire" who has not bribed enough politicians with protection money, then they are gonna get you.
Yup, the Americans have often made laws that are valid "wherever, whenever, forevermore". Their mindset is weird, overbearing and without regard to the laws of other countries, similar to the million year contract a scientology member is supposed to sign.
So, people who are running governments and make laws often are certifiably insane. Most laws should come with an expiration date.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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?
systemd with faint praise
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
