Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site April 24, 2014, 09:47:12 AM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
View the new Member Awards and Badges page.
   
  Forum Home Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
  Show Posts
      View this member's profile 
      donate to someone Donate to this member 
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 144 Next
126  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Firefox Extensions: Your favorite or most useful on: March 05, 2014, 04:47:49 PM
To my surprise this works: ...

To my surprise - it didn't!?    tellme
127  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Firefox Extensions: Your favorite or most useful on: March 05, 2014, 04:46:02 PM
a nifty Firefox extension called UpdateScanner
?
Quote
Last Update: 2014-02-12.
This project has been taken offline, please contact SourceForge.net Support for assistance.
  tellme

Yes, it seems the SourceForge project has been removed - probably to reduce duplication of site maintenance.
I searched and found the link to Firefox add-ons. Is now here: https://addons.mozilla.or...fox/addon/update-scanner/
128  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Firefox Extensions: Your favorite or most useful on: March 05, 2014, 03:28:10 PM
I like to view links to documents online via Google Docs Viewer.
Having tried out different scripts, there are two that I have kept and found useful:

The two scripts are not identical, but do overlap in function, so I use them both together. Both scripts work fine in Firefox, and seem to work OK if you leave them both switched ON (Enabled), though when I have done that (i.e, left them both ON) and I view a doc in G.Viewer, I sometimes get an obscure message from Google to the effect that "Sorry, we cannot display that. You have exceeded your bandwidth utilisation..." or something. It might be the document size, but I am unsure what causes this, though by trial-and-error I found that switching off one of the scripts for a while seems to (usually) clear the problem, and I re-enable it later.

I have copied below 3 screenshot clips showing how document links look on the webpage, with:
  • 1. Both scripts OFF.
  • 2. only View etc. ON. (Displays a little Google Viewer icon.)
  • 3. only gPDF ON.
    ___________________
(If you leave both scripts ON, then it looks like the 2nd image - i.e., with the little Google Viewer icon.)

1. Both scripts OFF:

[attach]


2. only View etc. ON:

[attach]


3. only gPDF ON:

[attach]
129  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Firefox Extensions: Your favorite or most useful on: March 05, 2014, 02:33:50 PM
@Curt: Good find.  thumbs up
Those top few ads in Google have long been a nuisance. I once had a script that highlighted those adds (with a red rectangle), but it only worked on google.co.uk (I think, from memory), and ABP can't seem to block just those elements.
I use DuckDuckGo as default tool for searching now (which also collects Google searches), but on the rare occasion that I might want to doublecheck a search on just Google, then I still find those top few ads annoying/distracting, and of no use, so I shall use this script.
Many thanks!

EDIT: Oh! It doesn't seem to work! Doesn't seem to do anything.
130  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process on: March 05, 2014, 01:19:14 AM
Well, haven't we all - or at least most of us - been subjected to the same thing?
A rhetorical question. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, the answer would be "Yes, but no", mainly because I have always resisted attempts to impose that sort of asinine method of motivation on me. It is insidious, self-destructive and corrosive of the human spirit, but probably more importantly, it is guaranteed to adversely affect quality of output of a process (Deming, et al - esp. the experiment with the red and white beads).
131  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Peer Review and the Scientific Process on: March 04, 2014, 11:46:52 PM
The fraud was apparently first reported in the journal Nature.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Quote
Over 100 published science journal articles just gibberish
  • ...The fake papers are in the fields of computer science and math...

  • ...This is not the first time nonsense papers have been published. ...

  • ...But how could gibberish end up in respectable science papers? The man who discovered the recent frauds said it showed slipping standards among scientists.
    "High pressure on scientists leads directly to too prolific and less meaningful publications," computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in France, told FoxNews.com.
    But he has no explanation as to why the journals published meaningless papers.
    "They all should have been evaluated by a peer-review process. I've no explanation for them being here. I guess each of them needs an investigation," he said. ...

  • ...The publishers also could not explain it, admitting that the papers “are all nonsense.”...

  • ...Some professors said that pay rules that base professor salaries on the number of papers they publish may lead to fakes.
    “Most schools have merit raise systems of some kind, and a professor’s merit score is affected by his or her success in publishing scholarly papers,” Robert Archibald, a professor of economics at the College of William and Mary, who studies the economics of higher education, told FoxNews.com.
    He noted that because other professors may not read the paper, “publishing a paper that was computer-generated might help with merit pay.”
    Labbé also said that overly numerical measures might encourage fraud.
    “In aiming at measuring science it is perturbing science,” he said.

Looks like this could be an absolutely classic own goal by the moronic academic administrations that subscribe to the outmoded and discarded management practice of making merit pay based on numerical measures. It is well-documented what happens if you do that: you get unintended consequences.
Points 10 and 11 of Deming's 14-point philosophy cover this very well:
  • 10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations and targets for the workforce asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the workforce.

  • 11. (a) Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
          (b) Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.

Therefore, it is arguably not so much a case of "it showed slipping standards among scientists" as that it showed that the university administration was effectively dictating a lowered standard as being necessary to achieve higher merit pay  - i.e., the more you publish, the more we'll pay you, regardless of the quality.
132  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / UPDATE: Peer Review Game - Over 100 published science journal articles gibberish on: March 04, 2014, 05:34:57 PM
The fraud was apparently first reported in the journal Nature.
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Quote
Over 100 published science journal articles just gibberish

By Maxim Lott
Published March 01, 2014
FoxNews.com

Image:fake articles in science journals.jpg

Do scientific papers ever seem like unreadable gibberish to you? Well, sometimes they really are.

Some 120 papers published in established scientific journals over the last few years have been found to be frauds, created by nothing more than an automated word generator that puts random, fancy-sounding words together in plausible sentence structures. As a result they have been pulled from the journals that originally published them.

The fake papers are in the fields of computer science and math and have titles such as “Application and Research of Smalltalk Harnessing Based on Game-Theoretic Symmetries”; “An Evaluation of E-Business with Fin”; and “Simulating Flip-Flop Gates Using Peer-to-Peer Methodologies.” The authors of those papers did not respond to requests for comment from FoxNews.com.

This is not the first time nonsense papers have been published.

In 1996, as a test, a physics professor submitted a fake paper to the philosophy journal Social Text. His paper argued that gravity is “postmodern” because it is “free from any dependence on the concept of objective truth.” Yet it was accepted and published.

But how could gibberish end up in respectable science papers? The man who discovered the recent frauds said it showed slipping standards among scientists.

"High pressure on scientists leads directly to too prolific and less meaningful publications," computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in France, told FoxNews.com.

But he has no explanation as to why the journals published meaningless papers.

"They all should have been evaluated by a peer-review process. I've no explanation for them being here. I guess each of them needs an investigation," he said.

The publishers also could not explain it, admitting that the papers “are all nonsense.”

“We are in the process of investigating… [and] taking the papers down as quickly as possible. A placeholder notice will be put up once the papers have been removed. Since we publish over 2,200 journals and 8,400 books annually, this will take some time,” Eric Merkel-Sobotta, a spokesman for the publisher Springer, which published 16 of the fake papers, told FoxNews.com.

The fraud was first reported in the journal Nature.

Labbé has made it his mission to detect fakes, and ironically has published a paper in a Springer journal about how to automatically detect fake papers. He also built a website that detects whether papers are computer generated.                                                                                     

“Our tools are very efficient to detect SCIgen papers and also to detect duplicates and plagiarisms,” Labbé said. SCIgen is the program that generates random papers.

Some professors said that pay rules that base professor salaries on the number of papers they publish may lead to fakes.

“Most schools have merit raise systems of some kind, and a professor’s merit score is affected by his or her success in publishing scholarly papers,” Robert Archibald, a professor of economics at the College of William and Mary, who studies the economics of higher education, told FoxNews.com.

He noted that because other professors may not read the paper, “publishing a paper that was computer-generated might help with merit pay.”

Labbé also said that overly numerical measures might encourage fraud.

“In aiming at measuring science it is perturbing science,” he said.

The author of this piece, Maxim Lott, can be reached on twitter at @maximlott or at maxim.lott@foxnews.com
133  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Commenters' Portraits in Notorious Hall of Fame. on: March 04, 2014, 01:12:41 AM
At OutlinerSoftware.com, there is a character going by the name 22111 who is notorious for posting weird/irrational comments. He makes some curious comments. Sometimes they look like they could be interesting, and at other times they seem angry, arrogant, aggressive, or convoluted and nonsensical like stirred spaghetti.
Some people seem to think that he is an infuriating idiot or troll, others that he's a WUM (wind-up merchant). You can see some of his posts (and what people make of him) in this thread: What the he** are "contacts"? Chaos Intellect review - and why that prog, too, seems to be up for the bin - 22111
However, no-one has so far thought he was worth making a portrait of.

But, at ClimateAudit.org, they have another notorious commenter who uses the handle "Nick Stokes". This guy is so good, he is apparently worth making a portrait of - or at least, a caricature. It's rather cleverly done. To fully appreciate the humour, you probably need to read his comments referred to, and then look at the signals and puns in the cartoon (by Josh'14):
Quote
From: Behold, a Gordian - Josh 261
If you read the comment threads at Climate Audit then you will probably be familiar with a character called Nick Stokes who argues the impossible and indefensible with great tenacity. Steve's [the blog owner's] patience with him is exemplary and this thread, in particular, prompted the cartoon.
Cartoons by Josh
_____________________________

[attach]
134  News and Reviews / Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: WizNote (a PIM from China) - Mini-Review + Provisional User Forum on: March 01, 2014, 11:34:08 PM
...'Ah, it has previous versions' I thought. Nope, it's only for VIP. ...
Previous versions seemed to work for me when I had saved a page online and edited it and then wanted to recover an earlier version.
135  News and Reviews / Mini-Reviews by Members / Re: WizNote (a PIM from China) - Mini-Review + Provisional User Forum on: March 01, 2014, 11:30:12 PM
WizNote blog posts: (translated from Chinese using Google Chrome auto-translate)
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Quote
To know notebook business services 50% discount promotion
2014-02-28 products and services , business services

To know notebook business services 50% discount promotion
    To know notes business services in 2014 was 3 months 1 day to launch a new pay plan, we canceled the restrictions of space and the number of members of the group before the introduction of a more economical and practical "Basic Edition" and "Professional Edition", the new version of the program In terms of prices and services compare with similar products in the market with the best price, to better meet the needs of SMEs and organizations in the information management team.  For details, please visit  http://blog.wiz.cn/wiznote-biz-pricing.html

5 % discount promotion
    To thank the user to know the notes and business support services, is launching a 5% discount on the purchase policy: the 2014 3 months 1 day before the trial of all registered users of business services, before April 1, 2014 to purchase public cloud-based enterprise Edition and Professional Edition, the new program will enjoy 5 % off the purchase price. This policy is a rare concession missed! Hurry!
    Users can access the enterprise service management background, into the "service charges" page, select the product package directly to make a purchase.

    Login to know notes        Click here to open Enterprise Services
    We also adjusted the trial version of enterprise service policy experience, if you are currently a trial version of the user experience, from 3 May 1 onwards, your trial period will be adjusted to 30 days, 30 days after the trial expires, you can not add admin team members, but the user data and the client will not be affected .
_____________________________

I haven't copied these two as they contain images and details that have to go together to make sense.
136  News and Reviews / Mini-Reviews by Members / How to check the Service Pack level in Office 2013 on: March 01, 2014, 11:26:35 PM
I just read the post (copied below) from MS Outlook Info, and checked the version number of my MS Office install, and it was an old version. The updates seemed to have stopped at about 6 versions previously, and the Service Pack 1 version (15.0.4569.1507) evidently had not been installed.

So I went to About Microsoft Office 2013 Click-to-Run Updates and simply followed the steps where they say:
Quote
If updates are enabled and you are still at an older version, you can retry the update check by disabling and then re-enabling updates.
  • 1. Open any Office application
  • 2. Click on the File tab
  • 3. Click on Account (Office Account in Outlook)
  • 4. Click on Update Options
  • 5. Click on Disable Updates
  • 6. Click on Update Options again
  • 7. Finally, click on Enable Updates
_____________________________
It worked a treat.

The MS Outlook Info post is copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images - so you probably need to read the actual post for best comprehension.
Quote
How to check the Service Pack level in Office 2013
Now that Service Pak 1 for Office 2013 has become available, how do I check if I actually have it installed?

Does this Service Pack also apply to my Office 365 Home Premium installation?

Office 2013 doesn’t really like to show off that it is running at Service Pack 1 level. Instead, you have to recognize it via the MSO version number.
Finding the MSO version number

To see the MSO version number, go to File-> Office Account in Outlook (or another Office 2013 application) and press the “About Outlook” button.

At the top, you’ll see 2 build numbers numbers; 1 for Outlook and 1 for MSO.

About Microsoft Outlook - Service Pack 1 MSO version number
The good old About dialog is still there but no longer reveals SP-level information.

When the number behind MSO is 15.0.4569.1506 or higher, then you have successfully installed Service Pack 1 for Office 2013.

For Office 365 subscription based installations of Office 2013, you’ll see the version number directly in the Office Account section as well. In that case, the version number for Service Pack 1 is: 15.0.4569.1507.

Office 365 Service Pack 1 version number
Forcing Office 365 to check for updates

Update Now button for Office 365When you are using Office 2013 as part of an Office 365 subscription, then the Service Pack update isn’t offered via Windows Update nor can you use the standalone installer.

Instead, the update will be installed automatically after a few days, or you can force the update detection by temporarily disabling Automatic Updates and then directly enable it again.

You can do this via:
File-> Office Account-> Update Options

A few seconds after you’ve re-enabled Updates, Office will show a notification that an update is available and will begin to download it. After it has been downloaded confirm that you want to start the installation or simply close any Office applications when being prompted.

Office 365 - Updates for this product are ready to install.

When the update has already been downloaded for you but you haven’t applied it yet, then you can start the installation of it via the Apply Updates command in the list that shows up when you click on the Update Options button.

Note: Service Pack 1 introduced an “Update Now” command to the Update Options button so in the future, manually checking for updates is much more intuitive.
137  DonationCoder.com Software / Post New Requests Here / Re: IDEA: AHK script to insert date and time to file name on: February 27, 2014, 11:42:46 PM
Just corrected the AHK code above. I had forgotten to put the final (correct) code in. Sorry.
138  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: February 27, 2014, 04:03:09 PM
Good Quotations by Famous People:
(famous quotes, witty quotes, and funny quotations collected by Gabriel Robins (http://www.cs.virginia.edu/%7Erobins) over the years)

From: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/quotes.html
(In a spoiler as it is a long list.)
139  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: February 27, 2014, 04:00:57 PM
From Re: You like science fiction, don't you? Of course you do!
...A Muslim cleric, a Roman Catholic priest, and a Jewish rabbi were discussing their individual experiences of miracles.

The Muslim cleric said, "Once I was riding a camel alone, in the middle of the Sahara desert, and suddenly a fierce sandstorm appeared from nowhere.  I truly thought that my end had come as I lay next to my camel while we were being buried deeper and deeper under the sand, but I did not lose my faith in the almighty Allah, and I prayed and prayed and recited passages from the Koran.  Suddenly, a miracle occurred, and it seemed as though for a hundred metres all around me, the storm had stopped, but I could see it still raging beyond that distance."

The Roman Catholic priest spoke up next, "My experience was very similar.  One day when I was walking down a street in Belfast in Northern Ireland, during the time of the Troubles, I was walking past this pub when people ran out screaming 'It's a bomb!'.  Well, I just stood still, put my hands together, and prayed, thinking to protect all the poor people who might get hurt if it was indeed a bomb. Sure enough, just then, a bomb went off inside the pub, and blew out the wall next to where I was standing, throwing bricks, nails and bits of glass in all directions.  When the dust settled, I was still standing unharmed, in what seemed to be circle of safety all around me in a radius of about a hundred feet.  Inside that circle, no-one had been harmed."

The Jewish rabbi said, "I too have had an experience similar to this.  It was one Sabbath (a Saturday) when I was walking down the street to my synagogue in London.  I like to walk along past the Mercedes showroom, to look at the cars.  I would have loved to buy a new 350SL - it's my favourite car - but I could never afford it unless they sold it for half the price!  As I approached the showroom, I saw a sign in the window that said 'Today only! One only!  Special offer! Brand new 350SL demonstration model at half price!'   I nearly cried!  What could I do?  It was a Saturday, and Jews are not allowed to handle money or engage in commercial transactions on the Sabbath, so I could not buy it even though I could have afforded it.  So I put my hands together and prayed and prayed.  Suddenly, in answer to my prayers, a miracle occurred - for 500 feet all around me, it was a Tuesday!"
140  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / No, I Don't Trust You! - "Explicit Trusted Proxy in HTTP/2.0" on: February 27, 2014, 03:33:30 PM
I put this in this thread as it seemed relevant to the SnowdenGate revelations re snooping/surveillance of traffic flowing variously through ISPs, Google, Microsoft, etc. - that is, SCS (State & Corporate Surveillance).

If the proposals of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) Internet-Draft "Explicit Trusted Proxy in HTTP/2.0" (14 Feb 2014) are agreed, then this snooping/surveillance looks like it could be formalised as "standard practice" in the Internet architecture, and authorised and enabled regardless of Internet users' wishes.

Currently I am aware of only one publicly available and apparently feasible defeat for "man-in-the-middle" attacks by ISPs, governments or other criminals - that would seem to be OpenDNSCrypt.
One wonders how long that is going to be tolerated by the SCS fraternity or indeed whether OpenDNS might not already have been obliged to compromise OpenDNSCrypt without publishing that fact. One would have no way of knowing for sure. It's all about Trust.

(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Quote
No, I Don't Trust You! -- One of the Most Alarming Internet Proposals I've Ever Seen
February 22, 2014

If you care about Internet security, especially what we call "end-to-end" security free from easy snooping by ISPs, carriers, or other intermediaries, heads up! You'll want to pay attention to this.

You'd think that with so many concerns these days about whether the likes of AT&T, Verizon, and other telecom companies can be trusted not to turn our data over to third parties whom we haven't authorized, that a plan to formalize a mechanism for ISP and other "man-in-the-middle" snooping would be laughed off the Net.

But apparently the authors of IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) Internet-Draft "Explicit Trusted Proxy in HTTP/2.0" (14 Feb 2014) haven't gotten the message.

What they propose for the new HTTP/2.0 protocol is nothing short of officially sanctioned snooping.

Of course, they don't phrase it exactly that way.

You see, one of the "problems" with SSL/TLS connections (e.g. https:) -- from the standpoint of the dominant carriers anyway -- is that the connections are, well, fairly secure from snooping in transit (assuming your implementation is correct ... right?)

But some carriers would really like to be able to see that data in the clear -- unencrypted. This would allow them to do fancy caching (essentially, saving copies of data at intermediate points) and introduce other "efficiencies" that they can't do when your data is encrypted from your client to the desired servers (or from servers to client).

When data is unencrypted, "proxy servers" are a routine mechanism for caching and passing on such data. But conventional proxy servers won't work with data that has been encrypted end-to-end, say with SSL.

So this dandy proposal offers a dandy solution: "Trusted proxies" -- or, to be more straightforward in the terminology, "man-in-the-middle attack" proxies. Oh what fun.

The technical details get very complicated very quickly, but what it all amounts to is simple enough. The proposal expects Internet users to provide "informed consent" that they "trust" intermediate sites (e.g. Verizon, AT&T, etc.) to decode their encrypted data, process it in some manner for "presumably" innocent purposes, re-encrypt it, then pass the re-encrypted data along to its original destination.

Chomping at the bit to sign up for this baby? No? Good for you!

Ironically, in the early days of cell phone data, when full capability mobile browsers weren't yet available, it was common practice to "proxy" so-called "secure" connections in this manner. A great deal of effort went into closing this security hole by enabling true end-to-end mobile crypto.

Now it appears to be full steam ahead back to even worse bad old days!

Of course, the authors of this proposal are not oblivious to the fact that there might be a bit of resistance to this "Trust us" concept. So, for example, the proposal includes the assumption of mechanisms for users to opt-in or opt-out of these "trusted proxy" schemes.

But it's easy to be extremely dubious about what this would mean in the real world. Can we really be assured that a carrier going through all the trouble of setting up these proxies would always be willing to serve users who refuse to agree to the proxies being used, and allow those users to completely bypass the proxies? Count me as skeptical.

And the assumption that users can even be expected to make truly informed decisions about this seems highly problematic from the git-go. We might be forgiven for suspecting that the carriers are banking on the vast majority of users simply accepting the "Trust us -- we're your friendly man-in-the-middle" default, and not even thinking about the reality that their data is being decrypted in transit by third parties.

In fact, the fallacies deeply entrenched in this proposal are encapsulated within a paragraph tucked in near the draft's end:

"Users should be made aware that, different than end-to-end HTTPS, the achievable security level is now also dependent on the security features/capabilities of the proxy as to what cipher suites it supports, which root CA certificates it trusts, how it checks certificate revocation status, etc. Users should also be made aware that the proxy has visibility to the actual content they exchange with Web servers, including personal and sensitive information."

Who are they kidding? It's been a long enough slog just to get to the point where significant numbers of users check for basic SSL status before conducting sensitive transactions. Now they're supposed to become security/certificate experts as well?

Insanity.

I'm sorry gang, no matter how much lipstick you smear on this particular pig -- it's still a pig.

The concept of "trusted proxies" as proposed is inherently untrustworthy, especially in this post-Snowden era.

And that's a fact that you really can trust.

--Lauren--
I'm a consultant to Google. My postings are speaking only for myself, not for them.

- - -

Addendum (24 February 2014): Since the posting of the text above, I've seen some commentary (in at least one case seemingly "angry" commentary!) suggesting that I was claiming the ability of ISPs to "crack" the security of existing SSL connections for the "Trusted Proxies" under discussion. That was not my assertion.

I didn't try to get into technical details, but obviously we're assuming that your typical ISP doesn't have the will or ability to interfere in such a manner with properly implemented traditional SSL. That's still a significant task even for the powerful intelligence agencies around the world (we believe at the moment, anyway).

But what the proposal does push is the concept of a kind of half-baked "fake" security that would be to the benefit of dominant ISPs and carriers but not to most users -- and there's nothing more dangerous in this context than thinking you're end-to-end secure when you're really not.

In essence it's a kind of sucker bait. Average users could easily believe they were "kinda sorta" doing traditional SSL but they really wouldn't be, 'cause the ISP would have access to their unencrypted data in the clear. And as the proposal itself suggests, it would take significant knowledge for users to understand the ramifications of this -- and most users won't have that knowledge.

It's a confusing and confounding concept -- and an unwise proposal -- that would be nothing but trouble for the Internet community and should be rejected.

- - -

Posted by Lauren at February 22, 2014 08:24 PM | Permalink
Twitter: @laurenweinstein
Google+: Lauren Weinstein
141  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage. on: February 27, 2014, 07:38:15 AM
I hadn't realised that GCHQ/NSA were apparently so amazingly up to their armpits in deliberately fomenting revolution/war [...]
this is not directly related to the linked presentation (? - it may be implied, but not clearly - although I would have been happier if the images were bigger, i.e. I may have missed something).
And I'm not saying they're not - and you may even have posted before here about it - but if you're going to throw out a statement that bald, it needs/deserves a reference/link.

Sorry, perhaps I should have pointed out the link in the Guido article where it says: View this document on Scribd. The material could be disinformation though, as Guido suggests, but if it isn't, then...

I have to say that there doesn't seem to be much bluntness (if any) about anything I wrote there - I was not making a definite or clear expression of something as fact or a formal account of facts or events. What I mentioned was a perception - that "this seems quite serious" and that they "were apparently so amazingly up to their armpits in deliberately fomenting revolution/war".
Someone else's perceptions and experience may differ, but that does not necessarily invalidate my perceptions, and it doesn't necessarily "need/deserve a reference/link" either, just because someone says it does or feels that it should to (say) align with their perceptions and to have any validity.

Let's suppose that someone was to say to me either:
(a) "Obama appears to be the greatest and most ethical President of our times", or
(b) "Obama appears to be the greatest liar and most deceiving President of our times".

In either case, I might say "What makes you say that?" in a genuine attempt to try to understand how they might have arrived at that perception. If my mind was open to the response, then I might learn something from the answer - who knows?

In actual fact, of course, I probably wouldn't ask such a question as I am usually indifferent as to why people think whatever they might think about their elected leaders. My rule of thumb is "By their fruits ye shall know them" - e.g., (say) Maggie Thatcher's rumoured penchant for breakfasting on the aborted foetuses of coalminers' wives, which, if true, would probably place her in a pretty dim light.
142  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage. on: February 27, 2014, 04:44:28 AM
Guido Fawkes puts it in an amusing wrapper, as usual, but this seems quite serious. I hadn't realised that GCHQ/NSA were apparently so amazingly up to their armpits in deliberately fomenting revolution/war in targetted nations using so many tech + psych. skills.
Secret GCHQ Plan to Annoy Guido
143  Main Area and Open Discussion / General Software Discussion / Re: Extension List Dumper (Firefox add-on) - Quick overview. on: February 25, 2014, 02:54:55 PM
Just updated the opening post with this workaround note as to how to get an RTF copy of the extension list:
Quote
Note on display/output: (a workaround)
To produce the list of extensions as per my list in the spoiler above, all I did was select the appropriate output (BBS was selected), and then press Copy to clipboard, and paste into the DCF spoiler field.
@Curt would have done the same in his post (per the link above), except he posted into the DCF comment field directly.
However, I also wanted to have a copy of the list of extensions in my OneNote repository, but there's no "Rich Text Format" output option in Extension List Dumper.
So I Posted the comment, then opened the spoiler, selected all the listed text in there, copied it and posted it into OneNote.
Bingo! Nice RTF output!

So whenever I want an updated extension list, I simply use the DCF comments field as an intermediate step to getting the list in RTF, by Previewing the list in a DCF comment field, and then copying/pasting the RTF text into OneNote, and then discarding the comment (i.e., not posting it).

Here's a sample of the output I get, in OneNote:
(see image in opening post)
144  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: silly humor - post 'em here! [warning some NSFW and adult content] on: February 25, 2014, 03:47:45 AM
the really funny part is that you got them back to front Grin Grin Grin

Eheh. I did warn that "you might not get the joke, right off.".
(Clue: If you right-click each image and select Save Image As, it will reveal the filename...)
I thought it rather funny too. That's why I posted it.
(And yes, it is deliberate. It is in the style of Private Eye. It's quite clever.)
145  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Ever Seen These Two in the Same Room? on: February 24, 2014, 08:06:29 PM
Very droll.
If you are unfamiliar with the UK, you might not get the joke, right off.

Ever Seen These Two in the Same Room?

[attach]
Rolf Harris


[attach]
Ukranian ambassador


We should be told…
146  Other Software / Developer's Corner / Re: PWCT- Programming Without Coding Technology: Free Science & Engineering software on: February 23, 2014, 11:19:36 PM
They just posted an update: PWCT 1.9 (Art) Rev. 2014.02.24
147  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / I just shot myself in the fracking foot! on: February 23, 2014, 08:39:44 PM
As a rationalist, a keen environmentalist and a despiser of corporate cant, greed and corporates' hugely destructive environmental footprints despoiling the land/environment, I just love it when the troughers score a hilarious and ironic own goal.
I have already posted about 2 priceless ones in this thread:

Today I read of a rather good new one - it's on WSJ behind a paywall, but it was referred to in Forbes - here.

The WSJ article linked to by Forbes apparently puts it rather succinctly (and, I suspect, tongue-in-cheek) thus:
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)
Quote
Exxon CEO Joins Suit Citing Fracking Concerns
Residents of Dallas Suburb Fight Construction of Tower That Would Provide Water for Drilling
By Daniel Gilbert
Feb. 20, 2014 5:45 p.m. ET

BARTONVILLE, Texas—One evening last November, a tall, white-haired man turned up at a Town Council meeting to protest construction of a water tower near his home in this wealthy community outside Dallas.

The man was Rex Tillerson, chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp.

He and his neighbors had filed suit to block the tower, saying it is illegal and would create “a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” in part because it would provide water for use in hydraulic fracturing. Fracking, which requires heavy trucks to haul and pump massive amounts of water, unlocks oil and gas from dense rock and has helped touch off a surge in U.S. energy output.

It also is a core part of Exxon’s business.

Assuming that this is true, then I reckon this chap Rex Tillerson should be given an award of some kind. It really is rather ironic/funny. Another LOL moment for me, at any rate. Priceless.
148  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: DeskRule: A new kind of desktop search engine is born (ß testers wanted) on: February 23, 2014, 05:33:30 PM
By the way, I just put a comment on the DeskRule forum: blog: here's deskrule, a new kind of desktop search engine
Quote
@nikos: Yes, it all helps. I would suggest that you check that DC (donationcoder) discussion forum for comments yourself, as the people making those comments will not necessarily put their comments in this forum of yours. Thus, you could miss seeing them altogether, if you didn't check the DC forum.
149  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: DeskRule: A new kind of desktop search engine is born (ß testers wanted) on: February 23, 2014, 05:25:48 PM
...I have to say though, in situations where I need to search on more specific metadata than what the filesystem offers, I often have domain-specific software that handles this better.
Yes, likewise - e.g., as per my comment above about image files in Picasa, or my comments elsewhere on DCF re searching for words/phrases in audio files using OneNote's search (which is also integrated with Windows Search/Index).
150  Main Area and Open Discussion / Living Room / Re: DeskRule: A new kind of desktop search engine is born (ß testers wanted) on: February 23, 2014, 05:13:25 PM
It's an interesting idea - especially for photos (for me anyways).
The interface might just scare me off (video), it seems to me to be so fundamentally geeky and unintuitive. I can say that - but unfortunately I dont have any talent in the direction of offering/suggesting alternatives...
Interesting, yes. I thought it was quite nifty for photos too, though I use Picasa for managing my photos, because no IMT (Image Management Tool) that I have so far come across does all that face-recognition and searching of image file metadata so well - e.g., the camera type and its settings that took a photo of a specific person at a certain GPS on a certain date.

And though this DeskRule looks interesting, I have yet to find anything that quite matches the GDS (Google Desktop Search), which, before they started crippling it and then killed it off, had automated search to cover:
  • files/directories across your desktop;
  • files/directories in any connected LANs;
  • Google Docs (now Google Drive).

- so that they effectively comprised one huge virtual desktop (which, IMHO is as it should be).
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 144 Next
DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.111s | Server load: 0.16 ]