topbanner_forum
  *

avatar image

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
  • Tuesday January 27, 2026, 8:15 am
  • Proudly celebrating 15+ years online.
  • Donate now to become a lifetime supporting member of the site and get a non-expiring license key for all of our programs.
  • donate

Recent Posts

Pages: prev1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 246next
651
Developer's Corner / Re: Ethics in Technology
« Last post by Stoic Joker on October 13, 2015, 02:59 PM »
The problem here is that VW lied -- to everyone -- and they got caught. They had other options (that they may or may not have tried -- I dont know).

Right, but to me it's a matter of scope ... how big was the lie? Did the waiter have his thumb in my soup - shit happens - or did he shit in the bowl first.

It kinda really matters...especially when they keep hiding/skipping/omitting that - obviously very central - part of the story. Hay if they fudging at trace levels to hit a target (which the performance numbers imply to me) then I say who gives a shit - Let'em be. But if they're fudging whole numbers (also not improbable), then perhaps a few heads on sticks might be in order.

You can't properly discuss a fitting punishment for a crime that hasn't been defined clearly.
652
Developer's Corner / Re: Ethics in Technology
« Last post by Stoic Joker on October 13, 2015, 11:24 AM »
I have heard the idea on German radio that in order to pass the tests IRL, performance would have suffered unacceptable levels -- this apparently not the case:
To add to the shocks, Consumer Reports tested the car in low-emissions cheat mode and the differences were less than you would expect.
    # Acceleration dropped 0.5 seconds (0-60) on older cars and not much on the latest models.
    # Fuel economy dropped from 53 to 50mpg on the 2015, and from 50 to 46mpg on the 2011 models.
^ VW may have considered these levels unacceptable due to competition or whatever, but they dont come across as a company/product struggling because of the emissions regulations.


While it is interesting to see the performance/economy impact of the "cheat". The numbers are almost meaningless without the corresponding emissions numbers for both street and cheat modes.
653
Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Last post by Stoic Joker on October 12, 2015, 07:03 AM »
I could be wrong, of course, but I considered that what he was writing about could convey several implicit and valid points:
  • BCs (Bitcoins) are effectively a kind of foreign currency at the POS (Point-Of-Sale) for retail outlets (the QuickBooks article also refers to this).

Only if you let them be.

  • Retail POS terminals/systems are usually only geared up to operate in a single standard national currency (in the US).

Right, and there is no "profit" in telling the POS system anything different. Just tell it this is a cash transaction, and get on with you day.

  • BCs are not a stable currency, due to their fluctuating BC-US$ price, which is presumably fluctuating due to intense speculation in a dynamically changing market.

This is only an issue if one is planning to sit on them for weeks/months at a time. If your margins are so tight that selling off at the end of the day is a risk, then I'd be inclined to assert thet you have bigger problems than BTC.

  • BCs in any event have the potential (at least currently) for escaping any form of local/federal Retail Sales Tax or VAT (Value-Added Tax) at the POS - the IRS would presumably object to that.

Two words ... Cash Transaction.


  • The need to establish the forex (foreign exchange rate) value of the "foreign" BC currency in the local currency (US$) at the POS and at that instant of sale (which is what the BC engine is presumably doing somewhere at that point), would probably be impossible with current Payment Systems technology, as it would necessitate having access to a real-time national database of worldwide BC-to-US$ prices. This seems like it could be a bit of a stumbling-block.

Enter amount into BTC wallet in USD (or your preferred currency) and it is automatically converted to BTC (yes that all already do that).
hit generate QR code button - Assuming it hasn't already done it on the fly (many do).
Have customer -(yes this assumes a phone based wallet)- scan the QR code and - if all looks kosher - hit send.
watch for incoming transfer (it only takes a few seconds).
Transaction complete.

  • In any event, large retailers (such as Walmart, for example) do not currently have the necessary software which, on scanning the barcode of the sale item at the checkout and getting the US$ price, could then look up such a real-time forex database (assuming that it existed and was nationally accessible in real-time in the first place).

The necessary BTC software is free, and they all do a dollars to BTC conversion on the fly...which is based on a user configurable exchange.

FOR SMB's CoinBase (and I'd wager other companies like it) offers a web based transaction handling service that will generate a QR code based invoice, send it to the customer, and then automatically sell off the coin and deposit the money in you bank account (at the agreed on/transacted exchange rate).


...So just a little lite reading and the whole thing turns into a complete nonissue FUD storm.
654
Living Room / Re: Does anyone here use Bitcoins?
« Last post by Stoic Joker on October 11, 2015, 10:30 AM »
The only thing that impressed me about that article is that it's abundantly clear that the author has not a clue what barcodes do.

Here is what I have discovered: there is no such barcode conversion software available.
-the Article
Right, that's because barcodes are nothing more than a laser readable font...that never gets "converted" to anything.

How can we possible process a BTC sale through a POS system?!? Derp... as ~like~ cash maybe?? Oh wait that was covered - IMO - rather clearly in the "incoherent gibberish" article they linked to.

FUD spreader much?
655
Living Room / Re: Anyone know anything about CAN-SPAM laws?
« Last post by Stoic Joker on October 07, 2015, 07:44 AM »
Found this on a quick search: Email Privacy and CAN SPAM Laws to Be Aware Of

Short answer seems to be yes if the site referenced makes any money, but you can use a PO box in lieu of a physical address.
656
I guess he did a great job then, because I didn't notice them until I was looking at your edits. :D

Thank you.

Normally I stay away from graphics challenges, because I'm closer to autistic than artistic. But there was just something about this one I couldn't resist. I just hope mouser keeps us updated on the crowd reaction to this - quite clever - Halloween prank.

@Mouser - Mad respect for thinking of it man! :D
657
Damn impressive scenery...and the tech is cool too.

I feel like I'm wearing new glasses when I move around these images...

LOL Amen to that!
658
Oh FFS... :D ...the PSD is 216MB, but I'll zip and post it if you want me to.

I am working in Paintshop Pro, which doesn't handle PSDs very well.

Bummer...'cause it looks like you got the final version.. ;)


Having the final result in psd would be very nice.

This thing is too big (141MB compressed) to attach to the thread. But I'll host it for a bit for whoever wants it:
DC_Mouser's_House_Hauntified.zip
659
and also.. personally i think a pirate ship would look spookier

I tried, I couldn't pull it off. I was thinking about a leviathan too, but didn't have time to try it.

Added ghostship.

Oh FFS... :D ...the PSD is 216MB, but I'll zip and post it if you want me to.
660
Looks neat -- although i think the cross/christian-imagery could be off-putting to some in my building, so that probably won't work for me..

...And thus is the nature of the anguish that is the PC movement. I googled beach cemetery and up that popped. It really is an existing nautical grave marker ... So - as an atheist - I figured WTH it fits...lets go with it.

Hay, I understand that IRL it's -(pardon the pun)- your cross to bear ... I just think is really sad that some people can't get over themselves for the 8 seconds it takes to recognize a landmark that has been incorporated into a theme.
661
Very cool - needs an old cemetery off to the side now, maybe a raven up over the gables...

The cemetery attempt looked like crap ... But here's a version with a - watery grave - tomb that turned out ok (I think):
DC-Mouser's-House-Hauntified-with-Tomb.jpg

Did I mention that I suck at Photoshop?? :D
662
That's pretty darn good!!!!

you did an awesome job of isolating it from the background.

definitely an alternate reality!
the idea of it being on a scary beach is fun :)

might be nice if it was a little scarier -- perhaps a haunted ghost ship in the water, etc.


hehe ... You and my wife both said it needs something. Mind you I'm not disagreeing, I'm just at my limits. I tried the ghost ship idea but I can't pull it off. Hell, I was lucky to get that far.

now an important question:  i hope you made the changes to the high resolution version of the image -- as i am going to need to blow this up and print it?

Full res .jpg (I also saved the .PSD if need be):
663
Okay, granted I suck at Photoshop...But something about this made me want to give it a shot.

So... - No Laughing - Here Goes Nothing:
DC-Mouser-Haunted-1080.jpg
664
It's the path to an Internet that closely resembles the vast wasteland that is cable TV today. And it's no coincidence that the dominant ISPs, frantic over fears of their control being subverted by so-called cable TV "cord cutters" moving to the Internet alone, now hope to remake the Internet itself in the image of cable TV's most hideous, anti-consumer attributes.

Well that sounds completely horrifying to me.
665
Living Room / Re: Animal Friends thread
« Last post by Stoic Joker on October 01, 2015, 01:24 PM »
^That should be a must read!
666
Yeah yeah...that's what they want you to think. But the sad reality of what they actually check (e.g. the CCV & zip code) during a typical "verification" is almost laughable. Sure some are getting better - I think/hope/am told... - but the bulk of them get jack squat out of me during a normal transaction ... and I've yet to have a single one fail.

That's how I used to look at it.  Then I was trying to buy some electronic widget (don't remember what) with my fake number and address (with the correct zip code).  First is was in verification.  Then it was rejected.  I was thinking that I'd just correct it and it would be fine.  But they'd reported it as fraud, and my card was locked.  And even after I got it unlocked, that processor wouldn't take the card- it had been blacklisted.  Very frustrating- at least, until I realized that this whole sequence of events was my fault.  At that point, I was chagrined.  And got a fake number where I could be contacted- which eventually led to a google voice number.

So that's one fringe case out of??

Just because one source decided to take a hyper reactive swan dive off the deep end doesn't mean the privacy baby needs to go out with the transaction bathwater. Sure the PCI folks are just dying to find some - any - flimsy assed excuse to put the burden of proof back onto the card holder - or anyone else - so they can gets their pockets lined faster ... But that's just too bad.

Right is right, and bullshit is bullshit. So I say raise hell any time one of these clowns tries to cross the necessary and proper information line. They need to be told no a few times until they start learning boundaries.
667
Apparently it is quite common these days, requesting a phone number...

Just because it is - or is perceived as being - a "common" practice, doesn't make it a good idea. It's quite common for brick-N-mortar clerks to ask for phone/Email even if you're paying cash. And they have an entire litany of bullshit excuses for why they "Need" this information...which they actually don't. Because some time back some idiot marketing scumbag coined the term "Constant Contact" for the purpose of (justifying spam) putting a positive spin on the practice of bugging the shit out of people.

Brick and Mortar paying cash- I never give them anything I don't *want* to.  Online using a credit card though... you're trying to ice skate uphill.

Yeah yeah...that's what they want you to think. But the sad reality of what they actually check (e.g. the CCV & zip code) during a typical "verification" is almost laughable. Sure some are getting better - I think/hope/am told... - but the bulk of them get jack squat out of me during a normal transaction ... and I've yet to have a single one fail.

Classic BS Question: What's the best way for us to contact you?
My Answer: I'll let you know that when and if I feel the need to be contacted.


Or the typical appeal to fear: OMFG what if there is an issue with your order??!??
My first answer: what if there's not...
2nd Answer: I'm pretty sure I'll be able to guess that if/when there's no tracking information on the order status.

There is IMO no valid reason for seller in a single instance transaction to have/need/ask for a phone number on the internet ... Unless they happen to be delivering the item in person, and want to call for directions to your house.
668
Apparently it is quite common these days, requesting a phone number...

Just because it is - or is perceived as being - a "common" practice, doesn't make it a good idea. It's quite common for brick-N-mortar clerks to ask for phone/Email even if you're paying cash. And they have an entire litany of bullshit excuses for why they "Need" this information...which they actually don't. Because some time back some idiot marketing scumbag coined the term "Constant Contact" for the purpose of (justifying spam) putting a positive spin on the practice of bugging the shit out of people.
669
Living Room / Re: Any photoshoppers feel like trying to hauntify a house photo
« Last post by Stoic Joker on September 30, 2015, 06:42 AM »
I can't print an animated gif -- this is going to be blown up large and printed and framed!

Compromise on a 'When you see it' type of image that has something horrific yet very subtle incorporated into the photo.
670
Official Announcements / Re: Forum Upgraded August 30, 2015 - Report issues here
« Last post by Stoic Joker on September 29, 2015, 03:13 PM »
I never tried it in a preview, but the spoiler in your post does nothing for me in IE, but works fine in Edge or FF.
671
I'm on the other side of that.  He seems quite rational, quite engaging, and quite credible.  And I remember the story of others who have tried to pull the wool out from over our eyes, which makes him more credible, not less.  And the others who have quite credibly and separately verified part of his claims.

Me too. McAfee may be a screwball...but he's quite consistent, and has no reason to lie.
672
Official Announcements / Re: Forum Upgraded August 30, 2015 - Report issues here
« Last post by Stoic Joker on September 28, 2015, 07:03 AM »
Is it just me, or do the new Spoiler tags not work in Win10's IE11? Using Edge yes, but in IE11 I get the link-finger icon, and no reaction to click what-so-ever.

Still wondering about this. Am I to assume then that it is just me? As it's happening in multiple locations on different machines ... All of which are running IE11 on Win10.
673
How many of the people in that test group were running with administrative rights?

That I couldn't say, but are you taking the position that making sure administrative rights are not granted in order for AV to be effective is a valid requirement?

Yes, as does a huge segment of the industry like the CSO at Symantec that point blank said AV software doesn't work anymore. I've seen many large and small operations that were fighting tooth-and-nail to stay above water as the flood of sales drones kept selling them more and more performance crushing "Security" software that never resulted in any real benefit. Then they tried the reduced permissions route and their support call loads dropped by 85% over night. It really is that flat-out magical a result.

Any and all AV software on the market is nothing more than a hand over hand pissing contest trying to be the last one to hook into control of the kernel. And I don't want a medieval melee on my network ... I want orderly quiet Users.. If anyone needs the Admin...I'll be in my office....where I belong ... Not chasing rats around on the floor. :D

User can't break machine == Bugg can't break machine.

Yes there are the occasional 0 day privilege escalation bugs floating around out there...but those aren't the ones that IT departments typically waste most of their time chasing. Oh Dear, my computer has an issue, but I just need to click here to "fix" it ... F...........
674
Living Room / Re: The business of web ads - fraudulent at its core
« Last post by Stoic Joker on September 24, 2015, 05:50 PM »
Fake traffic has become a commodity. There’s malware for generating it and brokers who sell it. Some companies pay for it intentionally, some accidentally, and some prefer not to ask where their traffic comes from. It’s given rise to an industry of countermeasures, which inspire counter-countermeasures. “It’s like a game of whack-a-mole,” says Fernando Arriola, vice president for media and integration at ConAgra Foods. Consumers, meanwhile, to the extent they pay attention to targeted ads at all, hate them: The top paid iPhone app on Apple’s App Store is an ad blocker.

...And that's why browser performance across the board has gone completely to shit.
675
In my experience and in the experience of many other people I know who have had to work on many computers that are 'protected' with MSE that has the green icon, no pop ups, and even doing a full scan on the PC tells you that your computer is safe, all the while malware is causing popup ads and other evilness to prosper on the computer.

How many of the people in that test group were running with administrative rights?
Pages: prev1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 246next