I recently ran into the same problem you are having, just on a lesser scale. The program I had the best success with was Auslogics Duplicate File Finder .

It includes two options that I absolutely needed: Ignore File Names and Ignore File Dates. I'm pretty sure those were off by default, so check that if you try this. Considering I knew that I had done the same thing you are describing, and even renamed some files in the process, I really needed those options otherwise it would not have found the dupes.

I was paranoid there would be false positives, so I did a quick test on a select few folders. It worked perfectly, so I let it run... then blindly allowed it to do its thing in the last step and delete duplicates. I found about 600GB of dupes out of 3TB, and it took less than a few hours to run.

There are four lights!

It's there, it's always there, at the end of the website address line... the classic "reload" symbol... unless I'm misunderstanding what you're griping about not having access to?

Does the statement "and nothing of value was lost" apply here?

On a more topic-related note, the flight crew does not need to have attention from 100% of the passengers. Likely they would need less than 50% and hopefully at least 1-2 per row. If you are sitting there, completely not paying attention, and you don't notice the flight attendants waving their arms and shouting instructions, you will probably notice the person next to you flinging themselves forward and putting their head between their knees.

While I understand your point that the chances of survival increase if people are paying attention to authority figures / those in-the-know and actually listen to their instructions, it is naive to believe that just because someone isn't playing with some toy that they are actually paying attention. There are those that will be daydreaming out the window, dozing off or engaged in some conversation with their travel companion.

It makes sense for people to read the instructions in the seat-back pocket at least once in their life. It makes sense for people to actually listen to the flight attendants during their overview of safety procedures at least once in their life. And it makes sense for people to actually be aware of their surroundings, to at least know that something is not right and that they should seek out someone that might be able to help them (i.e. flight crew)...

In the end, no matter how many things we ban or how many rules we impose on having to pay attention, there will always be some people that will be over-prepared in a crisis and those that are under-prepared. If some crisis happens, I just hope I'm sitting next to an over-prepared person who notices I'm asleep and nudges me awake. Thank you in advance, fictional person!

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." -Kay

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/07/2678945.htm

This is the exact reason why certain organizations (i.e. military) do not use "normal" english terms as you may figure they might when performing certain actions. There are a series of checks and "over"'s and confirmations that are done. But, I get your point. It will be interesting to see how they handle punctuation and pausing because, as you pointed out, it can have a significant effect on the meaning of a phrase.

The full sentence from the article:

Any analysis of this really is pedantic, but fundamentally the statement is still accurate.

If you consider the same set of data, encrypted winds up being larger than unencrypted, so, technically, it would take longer to fully complete its journey (i.e. travel)... They didn't say that encrypted data transmits slower through the tubes of the interwebs, they just said that it "doesn't travel across the web as quickly".

I think their wording is fine. The "crypo-illiterate" public read it most likely said "Oh, yea, makes sense, so that's why they didn't do it to begin with..." and those that do notice something odd with the wording already know the true meaning anyway.

Besides, your suggested re-wording is not without its faults. You say to make it:

(crypo-illiterate response) So, wait, when I visit a page that has https:/// in front of it my internet connection suddenly slows down?! I'm going to avoid those pages at all costs and any time I have the option, I will disable it!
*emails child*
HEY I MADE MY INTERNET FASTER TODAY, WILL TELL YOU HOW TO DO IT AT SUNDAY DINNER.

While this person must have spent a great many hours accomplishing this goal, it may be a little unfair for us to infer that he has little to no social skills or "life"...

He needs a guild or a bunch of "friends" behind him to accomplish a great many of these achievements. Even if he is in a huge guild that is defeating the most difficult end-game content, at some point there are going to be achievements that others are going to set out to do specifically and entirely for him (and maybe some others that luckily get to tag along)... The amount of achievements in this category is probably about 100-150 whereas the others are either able to be done solo or will just happen in any decent group.

So, he befriended his guild or his group of online friends, with or without their knowledge, to help him get to this end-goal.

We can even go further into specifics and say that the Quests completion may be more of an accomplishment than the Achievements completion. It is very easy to do about 3500-4000 of the quests in the game without any help, but beyond that there are chains that need help for sure. These hurdle quests don't make up the next 2000, probably only 100 or 200, but he still needs a group that he can call on whenever he hits that wall. Also remember those people may have already done the quest in some cases and are getting absolutely nothing out of it. In the case of achievements, at least there are a bunch of people (5-25) that are going to get that achievement credit if they haven't already.

Actually, I think this guy may have more social skills than most...

Assuming they do get off their wheelchair, and "scoot" up a few steps like you suggest, then what? Does their wheelchair magically do the same thing and then they continue on their journey into the building?

Admittedly I was exaggerating, but I didn't imply that he said was lobbying for a coast to coast vote.

As far as advocating requiring state ratification for treaties, where is the line drawn? That line is determined by the people that don't want to move the line, unfortunately.

But, then you vote people in that hopefully change that.

In the article:

That would be a step in the right direction, if it had any teeth to it, and wasn't just to make Obama look good to the general public.

Maybe true reform will come some day.

I understand that your solution makes sense to you and perhaps to some others, but in reality it really is not that great of a solution, and it is certainly not obvious as you noted. Not only would that never happen, but the issues would quickly pile up and the situation spin out of control where uninformed people were voting and making decisions that they really have no business making.

I'm not a fan of big government or of having a small percentage of people making decisions that effect everyone else, but that is exactly how our system is setup and exactly how democracy works in practice.

The government can, will, and should make decisions without the consent of the governed. You think it takes long now to get things done? If all the state legislatures had to put their $0.02 in even less would get done. Then city officials would start saying their view is important, too. Soon everyone would be saying their voice should make a difference! If only there was a system in place to have each person's voice heard...

The single most powerful tool that Americans have is the power to VOTE. Unfortunately most Americans do not invoke this power because they feel it is useless. Maybe so, but at least those that made bad decisions will be gone in at most a few years anyway, then. If it is really a big issue then there is always impeachment, but to start tying hands up at that level and incorporate more chefs in the already crowded, trip-hazard-filled, hot, sweaty, mess of a kitchen we call our government, well, that would just be making a bad problem even worse.

Most human beings (and all politicians) fundamentally will try to get away with anything they can. Whether it is a spouse cheating or a student copying answers during a test, until someone is caught doing something they know is wrong (however it is you define "wrong" is up to you) they will not stop the behavior.

No one does anything they think is wrong. Even if society deems it to be wrong, they somehow have convinced themselves it is right, because it is necessary, or it is okay "this one time"... The government, as a whole, or as a local office, is not exempt from this. They become their own "person" in this regard, acting in such a way that for whatever reason they think is right.

When it boils down to it, we are better off having that few % making decisions for us than to give each and every person from coast to coast a voice by way of vote for big decisions.

Which is exactly how they want to be viewed.

Well that's obviously because this is a biased community, but when attempting to look at this objectively you quickly see other reasons.

Every browser has issues, IE has more than most, and it should be focusing on other areas rather than speed. The fact that they are focusing on speed and then mixing into their marketing how they care so much about security, which I hope everyone sees right through but I know they don't, just shows how misguided they are as a company trying to produce a product.

A web browser is the portal to the Internet and is the application that most people are using most of the time they sit at a computer. There are huge benefits to having that captive audience.

Microsoft, with all their money, "experience" and experts, should be dominating the market. This should not even be an issue! The fact that we even have news like this and browsers like FF and others keep creeping up and stealing market share just shows how poor of a product IE is.

There's a certain percentage of people that will always "go against The Man" (in this case IE) but the percentages are getting higher and higher because other browsers are being recognized as superior to IE, period.

The only reason that IE still has close to 70% market share is because some people just don't know any better, may be older and comfortable, have never been exposed to anything else, etc.

Before giving IE "a little bit of credit" think about if you were able to go door to door and install all the different popular browsers out there and have the person make their own choice.

Out of IE, FF, Safari, Chrome and Opera... how many people would honestly, HONESTLY, choose IE?

Lastly, imagine a necessary high blood pressure medicine that has the possible side effects of enhancing or causing asthma, explosive spontaneous diarrhea, yellowing of fingernails, or the possibility of raising blood pressure more.

Wouldn't a company be stupid to work on the yellowing of fingernails problem first?

You just leave off the drive-thru's cover and save yourself some money, or, if it's a necessity, you build it to 7' because I'm pretty sure that 5' can fit under that too.

Good point for sure. Just because 25% of some industry is doing things the right way, the way it should be done or the way of the future it ultimately still only means that 25% of the masses feel that way.

Obviously every browser has their issues and IE has more issues than most, but the one thing that IE still has over all the other browsers is that most every website designer, even if they use another browser, will load up their site in IE to see if it is displaying the way they want it to because they know 75% of the traffic coming to them will be IE users (unless you're Slashdot :-P)... The same reason why a fast-food business would be stupid to build a 5' cover.

The point is, aside from me speaking in generalities, I agree with you that although this new 25% on the scene is doing things more efficiently or "better" that they are still only 25%. The standard still has to go with the majority.

But, as the guy up there said, more and more people will be building separate websites and IE is making it harder for them, so they remove that difficulty from their design plans and instead just give IE users a stripped down version that takes them less time to produce.

Although you make a good point, pbhj, it kind of sounds like those that do that are cutting their nose off to spite their face. As a website owner, business owner, corporation, whatever, your job is to meet the needs of your customers.

I run a retail shop and I'm pretty sure it would not be good for me to put up a sign that says: If you're going to be a difficult customer and your transaction is not going to go exactly to plan, please don't bother making any purchase in this store. In fact, go across the street, I'm sure they'll deal with you.

...or: Cash is so 20th century. Get with the program. Not using a debit/credit card? Here, you can pick from this bin of items priced at exactly $1.00, and please have exact change, because we have none to give you.

...or even the [slightly] less abrasive: Customers running IE have access to Aisles 1-3. All other customers may peruse 4-19.