Not always. And when I do, it isn't always me.
Not always. And when I do, it isn't always me.
We use a lot of visual cues to determine the distance to an object.
Fixed point stereoscopic vision adds very, very little to our sense of depth at considerable overhead (glasses, reduced brightness, lower frame rate) and with some people finding the mismatch between individual image and eye position actually detracts from the sense of 'realism'.
Like any new film technique it's in the 'novelty' stage and suffers from over-use and a lack of audience familiarity (so that it can be ignored and become just one more transparent mechanism for story telling). It doesn't offer enough benefit to get past this stage (as it hasn't in each of the previous incarnations) and interferes with existing techniques (use of changing focus to direct attention).
You're dismantling yourself YETI
Only you think so, and that's only because you cannot read and ignore the points that are made. You've addressed nothing in my posts, just repeated your usual claims.
The speedup of resolving a name via a hosts whitelist vs DNS cache is below human perception in most cases. The difference between operating in kernelmode vs usermode is imperceptible in most cases. You keep ignoring the fact that your big selling point - increased efficiency and speed is trivial for most users these days. It's unnoticeable. It's a couple of percent of system resources, or less. It's technically faster, but it _just_ _doesn't_ _matter_. Did you read that? Do you understand what I am saying? Feel free to disagree. Reason with me. Present a counter argument, or examples where it does matter. Or ignore this and concede the point. Again.
Your program updates automatically, but the host file does not. I would have to launch your program to edit the file each time I want to browse. Add ons not only update each time I open my browser, they also update their lists. Even while I am browsing. I don't have to do anything. That's me having to do 'less'. Win to add ons.
Hostfiles do not stop scripts for sites you want to visit and hence haven't blocked. It cannot stop a script from a site that you have not yet added as being bad. A script blocker will stop both. You admit that your browser is set to stop scripts. This is the fundamental difference between whitelisting and blacklisting and is another thing you refuse to address. Blacklisting, alone, is not enough. Please address this, or concede the point. Again.
Few run their own ads!
Hooray, I'm nearly safe.
My program backup's @ end run. Don't restart it FINALHOSTS.TXT is it. A restart erases it
So you can check when a particular entry was added? No? Didn't think so. Having a single copy that is overwritten on use is not a 'backup' in any but the most trivial of definitions.
Don't put words in my mouth
I think you are using phrases you don't quite understand, again.
YOU TRYING TO TELL US
There is no 'us', APK. I'm talking to you. Cheap rhetoric. Appeal to popularity by association.
addons = BETTER
Yes. Your 'more' is misleading, your 'less' is trivial.
You have a double standard. You obsessively list every minor advantage that your solution has over browser extensions but keep ignoring the things they do that a cannot. That's how you keep coming up with 'more'. It's not more, it's different. The things that extensions allow me to do are more useful to me than the things they cannot do that a hostfile can. I argue that this is also true for most users, as 'most' approaches 'all'.
The additional resources that are used to achieve this are literally unnoticeable they are so slight, so the fact that your solution uses even 'less' is moot.
This is the argument. The 'less' you claim is meaningless in use and the 'more' only exists if you ignore the things add ons can do that a host file cannot. So, can you actually stop chanting your pet phrases and address these points, or are you, once again, going to -
a) fall back on claiming some really cool people think that you are right;
b) repeating yourself while claiming you are 'dismantling' my arguments;
c) ignoring me, and moving straight to insulting me and claiming victory.
I wait with bated breath,
clinical depression, which is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain.
And genetics, epigenetics, different physical structures in the brain, environment, and cognition. And given the brain's plasticity, a lot of those can arise or be reinforced by feedback from other systems.
It has little to do with external factors
Hmm. The importance of external factors has certainly shifted from the assumption that everyone has the same brain and that nurture gives rise to variation, but stress is still strongly linked to developing depression, even if those with a genetic predisposition are more likely to develop depression and/or more likely to develop depression, sooner. Chronic depression is linked to people who suffer from PTSD, chronic pain etc.
Drugs are used to mitigate a lack of certain neurochemicals in the brain
The effect of drugs in treating depression is part of the evidence used to support the neurochemical imbalance theory of depression. However, there is some debate as to whether the success of drugs in treating depression is the result, primarily, of the placebo effect.
Yes, some of this is probably the result of poor matching of patient to drug/dosage and/or over prescription by under qualified GPs.
Have a look at uMatrix. It has a very intuituve interface. It's not stopping the scripts, but rather allows you to block connections by type and domain. I find that this cuts down the amount of fiddling with NoScript/Scriptsafe that I used to do.
The vast majority of end users do not perform upgrades of even their PCs, let alone their laptops. For most, a laptop is an appliance and they are happy with it that way. More, the need to constantly upgrade components to stay useful has slowed. Decent hardware that's five years old is still useful. The top end still moves one, and there are still people who genuinely need as much speed or power as they can get, but the bulk of the market does not.
Wanting a laptop that's easy to upgrade is a feature that a vanishingly small number of people want. It's a niche market. You obviously fall into that category and so do most on this forum, myself included. That means we get a narrower range of options when they exist at all, and will end up paying a premium for them.
Swearing at Apple because you aren't their market is
Have a look at Etymotic plugs. I've used ER20s (looks like they are called 'Ety Plugs', now) at clubs and events for years. They do what they say - drop the volume without distortion. I can have conversations while wearing them that would have been a muted mess with the more usual foam earplugs. They aren't bad for long stays in server rooms, either.
If you attend loud events with any regularity, and want to _keep_ being able to enjoy those events for years to come, protect your hearing.
Caveat - no association with the company, just a satisfied customer.
That 'too much government regulation is bad' is true does not mean that government regulation is bad.
If government regulation is applied and ends up doing the "exact opposite" of what was intended, then the only solution is not "ever increasing and Draconian modifications".
On the other hand, THIS IS A FUCKING VIDEO GAME why the FUCK do we need government involved?
It's strange. I would think that one of the few places where government unarguably has a role is in mediating the interaction of individuals, especially with respect to trade. Whether or not that's for something you think is important, or just "A FUCKING VIDEO GAME".
A company produced and sold a product that a considerable number of those who purchased it found to be substantially different to what they thought they were buying. Maybe some jumped on the bandwagon. Maybe some fooled themselves. That happens with a lot of games. This was on a different scale.
Industry self-regulation has failed to prevent this and in failing to punish it has increased the chance of it happening again. Fail for self-regulation. I'm not sure how _less_ regulation, as you seem to think more appropriate, is going to help. Bad or excessive government regulation may make things worse, but there are alternatives to 'bad' and 'excessive' despite your implication to the contrary.
Oh, and to tun your argument on it's head - THIS IS [THE] FUCKING VIDEO GAME [INDUSTRY], if it's so meaningless/trivial, why are you involved?
I don't mean to criticise, but at 6-8 hours you are pretty much in 'maintenance mode'. That's just about enough to stave off the worst of the chronic problems that arise from our sedentary lifestyles and will burn some calories, but as you note, not enough to make a significant difference to weight. For me, the exercise is more about managing my mental state and that makes it easier to maintain a healthy diet.
The University of QLD conducted a study that concluded that the WHO recommendations for exercise were about 5 times too small. Their recommendation ends up being in line with your current levels (6-8 hours).
It's hard to find time to fit more in - especially when you need a solid block of time for some exercises (esp. cardio) to be effective. Worse, as you get better at it, the same level/amount of exercise is less beneficial. You become more efficient. You then have to increase the duration or intensity. Or keep switching exercise around.
I find that I don't really see any benefit from exercise until I'm over 4 sessions of 1.5-2 hours a week. 3-4 sessions and I plateau. Less and I regress - my mental state is harder to maintain, cravings and appetite are harder to control.
I apologise if I seem to be preaching. I sympathise with your situation and struggle to 'exercise enough' myself and so may be projecting. If you can find a way to increase it (or increase the intensity), you may find that you start to see benefits beyond just burning calories.
The problem with this is that you will no longer get legitimate invitations in your calendar. Don't get me wrong, the only other ways are even worse.
Here's the only three solutions I can find.
I'm from Australia and faced a similar decision a couple of years back when similar laws were passed.
My criteria included a lack of logging of user activity. It's not enough (I believe), to find a provider in what is nominally a neutral country. Nor to find a provider that claims that they will keep your data private. If the data exists, it _will_ be available.
Private Internet Access doesn't keep user activity logs. They do keep some records, such as payment information. This has, reportedly, been tested with respect to enquiries by the FBI for example. They have a decent number of end points. They've pulled out of countries where they would have been compelled to keep records.
Caveat - no association with PIA, just a satisfied customer for the last ~2 years
It looks like IBM won wrt to the QLD Health Dept. payroll debacle and there is talk about sacking the bureaucrats involved.
However, part of the point of hiring external contractors for this sort of thing is to take advantage of their expertise. If the government failed to 'properly spec' the system, then either IBM failed to provide knowledge, guidance or push-back on a poor design. They they chose to proceed with a design they knew wouldn't work (and if they didn't know, then they deserve even greater criticism). They chose dollars of reputation and deserve some of the blame for the failure and are, rightly I think, being excluded from future consideration.
Looks like they were paid $9.6 million for the job
Do you believe that Google has the data and competence to analyse that data to identify patterns that can distinguish (with high confidence) the difference between a state actor and a hacking/private group?
If so, then Google has either deliberately lied or
Your argument then seems to be that Google has lied to some users (either about an attack existing at all, or about the source of an attack) to ingratiate themselves with the Democrats. I'm not from the US, so I might be missing something, but that sounds ridiculous. Sure, some members of Google (maybe even most) vote a particular way, so you may be able to argue that they favour one party, and maybe their personal political leanings might inform or influence corporate policy (the "agenda" as you ominously call it) but how is _this_ evidence of that?
Sounds like confirmation bias on your part (senior Google employees/owners favour Democrats, therefore all of Google's actions are designed to help that party).
There are a number of (non-political) reasons that Google might inform users of the possibility of state-sponsored attacks. Your suggestion that this might be politically motivated is, frankly, silly.
Memory fault -- brain fried