On the Commodore PET. On the BBC Micro not long after.
On the Commodore PET. On the BBC Micro not long after.
That's just it. BleepingComputer doesn't understand the difference between a DV and an EV certificate and falsely assumes that Lets Encrypt is not doing exactly what a Certificate Authority issuing a DV certificate is supposed to do: Verify the requester is capable of administering the domain in question and nothing more.
Maybe this is just a problem with the latest Chrome beta (I haven't checked others) but it seems to display both EV and DV certificates in exactly the same way to me. On
How is your average internet user supposed to know the difference when someone can get a DV for a phishing website that looks just like their bank website and the URL bar looks exactly the same (bar the easily-missed URL difference)?
I checked PayPal as well and that shows the URL bar differently (with PayPal, Inc. in the green box) even though that's also "Symantec Class 3 EV", so there seems to be something odd going on there. To be honest, even with that, I don't think the average user would know the difference between a green box containing "Secure" vs. the name of the company, they're just looking for that green box/padlock.
I'm guessing those people have searched Beauty and the Beast while signed in to Chrome at some point. And just like Google Now cards, it's an update to a product that showed interest in, so it is brought up with the question of what's happening today. One part Ad yes, but I don't think they would do it specifically for Beauty and the Beast, it may very well be a new regular response with others like: "That console you've been researching is released today" "That TV you price checked is on sale today", "That show you like has a new episode today", etc.
You'd think that, but I very recently got a Google Now card right at the top of the list (ahead of weather etc. whereas that's normally the very top) which told me Nicki Minaj had a new album out. I've never listened to, searched for, bought or in any way shown an interest in that, and I've never been alerted to any band that I do actually listen to/search for having a new album out.
It was immediately obvious that was 'sponsored content' and probably pushed out to millions of people, right on their home screen and right at the top where they can't miss it. If that's the kind of shit they want to start pulling, I'll stop using Google Now. It'd be a real shame as well because it actually finds things I genuinely am interested in every day
You're right, 150 times per year at 3+ hours per sex session is completely normal and practical for the average American, as the study clearly shows. How foolish of me to think that wasn't the case. In other news, people who drink 40 beers a night 150 times a year are just having a great time!
Unless of course, I was right when I said that 3+ hours was just a huge outlier. Here's the Wikipedia page backed by a medical study which found that median time is 5.4 minutes of penetration (3.4 minutes for over 50s). Of course that's only the penetration part, but if you're spending 3 hours on 'the rest' then I'd hardly call that having sex for 3 hours. If you spend 40 minutes warming up, run for 10 minutes and spend 40 minutes stretching afterwards you can't really say you ran for an hour and a half.
Congratulations to the OP on enjoying himself, but for me if I can run a marathon faster than I can have sex, that's just too long. I wouldn't be enjoying myself after even half that time and I'd just be going through the motions for some kind of macho claim that I can. 40-60 minutes from start to finish is just fine for me.
I'm very happy with my sex life, but thanks for going straight for the strawman and ad hominem all-in-one.
I know exactly what I'm saying: that spending 3 hours on average having sex every single time is just so far to the right of the bell-curve it can't even see the middle any more. That's also not accounting for sex being off-the-table 1 week out of every 4 for most men in monogamous relationships, plus things like times when you are ill, one of you is away without the other (e.g. a business trip) or if you are working different shifts. If you factored all that in, the average would be north of 4 hours in a single session every single time every other day.
Try working an 8 hour day plus commute time, fulfilling your basic needs (like eating, washing and sleeping) and potentially those of your children, doing chores and then find the time and energy for a 4 hour romp... There literally aren't enough hours in the day for the average person to do that.
You better not have any other hobbies or interests either or you'll have no chance of getting those 9 hours per week in and you will have failed at sex.
Averaging 150 times per year = ~3 times per week, so 9 hours per week = ~3 hours each time. That sounds more like an addiction instead of genuinely, fully enjoying that all the way through and just happening to take that amount of time. Very few people have 3 hours to spend 3 times a week after they've got home from their long day at work, got the kids fed, washed and asleep and tended to their own personal needs.
I'd look towards blaming long work hours, lower average pay and fast ubiquitous access to the Internet for the decline rather than people just not doing it right.
Them lines go out the door but he is not making any money so far because of his labor costs as they are a lot higher than his business model forecasts predicted. But damn does he work his ass off!
If he can't keep up with the queue of potential customers and he can't find good staff, it sounds like he needs automation then, surely?
It won't compile. You will notice.
What if they start the line with a single-line comment then a big splurge of random data to cause the collision? It'd still compile fine.
I pay Â£15/month for unlimited data plus 3GB of data....And free roaming (though there are then limits) to many countries and territories, including the USA.
ok, that's your choice, but it just seems like all your 'issues' aren't actually valid - at least, not any more. Perhaps it's time to have another look, especially now some are coming out that have some actual horsepower - it's surprising how much you need for even a half reasonable number of tabs/windows.
..but it has a Downloads folder too. Are you sure you've actually used ChromeOS?
What's a "finder"? It has folders/files and an excellent file finding facility. There's no desktop, that's true.
... And there's the location of the pollution too... My previous job was situated in a city where pollution has more effect to more people than where my home is. I guess that's a common situation.
Have you considered WSL?
I'm finding it has possibilities but I mostly work on the command line and do web development so only need chrome other than that.
It's good that Windows ensures everything works and I just leave it alone and work in bash and chrome.
It's still beta but I find it already largely works.
That's not really a fair comparison because your average Linux user and your average Windows users probably have very different skill sets when it comes to computers.
Your average Linux user probably installed it themselves and therefore admin their own PC. This makes them much more likely to have upgraded to a kernel >2.6. Your average Windows user got it pre-installed when they purchased their laptop/desktop and has absolutely no idea how to upgrade it. They'll stick with whatever it had when it first arrived and only upgrade when they get new hardware with a new version pre-installed.
The large Windows 7 install base also has to take into account the number of business users which are still buying brand new hardware (which probably comes with Win10) but then installing Windows 7 on it from some kind of image. Large companies take a very long time to upgrade to the latest version of even simple software, never mind an entire OS upgrade with all the regression testing that involves. My last company had over 60,000 employees worldwide and was just rolling out a huge Windows 7 upgrade when Windows 8.1 had already been released!
Too many people are thinking of security instead of opportunity. They seem more afraid of life than death. -- James F. Byrnes