Youtube comments of Perhaps (@NoEgg4u).

  1. 2600
  2. 2000
  3. 1000
  4. 804
  5. 610
  6. 483
  7. 481
  8. 471
  9. 284
  10. 284
  11. 282
  12. 276
  13. 243
  14. 228
  15. 199
  16. 183
  17. 137
  18. 119
  19. 115
  20. 114
  21. 113
  22. 110
  23. 105
  24. 102
  25. 100
  26. 97
  27. 97
  28. 96
  29. 92
  30. 87
  31. 87
  32. 86
  33. 80
  34. 80
  35. 77
  36. 76
  37. 70
  38. 65
  39. 64
  40. Driving, on a public road, is not a right. It is a privilege, and one for which you must be licensed to do. A doctor does not have the right to conceal his/her license to practice. He/she must present it on demand (which is why he/she keeps it on display). A restaurant does not have the right to conceal their food service license. They must present it on demand (which is why they keep it on display). So if you are driving, on a public road, a police officer is authorized to check that you are licensed to drive on that public road. The police officer is not required explain why he/she wants to see your license (more on that, below). The police officer should, after checking your license, explain why they pulled you over. 1) The police officer does not have to play "Let's make a deal", in order to have a driver hand over their license. 2) The police officer has no idea of the mental state of the person they are pulling over. One test is to see if the driver will cooperate, or be combative. The driver's response to handing the officer their driver's license speaks volumes about the mental state of the driver. 3) Again, the police officer has no idea who is behind the wheel. It could be a friendly, law abiding person, or it could be a psycho, with numerous outstanding warrants. The police officer can check on the status of the driver via the driver's license. Note that even if the police officer told the driver the reason for being pulled over (he did not signal, went through a stop sign, speeding, or whatever), a combative driver will likely just argue the point, and say that since he disagrees, he does not need to show his license. Lastly, the officer might have a different reason for not wanting to explain to the driver the reason for being pulled over. For example, what if the car was reported stolen? Or, the car was used in a homicide? Or, the car is suspected of being used for smuggling. Or, a kidnapping was reported, and that car fits the description. Etc. If you get pulled over, you must show your license to the police, on demand, and without introducing any conditions.
    62
  41. 62
  42. 60
  43. 60
  44. 54
  45. 54
  46. 53
  47. 52
  48. 1) Whatever that 4-year old's taste is today, in 14 years from now, her tastes will be 90% different. 2) That Tesla runs on batteries. No batteries last 14 years. If, in 14 years, pricing is similar to today's pricing, it will cost you approximately the price of a new Tesla to replace the batteries on your Tesla that will be 14 years old. And you will probably have to wait months, for replacement batteries to be in stock. And Tesla, and only Tesla, will have those batteries. 3) In 14 years, the tires on that Tesla will have dried up and rotted. That is $1,000+ that you will have to spend for replacement tires, at today's prices (and will probably be double, in 14 years). 4) In 14 years, no 18-year old girl will want to be driving a 14 year old car. 5) In 14 years, no 18-year old girl will want to drive a car with high mileage (as if you will really keep the car in storage for 14 years and not drive it). 6) Since, in 14 years, the batteries will be dead, and the tires will be rotted, you will have to tow your daughter's 14-year old Tesla to a Tesla service station. There is more, such as passing inspection, and suspension parts being in an unknown state, and paying insurance for 14 years, etc. I suspect that that couple might have been trolling us for clicks and likes, using their cute daughter as a lure. If we are to believe their story, then we are supposed to believe that such stupid parents have that kind of money to burn. I guess it is good to have parents (the daughter's grandparents) to support their stupid children and their stupid children's 4-year old daughter.
    50
  49. 49
  50. 49
  51. 48
  52. A few items not discussed by our host: 1) Activity light: Some models have them. Some models do not have them. Some people prefer having the light. Some people do not want the light. Some people do not care. The activity light helps you if a job seems to be hung. You can tell if it is still active with the drive. The activity light tells you when the drive is idle. This is helpful if you started a long job (perhaps a backup), and your monitor's power saver mode kicked in. The activity light will let you know if the job is still running, without you having to wake-up your monitor. It is usually hard to know (pre-purchase) whether or not a drive has an activity light, because it is virtually never noted on the box, or on the manufacturer's on-line data sheets, etc. You usually have to find a review on youtube (and they usually do not mention it), and watch for the host to demonstrate the drive and if the drive is facing the camera, you might see it blinking. Or, ask the reviewer in the comment section. 2) Mechanical drives are great for backups. But if you expect to be performing requests from more than one program that will be using the drive (simultaneously), then that mechanical drive till slow down, probably by more than 50%. I have found that LaCie drives are remarkably good at handling multitasking. They contain Seagate drives. 3) Self powered drives are super convenient. They have only a single cable that conducts both data and power. But note that if you are using such drives on a hub, then do not expect more than 1 self-powered drive to work. If you plug in a second one, the drives will become slow and unresponsive. This applies to mechanical drives -- not SSDs. 4) The cable that is included in the box is usually short -- perhaps 16". If you will need a longer cable, purchase it at the same time you are purchasing the drive, to save on separate shipping costs. Be sure that the additional cable has the correct connection types on both ends. Be sure that the additional cable is USB 3.0 (or higher) certified. If it does not specify the version, I suggest you not purchase it. 5) Warranty. There is more to the warranty than the coverage period. There is the expectation that the manufacturer will honor their warranty, and what that entails. Western Digital makes it an ordeal to get an RMA (return merchandise authorization) number. It could take you a month to get the RMA number, and that is with you calling them a few times each week, and pressing this button and that button to finally be put on hold to speak to a human. And that hold can be 15+ minutes, and repeated as necessary, until you get your RMA number. If you manage to get an RMA number, then you might have to wait another month or two before they ship you your replacement drive. The warranty maze and hoops with Western Digital are by design. There is simply no way for that to be accidental. Seagate, on the other hand, does everything they can to make their warranty process pain-free. They answer their phones, without long waits, and without a press this and press that maze. You still have to press buttons when calling them. But it is minimal, and then a human answers, asks you some questions, issues you an RMA number, and you are good to go. Also note that some (all?) of Seagate drives include free data recovery. If they recover 3 TB of data on your 4 TB failed drive, they will send you the recovered data on a 3 TB drive, and that is in addition to them also replacing your failed 4 TB drive, resulting in you now owning both a 3 TB drive and a 4 TB drive. You get to keep them both. 6) Power switch. External drives that come with a power brick might, or might not, have a power switch. This might matter to you, or might not matter. If it matters, find the answer prior to purchasing the drive. 7) Power saving / Sleep mode Some drives will sleep, after X minutes of inactivity. For most people, this does not matter. When a request goes to the sleeping drive, it will wake up the drive. But this takes time, because the drive has to spin up. If this is a problem, or waiting is an annoyance, then avoid such drives. How do you know which drives sleep? Search and search for the answer. It just seems that it is not covered anywhere. The G-Technology drives sleep after approximately 5 minutes of idle time, and there is no way to configure them to not sleep. There are applications that will send requests to the drive to keep it busy every few minutes, preventing sleep. Or you could write your own script to send a few bytes of data to the drive every couple of minutes to keep it alive. On the subject of G-Technology drives, note that they have strong metal casings. You can stack them to the moon. But if you do so, you should blow a fan on them (on low, for a light breeze), to keep them from cooking each other. 8) If your new, external drive vibrates strongly, send it back for a refund / replacement. 9) Samsung makes two very good external drives: T5 and T7. The T7 will run at approximately twice the speed of the T5, until its cache runs out. If you will never write enough data, without rest, to fill the T7's cache, then it will always run at warp speed. If you do fill the cache, then it will run slower than USB 2.0 speed, much slower than mechanical drives. The benchmarks you see are never run with enough data to exceed the drive's cache, and so the drive always attains very fast scores. The T5 also has cache. But when its cache runs out, the slow-down is minimal. So if you have large writes to the drive, then the T5 will be faster. The cache is probably 10% of the drive's capacity. Maybe a little more.
    47
  53. 47
  54. 46
  55. 45
  56. 44
  57. 44
  58. 42
  59. 42
  60. 41
  61. 41
  62. 41
  63. 40
  64. 40
  65. 40
  66. @0:33 -- Hysteria? Concerned people are not hysterical people. @1:12 "...it brought out the Microsoft haters, in droves." It brought out far more people that love Windows, but are concerned about privacy. People that do not throw caution to the wind are not haters. They are proactively taking measures to not carelessly abandon proper privacy practices. @1:39 "Recall only works on Co-Pilot Plus PCs." That is how a slippery slope begins. When millions, or perhaps billions, of people, world-wide, purchase a new PC, are they supposed to comprehend "Recall", and know its relationship to Co-Pilot, and the rest? Will they know that having Recall enabled exposes 100% of their activities to anyone that gains control of their PC? They hear "AI", and they salivate. If they know anything, it is only the wonderful side of Recall. The average person (we are talking billions of people) has no clue about the intricacies of Recall. @2:13 "You have nothing to worry about (if you do not have a Recall qualified PC)." For the folks that do have Co-Pilot Plus / Recall qualified PCs, they do have what to worry about? @4:19 "This means that other users cannot access these keys..." When someone deceptively clones your drive, or gains access to your login, etc, they will not be "other users". They will be "you", as far as Windows is concerned. Now the attacker will have a clear, detailed view of everything that has appeared on your screen, and will probably include keystrokes and mouse clicks (why not, when it is simple to implement). That encryption software you run, to guard your password manager, and your Vera Crypt keys, and any other encryption that you use... well, now anyone with access to your PC has, with Microsoft's blessing, bypassed 100% of your security. @5:32 "There's nothing Microsoft can do in recall..." There is a difference between what Microsoft can do vs what Microsoft is actually doing. I can stare at my neighbor, and creep her out. That is what I can do. But it is not the same as me actually doing it. @6:08 "...doesn't really add much more exposure to the mix." The "Frog in boiling water effect". Microsoft's executives are aware of humans having that same nature. If this were 1998, and we were all using Windows 95 or Windows 98, and then Microsoft rolled out "Recall", people would be up in arms. But when privacy invasive tools are commonplace, then that is the time to roll out Recall, because "Heck, who cares anymore about privacy?" Folks, if you have a burglary, and your PC gets stolen, then your Windows login account's password can be changed. Now the criminal can login as you, and see it all. The same thing for any and every policing agency on the planet. Your private, encrypted data is there for them to see, via the Recall screen-shots, and Recall providing your passwords. And can you imagine incompetent government bureaucrats not securing their PCs or servers -- and also in financial institutions and countless other large companies that have sensitive information, and some unscrupulous tech savvy employee or consultant, etc, gains access to those Recall enabled systems... they would see everything. Can you imagine the data breaches? Data breaches happen all of the time. Now add Recall to the attacker's tool-kit. Sure, for the average Joe with his computer, he will have no issues. But this is not about any individual user.
    39
  67. 38
  68. 38
  69. 37
  70. 37
  71. 37
  72. 37
  73. 36
  74. 35
  75. 34
  76. 34
  77. 34
  78. 33
  79. @0:05 "...protesters..." None of them are protesters. The title of this video is inadvertently assigning constitutional protection to those criminals. The title of this video is inadvertently conveying that their criminal actions are protected by our Bill Of Rights. When you are rioting, or you are shutting down traffic, or you are inhibiting the free movement of those authorized to hold a parade, then you are breaking the law. Nowhere in out Constitution / Bill Of Rights is it written that anyone has the right to break the law; to stop traffic on public roads. When you call illegal actions "protesting", you are implying legitimacy to criminal actions. Never do that. It sullies the cherished right of We The People who conduct actual protests. Think about it. Did our founding fathers condone law breakers blocking authorized parades? Did out founding fathers condone blocking public passages, denying emergency personnel from responding to emergencies? Imagine if criminals blocked the Pony Express from making its rounds. Would that have been permitted under the guise of "protesting"? What's next? Bank robbery in the name of protesting? Rape and kidnapping in the name of protesting? How about tossing grenades into the crowd and your defense is your constitution right to protest with grenades? Folks, as soon as you engage in criminal activity, you are not protesting. You are acting criminally. Never call those criminal actions "protesting". That is the clown world language of the radical left. Never use the clown world language of the radical left. Call it rioting. Call it criminal disobedience. Call the criminals a mob. But never call them protesters.
    33
  80. 32
  81. 32
  82. 32
  83. 30
  84. 30
  85. 30
  86. 29
  87. 28
  88. Linda Yaccarino is what inspired on-line "BS Generators" to be created. She talks and talks, and says nothing, while sounding impressive. Thomson Reuters has had multiple executive management turnovers, and each one was worse than the previous one. The "busy" work that came from those people was highly detrimental to the moral of the staff, on all levels. Think about dealing with a government bureaucracy, where every step of the way, when you try to be productive, they put another obstacle in your way. Well, that goes on in large companies, too. You have loads of work to get done, and for example, they mandate that you take ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) training, which takes weeks of studying, passing dozens of quizzes, and 90% of the subject matter has zero to do with your function within the company. And you still have to get all of your work done. You have loads of work to get done, and they mandate you to take more on-line courses, that rarely helps your area of responsibility, and for which no human is available to assist with a question during the on-line, computer based training (CBT). You were not able to make out what was said during the training, and you played it back, over and over, and still can't make out what was said? Well, too bad. From what I have seen of Linda Yaccarino, she fits the above mold. I hope that Elon keeps tabs on when she rolls out any of the above, or similar. I hope that Elon, himself, takes the on-line training and on-line classes and even training with live instructors (but does not reveal himself), to see how counter productive and demoralizing it is. If Elon finds the above to be unbearable (and he will), then he will put a stop to Linda Yaccarino's wasteful policies. At a minimum, Elon should require that Linda Yaccarino take every course that she will be imposing on the employees. And she must do so with no one else present. At her level, she can easily have someone there to take the quizzes for her. So listen to Linda Yaccarino give speeches, and answer questions. Does she speak plainly, like Trump, where you get human answers? Or do her speeches and her answers make your brain hurt? Go to an on-line BS generator, and you will see the same verbiage that you hear from Linda Yaccarino.
    28
  89. 28
  90. 27
  91. That father thinks that it is a negotiation -- "I answered your questions. Now you answer mine." That father was under no obligation to answer any questions. He claimed to know the law (which he just made up). That father claimed that he has a right to face his accusers. Well, not on the street. That right is for a courtroom, when he is on trial. The police are allowed to lie. In fact, if they can calm the suspect down, by lying to him, they are encouraged to do so. So there was probably only one person that saw the gun. But the police said several people saw the gun. That was probably a lie, to help calm down the suspect. That father is a racist, because he accused the officer of being racist: "I know I'm brown, and you like shooting us." Degenerate dirt bags will often, and repeatedly, try to change the subject. That father knew the police officer wanted to find the gun. So that father kept complaining about other issues (as if that police officer is the only police officer on duty). And of course the police have talked to that other person that supposedly cut off that father. That other person called in the gun report. Can you imagine how that father is raising his child? Everything is racist. Can you imagine having an issue with that father, in a store, at the customer service counter, on a train, or any situation where normal people would have a meeting of the minds, whereas that father would go off the rails. It makes sense that he carries a gun. He has probably been having confrontations with people for quite some time, and some people will not tolerate his BS. That is when he flashes his gun, and thinks that makes him right. That father was being combative with the police. Can you imagine how combative he is when the police are not involved? That father is a cancer on society.
    27
  92. 27
  93. I agree 100% with everything our host said. There are a couple of more items to consider. 1) Backup programs offer encryption (probably all of them). If you use it, you will need to provide a password to have access to the data that you backed up. Should the time come where you need to restore those data, then you will need your password. If you forget your password, then forget your data. No password = no data. If you do not use encryption, then if someone gets a copy of your backup (for example, they have access to your external drive that has the backup), then they will have complete access to everything that was backed up. 2) On-line backup services. Know that when you use one of those services that they have 100% unfettered access to all of the data that you store on their servers. Not every employee. But the ones that control the environment will have access. That does not mean that someone is looking at your data. But the company can have programs that examine your data and builds a profile on you. If you are a celebrity or a high ranking government official, the service could make copies of your data for the company's executives to peruse. If you were the CEO of Google, would you be able to resist seeing what Hillary Clinton is backing up, or what LeBron James is backing up, or what (pick your celebrity) is backing up? Are you planning to one-day run for public office? Do you know if your backup service keeps yet another copy of your personal data, that they can use to influence you if you become successful? How about your company's trade secrets? Are you going to let complete strangers have copies of that? When you upload your files to the "cloud", those computers are owned by other people that you do not know. They are strangers. If a government official wants to see what you have on your computer, they will need a search warrant. If a government official asks a "cloud" service to keep unencrypted copies of your uploads, will the service do so and hand over "the" data (note that I used the determiner "the", rather than the pronoun "your", because whatever you upload to the cloud service is no longer owned by you). The most secure way to protect your data is to do a local backup that is encrypted. As a safety net, you can upload that encrypted backup to the "cloud" service. They will not be able to profile you on its contents, because it is encrypted and they cannot access its contents. Cheers!
    26
  94. 26
  95. 26
  96. 25
  97. 25
  98. 25
  99. 25
  100. 24
  101. 24
  102. 24
  103. 23
  104. 23
  105. 23
  106. 23
  107. 23
  108. 22
  109. 22
  110. 21
  111. 20
  112. 20
  113. 19
  114. 19
  115. 19
  116. 18
  117. 18
  118. 18
  119. 18
  120. 18
  121. 18
  122. 18
  123. 18
  124. 18
  125. 17
  126. 17
  127. 17
  128. 17
  129. Yes, there is always a reason for change. That should not be construed that the change is always beneficial. I used to work for a Fortune 500 company, and one day a business unit's senior executive decided that mandating that everyone be ITIL (Information Technology Infrastructure Library) certified. Naturally, he did not study for and get himself ITIL certified. That certification took months of CBT (computer based training), where 90% of the content had nothing to do with your role, and if you did not understand something, there was no one to ask. And you still had to complete all of your job's responsibilities while taking the on-line ITIL training for months. Was there a reason that the senior business unit's executive implemented the ITIL mandate? Yes. Was it a good reason? It sent the personnel's morale down the toilet, and produced reports that did not reflect the reasons for the drop in productivity. Personnel worked towards not showing up on the reports, rather than being productive. Any modifications to the work flow had to now be approved by committees of people that had no understanding of your team's functions. Huge amounts of time was wasted. How about a car that you used to love. A new year passes, and they screw up what was so appealing to the vehicle. But they had a reason. Several years ago, the Honda Accord removed volume knobs from the radio, in favor of pressing and holding a button. Someone at Honda had a reason for that crazy change. Honda got so many complaints, that they put the knobs back. Budweiser had taken on a new face for their brand. That was a change. Budweiser's executives had a reason. It was a terrible reason that tanked the company. But they had a reason. Often, a new executive gets hired, and that executive wants the CEO to see their value. So the new executive makes changes. It happened multiple times at my former Fortune 500 company. It was like ping-pong, going back and forth with each senior or executive management change. Was ping-pong, senior management changes good, accompanied by the confusion of their changes? Often, changes are made to make a statement. Such people that do that should be fired. Change should be done only when it is beneficial. If things are running smoothly, and profits are meeting goals, then that should not be changed. Accept change that is beneficial. Never accept change, blindly.
    17
  130. 16
  131. 16
  132. 16
  133. 16
  134. 16
  135. 16
  136. 15
  137. 15
  138. 15
  139. 15
  140. 15
  141. 15
  142. 15
  143. 15
  144. 15
  145. 14
  146. 14
  147. 14
  148. 14
  149. 14
  150. 14
  151. 13
  152. 13
  153. 13
  154. President Trump was having seemingly daily question and answer sessions with the press. He was constantly engaging the press, every time he traveled to and from the White House. He stood there and took question after question after question. President Trump also routinely had meetings with guests, and invited the press, who asked questions and President Trump answered. President Trump also routinely had meetings with his cabinet and others, and the press was present, and they asked questions, and President Trump answered. President Trump was constantly engaging the press. President* Biden is constantly avoiding the press. President Trump was constantly meeting with foreign heads of state. President* Biden is constantly avoiding meeting with foreign heads of state. There is no way the press can cover this up for a lengthy period of time. Yes, they are all on Biden's side. But even Houdini could not hide Biden's mental state. This is going to become headline news, globally, and within a month or two. By the way: Do not feel sorry for him. He is a vicious person. He cares about no one other than Biden. He is corrupt. His family is corrupt. Biden would feed you to the sharks (so to speak), he would ruin your life, in an instant, if he got any political capital from your sorrow. The Democrats voted him in, and they knew his mental state. The Media (more Democrats) voted him in, and they knew his mental state. The big tech companies (more Democrats) barred free speech on an unprecedented scale, to help Biden, and they knew his mental state. Hold all of them accountable for the disaster that they created.
    13
  155. 13
  156. 13
  157. Two questions: 1) How does Microsoft know that you are permitted to use Word, Excel, etc? When you start one of the applications, does your computer contact a Microsoft permission server? If yes, then what happens when you do not have internet service, but you want to edit a spreadsheet? 2) What happens to all of your documents, if you decide to not renew your subscription? Will Word, Excel, etc refuse to run? Will Word, Excel, etc, start, but refuse to open documents? Will Word, Excel, etc, documents become read-only? By the way, on my daily-driver computer, I am using Office from 2007 (purchased this i7 box in 2006). I need nothing more than standard use of the apps that came with Office back then. There are several other apps that come with all of the subscription services that Office 2007 does not have. Also, the apps I already have do not have many features offered in the current versions. And none of that matters to me. And I am pretty sure that my version does not phone home with my activity. I wouldn't mind learning Exchange, Publisher, Intune, Azure Information Protection, Editor, Clipchamp, and OneNote... for free, or for a one time charge of, perhaps, $29.99. But not for what Microsoft is charging. For folks that will make use of those applications, then more power to them. But I do not think that most people need most of the apps in the subscription, and I don't think that most people need all of the bells and whistles that are in the most updated versions. I am not knocking those versions. They are probably slick, with power features. I just think that 99%+ of people never use more than 10% of the features (especially for Excel, which you can learn, forever).
    13
  158. 13
  159. 13
  160. 13
  161. 13
  162. 13
  163. 13
  164. 12
  165. 12
  166. 12
  167. 12
  168. 12
  169. 12
  170. 12
  171. 12
  172. 12
  173. 12
  174. 12
  175. 12
  176. 12
  177. 12
  178. 11
  179. 11
  180. 11
  181. 11
  182. 11
  183. 11
  184. 11
  185. 11
  186. 11
  187. 11
  188. 11
  189. 11
  190. 11
  191. 11
  192. 11
  193. 11
  194. 11
  195. 11
  196. 11
  197. 10
  198. 10
  199. Windows, especially version 10, is a spyware OS, the likes the world has never imagined. It tracks every keystroke, every file access, every mouse click. If you want to protect your privacy, and to a large degree your security, then stop using Windows. Stop using google (use duckduckgo.com). Stop using facebook. Etc. Use an open source Linux OS. There are scores of distributions to choose from, and they are all free and all (or nearly all) are open-source. If you want one that makes ease of use a priority, then install Linux Mint. Go to distrowatch.com for information on just about every Linux offering and where do download it from. As to Open Office (and this also applies to Libre Office): It is spyware free. Why? They make their source code available for download. Meaning, people (programmers) anywhere on the planet can and do read that source code. They would love nothing more than to catch some sneaky code. So there is none. With that source code, you can compile the installation files yourself, and install the Office suite. You can compare what you compile to the already compiled installation files that are free to download. Running "fc.exe" on the two will reveal that they are identical. Meaning, no BS for Open Office, and no BS for Libre Office. As to Windows anti-virus: I recommend Webroot. Lastly, if you are unsure about installing Linux, you can install Oracle's free and open-source Virtual Box. That will allow you to create a Linux (or any other OS) machine that runs on your Windows machine. It will run much slower (because it is running virtually). But it allows you to use the Linux distro to see if you like it, and without risk. And Linux has endless free and open-source programs to do 99.9% of everything you do on a Windows machine. All open-source. All free. All safe. Cheers!
    10
  200. 10
  201. 10
  202. 10
  203. @6:23 "I recommend: Pro". If you originally had the Windows 11 Home version, then if you intend on activating your re-install, choose "Home". If you had "Home", and then you choose "Pro", I am pretty sure that your installation will not get activated. The "Home" version and the "Pro" version will be two different activation keys. Also, they are priced differently. If people with the Home version were able to get a free upgrade to Pro, by re-installing Windows, it would be noted by hosts on tech channels / forums. Since I never tried the above, I cannot say with 100% certainty that going from Home to Pro will prevent activation. But I am believe I am correct, based on my explanation, above. You can always purchase an upgrade key for the Pro version. But do so only if you will be using a feature that is unavailable in the Home version. To upgrade for the purpose of getting additional features that you do not use is a waste of money for the upgrade key. The main four Pro features that are disabled in the Home version are: -- Remote Desktop server. -- BitLocker server. -- Sandbox. -- Group Policy editor. There are probably other features. Note that the client version of the above features will work on the Home version. For example, only the Pro version (or Enterprise version) can create a BitLocker encrypted partition. But if you mount a BitLocker encrypted partition on a system running Home, you will be prompted for the password, and once entered, it will work. But the Home version cannot create the encrypted partition.
    10
  204. 10
  205. 10
  206. 10
  207. 10
  208. 10
  209. The big tech companies get away with spying, because most folks don't give a hoot that they are being tracked, and have no clue as to the extent of the tracking. When people install Windows 10, most click through all of the set-up pages, leaving all of Microsoft's "opt in" settings left in the "opt in" position, which gives Microsoft permission to track your life. I have asked family and friends: "When we were in that restaurant, if you knew that our conversation was being recorded, would you have cared?" Almost without exception, the answer is: "I don't care", and is based on that nothing too personal was discussed. If every news channel did a story on how much information Microsoft collects, and they provided a link to a program that would disable all of the data collection, most folks would not want to be bothered, and would leave the data collection intact. Most folks do not understand how much data www.google.com collects about them. Even when I tell friends and family to use duckduckgo.com, they never do. I have seen other youtube channels that had videos on installing free and open source Linux OSs, and free and open source apps, all to avoid being tracked. And in that same video, the host said "and the answer (to whatever he was discussing) is just a google search away". An entire video on privacy and security, and he says to use google. Big tech loves the masses. They put Alexa inside their homes. They pay to have an internet connected device with a microphone and speech-to-text translation in their livingrooms. People leave "Hey Siri" enabled on their phones, so that the phone listens to every utterance you and people around you make. People use smart phone facial recognition to unlock their phones, so that big tech has your face-print. People use smart phone fingerprint recognition to unlock their phones, so that big tech has your finger-prints. Few people understand. Fewer people care.
    10
  210. @0:40 "Words such as "master", "slave"..." This is the end of the "Master Lock" company, and the end of locksmiths that have "master" keys. And anyone with a "Masters" degree needs to be imprisoned for hurting the feelings of leftist trolls. Better not slip on "black" ice. After you heal, you will be arrested. @0:51 "Because we all know that the tech industry is completely male dominated". So because women choose other livelihoods, then the men that choose the IT field are at fault? Men and women are equal in the eyes of G-d and in the eyes of the law. We are not equal in terms of our interests, any more than short and tall people have identical interests, or old and young people have identical interest, or Chinese and Nigerian people have identical interests, etc. Biologically, men and women are not the same. Each excel in different areas. And when people look to find fault everywhere, then they will find it. Imagine having a boss that finds fault with everything that you do. You can always find areas where (fill in the blank) people are not in great numbers. That does not mean anything illicit is happening. That is simply how some things pan out. You cannot force equal outcomes, short of totalitarian rules. Stop cowering to the mob. Such weakness results in increased aggression from the mob. These woke people are out of their minds. "man" pages are "manual" pages. If "woman" offers better functionality, then by all means, let's use it. But if it is there for virtue signaling, then that is sad. At one time, we had "more". Later, we got "less". That was done for the right reasons. Let's keep doing things for the right reasons, and not for the demented fault seekers slithering around our neighborhoods. Cheers!
    10
  211. 10
  212. 10
  213. In case anyone is still unsure, consider the following: -- Symbolic links are simply pointers. They point to other files (even to other symbolic links). However, you can delete the file to which the symbolic link points, and the symbolic link will remain. It will become a broken link. In fact, you can create a symbol like that points to a non-existent file (which Jay did in this video, and you saw it as a red colored filename). And, as Jay said, a symbolic link can point to any file anywhere on your computer or networked drive. -- Hard links are similar to making a copy of a file, without actually making a copy of the file. Basically, you wind up with a file that has two file names (or three, etc, if you create even more hard links). So if you have "some_huge_file_1.avi", and you create a hard link named "some_huge_file_2.avi", then both filenames are accessing the exact same inode (accessing the exact same file). So if that file was 100GB in size, and you delete one of the two hard links, you will recover 0 space, because the inode still exists (the actual file and its content still exists). You will not recover the disk space until you delete all file-names that share the same inode number. Consider that a program (or someone) keeps deleting one of your files. Well, you could create a hard link to that file. Then when the file gets deleted (it does not really get deleted), you still have the file under its other hard-linked name. When you run: ls -l ...look in the column directly after the permissions. You usually see a "1". That is because most files do not have hard links associated with them. If you see a "2", it means that that file exists under two different names. If you see a "3", it means that that file exists under three different names. Etc. How do you discover what the other names are?: The "find" command has a -samefile option, that will return results for filenames that share the same inode number. This is handy if you want to ensure that a file really gets deleted. First see if there are any hard links associated with the file (look at the number next to the permissions). If that number is greater than 1, then you have to find and delete the other file(s) that share the same inode number. The "find" command with the "-samefile" option will reveal the hard linked filenames. Cheers!
    10
  214. 10
  215. @0:35 "My wife's PC died." That is a very general description. Like: My car died. Well, if your battery died, you do not buy a new car. If your alternator died, you do not buy a new car. If the hard drive died, you do not buy a new PC (unless the old PC cannot keep up with whatever you are doing today, and a failed hard drive gave you the push to replace the old PC). Maybe the power supply died? Whatever part died could probably be replaced without too much fuss. A motherboard failing would be the biggest challenge. But if such PC surgery is too challenging for a user, then they go the "new PC" route. If, however, you can replace the failed part, it is the simplest solution and you will be good to go. But if you must go with the new PC route (or in the case of the person writing in, they already made the new PC purchase), then be sure that you have all of your login credentials handy. Many of us have our browser auto-log us in. Well, when that PC is dead, then you will have to manually login to all of your web sites on your new PC. Perhaps you will be able to make use of "Forgot Password" options for the web sites you use? But can you get into your e-mail account, to see the reset code that some site sends to you? If you use a password manager, it will simplify things. You will have all of your login credentials. Note that some sites will detect that you are attempting to login from different hardware, and will send a pin code to your phone, or will require some other form of verification, before allowing your new PC to login to their site. Then there are all of your registration codes for any software that you purchased. Do you have that? Those codes can be saved in your password manager, so that when you re-install your purchased software, you can enter your registration codes. Do you have the installation programs? If not, will you be able to find the installation programs from the site you downloaded it from? Is the same version still available on that site? Your registration code might not work on the latest version. The person that wrote in the question has a backup. So hopefully that backup will have all of the downloaded installation files. But the registration codes might be in e-mail messages (or might not be in e-mail messages, as e-mail is insecure -- so some companies will not send registration codes via e-mail). Many registration codes are presented on-screen, and only on-screen, directly from the web site. And then you have to deal with all of your tweaks that you made to your programs. Dark mode, font sizes, desktop icon arrangements, etc. On your new PC, you will have to manually set all of that from scratch. Before your PC dies, you might want to take a photo of your desktop.
    10
  216. 10
  217. 10
  218. Microsoft, especially Windows version 10, logs every action, every file access, etc. Upon creating a new user account in Windows 10, it defaults to "send your life back to Microsoft", and most people just click, click, click through all of the questions (and Microsoft knows this). And you cannot turn off all of the "phone home" data collection. There is no way, short of having Dave's programming skills, to keep Microsoft from spying on you. And now Microsoft created a subsystem for Linux. Linux prides itself on being privacy and security focused. Nearly all distributions are open source. Linux has nothing to hide, unlike Microsoft Windows, which is closed source. So why run Linux via the "phone home" Windows kernel? Sure it is "cool", and even has some useful aspects. But if your privacy and/or security means anything to you, then you are trusting that Microsoft is not tracking everything going on via its Linux subsystem. Based on Microsoft's track record, it stands to reason that they are tracking that, too. Why not? They track everything else. And when your Linux code has issues, is it related to Microsoft's subsystem for Linux? Is that infrequent kernel panic, that elusive bug, that [fill in the blank] issue... is it a Microsoft issue, or is it a Linux issue? Do you have the time and the resources to duplicate your environment with Linux installed on bear metal, in order to test your code without the Windows foundation? Is it the exact same hardware for both the Windows box and the Linux box? Lots to chew over, when issues surface. Yet another complicated layer of avoidable troubleshooting. Microsoft makes some amazing software packages. That is to their credit. They are also ruthless when it comes to the competition. They take no prisoners. Does this matter? Linux is Microsoft's biggest OS competitor. So why not gradually get the Linux world to run their code on Microsoft's platform? When enough people and businesses stop running Linux on bear metal, and instead run Linux on Microsoft's sub system for Linux, then Microsoft will command the Linux world, too. That is when they they can phase out their support and kill off their last serious OS competitor. For security, privacy, and the last bastion of OS freedom, do not jump on the Microsoft subsystem for Linux bandwagon, unless you have a specific task where that is the best viable solution. Would you run TAILS on a Microsoft Windows 10 box? Please let me know if my insight is not on target. Cheers!
    9
  219. @4:10 "clear" command. Yes, ctrl-l is faster and more convenient, for interactive shell execution. But for within a script, "clear" is what you probably use to clear your screen. Perhaps you can issue a ctrl-l from within a script? If someone knows how that can be done, please chime in. @23:57 "...and just delete everything on that line" (via ctrl-u) That is correct, as well as incorrect, depending on your cursor position. ctrl-u does not necessarily delete everything on the line. Rather, it deletes everything to the left of the cursor. So if you cursor happens to be at the end of the line (and it usually is at the end of the line), then, yes, it will delete the entire line. But if your cursor was not at the end of the line, then ctrl-u would not delete any characters to the right of the cursor. It would delete only the characters to the left of the cursor. @27:03 "tail -f" I prefer to use "less -iM filename" or simply "less filename", and from within less's output, press "shift F" (the "F" means "forever", as in tail the file forever). Why is "less" and from there "shift F" my preference? That "shift F" feature that is within the "less" command will do the same thing as "tail f". But the benefit of using "less" and "shift-F" is that when you are done tailing the file, you can press ctrl-q, and return to the standard "less" pager's output - scroll around within the output -- search through the output, etc). With "tail -f", once you ctrl-c out of it, you are returned to the shell prompt. That might be better, depending on your situation. But I find the "less" command's "shift F" to be better, somewhat more often. At any rate, you have a choice between the two. Often, when jobs run, they will duplicate their standard output (what is shown to the user) to a log file. This is often the case in a business environment, where the operators, controllers, programmers (employees) must keep a real-time eye on its progress. And there could be countless jobs running. So it is common to run "tail -f" to check on job completions and see if they succeeded or ended with errors, etc. As such... When you run "tail -f" on a log file of a job that is running, you could confuse the output from "tail -f" as the actual job, when it is really only a real-time view of the actual job (it is not the actual job, but simply the mirrored output of a log file that the job created). Whereas, with "less", followed by "shift F", you will never mistake what you are viewing. You will absolutely know that you are in your "less" pager, tail'ing a file. You will never confuse viewing the tail of a file with viewing the actual, real job that is running. If you mistakenly thought that you were doing a "tail -f", when that window happened to be the actual job, then when you run "ctrl-q" to break out of what you thought was a tail of a log, you end up performing that ctrl-q on the actual job, and you kill the job. Depending on the job, that could be a big problem. Using "shift-F" via the "less" command avoids any and all potential mix-ups and mistakes that could happen with "tail -f". ----- And, of course, another great video with clear and useful tips. Cheers!
    9
  220. @1:54 "Downloading Windows is ethical, if and only if you have already purchased a valid product key or..." Leo, I respectfully disagree. Microsoft puts the installation files on their web site, making Windows 10 / 11 freely available for anyone to download. Microsoft puts no conditions on the availability of the download, or who can do the download, or anyone's reason for doing the download. And it is not an "Oops, we did not realize what we did" by Microsoft's executives. This was their choice. Additionally, Microsoft could include meaningful crippling code in the OS, if (for example), after a specified time period, no activation key is entered. All Microsoft did is lock the wallpaper / theme and include a watermark and a couple of other inconsequential disabled options. Microsoft does not even nag the user to purchase an activation key or enter an existing activation key. Also, when it comes to ethics, consider the following: You can purchase a new computer, for $103.99 on Amazon. That new computer will include a licensed Windows 11 Home key. But if you download Windows 11, and have to purchase a license key, it will cost you $139 for the license key (and only the license key). How is that ethical? And if you purchase a renewed computer, Amazon has one with Windows 11 Pro, for $88, and is superior in just about every way to the new one for $103.99. So for $88, you can ethically and legally own a capable computer (probably includes a keyboard and mouse, too) that includes a valid Windows 11 Pro license, for less than half the price of purchasing Windows 11 Pro. Yes, one is retail and the other is OEM. But that is Microsoft's doing. The pricing disparity is 100% at the whim of Microsoft. So I see nothing unethical about downloading an OS, directly from Microsoft, that Microsoft's executives knowingly and intentionally make freely available on their web site, with no strings attached.
    9
  221. 9
  222. 9
  223. 9
  224. 9
  225. 9
  226. 9
  227. 9
  228. 9
  229. 9
  230. The police got involved, and they should not have gotten involved. The police took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. They have no oath to gavel before council members. Those police officers should be retrained, if not suspended. All law officers should be required to re-take their oath to the Constitution of the United States of America, monthly. A record of each and every one of them should be maintained by every precinct. This goes for FBI, CIA, DEA, and the rest (excluding those in the field doing undercover work). Every three months, every law enforcement officer should be quizzed on three questions about our Constitution / Bill of Rights, and the other Amendments to our Constitution. If any law officer fails, twice in a row, they should be suspended. If any law officer gets suspended three times, in two years, they should be fired. The above will get the message across to every officer that they are to understand our rights, and they are to protect our rights. As it stands, law enforcement take their oath when they are hired, and that is it. They go through the motions, and do not even understand the purpose of their oath, or the document to which they have sworn their oath. They might as well take an oath to uphold blah, blah, blah, as far as they understand their oath. Getting back to the police getting involved... If those police officers understood their oath, they would have told the city council members that this is not a police matter -- or maybe even have told the city council members that they (the council members) have no authority to stop anyone from waving the American flag or holding up our Constitution -- that no government body's "rules" usurp the Constitution of the United States of America.
    9
  231. 9
  232. Tips for a long lasting hard drive: 1) Make sure that you have proper cooling. Heat kills. A light breeze should be enough. If an internal drive is in a case with a non-working fan, that can shorten the life of your hard drive. If an external drive is in a hot room, you should turn on a fan, and direct it at the drive. As long as a light breeze blows the drive's hot air away, you should be in good shape. 2) Never turn off the drive. If you leave it running 24/7/365, it will probably last longer. Of course, you will be paying for the electricity to keep it running 24/7/365. Your hard drive takes the most punishment when it is turned on. The above might be a tad difficult, because some drives go into power-saver mode, and have no option to disable it. 3) Feed your computer and hard drive (if it is external and not in the computer's case)... feed them clean power. Never connect your computer equipment directly to your wall outlet. That is dirty power. Every time anything bad happens on the power grid, your computer will be exposed to that event. Over time, even little spikes take their toll. Also, low voltages are bad. If you ever have a black-out, unplug everything. The worst power is when a black-out ends, and the power is restored. Wait 5 or 10 minutes before plugging things back in. If you use a UPS (uninterruptible power supply), your computer (and anything else plugged into the UPS) should last a very long time. Not all UPS's are the same. A cheap one is basically a bucket of batteries that kicks in when there is a blackout. That is better than nothing. The next step up is a UPS with AVR (automatic voltage regulation). Such UPS's will boost low voltage situations, and will reduce high voltage situations. Such UPS's will generally have a better joule rating (how much of a surge it can absorb and keep it from hitting your computer). High end UPS's are referred to as "on-line". This is because they actively convert your A/C power to D/C power, and then back to A/C power (a double conversion). This means that the UPS is generating its own power. As such, whatever you have plugged in to the UPS will never see anything from the power grid. Such UPS's are expensive, and consume electricity in order to do the double conversion. This would probably be overkill for most people. Data centers (such as a google, facebook, etc) use on-line UPS's to protect their huge server rooms (hospital operating rooms, too). Those UPS's, along with pallets and pallets of batteries, might cost more than your house. If you are using a power strip with surge suppression, that is probably not doing much. The part that does the suppression is a metal-oxide varistor (MOV). Most power strips have cheap MOVs, and they wear out. Each little hit that they absorb takes a bite out of the MOV. As time passes, your surge suppression stops, and you will have only a power strip (and you will not know that the strip is no longer suppressing spikes and surges). A good UPS, with AVR, will go a long way in protecting whatever you have plugged into it. And they will not break the bank. I have been using them for 25 years, for TVs, computers, and all other electronics, and have never had any equipment (that is plugged into the UPS) fail.
    8
  233. 8
  234. 8
  235. 8
  236. 8
  237. If you use a torrent via TOR, then the servers that are feeding you your files will have your IP address. The data stream initiated by your computer will include your IP address, when using a torrent. No one sniffing the hops will know your IP address or what you are doing. But when your request reaches the intended servers, then those servers will have your IP address, if you are transferring a file via a torrent. Not covered in this video is that TOR can be used for all manner of internet activity (not just web browsing). But web browsing is probably the most heavily used part of internet activity, including over TOR. So take note that your web browser can give away your identity. If you do not take steps to keep yourself anonymous, your web browser will send along a load of information about your computer, which the server on the other end will see. Also: To remain anonymous, you must disable javascript when you use your web browser. But doing so will break the functionality of countless web sites. You will find that they do not load properly. Some sites will know that you disabled javascript, and will tell you that their site requires javascript to be enabled for it to work properly. But if you enable javascript, you will almost certainty give up your identity. Lastly, due to bad actors, abusing the fact that TOR keeps them anonymous, countless web sites will not accept connections from TOR exit nodes (those nodes are publicly known). So if you use TOR to go to some web site, it might time-out, or you might get a connection refused message, or something similar. And then there is Windows, that monitors everything that you do, and phones home. If you use TOR on a Windows computer, you really do not know what is being logged on your computer, or being sent to Microsoft. For the safest TOR experience, use the Linux TAILS operating system. If will be a bit of a struggle to surf the web, via TAILS. But that is due to TAILS protecting you from yourself. The roadblocks that TAILS puts up are to keep you from revealing your identity, when you did not realize that you were about to reveal your identity.
    8
  238. 8
  239. 8
  240. 8
  241. 8
  242. 8
  243. 8
  244. 8
  245. 8
  246. 8
  247. 8
  248. 8
  249. 8
  250.  @dadautube  All, what dadautube wrote is nonsense. For example, if you use the TOR network via the TAILS operating system, and you do not do anything stupid, your internet activity will remain anonymous. There is no shortage of internet trolls that enjoy spreading BS, stirring things up, getting a woody after a few gullible people give his comment a thumb's up, etc. Remaining anonymous is not a "trick". It is a skill. Via the right TOR network behavior, your internet activity will not be tracked by anyone, or any agency. At most, there will be a detection of you using the TOR network, and that is where the trail ends. I will give datautube credit for referencing bank accounts. But no one believes that bank accounts are private. Court orders are issued every day, compelling banks to hand over the info. In fact, the banks mail you your statements, optionally on paper. So no $h!t that they can reveal your banking information. This, however, has nothing to do with remaining anonymous on-line. As to "master keys"... There might be master keys for closed source encryption. There is no way to know, because the code is closed source. So never use closed source encryption for anything that you want to be sure will remain private. The whole point of open source software is that nothing is hidden. Nothing can be hidden -- it is open for anyone on the planet to read -- and that's a lot of programmers. If a back door or master key was found, it would make headlines all over social media's tech channels. People would love to take credit for finding such a breach. None exists. The fact that every programmer on the planet has 100% access to 100% of the code is the way that keeps the code strong and honest. datautube threw out raw meat for those that might go for it. Do not. Everything he mentioned is a generality, and nothing to back up anything he wrote. He is either clueless, which makes his comments both irresponsible and reckless, or he is knowingly spreading BS, or a bit of both. datatube started his comment with: "the point is: Folks, the point is to ignore him.
    8
  251. @1:45 "What's a strong password?" Rather than trying to remember some complicated, cryptic master password, you can simplify the process by using 4 or more words, with a twist. There is a video (I would provide the link, but youtube tends to toss comments with links) that uses the following example of a strong passphrase: correct horse battery staple 1) It has 28 characters, making it too long for a standard brute force attack. 2) A dictionary attack might work, but would likely take months, using a room of state-of-the-art computers. 3) It is easy to remember. To shore up the weakness in #2, you simply add a weird character somewhere, such as: correct horse battery st%aple The above example is virtually impossible to crack, even by a huge computer room full of advanced computers. If Google, Facebook, Twitter, and all 3-letter government agencies combined forces to crack "correct horse battery st%aple", it would probably take years. So use 4 or more words, and make at least one of the words an uncommon word (such as "osculate" or "abrogate") By the way, if you use proper password management software, and also use a proper pass phrase, then it makes zero difference whether or not the company had a data breach. Consider the following: If a data breach actually mattered, then that means that the employees at the company were always able to access your data. The goal of proper password management software is that you should not have to care, and not have to worry, about anyone (employees, attackers, etc) gaining access. If the software is proper, and your passphrase is proper, then your vault is impenetrable.
    8
  252. 8
  253. 8
  254. 8
  255. 8
  256. 8
  257. 8
  258. 8
  259. 8
  260. 8
  261. 8
  262. 8
  263. Three items: 1) Opening a zip file is safe, even if it contains malware. If you open the zip file, and run the enclosed malware, then you are in trouble. If, for example, a zip file contains a photo (a jpg file). If you never click on that jpg file to open it (to view it); if you just let that jpg file sit there, then it is basically a dormant file that will never see the light of day. The same is true of an exe file that is malware. You can have it on your computer. As long as you do not double-click it to run it, it will sit there for all eternity, doing nothing. Of course, that is risky, because one day someone might be curious and double-click it. So it is best to not have it. But if you ignore it, it will sit there doing nothing, just like any other files that you have that you never touch. Opening a zip file only extracts the contents of that zip file. You can upload the exe file (or any file) to virustotal. That will give you a good idea on whether or not the file contains malware. It is not 100% reliable. But if virustotal lights up with dozens of warnings, then that is a warning that you should heed. If virustotal deems it safe, it probably is, but the key word is "probably". 2) If something went amiss with any of the files within the zip file, you will know when you try to unzip (extract) the file(s). When unzipping a zip file, the unzipping program checks the veracity of any file that you extract from the zip file. If a single byte is missing or has changed, you will see an error while trying to unzip it. So if someone wants to e-mail you a file where you must be 100% sure that nothing happened to it between the sender and you, then have them zip that file. If you unzip it, with no warnings, then you are good to go. 3) Zipping files does add compression by default. But compression is optional. You can zip files with zero compression, light compression, heavy compression, or medium compression. The benefit of zero compression is if the files you are going to zip are already highly compressed, then the zipping program will not waste time trying to compress files that it can't compress any further. But you must tell your zipping program to not use compression. For example, flac files (music files) are already compressed. You might be able to compress them a bit more. But the space you will save will be almost meaningless, and it will take much longer to complete the zipping job if you try to compress those already compressed files. This really only matters when you are zipping gigabytes of data with any modern computer. If you are zipping a few megabytes, it will be so fast that the compression time will fly by. Note that the compression is lossless. When you unzip the files (when you extract the files from the zip file), they will return to exactly what they were.
    8
  264. 8
  265. 8
  266. 8
  267. 7
  268. 7
  269. 7
  270. 7
  271. 7
  272. 7
  273. 7
  274. 7
  275. 7
  276. 7
  277. @1:26 "Let 'em speak." Did you catch that disgusting action by that school board member? Here is what she did: She finds the speaker's words to be distasteful, but she has to let him speak. But when the audience cheers him on, she is boiling inside. She can't stand him being applauded. So she interrupts him, and tries to stop the applause. And what is so deceitful is her choice of words. It is like someone interrupting you by saying "I'm not interrupting you", when you try to speak. She says "Let 'em speak", to stop the applause that infuriates her, and she tries to take the wind out of his sails; tries to make him lose his tempo. She tried early on, @0:23, with "Address the board" interruption. He was addressing the board. She knew where he was going (we all knew where he was going). None of us would have interrupted him with "Address the board". She knew he was laying down the foundation for his admonishment of the school board members. So she tries to interrupt him, implying that he was not addressing the school board members. Of course he was addressing the school board members. Everything he said pertained to his country, his family, and how those school board members are trying to usurp his role as a father and the role of our constitutional republic. Everything he said was for the ears of the school board members (and she interrupts him with "Address the board"). Radical leftists do this all the time. They see you on a roll, and so they interrupt you, seemingly innocently. But there is nothing innocent about it. They do so to break your stride. That school board member (that repeatedly tried to interrupt that father) is a radical leftist degenerate. That father knew the score. He ignored her. He kept his pace. He drove home his points. That he ignored her, likely angered her all the more.
    7
  278. 7
  279. 7
  280. 7
  281. I recommend that Windows users stick with Windows Defender, and do not use any 3rd party packages. Why? 1) Read the terms of service (end user license agreement, etc), and read it thoroughly. Read any and all links contained therein. Read it all. It is a boring read, and the 3rd party packages are counting on you not reading it. You are agreeing to allow the 3rd party vendor to have complete, unfettered access to your computer. You are agreeing to allow them to do anything they want to do, with the files on your computer. They are unlikely to harm any of your files. But they will sell your information to who knows who. They will refer to the companies, with whom they will "share" your data, as part of their family of vendors (or some such wording). It all adds up to you giving complete strangers a transparent window into everything on your computer, and everything you do with your computer. They claim it is for them to better protect you, and they claim that they only collect metrics, blah blah blah. Yet, you are agreeing to allow them to do anything they want with your computer. Yes, for their software to be effective, they must be able to scan your files and your activities, to identify threats and protect you. So you have to allow it, if you use their software. 2) Windows Defender will probably do a better job than any 3rd party package. A couple of decades ago, Microsoft did not really care about security. They left that up to the end user to protect themselves with 3rd party software. Microsoft took a good deal of heat, and today they take security seriously, and they have the resources to handle it. They also have the most information on how Windows works and its vulnerabilities. Defender is bundled with Windows, and costs nothing for you to use. 3) If you decide to use a 3rd party vendor, and then one day decide to switch to some other 3rd party vendor (or switch to Microsoft Defender), you will find it next to impossible to divorce yourself from your current 3rd party vendor. You will never delete all traces, and you might end up with a conflict between competing packages. Cheers!
    7
  282. 7
  283. 7
  284. 7
  285. 7
  286. 7
  287. 7
  288. 7
  289. 7
  290. 7
  291. 7
  292. 7
  293. 7
  294. 7
  295. 7
  296. 7
  297. 7
  298. 7
  299. 7
  300. 7
  301. 7
  302. 7
  303. 7
  304. The admin capable account should not be used, unless you have a specific (and probably rare) use case (I provided an example, below). The admin capable account has access to all files on your computer. That is a risk. If you are using the admin capable account, and you are poking around at files in some obscure folder, or some other user's files, you can mistakenly delete those files, or move them, etc. That would not happen with a standard user's account, as you would not have permission to even go into a different user's directory, etc. If you are using the admin capable account, and you get infected with malware, then that malware can go into you system32 folder (or any user's folder) and create chaos. There will be no User Account Control prompt. It would be like having a command prompt with admin capable rights to encrypt files all over the place. No UAC prompt will be triggered. If you are a standard user, and you get malware, then that malware will not have access to other user's files, and will not have more than "read" access to system32 files (or other such directories). If you never make mistakes, and you never get malware, then enjoy the convenience of using an admin capable account. I will not roll the dice. I use a standard user account. A rare case where I used the admin capable account is when I wanted to put a batch script into the "windows" directory". A standard user cannot do that. If it became commonplace for me to use numerous scripts, I would create a new directory, and add that new directory to the PATH variable. But I had a one-off case, and it was simpler to use the Windows directory (which is already in the PATH variable). My cousin used to use his admin capable account. He was not a careful user. He clicked on anything that caught his attention. He went to sketchy sites, and downloaded who knows what, without a care in the world. That is, until he called me because his computer was running slowly. I got tired of providing him with remote help, to clean out background processes that he unwittingly installed. I then told him to create a new account, as a standard user. He did, and sometime later, he called me with the slow-down issue. This time, I told him to create yet another standard user account, and use only his newly created, standard user, account. As soon as he used that new standard user account, all was well. He never called me again for slow-down issues. He just keeps creating new standard user accounts. I speak to him often. He told me that he has created over 10 new accounts. In a way, it is absurdly funny. But he is not going to change his ways. He is somewhat absent-minded. He is still living dangerously. I told him so. But at least the "who knows what" stuff he runs is contained within his local, standard user, account, and only runs when he uses that account. When he uses a new standard user account, it is clean. It is not a perfect solution. But it saves me from having to deal with it. And he is happy with it, too. But if he was using an admin capable account, then all kinds of other background processes could be involved, where a new user account would not be too helpful. I do not know how common his situation is. But people routinely complain that their computer slows down. So a new standard user account might be an easy fix for them. And they can briefly use an admin capable account to copy or move their documents from their old, compromised account to their new, clean account. For nearly everyone, a standard user account will be all that they ever need to do everything they need to do. It is safer that way, and is why they should not use an admin capable account. They should have an admin capable account, for when prompted to install new programs. But they should use a standard user account for their daily routines.
    7
  305. 1) @0:36 The terminal: Note that all of the examples given require that your system's GUI (graphical user interface) is cooperating. If for some reason your GUI stops responding, or your mouse stop working, you will need an alternative for starting the terminal (which, once started, can be used to trouble-shoot and fix any issues, or to do a clean reboot). There are a few terminals that you can access, that are independent of your GUI. You access them by pressing Ctrl+Alt+F3 (or F4, or F5, etc). Each one will open a terminal. From there, you can run a command to reboot your computer, or any other commands to help identify problems and apply fixes. Pressing Ctrl+Alt+F6 (might differ depending on which Linux distribution you are running), will take you back to your GUI. 2) @12:01 That will copy only files that have a dot (a period symbol). If you have a file named "stuff", then using "cp *.* Pictures" will not include your "stuff" file when the copying takes place. If you really want to copy everything, then use only an asterisk (*). cp * Pictures If you want to see what will be copied, before executing the cp command, then run (for example): ls *.* Whatever "ls" shows you is what will be copied when you, instead of using "ls" you use "cp". 3) @19:44 Yes, issuing some command with the "--help" argument will usually provide documentation on how to use the command. Note: "usually", not "always". Also note that Linux documentation is built around the "man" command (stands for reading the "manual" for a command). So for help on the cp (copy) command, you can use either: cp --help (or) man cp Does it matter? It might. The help that is returned will be similar, but not the same. You might need to run both, in order to have your question(s) answered. Cheers!
    7
  306. 7
  307. @10:00 "0 MPH to 60 MPH test" -- Traction Control should have been turned off (it is on by default). -- The camera should have been on the road for that acceleration test -- not on your face. @10:44 "All Sport mode really does is it re-maps the throttle and also tightens up those adaptive shocks." Sport mode holds lower gears longer, to make the throttle more responsive. Sport mode increases the turbo boost, for better acceleration. "It doesn't give you more horsepower." That is true, but needs clarification. Sport mode allows the car to use 100% of its power (without getting into aftermarket HonData modifications). It allows the car to use 100% of the power that the car comes with from the factory. The other modes reduce performance, in favor of better fuel economy (and softer ride). So although Sport mode does not give you more power (than what the car comes with), it does give you more power than the other two modes, because the other two mode reduce power (both via turbo boost and transmission shift points). If you drive the car in either Econ or the default mode for a while, and then shift to Sport mode, you will feel the car wake up. Perhaps more noticeable is if you drive in Sport mode for a while, and then switch to one of the other modes, you will feel the car ease up. "...not much of a difference between Econ and Sport, in terms of 0 MPH to 60 MPH times" Sport mode holds lower gears longer, and increases the turbo boost. @12:35 "This one has Lane Detection" It works only when driving between 45 MPH and 90 MPH. It will make only minor adjustments. If you start to cross the line on a turn, you are going to cross the line. The Lane Detection system will not make more than minor adjustments. Note mentioned in this review is that those 19" wheels, with their low profile tires (meaning less sidewall), in combination with the way Honda tuned the suspension, results in a sedan that really grips the road during hard turns. Those tires will stay planted much better than most people think, and will hold sharp turns at speeds most people would never try. It is not like a mid-engine Corvette. But it is very, very good (but do not drive like a nut -- even a million dollar Ferrari will lose control if pushed too hard). Lastly, the brakes are very, very good. They are silky smooth, and slow the car down with ease. They will probably save many people from accidents, when they had to stop short. The Accord (Sport and Touring) is a great car. It is a blast to drive, and it is comfortable. The stereo, however, is so-so. The other Accord styles are probably also very good. I have not driven them. For performance, the 19" wheels (available only on the Sport and Touring) is a must. Cheers!
    7
  308. @0:16 "Leo, I've had several people tell me that I have too much stuff on my desktop, and that is why my computer is so slow." Too many desktop icons is simply a clue that you have too many applications installed. But even that is not where the trail ends. Every time you install a new program, there is a good chance that it installs services that run in the background, and start up automatically. It is those myriad of services, trying to do who-knows-what that is slowing things down. They might be phoning home, looking for updates, or sending the authors your personal information on how you use their software, or possibly anything else about what you are doing or what you have on your computer. You might even have a service that is running crypt-o mining software, using your computer's idle time, to the benefit of someone else. The more programs you install, the more likely it is that one or more of those programs are either poorly configured, or are nefarious to some degree. Browsers will slow down, when you add every extension under the sun -- and I have a feeling that anything that sparkles is added to our questioner's computer. @0:22 "I think my computer is slow because it is old. It is six years old." That is possible, for example, if the person who wrote in is playing demanding games. However... I am using a fist generation Intel core i7-950. It was all the rage back in the day. But a current $119 core-i3 is 4½x faster than my old i7. Even a somewhat old, $85 core-i3-10305 will be 3x faster than my ancient i7-950. Yet, I have no performance issues, for general computer use. That is because I resist installing every interesting program that catches my eye. If the person that wrote in wants to identify whether or not his old computer is the culprit, he can reinstall Windows, and then install two or three of the programs he deems to be slow. My money is on him having no more slowness issue with those programs. If he resets his computer with a fresh OS installation, then his computer will be as fast as the day he turned it on for the first time -- which will be more than triple as fast as my daily-driver, old i7. He has a zillion desktop icons, because he installed a zillion programs, and their unknown registry and services rompings and browser extension clutter are responsible for his performance issues. A new computer, that is twice as fast as what he has, will suffer similar performance issues, if he installs the same blizzard of programs. The new computer will be faster. But it, too, will suffer from whatever all of those programs are doing in the background.
    6
  309. 6
  310. Our host did an amazing job, walking us through the myriad of steps and options. Narrating, along with time synced screen captures, is a complicated and time consuming process that our host makes look easy. But even with his guidance, it made my brain hurt. It seems that Microsoft made their cloud storage service intentionally complicated, to dissuade people from grabbing a copy of all of their files. -- Microsoft could have included a "Download Everything" button. But they did not. -- Microsoft could have allowed you to open an Explorer window on their cloud server, you select all files / folders, and copy / paste (or drag) everything to your local PC's storage device. But they did not. -- When you choose their "Download" option, you get zip files. Now you have to deal with that. zip files are fine, as an option. But that you cannot (even as an option) download everything in the folder tree that OneDrive shows you, and have that same tree duplicated locally, is intentional by Microsoft. And if you have X terabytes of OneDrive files, then after you download it all as a zip file (assuming the zip format supports such a size), you then have to unzip your X terabyte zip file to recreate the folder structure on your PC. So you would need double the space, and double the time, to finally have all of your files, in their native tree structure, on your local PC. Microsoft has the brightest software engineers on the planet on their payroll. So the above is all 100% by design. Nothing is an oversight. Microsoft wants your files, and they do not want it to be easy for you to retrieve all of your files (as that indicates that you might leave their service). Microsoft makes it simple to hand them copies of your files, and complicated to get them "all" back. Individual files are easy to grab. But not so when you want to grab everything. Like so many other subscription services, the companies make it simple to join, and yet you need a support team to navigate parting ways. I copy important files on to two external drives. One I keep local, and the other I keep elsewhere (protects me in case of a fire or burglary). The files on my external drives are in a VeraCrypt folder, making them useless to anyone other than me. It is simple, safe, and I am neither at the mercy of Microsoft having down time, nor my ISP possibly having down time. And there are no monthly cloud storage fees for using my own external drives. Unless you have a good reason for uploading your files to compete strangers (i.e. Microsoft's OneDrive cloud servers, controlled by anonymous people), then why do so? This video is very helpful for two reasons: 1) There is no doubt that countless people are using OneDrive, where our host's step-by-step guide will be of great value. 2) For people on the fence about using OneDrive, hopefully they will not.
    6
  311. 6
  312. 6
  313. 6
  314. 6
  315. 6
  316. 6
  317. There are companies that outsource tech support that do not need to do so. Some of those companies have oceans of cash flow. They are wildly successful. By outsourcing their tech support, it means that some executive can report that instead of the company earning $1,000,000,000.00, they earned $1,001,000,000.00, and so they get a $50,000 bonus. Looking at this from only the point of view of "Is the tech support quality?", will take on a new meaning when you are the very competent tech support person that loses his/her job, to pay some other person slave wages to replace you. America made it possible for these companies to flourish, and the thank you America gets is that they lay off Americans, and send American dollars to foreign countries. If a company is struggling to meet their payroll, then I will not fault them for taking such measures. But for a company that fires countless Americans, simply to add 0.25% to a balance sheet or to a stock offering, while that company pays their executives 7-figure and 8-figure salaries, is repulsive. If that company let go, one or two 7(or 8)-figure employees, then they would not have to let go 100+ other employees. I worked for one of those companies, when they had 50 employees. We grew by leaps and bounds. The company's President went out of his way to make everyone feel like family. And the revenue started coming in. We were treated to free fruits, transit checks (to offset our commuting costs), free top-tier health benefits for our entire family, company sponsored picnics, and good wages. We were never short staffed. In fact, we were staffed, such that if someone was on vacation, and two others called in sick, we still had good coverage. Most of the employees recognized how well we were treated, and we responded in kind, by going above and beyond for our company. But our company was financed by our parent company. When we became wildly profitable, they ordered our President to take cost cutting measures of every kind. He refused, and our profits continued to grow. Eventually, the (then) CEO (Sharon Rowlands) of the parent company canned our President, for refusing to abandon his principles and throw the employees (who made the company what it was) onto the street. That resulted in the end of free heath care, and every other nicety. That year, no one got an increase. And every year, thereafter, were more excuses. And that was also when they canned the Manhattan based customer service personnel and outsourced it. Not because they had to -- but because it looked better on a spreadsheet for some executive bean counter. Then, most employees did only as much as needed to keep their jobs. Then, most employees used all of their sick days (when prior, they used them only when they were actually sick). Employees went from being family, to being computer data, and not knowing if they were next to be cut. Customer service went from having employees that went above and beyond to make the customers #1, to overseas customer service that got the job done, but that's it. if your American company is earning $100 million in profits, is it proper to lay off American workers to bring that number up to $101 million? Shame on companies that piss on the country that made it possible for them to live the American dream.
    6
  318. 6
  319. 6
  320. 6
  321. 6
  322. 6
  323. 6
  324. 6
  325. 6
  326. 6
  327. Years ago, I stopped tinkering with all of these clean-up tools. 1) I have never seen a significant storage space change. Well... when hard drives were 300 MB in size, it made a difference. But not with today's TB SSDs. 2) If you are using an SSD (which nearly every computer within the last 5 years comes with), then clutter will not slow anything down. Mechanical hard drives get slower, as they fill up, due to data being read or written to its inner-most portions of its disks (less real-estate for each rotation). When mechanical drives are empty, they use their outer most portions first. Each of those rotations contains close to twice the data as its inner most portions. None of that matters with SSDs. With today's TB size SSDs, if you clean up 500 MB, that is 0.05% of your disk space (or 1/2000 of your storage space), and I doubt you will see any performance change. You can benchmark before and after, and I bet that there will be no change. Installing 3rd party software is the most common culprit for what slows down your computer. It makes registry changes and additions, starts up services in the background, and phones home. All of that will slow things down, more than cleaning up 500 MB or even 5 GB of data -- especially if you still have 400 GB of free space. Every time you add 3rd party tools, you are trusting that those tools will do no harm. In today's "monitor everyone" environment, I suggest that you never install any software -- unless you really have a need for that software.
    6
  328. 6
  329. 6
  330. 6
  331. 6
  332. 6
  333. 6
  334. 6
  335. Assuming that the two computers that you want to network are on the same local network (as our host explained), then you can use drive mapping to share files between those two (or more) computers. Consider two computers: 1-local, and 2-remote. You want the local computer to have access to some folder on the remote computer. On the remote computer, open up file explorer, right click on the folder that you want to share, then click on properties, and you will see a "Share" button. After clicking on "Share", you will have to tell that remote computer which users (which logins) will be allowed to access the folder. Add whichever users you wish to give access. In fact, you can create a new user on that remote machine, and never use that new user's login. But with that new user account on the remote machine, you can add that new user's name in the sharing section. Now that new user account, on the remote machine, will allow that account name to connect to that shared folder. I suggest that you have at least one file in the folder that you are sharing. It will help confirm that all is working, when you set up the local computer to access the remote computer's shared folder. With the above set up on the remote machine, now go to your local machine. On your local machine, open up file explorer. Then click on "This PC", in the left-hand column. That will change the options listed near the top of the window. One of the options you will now see is "Computer". Click on the "Computer" menu that is on the top of the window. Once there, you will see (near the top of the window) "Map network drive". Click on that, and you will be able to enter the information about the remote computer. Once you correctly enter the information about the remote computer (including the password of the remote computer's account), then you will see that remote computer's shared folder. By default, you will be able to use that remote computer's folder just like any other folder. If you want, you can change the permissions to (for example) read-only. You would have to go back to the remote computer to set custom permissions (such as read-only, or delete permissions, or using sub-folders, etc). Most of the above can be accomplished via the command prompt, via the "net use" command. Run: net use /? ...to get help with that command. As far as I know, as long as the two computers can see each other on the network, then the above "map network drive" tool will allow you to share a folder (or as many folders as you set up for sharing). The above works for Windows 7 and Windows 10. I do not have a Windows 11 box to see if anything is different. But it is probably the same. The above is basically telling the remote computer to share a folder, and which user(s) can have access to that shared folder. Then the local computer uses "Map network drive" to connect to that shared folder on the remote computer. If on the local computer you have trouble entering the name of the remote computer, you can use the remote computer's IP address, instead of the hostname of the remote computer.
    6
  336. 6
  337. 6
  338. 6
  339. Supplying your face-print or your finger-print, to access computers containing sensitive data, is fraught with risk. Once a bad actor gets your face-print or your finger-print, then they have your private pass-key. Yes, having two-factor authentication helps. But how many people people do not use two-factor authentication? For non essential login credentials, then use the above. But if your livelihood or your company's trade secrets could be attacked or stolen by someone with access to the above, then you should not use a finger print or a face print as the sole means of access. Can you imagine the potential damage if the Chief of Medicine physician at a hospital were able to access and alter any patient's treatments, by simply having her face scanned? Or how about military computers, or banking computers? Gaining access, even if only to disrupt services, simply by scanning someone's face, is high risk. Always use a long (virtually) uncrackable password/passphrase for anything that matters. It is all well and good to improve the convenience of authenticating yourself. But understand that convenience and security do not make for a happy marriage. With convenience, you are giving up some level of control. For any critical on-line services that I use, I always use a unique, long, unbreakable, cryptic pass phrase. I use a password manager to facilitate the above. That, too, involves some risk, if a key logger should get my password manager's master pass phrase. But they would also need my password database file, and any key-files that I might be using as part of my master pass phrase. So there are trade-offs. But always use a strong password / passphrase for critical services. Apple understands the importance of still requiring a pass-code. Every so often, you are required to tap in your code, even if you normally gain access via your face scan or your finger print. When you power on your iPhone, you must enter your pass-code. By the way, as far as I can remember, "PGP" (Pretty Good Privacy) was the first software to implement public/private key encryption -- and has since been replace with "GPG (GNU Privacy Guard)". Both PGP and GPG are free and open source. If you decide to download the above, be very careful to get it only from its official site.
    6
  340. 6
  341. 6
  342. 6
  343. 6
  344. 6
  345. 6
  346. 6
  347. 6
  348. 5
  349. 5
  350. 5
  351. 5
  352. 5
  353. 5
  354. 5
  355. 5
  356. 5
  357. 5
  358. 5
  359. 5
  360. 5
  361. 5
  362. 5
  363. 5
  364. 5
  365. 5
  366. 5
  367. 5
  368. 5
  369. 5
  370. 5
  371. 5
  372. 5
  373.  @JohnA-bear  I went with quarterly exams, and not so strenuous as to mimic passing a bar exam. My reason is that most law officers are well intentioned, but will fail if we make the exams too difficult. The goal should be for the law officers to be reminded, on a regular basis, to uphold their Constitutional oath, and to know more than the basics about our Constitution. They do not need to be Constitutional scholars. But they should know enough to not trample on our rights, and not abuse their authority. There are folks that perform First Amendment audits, and too often the police care called, and the police immediately defend the people that made the call. For example, a First Amendment auditor would have a video camera recording as they walk around the lobby of a post office, or of a public library, or the public sidewalk adjacent to a financial institution, etc. And sometimes the police trespass the auditor from public property. Then the auditor sues, and gets a handsome financial settlement. And only then are those police officers given training, after the fact. Rather than those police officers immediately telling the person that called that no crime is being committed, and anyone is allowed to record in a public lobby, the police get it wrong. So they have no understanding of basic rights. But they are trying to do the right thing. Ergo, they need a quarterly exam, just enough to keep them on their toes and understand that their oath is for a reason. But not so much to stress them out if the exams are too difficult. When law officers have a better understanding of our Constitution, it will make their jobs easier, conflicts will be easily settled, the officers will have more confidence, innocent people will neither have their rights violated no be falsely arrested, and government attorneys will not have to deal with as many lawsuits pertaining to all of the above. It is a win for everyone.
    5
  374. 5
  375. 5
  376. 5
  377. 5
  378. 5
  379. Two points: 1) If you choose the cloning route, then you are exposing yourself to a slight risk of losing everything. How? If while you are performing the cloning operation, your source drive dies, then you have no complete backup (no complete clone) from which to recover. 2) Will you really open your computer case, each time you make a clone? If you leave your source drive and your destination drive connected all of the time, then if you get hit with a virus, ransomware, etc, you could lose the data on both drives. And if you get hit with something nasty (even a power surge), can you be sure it affected only your source drive? Will you feel comfortable with your cloned drive, not knowing 100% whether or not it was impacted, too? The effort of opening your computer's case, plugging in the cables to do a cloning operation, and then unplugging that cloned drive, and closing your computer case, just seems like something that few people would actually do. They would probably just leave the cloned drive plugged in, which leaves you open to what I described above. As our host pointed out... with a traditional backup, you can have that image stored on an external USB drive. That makes it as simple as can be to plug in and unplug for each backup. You can even make a copy of that USB drive to another USB drive, and store that one with a friend or neighbor, which will protect you from losing your data in a burglary or fire. And by performing a backup (instead of a clone), you can encrypt and password protect your data (so that your friend or neighbor) cannot see your data.
    5
  380. 5
  381. 5
  382. 5
  383. 5
  384. 5
  385. 5
  386. 5
  387. 5
  388. 5
  389. 5
  390. 5
  391. 5
  392. The people that illegally took the serving, military personnel's private vehicles should be arrested, and charged with grand theft auto. Never, again, will a company or employee of the company, or agent hired by the town, or a bureaucrat, or any human... never again will they take such vehicles. Just because someone is a government bureaucrat, should not preclude them from being prosecuted for taking (or hiring others to take) vehicles that they are legally not permitted to take. Just because someone is hired by a government bureaucrat, should not preclude them from being prosecuted for taking vehicles that they are legally not permitted to take. I do not mean that they cannot tow the vehicle if it is blocking a fire hydrant, or parked in a red zone. I mean that all fines, for towing the vehicles, must be paused (must not accrue interest) while the service member is deployed. And the vehicle may not be sold. With the $260,000.00 settlement, no one involved in causing untold headaches for those service members have learned a lesson. None of them care. They had zero consequences for illegally towing and illegally selling those vehicles. But you know who had consequences? We The People, through our tax payments. "We" paid for the illegal actions of the bureaucrats and towing personnel. The actual people that were involved in the illegal towing (from arranging it to performing it) should be charged, criminally. Imagine coming home from a war zone. Bombs exploding, friends dying at your side, losing limbs, etc, and when you get home, you have to deal with your car being gone, and get into a legal battle. The people involved really need to pay, criminally, for their illegal actions. Their job title should not give them a free pass, and put the tax payers on the hook for their illegal actions.
    5
  393. 5
  394. 5
  395. 5
  396. 5
  397. 5
  398. 5
  399. 5
  400. 5
  401. 5
  402. 5
  403. @0:40 -- If I understand what our host explained, there is a potential problem. If, for example, you have 3 devices, all set up to automatically sync, then if you screw up a file one of those 3 devices, then your screw-up gets copied to your other 2 devices. Whereas, if you were to not set automatic syncing on one of your 3 devices, then you would recover your file from the device that did not get synced. I suggest that if you can count on yourself to periodically manually sync your files, then that will give you finer control over the safekeeping of your files. But if you know yourself, and you know that you will not bother to periodically manually sync your files, then set the automatic syncing. Putting 100% on autopilot is giving up a level of control. But autopilot is good for some people -- until they accidentally mangle some file and kick themselves for having that mangled file overwrite the good copies on their other devices. Lastly, when you use cloud storage, you are using someone else's computer (complete strangers). You are handing your files to complete strangers, in the clear. Yes, your files get encrypted in transport to the strangers. But they get decrypted upon arrival at the stranger's computer. Microsoft, Google, and any other cloud storage service can see everything that you put on their computers. They are not likely looking (unless you are a noteworthy person -- a celebrity, or government official, or someone making headlines, etc). But it is likely that they scan everything, and who knows what type of index or profile they build on you. If you have trade secrets, or anything that can ruin your life, you would be nuts to hand those files over to them. If you encrypt your files, before they get uploaded to a cloud service, then you are protecting yourself. But if you upload your company's trade secrets, without first encrypting them, you are reckless. Cloud storage services require you to agree to contracts written 100% by their attorneys, to serve their interests, that you are required to agree with, which turns ownership of your files to them. In other words, any files that you put on their servers are now owned by them. If you do not need the convince of syncing files between devices, then just make copies of your important files, and manually put them on your other devices, as needed. But if you care zero about sharing your files with anonymous people, then cloud services are a great option.
    5
  404. 5
  405. 5
  406. 5
  407. 5
  408. 5
  409. 5
  410. 5
  411. Yes, change is inevitable. But that does not mean that we should blindly go along with change, like lemmings. It all depends on the nature and rationale of the change. If you are running a business, you should not change your key people, just to have change, and expect everyone to just accept it. I worked for a company that did just that. I was employed in a Fortune 500 company's IT department. Things were running smoothly. The management personnel were on the ball. They seemed to make the right decisions for virtually everything. Well, after ~10 years, the board of directors decided it was time for a change. So they brought in a new president. Everything went down hill -- or so it looked that way. Perhaps two or so years later, another change at the top. And things got even worse. And with each change, loads of executives were shuffled and dismissed and new executives were hired, with different titles, and departments were merged, and renamed, and on and on and on. Each new executive had to show that they were worth their keep, and so they made changes. No longer could employees focus on their responsibilities, assuming they were even given clear responsibilities. Competent employees found new, greener pastures. Inevitably, customer affecting outages occurred, and we became a CYA culture. The movie "Office Space" touched on this. Every action, no matter how insignificant, had to be approved by multiple teams, most of whom had no clue what that action meant. Red tape, galore. Huge time wasted, for the simplest changes. Virtually no different than huge changes. But even with huge changes, most of the people that had to approve them had no understanding of them. So we went in circles. With the original management, we frequently had changes. And everyone understood the rational for each change. The changes were good. It was also challenging. But it made sense. So the employees were gung ho and very productive. Then, with each new change in management, the employee's focus changed to avoid trouble. Employees became conditioned to figure out how not to be blamed for problems created by those that foisted groundless changes for others to implement. If you want to drag a company into a world of extreme time wasting "process", then implement ITIL. It is a one-size fits all for every IT department, that ensures that no IT department can ever excel and out-perform (in any meaningful way) the competition, when the competition is also using ITIL. Everyone will be wearing the same shackles. But the executives will get lots of spreadsheets to make them think that they know what is going on, right down to how long it took to move a cable. Change should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
    5
  412. There is a way to "mostly" transfer all of an application's data from one drive to different drive, regardless of how that application works. You can use symbolic links. A symbolic link creates a file that references a different location. Any file can be referenced via a symbolic link. You can have a video file (some-video.mp4), or any file be referenced via a symbolic link. You can have a directory be referenced via a symbolic link. Windows has a "junction.exe" command, as well as a "mklink" command. The "junction" command might not be installed -- I think it is part of a developer's pack. But "mklink" is easy to use and will get the job done. Note that symbolic links might not be supported by all file systems. The default file system for Windows is "NTFS", and NTFS supports symbolic links. So unless you went out of your way to use some other file system, then you should be fine. Running either one of the above (junction or mklink), from the command prompt, with no arguments will produce a help screen of output. I find the "mklink" easier to use, and it will definitely be on your computer. To relocate an application: 1) Make sure that the application is not in use (you will be copying files, and none of those files should be open / in use/ busy). 2) Create a directory on your new hard drive, where you want to store that application. 3) Copy everything (all files and sub-directories, etc) from the current location to the new location. 4) Delete everything from its original location, including the directory name where the data used to reside. 5) Via the command prompt, create a directory symbolic link, with the exact same name as the directory that you just deleted, and have that directory symbolic link point to the new directory (see #2, above). Note that if you use your file manager to navigate to your old location, where you now have a symbolic link, your file manager will still show you that you are on your c: drive (because, technically, that is where your symbolic link is). But if you did everything correctly, then you will, indeed, be accessing the files in their new location. Down the road, you might find that your application was storing data in yet some other directory. So you will then have to decide whether you want to repeat the above, again, for this newly discovered directory. I suggest that you practice, before trying this on important data. Create a temp-directory, and dump some unimportant files into it. Then follow the above steps, and confirm that when you access the temp-directory (which at this point should be a symbolic link), you should see the unimportant files in the other drive where those files now exist. In any event, do a full backup before you try this. If you screw up your application, you will regret not having a full backup.
    5
  413. 5
  414. 5
  415. @0:53 "Your kid is the quote-unquote 'artist'..." Folks, Hunter Biden is not an artist. Hunter did not create any of the works that he sold. Hunter obtains art from an anonymous person, and claims that he created it. -- No one has ever seen Hunter make a single brush stroke. -- No one has ever asked Hunter from where does he get his inspiration. -- No one has ever asked Hunter from where does he purchase his art supplies. I am confident that there is no record of Hunter ever purchasing art supplies. -- No one has ever asked Hunter what type of easel he uses, and why. -- No one has ever asked Hunter what type of paints he uses, and why. -- No one has ever asked Hunter what type of lighting he uses, and why. -- No one has ever asked Hunter what type of canvas material he uses, and why. -- No one has ever asked Hunter "When did you first start painting. When did you realize that you had a talent for painting?" -- No one has ever asked Hunter "When did you sell your first painting?" -- No one has ever asked Hunter "Which was your favorite painting?" -- No one has ever asked Hunter "How do you choose the names for your paintings? Please name three." -- No one has ever asked Hunter "Which artists do you admire?" Folks, where do you go to purchase one of Hunter's paintings? Let's say you have $500,000 and you want one of his paintings. How do you reach him or a representative? You see, only the politically connected have access to Hunter. That includes foreign governments. Only they purchase "his" paintings. Hunter's knowledge of painting is equal to his knowledge of phrenology.
    5
  416. 1) You will never wear out your flash drives (unless you go out of your way to do so -- and even then it will take years). One type of crypt-o mining is named "Chia". That process requires a dedicated storage space to perform on-disk work for creating huge files. Most Chia miners use an NVMe SSD. There are countless Chia miners that have been pounding on their SSDs for 3 years (24/7/365), without rest, and their SSDs still show no signs of any issues. If you read the comments in Chia forums, you will be hard pressed to find anyone reporting that they wore out their SSD. Although some SSDs have failed, they were likely manufacturer defects, or they took power hits, or were not properly cooled, etc. Excessive writing to an SSD will make it hot -- even very hot (and heat kills). But a light breeze will keep it cool. 2) Samsung has a "Magician" application that will display the condition of its SSD drives (I am not certain if it works with other manufacturer's SSDs). However, when "Magician" (or other similar tools from other vendors) reports that your SSD is bad, you can ignore that. Why? Chia miners have been using SSDs that Magician claims to have been worn out, far past when the warning was displayed. In fact 5x more past that time. What such applications do is compare how many terabytes of been written (TBW) against a (seemingly arbitrary) value provided by the manufacturer. So if your SSD has a 600 TBW value assigned by the manufacturer, then when you have written that much, the monitoring tool will warn you that the drive is bad (but it is not bad). The 600 TBW value (which will vary, depending on the manufacturer and the drive model) simply ends your warranty. It also cajoles customers into replacing perfectly good drives (more sales). There are SSDs with 1200 TBW values that have written 5x that number, and have no issues. Chia processing has brought this to light. But if you believed the monitoring tool, you would have made 5 purchases instead of 1. If SSDs were wearing out, you would know people that wore them out, or you, yourself, would have worn them out. But I bet that no one reading this is aware of anyone that has ever worn out an SSD. That speaks volumes for it not being an issue. The amount of writes that most people make to their SSDs is a drop in the ocean. Your SSDs will outlive your computer, and outlive you (speaking about "wear" only -- other defects or heat changes everything). 3) If you are worried about whether or not your computer is mysteriously writing data to your flash drive, you can: 3a) monitor taskmgr. It will show you a graph, where you can easily see if data is being written to your flash drive. 3b) use a flash drive that has an activity light.
    5
  417. 5
  418. 5
  419. Two items: 1) Salvaging your old drive: The old drive might have had bad sectors, which is a bad sign. After having a backup of that drive's data, I would have performed a long format (the type that takes ½ of forever to complete). It makes no assumptions that the drive is good. Instead, it checks every sector during the formatting operation, and will mark each bad sector such that Windows will not see those parts of your drive's platters. It would be as if they do not exist, leaving only good sectors for Windows to see. Of course, that still might be a temporary fix, if the drive is failing, as more sectors could go bad (or more bits within sectors go bad) after the formatting is done. Drives will function properly if X number of bits in a sector have gone bad (where X is probably 10 or less). If enough bits have gone bad, but the sector can still ultimately work, then that could cause slower operational times. And I do not think that the drive will take preventive measures to deal with the rising number of bad bits in a sector (and at some point, you will have data loss). Steve Gibson, of Gibson Research Corporation (GRC) has a SpinRite tool that monitors the health of hard drives. It works proactively. When it detects that X number of bits in a sector have an issue, it will copy that sector's data to a problem-free sector, and then mark the original sector as bad. Short of a catastrophic drive failure, running SpinRite on a regular basis (perhaps monthly, or quarterly) will continually mark problem areas, keeping your drive running as if nothing is wrong. 2) An alternative to "xcopy". @4:44 -- I recommend "robocopy". robocopy f:\ e:\ /mir The above translates to "f:\" being the source directory, "e:\" being the destination directory, and "/mir" stands for mirror, which means it will copy anything and everything. robocopy will show you its progress for each file that it is copying. So if your copying job seems like it might have stalled, then if you are using robocopy, you will know (no guessing). It reports in 1 tenth of 1% increments. Running "robocopy/?" will list a myriad of options, to handle just about any special copying criteria you will have. Get to know robocopy. Make it your friend. You can, of course, copy-paste or drag folders via the GUI, or use xcopy (nothing wrong with those choices). But when you need to do something complicated, robocopy will have an option to handle your needs. And the /mir option makes it simple to make a mirror copy of folder "A" to folder "B". Note, however, that every copying tool will have issues with files that are in use. So robocopy cannot make a mirror image of your "C:" drive.
    5
  420. 4
  421. 4
  422. If you do the "re-install Windows" option, then upon doing so, you might not be able to login to your web sites. That is... if you have your browser automatically log you in, then... well... with a fresh Windows installation, your browser will not have your login credentials (it will not have anything from what you previously had). So make sure that you will be able to make use of a web site's "Forgot Password" option. Make sure you know where to find it, and also make sure you have the means to get the code that the site will send to your phone, or to your e-mail account. And if you use your browser to automatically log you in to your e-mail account, well, then if you cannot get into your e-mail account, then you cannot retrieve the code sent to your e-mail's in-box, when you try to reset your passwords. Hopefully, you can get such "reset" codes sent to your phone? Or, maybe you can login to those sites with an app on your phone, and create new passwords that you will then be able to use to log-in with your web browser. All of the above will not be a headache if you use a password manager. But make sure you have a copy of your password manager's database on a flash drive, or somewhere other than on the computer that you will re-install Windows to. Also make sure you have the installation file for installing your password manager to your new Windows installation. Or, make sure you know that you can download the password manager software from the company's web site. Another option, to possibly negate the need to re-install Windows is to download "autoruns" from "sysinternals" (which will direct you to a Microsoft site). I would provide the link, but youtube tends to toss comments that contain links. If you run "autoruns" with admin access, it will show you everything that starts when your computer starts, and what starts when you login. You will be able to un-check any item. It will take affect after you re-start your computer (or log out and log in, if it is related to a login item). Note that if you un-check the wrong item, you can cripple your computer -- to the point where you might not be able to launch autoruns to put the check mark back. Whatever you decide to do... ...first make a full backup of your computer -- even though it is compromised. The full backup is your safety net to being able to use your computer, if your fix goes terribly wrong. At least you will be able to restore your computer, and try your fix, again. Lastly: When you are confident that you have a clean computer, go and change the passwords to all of your sites. This might be a good time to install a password manger, if you are not already using one. Cheers!
    4
  423. 4
  424. 4
  425. 4
  426. 4
  427. "I don't think in Windows 10 it's difficult setting up a local account. Why it's different in Windows 11?" Correct. But in Windows 11, Microsoft has made it more difficult to circumvent their insistence that everyone use a Microsoft account. "Also, why do people recommend setting up PC with a local account instead of a Microsoft account?" Many people (myself included) do not want to be at the mercy of a Microsoft server. If Microsoft should have a service outage, and you can't get a green light from Microsoft when you are logging in, you could get locked out of your own computer. If you have no internet service, perhaps due to an outage in your area, you do not want to get locked out of your own computer. Yes, you will still be able to login. But for how long, or for how many times, before Windows deem it that you must get permission from their servers? Microsoft will collect even more of your personal data from your computer, when you sign in to a Microsoft account. It is none of Microsoft's business (or any stranger's business) when you login to your computer. Microsoft appears to be moving to a "You own nothing" business model. They push their Office suite, via a rental. Now they are working towards you renting your operating system, where you need their permission to use your own computer that you paid for (you paid for the hardware and for a Windows license, and yet you still need Microsoft's permission to login). With a local account, you will never be locked out of the computer and operating system that you paid for; that you own. By the way, our host created a local account, which by default, is an administrator account. I recommend that you then use that account, to create yet another account; a standard user account, and never use the administrator account again, except for a rare need. Using your computer with administrator privileges can cause you to inadvertently mangle your computer, because you will have permission to make egregious mistakes.
    4
  428. 4
  429. 4
  430. Responsible web sites will detect when you are trying to login from a new device. When you attempt to login to your bank, for example, using a new computer, or a friend's computer, etc, you will be challenged (well, my bank will challenge you when it detects a new computer (or new network address or new MAC address)). Again, it is up to the company to design their web site to work responsibly. Also note that if you are a privacy advocate, then using your phone or e-mail address for two-factor authentication will allow big tech to track you. The common factor is your phone's number, or the common factor is an e-mail address, etc. But if you install apps without a second thought (especially google apps), or do not care about having all of your life tracked, then by all means use two-factor authentication. For most people, two-factor authentication is beneficial. Just know that it is used for tracking. I use two-factor authentication for banking, and that's it. I do not want to be burdened with extra login hoops for nonessential web sites. For anything else, I use my password manager to create long, strong, uncrackable passwords -- and I never repeat a password between two sites. If, for example, someone manages to get my "steam" password, changes it (locks me out) then I am screwed. But "steam" does not need my phone number. And the e-mail address I gave them is not my regular e-mail address. With a password manager, all of the details you need, for every site you visit, is easily documented. You just need to take extra time documenting the details of any new accounts into your password manager's database. It is easy to do -- but you need to actually do it. And I keep a copy of my password manager's database (a single file) in multiple locations (and also include the installation program file, too, in my backups).
    4
  431. 4
  432. 4
  433. SysInternals (now owned by Microsoft) has many, very useful utilities that won't slow down your computer. One of them is named "autoruns". autoruns will show you every program that starts automatically (you will probably be surprised at the high number of programs that it lists). Windows has numerous locations from where programs will automatically start, and autoruns checks them all. If you buy a new computer (or install Windows from scratch), I recommend running autoruns, and taking a screen capture of everything that is starting automatically. Then after any new software that you install, run autoruns and compare with your screen capture (and you should probably make another screen capture). Even if you do not install new software often, you should run autoruns periodically, to see if anything new is starting (by comparing its output to your previously taken screen capture). autoruns allows you to uncheck any of the programs that it lists. That will stop that program from automatically starting. But be careful. If you uncheck something that you should have left alone, you can cripple your computer. And if you cannot get Windows to start, then you cannot run autoruns to put back that program to auto start. So 1) be sure that you know what you are unchecking, and 2) have a recent backup of your computer. autoruns should be run with admin privileges, because when you install software, that software could put start up programs in places that only an administrator can check. ----- If your computer is old, and it suddenly gets slow, it could be that your CPU's thermal paste has dried up. When that happens, your CPU will run very hot, and will throttle down, significantly. Your fan can spin away at warp speed, and it will not help. Without thermal paste, you cannot cool your CPU. I do not believe it is common for the paste to dry up. But it happened to me when my first generation, Intel i7, turned 15 years old (I still use it). A new dab of thermal paste fixed it. If your computer ever gave off a burning smell, and then the smell went away, that was probably your thermal paste waving goodbye.
    4
  434. 4
  435. 4
  436. 4
  437. 4
  438. 4
  439. 4
  440. 4
  441. 4
  442. 4
  443. 4
  444. 4
  445. 4
  446. 1) @3:34 -- Excluding files from being backed up is not in the free version -- at least that is what is listed on EaseUS's version comparison chart. I do not believe that you can enable that option on the Free version. It is probably there to entice folks to pay for an upgrade, by showing features, but not being able to enable them without paying for one of the upgrades. These are all of their versions: "Free", "Home", Workstation", "Server", "Advanced Server", "Technician" My guess is that no matter which version you download, you get the same one -- only that various features will be enabled or disabled. Pay for an upgrade, and the feature, which is already installed, gets enabled. 2) @4:32 -- "How long your backup will take..." On EaseUS's site, in their comparison chart, they have a "Speed" rating, from 1 (slowest) to 4 (fastest) stars. The "Free" version has 1 star. So it looks like they might be throttling the backup's file copying speed. Leo, did you notice a slower than expected amount of time, based on how much data you have, as well as from backing up with other software? Did they throttle the backup speed? 3) Was there an option to make emergency bootable media? Also, if you screw up your computer, but it will still boot up, can you restore from your backup while Windows is running? Or must you boot from an emergency flash drive to restore everything (to ensure no files are in use, if Windows was running)? 4) If there is an emergency media option, can you use it on other computers? I am considering one of the paid versions. That can get too expensive for me, if I have to make repeat purchases for every computer. And I would rather not install 3rd party software on more than one of my computers, if I can boot from emergency media and perform a backup (and restore if needed). I do crypt-o mining on a computer, and I trust no 3rd party apps for that computer. But bootable media would be a solution for me to do a backup. How versatile is the emergency boot media? If someone loses their computer in a burglary or fire, being able to use emergency bootable media to restore to a new computer might be critical. Thank you.
    4
  447. 4
  448. 4
  449. 4
  450. 4
  451. 4
  452. 4
  453. 4
  454. 4
  455. 4
  456. 4
  457. 4
  458. 4
  459. 4
  460. 4
  461. 4
  462. 4
  463. 4
  464. @6:40 "SSDs, for example, wear out" Technically that is true. But you will never wear out your SSD, even if you go out of your way to wear it out. One type of crypt-o mining is named Chia. Chia uses a temp storage device to perform its operations. That process involves never-ending reads, writes, and deletions (deletions are a form a write operation). There are countless people, globally, that are mining via Chia. With few exceptions, they use NVMe drives (SSD drives) as their temp storage for the process. Those folks have been running their Chia operations for 18+ months, 24 hours a day, every day. Yet, no one has reported that they wore out their SSD. Not a single person, based on the Chia forums. SSDs have a TBW (terabytes written) value, specified by the manufacturer. The SSD keeps track of how many bytes of data you have written to the SSD. If you exceed the TBW value, then you end your warranty. And if you run the manufacturer's software that checks the health of the SSD, it will claim that the SSDs status is "Critical". Yet, people continue to hammer away on those SSDs, for not double the number of bytes written when things supposedly turned "Critical", but 100x the number of bytes written, and the SSD keeps reporting critical, yet keeps working at full speed with no performance issues. So, yes, our host is correct that there is a finite number of writes that a SSD can handle. It will, in theory, eventually wear out. But it will probably outlast your computer, and nearly every part in your computer, before it wears out. It will likely live on long after you are 6 feet under. Now if you have a $2 SSD or a freebie from a giveaway, those SSDs are slow beyond words. Perhaps, with their ultra-low-end quality, they will wear out if you use it 24/7/365 without rest? But that assumes that anyone can write enough data to them to wear them out, because writing data to those snails takes half of forever. But for an SSD that is included in your computer purchase, you will never wear it out. If your SSD dies, it is due to a power hit, overheating, controller failure, or some manufacturer's defect. If your SSD dies, it will not be because you over-used it.
    4
  465. 4
  466. 4
  467. 4
  468. 4
  469. 4
  470. 4
  471. 4
  472. 4
  473. 4
  474. @0:15 "...and faster than traditional hard drives" Yes and no. SSDs are not all built on the same NAND cell technology. There are four types of NAND cells. From fastest to slowest (and from most expensive to least expensive): -- SLC (single layer cells) -- MLC (multi (as in double) layer cells) -- TLC (triple layer cells) -- QLC (quad layer cells) Not only are SLC SSDs the fastest (and by a magnitude of over 1000x), they are also the most durable. But, you say, you have a QLC drive -- and it flies (just like the numbers on the box claim). Yes, it does. But it is deceptive. Why? Nearly all TLC and QLC drives have cache. And what is that cache made from? That cache is made from SLC NAND cells. And that cache is usually between 25GB to over 100GB of the drive (bigger drives typically have more cache). The box never gives you the true, native speed of the QLC NAND cells, which is probably 15MB/second, at best (and is 1/10th the speed of any of today's hard drives). Nearly all consumers will never hammer their QLC SSDs long enough to run out of cache. Once the SSD is not busy, it empties its SLC cache onto the QLC cells -- in the background. So all of the time, you are always getting the performance of the cache (of the SLC cells). If you write hundreds of gigabytes to the QLC SSD, without rest, you will see it fly for a minute or two, and then you will see if grind to a snails pace. So the statement "...and fater than traditional hard drives" is misleading. But for most folks, it is never an issue. Note that it is only the write speed that will suffer, when you run out of cache. The read speed will always remain fast (although SLC will still outperform QLC). Also note that one of SSDs key advantages is that it can read and write countless small files, simultaneously, at breakneck speeds. Mechanical hard drives are slow at doing so. This is why a computer with a SSD will reboot so much faster than a computer with a mechanical hard drive. Cheers!
    4
  475. 4
  476. 4
  477. 4
  478. 4
  479. 4
  480. 4
  481. Leo, 4 questions about EaseUS, that I cannot find in any youtube videos, web searches, or on their web site: 1) Can you mount a backup image as a virtual drive? That would allow you to access the files in the backup image as just another drive letter. The above makes it simple to copy a file (or files) from a backup image. Being able to explore the backup image, the same as any other drive letter, would be very helpful. 2) Can you exclude files from being backed up, based on names or expressions, such as: *.flac 3) Can you exclude directories from being backed up? I have a music directory that I already have copies of in 3 locations. I do not want to waste 300GB of space by allowing EaseUS to copy it again to a backup image. 4) Does its emergency boot media allow you to perform a backup? I would rather backup my computer while Windows is not running (while zero files are in use). Or does that matter? If a full backup, taken while Windows is running, can be used to completely restore my computer after an OS drive failure, then that is fine. But will I have to first install Windows from scratch, in order to make use of EaseUS's software to execute the restore? Or will their emergency boot media be able to restore the full backup image to a new drive, negating the need to first install both Windows as well as installing EaseUS? I would rather boot from emergency boot media, and have it restore my OS onto a freshly formatted drive. So is that doable with a backup image taken while Windows was running? ----- If EaseUS falls short, but Macrium Reflect will do all of the above, I will consider using Macrium Reflect. I got turned off by Macrium Reflect, because when I installed the free version (to see if I liked it), it nagged and nagged and nagged me to purchase an upgrade. There was no option, within their software, to stop their nagging, which was pop-ups every day. When a company does that, it concerns me about their trustworthiness. Will their software be "phoning home"? Their data collection, etc. It is akin to web sites with "in your face" advertisements that should not be trusted. Perhaps Macrium Reflect is trustworthy, with their paid version? I don't know. All I have to go by is their "can't turn off nagging". So I would rather not roll the dice, if EaseUS checks all of the right boxes. But right now, I am unsure if either EaseUS or Macrium Reflect checks all of the right boxes. Acronis True Image used to check all of the right boxes, but no more (that is another saga). Even if you do not have answers to all 4 of my questions, maybe you can answer 1, 2, or 3 of them. That will get me closer to making a purchasing decision. Thank you.
    4
  482. 4
  483. 4
  484. 4
  485. 4
  486. 4
  487. 4
  488. 4
  489. 4
  490. My landlord mandated that all tenants use "Smart Rent", and they insisted that we let them plug in their wireless access point in every apartment, and also give them our personal WiFi password, in order for their access point to have internet access within every tenants apartment. I refused to give them my WiFi password. But I let them plug in their wireless access point. After they left, I unplugged it. I never heard from them. Their "smart" devices allows them to remotely unlock the door to any tenant's apartment. They claim it is to help a tenant that locks themselves out. That is true. Also true is that they can unlock my apartment at their whim. Also true is that they would have a record of every time I locked and unlocked the door to my apartment. But without their access point plugged in, they get no information from me. If a tenant locks themselves out of their apartment, it is the landlord's responsibility to send over a maintenance person to unlock the door. And they charge $50 for that service. But now they can charge the $50, and not show up to unlock the door. But with tenants that unplugged those surveillance devices, they will have to come over for a lock-out issue. The sad part is that nearly everyone in the apartment complex was happy to grant access to complete strangers to monitor their comings and goings, as well as unlock their home, with or without permission, at their whim. And since those smart devices are on each tenant's local network, those devices can see every computer in their home, and can access those computers, by finding a crack in any computer's security. Imagine that... nearly all of the tenants gave complete strangers a connection to their personal, private, home network. If only I had the resources to sue these people.
    4
  491. 4
  492. 4
  493. 4
  494. 4
  495. 4
  496. 4
  497. @1:48 "19 inch rims" Those rims are fitted with low profile tires. The benefit of low profile tires is improved handling. This is achieved because "low profile" tires have less sidewall, resulting in the tires not rolling onto the sidewalls when under heavy turning. Those 19" wheels, along with a well designed suspension, translate to a sedan that can take turns, hard turns, with ease. It is not a Corvette. But it is very, very good, and will handle better than most people think, and better than most people will ever try. And in Sport mode, the suspension stiffens a bit more, making for even better handling. The 1.5 liter engines come with Goodyear tires. The 2.0 liter engines come with Michelin tires. Under normal driving, most folks will not know the difference. But if you whip the car around a turn at speed, if you push it hard into a corner, then that will demonstrate that the Michelin tires control the car better. Note that those 19" wheels have very good brakes. Larger wheels means (at least it does in the Accord) larger brakes. The Accord's brakes are silky smooth, and they stop the car with ease. This will probably save many people from accidents, when they have to stop short (and hopefully no one is behind them). @8:10 "All wheel drive" "You're not getting it here..." True. But for folks that are not aware: With all wheel drive, if one of your tires blows out (and cannot be patched / plugged / repaired), and needs to be replaced, then you must replace all of your tires. The only exception is if your tires are somewhat new (all have low mileage on them). But once the tires begin to wear, if one tire fails, you have to replace them all. So all wheel drive is helpful in the mud and snow. Just know the potential $$ it might cost if you lose a tire.
    4
  498. 4
  499. 4
  500. 4
  501. 4
  502. Life expectancy and speed: 1) I used to have four, 240 GB (OCZ brand) SATA SSDs in an old computer, in a RAID 0 (cost much less to have those four drives vs one 1 TB drive, back then). Anyway, I used those drives for 10 years, until I replaced the computer. Those four SSDs never wore out, and I still have them, collecting dust. 2) In April of this year (2021), I started doing Chia processing on four 2 TB, Samsung 980 Pro, M.2 SSDs. The Chia processing writes approximately 3 TB to 4 TB of data to each of those drives, daily. At the time of writing this comment (October 2021), all four of those drives are showing no signs of tiring. 3) I have a 2 TB Samsung T5, to which I write 3 to 4 TB of data each day. I have been doing this for months. The drive is showing no signs of tiring. 4) I briefly had a 2 TB Samsung T7, which sucked. It apparently used fast NAND fabric for something like its first 100 GB of writing, and then some crap NAND fabric for the rest. So when continuously writing hundreds of GBs (or a TB or two) of data to the T7, it would fly for the first 100 GB, and then slow down to sub USB 2.0 speed. When the T7 drive is idle (but connected to your PC), it will silently move the data from its super fast NAND cells to its super slow NAND cells. Thus, freeing up the fast NAND section of the drive for new write requests. As such, nearly all users will always have the fast NAND section of the drive available for use, and nearly all users will never experience the drive slowing down. If you run CrystalDiskMark or some other performance measuring tool, and leave it at the default values (something like 5 GB of data for the test), then the T7 will show amazing results. But change the values to 250 GB, and watch the results go down the toilet -- and be prepared to leave the test running for an eternity, because it will run for a very long time. Folks posting benchmark videos never really push the T7 with lots of data. So those videos always show the T7 as a top performer (because they are inadvertently testing only the ~5% fast sections of the T7. If you need the capacity that the Samsung T7 offers, and you will never write more than a few GB to it at a time, then you will have a super fast drive that never shows signs of slowness. But if you intend to write huge amounts of data to it, then look elsewhere. The T5, on the other hand, is half the speed of the T7 (the fast portion of the T7). But the T5 will never slow down, no matter how much data you write to it. And the T5 will flirt with 450 GB/s, if you can feed it at that speed, and you can fill the entire drive, without rest, at that speed. Try that with the T7, and it will choke. I returned my T7. Cheers!
    4
  503. 4
  504. 4
  505. 4
  506. 4
  507. 4
  508. 4
  509. A RAID 1 or RAID 5 will prevent data loss, if you have a single drive failure. That does not mean that you should not do backups. If you get hit with a virus or ransomware, no RAID will save you. If you accidentally screw up an important file, no RAID will save you. A copy (a backup) of your data, stored on a USB drive, will save you. RAID is for performance and/or reliability. Different RAID levels are simply different configurations (the level has nothing to do with which one is better ... the number simply identifies the configuration). RAID 0 (two or more drives) is 100% for performance. But if any drive in your RAID fails, you lose everything. RAID 1 (an even number of drives) is 100% for reliability. If you lose a drive, you lose nothing. RAID 5 (three or more drives) is for both performance and reliability (close to RAID 0 performance). You can lose any one drive and keep going. For RAID 0, if a drive fails, then... after you replace the failed drive, you create a new RAID 0 (makes your computer see a single drive), and once you format it, then you copy your data over from a backup. For RAID 1 and RAID 5, if a single drive fails, your computer will keep running like nothing happened (other than a warning). When you replace the failed drive, your RAID controller will automatically populate the new drive from your other drives, and when done, you will have fault tolerance, again. If two drives happen to fail, then kiss your data goodbye. You will have to replace the failed drives, create a new RAID, and restore your data from a backup. Copying important files (photos / videos) to a second drive is helpful, but not all encompassing. For example, when you save all types of settings on your computer (even simple things, like which icons are where), if you then have to replace your drive, all of your settings will be gone. Do you have copies of all of the installation files for all of the programs that you installed? Do you have all of your registration, product keys, etc, info? If you lose your drive, then restoring from a backup to a new drive will put everything back in place. Otherwise, you will have to re-install Windows and re-install everything else. If you do a full backup, then... if your drive fails, you can replace the drive and load back all of your data from a backup. After doing so, it will be like nothing happened.
    4
  510. 4
  511. 4
  512. 4
  513. 4
  514. 4
  515. 4
  516. 4
  517. 4
  518. 4
  519. 4
  520. In November of 2023, I purchased a tower PC from Best Buy, during their Black Friday sale. After unboxing it, hooking it up, etc, one of its fans was rattling. Best Buy is not too far from me. I spoke to the Geek Squad manager, and asked him if I were to bring in the faulty fan, would he give me a replacement. Note that this was during the window where I could return the PC for a refund. He told me that I would have to bring in the tower PC, and they would ship the tower PC back to the manufacturer. The manufacturer would replace the fan, and ship the tower PC back to Best Buy. It could take up to 5 weeks to have the tower PC returned to me. I explained that I live in a 3-story apartment building. No elevator. And aside from the labor on my part, there would be considerable shipping costs that Best Buy would incur. On top of that, the PC could get damaged during shipping, to and from the manufacturer. The PC could get lost or stolen during shipping. The faulty fan would take 2 minutes to remove. That would seem to be far less labor intensive, and zero shipping involved. He said that it is store policy to ship the tower PC back to the vendor; that it is the vendor's responsibility to fix the issue. If the vendor will not accept the return of the fan from Best Buy, then Best Buy should tell them that they are endangering their relationship. I explained that when a policy is highly counter-productive, and wasteful, someone in the store should have the authority to do the right thing. A store policy should not be used to frustrate the customer, when that store policy is absurd for the situation at hand. The store's general manager gave me the same story. Considering the above, the store's general manager should have handed me a replacement fan. Or, he should have told me to bring in the bad fan and he would hand me a replacement fan. If Best Buy would not go to bat with the vendor on behalf of the customer, then Best Buy should at least eat the cost of the fan, which I believe was $12 (their cost). I was very tempted to bring the PC back for a refund. But the effort involved dissuaded me from doing so. Also, the Black Friday sale price was really low. Nothing else came close. They sold me a replacement fan at their cost. It very much bothered me to spend money that I should not have to spend on a new PC. But that fan would have cost me 2x or more anywhere else. Apparently there is a high mark-up on the price of fans. I will never shop at Best Buy, again. They lost my business over an inexpensive fan. And I have posted this even on social media, which hopefully cost Best Buy other sales. And now with our host's report, I am confident that never shopping at Best Buy is proper.
    4
  521. 4
  522. 4
  523. 4
  524. 4
  525. 4
  526. 4
  527. 4
  528. 4
  529. 4
  530. 4
  531. 4
  532. 4
  533. 3
  534. 3
  535. 3
  536. 3
  537. 3
  538. 3
  539. 3
  540. 3
  541. 3
  542. 3
  543. 3
  544. I believe that $2,000,000,000,000.00 will be cut. Here's why: -- We have brilliant businessmen combing the books. Those businessmen will be bringing in teams of other brilliant businessmen. -- There will be incentives, to finding cuts, and actually executing on those cuts. If need be, I believe that Musk might offer incentives out of his own pocket, and write it off on his taxes. So there will be a strong incentive for his team to make the cuts a reality. -- Anyone employed in the Executive branch of the government can be fired by President Trump. So even if it takes an act of congress to close down an agency, President Trump can still fire everyone in that agency (or, perhaps, 90% of the personnel in each agency, if some legitimate need exists to keep a few people) -- and he will fire just about all of them. -- Deals will probably be made, for Washington swamp dwellers to avoid prosecution, by turning state's evidence on higher ranking personnel involved in criminality. -- Anyone on record that spent $10,000 or more on anything clearly frivolous, will probably be criminally charged. They will have their day in court. But as the arrests pile up, watch how fast the rats run for cover, and plead for leniency; willing to sing like a bird, to avoid prison time. Folks, this time around, President Trump will not be new to the job. He will not make mistakes, like he did with Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Reince Priebus, Jeff Sessions, and other RINOs. This time around, President Trump knows his way around. Also, President Trump is not going to take orders from anyone. President Trump is not going to be distracted by anyone. President Trump is not going to be delayed by anyone. President Trump will not care if they do another impeachment. This time around, President Trump is going to flex his authority and roll over anyone in the way of draining the swamp. I expect President Trump to exceed my expectations. We are going to see a change, for the better, in the federal government like no one can imagine.
    3
  545. @2:48 "... legal asylees are not charged with any crime" She is correct. She is also a crafty misdirector of the point of the dialog. When people show up at your door, how do you know who is a "legal asylee"? Yes, the ones that are really seeking asylum (not just making it up), and satisfy our country's laws (as passed by congress) insomuch as they are deemed to truly be "legal asyleees", then they are not breaking our law. Very few quality. Each and every border crosser that enters, but not at a port of entry, is by law not a "legal asylee". Even the border crossers that enter at a port of entry are not "legal asylees", with few exceptions. To put it another way, AOC is saying that people that do legal things are not breaking the law (implying that every border crosser is doing a legal thing) Any person in our country that has not broken a law is not a law breaker. So for AOC to say that "legal asylees" (also known as those that are complying with our law) are not law breakers is, "duh", true. Let's build on AOC's logic: I drive. I do not break the law when I drive. Ergo, I am a legal driver. That does not mean that every person that drives does not break motor vehicle law. I use my telephone. I do not use it to break any laws. Ergo, I am a legal telephone user. That does not mean that all telephone users do not use their telephone for an illegal act. AOC attempted to define every single border crosser as a legal border crosser (calling them all "legal asylees"). Yet they are not all legal border crossers. She makes a true statement, but in a way that misdirects the truth. She is despicable.
    3
  546. 3
  547. 3
  548. 3
  549. 3
  550. 3
  551. 3
  552. 3
  553. 3
  554. 3
  555. 3
  556. 3
  557. 3
  558. 3
  559. I saw a very good Tempest player, in a Flushing, Queens arcade (decades ago). I was also very good, and we played a couple of two-player games. Perhaps that was Dave? I also played in Nathans, on Central Avenue, in Westchester, NY (if I am remembering the location correctly). I routinely put up high scores when I traveled. One place where my brother played, was in Penn Station (NYC -- Manhattan). As best I can remember from his stories, those games (whether Tempest or any other game) had the highest high scores we had ever seen. I did not play those Penn Station games. It was not in my daily travels. Not mentioned by our host, is that there were different versions of Tempest (three of them, I believe). Version 1, if I am not mistaken, had a bug or a hidden feature, that allowed you to get 40 free credits. That helped me practice, without spending all of my part-time, after school, minimum wage earnings. That "feature" also allowed you to start on any of the levels that you would normally be able to start on, if you had played your way all the way up, level by level by level. So you were able to start on the green circle (which might have been level 81). I liked to start on the invisible circle, because those levels were very challenging. I also liked to start on the green circle -- extremely challenging. Although the game sped up as you climbed the levels, two colors got noticeably faster: When you got to the invisible circle, the game went to a dramatically faster speed. The next serious speed increase was on the green circle. Things were so fast, that if you blinked, you had a good chance of getting killed. I never got to the green circle, without the "feature". I could not conquer the invisible infinity level. It was super fast, with very smart enemies, and made my brain hurt. The green circle (directly after the invisible infinity level), although faster, was easier -- or to be more precise, less difficult. As best that I can remember, when I started a game on the green circle, my best score was after completing 9 or 10 of the green levels. Supposedly, when you complete all of the green levels, you keep getting more green levels at random. One issue with the arcade games is that sometimes the fire button was flaky, and the arcade staff did not take my word for it. They pressed it, and it worked. That was hardly a proper test. When you get to fast levels, you are not just standing there, holding down the fire button. You are often making single presses (or double presses), for precision shots. When one of those shots did not register, you got killed. It was not a matter of having all eight shots already fired. it was a contact issue with the fire button. Really frustrating, especially when you traveled to get to the arcade to play that game. Dave, have you ever played the green levels? Did you make it there through the invisibles?
    3
  560. 3
  561. 3
  562. 3
  563.  @trtrhr  Windows 10 is relatively secure, except for Microsoft knowing every keystroke, mouse click, and file access that you perform. For Microsoft's benefit, it is spyware. Most people do not know that, or do not care. They use facebook and google, which are just as bad. But Windows is easy, so people buy it. Linux is faster, more reliable, and more secure. It is also free and open source (for nearly all distributions). And although you can run just about any types of programs that you can think of, on Linux, you will not have some of your favorite Windows programs. But you will have access to a sea of free and open source alternates. But some favorite game, for example, might not run on Linux. Linux Mint is known to be user friendly, as far as Linux distributions go. If I knew how to remove all of the data collection performed by Microsoft, I would stick with Windows 10. But you need a room of experts to figure it out, which includes stopping Windows from reinstalling their spyware when they push out an update. There is more to it than just disabling things on various settings. You need to run powershell scripts and make changes to the registry, too. So I will never run Windows 10 (other than as a virtual machine, if I come across something special -- like using "quick assist" to help a friend remotely". You can install Oracle's Virtual Box, and have that run a Linux OS to see if you like it. But know that it will run much slower than if you installed the Linux OS directly on your hardware.
    3
  564. 3
  565. 3
  566. 3
  567. 3
  568. 3
  569. 3
  570. 3
  571. 3
  572. 3
  573. 3
  574. 3
  575. 3
  576. 3
  577. 3
  578. 3
  579. 3
  580. 3
  581. 3
  582. 3
  583. 3
  584. 3
  585. 3
  586. The user gave no information about his hardware. But it sounds like he has a configuration issue, due to him needing to restart his computer. 1) For mechanical drives, files being written to (or read from) the outer portion of the disks will be far faster than the inner portion of the disks. For example: An empty drive will probably write at ~275 MB/s, and when it is nearly full, might drop to ~135 MB/s. The outer portion of the drive simply has more platter real-estate with each rotation, resulting in faster performance for files on the outer portion of the drive. 2) SSDs have deceptive manufacturer advertising, and even many reviewers either do not know, or they intentionally leave out an important design aspect of SSDs when providing reviews. Those high performance numbers you see on the box (or the web site that is selling the SSD) are for (let's call it) the caching section of the SSD. Without exception (as far as I know), 100% of consumer level SSDs are comprised of two types of NAND cells (which is where your data gets stored). And different types of NAND cells will perform at wildly different speeds. The manufacturers use (it varies from model to model) fast (more or less) NAND cells for approximately 10% of the SSD's storage capacity. The rest of the SSD is comprised of slow NAND cells. The slow NAND cells are inexpensive, which is why ~90% of the SSD will be comprised of the slow NAND cells. And good luck finding how an SSD is comprised when scouring the manufacturer's web site, white papers, technical notes, etc. They bury that information. When you write to the SSD, it will always go to the fast section. So you will virtually always experience the drive's top speed. When the SSD is not busy (which is most of the time), its controller moves the data to the slower portion of the SSD (you will not see that happening) -- resulting in always having free space in the fast portion of the SSD. If you want to see just how slow a supposed fast SSD can be, write enough data to it, non-stop. When you fill up the fast portion of the SSD, the drive will have no choice but to write data directly to the slower NAND cells, and you will (depending on the SSD model) likely see the performance drop like a brick. You could go from 3 GB/s to 100 MB/s. When you see Crystal Disk's benchmarking results, they typically involve using 1 GB of data. That will always test the fast, and only the fast, NAND cells of the SSD. Change it to use 250 GB of data, and when you wake up the next day, you will likely see lousy performance results. For 99.99% of users, the above will never be an issue, as few of us ever write enough GBs of data, non-stop, to experience such a slow-down. If you want an SSD that will not slow down much, there are a few high-end, consumer level drives that do a very good job, no matter how much data you throw at them: -- Samsung 990 Pro (also the 980 Pro, if you find one). -- Western Digital Black SN850X (although if you ever need warranty service from WD, you are in for the ride of your life). -- SK hynix Platinum P41. There are Enterprise / Data Center level SSDs that are made 100% of the fast stuff. They will never slow down. They will also break the bank. If you are interested in doing further research, NAND cells come in these verities (from fastest and most expensive, to slowest and cheapest): -- SLC (single layer cells) -- also the most robust. -- MLC (multi layer cells (not sure why they did not name it DLC for dual layer cells)) -- TLC (triple layer cells) -- QLC (quad layer cells) -- also the least robust. The SSD's controller also plays a critical role in the drive's performance. 3) I mentioned the above, because the user's question pertained to large file copies slowing down. But that user has either a hardware issue or a configuration issue. -- Are his file copy issues limited to a specific drive? If yes... has he tested it in a different computer? -- Does he have a spare drive that he can connect to his main computer (that has the issue), to see if the spare drive also has the issue (and if it does, then the problem is with the computer). -- Backup his computer, and do a fresh OS installation. If the problem is no longer there, then he had a configuration issue (maybe a driver issue). Restore his computer from his backup, and happy hunting for the configuration issue. -- Boot to a live Linux distro, and do a large file copy. If all goes well, then it is a configuration issue with his normal OS.
    3
  587. 3
  588. 3
  589. 3
  590. 3
  591. 3
  592. 3
  593. 3
  594. 3
  595. 3
  596. If you have space to store items, then consider not tossing your old computer. It might come in handy. I have a game, Lode Runner, that was developed when the 8086 CPU was all the rage. That game's speed is based on your computer's speed. If played on any of today's computers, the games ends in the blink of an eye. So I kept my ancient Quantus X/T computer. I also kept an old monitor, to be able to plug it in. There are ways to emulate the game on a modern computer. But it is not the same as the real thing. ..... I have a few 15k RPM, 73 GB SCSI based hard drives, when they were considered to have huge capacity and be faster than a speeding bullet. I want to see what I have on those drives, from the 1990s. But I have no way to plug them in. I tossed out the computer with the SCSI controller. No one makes a SCSI -> USB adapter. So I would have to find a SCSI card and a PC with an available slot, and find the cables for the drives, and it is an expense and a hassle, all of which would have been avoided if I did not toss my old computer that was SCSI based. At the time, SCSI was the high-end choice over IDE based drives. It was used by businesses world-wide. So I thought nothing of tossing out my old Gateway 2000, 66 mHz DX/2 PC with its LSI SCSI controller. And I was either too dumb or too poor (or both) to make copies of everything before I dumped the old computer. Now I want to erase the drives before selling them or dumping them, and I have no way to see what is on the drives or to erase them. A hard drive degausser costs thousands. Should I pay a service to degause the drives? Is it worth the expense. Can I trust them to take possession of my drives? I will not hand over my drives to strangers. I am kicking myself for not having at least saved the SCSI card and cables from that old PC. That is a mistake I will not repeat.
    3
  597. 3
  598. 3
  599. 3
  600. 3
  601. 3
  602. 3
  603. 3
  604. 3
  605. 3
  606. 3
  607. 3
  608. 3
  609. 3
  610. 3
  611. 3
  612. 3
  613. 3
  614. 3
  615. 3
  616. 3
  617. 3
  618. 3
  619. 3
  620. 3
  621. 3
  622. How to choose an external hard drive: I suggest that it be based on (in no particular order) 1) price, 2) performance, 3) features), 4) reliability, 5) warranty, and 6) Miscellaneous. 1) Price: As to the price, shop around. Each of us can judge for ourselves if the price is fair. 2) Performance: For portable drives (which are available up to 5TB, as of May of 2024), they all perform about the same. A portable drive requires no power brick. It gets its power from the USB connection. For non portable drives (usually larger in size and capacity), they, too, usually all perform about the same. Non portable drives come with a power brick that needs a wall outlet. 3) Features: Some drives have a LED (light emitting diode) that glows when the drive has power, and blinks when the drive is active. Some drives have no LED. I prefer to have a LED. I can see when a backup is done (the light stops blinking), without waking up the monitor. Also, if the drive has a problem, that light will give you some insight into whether or not the drive has power. Also, many drives come with software. I recommend never using the included software. 4) Reliability: They are all somewhat similar. 5) Warranty: This is where the manufacturers part ways. If everything above is about equal, then it would seem to make sense to get the one with the longest warranty. Well, normally that would be correct. But a warranty is only as good as the company that honors their warranty. Western Digital makes their warranty process a nightmare. They have a system in place to deny claims for any technicality they can dream up. And even if you have everything perfectly organized and you did everything right, Western Digital will delay, delay, and delay getting you your replacement drive. If you do not call them during the time you are waiting, you might wait months, or possibly never get your replacement drive. They will also hit you up for a "Convenience Fee", claiming that paying that fee will get you faster service. Western Digital knows that you need your drive replaced. Western Digital knows that you are now vulnerable. So they squeeze you for a fee to get them to honor their warranty. Their number one competitor, Seagate, is 100% the opposite of Western Digital, when it comes to honoring their warranty. Seagate does everything to make the customer's experience a good one. In fact, they go so far as to off free data recovery for some (perhaps all?) drives that fail under their warranty. So if you are deciding between a Western Digital drive and a Seagate drive, the choice is simple. There are other brands, which I do not have experience with their warranty process. Note that Western Digital has other brands that fall under their umbrella. Sandisk, HGST, and G-Technology are all Western Digital brands, and will all fall under the same miserable warranty headache. 6) Miscellaneous: Most drives (especially portable drives) come with very short USB cables. Perhaps 6". If you need a longer cable, it will be difficult to know what length cable the manufacturer includes. It is neither listed on the box, nor on the manufacturer's web site. Your best bet is to look for a video review, and hopefully see the cable in the video. Or ask in the comments, and cross your fingers that someone replies. So if a short cable is going to be a problem, then when you order the drive, also purchase a longer cable. Ordering an additional, longer cable, at the time of your drive purchase, might save you additional shipping costs. Choosing a cable is yet another potential snag. Depending on the drive, it might use a different USB connector. Most portable drives use a Micro-B connection to the drive. Some non portable drives use a Type-B connection to the drive. Check, as best you can, if you need a longer cable. And keep it under 10'. USB will not travel long cable distances, reliably. And check reviews, because some after-market cables are garbage.
    3
  623. 3
  624. 3
  625. 3
  626. 3
  627. 3
  628. 3
  629. 3
  630. 3
  631. 3
  632. 3
  633. 3
  634. 3
  635. 3
  636. 3
  637. 3
  638. 3
  639. 3
  640. 3
  641. 3
  642. 3
  643. 3
  644. 3
  645. 3
  646. 3
  647. 3
  648. 3
  649. 3
  650. 3
  651. 3
  652. 3
  653. 3
  654. 3
  655. 3
  656. 3
  657. 3
  658. @0:15 "There is no problem with Microsoft. There is no problem with Windows." Microsoft granted ring 0 access to CrowdStrike code. Microsoft allowed code that has access to crash the OS. Whether Microsoft wrote that code, themselves, or dropped it in from a 3rd party, it is effectively Microsoft's code, when it has kernel level access. And when huge companies, globally, lose the services that they are providing, and when emergency medical services go down, and 100% of it is due to Microsoft ring 0 code, and 100% of the downed services are Microsoft Windows boxes, then it is a problem with Microsoft, and it is a problem with Windows. Some people might say that it was not the fault of ring 0 code; that it was data read in from the user space (ring 1 space). Same result. If your kernel code allows a user to deploy a file that will crash the system, then that is a problem with the kernel code. The same thing can happen to everyone running an anti-virus package. When Microsoft allows code that can bring down millions of computers, then it is Microsoft's fault. There is fault to go around. But Microsoft is not blameless; not even close. If I hand my car keys to drunk drivers, then although the drunk drivers are at fault -- I am, too. Microsoft handed their car keys over to CrowdStrike, without checking their sobriety. Next: I believe (can't be sure, of course) that this was an attack. Why? Those definition files were simply too easy to check. All CrowdStrike had to do was test it on one of their own computers, and their computer would have blue-screened. So either CrowdStrike was wildly reckless, and never tested, or some CrowdStrike employee did test the code, and deemed it a success, because he wanted to crash the computer -- and deliver the code to the world. Our hosts said that if it were an attack, then they could have encrypted everyone's files, etc. Not necessarily. Why? That would require access to CrowdStrike's kernel code, and being able to distribute that kernel code. That likely would require more personnel to get involved. But a definition file, that changes nothing with the kernel code? That is routine, and there are probably many employees that can distribute definition files. Changing the kernel code, to encrypt files, is far more involved than changing no kernel code, and simply taking advantage of a weakness in the kernel code (the latter, of which, is what took place). My guess is that one of two types of attacks happened: -- A disgruntled employee. -- CrowdStrike's systems were compromised by bad actors that wanted to make headlines. Those bad actors might have simply gotten on to an employee's system, and tinkered with a definition file. That type of break-in, to an employee's computer, is simple, compared to breaking in to a server to change kernel code. And with remote access, an employee's home computer could have been compromised -- and it is that home computer that the employee uses to upload files to the CrowdStrike server. If it was the latter that happened, then that is a huge embarrassment for a software security company. The fact that nearly two weeks after the major incident, we still have not been given any meaningful information on the root cause, is consistent with a cover-up, and is why I believe it was an attack. We know the trigger (bad definition files). And the only reason we know the trigger was that CrowdStrike had to tell us. But the root cause of how those bad definition files came to be, well... all we hear are crickets.
    3
  659. 3
  660. 3
  661. 3
  662. 3
  663. 3
  664. 3
  665. 3
  666. 3
  667. 3
  668. @8:08 "If you turn on the backup feature, which is incredibly easy to do, without realizing it..." Microsoft did that, in order to get hundreds of millions (billions?) of people, worldwide, to exceed their OneDrive storage quota, by adding your "Documents" folder to OneDrive. To increase your quota, you have to purchase more storage space. That was a deceitful move by Microsoft's executives. So Microsoft should not be trusted. Ergo, do not use OneDrive. But if you must, then be sure to encrypt any personal files, before sharing those personal files with complete strangers (remember, you are giving a copy of your personal files to anonymous people at Microsoft). Microsoft is a huge data harvester (just think about all of the data collection items that are turned "on" by default, when you install Windows, or create a Windows account). And it is simplistic of Microsoft to scan all of your OneDrive files, and build a profile on you. As our host demonstrated, Microsoft is really working hard to get copies of your files. And consider the hundreds of millions of people, globally, that do not watch this channel or similar channels, and are not aware of Microsoft's executive's deceptive practices. This is a red flag. If you are not a person of interest (a mayor, governor, movie star, news anchor, congressman, head of state, someone in the news, etc), then no one at Microsoft will be sifting through your documents. But Microsoft can easily have algorithms that scan all of your files (and since it is so simple for them to do that, I am confident that they do). So if you do not have a serious need to use OneDrive (or any other 3rd party storage of your files), then I suggest that you never use a Microsoft account. No Microsoft account = never having to concern yourself with OneDrive. Your Office documents will not be able to default to OneDrive, because you will have no OneDrive account, because you are not using a Microsoft Account. The same goes for any other software that would normally default to OneDrive. I understand the attraction of OneDrive. But recognize the shiftless people that manage Microsoft. If I asked you for a copy of your documents, you would never hand them over to me. And yet so many people rush to hand over those same documents to strangers that have gone out of their way to get their hands on your documents. Avoid the entire maze and avoid the hidden pitfalls, by simply not using a Microsoft account. And Microsoft makes "not using a Microsoft account" difficult. Yet another red flag.
    3
  669. 3
  670. 3
  671. 3
  672. 3
  673. 3
  674. Turning a blind eye to massive surveillance is a recipe for the end of privacy. Apple's iPhone model 16 tracks on which part of the screen your eyeballs are focusing. So because Apple does that to everyone, then it is nothing untoward about it? If Apple did that to 10 people, then it would be a problem. If Apple did that to 100 people, then it would still be a problem. So how many people's precise eye contact with specific screen locations have to be tracked before it becomes "Apple is not interested in you"? Leo, as a test (only a test), upload documents to Google's or Microsoft's cloud service that contains language of your plans to violently harm high ranking government officials. Never post those documents anywhere. Just fabricate some language of that nature, and upload it to your cloud service's storage. Or, do the same with documents containing illegal items regarding child trafficking, or large drug transactions. You get the idea. Nothing to worry about, because no one is targeting you. Or, perhaps you will decline such a test? Concerned about losing your account, or getting a knock on the door by agents of a 3-letter agency? That happened to a father who uploaded photos of his toddler's rash at the request of a doctor. And then there are the interesting people -- very interesting people. Do you think that no one is checking documents that were uploaded by anyone associated with Trump or Harris, or governors or movie stars, etc? Is it okay that executives at a cloud service can have the goods on people in high ranking government offices -- to leak to the press or pull their strings? How about if you decide to run for mayor, and become a person of interest? All of your uploaded documents can be viewed by the cloud services executives, going back to forever. I suspect that if anyone working for the Pentagon were to upload classified documents (or any documents of any kind) to Google's or Microsoft's cloud storage service, that they would be fired and probably arrested. But why, when no one's documents are that interesting? We have huge tech companies monitoring everything that we do, and we should chalk it up to being lemmings of no interest? Twitter used to take down countless tweets, and ban account after account. But no one's tweets were that interesting. Right? Facebook did the same thing, until Zuckerberg changed his mind. Sure, they were targeting no one in particular, but it eventually came down to specific people that were breaking no laws, and yet had their posts taken down and their accounts suspended or banned. What starts off as a wide open search is leads to targeting specific people. Microsoft's "Recall" feature, not yet in full swing, will be taking snapshots of your screen every 5 seconds, and you can't disable it, without breaking file explorer and other key Windows components. Why would Microsoft prevent people from removing "Recall"? But as long as Microsoft does that to everyone's screen, then no big deal. Right? This has nothing to do with paranoia or anxiety, and people who are shining a light on such privacy invasive practices should not be painted with that brush. Frogs do not know to jump out of water that is slowly coming to a boil. They are not alone.
    3
  675. 3
  676. 3
  677. 3
  678. 3
  679. 3
  680. 3
  681. 3
  682. 3
  683. 3
  684. If you inadvertently allowed malware onto your computer, then there is a good chance that it will not be able to create problems outside of your current login account. For malware to gain access to system files, it will generate a User Account Control (UAC) prompt. At that point, if you click "Allow", then you are in trouble. So never use an administrator account for your day-to-day activities, and always have more than one login to your computer, so that if malware becomes an issue with your login, then you can use a different, clean login. Of course, some other login (a clean login) will probably not help you recover files from "My Documents" under the compromised account. That is where backups will save you. @4:51 "There's nothing you can do about it, after the fact." True, for information that the assailant has stolen from you. But you can kick him off of your computer. Download "autoruns" from sysinternals. It is a Microsoft site. The tool is free. Run autoruns with admin privileges (from a clean login). The tool will show you every program / service that starts automatically, and from where it starts. You can uncheck any item, and that item will not automatically start (but if it is already running, it will keep running until you either logout and login, or restart your computer -- which one you do depends on the item that you unchecked). Autoruns will list each item, and what triggers it to start (ie: when you login, or when your computer starts, etc). For malware to continue to have access, it needs to automatically start (because you would not knowingly start it). Autoruns gives you a way to stop any process or service from automatically starting. But beware. If you stop a critical program or service from starting, you could cripple your computer, to the point of it not booting up or you not being able to login. If that happens, then your only chance at survival is if you have a full system backup that you can restore. If you get a new computer, then I suggest that you install autoruns, and take a snapshot of everything that it lists. Then, periodically run autoruns, again, and look for new entries. The sooner you catch something new, the sooner you will figure out what it is. I also suggest that you take a snapshot immediately before installing anything, and another snapshot immediately after you complete that installation. Autoruns will then reveal what, if anything, that new program, browser extension, version upgrade, etc, is now automatically starting. It will not spotlight new items. You have to compare, side-by-side, the before and after listings from autoruns. A lot of items will be listed. Windows has things automatically starting all over the place. Comparing two snapshots of the listings will take some effort to identify what got added.
    3
  685. 3
  686. 3
  687. 3
  688. 3
  689. 3
  690. 3
  691. 3
  692. 3
  693. 3
  694. 3
  695. 3
  696. 3
  697. 3
  698. 3
  699. 3
  700. @10:14 "Another thing that Honda just nails -- nails it right out of the park; hits a home run, is this steering wheel." The good: -- The buttons are well laid out. The bad: -- The leather, against your skin, is noisy. Sliding your hand on the wheel (which is constant and unavoidable) results in hearing "shhh shhh shhh". -- If you like to keep the tilt steering at its lowest position (near your lap), like I do, then the top of the steering wheel will block approximately ¼ of the top of the dashboard. Yes, you can lower your seat to compensate. But that means that the steering wheel is no longer near your lap, and you, again, need to reach up higher to hold it (defeating the purpose of keeping the steering wheel in the lowest position). @16:09 "Of course, you do have the 'Eco' mode..." In that mode, you will get better gas mileage. However, the car is less responsive, and at times it is frustrating. If, for example, you need to speed up to get ahead of someone, then when you press on the gas, almost nothing happens. Yes, it does speed up. But not enough to pass a car you need to get passed. Give it enough gas (meaning press down quite a bit on the gas pedal) and the car will jump forward. So it is kind of like nothing, nothing, nothing, and boom. You kind of feel like you are fighting the car. So if you are in stop-and-go traffic, or alone on the road, then "Eco" is fine. But if you need the car to react, without delay, to the gas pedal, then forget "Eco". "Sport" mode is the opposite of "Eco". The car is very responsive and fun to drive. Any little tap on the gas is rewarded, without delay. This could, over a long drive, become a little jarring. The default mode is when neither "Eco" nor "Sport" is enabled (and this is how the car starts, regardless of how it was when you last drove). Honda did a very good job (in "neigther" mode) in finding just the right balance. You can keep it in this mode and it will be responsive and comfortable and the car will go when you need it to go. ----- By the way, this Sport model takes turns really well (better than most people think). It stays planted around turns and has nearly no lean. In "Sport" mode, the suspension stiffens up a bit more and (I believe) lowers the car slightly. Helping the lateral stability are the low profile tires (minimal sidewall on the tires). This reduces the flexing when taking hard turns (keeps the tire from rolling on its sidewall and keeps the flat part of the tire glued to the pavement). The downside to this is that if you hit a big pothole, you do not have much room between the tire and the rim. This can result in breaking a rim (where on a car that does not have low profile tires, the rim would stand a better chance of surviving). ----- Lastly, the stereo is good, but not great. You can enjoy it. But you will never forget that you are listening to a stereo. On better stereos, you simply hear a wall of music, rather than hearing a bunch of speakers. On better stereos, the speakers disappear (your ears cannot identify their location), and you get a more realistic soundstage and better imaging. Honda could have done better with this. My 2003 Nissan Sentra's stock stereo is better than the Accord's stereo. Perhaps the cabin is responsible? But Honda has the resources to dial in a better sounding stereo, and they should have. ----- I love this Accord (the 2.0 Sport model). Highly recommended. The 2020 model can be had for $28,000 + DMV fees + taxes, if the dealer has it on the lot. They will probably try to add on "prep" fees, and might tell you that by law they have to list it separately. That is true. So in such a case, if the prep fee $800, then your offer should be $27,200. The prep fee could just as easily be named "pure profit" fee. Good luck! Cheers!
    3
  701. 3
  702. 3
  703. 3
  704. 3
  705. 3
  706. 3
  707. 3
  708. 3
  709. 3
  710. I disagree with that moderator (unless that moderator has some valid reason that we do not know about). When I reply to an e-mail message, I want to have a record of exactly that to which I am replying. Editing it, to make it blank, makes trouble-shooting a headache. If this is job related, you should not want employees modifying what had already been written. That can lead to trouble. Some people will make claims of this or that, and the record of what was really there is now gone. Yes, you can try to dig up an older reply (if your e-mail application does not auto delete), where what was originally written is still there. But that takes time, and you have to verify that the message that you dug up is complete, and that someone else did not delete a portion of it. In an investigation for work issues, this gets messy fast. It is very convenient to have all of the replies right there. No one is forcing you to re-read the entire thread each time someone replies. But the entire thread is there for anyone that needs to scroll down for something, or do a "find" or "search" function to look for something that they need. Sometimes you might need to quote two or more sections -- one from yesterday, and another from a month earlier. Well, good luck doing that when everyone is deleting it. Does removing the repeated section of the e-mail message save space? Yes. And in the days of $500 10 GB hard drives, a case could be made for saving space. But with 18 TB drives to be had for under $200, how much space is being saved (as a percentage of the drive), by deleting lines of text? A few KB here, and maybe a MB there? And when you reply, attachments are not carried over (attachments are not included in replies). And it is the attachment that is far, far, far more space consuming than what you type out on your keyboard in an e-mail message. If an attachment is 2 MB, that is 2,000,000 characters. That's two million keystrokes. Have you ever typed 2,000,000 keystrokes? Have any of your replies ever contained 2,000,000 keystrokes? So typed replies that are a few hundred keystrokes are not space hogs. It would take ½ of an eternity for a company with 500 employees to fill up one 18 TB hard drive, without attachments. So it makes sense for replies to exclude attachments. But it does not make sense for replies to exclude typed text. I see no meaningful upside to deleting the text from others, when replying. It makes for extra work for everyone, makes researching previously written text problematic, and saves hardly any disk space. Our host showed us how to see what is often hidden in e-mail messages to which we are replying. So this is a helpful video. But that moderator telling his users to delete text from replies is either not tech savvy (does not understand that the space savings is virtually meaningless), or for some reason is running their mail server with a tiny capacity hard drive.
    3
  711. 3
  712. 3
  713. 3
  714. 3
  715. 3
  716. 3
  717. 3
  718. 3
  719. 3
  720. 3
  721. 3
  722. 3
  723. 3
  724. 3
  725. 3
  726. 3
  727. 3
  728. @12:00 Using sub quality equipment (turntable, tone-arm, and cartridge) as well as not initially dialing in the cartridge (overhang, anti-skating, vertical tracking alignment, counter-balance, azimuth), makes for a pointless test. Add to that, a likely piss-poor, low quality analog to digital converter, low quality phono stage, and listening via PC speakers, adds to the already pointless listening test. Try stacking records, on a professionally set-up VPI, Clearaudio, Brinkmann (among many other reputable brands) turntable, with a quality tone-arm (Graham, Tri-Planar, Swedish Analog Technologies, etc) and a quality cartridge (many to choose from), feeding a quality phono-amp -> quality pre-amp -> quality monoblock amps -> quality speakers, and you will hear the difference when records are stacked. Also note that most (90+%) vinyl sucks. So if the record's sound quality sucks, then hearing it suck even more (when stacked) is quite a challenge. But if this test was done with quality components, with a rare and great sounding vinyl pressing, you will hear the degradation introduced by stacking records. Also note that you cannot use a record clamp, or an outer ring weight, to 1) reduce warp and 2) effectively add mass to the vinyl pressing. Record changers are great, when sound quality is not a priority. When sound quality is a priority, then you must give up convenience, and spend a good deal of time professionally dialing in everything. Quality sound, from vinyl, is neither cheap nor easy. The equipment in this video makes listening to vinyl both cheap and easy. Ergo, poor sound quality. Ergo, pointless test. Cheers!
    3
  729. 3
  730. 3
  731. 3
  732. 3
  733. 3
  734. 3
  735. 3
  736. For process explorer, I believe it shows you only processes related to your login. I believe that you must right-click it and run it with admin privileges, in order to have it display all processes. A lot of the conga line of processes is bloatware -- direct from Microsoft. Run "Tiny 10" or "Tiny 11" or "Spectre 10" or "Spectre 11" (custom made Windows packages that includes only what is necessary for Windows to function properly), and you will probably see less than half the number of processes running (assuming you did not install stuff and start up a bunch of stuff). Note that the above offerings are "Run at your own risk", because they are not from Microsoft. Third party developers stripped away the bloat from the Windows installation package. So you are trusting that they 1) did not screw up, and 2) that they did not add in anything untoward. The point of this is to lend credence to the fact that the official Windows releases are loaded with bloatware, because the unofficial versions (noted above) are bloatware-free, and run with far, far less RAM usage. You can create a virtual machine that runs one of the above version of Windows, just to poke around. I never ran it. But in videos of others running it, Task Manager was using less than half the amount of RAM upon boot up. And the list of processes in Task Manager was not long (I do not recall how man processes were there, but it was less than half). And if some process that you need is missing, it can be added via a tool that the developer includes. But, again: Run at your own risk. Those packages could have malware. Use a virtual machine for testing it, or use an old, unimportant PC if you want to install it directly. Due to the absence of bloatware, your old Windows XP box with 2 GB of RAM that is collecting dust will have no problem running Tiny 10 or Spectre 10.
    3
  737. 3
  738. 3
  739. 3
  740. 3
  741. 3
  742. 3
  743. 3
  744. 3
  745. 3
  746. @7:09 "So beyond 42 gigabytes of write, these drives will slow down" Not exactly (correct me if I am mistaken). Consider the following statement, which is intentionally wrong: "The drives store 100% of new data in their faster SLC cache, and only during idle time do they write that data to their slower TLC (or, as the case may be, QLC) NAND cells." What actually takes place is that while the data is being written to the faster SLC cache, the drive is simultaneously offloading the data to its slower TLC (or, as the case may be, QLC) NAND cells. So if you were copying 50 gigabytes to the drive in one shot, then... ...by the time you sent 42 gigabytes to the drive, the drive would have already transferred, perhaps, 10 or 20 GB to its slower NAND cells. So with a 42 GB SLC cache, it takes more than 42 GB of data to keep it full. Like filling a 42 gallon tank with water, while at the same time people line up and fill their glasses with water from the nozzle. It will take more than 42 gallons to top off the tank. Also note that, although the drive will slow down, and significantly so, when you fill up the cache, that slow-down is very temporary. The drive will work, non-stop, emptying its cache to the slower NAND cells. So under normal use (where you are not bombarding it with scores of gigabytes of data), it will always run very fast. Just don't think that once you fill the cache and it slows down that you ruined the drive. It will empty its cache and run at full speed, again. However, the test at the 12:30 time mark, suggests that my above analysis is correct only for the TLC drive. Apparently, the QLC drive has a cheaper controller, that does not offload its cache while new data is still coming in. When its cache fills up, then it is forced to do so, which is why we saw the slow-down. The less expensive QLC drive allowed its cache to fill up. The TLC drive would have also slowed down, eventually. But it would have taken more data to fill its cache, because its controller was emptying its cache while new data was coming in to the cache. Cheers!
    3
  747.  @ExplainingComputers  The design, to both write to cache and to read from cache simultaneously (or close to simultaneously), must exist. Why? If you decide to copy 500 GB to the drive, it will all get written without stalling. So at some point the cache will get full, and yet the copy process continues. And you never see (in your benchmark) a pause where when the cache gets full it pauses to empty the cache, and then returns to accepting more into the cache. It just slows down. And I doubt that it seals (so to speak) what is in cache and is allowing new data to go directly to the QLC NAND cells, and eventually emptying the cache when all other data writes complete. That would be asking for trouble, if when the cache gets full it was in the middle of a file being written to the cache. The only way around this, that I can think of is, that once the cache gets full, that the QLC drive (when the cache is full) quickly jumps back and forth between writing out a few bytes and reading in a few bytes. If it is doing that, then that might look like the copy process is constantly writing (albeit at a slower speed), when it is actually constantly pausing to write to the QLC NAND and then quickly returning to read more into the cache. If it does this 10, 20, 50 (whatever) times each second, the benchmark will still report on average bytes per second, so you would not see the pauses. I am taking an educated guess at this. And it would explain why the TLC drive never slowed down, if the TLC's controller was more sophisticated, such that it can work on both ends of the cache, simultaneously. By the way, if you were to copy 500 GB to the QLC drive, then when it reports that the copy job is done, is it really done? Or is it only telling the OS that it is done because it has all of the data (some in cache NANDs and some in the QLC NANDs), and it happily chugs along in the background emptying its cache? And, if immediately upon the copy job claiming it is completed, if you were to issue a shutdown command, would Windows (or other OS) know that the drive is still working on emptying its cache, and delay the shutdown? Or does the drive simply keep a note on what it has to continue emptying from cache, upon the next boot up?
    3
  748. 3
  749. 3
  750. 3
  751. 3
  752. 3
  753. 3
  754. What Philips is doing is not only repugnant, it is illegal. It is like purchasing a refrigerator, and then get told that unless you sign up and let them monitor your refrigerator, they will turn off your refrigerator. And consider all of the people that do not have internet access, outside of dial-up, and people that have low-end data plans for their smart-phones, and therefore carefully watch their data usage.. This will not last, and Philips will be sued, and Philips will lose. HP did something similar, with their Instant Ink program. They sold printers and advertised different Instant Ink plan options -- one of them being a "Free" plan, that limits you to 15 pages per month. A year or so after you purchased your printer, HP ended the "Free" plan. Well, they get sued. They lost. And they grandfathered in everyone that was on the "Free" plan. But that does not go far enough. If you are grandfathered in, and you upgrade your plan, you will not be allowed to return to the free plan. Note that when HP advertised your printer, they advertised that you can change plans at any time. Well, not more - for the free plan. So HP lied. So HP advertised a "Free" plan, which is why you purchased their printer. And now, if you now decide to accept that offer, they will refuse you. It would be great if everyone that has the free plan would print 15 pages each month, of a full page that uses the most ink possible. The plans go by pages printed, whether you print a dot, or a page fully covered in ink. So you can print 15 pages, fully covering each page with ink, and HP will have to replace those ink cartridges, for free, as they run low on ink.
    3
  755. 3
  756. 3
  757. 3
  758. 3
  759. 3
  760. 3
  761. @0:59 "Usually, not your password. Usually, it's the hashed version of your password, which is less concerning because there's no way to map that to the password." True. However: There are hash tables that contain tens of millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of passwords and their corresponding hash value (or values, because there are many hashing algorithms). If your password is 8 characters or less, then your password is virtually guaranteed to be in one of those tables. Even longer passwords are in there, from huge companies that implemented sloppy, nearly non-existent, password security. Their passwords were leaked, hashes were made, and now there are hash tables that have countless passwords that are simple to look up (as simple as loading them into an Excel spreadsheet, doing a "find" on the hash, and seeing the associated password (or "grep" in Linux for a plain-text file of hashes or the "find.exe" command via Windows command prompt). If a site salts your password that they store on their server, and creates a hash from that, then that offers much better security. But there is no way to know how companies are storing passwords. Even if they make claims, we have no way to verify their claims. ..... Never use the same password for two different services (something our host has said in several videos). Never use a pattern of passwords for different services. For example, do not use your dog's name, combined with a number, plus the name of the site. Eg: Facebook password: rover369fb Twitter password: rover369tw GMail password: rover369gm If any of the above services are breached, then any one of the above reveals enough clues to guess your other passwords. Use passwords that have nothing, whatsoever, in common. To accomplish that, use a password manager (something our host has said in several videos). A password manager will give you passwords, such as these: 4088D74A2BEFE941982CB1R z=c^]pJfn2<'8Lp^P`q*nbCv-5E nk1K8OKlCdZGzbKL55pAz5D The above are unbreakable, even if a 3-letter government agency put all of their computing power towards that effort. ...and the length and the make-up of the password is easy to configure, and you never have to remember them. You have your password manager create a unique, and unbreakable, password for each site that you use, and your worries (for the most part) are over.
    3
  762. 3
  763. 3
  764. 3
  765. 3
  766. 3
  767. 3
  768. 3
  769. 3
  770. 3
  771. 3
  772. 3
  773. 3
  774. 3
  775. 3
  776. 3
  777. 3
  778. @9:09 -- The flac format supports multiple (lossless) compression levels, including 0 compression. Presumably, you used your application's default compression value? My Honda Accord's factory stereo can play flac files, but has a problem advancing to the next song. It takes 3 seconds, which is an eternity -- especially when you are manually trying to jump a few songs forward or backward. It has no issue with wav files. So I converted all of my music files to the wav format, and my delay issue is gone. However, the wav format provides next to no metadata. So my car's display will not even show me the name of the artist (it gets listed as "Unknown". And that is all the more problematic, when wanting to search for an artist. Your video has renewed my interest and might have resulted in my finding a better solution (which I will have to test). I will convert all of my flac files to non-compressed flac files. My car's stereo might have an easier time with zero compression in the flac format. If that works, I will also have my metadata. ----- @12:44 -- MQA is technically lossy. But it deletes samples that contain frequencies above the capabilities of human hearing. Even if someone could hear such frequencies, there is basically no musical content at those frequencies. @14:06 -- Yes, we lose the ability to hear high frequencies, as we age. But lossy formats do other harm to the sound's fidelity -- such as soundstaging. However, in order to hear the harm, you need a revealing stereo, professionally set-up. Most people plop down their speakers where they look best. Most rooms have too many reflections / echoes. So for 99.999% of us, we will probably not hear the harm that lossy file formats deliver. But if you have a revealing stereo, with your speakers properly positioned (feet apart from each other, and from you, and from the back wall, and properly towed in, and properly tilted up or down), and at least some basic room treatments, then for such a stereo, you will hear the difference between a flac file, and an mp3 file that was derived from the flac file. Well, one more caveat. Most songs have sub-par or nothing special sound quality. So if the studio did an incompetent job, then the format will not matter. But if you have some properly mixed and mastered flac files, played on a revealing stereo, etc, then you will hear the difference between a flac file and an mp3 file, even if you are in your senior years.
    3
  779. 3
  780. 3
  781. 3
  782. 3
  783. 3
  784. The experts that put together the TOR network, and the TAILS OS, know more than the arm-chair, self proclaimed computer gurus saying that you should also use a VPN. TOR was expertly designed to keep your internet activities private. Those trying to improve upon what the experts designed are unwittingly introducing vulnerabilities into their on-line activities. They hear "VPN", and they get a woody. Without understanding how TOR works, and the vulnerabilities of VPN services, they just have a knee-jerk reaction to the VPN acronym, thinking they are putting a vault inside of a vault, when that it not the case. I bet that most people that combine a VPN with TOR never even heard of the "five eyes". Those people are putting all of their eggs into the VPN's basket, trusting that the VPN is not logging everything that they are doing. In fact, I bet that those people do not even grasp that their VPN can log and see 100% of their internet activity. They are taking, what would have gone directly to TOR, that no one can see, and first handing it off, in the clear, to some stranger (some VPN) in the middle. Yes, your connection to your VPN service is encrypted. But it is 100% decrypted before it is handed off to TOR (or any other destination). After your data reaches your VPN, it gets 100% decrypted. Then, a new encrypted tunnel, created by the VPN's server, re-encrypts your data, and sends it on its way. For privacy, you never want anyone else performing encryption for you. You always should have your own, local computer doing the encryption. Use a VPN to reach services that are not accessible from your country or your region. Use a VPN for when you want a presumed level of security and privacy, as well as decent speed (because TOR is slow, but TOR is secure and private). Folks, if you buy a Ferrari LaFerrari, do not try to modify it the way you would modify a Camaro or a Mustang. TOR is the Ferrari, built and designed by brilliant people. Use it as designed by those brilliant people. Accept that you are not smarter than them, in this regard.
    3
  785. 3
  786. 3
  787. 3
  788. @13:45 "Honestly, sound quality is not real good." I agree. Honda put in charge of their stereo department someone that either has never heard a very good stereo or Honda just decided to cut corners with the stereo (or both). I own the Sport model, and I own a 2003 Nissan Sentra. The stock stereo in the 17 year old Sentra sounds better than the stereo in the new Accord. Honda has the resources to do a better job. They could have, should have, but did not. The problem with the stereo is that the Accord never lets you forget that you are listening to a mechanical device. On a better stereo, the music is a wall of sound. On the Accord, you hear individual speakers. It is not terrible. But it is nothing close to special. On a better stereo, you get a very good soundstage and very good imaging. You get depth of instruments and voices (if it is in the recording). On a better stereo, the speakers disappear. Your ears cannot locate the position of the speakers. The Accord's stereo falls short on all of the above. And it is a shame, that this otherwise amazing car, with all of its performance, looks, reliability, fuel efficiency, quality paint job, etc, is bundled with a so-so stereo. To get the best sound quality out of the stereo, you should purchase .flac files (never .mp3 files), copy them to a flash drive, and plug the flash drive into the USB port. Note that not all .flac files sound the same. The exact same song is often available on the original release, greatest hits, best of, anthology, compilations, and endless re-masters (re-masters usually sound worse, due to over-processing by knuckleheads at the recording company). Sites like us.7digital.com offer demos that are a good indication of how the purchased files will sound. If you choose carefully, using speakers that are decent, you can pick out the ones that sound best, and end up with a much better sounding music collection. This will help wherever you play music, including in the Accord. Cheers!
    3
  789. 3
  790. 3
  791. 3
  792. 3
  793. 3
  794. 3
  795. 3
  796. 3
  797. 1) Both of them should be arrested. The driver, for being intoxicated. The passenger, for obstructing the officers during a traffic stop. After she got out of the car the second time, the officer should have warned her that if she gets out, again, she will be arrested. After being arrested, and putting her in hand-cuffs, in the police vehicle, the level of drama would have gone down. She could sit in the police car and scream all she want. At least the officers could focus on the driver, without having to worry about the passenger. The officers cannot let down their guard when someone at the scene is out of control. And, yes, that passenger was out of control. When the police tell you to stay in the vehicle, and you repeatedly refuse to stay in the vehicle, then you are out of control. She did not throw punches. But when someone refuses to follow police orders, the police have to assume that the person is dangerous, even if they are in a bikini. 2) Both of them (especially the passenger) are in for a life of sorrow. If they do not use their looks, now, to make themselves millionaires (and hire someone to handle their finances), then they will be on public assistance by the time they are 30 years old. No man is going to put up with their crap, once their looks are gone. And as far as looks go, they are average (maybe a bit higher than average). They are in decent shape, due to their age and natural metabolism. 100% certain that they will be obese by the time they are 35. Combine that with having no respect for themselves or others, and they are done. Right now, boyfriends put up with them for pump and dump. As their looks wane, they will wake up to the reality that everyone that pretended to like them, did so due to their physical attributes. 3) in approximately 10 years (or less), when their youth can no longer save them, they will blame the world for their despair. Nothing will be their fault. Nothing will be their life choices. If others are to blame, it is big tech and media outlets for encouraging them to act as they do. But ultimately, it is their own fault. The fun and games have a few years remaining, and they do not know it. If they ever come to realize that they never grew up and never chose to act responsibly, it will be too late.
    3
  798. 3
  799. 1) I purchased the exact same drive, a few months ago, when Best Buy had them on sale for sub $100 (I think it was $95). It works fine. But I hope I never need warranty service. 2) WD makes it next to impossible to get warranty replacements. They throw up every imaginable roadblock, from alleged ticketing system issues, to "We will send your replacement out next week" (and that line is repeated, week after week), to waiting ½ of forever for a human to answer your call, to navigating their "press 1, press 2, etc", phone ecosystem, requiring more than proof of purchase documentation, etc. It is a nightmare, that many people will simply just not deal with an buy a replacement. Seagate is the opposite (a pleasure to deal with), and they offer free data recovery for drives under warranty (not sure if all drives have that offer -- check your warranty). And they put your recovered data on a different drive. So you get your warranty replacement, and you also get whatever they recovered on yet another drive -- and you keep both. But WD drives are dependable. So I rolled the dice with this WD 5TB Elements drive, due to the sale price. 3) By the way... I do not delete the included software (it takes up very little space). If I ever re-sell the drive, having that software can only help. I tuck it away into a "new_in_box" hidden directory, so that I don't have to look at it. 4) Note that the speed tests results will get slower, as the drive fills. It is the nature / design of mechanical drives. It seems that mechanical drives initially write to the outer portion of their disks, which, per rotation, have more real-estate, compared to the inner portion of their disks. So when the drives is ½ filled, your read and write speeds will be somewhat slower. 5) @9:25 -- Perhaps it is due to the thickness of the drives? That 5TB Elements drive has more platters than their 2TB drive, making the 5TB model thicker, and a possible issue fitting them into laptops (which is where most 2.5" mechanical drives end up).
    3
  800. 3
  801. 3
  802. 3
  803. 3
  804. 3
  805. I was choosing between the Nissan Altima (SR / VC-T SR), Toyota Camry (TRD), and the Honda Accord (Sport 2.0). The common theme was the sportiest ride (the firmest suspension in each of the lines, resulting in the best handling / cornering). All had 19" wheels (largest offered for each model) and low profile tires (minimal sidewall for improved handling). All three cars handled great (for a family sedan). I was especially surprised at the Camry. In years past, it was always a soft cushy ride. But as good as the Camry handled, it came in last place, because both of the other cars held turns better. Someone at Toyota just was not ready to commit the Camry to the full handling that it could have had. They went in for a sporty ride, but they went in only 80%. I guess that there is a segment of the population that will find this to be a good compromise (but not for me). It was a tough choice between the Altima and the Accord. At first, I thought that the Altima handled better. I pushed it hard around a turn, and it took it like a dream. But when I pushed it harder, although it maintained control, and stayed planted, it made a grinding sound. In all fairness, almost no one will ever take a turn that hard. But taking such a turn is how to demonstrate the limits of each vehicle's performance, and discover which car will get you out of a jam if you have to act fast to avoid an accident. But I really liked the Altima's handling. I was very impressed. In the end, I purchased the Accord. Here's why: The Accord's handling was comparable to the Altima's handling (grips the turns much better than most folks would ever try). And I even preferred the way the Altima went into a tight turn, over the way the Accord went into a turn. But once taking the turn, the Accord, ultimately, never flinched. It seemed like it needed a little more finesse to take a hard turn correctly. But it got the job done. The other game changer was acceleration. All three cars had very good acceleration. But the Altima was a pig off of the line (the very good acceleration kicked in only when going approximately 20 MPH or faster). Nissan chose to detune the Altima from a stop, either for safety, or fuel economy, or who knows? Maybe the Altima's traction control is at fault (and there is no way to turn off the Altima's traction control). The Altima's acceleration from a stop would not normally be a problem for day-to-day driving. But if, for example, you are in the left lane at a light, and you realize that you need to make a right turn at the next light, then you can forget getting ahead of the car to your right. You can stomp on the gas pedal, and the Altima will take its time. This was too much to overlook for a car in this price range, and especially a in car designed for a sporty ride. By the way, the stereos in all three cars are so-so. My 2003 Nissan Sentra has a better stock stereo. The manufacturers could have and should have done a better job. Either they all went to a meeting and jointly decided to cut corners on sound quality, or they all had someone in charge of the stereo department that never heard a quality stereo. Whatever the reason, they all dropped the ball on the sound quality of the stereo. Cheers!
    3
  806. 3
  807.  @ebinom8112  I would not go near a password manager that is bundled with anti-virus / anti-malware software. In fact, I would try to remove every trace of any 3rd party's anti-virus software. Why? Read all of the stuff you are mandated to agree with. Read it all. Every link, and every link from that link. You will find lots of language that basically gives that company unfettered access to your computer (which it needs, to scan everything), as well as permission to do anything they want with anything on your computer. You are giving them permission to spy on it all. Are they? Who knows? Who knows what information they upload to themselves, and sell to others (you give them that permission, too). The is no way I would give them permission to manage passwords for my accounts. They might be trustworthy and do a great job. But it is all guess-work. If they have a data breach, will it matter? You have no way to know how they store your passwords on their servers (which they probably do). You have no idea whether or not they have a master key to see all of your saved passwords. And what if, one day, you decide to use some other company's anti-virus software? How do you deal with your passwords that are on the now, defunct, old password manager's anti-virus environment? All of the above are not an issue with LastPass and keepass. Also, as good as an anti-virus company might be, are they equally skilled in password encryption and password management? By the way... Windows Defender is all you need for anti-virus, and anti-malware. Other anti-virus software might have some benefit. If you cannot identify what that benefit is, then it probably does not exist or does not merit consideration. In light of the troubling language in anti-virus agreements, I can think of no password related benefit that would make me consider using it. I recommend Windows Defender + LastPass, or... Windows Defender + keepass. I believe that LastPass has better automation for conveniently logging you in to your accounts. keepass is good at that, but probably not as good as LastPass. But both LastPass and keepass are rock solid, safe, and virtually invulnerable to a breach (if you use a strong master password). If your LastPass or keepass data gets breached, it will not be due to a design flaw in their code. It will be due to user error / user carelessness.
    3
  808. 3
  809. Using a 3rd party cloud service is giving your personal data to complete strangers. If your data is such, that if viewed or scanned or profiled by complete strangers does not matter to you, then upload your data to them. If you check the agreement you are required to accept, to use the 3rd party cloud storage service, you will see a sea of legal jargon. Within that jargon, you will see that any data you upload to them becomes owned by them. If you encrypt your data, locally, and then upload it to them, then the data remains useful only to you, while they will retain/own a copy of your data. For those not willing to share their personal data with strangers (as described above), then I recommend that you have two external drives (our host discussed this). You can keep one in your home, for easy access. You can keep the other one with a friend or neighbor (in a different building would be best). But can't your friend or neighbor see your data? Use VeraCrypt. It is free and open source. It allows you to easily make an encrypted virtual drive on your external drive. 100% of whatever you copy to that virtual drive will be encrypted. No one, other than you, can view its contents (assuming you do not use a simple password). Once you enter your password, you can use that drive's data like any other drive. Now you have your data in multiple locations, and it is encrypted to keep it private, and yet easily accessible by you. If you have a "Pro" version (or higher) of Windows, then you can use Bitlocker (instead of VeraCrypt). Bitlocker, however, is not open source. Folks, Microsoft, Google, etc, are huge spyware companies. Sure, they make great software. But they track everything that you do, and build profiles on you. Do you really think that when you upload your data to them, that they do not index it and scan it and offer some level of your lifestyle to advertisers or political organizations or government entities, etc? If they can cash in on it, they will cash in on it. Yes, they make it simple for you to upload your data to them. Why not? They want your data. They count on be super convenient to get the public to upload their lives to them. But with just a bit of effort, using your own external drives, and an on-the-fly encryption program (VeraCrypt / Bitlocker), you can keep your data as your data.
    3
  810. 3
  811. 3
  812. 3
  813. @4:23 -- USB -> SATA adapter. For a few dollars more, you can get one that supports 3.5" mechanical drives, because for those drives, you need an external power source, which you get with the slightly more expansive USB -> SATA adapters. And you do not have to use the included power supply, if you are using a 2.5" drive. It will work the same as the one in your video. But if you need to connect a 3.5" mechanical drive to a USB port, then you will be able to do that, too, with the ones that include the (optional) power adapter. If you are traveling, then that would be one more thing (the power brick) to carry around. But you do not need to carry around the power brick, if you have no intention of using the adapter with a 3.5" mechanical drive. Of course, I keep my adapter and it power brick together, because once separated, it is like trying to find that missing sock. I also put a label on the power brick, so that if it does ever turn up and I have no idea what it is for, the label will clear up that mystery. I would like to find a USB -> (68 pin) SCSI adapter. I have searched high and low. They simply do not exist. I have several old SCSI drives (68 pin, 15K RPM) that I would like to erase, before selling or dumping. It seems that I will need to purchase a PCIe adapter for SCSI drives. I am having trouble finding that, too. Argh! @5:30 -- Ethernet everywhere. For a few dollars more, you can get one that doubles as a hub. So you get the Ethernet connectivity, just as you demonstrated in this video, without losing a USB port (because the adapter will have 2 or 3 of its own USB ports).
    3
  814. This was informative. But I see the following issues, that perhaps someone can speak to: 1) I saw $millions in equipment, with no focus on sound quality (I will address the listening test that we saw @10:18, later in my comments). 2) From where was the digital content, used for the process, sourced? I realize that the vinyl factory will produce records from any digital file that the customer pays them to produce. But it would be nice to know from where that content came from (who made it, and with what equipment?). 3) How was the digital source file turned into an analog audio signal for the cutting machine to produce the lacquer disk? For example, when you play a CD, your CD player creates sound from silence, by reading the zeros and ones on the CD, and then uses its built-in DAC (digital to analog converter) chip to create (from silence) the sound that eventually makes it to the speakers. So what DAC chip was used? The sound quality can vary, wildly, from DAC to DAC. What power supply was used (power supplies are critical and have a major role in sound quality, and can cost nearly ½ of the price of the DAC). Also, what transport was used? The transport is what sends the zeroes and ones from the computer to the DAC. A quality transport will minimize jitter (jitter is when the zereos and ones have non-perfect timing in their arrival at the DAC). When you hear digital content played via a quality transport box (they make such stand-alone boxes for achieving outstanding sound quality), you will hear the music blossom. Once you use such a transport, you will always hear jitter when using mass produced equipment, such as most CD players, portable equipment, and car stereos. Was a USB port used? USB is the last comm port you should use for achieving the best sound quality. The USB controllers on nearly 100% of computers are not designed for sound quality. Yes, it is all zeroes and ones. But the timing of the delivery of the bits, and the noise introduced by the circuitry, have a major impact on the sound quality. The USB cable matters, too. 4) Considering the investment made at that factory, they allocated next to nothing (as a percentage of their capital) to the turntable, tone-arm, and cartridge used for the listening test. We did not see the speakers, so I will assume that they are low-end, mass produced speakers. I will also assume that the speakers were not professionally set-up in a treated room, in order to hear proper sound-staging, depth, height, imaging, etc (all critical to the soundfield you will hear when you play the record on a quality stereo system). I am confident that I am correct about the speakers, because if they were high-end speakers (and for this process, they should be high-end speakers), then they would have included them in the video. I doubt that the speakers were even mid-fidelity. Perhaps they were Bose? And we did not hear what was being played by that record. They dropped the stylus on the 2nd song. A few seconds later, while that song was still playing, the video showed the stylus on the 4th song. So they were actually playing the digital file that we watched @0:54. That was deceptive. The above is why so many records have sub-par sound quality. $millions are invested to produce the records, with next to nothing invested to hear how they really sound. I would wager that no one at the pressing plant (not even the executives or the owner) has ever heard a professionally set-up, high-end stereo. So they might actually think that their records are fine. And they might be great. But that would be luck, because no one at the factory does a proper listening test. And that includes whether or not someone knew how to professionally set-up the tone-arm and cartridge used in that turntable. These are all key to achieving outstanding sound quality, and all of it was missing from this video.
    3
  815. 3
  816. 3
  817. 3
  818. 3
  819. 3
  820. 3
  821. 3
  822. 3
  823. 3
  824. 3
  825. 3
  826. 3
  827. 3
  828. 3
  829. 3
  830. 3
  831. 3
  832. 3
  833. 3
  834. 3
  835. 3
  836. 3
  837. 3
  838. 3
  839. 3
  840. 3
  841. 3
  842. 3
  843. 3
  844. Steve, men that claim to be women, are not women. So countless people will intentionally call those men "men". Men that insist that they are women, will claim that they are being misgendered, when, in fact, they are being correctly gendered. So that colleague that you work with, where you (a normal person) refuse to call that man a woman, will be considered to be harassing that man for repeatedly call that man a "man". That cross-dressing, woman impersonator will claim to be distressed (and maybe they are?), and claim to be harassed, etc. Someone's mental illness, believing that they are not who they are, can result in normal people being charged with a hate crime. And although the bill does not contain pronouns, it is a step towards a future bill that will. There are men that fake being women, to cheat, and to sexually harass women in locker rooms and bath rooms, etc. There are men that have mental illnesses where they believe that they are women. Society should not have to cater to the above, in any way, whatsoever. Society should not have to alter reality, by calling men "women", in order to not be charged with harassment. In fact, if someone called you (our host) a woman, and refused to call you a man, should they be charged with a hate crime for harassment? People can call me anything they want. Will I be offended? Perhaps, but probably not. Would I ever seek to have them charged with a crime? Absolutely not. That would be insane. That would be joining their clown world. Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me. Apparently, a segment of transgender people have convinced law makers to criminally punish people when sticks and stones are absent.
    3
  845. 3
  846. 3
  847. 3
  848. 3
  849. 3
  850. 3
  851. 3
  852. 3
  853. 3
  854. 3
  855. 3
  856. 3
  857. 3
  858. 3
  859. 2
  860. 2
  861. Everything our host discussed is spot-on accurate, including the "trust" factor, because your VPN provider can see and log 100% of your activity. They can see everything in the clear. And even if a VPN service claims that they keep no logs, you have no way to validate that claim. And a VPN service could be handed a court order to keep logs, along with a gag order to not reveal that they were ordered to keep logs. Also, several countries have reciprocal jurisdictional agreements, where they cooperate with each other. Search for "5 eyes" and "14 eyes" for more information. Each "eye" is a country that cooperates with the other eyes in its grouping. If you want to avoid having to trust any VPN service, then use TOR (The Onion Router) network. TOR is open source (no hidden shenanigans), and when used properly, is the most secure type of VPN that is available, because it was designed from the ground up to allow you to be as close to 100% anonymous as possible. TOR is free, but not possibly compromised the way a free VPN service probably is. If you learn about TOR's design, you will understand that, when used properly, you will remain anonymous to every computer on TOR network. Your Internet Service Provider (ISP) will know that you are using TOR, but that is all that they will know. But it is not all lollipops and sunshine. TOR is slow. It relies on bandwidth from many computers, and that bandwidth is shared by everyone using TOR. Also, depending on how your connection is established, your connection might be travelling back and forth across continents, which is common. If, for example, you need privacy and security to be a whistle blower, or are in a country that jails people for routine internet activity, then TOR is a good choice. But if you need speed, then forget it. Also, countless businesses know all of the TOR exit nodes (where your request leaves TOR network and heads to the final destination). So countless businesses reject connections from TOR based addresses. Those businesses do not want anonymous people using their sites, mostly due to criminal activity. Also, in order to use a web browser with the most security, you must use your browser with JavaScript disabled (JavaScript is what makes your browser highly interactive with web sites). So when you use your browser without JavaScript, then whatever sites you are able to connect to will seem crippled. You can use TOR for all of your internet activity. Or you can use only the browser (which is probably what 99% of people do). As such, you would have to download TOR browser (a custom Firefox version). I would provide the link, but youtube rejects comments that have links. Search for TOR browser, and it should be the first hit and it should be a site that ends with org. So if you do not want to trust a VPN's service or pay for a VPN's service, and your activity is minimal, then TOR might be a good choice. Safety and convenience are not an easy marriage.
    2
  862. 2
  863. 2
  864. 2
  865. 2
  866. 2
  867. 2
  868. 2
  869. @3:53 "But flash drives, because they are typically so much faster, it's probably okay." There are loads of low-end flash drives. For example, Micro Center gives away free flash drives (they periodically e-mail coupons). Those flash drives are sometimes 8 GB, 16 GB, and 32 GB. No purchase necessary. Bring in the coupon, and they hand you the free flash drive. Well, those flash drives have piss-poor performance. Some of them are below 20 MB/s for write speed. That is far below any mechanical USB drive. I had one that averaged 5 MB/s on writes. Read speed was better (but nothing special), at 50 MB/s. But it is the write speed that counts, when it comes to safely removing the flash drive. And those Micro Center branded flash drives are not alone. Transcend and Verbatim have inexpensive, low-end flash drives that are slow. And I am confident that other brands also have slow, low-end flash drives. There are countless millions of them in the hands of the public. So it is not a one-off, "don't worry about it" scenario. Windows 10 (and probably other versions) has a setting that will not buffer writes. That means that you can pull out the flash drive, when Windows tells you it is done saving your file. The above option is located under "Computer Management". So search for "Computer Management", and right-click it, and choose to start it as an administrator. When Computer Management opens, you will see a branch, on the left-hand side, for "Storage". Under the "Storage" branch, you will see "Disk Management". Click that. From there, you will see, on the bottom half, a list of your disks (a flash drive will be included as a disk). You will see "Disk 0" (your boot drive), followed by "Disk 1", etc. Right-click on the section with the word "Disk 1" (or whichever disk number is your flash drive). That column is different from the section to its right. Next, click click on "Properties" (for that disk). One of the "tabs" you will see is "Policies". Under the Polices tab, you will see a "Removal policy" section. That is where you can choose between "Quick removal" (which on my boxes, is the default), or "Better performance", which is where buffering comes into play, and "Safely Remove Hardware" becomes necessary. Note that "Safely Remove Hardware" is not there strictly for ensuring that all data is done being written to the drive. There is another reason for using "Safely Remove Hardware". You might have opened a file, that resides on your flash drive, and you forgot that you have that window open (perhaps you minimized that window?). If you yank out the flash drive, while you have unsaved changes to your file, then you will have an issue to deal with, the next time you try to use that file. It might be corrupt, or it might simply not contain your edits. Or the application you were using might have created tmp files that it could not clean up, due to you yanking out the flash drive. But if you are certain that you are not accessing anything on that flash drive, then you can yank it out.
    2
  870. 2
  871. 2
  872. 2
  873. A few items that folks might find helpful: 1) Windows (versions 10 and up, I believe) comes with a Quick Assist program, that works much the same as what we saw our host demonstrate in this video. It requires that the person providing the assistance to login to their Microsoft account. The person requesting help will run Quick Assist and give the helper the access code, etc. So both parties will run Quick Assist, but only the person providing the assistance will need to login to their Microsoft account. One other benefit of Quick Assist is that the person seeking help can choose whether to allow the helper to have full control of their computer, or only see the screen of their computer. So if you want help from someone, to have them guide you, and you feel safer by not giving them control of your computer, you can use Quick Assist to grant them viewing access only, or you can grant full control access, whichever you prefer. 2) Google is the largest spyware company in the history of the world. I recommend that none of their products or services be used. There are good alternatives for all (or nearly all) of their offerings. I am guilty of using youtube, which is a google service. 3) When you install a browser extension, it adds an element of uniqueness to your specific browser, and lets google and and other trackers uniquely identify your on-line activity. 4) Remote Desktop is not defined in this video the same as the Remoter Desktop that is bundled with all versions of Windows. Pertaining to the Remote Desktop that comes bundled with Windows: The client side of Remote Desktop is enabled (available) on every Windows installation (that would be the person providing help). The server side of Remote Desktop is enabled only on Pro versions (and higher) of Windows (that would be the person seeking help. So how does the Remote Desktop that is bundled with Windows differ from what was demonstrated in this video? With the Windows bundled Remote Desktop, the client side grabs the screen of the server side, and (this is key) it also locks the server side's computer. So, for example, if you are home, and you want to use the computer at your desk, which is located at your employer's building, you can safely do so, and not worry that someone might walk past your office desk and see what you are doing. They will see a locked screen. So the built-in Remote Desktop that comes bundled with Windows functions differently than the Chrome verity that was demonstrated in this video. If you have a Microsoft account, then I recommend that you not install google's remote desktop browser extension. Just use Microsoft's Quick Assist. It works well. However, Microsoft is also a huge spyware company. But at least you are not tinkering with browser extensions. The more you clutter up your browser, the more trouble you might encounter.
    2
  874. 2
  875. Leo, Microsoft calls the so-called feature "Back Up", because if they labeled that feature by an accurate title, they would have to call it "More fees for Microsoft". OneDrive used to be about the user choosing what to store on-line with Microsoft's OneDrive tool. But some unscrupulous Microsoft executive decided to fleece millions (perhaps billions) of people by designating other folders to be synchronized, resulting in millions of people instantly exceeding their on-line storage quotas, and if even a small percentage of those people pay Microsoft for an increased quota, then Microsoft runs to the bank. How simple, and devious. "Hmm. Where would most people have loads of files -- large files? How about 'Documents' and 'Pictures'? Yeah, that's the ticket." So without user's expressed consent, Microsoft makes copies of your documents and pictures (that you never intended to share with them), and to add insult to injury, Microsoft charges you a fee for their pilfering. And I do not consider "consent" or "expressed consent" when someone does not hire a lawyer to read a War and Peace agreement where, on page 72, Microsoft unilaterally declares and defines "expressed consent". Leo, this is a good example of why Microsoft (and other big tech companies) should not be trusted with your private documents. I am convinced that they run algorithms on your private documents to build a profile on you. Why not? It is simplistic for them to do so. There is money to be made by them knowing more about you than you know about you. Considering that they pull this OneDrive quota scam, then it is consistent to conclude that they scan everything of yours that they copy to their servers. Microsoft makes copies of your private files, without your expressed consent, charges you a fee, and mislabels it all as "Back Up". There is simply no way to trust Microsoft's executives with any private documents. Never use a Microsoft account. And are billions of people, the world over, supposed to understand the maze that Microsoft has set-up? Of course not. 99% of the world is not tuned in to channels such as yours. They have no clue how to avoid the OneDrive pitfalls, and Microsoft knows that and preys on that. Never share private files with Microsoft. Do not use a Microsoft account. And Microsoft makes that next to impossible, when creating a login, for all but tech-savvy users. This video was very informative. How could the general public possibly understand what Microsoft is doing with OneDrive?
    2
  876. 2
  877. 2
  878. 2
  879. 2
  880. 2
  881. 2
  882. 2
  883. If your computer is slowing down, it is likely due to you accepting offers when prompted to do so, and installing things that catch your eye. There are ways to do the above, without slowing down your computer (at least, not slowing it down for long). If you are someone that likes to explore and install numerous applications, and numerous browser add-ons, etc, then do so in a virtual machine. Several very good ones are free, and open source. For day-to-day, routine tasks, I have been using a first generation i7-950 since its debut, approximately 15 years ago. I have never had issues, because I do not take risks. If I want to explore, or see how an application works, or test anything, I run a virtual machine. Doing so sandboxes that activity within the VM. And restoring the VM to the state it was in, prior to monkeying around, takes 1 second. On my i9 computer, I also use virtual machines, because I have more RAM. I can run multiple VMs, and they do not see each other, and they keep my activities segmented / compartmentalized. It is virtually identical to running multiple computers, each one for a specific purpose, and only that specific purpose. And the beauty of doing this with VMs is that you can undo your mistakes or reckless actions in an instant, with a VM. VMs allow you to take snapshots of the VMs state. You can very quickly return to one of those states. Also, if you want to tinker with Linux or any other OS, VMs are your ticket for doing so. You can run just about any OS under the sun. You have something that worked with Windows XP, then run Windows XP as a VM. No need to worry about not getting updates for XP, as when you are done having fun with your XP VM, just clobber it and it will return to the state it was in before you used it. Get a virus, or worse on a VM, just restore the last snapshot, and you are good to go. It takes a second to restore the last snapshot. You can do your banking in one VM, and do your facebook in a different VM, etc. That will help you avoid being tracked, and keep unrelated activities from crossing paths. You can use your Chrome browser in one VM, and Firefox in a different VM, etc. And if you have a visitor, you can give them a VM to do their business. When they are done, you restore it to its last snapshot, or you can leave it as is. Whatever fits your needs. There are many hypervisors (the foundation for running VMs) available. The most user friendly (as far as I know) is Oracle's Virtual Box. It is not as feature rich as the other offerings. But the other offerings might make your head spin, with their endless configuration settings. If you have the head for it, try one of the others. But I believe that Virtual Box will be more than enough for most folks. If you get a new computer, I recommend that you install VM software, and almost nothing else -- and do all of your activities in one or more VMs. That will keep your actual Windows installation running at its full potential and will keep it clean. You should never see a slowdown (short of Microsoft releasing a problematic Windows Update). Keep in mind that each VM that you run will need enough RAM allocated to it (that is a value that you set for each VM). The RAM for each VM will, of course, be taken from your actual physical RAM. So depending on how many VMs you will run, simultaneously, and how much RAM you will allocate to each VM, is something you have to consider in how much physical RAM your physical host machine has. 32GB of RAM should be enough for most folks, to be shared by your VMs (keeping in mind that your actual Windows box will need (let's say) at least 8GB devoted to itself). The above will keep your physical Windows machine perpetually clean, and running at full speed for all time.
    2
  884. 2
  885. 2
  886. @1:28 "...so that they can just slip in line..." That is called "Line Cutting". No one is allowed to reserve public parking spots (which is akin to reserving a spot in a public line for your car). When your car gets there, then that is when you have your spot in the line. Do the affluent get to have others save public spots for themselves? Imagine you are in a full parking lot, waiting for 15 minutes for someone to pull out, and then someone just drives in and takes the spot of a friend that was sitting there, parked. They do not get to exchange spots. When someone pulls out, then the person who was there first, waiting the longest, gets that spot. The person pulling out (the person leaving) does not get to choose who is next. I have seen family members stand in parking spots in Manhattan, "reserving" the spot for their spouse or parent. So you drive up to that available spot (the only available spot), and someone is standing in it, waiting for a vehicle that is not there. So those with someone that can stand in the spot gets to reserve spots? It is absurd. it is selfish. It is illegal. It is not a matter of who gets there first. Rather, it is a matter of who gets their car there first. If I were on the line, waiting to charge my EV, and someone tried to cut the line (such as what Jennifer Granholm did), there is no way that they would get in front of me. By the way, those charging stations are powered by fossil fuels, making Jennifer Granholm's propaganda event all the more absurd. That's right. Fossil fuels are used to generate the electricity that powers those charging stations.
    2
  887. 2
  888. 2
  889. 2
  890. 2
  891. 2
  892. 2
  893. @0:31 -- Count me in on that. Approximately 3 months ago, Windows blue-screened me. It was complaining about a video driver (without specifying any file names). That was bizarre, because I did nothing related to my video driver. All attempts I made to boot my PC failed with the same blue-screen. It never got to the login screen. I thought, perhaps, it might be hardware related, because I had changed nothing. Alas, my last option was to do a restore. Since the blue screen complained about a video driver, I saw no reason to restore my d: or e: drives (one for apps and one for general data / saved files). So I used my emergency boot flash drive, and restored only my c: drive. A few minutes later, I was back in business. Please note that I had only 1 partition, divided into 3 logical drives (let's call that option "A"). Previously, I used to have 3 partitions, each with a single logical drive (let's call that option "B"). For both "A" and "B", I was using a single SSD (a single physical drive). For most general day-to-day use, you can't tell the difference between the above two options. In both cases, you see a C: drive, and a D: drive, and an E: drive. But when you want to reallocate space between the drive letters, that is when the difference becomes apparent. Option "B" was, at times, somewhat problematic, because when I wanted to resize partitions (take free space from one partition, and allocate it to a different partition), Windows had no native tools to accomplish that task (that was a Windows 7 box -- not sure if Windows 10 or Windows 11 has that functionality). Perhaps "diskpart" (native Windows tool) can accomplish that task -- but it is too easy to wreck your computer with "diskpart"). When you have different partitions (on the same physical drive), Windows basically treats those partitions as if they are on different physical drives. So to reallocate space, between the different partitions, I usee a 3rd party partitioning tool (Mini Tool Partition Wizard was my choice) to resize partitions. And to further frustrate the process, a reboot was required. But with a single partition, and 3 logical drives, Windows built-in disk manager can re-allocate space from one logical drive to a different logical drive -- and no reboot is needed. Frankly, I cannot think of a reason to split a physical drive into multiple partitions, when you can split a physical drive into multiple logical drives. Leo, please note that you did not create a new partition. You created a new logical drive within the existing partition.
    2
  894. 2
  895. 2
  896. 2
  897. 2
  898. Three items: 1) @2:51 "You can have terabytes of files on your fat32 disk". The included disk management software that comes with Windows will not format a fat32 partition that is larger than 32 GB. If you have a 64 GB disk, or a 2 TB disk, etc, and want to use FAT32, then you need to use a 3rd party formatting tool. There are many to choose from. A few of them are free, and are easy to use. Once your 2 TB disk is formatted for FAT32, via a 3rd party tool, then virtually any Windows system (or any device that supports FAT32) will have no problems with the disk. I believe the reason for Windows not allowing their included disk management tools to format more than 32 GB as FAT32 is for backwards compatibility with old versions of Windows (like Windows 98, and perhaps 32 bit versions of Windows XP, etc). 2) If you will be using only Windows systems, then it is best to use NTFS, especially if you will be using that drive often. The reason to use NTFS is that it is the only native Windows file system that supports journaling. Journaling will help prevent data corruption, in the event your computer crashes (or loses power) while you were writing to the drive. Well, Windows does have a ReFS option that includes journaling. But it is used mainly for RAID environments, and will refuse to work with a flash drive or any USB drive. I believe it works with Storage Spaces, or something similar, and 3 disks are the minimum for setting it up with ReFS. So for 99.9999% of us, NTFS is the only Windows file system we can use that includes journaling, and for 100% of us, it is the only Windows file system that has jounaling and also will work on any drive. 3) In 2024, most Linux distros will likely support NTFS. Although it runs in the much slower "user space" (rather than in the kernel), and the performance will be much worse than using a native Linux file system. But for general use, where top speed is not necessary, then NTFS should work fine with Linux. There are probably some obscure Linux distros that do not include support for NTFS. But anyone using one of those obscure Linux distros, they will likely know which package to download and install to have their Linux distro work with NTFS.
    2
  899. 2
  900. 2
  901. 2
  902. 2
  903. 2
  904.  @Doriandotslash  Good info. I was not aware of ntfsundelete. I will never use Bitlocker. It is closed source code from Microsoft -- a huge Spyware company. I still use Windows. But I am going to be switching over to Linux on my next PC, and I will use VeraCrypt (and I imagine that files lost in a VeraCrypt volume are gone for good). Any Linux OS is far superior to Windows, for security, privacy, reliability, and performance. But I am new to Linux, and want to choose a good distro. I have narrowed my choices down to MX Linux and Parrot Security. MX Linux seems to be very popular, and will probably be around for the long haul. But Parrot offers an AnonSurf feature (funneling all traffic via TOR), which you can toggle on and off. So I like that. But I am unsure of Parrot's overall functionality. For example, I do not know if it will be good for gaming. It is Debian based, so I am assuming that if Debian is good for gaming, then Parrot should be, too? I'll find out. I am also intrigued with Qubes OS. I would love that OS as a daily driver, as it seems to be the King of compartmentalizing your on-line life. TAILS is also very good, but too restrictive (for your own good) for a daily driver for me. I would go with Qubes, but it is basically a virtual machine generator, and has too many specific hardware requirements and virtualization is not good for gaming. I threw a lot out there, hoping maybe you would offer a recommendation for or against a distro. Finding reputable, knowledgeable folks for help is not easy. There is a blizzard of information out there, and it is hard for a newbie to know what is what. Any advice is appreciated. Cheers!
    2
  905. If you are not getting e-mail messages from (let's say) Bob, then you have probably asked Bob to carefully check that he typed in your e-mail address without any mistakes. Sometimes, people will look at something, and claim that they "carefully" checked it, when they did not. So just because Bob tells you that he made no mistakes, Bob could be mistaken. How can you check this? You should send an e-mail message to Bob. When Bob tells you that he received your e-mail message (have him on the phone), then tell Bob to click "Reply", and send you a message in that manner. This way, you know for a fact that Bob is using your correct e-mail address. If you get that reply from Bob, then Bob was typing in the wrong e-mail address. If you do not get that reply from Bob, then it is one of the issues that our host spoke about. A note of caution about using hotmail (Microsoft) or gmail (Google): Those are both huge spyware companies. So all of your e-mail messages (sending and receiving) are 100% in the clear for them to index, or read, etc. Considering that Google has made oceans of $$ by profiling nearly everyone, it is not far fetched to assume that they are scouring all of your e-mail messages to add that information to your profile. It is all automated. Any e-mail service can do the same thing. However, Microsoft and Google are in a league of their own in their talent for doing so, and they have the resources for doing so. And if they identify people of interest (Governors, Mayors, Movie Stars, Musical recording stars, people in the news, high profile news anchors, Sports Stars, etc), then the executives at Microsoft and Google might not be able to resist reading their e-mail messages. What are the odds that they might be doing that? Ask yourself this question: If you could read the e-mail from Madonna, Hillary, Trump Jr., Hunter Biden, Beyonce Giselle Knowles, Shaquille O'Neal, etc, could you resist? Those executives are human. There is nothing stopping them from reading anyone's e-mail messages that are on their service. Do you think that they resist that temptation? Microsoft and Google offer free e-mail accounts, not because they are altruistic, but because your e-mail content is their product. They use your e-mail messages to profile you.
    2
  906. 2
  907. 2
  908.  @ameliah8164  You wrote: "It's really hard for me to understand your foreigners' thinking. Perhaps because the government is unreliable and deceives history, you always have a lot of conspiracy theories." Madam, your words are those of a con artist. Why? Where did I write anything about "conspiracy theories"? You brought up "conspiracy theories", and you accuse me (who never wrote anything about it) of bringing it up. You tried to associate me with a conspiracy theory that you brought into this dialog. Why not write: "you always have a lot of racists"? Tie that to me, too. Why not? I wrote nothing about it. Why not write: "you always have a lot of drug addicts"? Tie that to me, too. Why not? I wrote nothing about it. You have the audacity to try to pull off that crap; to tie me in with bringing up "conspiracy theories", when that it preciously what you did. You brought it up. You introduced "conspiracy theories" into this discussion. You are the initiator of the "conspiracy theories" topic. Quote anything that I wrote that where I conveyed a conspiracy theory. You will not, because you made it up. You lied. You have a hard time understanding foreigners, because you either 1) read things that are not there -- you imagine sentences that do not exist, or 2) you lied about it being hard to understand foreigners. You do understand. But you make things up (to get attention?). Frankly, you are the one the is writing things that need to be "figured out". You are making things up. Or you are delusional because you think that you are reading things that are not there. Again: Quote anything that I wrote that where I conveyed a conspiracy theory. You will not, because you made it up. You lied.
    2
  909. 2
  910. 2
  911. 2
  912. 2
  913. 2
  914. 2
  915. 2
  916. 2
  917. @06:43 Steering wheels: Honda offers a heated steering wheel. It just does not come equipped with one, in the base package. @07:48 The host put: "Accord: 10 speaker Premium audio" along the bottom of the screen. Note that there is nothing "Premium" about the Accord's stereo. Honda can call the stereo the "Ultimate" or "Spectacular" or "Awesome", etc stereo. It is just a label. The stereo is good, but nothing special. @07:57 I have not heard the Sonata's "Bose Premium" stereo. But I would be embarrassed to ever brag about owning any Bose equipment. They are like the McDonalds of the audio world. @08:16 "...the Sonata has the edge in sound quality" It would have been helpful if the host offered some rational for his conclusion. For all we know, it could be because he likes boomy bass, and maybe that is what the Bose Premium stereo is delivering? Or, maybe the Sonata has boosted highs, and the host likes that. Which car's stereo has better imaging, soundstaging, realism, etc, is what counts (at least to me). On a very good stereo, the speakers "disappear". If you close your eyes, you cannot point to them (not that you get stupid and forget where they are -- but your ears cannot detect their location). But we have no idea how the host concluded that the Sonata's stereo is better. There are so many subjective factors where people will disagree. And he is playing youtube audio (hardly the place to find quality sounding source material to conduct a listening test). Can the Sonata play files stored on a flash drive? The Accord can play .flac and .mp3 files (and maybe other formats) from a flash drive. That can be important to some folks. 15:22 "...we will have to apply value points, of a ½ point per thousand dollars of difference." Folks, ignore what the host calls "value points". You should never pay anything close to MSRP. So it is not clear what each car will actually sell for. And that price will differ from buyer to buyer. Yes, the Sonata will be less overall. But the host is scoring based on MSRP, and that is not what you will be paying. Your purchasing decision should be based on how the car drives, all of its features, reliability, gas mileage, maintenance costs, etc. You can decide whether or not you are prepared to purchase the car, knowing its price (pay near the minimum noted on kellybluebook.com -- and do not yield to anything that the sales personnel tell you, no matter how sincere they appear to be -- it is all an act to separate you from your $$). They pull "it's the law", when adding a separate "prep fee" to the price. So if your offer is $28,000, and the prep fee is $800, then your offer should be 27,200 and let them add their prep fee to that. Yes, it is the law that they must separate the prep fee. But the law does not require them to have that fee. If is pure profit. If you put a high value on the Accord having much better acceleration, then that will factor in a higher value for you, and could justify the Accord's higher price. Or knowing that Honda makes very reliable cars, and have a higher resale value, and owners love them, etc. All of that could justify its higher price. So you give value points based on your needs. If you go by the host's system, then when you hit the lottery, you will never buy a Ferrari.
    2
  918. 2
  919. 2
  920. 2
  921. 2
  922. 2
  923. 2
  924. 2
  925. 2
  926. 2
  927. 2
  928. 2
  929. 2
  930. 2
  931. 2
  932. 2
  933. 2
  934. 2
  935. 2
  936. 2
  937. 2
  938. 2
  939. Such messages will often appear when you visit a sketchy site. You should not visit such sites. But if you feel you must, then do so in a sandboxed environment. Such an environment will contain any bad things from escaping; preventing bad things from reaching any other part of your computer. Windows 10 Pro (or 11 Pro) and above offer a sandbox option. The downside is that you cannot save that environment. In other words, when you close the sandbox, it all goes away as though you never ran it. Another option, which is far safer than visiting sketchy sites directly, is to run a virtual machine, via 3rd party software. Depending on which virtual machine software you are running, and the settings that you chose, you can contain what you are doing within that virtual machine. And virtual machines can be saved (you can take a snapshot of a slice in time, and restore that virtual environment to that slice in time). You can download the free and open source Virtual Box, by Oracle. It is probably the easiest virtualization software to use. But that comes at the price of it not being a secure as other 3rd party virtualization options. It is not the most secure environment. But it is far, far safer than visiting bad web sites directly. It will probably prevent almost any bad programs from escaping into your actual computer. If your browser (within your virtual machine) gets infected, it really does not matter. You just close the session (do not save the session), and restore the virtual environment to what it was previously. Just do not use your infected, virtual browser for anything important (like visiting your on-line banking sites). Want to test a browser plug-in? Do it in your virtual machine. Don't like it? Close the virtual machine and restore it to before installing the plug-in. The virtual machine snapshots / restores are fast. It is not like restoring from a traditional backup program. But the safest approach is to never visit a questionable site, and never download / install / run programs that are risky. But if you must, Windows Sandbox is the safest choice, followed by 3rd party virtualization software.
    2
  940. 2
  941. 2
  942. 2
  943. 2
  944. 2
  945. 2
  946. 2
  947. 2
  948. 2
  949. 2
  950. 2
  951. 2
  952. 2
  953. 2
  954. 2
  955. 2
  956. 2
  957. 2
  958. 2
  959. 2
  960. 2
  961. 2
  962. 2
  963. 2
  964. 2
  965. 2
  966. 2
  967. 2
  968. 1) @6:01 -- Brands: Avoid Western Digital. Here's why: I do Chia crypt-o mining. That requires lots of drives. The more drives you have, the more success you will have. I have scores of WD drives, and scores of Seagate drives (both internal and external). Performance wise, you will never notice any differences. So why did I write to avoid Western Digital?: -- The warranty. Both WD and Seagate offer similar warranties. But a warranty is only as good as the company that honors their warranties. I have had a few WD drives fail, and I have had a few Seagate drives fail (all while under their warranties). Dealing with WD is a nightmare. They do everything under the sun to frustrate and delay the process. Whatever you can dream up, WD does it, and more. My conclusion is that some bean counter at WD thinks that he (or she) is saving the company money, by having customers give up -- thereby saving WD from replacing the failed drive -- and that the customer would go buy another drive. WD will pressure you to pay a $25 (not sure if that is still their price) convenience fee for faster warranty service. So here you have a drive covered under their warranty, and WD intentionally delays shipping of your replacement drive, if you do not pony up some green stuff. WD is able to ship you your replacement drive, without delay. They just refuse to do so, if you do not grease them with $25. Their delays last weeks. Mine took weeks, and on more than one occasion. So how about Seagate?: Seagate does everything right. They go out of their way to service the customer's warranty claim. They go out of their way to minimize the customer's frustration from losing their drive / data. In fact, when one of my Seagate drives failed, Seagate asked me if I wanted them to attempt data recovery (WD does not provide that service). I asked Seagate for the price. Their answer was "It is free". Apparently, unbeknownst to me, my Seagate drive's warranty included free data recovery. Due to my Chia processing, my drive was 99% full. When Seagate recovered the data, they shipped me two physical drives, containing all of the recovered data (they apparently did not have a single drive of sufficient capacity at their Oklahoma recovery site). They also shipped me a replacement for my failed drive (one of equal capacity), from their California warehouse. So Seagate was easy to contact, and a pleasure to deal with. Seagate performed free data recovery, and shipped me a replacement drive as well as two recovery drives, and they told me to keep them all. Clearly, Seagate wants to provide the highest quality customer service. 2) For under $50, you can purchase a new, 1TB drive. For $10 more, you can get double that capacity. That is probably enough backup space for most people. If you can budget it, then purchase two of them, and periodically copy data from one to the other. If you ever have to restore your PC from a backup image, it is comforting to know that you have your data on two other drives. 3) G-Technology is a WD brand. Their drives are very good. But I have purchased my last one. If a warranty need arises, then it will be handled by WD -- and that is a nightmare. Also, unless G-Technology's current line of drives has newer code in their controllers, know that you cannot stop their drives from sleeping. So if you want a fast external hard drive, then whenever you go to access it, you will have to wait for it to spin up. I believe they sleep after 5 or 10 minutes of inactivity. If you will be using your external drive frequently, then that sleeping will be frustrating. During my adventures with WD, I inquired about the sleeping issue. They offer no tools to stop their G-Technology drives from sleeping. Note that Sandisk is also a WD brand. So a warranty claim will become an adventure. 4) Activity lights. Not all external drives have an activity light. That might not matter to some folks. If you are backing up your computer, and you turn off your monitor, then that activity light will allow you to see when the drive is no longer in use. You will not have to wake up your monitor to see what is happening. Also, an activity light might help you diagnose a problem, if your backup stalls, or you have some other type of connection or drive issue. Good luck figuring out if the drive you are considering has an activity light. I doubt that you will find that information on the box, or in an on-line manual, or on the manufacturer's web site. Your best bet is to find someone with a youtube video with that drive, ask in a comment, and cross your fingers that they reply. Sometimes their video might show the drive in use, and depending on the camera angle, you might see if it has an activity light. One of my Seagate external drives has an activity light that glows. When the drive is active, it slowly changes the intensity of the glow. Not exactly easy to spot at a glance.
    2
  969. 2
  970.  @askleonotenboom  "When sending encrypted email to a non-proton account, proton sends a link. The "email" is then a) password protected, and b) displayed only on the proton site. Technically it's not email at all, but it is secure." I did not know about that. Good info. It will keep other parties from seeing the communications. However, any encryption done on protonmail's servers can be read by protonmail's employees (at least those with access to the decryption keys). Does protonmail keep a key? We do not know. And that is a red flag. For most content that people will be sharing, such encryption should be fine. But when your livelihood is on the line, or your freedom is on the line, or any such important matters are on the line, I would not trust protonmail to do the encryption, and trust them to not have a key. I trust protonmail with my privacy and security as much as I trust google with my privacy and security. Viewers should know that protonmail offers an additional layer of security -- but we are trusting them. We know nothing about the personnel at protonmail -- who their engineers are, their political affiliations, their work history, etc. They are complete strangers. People should know that they are trusting their personal information with complete strangers. I give protonmail the benefit of the doubt. But fully trust them, when I do not know them, and I do not know the code they are using? That is asking too much. When privacy and security matter -- really matter -- never trust a 3rd party with your encryption. Encrypt your own messages, on your own computer, with open source encryption software, such as GPG.
    2
  971. @11:57 (stereo) "The overall sound quality is quite good" True, if the only other stock car stereo you ever listened to was a 1976 Monte Carlo. Honda's stereos are not good. Also, they are not bad. They are neither here nor there. Honda's car stereos never let you forget that you are listening to a mechanical device. The stereos make themselves a part of the performance. A quality sound system gets out of the way, and displays a wall of music (a soundstage). A quality sound system makes the speakers disappear (when you close your eyes, you cannot identify the location of the speakers). A quality sound system presents each singer, and each instrument, in their own space (when the recording was done right). A quality sound system does not get fatiguing. You can listen to it for hours at a time, and enjoy it the entire time. Honda's stereo does none of the above (or, at best, has only a sense of the above). By the way, Nissan's Altima and Toyota's Camry are of similar quality. It is like the three companies got together and agreed to skimp on the stereos. Either that, or the people heading up their stereo departments never heard a quality stereo. Note that I am not expecting the sky and the moon from a stock stereo. But these companies once did provide quality stock stereos that did everything right, and had no glaring issues. Rating this car's stereo as "The overall sound quality is quite good" will encourage these car companies to continue down the "who cares" stereo sound quality road. Or perhaps the host of this video has never heard a quality stereo, and he really thinks that the Accord's stereo is quite good? Again, it is not bad. But it is also not good. There is a lot of room for improvement (and not on the volume side, but on the realism of the music side). Cheers!
    2
  972. 2
  973. 2
  974. 2
  975. 2
  976. 2
  977. 2
  978. 2
  979. 2
  980. 2
  981. 2
  982. 2
  983. 2
  984. It has been my experience that distros help out those folks (like me) that lack the experience to customize everything to their liking. With a distro, others (that prepared the distro) have done the leg-work in preparing the look and feel of the distro. And for advanced users, and even expert users, there are still distros that would probably be best for them. For example, the "TAILS" distro. It is unlikely that a single person, no matter how experienced they are, would be able to configure their distro to be as air tight (security wise and anonymity wise) as TAILS. For me, my distro decision will be based on support in the user forums. If the forum is difficult to search for answers, or the members are impatient jerks that get-off on making others feel stupid, or the members nitpick at questions that are not phrased precisely correctly (often the case when you need help is struggling with how to explain yourself to others), then they can keep their distro. I loathe Windows (mainly version 10, for all of the spying), and will be installing Linux on my next computer. But to Windows' credit, answers to most questions are easily obtainable. In my search, by way of Virtual Box, of trying Linux distros, I have often found that most forums have trolls who, rather than trying to help, try to insult. They are the reason that most folks would rather pay for Windows, rather than use a faster, more reliable, and more stable OS, for free. Linux is fantastic. But it lacks the "anyone can use it" ease of use. So when a fantastic Linux OS, which is better than Windows in almost every respect, and it is free, and yet it still cannot compete with a pay-for OS (Windows), it means that the Linux developers and the people in the support forums are failing to provide a turn-key alternative to Windows. There are countless great people that develop and provide support for Linux. But it is not enough to counter the "Bow to me, I am a Linux expert" trolls that lurk in the Linux digital landscape.
    2
  985. 2
  986. 1) Leo, I do not believe that seeing high (but not 100%) RAM usage (via Task Manager) actually means that you have free RAM (well, it depends on how you evaluate it). Windows will use "swap", and that will technically free up actual RAM. But if browser processes are heavily using swap, then you might have a performance issue, even though Task Manager shows some free RAM. I had a first generation i7 system, that had 6GB of RAM. Back in 2006, that seemed like overkill. Then, as browsers were made "better" with each release/update, my i7 system would experience slow-downs. I removed the three 2GB RAM sticks, and put in three 8GB RAM sticks. I never experienced another slow-down, again. Yet, through it all, Task Manager always showed free RAM (even before I added RAM). I concluded that "swap" was the culprit (or insufficient RAM was responsible). 2) You mentioned browser extensions. For the privacy conscious among us, it is best to not add anything to your browser. A vanilla browser will mix in to the crowd, more so than a browser that has unique (or somewhat unique) add-ons. Yes, others also have the same add-ons. But the more a person adds this and adds that, that person starts to become part of a smaller and smaller group that share those same browser qualities. As I understand it, browsers are happy to reveal all of the above to web servers, allowing you to be more easily tracked. Some say to not maximize your browser, as that gives away your screen size (yet another item that adds to your "uniqueness"). I am not suggesting that folks not use add-ons or not maximize their browser window (I keep mine maximized). But they might not know about such tracking, and that might matter to them.
    2
  987. 2
  988. 2
  989. 2
  990. 2
  991. 2
  992. 2
  993. 1
  994. 1
  995. 1
  996. 1
  997. 1
  998. 1
  999. 1
  1000. 1
  1001. 1
  1002. 1
  1003. 1
  1004. 1
  1005. 1
  1006. 1
  1007. 1
  1008. 1
  1009. 1
  1010. 1
  1011. 1
  1012. 1
  1013. 1
  1014. @3:49 "If you're using a fitness application, which is predicting the number of step you walk, you expect it to send that information. But it's a choice users make." Let's unravel that deceptive language. 1) No, I would not expect a fitness application to send my steps. Why should it? The application is on my phone. The application should be able to compute whatever it needs to compute. Why is some server in the company's data center involved. Whatever that server is doing, so could your smart phone's CPU. The difference is that the company's server is doing far more than what is in the smart phone's application. The company's server has a huge database of everyone, and they use that information for who knows what. Your fitness application only needs the server for application updates (new version of the application -- bug fixes, etc). When you create an Excel spreadsheet, you don't need Microsoft's servers to document what is in your spreadsheet. Well, neither do you need the fitness application's servers to do the same. 2) No, it is not a choice users make. Why? If the application presented, in plain language, what it is doing that you do not see, then far, far fewer people would trust that application, and the fitness application's company knows that. So they bury legalize language in a long end user license agreement, that few people read -- and the company is banking on few people reading it, and even fewer understanding it. When only a handful of people, out of every million people, bother to read the agreement, that is by design, by making the agreement cryptic for all but lawyers and a few others. Such applications could include an audio file that has someone explain exactly what they are doing with your data. It would be simple to include. But they do not, because they do not want you to know. 3) If you want to have a phone on-the-go, then you have to purchase a smart phone. That requires you to agree to Apple's terms or Samsung's terms, both of whom track your every move. That is what China did to the people of Taiwan. Do you think that the entire population of Taiwan would have knowingly agreed to that? This is alarming stuff.
    1
  1015. 1
  1016. 1
  1017. 1
  1018. 1
  1019. 1
  1020. 1
  1021. 1
  1022. 1
  1023. 1
  1024. 1
  1025. 1
  1026. 1
  1027. 1
  1028. 1
  1029. 1
  1030. 1
  1031. 1
  1032. 1
  1033. 1
  1034. 1
  1035. 1
  1036. 1
  1037. 1
  1038. 1
  1039. 1
  1040. 1
  1041. 1
  1042. After you download a file, but before you run that file, you can upload it to Virus Total (I am not including the link, because youtube tends to toss comments that contain links). If Virus Total returns numerous detections, then that file is probably nefarious. Do not run it. If Virus Total shows no detections (or perhaps one or two), then that is a good sign (but not conclusive). Follow our hosts advice and have your anti-virus software check, too. Some anti-virus software will report false positives. Since Virus Total uses numerous anti-virus engines, you might occasionally see a positive (meaning a red flag) report on a file you are testing. But if all of the other anti-virus engines report no detections, then the one that did report a detection is probably a false positive. Also note that many (perhaps all?) anti-virus software will check files up to a certain size (that size will vary, from anti-virus vendor to vendor). So some malicious programs will pad their code with tons and tons of blank space. That makes their malicious program's file size huge, and it will result in anti-virus programs not detecting the harmful code within. If you use a hex editor, you can open the suspicious file (in the editor), and when you scroll through it, you will probably see countless pages of zeroes. If the author of the file padded endless pages of zeroes in his code, then that is a major red flag. In general, if you download a set-up.exe file that is 700 MB in size, that is a red flag. If you download a set-up.exe file that is contained in a zip file, the same principle applies. If you extract the .exe file (or have your unzipping program list the contents of the zip file), and the .exe file is huge, then that is a red flag. If you are determined to run the dangerous file, then back up your computer before you run the file. However, if that dangerous file steals your contact list, or passwords, etc, then although you can restore your computer from you backup, you cannot undo the fact that the malicious program already sent your private information to the author of the program. And while your machine was infected, did it reach out to other computers on your network, and infect them? And then those computers will re-infect the computer you restored? Do not take any chances. Do not run such programs.
    1
  1043. 1
  1044. There are some disadvantages to using a Microsoft account to login to you computer. 1) Your data (even more than usual) will automatically be stored on Microsoft's servers. For most people, this does not matter. But it will matter to many people. 2) If you exceed Microsoft's quota (which I believe is 5GB), then you will be nagged to purchase more space. Your 5GB quota is shared by all of Microsoft's platforms. 3) If your Microsoft account is ever compromised, you could find yourself locked out of your own computer. If you go through the reset procedure, you might still run in to a dead end. Depending on what took place with your Microsoft account, they might put your account under review. Will some anonymous Microsoft employee find in your favor? If they do, how long will you be without your login? So if some activity with your account violates Microsoft's Services Agreement, then you have problems. 4) There is a principle involved here. You should not be told by a $trillion company that you must sign in to their servers to use your computer. 5) What if Microsoft has a service outage? 6) You purchase a Pro edition of Windows, and BitLocker will not work, unless you have a Microsoft account. BitLocker will not work with a local account. Major trust factor there. What on Earth does a Microsoft account have to do with you encrypting your data for your privacy and your security? I do not use BitLocker. So I cannot confirm this one. But the "Ask Your Computer Guy" channel posted a video, 4 months ago, reporting this. 7) You can use all of Microsoft's on-line services, without signing on to your computer with a Microsoft account. After signing on, you can login to your Microsoft account to use whatever services you choose. ----- If you need the convenience of sharing data between devices, or you do frequent computer changes / upgrades, and want all of your settings transferred, then login to your computer with a Microsoft account. But if you have no reason to be at the mercy of a Microsoft server, for access to your own computer, then do not use Microsoft account to login to your own computer. Even if you have a good reason to login with a Microsoft account, be sure to create a local account on your computer. At least you will have the comfort of knowing that you will not lose access to your own computer.
    1
  1045. 1
  1046. 1
  1047. 1
  1048. 1
  1049. 1
  1050. 1
  1051. 1
  1052. 1
  1053. 1
  1054. 1
  1055. 1
  1056. 1
  1057. 1
  1058. 1
  1059. 1
  1060.  @roilo8560  I have never encountered that situation. I suspect that there are postings on what happens on Linux operating systems when memory is exhausted (including virtual memory). TAILS does not use virtual memory, but it will probably exhibit the same stability symptoms as a standard Linux Debian OS that is out of RAM and virtual memory. The system will probably become unresponsive in one way or another, until you free up memory -- that is, assuming that the system is stable enough to allow you to end processes that are not necessary. The only time that I used TAILS was on an old Dell core duo laptop (probably in the neighborhood of 10 year old). It was slow (no fault of tails -- the computer was just slow). It has 2 GB of RAM, which is not much. But it ran TAILS with no problems. I did not launch more than its browser, so the 2 GB of RAM was sufficient. If I launched many of its other included apps, then maybe it would have run out of RAM (but I doubt it)? You will not be launching memory hungry programs, because it does not come with such programs -- and you cannot install such programs (well, with effort, you can, and you will defeat the privacy and security of TAILS and have other complications, due to such a non-standard use of the OS). You will not be running memory intensive games, or photoshop, etc. RAM should not be an issue. As of a few years ago, I ran TAILS with 2 GB of RAM on a slow laptop with no issues. Note that I did not open scores of browser windows or scores of browser tabs. I have no idea how much memory each additional browser or tab would consume. I did open several browser windows and tabs -- but did not go browser crazy. Since it is reasonable to assume that anyone running TAILS on a computer that was purchased in the last few years will have at least 4 GB of RAM (and probably more), I doubt that you will run out of RAM. But if you do run out of RAM, then closing programs will be the fix when you experience difficulties with launching new applications. Your question is a fair one. But I doubt that you will encounter an insufficient RAM issue, unless you use ancient hardware.
    1
  1061. ​ @roilo8560  When you install a Linux distribution, you can choose whether or not to include swap space (disk space for virtual memory), and you can change this after the installation. I have seen videos where someone was having an issue with the performance with a specific program, due to it insisting on using swap space. So the user unmounted his swap partition and his program stopped having performance issues. I do not know why, but some programs are written to put some stuff into virtual memory. Perhaps in case of a system crash, they use that space for recovery the next time you launch the program? My point is that swap space is not necessary. It is advisable to use swap space for general computing. But TAILS is not general computing. Years ago, when computers ran on 8 MB of memory, swap space was critical. Today, for general desktop computing, if you have 16+ GB of memory, you will probably not need swap space. If you are a power user, then you might need 32 GB of memory to get away with no swap space. And that amount of memory is common today. For business use, then you might need 500 GB+ of memory. Who knows? It depends on what the service is and the demand, etc. If you launch endless programs and keep your computer running 24/7/365, then swap space becomes more important. There might be some programs that will have problems if there is no swap space. I do not know of any, but I would not be surprised if some exist. Will TAILS simply just automatically shut down programs if it runs out of RAM? I doubt it. As to "...with no regards to data loss if the physical RAM is taken up". When you run out of RAM, something has to give. You will lose something, if there is no way to store it all. Stuff that is already running will probably remain running. But if an already running program decides that it needs a bit more memory, and there is no more memory, then it is unpredictable how that program will deal with not being able to consume more memory. It might become unstable. It might crash. It might freeze. Or it might simply not perform the task that needs the additional memory. Whether or not you will notice that some additional task did not occur is anyone's guess. There are TAILS forums that could give you better answers than I can. I am a jack-of-all-trades pseudo expert. For in-depth analysis of how the TAILS kernel will deal with out-of-memory issues, you should seek out folks that understand the kernel code, or people that understand the code for the programs in question that you will be running. Depending on how each one was written will determine how they will react if no more memory is available. And I am not sure how much testing is done for that issue, and even the results of those tests will vary, depending on what is being asked of the kernel at the time of the memory outage. Lastly: "...or if unoptimized programs are downloaded..." TAILS will try to keep you from downloading and running programs. TAILS goes out of its way to keep you safe from yourself. If you install anything (if you use TAILS with any software that is not included in its distribution), then all bets are off, and you are on your own journey.
    1
  1062. @1:04 "...that the government is really going to create millions of new citizens over night", says our deceptive host. Note that he used the noun "citizens", rather than "voter". Our host does care whether or not illegal immigrants are citizens. Our host cares only about their votes. And before he quotes any laws forbidding non citizens from voting... Illegal immigrants have been voting in our elections for years. Democrat controlled governments do not enforce voting laws that cost them votes. All manner of ballot harvesting goes on with Democrat "mules" that do the ballot harvesting, as well as mail-in ballots to countless homes where "citizens" do not reside (but illegal immigrants do reside). So our host's use of the noun "citizens" instead of "voters" sets the stage for the rest of his BS rant. When you catch a slimy used car salesman using deceptive language, you know that a load of BS is on its way. And so it was in our host's video. He also said "over night". Really? Is that how it works? Or does it take years and years at bringing in more and more illegal voters? Our host knows that this is not an "over night" process. He used those worlds to convey that illegal voting is a ridiculous concept. How can it happen "over night"? It does not happen "over night". But it happens. It takes years, and he knows it. @4:58 "...they best start lobbying for more newcomers" (our host implying that our nation should desire countless more immigrants via open borders). The United States Of America takes in more "legal" immigrants than the rest of the world, combined. Our host's "lobbying" cry is his deceptive attempt at trying to convince viewers that open borders are good. youtube does not have enough storage space for me shine a light on all of our host's misleading statistics. It is so simple to put up charts and make up BS, which is what our host did. Our host is a radical leftist, open boarders fanatic. He is looking us in the face and lying, in his effort to maintain open boarders, to create a permanent voting block for Democrat control of government. @3:28 "Hooray, I'm with you on that" Yet another deceptive social engineering ploy. So our host is with us. Ergo, we can trust him. Con artists routinely bring up a topic where people will agree (in this case, he brought up controlling reckless spending). Of course we are all against reckless spending. So our host must be on our side -- right? He lied. He is a proponent of reckless spending. Such spending benefits the welfare state, and the welfare state votes for Democrats. This guy is one heck of a BS artist. There is not shortage of characters like him in Washington DC swamp. You ever wonder who the actual people are that screw everything up? You just watched one of them.
    1
  1063. 1
  1064. 1
  1065. 1
  1066. 1
  1067. 1
  1068. 1
  1069. 1
  1070. 1
  1071. 1
  1072. 1
  1073. 1
  1074. 1
  1075. 1
  1076. 1
  1077. 1
  1078. 1
  1079. 1
  1080. 1
  1081. 1
  1082. 1
  1083. 1
  1084. 1
  1085. 1
  1086. 1
  1087. 1
  1088. 1
  1089. 1
  1090. 1
  1091. ​ @monza8844  "As an IT guy for over 40 years, I'm telling to slow down with the drama." Quote the drama. "Your basically telling people to use a computer for basic functionality like E-mail, internet, music, movies, and then call it the day." I neither basically wrote that, assertively wrote that, nor generally wrote that. You just made that up. You quoted nothing to support your attempt to support your fabricated claim. "My dear man, you're using i7-950, a 15(!) year old CPU, it has a benchmark score of 3,203 on Passmark, while a modern CPU like mine scores 46,644, that's a 14 times higher score." You are making my case. "Your hard drive runs at about 150 MB/sec with about 75 MB/sec write speed." Quote where I wrote which storage device my computer has. Or since you imply clairvoyance, reply with my hard drive make and model. You will not, because you just made that up, too. "You know what a modern NVME SSD like mine runs at? 7,300 MB/sec read and write speed, that's about 50 times faster." Non sequitur. But you did manage to find a self-serving reason for telling everyone about the speed of your NVMe drive. Nearly all NVMe drives are comprised almost entirely of QLC NAND fabric. Nearly none are comprised of SLC or MLC NAND fabric. You are going by the numbers on the box, and benchmarking tests that never exceed the drive's very limited SLC cache. But just as my i7-950 CPU handles my workload, so does your NVMe drive, due to your light work load. And I know your NVMe writes are light, because you are claiming 7,300 MB/s. That drops off a cliff when you write enough GBs, without rest. "Your system can support no more than 24 GB of RAM, while I'm using 64GB of ram, and can add another 64GB if I wanted to." Who is better than you? "That processor of yours is 15 years old, so you're basically discussing modern day computing in the context of 15 year old hardware, and you shouldn't to that." Yes, I should do that, and did do that, to illustrate that if a 6-year old computer (mentioned in the video) is running slowly, and my 15-year old computer is running at factor new speed, that the 6-year old computer is being bogged down with background processes, likely due to countless software installations, or malware. "Of course your system isn't going to handle modern software very well, isn't that obvious?" It depends on the software. Isn't that obvious? Regardless, that is irrelevant to the viewer's 6-year old computer getting bogged down. "Just having a modern browser open, and running a Steam launcher can eat almost up to 2GB of your memory. Yes, YOUR very old system will struggle with that, but not a modern system." My browsers open within a second. Steam opens within 3 seconds. A 13th generation i7 would do so faster. In my case, that would be throwing money down the drain. I do not need a Ferrari to run errands. I can live with the aforementioned start-up times. "Yes, YOUR very old system will struggle with that, but not a modern system." My very old system struggles zero with the above examples that you pulled out of the sky. "Ask anyone to open Task Manager on Windows 10 and count the number of tasks running the background; the total number of system and user tasks on most systems will be 130-180. I asked my neighbor, my pizza guy, and my Phrenologist. They then asked my why I asked them. I told them that someone told me to ask anyone, and gave me no reason. So I asked them, and gave them no reason. "Modern systems are designed to handle that many tasks." Modern day digital audio transports have less jitter than 15 years ago. I mentioned that, because you seem to want to discuss topics not germane to my opening comment. "You're living the past dear man, and that's fine with me..." I am not. And if I were, you are clearly not fine with it. "I'm not going to tell you upgrade your 15 year old system if you're still pleased with it..." Promise you will not tell my mommy. "...but don't start telling people to use their computer from the year 2023 or 2024 as if it's one from the year 2009." Quote where I wrote that. You will not, because I did not. You made conclusions about my personal life as it pertains to my computer knowledge and what I own. No where did I include my background, because it is irrelevant. Statements of fact have no baring on experience. If I say that 3+3 does not equal 5, I don't need you to tell me that you have a degree in mathematics. Everything that I wrote in my opening comment is true and correct. You also concluded that my i7-950 computer has its original storage, and that it is my only computer. Reply with what you know about any of my computers, other than my i7-950. Start off with whether or not I have any other computers, and if I do, what hardware components do I have? If you reply with more nonsense about things I never wrote about in my initial comment, I will consider that you are trolling for attention (such as you telling the world about your fast hardware, when nobody asked). I will not engage a troll, once I have concluded that they are trolling. So be sure to reply with words that are germane to my opening comment. I recommend that you quote me, to avoid going off on tangents that have nothing to do with what I wrote in my opening comment. In case you still do not understand my opening comment: You can bog down any computer, with enough errand processes. That goes for my 4-core i7-950, a 96-core Ryzen Threadripper Pro 7995WX, or even an IBM z16 with 256 cores of Telum CPUs and 40TB of RAM.
    1
  1092. 1
  1093. 1
  1094. 1
  1095. 1
  1096. 1
  1097. 1
  1098. @1:00 -- Louis, if you spotted him in a restaurant, walked over, and placed a microphone on his table, he would tell you to take it away. You might then say "Why? You are not that important. You have nothing to hide. You let big tech collect everything on you. So why not let me record you, too?" There is no way he would allow that. You could then say "But you already opened that door. You already screwed up, because you have those other social media accounts. So why does it matter, now, that I want to leave my microphone on your table?" There is no way he would allow that. Also, if he became an executive at a big tech company, you can bet the farm that he would be pulling up everything on every notable person -- movie stars, musical artists, people in the news, youtube influences, etc. He will remember the people that pissed him off, and he will pull up everything on them, too. It is people like that host (@1:00), that that say "Let the police search your home. So what." He is a defeatist. He is an excuse maker for big brother surveillance. He is a suck-up to tyrants. He is a propagandist for the worst privacy violators our country has ever known. He either has no concept of our Constitution, or he chooses to piss on it. And yet he whines on and on as if he knows what he is talking about -- as if he knows the score -- as if he knows better. Louis, how dare he poke fun at people wanting to keep their private moments private. Of course people are going to make mistakes, and defeat their own efforts, in trying to remain private. But at least they are trying. They are taking steps in the right direction. Whereas that host is basically saying "The hell with it. Nobody cares." Well, then why are so many big tech companies devoting so much of their resources to capturing every nuance of your existence, if nobody cares? Why are those big tech companies collecting all of that information for people that no one cares about? It is done for advertising, and it is done for having the upper hand over everyone else. Imagine what you could do, if anyone upset you, and you had everything they ever did at your disposal. Imagine you had every personal item about their life at your fingertips. We The People should never allow that. That host, @1:00, is a disgraceful person.
    1
  1099. 1
  1100. 1
  1101. 1
  1102. 1
  1103. 1
  1104. 1
  1105. 1
  1106. 1
  1107. 1
  1108. 1
  1109. 1
  1110. 1
  1111. 1
  1112. 1
  1113. 1
  1114. 1
  1115. 1
  1116. 1
  1117. 1
  1118. 1
  1119. 1
  1120. 1
  1121. 1
  1122. 1
  1123. 1
  1124. 1
  1125. 1
  1126. 1
  1127. 1
  1128. 1
  1129. 1
  1130. 1
  1131. 1
  1132. 1
  1133. 1
  1134. 1
  1135. 1
  1136. 1
  1137. 1
  1138. 1
  1139.  @nomaderic  Again you are obsessed with racing. Nowhere did I ever state, suggest, or recommend racing. Nowhere did I ever state, suggest, or recommend doing anything unsafe. Nowhere did I ever state, suggest, or recommend racing ahead of someone, cutting them off, and pressing the brakes. You made all of that up. Why does your mind keep going down that path? Getting ahead of someone to make a turn can be unsafe (they way you are stuck on envisioning it). And I suspect that you drive slow and people cut you off, which is why you see anyone getting ahead of you as always being unsafe. People get ahead of me all the time. Most do so safely. Some do not. I get ahead of people all of the time, and never cut them off. I get behind people all of the time, too. This is what is referred to as normal, safe driving -- not racing. The next light can be 1/2 mile away. There is nothing unsafe about getting ahead of the person next to you (a slow driver like you), to make an exit. Lots of exists have run-offs (a new lane dedicated for the exit). That is the lane used to slow down for the exit. I suspect that you slow down before getting into the run-off lane and create traffic, and cause others to unexpectedly brake, and risking accidents. Such drivers care zero about the chaos they cause behind them, and mindlessly drive away from the traffic and unsafe conditions that they create. You wrote: "I see people do exactly what you described everyday" You see imaginary conditions that I never described. You see the worst in every condition. You see every person that passes you as a maniac. You see normal, safe driving as speed daemons, because they passed you. I never proposed speeding. I never proposed unsafe driving. I never proposed cutting anyone off. You fabricated all of that in your mind. You took a simple aspect of my review, pertaining to the car's acceleration from a stop, and you went off the deep end. Yes, people race and do unsafe things. But that has zero to do with anything that I wrote, and it has everything to do with your convoluted, paranoid driving state of mind.
    1
  1140. 1
  1141. 1
  1142. 1
  1143. 1
  1144. 1
  1145. 1
  1146. 1
  1147. 1
  1148. 1
  1149. 1
  1150. 1
  1151. 1
  1152. 1
  1153. 1
  1154. 1
  1155. 1
  1156. 1
  1157. 1
  1158. 1
  1159. 1
  1160. 1
  1161. 1
  1162. 1
  1163. 1
  1164. 1
  1165. 1
  1166. 1
  1167. 1
  1168. 1
  1169.  @AT-os6nb  "the only way free speech can work is with full anoynimity, single account per person, no robo comments, etc" No one having accountability? News anchors providing the news, and we do not know who they are? Teachers posting outrageous remarks on facebook, and we do not know who they are? Mayors issuing directives, and we do not know that it came from the mayor? The United States of America is not a nation of cowards, posting comments from under our desks. That is what the "deep state" does. They pass regulations (with the effect of law), with anonymity. The answer is not to cower behind a curtain. Rather, the answer is to fine or criminally charge the people that run social media platforms and disallow free speech on their platforms (limited to those sites that have Section 230 of the Communication And Decency Act protections). Sites without 230 protections are free to do whatever they want. But they are on the hook for anything illegal that appears on their site. But sites with 230 protections are prohibited from being publishers. They are prohibited from be editors. They are prohibited from deleting people's comments (unless the comment is criminal). They are prohibited form banning users (again, unless there is criminality involved). They are prohibited from shadow banning people, etc. Anonymity is optional for the public, and only the public. There should be zero anonymity for public servants, especially those in a position of authority. To be clear, what they do on their own time, for their personal account, is their business. But anything on taxpayer's time, on taxpayer's equipment, of any official capacity, must be 100% identifiable. Free speech works when you can speak your mind, and not be banned, and not be arrested, and not be deleted, and not be threatened by the government. Free speech is absent when the government, for example, tells facebook which postings to take down. Free speech works when there are no "official" consequences to anything you say or write. But you must expect and accept that others will use their free speech to slap you around (in a manner of speaking), and that is their right. Everyone gets to speak, and no one gets jailed or banned (again, as long as the speech is not criminal). As soon as a single word is banned, then speech is no longer free. As soon as the only way to speak, without fear of an "official" reprisal, is to be anonymous, then speech is no longer free. No one gets to silence anyone, for any reason, other than criminal reasons (like murder for hire, etc).
    1
  1170. 1
  1171. 1
  1172. 1
  1173. 1
  1174. 1
  1175. 1
  1176. 1
  1177. 1
  1178. 1
  1179. 1
  1180. 1
  1181. 1
  1182. 1
  1183. 1
  1184. 1
  1185. 1
  1186. 1
  1187. 1
  1188. 1
  1189. 1
  1190. 1
  1191. If anyone wants to try software or visit a web site, etc, and they are concerned about safety or getting hit with malware, etc, there are steps that will allow you to do so without too much risk. 1) Windows 10 Pro and 11 Pro offer a "Sandbox" feature. It will create a Windows environment on your computer where whatever you do in that Sandbox will not be able to escape that Sandbox (well, there are exceptions). If, while in your sandbox, you send e-mail to someone, that e-mail will get sent. But if you run malware.exe within that sandbox, then although your sandbox will get infected (so to speak), nothing else will. As soon as you close your sandbox, it will be as if it never existed. The next time you open your sandbox, it will be clean, as if it is the first time you are using it. Keep in mind that if you ran some virus within your sandbox, you might not notice that it tried to do harm (because the sandbox contained it). That same virus, if run without the sandbox, will ruin your day. Also, the Windows Sandbox environment has no "save' option. So if you downloaded and installed anything into the sandbox, and then you closed the sandbox, it all vanishes. 2) Run a virtual machine. With a virtual machine, you can far more safely take risks, because it is unlikely that anything you do on your virtual machine will be able to affect your actual Windows machine. If a whole bunch of spyware gets into your virtual machine, it will not escape your virtual machine (well, it can, if you set up your virtual machine to allow access to your physical Windows machine -- so don't do that). And with a virtual machine, you can save your environment, even take a snapshot of a running virtual machine. If you royally screw up your virtual machine, then you can restore its previous state, and that takes 2 seconds. And you can create unlimited virtual machines, and run only 1 of them, or several of them simultaneously. It all depends on whether or not your physical Windows box has enough CPU cores, and enough RAM, and enough disk space. But just about any i3 or better computer, with 16 GB of RAM, can run a virtual machine. The above two options are not 100% safe. But they are far safer than screwing around on your actual Windows environment. And if something goes wrong, it will likely be that you did something wrong. So be careful. If in doubt, do not take risks. 3) If you really want to be safe, then buy a renewed mini PC from Amazon. Some decent ones cost under $100. Use that box like the rebel that you are, and if it really gets screwed up, then who cares? Just restore Windows. But keep that box from networking with your other devices. Leo, please consider making a Sandbox video.
    1
  1192. 1
  1193. 1
  1194. 1
  1195. 1
  1196. Leo, I use keepass. It allows for saving content, other than passwords (and I imagine that other password managers also allow the same). For example, I save software registration codes, so that if I set up a new PC, I can install my purchased software. I save legal documents in keepass. I save family SS numbers, and other such personal information. I save passwords from sites that I used throw-away e-mail addresses to create (so no recovery method is available), and they do not have any of my contact information (never gave it to them). I might be able to find some information in an old e-mail message. But you cannot rely on e-mail archiving. I was using an e-mail service for 20+ years, and they went belly-up. Not everything is recoverable. At least not without a headache. Getting a registration code resent to you could be next to impossible, assuming the company still exists, and has a mechanism for answering such a request. And if that mechanism involves using an e-mail address that you no longer have, well, then back to square one. I guess I could save registration codes in the clear. But if my PC should ever get compromised, I do not want to have an issue of being accused of sharing my registration codes, or them being invalidated. Perhaps I should export my vault's contents, as you suggested, and give the file a deceptive name, such as "zip.exe", and stick it in my Windows directory (and optionally renaming it if/when I might need to use it). Hiding in plain sight can be effective.
    1
  1197. 1
  1198. 1
  1199. Several years ago, when HP launched their Instant Ink program, I just happened to need a printer. I print less than 3 pages per month. But I still needed a printer. I also needed a fax machine and scanner, which this multi-function inkjet has (most have a built-in fax and scanner). At that time, HP offered a "Free" plan, where you could print 10 (or was it 15?) pages per month, for free. After that, each set of 10 (or 15?) pages would be charged to your credit card at $1 for each set. Some time later, some HP bean counter convinced the executives to end the "Free" tier. HP caught hell for that, since countless people purchased their printers preciously based on HP offering their "Free" Instant Ink plan. So although HP no longer offers a "Free" plan, they have grandfathered in everyone that was already signed up for their "Free" plan. And if I ever change my plan, they will not allow me to return to the "Free" plan. It has been many years, and I have never exceeded my "Free" plan's monthly page limit. So although I despise HP's disreputable tactics, I feel good that I have the upper hand with my plan (not that HP cares). And since I sometimes do not print for weeks, then when my printer starts up, it has to clean its printer heads from dried up ink. That wastes a fair amount of ink. But it matters not, to me, because my ink is free. In fact, I print so infrequently, that HP has sent me replacement ink cartridges, while I still have plenty of ink remaining. The are obligated to replace aging ink, at some point. So I never have to concern myself with running out of ink or ink expiring or ink cartridges drying up or the rip-off prices of purchasing new ink cartridges. I hope that my crappy inkjet never dies. The automatic document feeder died after a couple of years (passed the warranty). But at least it keeps on printing -- for free! But when my printer dies, I will not consider HP for a replacement. Not a chance (unless they offer a "Free" plan -- which is very unlikely).
    1
  1200. 1
  1201. 1
  1202. 1
  1203. 1
  1204. 1
  1205. 1
  1206. 1
  1207. 1
  1208. 1
  1209. 1
  1210. 1
  1211. 1
  1212. 1
  1213. 1
  1214. 1
  1215. 1
  1216. 1
  1217. All storage mediums (with the exception of punch cards), no matter how much care is taken, are subject to data fade. The magnetism that denotes zeros and ones will, over some long period of time, become unreliable for a portion of the stored data. This will probably take 10+ years to be an issue, or even longer. The drive can still be 100% functional, and still have a few zeros or ones get lost. This is easily remedied. Every few years, copy your storage drive to another storage drive. Then format or erase or delete the data from the original drive, and copy it back, again. New magnetic adhesion will now be with the data on the originating drive (the old data is now newly written, starting the data fade clock from day 1). And if you have used less than half of your storage drive, you can simply create a new directory (or partition), copy everything there, and then back to its original location. But make sure that the data actually gets copied back to its original location (and the the computer does not ignore copying files because the files still exist -- the files must be written, anew, to the original location). And keep a minimum of two drives that have the same data. Ideally, three drives works well, because you can keep your working drive and a duplicate drive in your home, and you can keep the third drive at a friend or family member who live elsewhere. This protects you from loss due to fire or a burglary. -- You pay zero to google or anyone else to store your data. -- You need not trust google, microsoft, etc, with your data. -- You are never at the mercy of your internet connection, in the event that you need your backup data. -- Your up-front cost is minimal. -- You remain in control of your data. By the way, stop using Windows (especially version 10). It tracks every keystroke, every mouse click, and every file access. Use one of the scores of free, open-source Linux operating systems. They contain no spyware or tracking or privacy issues. Unsure which Linux distribution to use and want it to be user friendly? Then install Linux Mint. https://distrowatch.com/ will have links to "mirrors" from where you can download just about any Linux distribution on the planet. Linux: Almost without exception: Free, open-source, reliable, bug free, virus free, less vulnerable to attacks, and faster than Windows. Cheers!
    1
  1218. 1
  1219. 1
  1220. 1
  1221. 1
  1222. 1
  1223. 1
  1224. Two additional BS terms, coined by radical leftists: 1) Sanctuary cities. Sanctuaries are for innocent people seeking refuge from political tyrants; not for law breaking border crossers. Those people are criminals. As such, they are fugitives from justice. Ergo, cities that protect criminals -- cities that protect fugitives are "Fugitive cities". Never call them sanctuary cities. The "sanctuary" adjective implies goodness. So radical leftists turned that adjective on its head to make organized, government run, criminal crossings, sound benevolent, by calling cities that protect the criminals "sanctuaries". When you give aid and comfort to criminals, then you are co-conspirators. Always call those cities "fugitive cities". 2) Critical race theory: There is nothing critical about a fabricated, race baiting, divisive, hateful, get rich scheme. Just as CNN and NBC are fake news channels, so it is with "Fake critical race theory". FCRT is critical only to those that profit from its BS agenda, and critical only to those that spread its propaganda. What's next?: Critical gender theory? Critical child sex theory? Critical defund the police theory? Always refer to it as "fake critical race theory" (FCRT), the same as referring to some channels as "Fake News". Whenever you hear an expression by the radical left, and it makes your brain hurt, then take a moment to dissect their expression, and you will find a gross misuse of the meaning of words. Or to put it another way, an attempt to re-define language. Never let them get away with it. Never use their language. Always correct their language. If you use their language, then you give credence to their language.
    1
  1225. 1
  1226. 1
  1227. 1
  1228. 1
  1229. 1
  1230. 1
  1231. 1
  1232. 1) When AI uses closed source code, that should be disclosed. A warning that the AI is programmed by people that might have an agenda, and the output from the AI might reflect such an agenda. Ergo, the output from the AI should not be trusted, implicitly. The output from an AI will likely contain the biases of the people that programmed the AI. 2) If an AI is used to impersonate a public official ("deep fake"), or a person running for public office, a public service warning must be included with that impersonation, unless the impersonation is clearly obvious and intended for satire. 3) If an AI is used to impersonate a public official, for the purpose of issuing a public announcement that is deemed to be from that actual public official, then any harm that is a result of that impersonation will be a violation of the law. This would be the same as someone wearing make-up, or a mask, and portraying themselves in an official capacity. For example, it is illegal to impersonate a police officer. So if you use an AI to create a deep fake of the Police Commissioner making a public announcement, that would be illegal -- assuming it was not clearly for satire. 4) If you use an AI to impersonate the CEO of a company (or any executive of a company), then any harm that falls upon the company, as a result of the AI's impersonation, will hold the creator liable. For example, we can't have a deep fake of a CEO of a food distribution plant making an announcement that baby formula is contaminated with botulism. Anyone creating such a deep fake would be in violation of the law, as well as financial losses of the company, and financial losses of the public for discarding safe food, and chaos that would overwhelm hospitals, etc. The above goes for impersonating a doctor, a lawyer, or any person that the AI can impersonate and bring harm to the public. We must not have an AI of the President announcing that missiles were launched, or that biological agents were released in major cities, or that banks are defaulting, etc. We also must not have AIs spreading fake news, unless the criteria for #1, above, is established. We should strive for all AIs to make their source code available to the public, and to distrust any AIs whose developers refuse to have their source code examined by the public.
    1
  1233. 1
  1234. 1
  1235. 1
  1236. 1
  1237. 1
  1238. If your computer has enough RAM, then I suggest you run a virtual machine (VM). Oracle offers a free and open source version named Virtual Box. There are other companies that offer virtual machines. But Virtual Box is noted to be the easiest one to use. On your VM, you can visit any site you want, and accept any cookies. When you are done, you can have your VM reset to before you did your browsing. Your VM will be returned to exactly how it was before you just used it. And Virtual Box makes it simple to revert back to its previous status. You can take a snapshot of any given moment and restore that snapshot. You can even take a snapshot of your VM while it is running. Later, when you start up your VM, it will be in its still-running state, exactly how you left it when you took your snapshot. The hardest part is setting up the VM. It is not that difficult. But it is the most involved part of the process. You will have to have a Windows 10 (or XP, or 7, or 8, or 11 -- your choice) ISO file of Windows. You can download, for free, a Windows 10 and / or a Windows 11 ISO from Microsoft. So no problem there. But you have to have the ISO file to feed into Virtual Box. It is a one-time process. Once you have your VM ready, you should take a snapshot (a simple menu item choice). Now you can return to that snapshot whenever you want. No matter how royally you might screw up your VM with malware, etc, you simply tell Virtual Box to restore your saved image (snapshot). That takes less than 2 seconds, and you are good to go. Download Virtual Box from Oracle's web site. Nowhere else. The same goes for any other company's VM offerings. Download the ISO file from Microsoft. Nowhere else. You will need a minimum of 4GB of free RAM to run a VM. I suggest devoting at least 8 GB of free RAM to your VM. If your computer has only 8GB of RAM, then you will need more RAM.
    1
  1239. 1
  1240. 1
  1241. 1
  1242. 1
  1243. 1
  1244. 1
  1245. 1
  1246. 1
  1247. 1
  1248. 1
  1249. 1
  1250. 1
  1251. 1
  1252. 1
  1253. ​ @dfs-comedy  Thanks for the info. Is Kdenlive what our host used for this posting? By the way, if there is something that I want blocked-out, there is no way I would use youtube's editor. Because I would have to hand over my "unblocked" video to them, to allow them to then block the parts that I need blocked. And I do not trust anything related to google, the biggest spyware entity the world has ever known. I would not upload my video, until I "locally" did my edits, keeping private information from ever touching a google service. google, and therefore youtube, has the resources to easily keep copies of original, unedited content. Not that anyone at google/youtube is looking at my uploads. But should some unknown person become a person of notoriety, a person of interest, a celebrity, a political person gaining notoriety, then that is when google/youtube will be able to easily pour through that person's full, unedited, history of uploads. I will lay any odds that executives at google/youtube have a blast, looking at what movie stars and governors (and their staff) upload, before edits. How could anyone resist having those unfiltered versions of famous people's videos, and not look? Just a note of caution to folks that care about their privacy, before they inadvertently use youtube to edit sensitive sections up their uploads. For routine edits, where privacy and security are a non-issue, then youtube's editor is a convenient choice. Otherwise, stick to editing, locally, on your own computer.
    1
  1254. 1
  1255. 1
  1256. 1
  1257. 1
  1258. Our host is connecting dots that are not there. It makes zero difference whether or not a customer knows that Walmart checks your receipts. What if Walmart had a policy that states that they can pat you down and do a cavity search? Well, you know about it, before entering the store. Right? And that countless people cooperate, and show their receipts, makes no difference. Those same people could have themselves patted down and have cavity searches. So that means that you, too, have to comply? Yes, if a store has reasonable grounds to detain you for stealing, then that is lawful. And in the case of the person spoken about in this video, the store did have reasonable grounds, because that customer set them up. But if you walk up to a shelf, take a box of cereal, pay for it, and walk out the door, then Walmart's personnel may not detain you. And then there is this language game of whether or not Walmart's personnel can ask to see your receipt. Well of course they can ask you. They can ask you to go bowling. And you can decline their request. Even the person that set up Walmart for the law suits proved that. He did not get charged with a crime, because he committed no crime. He was under zero obligation to show anyone a receipt. The law worked exactly as it should: -- A customer makes a purchase. -- That same customer pretended to steal. -- Walmart personnel asked him for a receipt. -- That customer declined their request. -- Walmart's personnel detained that customer (yes, he was detained, because he did not show them his receipt -- but he was detained). -- The police showed up, and the customer proved that he did not steal anything, by way of his receipt. -- Everyone went about their day. The court threw out the customer's law suit, because the customer tried to get detained. If you do absolutely nothing wrong, and a Walmart employee asks to see your receipt, you do not have to show them your receipt. In fact, you do not have to take a receipt when you make your purchase. If Walmart's personnel detain you (without reasonable grounds), then your law suit would very likely have different results. Lastly, you (the customer) have zero obligation to participate in the store's loss prevention. So saying that you have to show your receipt, to help the store, is absurd. If Walmart truly wanted to minimize losses, then they would end self checkout. When Walmart chose to add the risk of losses, by having self checkout, then they are on the hook for their own security decisions. You have nothing to do with it. You make your purchase, and you walk out the door. If you are stopped, you are under no obligation, whatsoever, to help Walmart with their policies. You do not work for Walmart.
    1
  1259. 1
  1260. 1
  1261. @8:23 "(stereo) sound quality is pretty good for the class" No, it is not. Honda dropped the ball or chose to save $$ by including a BS stereo system. I own a 2003 Nissan Sentra and a 2020 Accord Sport 2.0. The stock stereo in the old Sentra is much better than what comes with any of the Accords. This is subjective. If you go strictly by volume, then the Accord's stereo gets louder (not by much). But you get louder junk. Like having a choice between a 50" super sharp TV and a 103" blurry TV. Give me the sharp one. Consider having a choice between a normal sized portion of a meal prepared by a top chef, vs a huge meal prepared by McDonalds. The McDonalds meal is larger (gets louder, so to speak). But give me the meal prepared by the top chef, and I will forego the extra sub-par servings from McDonalds. The old Sentra's stereo is not quite "top chef" caliber. But it is closer to "top chef" and the Accord's stereo is closer to "McDonalds". What makes the old Sentra's stereo so enjoyable, so engaging, so non-fatiguing, is that it gets out of the way of the music. It presents a wall of music, and separation of singers and separation of instruments. You forget that you are listening to a mechanical device, and, instead, you are treated to a musical presentation. One way to identify a quality stereo system is to close your eyes and have your ears identify the location of the speakers. In the old Sentra, you can't do that. The speakers disappear, because they throw a soundstage. In the Accord, you never forget that you are listening to a car stereo. The speakers do not "disappear". In the old Sentra, I have gone on long drives, and have played music for 2+ hours, and enjoyed every minute of it. I never get the urge to turn it off. Not so in the Accord. In the Accord, after several minutes, the music becomes distracting and borderline annoying. I find myself constantly skipping to different songs (because too many songs just do not sound right). By the way, when I was shopping for the 2020 Accord, I was considering the Nissan Altima (did not relize that Renault now makes them unreliably) and also considering the Toyota Camry. Both the Altima and the Camry's stereos sound similar to the Accord's stereo. None of them are very good. They are so-so. And you cannot upgrade the stereo via Honda. They offer no premium stereo (even if they call theirs premium, it is not -- it is just a less bad stereo with then labeling it as premium). And you cannot upgrade the stereo after-market, without voiding the entire car's warranty. The reason the warranty will be voided is because the stereo is wired in to the touch screen display, and the touch screen display is wired in to stuff all over the car -- stuff that is unrelated to the stereo. So Honda's position is that if you tinker with the touch screen, you essentially tinkered with the proper functioning of the vehicle, and kiss your warranty goodbye. You can probably upgrade (after market) the Pioneer speakers that come with the Accord (they are not good speaker -- nothing Pioneer makes is very good), and maintain your warranty. But you cannot upgrade the Panasonic head unit that is entangled into the touch screen display -- and Panasonic is not terribly good, either. Cheers!
    1
  1262. 1
  1263. 1
  1264. 1
  1265. 1
  1266. 1
  1267. 1
  1268. 1
  1269. 1
  1270. 1
  1271. 1
  1272. 1
  1273. 1
  1274. 1
  1275. 1
  1276. 1
  1277. 1
  1278. 1
  1279. 1
  1280. 1
  1281. 1
  1282. 1
  1283. 1
  1284. 1
  1285. 1
  1286. @1:23 "It's rare for a vulnerability to be discovered by the good guys, before it's discovered by the bad guy." I wonder about that. When the good guys discover a vulnerability, they patch it. Are we going to hear about that? Especially if a vulnerability was discovered by, and patched by, Microsoft. Unless we look up the details of a KB reference in a Windows Update, we will not know that the good guys discovered a vulnerability. With 3rd party software, many frequently release updates. How many of us pay attention to vulnerability patches? We tend to notice mostly feature updates. For example: Mozilla's Firefox constantly releases updates. I have never kept track of how many of them fix a vulnerability, and how Mozilla came to learn of the vulnerability. When we do notice an update / patch for a vulnerability, how do we know how that vulnerability was discovered? Was it discovered by good guys or bad guys? Sometimes we will know. But often we will not know, unless we make a concerted effort to take a deep dive into the update. Do you (anyone reading this) know anyone that does that? It would be interesting to hear from a key Microsoft developer (or a project manager for updates), and find out what percentage of vulnerabilities are discovered in-house vs. in the wild. It could be that 99% of vulnerabilities are discovered, and fixed, by the good guys. And since nobody is perfect, eventually a bad guy discovers one that the good guys missed. That one gets the attention of the computer enthusiasts / professionals. Or, perhaps 99% of vulnerabilities are discovered by the bad guys? Or is it 50/50? How can we know?
    1
  1287. 1
  1288. 1
  1289. The black woman was not delusional. She is simply evil. She is also a racist, for accusing the officer of being a racist. Please do not inadvertently defend or excuse the acts of evil people, by stating that those evil people do not understand, or that they are stupid, etc. That black woman knows exactly what happened. That black woman knows exactly what she did. That black woman knows that she caused that accident. (I would love to see "Ring" footage from a home at that intersection, showing her rolling right through that stop sign) Everything she is doing is an act. Everything she is doing is an attempt to use race to talk her way out of being culpable for her crime (traffic laws are part of the criminal procedural code). Also note that she is talking over the police officer, and trying to stop him from giving her information, so that when she goes to court, she wants to say that the officer never said (fill in the blank), or that she did not hear the officer say (fill in the blank), and the officer's body cam footage will bare that out. That is why, no matter how many times she interrupts the officer, he waits until she stops talking, and he says what he has to say, so that it is part of his body cam's record. If she did not sign that she received the ticket, then she would have been brought to jail, in order to get it on the record. Since traffic violations are criminal offenses, you can be cuffed and taken to jail for any traffic violation. The arresting officers using his/her discretion, and almost without exception, releases the law breaker at the scene. But if you become too combative, the office can take you to jail. So if you refuse to sign that you received the ticket, you will go to jail.
    1
  1290. 1
  1291. 1
  1292. 1
  1293. 1
  1294. 1
  1295. 1
  1296. 1
  1297. 1
  1298. 1
  1299. 1
  1300. You need the Pro version of Windows, to create a BitLocker volume. But any version of Windows will be able to read a BitLocker volume. Ergo, your Home version will be able to access a BitLocker volume, that was created by a Pro version of Windows. I discovered this when one of my Seagate drives failed, during its warranty period. Part of the warranty included free data recover. Seagate puts your recovered data on yet another drive. They asked me if I wanted encryption. I told them "No.", because the data was useless to anyone else. But, when I got my recovered data back from them (on a physical drive), it was BitLocker protected (Argh!). And Seagate did not give me the password. I was able to call them, and they answered right away, and gave me the password. I was able to use that password to see the recovered data on my Windows Home computer. Seagate's warranty process was very good, and I got a free drive, too. They replaced my failed drive, and sent my recovered data on another drive. Note that if they recover only 1TB of data, then they will send you it on a 1TB drive. So if your 5TB drive looks like it is going to fail, then fill it up (with anything) before it fails. The more data that Seagate recovers, the larger the drive will be that they ship you with the recovered data. Check your warranty to verify if free data recovery is included. Note that Western Digital's recovery service is the opposite of Seagate's recovery service. WD makes it a chore to have your failed drive replaced. They are difficult to contact, and they try to add fees to have them replace your failed drive, have no free data recover, and takes months for them to ship you your replacement drive -- and that is assuming that you call them once per week to make sure that they do not ignore your ticket.
    1
  1301. 1
  1302. 1
  1303. Adams is complaining about busses arriving at any hour, without warning. That is like complaining that the police have to respond to a crime, at any hour, without warning. That is like complaining that the fire department has to respond to a fire, at any hour, without warning. That is like complaining that ambulances have to respond to medial emergencies, at any hour, without warning. That is like complaining that the transit department has to respond to commuters, at any hour, without warning. Etc. Adams knows that thousands of illegal immigrants are arriving every day, 24 hours a day. So what would be different if he was given advanced notice that they would be arriving? He already knows that they are arriving, every day, 24 hours a day. Adams wants the notice, as an excuse for him to complain, and to try and shift responsibility elsewhere. Mr. Mayor: You know the flow of illegal immigrants into NYC. You are in charge. You are responsible for handling the crisis that you and your radical leftist Democrat party created. If Adams were to officially tell President* Biden to build the wall... If Adams were to officially tell President* Biden to secure the border... If Adams were to officially tell President* Biden to enforce immigration laws... If Adams were to officially tell President* Biden to send agents to deport 100% of illegal immigrants... ...then Adams would not have this problem. But Adams, being the radical leftist that he is, would rather go down with his sinking ship, than change is stance on illegal immigration. Adams can save his sinking ship, but refuses to do so.
    1
  1304. 1
  1305. 1
  1306. 1
  1307. 1
  1308. 1
  1309. 1
  1310. 1
  1311. 1
  1312. 1
  1313. @0:22 1) "ADVANCED" DRUNK AND IMPAIRED DRIVING PREVENTION TECHNOLOGY? Is there a system that is not "ADVANCED"? You see, the authors of the bill use language that makes it sound safe and reliable -- because it is "ADVANCED", all in UPPER CASE. It is "ADVANCED", so it must be good. Right? The first ever deployment of the system, and on the very first day, it is already up to the ADVANCED model. 2) "passively" monitor the performance of a driver... How is "passively" monitoring the performance of a driver accomplished? And the bill does not state how "passive" monitoring is accomplished. How would the same exact monitoring system differ if it were "actively" monitoring the performance of a driver? Folks, it is "active" monitoring. But that would get the public to balk at the bill. So they call it "passive", when it will be doing "active" monitoring. If it was truly passive, then it would not be able to detect whether or not you are impaired, and shut you down. Shutting you down is as active as active can be -- and yet they word the bill's language with "passively". 3) "...identify whether that driver may be impaired" "may"? So it is guess work. I "may" win the lottery tomorrow. I "may" get hit by a meteor while driving. I "may" find a cure for cancer. All of the language in that bill is written to give the elite access to control your car, so that they can control you. When your passenger has a medical emergency, get ready for them to die, because your car will shut down on the way to the hospital.
    1
  1314. 1
  1315. 1
  1316. 1
  1317. 1
  1318. 1
  1319. 1
  1320. 1
  1321. 1
  1322. 1
  1323. 1
  1324. 1
  1325. 1
  1326. 1
  1327. 1
  1328. 1
  1329. 1
  1330. 1
  1331. 1
  1332. Does Microsoft get a fee for apps they deem to be "verified"? It makes me wonder how much business EaseUS and countless other software companies (or even individuals) lose, when the general public does not put in the effort to get passed that warning message? Is Microsoft using that warning message because they are truly concerned about our well being? Or is it a "Screw those who will not pay for a verified account", disguised as a "We care about you" message. Although Microsoft has an ocean of resources, they are still in business for power and profit. For them to verify countless 3rd party applications, has got to be a huge labor cost. And nearly all of those countless 3rd party applications will release version updates that need to be verified. That is a daunting task, even for Microsoft, considering that 3rd party vendors will not want their releases to be delayed, waiting for Microsoft's verification blessing. How is Microsoft absorbing that huge cost? And since most 3rd party apps are closed source code, how is Microsoft verifying those apps as being safe? Microsoft has gotten into the "You don't own your apps" game (such as Office now being rented by just about everyone that wants the app), and Microsoft all but forces you to rent your login (in a manner of speaking). Try setting up a new PC, without a Microsoft account (you need Microsoft's permission, via a Microsoft account) to use your new computer that you (supposedly) own. Do you really own your Windows computer, with the Windows license that you also own (bundled into the purchase of your new computer), if you are not permitted to use your Windows computer, with your purchased Windows license, without getting permission from Microsoft (via a Microsoft account login which you are forced to use in order to use your computer)? There is a way to bypass the forced Microsoft account login. But the public-at-large will not do so (or even know that there is a work-around, or have the tech skills to do the work-around, or not be too timid to do the work-around). My point being that Microsoft is on a mission to funnel everything that you want to do through them. The more they control, the more they profit. So how are they profiting from forcing people to using only Microsoft verified apps? Just like the forced Microsoft login, people in general will not know what our host showed us, and will just not bother to install the software from a vendor that Microsoft has not verified. Is Microsoft telling software vendors "Pay me, or take a hike"? Does anyone here have their app verified by Microsoft? How long did that take? What was the fee? Is it a one time fee? Microsoft would not appear to me as being a shake-down company, if they gave the option to "Install Anyway" or the option to change the settings, right there in their warning message. Microsoft does not even give a hint, in that warning message, that there is another option (the one our host showed us). This is no accident. Microsoft does not want the public to know.
    1
  1333. 1
  1334. 1
  1335. 1
  1336. 1
  1337. 1
  1338. 1
  1339. 1
  1340. 1
  1341. 1
  1342. 1
  1343. I once left a detailed review on a product where the seller is flat-out false advertising, and cheating the customers on the quantity shipped. In my review, I explained how this could not be an oversight by the seller, because I contacted the seller, explained to the seller how their listing is clearly wrong, and the seller refused to ship me the quantity that they shorted me. So all of that went into my review. Well, Amazon refused to post my review, with a "Does not meet standards" reason. Whoever deemed my review to not meet Amazon's standards neither identified themselves by name, employee number, or anything whatsoever. Also, the Amazon employee did not quote anything that I wrote that was in error or violated any Amazon policy. So I called Amazon. Waste of time. They could not give me any reason. They could not even bring up what I submitted in my review. I wanted them to bring it up, in order to point out what violated their review criteria. So I submitted my review, again, and it got rejected, again. I called Amazon, again. Rinse and repeat. I asked Amazon for a way for me to send them my review, for them to look it over and tell me which sentence (or sentences) are at issue. They told me they have no way to receive a message from me. So Amazon repeatedly reject my review. No one from customer support has a clue as to why. No one from customer support could pull up what I submitted. And yet, when I submit the review, someone is seeing it and rejecting it. The only thing Amazon did right was to refund my purchase, for the false advertising. The person I spoke to looked at the listing and agreed that the seller was cheating the customers. Amazon never took the listing down. I contacted Amazon two weeks later, to let them know that the false advertising listing was still up, and customers were still being cheated. They, again, told me that they would take the listing down. Another two weeks passed, and I contact Amazon, again, to tell them that they never took down the listing. That was it. Amazon convinced me that they do not care. All Amazon cared about was collecting their fee from that seller. When I say that Amazon does not care, I am referring to Jeff Bezos. It is his company, and the responsibility for knowingly allowing false advertising to remain listed falls on his shoulders. Bezos could easily fix this. But it will delay his expedition to becoming a $trillionaire.
    1
  1344. 1) If you put 1,000 miles on your odometer in a month, that does not mean that you used the roads where you live. You could be using the roads in a neighboring state. So, California's tyrannical government will mandate that tracking devices be installed on every car, so that the government will know exactly where your car was driven. And what about towing? So they track your car going from here to there. But your car was not being driven. The tow truck was being driven. What if you ship your car by train? All of the above will inspire the tyrants in California's government to pry more and more. Those tyrants will tie you up in a knot. 2) So you purchased a car, that California's government approved for California's roads. Then, some years later, California's tyrants tell you "Too bad. That vehicle that our government approved... well, we are no longer allowing you to drive it in California." So think about a car that you will purchase today, that gets California's seal of approval for California's roads. What happens 25 years from now, when those tyrants tell you "Up yours. You can no longer drive that car that we approved"? What if it happens in 10 years -- or 3 years? Oh, it will never happen that fast. If you think that, then you do not grasp the "F.U." mindset of California's tyrannical law makers. 3) What law was on California's books, back in the 1960s or 1970s, etc, that let you know that the "then" new car that you purchased would be outlawed in some future year? Although California's laws are unconstitutional, their courts piss on our constitution. So California's tyrant law makers get away with it. Well, all of the above is due to California residents voting for the tyrants that are tying them up in knots. And the people that will have the biggest headaches with these unconstitutional laws will go and re-elect the same tyrants that are making their lives unlivable. So it is hard to feel sorry for them. They have the government that they elected, and re-elected.
    1
  1345. 1
  1346. 1
  1347. 1
  1348. 1
  1349. 1
  1350. 1
  1351. 1
  1352. 1
  1353. Another investigation should be made, to find out why it took them over a year to fire that tyrant superintendent. For another entire year, that tyrant superintendent was making life horrible for other school officials, and their families, and for students, and their families. Shame on whoever on that school board dragged their feet on this atrocity. And we should be given the names, titles, and photos of the school board members, and how they voted. The District Attorney should charge Marian Phelps with child abuse, or whatever the legal term is for her illegal actions against those children. These crimes must not be allowed to drag on for so long, while people suffer. Firing her is a good outcome. But she will find another job, and abuse others. She should be charged, criminally, and spend time behind bars. Remember, her victims were both adults and children. Someone in that position of power, that goes after innocent children, should be put on trial, criminally. And the school board members that dragged their feet, or that knew what Phelps did and allowed it to continue... they must be fired / voted out. In fact, if any school board members knew that Phelps was abusing children, and allowed it to continue, then those school board members should also be charged, criminally -- perhaps as co-conspiritors. We are talking about school board members -- those that we entrust with the care of children. If they knew that Phelps was abusing children, and they allowed it to continue, then what on Earth are they doing on a school board?
    1
  1354. 1
  1355. Even yahoo's apology is not an apology. Hunter Walker's tweet reads: "We have passed South Korea in the number of tests conducted per capita. I misread the mobile version of this chart and am sorry about that @realDonaldTrump." So Hunter is sorry about misreading his chart, when he should be sorry about leveling false charges at the President of the United States. But yahoo's apology / non-apology does not end there. They cannot make an apology that is simply an apology. Like children, they must tie it to a type of "Yeah, but I was right that the sky is blue" remark, which is why Hunter Walker's tweet continued with: "Our infection rate is far higher though as I noted." The infection rate that yahoo should be focusing on is the number of people at yahoo with Trump Derangement Syndrome. An apology is not about the part that you got right. An apology is about the part that you got wrong. When you wrong someone, you should apologize, and leave it at that. But yahoo showed their hand. They showed that they must find a way to antagonize the President of the United States, even while issuing an apology. yahoo did not apologize to the President. yahoo did not apologize to its viewers. yahoo did not apologize to the people of the United States of America. yahoo made an excuse for why they got their accusation wrong, and married it to yet another accusation. yahoo is sorry about only two things: 1) They got caught with BS. 2) They failed at their attempt to embarrass the President of the United States. yahoo is a keeper and enabler of the swamp.
    1
  1356. 1
  1357. 1
  1358. 1
  1359. 1
  1360. 1
  1361. 1
  1362. 1
  1363. 1
  1364. 1
  1365. 1
  1366. 1
  1367. 1
  1368. 1
  1369. 1
  1370. 1
  1371. 1
  1372. Comcast forces customers to listen to advertisements, before connecting you to a representative. Your internet service goes down. You call them up via your cell phone, not in the best mood (because your internet service went down). And what does Comcast do? They force you to listen to their sale's pitches. There is no way to bypass their phone commercials. With Comcast, the wait is usually less than 15 minutes. But like HP, it is artificial, and trying to sell you their services while you have no service is terrible. Also with Comcast, they make the maze of "press this" and "press that" almost impossible to navigate to a human. You reach one dead-end after another dead-end. Frequently, Comcast's automated system hangs up on you, when you do not press a button (a button that will not solve your issue and takes you down a hole that is unrelated to your problem). So you are left with a choice of going in circles, never reaching a human. Or, the call ending abruptly. Or, spend enough time, mapping out all of the combinations that did not work, and after 10+ tries, you might find the route through the phone maze that connects you to a human. It is not an "oops" by the executives that designed their "we hate our customers" phone system. It is intentional. If Comcast could save $50, over a year, by frustrating their customers, they will. By the way, when Comcast's services go down, then your DVR loses access to Comcast's permission servers. So when you have no service, and you decide "This is a good time to watch a saved recording on my DVR", well... you can't. Every command that you use with your remote (pause, play, fast forward, etc), asks a Comcast permission server to grant permission to perform the action. So without internet access, you can't watch your saved recordings. I would cancel my Comcast (Xfinity) subscription. But my area has no other internet service providers -- and I am facing the wrong direction for satellite.
    1
  1373. 1
  1374. 1
  1375. 1
  1376. The ship has engines for maneuvering in tight places. For example, it can spin in place. My guess is that when the wind started to turn the ship's bow into the shore, the ship's pilot, instead of engaging the engines to oppose the wind, he mistakenly engaged the engines to turn with the wind, and plowed into the shore. Yes, a lot of the ship is exposed to the wind. But short of a monsoon, there would not be enough wind to push that amount of weight that distance. Add if the wind was so imaginatively strong, then why did not the ship get turn on its side? After all, it is top heavy with unimaginable weight. And where are the reports of high winds for that area? You know that they track wind conditions over there. Or did the canal's meteorologists blunder their jobs, too? Where are the reports of any damage, anywhere in that area, from high winds? Why are we not seeing the exact wind speed and wind direction that was recorded at the time? High winds is a joke. Yes, it can push the ship a bit, but not send it careening out of control. There is simply no way that the owners of the ship would risk such an event, by not having engines to counter the wind. There is simply no way that the government of Egypt would allow ships, that cannot control their own direction (even in high winds) to use the canal. This had to be a major screw-up by the ship's pilot -- and I suspect that the canal's meteorologist was napping. By the way, all of the ships in the area (lots of ships) all have equipment that measures the wind. Where are the reports from the other ships? We are not getting honest reporting.
    1
  1377. 1
  1378. 1
  1379. 1
  1380. 1
  1381. 1
  1382. 1
  1383. 1
  1384. 1
  1385. 1
  1386. 1
  1387. youtube's servers save the host's videos in numerous formats. For example, below is a list of the formats for this (the one we just watched) video. I hope that it displays properly. Since this comment section does not use a fixed length font, the columns are not lining up (and might wrap, depending your your computer's hardware and settings). You can paste it into a good text editor (like Wordpad, which comes with Windows), use a fixed length font (like "Courier New"), and if necessary, you might have to reduce the font size to, perhaps, "5", to see the listing without it being misaligned. ID EXT RESOLUTION FPS CH | FILESIZE TBR PROTO | VCODEC VBR ACODEC ABR ASR MORE INFO ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ sb3 mhtml 48x27 0 | mhtml | images storyboard sb2 mhtml 80x45 0 | mhtml | images storyboard sb1 mhtml 160x90 0 | mhtml | images storyboard sb0 mhtml 320x180 0 | mhtml | images storyboard 233 mp4 audio only | m3u8 | audio only unknown [en] Default 234 mp4 audio only | m3u8 | audio only unknown [en] Default 139-drc m4a audio only 2 | 2.66MiB 49k https | audio only mp4a.40.5 49k 22k [en] low, DRC, m4a_dash 249-drc webm audio only 2 | 2.73MiB 50k https | audio only opus 50k 48k [en] low, DRC, webm_dash 250-drc webm audio only 2 | 3.25MiB 60k https | audio only opus 60k 48k [en] low, DRC, webm_dash 139 m4a audio only 2 | 2.66MiB 49k https | audio only mp4a.40.5 49k 22k [en] low, m4a_dash 249 webm audio only 2 | 2.72MiB 50k https | audio only opus 50k 48k [en] low, webm_dash 250 webm audio only 2 | 3.25MiB 60k https | audio only opus 60k 48k [en] low, webm_dash 140-drc m4a audio only 2 | 7.06MiB 129k https | audio only mp4a.40.2 129k 44k [en] medium, DRC, m4a_dash 251-drc webm audio only 2 | 5.83MiB 107k https | audio only opus 107k 48k [en] medium, DRC, webm_dash 140 m4a audio only 2 | 7.06MiB 129k https | audio only mp4a.40.2 129k 44k [en] medium, m4a_dash 251 webm audio only 2 | 5.82MiB 107k https | audio only opus 107k 48k [en] medium, webm_dash 602 mp4 256x144 15 | ~ 4.88MiB 90k m3u8 | vp09.00.10.08 90k video only 269 mp4 256x144 30 | ~ 10.31MiB 189k m3u8 | avc1.4D400C 189k video only 160 mp4 256x144 30 | 3.20MiB 59k https | avc1.4D400C 59k video only 144p, mp4_dash 603 mp4 256x144 30 | ~ 7.63MiB 140k m3u8 | vp09.00.11.08 140k video only 278 webm 256x144 30 | 3.33MiB 61k https | vp9 61k video only 144p, webm_dash 229 mp4 426x240 30 | ~ 18.53MiB 340k m3u8 | avc1.4D4015 340k video only 133 mp4 426x240 30 | 7.02MiB 129k https | avc1.4D4015 129k video only 240p, mp4_dash 604 mp4 426x240 30 | ~ 13.09MiB 240k m3u8 | vp09.00.20.08 240k video only 242 webm 426x240 30 | 5.93MiB 109k https | vp9 109k video only 240p, webm_dash 230 mp4 640x360 30 | ~ 34.66MiB 636k m3u8 | avc1.4D401E 636k video only 134 mp4 640x360 30 | 13.54MiB 248k https | avc1.4D401E 248k video only 360p, mp4_dash 18 mp4 640x360 30 2 | 18.78MiB 345k https | avc1.42001E mp4a.40.2 44k [en] 360p 605 mp4 640x360 30 | ~ 24.28MiB 446k m3u8 | vp09.00.21.08 446k video only 243 webm 640x360 30 | 11.06MiB 203k https | vp9 203k video only 360p, webm_dash 231 mp4 854x480 30 | ~ 57.27MiB 1051k m3u8 | avc1.4D401F 1051k video only 135 mp4 854x480 30 | 26.53MiB 487k https | avc1.4D401F 487k video only 480p, mp4_dash 606 mp4 854x480 30 | ~ 37.56MiB 689k m3u8 | vp09.00.30.08 689k video only 244 webm 854x480 30 | 18.86MiB 346k https | vp9 346k video only 480p, webm_dash 22 mp4 1280x720 30 2 | 62.16MiB 1140k https | avc1.64001F mp4a.40.2 44k [en] 720p 232 mp4 1280x720 30 | ~110.58MiB 2030k m3u8 | avc1.64001F 2030k video only 136 mp4 1280x720 30 | 55.16MiB 1012k https | avc1.64001F 1012k video only 720p, mp4_dash 609 mp4 1280x720 30 | ~ 61.62MiB 1131k m3u8 | vp09.00.31.08 1131k video only 247 webm 1280x720 30 | 37.42MiB 687k https | vp9 687k video only 720p, webm_dash 270 mp4 1920x1080 30 | ~217.98MiB 4001k m3u8 | avc1.640028 4001k video only 137 mp4 1920x1080 30 | 121.01MiB 2221k https | avc1.640028 2221k video only 1080p, mp4_dash 614 mp4 1920x1080 30 | ~ 89.60MiB 1645k m3u8 | vp09.00.40.08 1645k video only 248 webm 1920x1080 30 | 64.19MiB 1178k https | vp9 1178k video only 1080p, webm_dash youtube also has several audio-only versions. The above is all the the "video" versions, most of which have no audio. Only two of the formats contain both video and audio: ID "18" and ID "22". My guess is that youtube will either send ID "18" or "22" by default, but can combine other IDs, based on your internet connection (as our host explained). With the right application, you can choose any of the above listed formats. Lastly, @0:18 "We've done the illegal thing..." It is not illegal to save a copy of what the service sends to you. In fact, Windows (or to be more exact, your web browser) does that, when you watch a video. If they do not want you to have it, then they should not send it to you. They should not send it to the public; to anyone on the planet. Them sending it to you, is your computer requesting to download the content, and the streaming service agreeing to allow you to download the content, and the streaming service initiating the upload to your computer. When a service broadcasts a show to the public, they have no expectation, whatsoever, of that broadcast to not be saved by the public. If they did, then they should have petitioned congress to outlaw VHS recorders, decades ago. Radio stations would have petitioned congress to outlaw tape-decks, decades ago. Imagine yourself using a CB (citizen's band) radio, to declare [fill in the blank], and you start off with "My remarks may not be recorded without my permission..." etc. Then NBC News decides to report on your CB radio broadcast. Do you think that you can hold NBC News liable for reporting on what you put out on the public airways? Yes, they often put that no duplication, blah, blah, blah, in their broadcast. That is completely unenforceable. Where you run into a problem, is if you took your saved copy, and you broadcast it as your own. I am not a lawyer. But you do not have to be a lawyer to know that recording a show is not illegal. And by extension, streaming / downloading a video is not illegal. Burning a copy of that download to DVDs, and selling it on-line, or even at a flea-market, is likely illegal. But saving a copy for yourself is done by billions of people around the world.
    1
  1388. 1
  1389. 1
  1390. If your computer is off, then there is zero chance of you being compromised. But if you use your computer responsibly, then (as our host conveyed) you are at virtually zero chance of being compromised while your computer is on. I never turn off my computers: 1) I never want to wait, even for the few seconds it takes to boot up. 2) I keep certain programs running. I do not want to start them, when they can already be there. 3) I believe (not 100% sure) that turning equipment off and on is more likely to cause a hardware failure vs leaving it on 100% of the time. Things tend to break when the power is suddenly applied; when motors kick in (such as fans). A light bulb tends to fail when you flip the switch on. Keep your computer(s) and any other important equipment plugged in to a quality surge suppressor (or quality UPS (uninterruptible power supply)). Also note that (as our host conveyed) your router will protect you from uninvited incoming data (your router tosses it, and as such, your computer never sees it). However, you are not protected from other computers within your local network (other computers that use that same router). So if you have a family member that is irresponsible, and they install malicious code that is designed to spread to other machines, then that family member's infected machine can likely see your machine and possibly do damage (because at this point, your router is out of the picture, and it is up to the specific security measures configured on your machine). You can purchase a more sophisticated router, that creates separate virtual LANs that keep each of your computers from seeing one-another (such routers are pricey and have a learning curve to set up). Or, you can purchase an entry level router and plug it into your existing router, and plug your computer into your new, entry level router. That, too, will keep other family member's computers from being able to see (or get to) your computer. If your electrical costs are prohibitive, then turn off your computer(s) when not in use. Otherwise, do not deny yourself the convenience of having it running, ready, and waiting, the moment you walk over to it. Lastly, heat kills. If your computer does not have adequate ventilation (perhaps it is in a hot room), then do not use it for longer than necessary.
    1
  1391. 1
  1392.  @askleonotenboom  Microsoft's BS conflation between e-mail storage and OneDrive storage evidences their push to prematurely fill your quota. Leo, I am sure you know this (but I will write it for anyone else reading this): Attachments are not binary files That are ASCII text that is part of the body of the e-mail message. E-mail clients look for a pattern that indicates the start and end points of a block of text. They then convert that text into what was originally a binary file. So when someone e-mails you a photo attachment, their e-mail client converts that photo into a block of text, and then your e-mail client converts that block of text back into the photo. So, if the sender were to use GPG's ASCII armor option to convert the photo to text, and then the sender copies/pastes that text into their e-mail message, Microsoft would not see it as an attachment (due to GPG's encryption making it indecipherable to Microsoft mail server). As such, that GPG attachment would go against Outlook's quota, and not OneDrive's quota. So what Microsoft does is search everyone's e-mail messages for blocks of text, such as MIME formatted text, determines that that block of text was created from a binary file, and passes that value over to OneDrive's quota. I bet that the attachments are not even stored on OneDrive's hardware. I bet that the attachments are kept with Outlooks hardware. Microsoft is simply identifying blocks of e-mail text, and telling its OneDrive database to charge that against that person's OneDrive quota. That Microsoft intentionally excludes a button to delete the attachment is evidence of them doing whatever they can to keep your data storage usage from decreasing. The above is why I will not use 3rd party storage. It puts you at their mercy. And you can bet that all 3rd party storage services have language in their End User Licence Agreement that gives them permission to change the language of the agreement whenever they want, to whatever they want, without your permission. They might as well change their EULA's to read "God mode: On", and leave it at that. For times when a file size exceeds a mail servers limit, I will upload it to "wetransfer". They offer 2GB of free space, per upload. Your uploads get auto-deleted in 7 days. They offer a paid option, where they will not delete your uploads. But they do not reveal the cost, until you sign up. Clown world.
    1
  1393. 1
  1394. 1
  1395. 1
  1396. 1
  1397. 1
  1398. 1
  1399. 1
  1400. 1
  1401. PragerU, We need: -- The name of the school. -- The location of the school. -- The names of the board members. -- The titles of the board members (vice chairman, chairman, etc). -- Photos of the people responsible for the indoctrinating. Without the above, the public is left with not knowing who is responsible. All we know is that some intangible school is pushing this Marxist agenda. These people are government employees. These people are public servants. These people do not get to pass policies, that injure young minds, with anonymity. These people do not get to operate in the shadows. Yes, we have them on video. But all we have are anonymous, blurry faces. Even in this video's title, you state that parents are standing up to "School Boards", when the title should read: FIRED UP: Parents Stand Up to School Boards "Members" against Marxist Critical Race Theory Indoctrination Stop putting the blame on institutions, and start putting the blame on the people that run the institutions. The school board is not responsible for approving Marxist curriculums. Rather, [First Name], [Last Name], [Title], [Photo], of the [school name], located in [location]... those specific people are responsible for approving Marxist curriculums. Shine the light on the actual people that are responsible. Let the parents know... Let the tax payers know... Let "The People" know... ...exactly which public servants are harming our children, so that we know exactly who do fire, come the next election. Thank you.
    1
  1402. 1
  1403. 1
  1404. 1
  1405. 1
  1406. 1
  1407. 1
  1408. 1
  1409. 1
  1410. 1
  1411. 1
  1412. 1
  1413. 1
  1414. 1
  1415. 1
  1416. 1
  1417. 1
  1418. 1
  1419. 1
  1420. 1
  1421. 1
  1422. 1
  1423. 1
  1424. 1
  1425. 1
  1426. 1
  1427. 1
  1428. @0:02 "I'm not, I'm not supposed to take any questions. But go ahead" 1) Who gives orders to the President Of The United States Of America? Who tells the President whether or not he may take questions? From whom is the President taking orders? 2) President* Biden's reply to the Afghanistan question is the reason someone (or some people) are ordering him not to take any questions. If he had listened, he would not have blurted out that reply. 3) When President* Biden decided to take a question, how could he not think that the most serious issue for our country would not be the subject for the question? Did he think the question would be about his love of ice cream? Why would he take a question, knowing it is highly likely to be about Afghanistan, if he knew that he would not answer any questions about Afghanistan? Answer: He does not think -- at least not clearly. His exceedingly debilitated mental capacity keeps him from making good decisions, such as deciding to take a question, without factoring in that he would not answer those questions. 4) President* Biden did not remember that there was a catastrophe in Afghanistan, which is why he chose to take a question. It was only when the reporter said the word "Afghanistan" that he remembered that something bad is happening in Afghanistan. 4a) President* Biden does not want to deal with pressing matters, such as Afghanistan. So he uses his authority to blow it off. 4b) President* Biden does not remember the details of what is happening in Afghanistan, so he had no choice but to refuse to answer the reporter's question. 5) President* Biden bangs down on the desk, which is a sign that he is trying to cover up his blunder by looking tough. Running away and stomping your feet (so to speak) is not tough -- it is weak and childish. It is also what dementia patients do, because they act out emotionally. President* Biden is falling apart on the global stage. President* Biden is making a mockery of the American people. President* Biden is making the world a very dangerous place. Adversaries, such as China, are working hard at planning to take down our nation, knowing that they will never have a better chance; knowing that President* Biden is incapable of dealing with major conflicts -- even minor ones. The United States Of America is in trouble. And when the United States Of America is in trouble, so is the world.
    1
  1429. 1
  1430. 1
  1431. If you are a risk taker, you can install a custom Windows assemblage. Search for "tiny 10" or "tiny 11". I have never tried them. But they are supposed to have been put together with the goal of excluding bloat. They will accept your licence key to activate Windows. However, they are still unofficial. They consist of all Windows files. But they exclude lots of the standard Windows files, and is not sanctioned by Microsoft. Basically, it is the same as installing a standard Windows version, and then spending half of forever figuring out how to uninstall the bloat (never knowing if you really found all of the bloat). The "tiny", unofficial versions, exclude the bloat. They will run with less than half the RAM of a normal Windows installation. They will supposedly run without the included monitoring and spyware. They include a tool to add in any of the standard features, in case you want any of them that are not part of the default installation. Two cautionary items: 1) You ware trusting the people that put it together. I have not heard of any nefarious, hidden gems being included. But you are taking a chance. 2) A Windows Update might force an installation of unwanted stuff that was not included. So you might end up with some of the crap that you wanted to avoid. The above, custom versions are unofficial, but will result in a nice performance improvement, and will allow computers with even 2GB of RAM to run fairly well. But keep in mind that if you then install your own system hogging software, well, you will need more RAM, etc.
    1
  1432. 1
  1433. 1
  1434. 1
  1435. 1
  1436. 1
  1437. 1
  1438.  @Libras123  You have lots of voices telling you things that are not in the comments. -- "Jumping off of buildings"? That was pulled out of the sky. -- "Mad and bothered"? Based on your incoherent rant, are you describing yourself? -- "change what I said or feel"? Another surprise comment, that is detached from anything written in this thread. Perhaps your next reply should include sentence about religion? Why not, you are making up one thing after another that has nothing to do with the subject of the posting nothing to do with the comments in this thread. You come across as unhinged and unfocused. Am I mistaken? If yes, then please quote the words that "change what I said or feel". -- "waste of your time"? You are wasting my time and somehow I am not aware that you are wasting my time, until you brought it to my attention? Now you have sparked my curiosity. Did you point out that you are wasting my time because you are concerned about my time? Or because you are trying to waste my time? Something else? I am asking, because how did "wasting time" enter into this discussion? Is it just another surprise pulled out of the sky? -- "I meant what I said"? Do you assume that when people write comments that they do not mean what they say, unless the do what you are doing, and they include "I meant what I said"? I am asking because youtube, facebook, etc, is inundated with comments where people nearly never include "I meant what I said". Are all of those billions and billions of comments from people that do not mean what they are saying, because they did not also write "I meant what I said"? Does this apply to face to face conversations and telephone conversations, too? Should I be asking "Do you mean what you are saying", just in case they really do mean what they are saying, but forgot to say that they mean what they are saying? All of this time, I assumed that when people say things, they say them because that is the nature of communications. It never occurred to me what people are saying is to just hear themselves, because they do not mean what they are saying, unless they also say "I meant what I said". "I am laughing at you"? Please elaborate. A joke is usually best when shared with others. What is making you laugh? Please pay attention in school to your English teacher. I am requesting that you do so, in order to avoid future occurrences of writing comments that are obscure, hard to understand, and incoherent. It is best not to write run-on sentences that change topics over and over with no clear meaning. Go back and re-read your reply to me. That sentence is a grammatical mess. I can help you. Let me know. Lastly, I did not mean to upset you or trigger you. My original reply was meant to show that the law and news reporting should be applied equally to all. Politics should never play a role in fairness. Are you a fair person? Do you want everyone to be judged fairly on an equal playing field?
    1
  1439. 1
  1440. 1
  1441. 1
  1442. 1
  1443. 1
  1444. 1
  1445. 1
  1446. 1
  1447. 1
  1448. 1
  1449. 1
  1450. 1
  1451. 1
  1452. @1:53 "...these will not have the President's name in the memo line. The White House says that's because it didn't want to risk causing any delays in the printing..." Utter nonsense. Is CBS Evening News reporter, Christina Ruffini, telling the public that Biden would have to sign each check? Is CBS Evening News reporter, Christina Ruffini, telling the public that printing a few more characters would require the printing machines to do a second pass? Is CBS Evening News reporter, Christina Ruffini, telling the public that a printing company, that is hired to print millions of checks, is incapable of stamping out each check on a single pass? How absurd is this? Folks, when you print a document, does adding your signature cause a delay? And keep in mind that the government is using high-speed, commercial printing machines that are huge and print over 10,000 checks per minute. So why did she bother to mention it? It is because she knew that President Trump's name was on the previous checks, and it irks her to not see her hero's name on these checks. It irks her that Biden was too absent-minded to get his name put on the checks, and so his propaganda machine (videos like this one), rather than wanting the public to know Biden was asleep on this, so the propaganda machine makes up absolute BS about printing delays. Folks, remember that CBS, like most of the fake news industry, is an unofficial propaganda arm of the Democrat National Committee. You must untangle every sentence that they say. Cheers!
    1
  1453. 1
  1454. 1
  1455. 1
  1456. 1
  1457. 1
  1458. 1
  1459. 1
  1460. 1
  1461. 1
  1462. @12:00 "As I always do, I'm going to tell you that you should support them (The Institute For Justice), and consider donating to them." Note that as our host has never done: He has never donated any money to The Institute For Justice. If he did, he would have told us that he has done so, and would like others to do as he did. I have raised this issue some of his other videos, where he was soliciting donations for The Institute For Justice. Our host has never replied stating that he made a monetary donation. Has our host ever written them a check for even $20? It is great that our host seeks donations for a good cause, and is using his viewership to drum up donations. But that costs him zero, and gets him virtual pats on the back and recognition, etc. So what is our host's real goal? To get donations for The Institute For Justice? Or to make himself look good? My guess is it is a bit of both. But why would out host, who repeatedly praises The Institute For Justice, never write them a check for $500, or $100, etc? It is ballsy to go around, asking for donations, and never doing so yourself, especially when you can easily afford to do so. And it surely looks like our host can easily afford to part with a few dollars. If our host truly cared about The Institute For Justice, then he would support them financially, the same as he is asking others to do. And if he announced that he, too, contributes funding to The Institute For Justice, that would surely inspire more viewers to make donations. It is such a worthy cause, and yet our host refuses to tell us that he has made a monetary donation. It has to be because he has never done so.
    1
  1463. 1
  1464. 1
  1465. 1
  1466. 1
  1467. 1
  1468. 1
  1469. Food delivery robots are a problem. -- What happens as their numbers increase? Prices for technology almost always comes down; often dramatically so. Are we to accept sidewalks crowded with robots making deliveries? And what happens when the robots start delivering everything else under the sun? How much space on our sidewalks will they have to use, before they become a nuisance? -- Is there a size limit for the robots? How about robots that take up ½ the sidewalk? -- How about a robot that breaks down on the sidewalk's ramp, blocking wheelchair access? -- What happens when the robot breaks down, and the owner abandons it? Will we know who abandoned it? -- A business opens, and has an address. They pay taxes to conduct business at that address. They are not licensed to operate on public streets. Robots are an extension of the business. If a company has 1,000 robots on the street, or 10,000 robots on the street, etc, how many robots does it take before they are taking up (in total), and entire city block's worth of real-estate? -- What happens when those robots start flashing lights, and playing advertisements on their screens, as they make their rounds on our public streets? How do we know when a robot is really making a deliver vs. seeking out business? -- Are robots limited to making deliveries? Or can they become door-to-door salesmen? If there is a way to abuse technology, there are people / companies that will do so. And as the robots become affordable, the abuse will escalate. -- How long will it take before people start committing crimes with robots, (because robots will eventually be all over the place, and no one will pay attention to them). If every small business can afford such robots, our sidewalks will become congested with robots. Steve, should lawyers be permitted to have robots roam the streets, looking for new clients? How about robots wandering the streets, trying to sell clothing? How about the government having robots invade our privacy? When robots become commonplace, how will we know which ones are government controlled? Why open a store, when you can have free, unlimited real-estate on public streets, via robots. The above, and more, will come to pass, if robots are manufactured in high volume, and prices fall below a few thousand dollars. A business should be limited to the space on where it is built and paid for via taxes. They should not be allowed to consume public thoroughfares. Walmart, for example, should not be able to sell items, miles away from their store, by having robots do so remotely. Robots have their place. But taking up space on public thoroughfares is improper, and (I believe) illegal. Public sidewalks and public roads are for humans that pay for those sidewalks and those roads. Standard commercial businesses have no permission to have their machines roam our public streets and public sidewalks.
    1
  1470. 1
  1471. 1
  1472. 1
  1473.  @tinareeves9899  "The US is PAYING to house that individual. The US told El Salvatore to put him in prison without a trial. " You just made that up. The USA deported Mr. Garcia to El Salvador. The USA does not dictate to the El Salvador government where to keep their citizens. If El Salvador released him, or any other prisoners, the USA would have no control and no say over that. The government of El Salvador has their own justice system, and they decide who to lock up. We deport El Salvador citizens to El Salvador, and the government of El Salvador interviews, investigates, and makes legal determinations on which citizens get released, or do not get released -- and if not released, the government of El Salvador chooses the prison, and the length of the sentence. The United States of America has no jurisdiction in any of the above decisions. "We are trying to tell Panama what to with their canal." The United States of America built the Panama canal -- not the people of Panama. The United States of America lost tens of thousands of lives, building the Panama canal -- not the people of Panama. The United States of America spent $billions and $billions, building the Panama canal. -- not the people of Panama. Decades later, the government of Panama is charging the United States of America exorbitant fees to use the canal that we built, paid for, and died for. Also, the government of Panama was letting China call the shots, charging no fees for China's ships The signs all over the canal were in Chinese. Should China decide whether or not United States military vessels may use the canal? America is supposed to let them piss on us? "We are telling Denmark what to do with Greenland." That is a lie. "We are telling Canada to capitulate and become a state." That is a lie. "But we can’t tell a prison owner to send back a prisoner we ARE PAYING to house?" We can, but we will not. And even if we did, they will not send him back. He has no right to be in America, any more than if you broke in to El Salvador and insisted that you had a right to stay in El Salvador. It is elitist of you to preach that you have the right to dictate to other countries what to do with their citizens.
    1
  1474. 1
  1475. 1
  1476. 1
  1477. 1
  1478. 1
  1479. 1
  1480. @4:58 "Let's say I want to backup my data. You can't do that without a plug-in." The keepass database is a single file. You back it up by making a copy of that file to a flash drive or a USB disk drive, etc. I did not find keepass complicated. Its layout is not ideal. It is not elegant. But I entered what was needed in each field, clicked on the button that opens the password generator, set the options for the password (character set and length), and that was it. It is important to click on the "Save" button, to have keepass write your update to its database. If you do not, then if your computer shuts down in a non-graceful manner, you will lose whatever changes / additions / deletions you made within keepass. Once saved, you should make a copy of your keepass database file. It is safe to make a copy without exiting keepass (as long as you saved your databse by clicking on the save icon). I have not explored plug-ins, because I do not trust them. I do not trust them, because I do not know enough about them. I will not trust what I do not understand. For example, can plug-ins compromise keepass's security? Plug-ins might be entirely safe. But until I figure out whether or not they can be trusted, I am sticking with the vanilla keepass. It works great. Other password managers might be easier to use. But other than Bit Warden, they are closed source, and I do not trust them. In today's "big tech" spyware world, it seems like data collection is everywhere. Since it is very easy for a closed source password manager to have a master key, I simply will not trust it. It is simplistic for them to have a master key. Do they? Maybe not. But "maybe" is the reason I will not trust them. With keepass, there is no master key. And keepass does not try to sync or share resources or use a cloud service, etc. It simply handles you passwords without fuss.
    1
  1481. 1
  1482. 1
  1483. 1
  1484. 1
  1485. 1
  1486. 1
  1487. 1
  1488. 1
  1489. @3:29 "...and a Bose sound system..." Although the stereo is not the main reason to buy a car, touting a Bose sound system is a way of breaking a tie with some other car. Bose is the McDonalds of the audio world. A lot of people like the Big Mac. But it is nothing you would ever want to brag about to your friends. Bose can be okay. But when stereo shopping, Bose should never be on your list (unless you have no time to do your homework). There are better stereos available, in terms of both sound quality and build quality. Unfortunately, neither the Camry nor the Accord offer anything better (although not identical, their stereos are similar in sound quality). It is like Nissan, Toyota, and Honda all had a secret meeting where they all agreed to cut corners on their stereos. @6:02 "...all wheel drive" Note that the "all wheel drive" is 100% controlled by the car. The driver has zero say in when it engages (well, the driver could, for example, intentionally drive into mud and the car will engage the rear wheels). But if you want to press a button or flip a switch to turn on or off the all wheel drive, then forget it. No such button or switch exists. Also note that if one of your tires gets a blowout, and it cannot be patched or plugged or repaired, then you will have to buy 4 new tires. The only exception is if your tires happened to already be new when you got the blowout. But as soon as you have signs of tire wear, then 1 blown tire equals replacing all 4 tires. Although most people will not have such a problem, it is still something that happens to some people, so you should ask yourself if all wheel drive is something that you really need. Not mentioned in this video is that the Altima is a pig off of the line. If, for example, you are in the left lane at a light, and you realize that you need to make a right turn at the next light, then you can forget about getting ahead of the car to your right. Unless that driver is sleeping, there is no way the Altima will accelerate ahead of the car next to you, from a stop. No matter how hard you stomp on the gas, the Altima just takes its time to get going. Was this done for safety? Or fuel economy? Who knows? Once the Altima gets going (maybe 20 MPH), then it has good power. But from a stop? Nissan really messed up. Also not mention is that the SR and Platinum styles of the Alitma come with 19" wheels, and are accompanied by suspensions that make the car handle (take hard turns) really, really good (especially the SR style). The car will take stay planted around turns much better than most folks would every try. I am not encouraging anyone to drive like a nut (even a million dollar Ferrari will lose control when pushed too hard). But you should know that part of what you are paying for is the design and build of the handling portion of the car. If not for the abysmal power from a stop, I would have purchased the Altima. But that was just too much of a red flag to ignore. No car will have everything that you want. There is always some degree of buyer's remorse. But not being able to get even reasonable acceleration from a stop is just unacceptable for me. Cheers!
    1
  1490. 1
  1491. I will not use Google's password manager feature, for the following reasons: 1) Google is the #1 spyware company on the planet, and in the history of civilization. 2) If you decide to switch to Mozilla's Firefox, or Brave's browser, etc, then how do you transfer all of your passwords to one of those other browsers? Can you have your browser reveal all of its saved passwords? I am asking, because I use keepass, and therefore have no idea whether or not browsers allow you to view or copy / paste saved passwords. 3) If Google's Chrome browser should break, then you will be in a world of hurt, trying to login to sites to conduct your affairs. All of your eggs will be in Google's browser's basket. Whereas, a stand-alone password manager will survive any issues with any browser. 4) If you get a new computer, then how do you update the browser in your new computer with all of the passwords from your old computer? 5) If your computer gets stolen, it is not difficult for a skilled criminal to remove your Windows login password. Once logged in, and he starts your browser, then unless the web site detects a new IP address, the assailant will have access to all of your sites. Two factor authentication will help for some of the above. But how many of us really use two factor authentication to login to wet sites? Even if you do, the vast majority of users do not use two factor authentication. I use keepass. Although it is not as convenient as having my browser log me in, I have peace of mind. I 100% control my passwords, and I can easily make copies of my keepass vault / database. And that vault / database is encrypted, and useless to anyone else. So I can store backups anywhere. If someone breaks into my computer, they will get none of my passwords. 6) If I update a password, or create a new one for a new site, etc, then the next thing I do is make a copy of my keepass vault file. With a browser, how do you make a quick backup copy of its stored passwords? 7) Stand-alone password managers (perhaps all?) have features that allow you to store more than just passwords. If you have a confidential document, you can store it in your password manager. I know of no browsers that have that functionality. You can store your credit card numbers, expiration dates, customer service numbers, etc, in your password manager. It you lose your credit card, you will easily be able to contact your card's financial institution. You will have all of the card's information, to identify yourself. That will make it painless to cancel the lost card and get a replacement. Using Google's browser to manage your passwords is far better than re-using passwords for multiple sites, and far better because it will generate virtually unbreakable passwords. It is a password manager, and is better than not using any password manager. But I do not trust Google. They spy on everything that you do. And with keepass and Bitwarden being fantastic options, I do not see a compelling reason to use Google's password manager, other than for people that want to automate their logins to the hilt / perhaps too lazy to interactively use a password manager. By the way, this is my master passwords: d]E]A%T)3@$dave'sgarage
    1
  1492. 1
  1493. 1
  1494. 1
  1495. 1
  1496. 1
  1497. 1
  1498. @3:18 -- She had multi-factor authentication. But when she got the code on her phone, she gave it to the scammer. That defeats having multi-factor authentication. Whenever you try to login to one of your accounts, that web site (assuming it has proper security measures in place),will detect whether or not you are trying to login from your usual device. If you try to login from someone else's device (or a new device), the web site will detect that, and it will send a code to your smart-phone (or to your e-mail account, etc). It will send a code to one of your other ways of contacting you. Then, when you provide that code, the site deems that you to be the person that owns that login. So a scammer goes to a web site, puts in your name, and clicks "Forgot Password". That site then sends a code to you. What the victim in this video did is give that code to the scammer. @5:09 "Our family has a code word." That is how you thwart the scammers. When the scammer uses AI to impersonate someone that you know (often a family member), then ask for that code word. But be careful. Good scammers are prepared to meet that challenge. They have ways of convincing gullible people to give up the code that was sent to the phone. Your (fake) family member might look and sound terrified. Do not fall for it. They might cry and tell you that they are hurt and that they can't remember it. Do not fall for it. If you get an unexpected text of a confirmation code, give it to no one. Remember, many scammers do this full-time as their job. They get very good at it. They know all about social engineering. Many evil people are very smart. So keep your guard up, and never give your code to anyone. The (fake) family member might tell you that they are in jail, kidnapped, in the hospital, etc. Do not fall for it. Never give out your code. If your bank calls you, and reports some issue, they might tell you that in order for them to help you, you need to give them the code that they sent to you (they will claim that it is their way to confirm that you are really you). That is a scam. That is not from your bank. Your bank will never call you and ask you for a code. Hang up and call your bank. Your bank (who you called) will tell you whether or not you have an issue. Be prepared for the scammer to convince you that if you hang up it will be too late to help you. Just hang up and call your bank. If you start to think that it is not a scam, and you are ready to give out the code, then the scammer just fooled you.
    1
  1499. 1
  1500. 1
  1501. 1
  1502. 1
  1503. 1
  1504. 1
  1505. Please stop believing that the radical leftists, that are defunding the police, do not understand how reckless their actions are. Folks, those radical leftists hate America. Defunding the police helps them destroy America. This is by design. If you hated a country, wouldn't you be in favor of that country having no police and out-of-control crime? When elected officials, or appointed officials, or any officials in office or running for office, when they promote defunding the police, ask them why they hate the police. Ask them why they hate the community. Ask them why they hate their country. They will deny it, and they will feign being offended. They will try to change the subject or turn it into you not supporting their cause for justice. But do not let them off the hook, because they are filled with hatred. None of them got into their positions of power by being stupid. So they know the consequences of defunding the police. So ask them why they want high crime in those neighborhoods. Ask them why they want sky-rocketing murder rates, and rapes, and shootings, and burglaries, etc. They will keep claiming that they do not want that, or that you are missing the point. Don't fall for that line of crap. You should keep pressing them for why they are denying that they want out-of-control crime. Do not give them an inch. Box them in and force them to admit their hated for their fellow Americans. When they have trouble maintaining their line of BS, do not back down and do not feel sorry for them. They would not do so for you. These are terrible people looking to harm our nation. Keep the pressure on them, and do not let up. Cheers!
    1
  1506. 1
  1507. 1
  1508. 1
  1509. 1
  1510. 1
  1511. 1
  1512. 1
  1513. 1
  1514. 1
  1515. 1
  1516. 1
  1517. 1
  1518. 1
  1519. 1
  1520. 1
  1521. 1
  1522. 1
  1523. 1
  1524. 1
  1525. 1
  1526. 1
  1527. 1
  1528. 1
  1529. 1
  1530. 1
  1531. If you create an encrypted VeraCrypt volume on a standard flash drive, you can get better (I believe) protection than the drive in this video, at 1/2 to 1/3 the price, and 2x times the performance (for a fast drive). Here's why (and please correct me if I am mistaken): 1) Who knows what encryption the datAshur drive is using? They can claim whatever encryption that they want. We have no way to verify their claims. Are they using Rijndael, Serpent, Twofish, etc, or their own proprietary code that only they vetted? Did they properly implement the encryption? Who knows? 2) Is the hardware really secure? Do we just take the manufacturer's word that it is implemented properly? All manufacturer's make such claims, and yet videos like this one (link below) show all manner of flaws: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVKl3GuazEs 3) Is there a back door -- a master code? Who knows? With VeraCrypt, you need not assume that the manufacturer got everything right, because you know that VeraCrypt is highly secure. If it were not, programmers on our planet would spot issues with the source code and would love to take credit for discovering issues. There is no back door. And you can keep the VeraCrypt executable on a standard flash drive (in the normal NTFS, FAT32, EXT4, etc) file system, which would allow you to mount your VeraCrypt volumes on computers that do not have VeraCrypt installed. The only audience I see for these hardware encrypted flash drives is: -- Folks that struggle with computers, and could not handle VeraCrypt. -- Folks that do not realize the myriad of possible security issues. -- Folks who want to keep their data from casual snoopers, and are not concerned with 3-letter agencies serving them a subpoena. But since VeraCrypt is free and open source, and can be used on much faster drives that cost half the price, then unless you fit one of the exceptions noted above, I do not see why anyone else should buy one of these hardware encrypted drives. Cheers!
    1
  1532. 1
  1533. The police cannot identify an occupant if that occupant refuses to identify themselves. And there is no way that the police will walk away, if they suspect that they have the person-in-question in the car. If someone is minding their own business, sitting in a parked car, then that person does not have to identify themselves. But if the police have a warrant, and a car that matches, and a description of the person that matches, then of course the police will demand that you identify yourself -- and get out of the car if ordered to do so. As to our host making light over him being in a parked car that is not going anywhere... that is nonsense. These days, cars have a shifter that changes its gear from park to drive. Our host said that he has seen where the police put a car in front. That is lawyer connect-imaginary-dots talk. What he has seen elsewhere is not what he has not seen with the case he is discussing. Was there a second car to put behind the suspect's car? Police cars, like any other cars, can be pushed, and have been pushed. Spike strips? We have seen videos of people fleeing on flat tires, and even on rims with no tires. Can you imagine if the suspect fled on flat tires, lost control, and ran someone over? Then our host would be calling the officers incompetent for not properly detaining the suspect, and would talk about all of the tools at their disposal that would have prevented the suspect from fleeing. More time and more options? Was our host at the scene? Did our host watch all of the officer's video footage. He said that it was not all available. And yet our host talks like he knows what the officers should have done. As to questioning the suspect, as our host discussed towards the end of the video... When our host is willing to risk being shot, then his words would have credibility. Perhaps that suspect was cursing at the police, and being combative with the police? We do not know. If the suspect refused to follow valid police orders, then that is a sign that the suspect should not be trusted. Ergo, the police will want to ensure their own safety by detaining the suspect in handcuffs. Once in handcuffs, the police can then take time to verify the identity of the suspect. But you do not let a potentially violent suspect sit in a car, where weapons might be present, while you try to verify their identity. All of the above, and our host never mentioned what the warrant was for. Was it for an armed burglar? If so, what are we expecting the police to do when they find someone in the car that is registered to that armed burglar? Our host is caught up in defending suspects, and going after bad guys in the auto industry. He has dealt with one-to-many bad cops, because it is the nature of his legal business. So although he understands why the police do what they do, our host seems to have his mind focused on books and not in the shoes of the police at a life-and-death scene where the car matches the warrant, and a combative occupant that might have a deadly weapon. Let's give the officers the presumption of innocence, rather than casting them as villains, without having even seen the video of their encounter. If the officers went too far, then by all means find them guilty. But our host's comments have implied that the officers were both stupid and guilty.
    1
  1534. 1
  1535. 1
  1536. 1
  1537. 1
  1538. 1
  1539. 1
  1540. 1
  1541. 1
  1542. 1) I purchased the EaseUS Todo "Workstation", lifetime version. I went with the "Workstation" version because it offers a "file exclusion" option when doing backups. I have hundreds of gigabytes of music (flac and wav) files. I have copies of those files on multiple external drives. I do not need to waste time and space, by backing them up, again, when doing a full backup. So I tell EaseUS Todo to exclude my music directory (and its sub-directories). I also like its password feature, and its compression feature, and its encryption feature. Not all versions have all of those features. Their web site has a comparison chart to show which features are available with which Todo version. There are six versions. I also like its Emergency Media tool. I purchased a new computer, and I did not want to install anything on it, until I first did a full backup. That includes not wanting to install backup software on my new computer, until I backed it up. So I used my old computer to create a bootable USB drive, and used that bootable USB drive to backup my new computer. I also have a computer that does Chia crypt-o mining. I install no 3rd party software on that computer. With the USB emergency boot drive, I can back up that computer, without installing anything on it. I believe that all of the EaseUS Todo versions have the "create emergency boot media" option. Along with the file exclusion option available in the Workstation version, that checked off all of my want list items. By the way, I was having trouble making a working, emergency USB boot drive. It did not work. I contacted EaseUS, gave them the details (including my invoice number), and they quickly replied with a link to download an ISO. I used that ISO file to create my USB emergency boot drive. So on one hand, I am not pleased that the emergency boot media feature was failing. But I have the ISO file, and EaseUS's customer support was on the ball. 2) As it pertains to the software that comes with some external drives... I do not delete it, because it takes up little space. And if I decide to sell the drive, I do not want to risk having the buyer complain that the included backup software is missing. I create a "new_with_drive" directory, and I move the included files into that directory. And there it will sit, untouched, probably for all eternity. But if I sell the drive, I will not have to find those files saved on some other drive. I will just move it back, and delete the "new_with_drive" directory. 3) I agree with our host to not use the included software. Lord knows what it will install on your computer, or if it will endlessly nag you to purchase it. I guess you could do a web search to see if others are using it and learn about their experiences, or maybe there are youtube videos of people demonstrating that software. I am not going to waste my time with that, as I am confident that it will not be a good choice to use the included software.
    1
  1543. 1
  1544. 1
  1545. 1
  1546. When a company offers only a subscription service, they should be avoided (well, at least for this topic). When your software contacts a permission server, and will function only when given permission by that company's servers, then you are at their mercy. For example: What happens if your internet service provider (ISP) has an outage. Well, too bad. Now you can't do your backup. Or does the permission server grant your backup software a 30 day grace period? And what about backing up from an emergency boot disk (or flash drive)? To truly make a clean, complete backup, with no files in use, you do not want to be running Windows as usual. You want to boot from, perhaps, a flash drive that contains the backup software. It seems like that option is no longer available if you are using a subscription service. Or will any emergency boot media include network support, which will contact their permission server? Yet more hoops to jump through, and more things that can go wrong, and just more busy work to deal with. Macrium Reflect claims that they are offering only a subscription service to provide the latest and greatest product. Sounds good. But have you always been happy with upgrades? Well, with your subscription service, it sounds like Macrium Reflect can and will change your backup software's interface and functionality at will. One day, you go to do a backup, and the menu items might be changed. Will you be happy with the change? Will a forced update always work, or might you encounter a bug in an upgrade, causing you grief? Restores: Macrium Reflect claims that restores will continue to work, absent a subscription. Are you going to test that claim? Or will you cross your fingers that you will be able to do a restore, after you cancel your subscription? And even if the restore continues to work... well... that is now. But since you are at the mercy of Macrium Reflect's permission server, they can change that at their whim. Have you checked on the terms and conditions for canceling your subscription? Companies routinely make it simple to sign up and send them your money. But try to cancel, and good luck. Maybe Macrium Reflect makes it just as simple. But do you know? Folks, putting your business or the functioning of your life (via your daily driver computer) in the hands of complete strangers at Macrium Reflect is somewhat reckless. I use EaseUS Todo -- no subscription. I created an emergency boot flash drive. I can do backups and restores at will. I rely on no one. I need not trust anyone's word. It just works. EaseUS Todo can go out of business, and it will not matter. What about Macrium Reflect? I have no problem with choosing a subscription service, as an option. But as a lifeline... as the only option... that is a red flag. For example, you can rent Microsoft Office, via their subscription service. But they still offer the actual apps. It is your choice. That is no longer possible with Macrium Reflect.
    1
  1547. 1
  1548. 1
  1549. 1
  1550. The school board members, to whom the students are reporting outrageous issues, are all sitting there and loving every second of the complaints. Why? It is those school board members that hate America, hate white people (hate themselves if they themselves are white), hate capitalism, hate free speech, etc. So when these students report on the status of what is going on in the schools, the school board members are gleeful inside, knowing that their efforts to tear down America's foundation, via brainwashing young minds, is in full motion in the school. This is somewhat analogous to innocent, political prisoners reporting on what is going on in the prisons to the people that put them into the prisons. Everything that the students are reporting are due to the policies put in place by the people that the students are complaining to (the school board members). Please do not assume that now, since the students are reporting what is happening, that the school board members will take action. The school board members put this into action, and this is merely confirmation that their plan is already in action. These videos need to include the names of the board members, the title of the board members, the photos of the board members, and the locations of the school districts that the board members represent. Without the above information, all we have are students complaining to faceless, nameless, anonymous people. The People do not know who to vote out of office, when The People do not know who those people are. For some reason, conservatives give cover to the very people that need the light of day shined on them. We need to have these public, taxpayer funded, political board members exposed, asked questioned, on camera, by conservative media. We already know what is going on in the schools. We need to know the specific people that are making it happen. Without knowing who they are, not much well get done. They need to be voted out. But that will not happen if we do not know who they are. Thank you.
    1
  1551. 1
  1552. 1
  1553. 1
  1554. 1
  1555. 1
  1556. 1
  1557. 1
  1558. 1
  1559. 1
  1560. 1
  1561. 1
  1562. 1
  1563. 1
  1564.  @johncrowe5164  Trump said that he would release his returns, after the IRS completed its audit of his return. And Trump made that statement, only because he was asked to release his tax returns. I am asking you to release your tax returns. Are you being audited by the IRS? If not, then you should release them, because your are being asked to do so, the same as your expectation of Trump being asked to do so. How does China factor in to being obligated to releasing your tax returns? I never heard that people that own money to China should release their tax returns. And when did claiming to be a billionaire become the compelling criteria for being compelled to release your tax returns? I think that people that enter public office, with less than a million dollars, and during public office they amass tens of millions of dollars, then they should be the ones being compelled to release their tax returns. I am not defending Donald Trump for deceiving the world. I am expecting the same rules to apply to anyone that holds that office or runs for that office. We should not be making new rules that apply only to the opposition party. It makes the demand stink of partisan BS. Just leave you out of what? I reply, on topic, to the comment that you posted. You reply with reasons you hate Trump. Hating someone does not qualify as a valid reason for them to release their tax returns. The rest of your comments are off topic. I am happy to respond to those other, unrelated, items you brought up. But in all fairness, why should I switch topics and answer your new topics when you have not answered my question: "Which presidents, and which candidates for the presidency, have posted their tax returns?", which is the topic, and which I have asked several times. Should the same rules apply to all presidents and all people running for the presidency? Cheers!
    1
  1565. 1
  1566. 1
  1567. Leo, countless people are in the habit of clicking "Allow" for everything. Such people will do so at public charging stations. Some people might think that they must click "Allow", or the charging will not work. In fact, every so often, my iPhone will refuse to charge, unless I unlock the phone. That is to keep a thief from being able to use Siri, and accept calls, after the battery runs out. No code, and the thief cannot charge the phone. The phone becomes a brick, once the battery runs out. The above points plants in the minds of some people that access must be granted whenever (and wherever) you charge your phone. There will be people that will allow the data connection. If it is only 1 in 1,000 that will add up to lots of people's allowing data access. And if I were to bet, I would guess that 25% or more people will click allow. The folks viewing your videos are not your typical computer users. They are more tech savoy. But the general public consists of a far higher percentage of inept computer users. There are on-the-street videos, asking people questions, such as: "How many dimes are in a dollar?" -- and lots of people do not know the answer. And "What language do they speak in Utah?", and "What country is Hawaii in?", and "What is 15% of 100?", etc. Scores of people cannot answer those questions. And they all have smart phones. So the advisory to not use public USB ports is a quick and simple solution. @2:37 -- That is yet another item to carry around. People can purchase cables that have the data related wires cut (or missing). And since you have to use a cable, anyway, you can carry around a power-only cable. Such a cable will also eliminate the risk that you might, accidentally, forget to use the USB data blocker. With a power-only cable, it is accident proof.
    1
  1568. 1
  1569. 1
  1570. 1
  1571. 1) Use a password manager. Keep a copy of your password manager's database on a different storage device (like a USB flash drive). That is just in case your main drive (where you have your password manager's database) fails. When you replace the failed drive, you will need your password manager's database copied to your replacement drive. I use "keepass". It is free, open source, and all of your encrypted passwords are kept in a single file. As long as you keep a copy of that file on other devices, you will always have access to your passwords. My keepass database is less than 5 MB, so it takes a split second to make a copy. Your password database could be larger, if you store lots of documents within. I have only a few documents in mine. So, yes, you can store more than passwords in most (perhaps all?) password managers. And you can have multiple databases / vaults. You can, for example, store only passwords in one, and only documents in another. And you can open either one, just as easily as Excel can open one spreadsheet or another. 2) If you ask for help in a forum, make sure that you stay in the forum. Scammers will try to entice you into having a private dialog. They do that, so that no one else will see that what they are doing. If they try to pull off their entire scam, where other forum readers can see, then other forum readers will alert you that you are being scammed. So the scammer tries to get you into a private, one-on-one, discussion. And they can be clever in convincing you to e-mail them, or private message them, or even give you a phone number to call. Just remember that if it will be only you conversing with them, then it is a scam. Anyone in a forum that is offering help should do so "out in the open", where all forum readers can see everything that you are being told to do. You want other forum participants to see what a "helper" is telling you to do.
    1
  1572. 1
  1573. 1
  1574. 1
  1575. 1
  1576. For what it's worth, I got the upper hand over HP. I signed up for their Instant Ink program, when they had a "Free" tier. HP no longer offers that "Free" plan, and someone at HP probably got in trouble for ever making the "Free" plan an option. If I ever switch to a different Instant Ink plan, then HP will not allow me to return to the "Free" plan. The down side to the "Free" plan is that it includes only 15 pages per month, and no roll-over pages into the next month. If I were to print a 16th page in a monthly cycle, HP will charge me $1 for that page, and it will include a grouping of 10 pages (meaning that the 26th page would cost me yet another $1). I print approximately 30 pages a year. So the "Free" plan works for me. My ink (that is sitting in the printer) dries out from lack of use. I do not care. HP replaces it, for free, shipped for free to my home. If I ever buy another printer, it will not be from HP. By the way, another slimy thing that HP pulled is: When I purchased my printer, it came with ink. Ergo, I owned that ink. Well, when you sign up for the Instant Ink program, you just gifted that ink to HP. You no longer own the ink that came with your printer. As soon as you sign up for the Instant Ink program, your already purchased ink becomes part of the Instant Ink program. So, lets say that you wanted to put those ink cartridges aside, and use only the ink that HP would ship to you as part of the Instant Ink program. No. No. No. Not allowed by HP. You must use your purchased ink (that came with the printer), as part of the Instant Ink program. Why is that an issue? Let's say you choose a 50 pages per month Instant Ink program. Well, one month, you are going to need to print 65 pages. That means that you will be charged for exceeding your 50 page allotment. So you figure, I have the ink that came with my printer. I own that ink. I will use that ink for the excess pages. No. No. No. That is not allowed. Once you are part of the Instant Ink program, the ink you owned (that came with your printer) cannot be used outside of the Instant Ink program. Supposedly, if you purchase HP ink cartridges from an authorized HP dealer, you can use that ink outside of the Instant Ink program. But I will never test that. But that HP steals (in a manner of speaking) the ink that came with your printer, is outrageous. Remember, if you never join Instant Ink, then the ink that came with your printer would work. You would own it and use it until it ran out. But if you sign up for Instant Ink, you just gifted your owned ink to HP. That happened to me, and it bothered me on principle. But since I never exceed my "Free" plan's 15 page monthly limit, it never costed me anything. Worth repeating: If I ever buy another printer, it will not be from HP.
    1
  1577. 1
  1578. 1
  1579. 1
  1580. 1
  1581. 1
  1582. 1
  1583. 1
  1584. I have been using a different method: Map Network Drive. On the server machine, I share a folder, and I specify which user(s) are allowed to access that folder. I believe that Windows will display that (some user) already has access. As far as I can remember, that is insufficient. I still add the name of the user(s) that should have access. And I click "Check Names" (or something like that -- doing this from memory), to validate that Windows recognizes the user name(s). Then, on the client machine, via explorer, in the left column, click on "This PC". Once there, click on "Computer", and then "Map Network Drive". For some reason, Windows will not offer the "Map Network Drive" menu item, unless you first clicked on "This PC". Via Map Network Drive, you can enter the credentials to connect to the remote machine. If for some reason your client machine does not see the remote machine (the server you are trying to connect to), you can use the server's IP address. You can make the connection persistent. But even if you do not, the next time you open explorer, you will see that mapped drive in a disconnected state. Double-click it, and it will connect (possibly asking for a password, depending on how you set it up). You can do the same via the command prompt (although I have not done it in years). I believe the syntax is: net use x: \\serverbox\path_to_shared_folder Above, "x:" will be the drive letter that gets assigned on your local box. The "net use" line can contain other arguments, related to login credentials (you will be prompted if not specified on the command line), and there is a persistence option, and some others. I have been doing it this way, ever since Windows 98 (or XP), when I read articles that enabling file and printer sharing is a security risk. Is that the case today? I do not know.
    1
  1585. 1
  1586. 1
  1587. @7:06 -- VeraCrypt: "It's a great solution, if you want to do whole disk encryption..." VeraCrypt is not limited to whole disk encryption. You can create virtual file systems / volumes (also called containers) from KBs to TBs (perhaps PBs?) in size. For those not familiar with VeraCrypt, it allows you to create a virtual volume. You mount it with a password of your choice, and it will show up as a volume letter. Anything that you put into that volume will be encrypted -- on the fly. While that encrypted volume is mounted, you use it the same as any other volume letter. It will work, seemingly, as if there is no encryption. But once you unmount that volume, the contents of that volume will be mumbo-jumbo to anyone that tries to access its contents. Also, backing up your encrypted volume is as simple as it gets, because each volume is a single file. So just make a copy of that file to somewhere else for safekeeping. VeraCrypt is easy to use, is open source, free, and uses very strong encryption (on the level that 3-letter government agencies use). But if you use a stupid password, then all bets are off. The only complicated part of VeraCrypt is if you want to use it to encrypt your entire boot drive. BitLocker probably makes setting up that feature much easier. But BitLocker is closed source. Executives at Microsoft could have a master password -- no way to know. That probably will not matter to most folks. But it is easy for Microsoft to have. @7:42 -- GPG Note that you can use GPG to encrypt individual files with its: --symmetric option (or its abbreviated "-c" option). So if you have an individual file that you want to encrypt, using very strong encryption (similar to VeraCrypt's strong encryption), then GPG has that feature. ----- For any encryption software, be sure to download it from the right site. Malware makers love to mimic the real software, to take over your computer. Do not download ransomware, disguised as VeraCrypt (or GPG, etc).
    1
  1588. 1
  1589. 1
  1590. 1
  1591. 1
  1592. 1
  1593. 1
  1594. 1
  1595. 1
  1596. 1
  1597. 1
  1598. 1
  1599. 1
  1600. 1
  1601. 1
  1602. 1
  1603. 1
  1604. 1
  1605. 1
  1606. 1
  1607. 1
  1608. 1
  1609. 1
  1610. 1
  1611. 1
  1612. 1
  1613. 1
  1614. 1
  1615. 1
  1616. 1
  1617. 1
  1618. 1
  1619. 1
  1620. 1
  1621. 1
  1622. 1
  1623. 1
  1624. @1:08 "The only people able to see your communications are yourself and the persons you're communicating with." @1:15 "There's no one to intercept, record, or report your messages." The above is true, and not true -- and is no fault of signal, or any other privacy app that does everything 100% correctly. The issue is that the devices that you use cannot be trusted. For example, the iPhone model 16 includes Apple Intelligence, which is client side scanning. Ergo, your iPhone 16 sees what you see. If it is on your screen, then your iPhone 16 sees it. It records everything. So those Signal messages, that you are able to see... well... Apple took screen shots of it, so they can see it, too. And if you are using, perhaps, an iPhone model 8, you are safe. Right? What if the other person using Signal is on a model 16? Your Signal communications are now on Apple's servers. No longer will a 3-letter government agency have to try and crack your iPhone 16's password. Apple has a copy of it all, in the clear. Rob Braxman Tech has videos that go into depth on this topic. Watch the one from 4 weeks ago, titled "End-to-End Encryption Now a Historical Footnote. They Won." In the above video, Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Microsoft AI, says, @2:10: "We are on a mission to create a true AI companion. And, to me, an AI companion is one that can hear what you hear, and see what you see, and live life, essentially along side you." Mustafa Suleyman also ran DeepMind, a Google AI company. Both Microsoft and Apple are doing this, and it stands to reason that Google and Facebook are no different, in terms of spying on everyone. As to us not being so important. Well, we are. It is why those companies are doing what they are doing. When good people do not run for public office, might it be because big tech does not like them, and will "leak" their private life to the media? Are our elected officials compromised? Can you imagine having "the goods" on the Director of the FBI, or similar? This spying is a serious problem. Free nations have many times, over the millennia, and even in recent times, turned tyrannical. Will it be easier to end the surveillance while we are a free people, or will it be easier to end the surveillance after our freedoms are gone? Germany is arresting people for memes on Facebook. Twenty years ago, that would have been unthinkable. Australia, too. And there are others. And the people being arrested are just regular folks -- no special status. So we are "that important".
    1
  1625. 1
  1626. 1
  1627. 1
  1628. 1
  1629. 1
  1630. 1
  1631. 1
  1632. 1
  1633. 1
  1634. 1
  1635. 1
  1636. 1
  1637. 1
  1638. 1
  1639. @1:51 "...an assailant..." Mazie Hirono did not say that the assailant was white. So based on her record of hatred towards white people, and especially white men, we know that the assailant was not white. If the assailant was white, then Mazie Hirono would have done a cartwheel. @2:21 "These disturbing and horrifying acts..." and she does mental gymnastics to tie COVID-19 into those attacks, and wins the Olympic Gold for twisting her hatred into concluding that the attacks were racist, with zero evidence of the attacks being racist. In fact, someone needs to confirm that she did not lie about the attacks taking place. We cannot trust anything that comes out of her mouth. Perhaps there are elements of truth to her lies. Even habitual liars do not lie 100% of the time. @3:11 "Over the past two weeks, I worked with senators in both parties..." Flat out lie. Mazie Hirono dictated terms to republicans. How do I know? If anything that any republican asked for was agreed to by Mazie Hirono, she would have bragged to show examples of her being reasonable. So when Mazei Hirono says that she "worked" with people that she disagrees with, remember that her definition of "worked" is not in the dictionary. Her definition of "worked" is that she exerted intolerance and forced 100% of her agenda on her republican colleagues. @3:24 "...for her (Senator Collins) good faith efforts to amend this bill..." This is a textbook example of Mazie Hirono lying. Did Senator Collins make a good faith effort to amend the bill? Yes. Did Mazei Hirono accept those amendements? No. So, yes, Senaotor Collins made good faith efforts, and her efforts fell on Mazie Hirono's deaf ears. @4:42 "We are in this together" Flat out lie. Mazei Hirono permits no inclusion from republicans. Mazei Hirono is part of the swamp. She is one of the keepers of the swamp. Mazei Hirono is a degenerate.
    1
  1640. 1
  1641. 1
  1642. 1
  1643. 1
  1644. 1
  1645. 1
  1646. 1
  1647. There is one camera angle that clearly shows President* Biden stopping, and (first) putting down his left foot. He is now stopped and resting on his left foot. Two seconds later, he leans over to his right foot, and does not pull his heel back, resulting in his toes still in the toe clip, and he falls. Two things: 1) The media's BS excuse is just that. It is BS, because President* Biden was already stopped, stable, and in control of his stance. So he knew how to remove his left foot from the toe clip. Two seconds later, he forgets how to remove his right foot from the toe clip. That is a sign of mental decline. 2) Toe clips are ancient. Any reputable bicycle store would warn you against using toe clips, and they probably do not sell them. 99% of riders use platform pedals. Avid cyclists, athletes, competitive riders, etc, use "clip-less" pedals (which is a confusing name, because you clip in to the clip-less pedals). They are called "clip-less" because they do not have toe clips (Biden has toe clips). The way that athletes (such as in the Tour de France) clip in is by wearing cycling shoes, where on the bottom of the shoes it clips into the pedals. This helps the riders climb hills, because while one foot is pushing down, the other foot is pulling up. It also helps on bumpy terrain, and mountain biking, by stopping your feet from falling off of the pedals. But toe clips are known, for decades, to be dangerous. President* Biden's bicycle is probably 40+ years old. In summary, President* Biden put his left foot down, was stable, and then leaned over to his right foot and forgot what to do. That is due to his mental state.
    1
  1648. 1
  1649. ​ @ad_astra468  What might look like President* Biden trying to, twice, slip his right foot out is him only trying to put his foot down. There are basically two types of pedals for 40+ decades. 1) Platform pedals. These are your standard flat pedals. Better ones come with adjustable "pins" (not really pins) that help keep your sneakers from slipping. But they do not interfere with you trying to put your foot down. Just a guess, but 99%+ of riders have platform pedals, and probably 90% of them have no pins (I am not sure if they are called pins). But if you search for platform pedals, the better ones will show pictures of the raised parts that hold your sneakers in place from the bottom; that give your foot better grip on the pedals. The pins are helpful if you are on bumpy terrain. 2) Clipless pedals. The name of these pedals is a bit confusing, because you do clip in. But these are not toe clips, which is why they are called "clipless". Clipsless pedals require special cycling shoes that have a part on the underside of the shoes that lock into the pedals. To unlock, you have to rotate your heel outwards, and then you can put your foot down. When I first started using "clipless" pedals, I took a couple of falls. Eventually, by riding often, kicking my heels out (when coming to a stop) became second nature. Serious cyclists use "clipless" pedals. Every rider in the Tour de France and other competitive events all use "clipless" pedals. Why? Aside from pressing down on the pedals, you are able to pull up, too. You get to use additional leg muscles, resulting in better performance (especially in hill climbing, where one foot is pressing down while the other foot is pulling up). Also, the pedals are lighter (and every gram of weight counts, in competitive sports). President* Biden was using neither #1 nor #2. President* Biden's toe clips are akin to floppy disk technology for his computer, or rabbit ears antennas for his TV, or a hand crank to start a Model T car, etc. I suspect that his bicycle is 50+ years old, and that is how he came to have "toe clips", and that no one gave that bicycle to him. He probably had it in his garage for decades. When he looks like he is trying to free his right foot, he is not trying to slide it backwards to get free of the toe clips. Rather, he is trying to slide his foot to the right to put it on the ground, which is a natural action, when you forget that you have toe clips. But he remembered when he put his left foot down, and two seconds later forgot when he tried to put his right foot down. That is what makes his accident revealing of his mental decline.
    1
  1650. 1
  1651. 1
  1652. 1
  1653. 1
  1654. 1
  1655. 1
  1656. 1
  1657. 1
  1658. 1
  1659. 1
  1660. 1
  1661. 1
  1662. 1
  1663. 1
  1664. 1
  1665. 1
  1666. 1
  1667. 1
  1668. I once created 3 partitions (one for OS, one for apps, and one for data -- saved files), and it was very good, organizationally, but it was a mistake to make separate partitions (I will explain in a moment). Now, I still have a C:, D:, and E: drive for OS, apps, and data, but they are all on one partition. The difference is in the flexibility of allocating space. With 3 separate partitions, when I wanted to adjust the space of one of the partitions (which was running low), I wanted to grab some of the free space from my C: drive (which had over 500GB of free space that I would never use. But Windows would not let me. My only option was to use a 3rd party partitioning tool. I used the free version of Mini Tool Partition Wizard. It required a re-boot to perform the space reallocation. Today, I have a single partition, and 3 logical drives. Now Windows allows me to easily reallocate space between the partitions, with no reboot. Frankly, I cannot think of any advantage for having 3 partitions on a drive. From the user's perspective, a single partition with logical drives functions exactly the same way. I make a fair amount of use of the command prompt. So having more than one drive letter is helpful. It allows me to be in different directories on the various logical drives, and not have to reference the entire fully qualified path of each logical drive when issuing commands for the directory of each logical drive. @3:16 -- Our host made reference to the finite number of drive letters. @3:36, he mentioned that there are ways to work around this, but did not go into it (likely because it was beyond the scope of this topic). For those who are curious, it is called using a mount point. It is how Linux mounts drives. You can connect countless drives, when using mount points (well, there will be some limit, but probably several hundred drives). You can mount a drive into an empty directory of another drive. So if you have your C: drive, you can have a directory named c:\whatever\drives (where "drives" is an empty directory). Now, you can mount some other drive, into the "drives" directory, with (for example) the name "movies". Then, whenever you go to the c:\whatever\drives\movies directory, you will actually be on your other drive. This can be helpful, for example, if you want to search multiple drives, without having to specify c:, d:, e; f:, g:, etc with your search criteria. If your drives are all mounted within your "drives" folder, then when you search all sub-directories of your "drives" folder, you will be searching all of those drives.
    1
  1669. 1
  1670. 1
  1671. 1
  1672. @11:55 "...better handling" I think that the host should have spoken more about the "Sport" model's handling. The Sport model, with its 19", low profile tires, also comes with a firm/beefy suspension (more so, as compared to the other Accord models). This translates to being able to take turns at speed. So that exit off the highway, if conditions permit, you can hug the turn, and the car will stay planted, with minimal lean. I am not suggesting anyone drive like a nut. I am suggesting that the Sport model is designed, and you are paying for, its lateral stability. If the above is of no or little interest, then save a chunk of $$ and get the LX model. But if you do want the superior handling, note that the car comes with either Goodyear tires or Michelin tires. The Goodyear tires are okay. The Michelin tires are very good (better than the Goodyear tires, when taking a hard turn). If you are buying the Sport model for looks (those wheels look very good), and the handling is not a key issue for you, then the tires will not matter (driving, without pushing the car, will not demonstrate any differences between the tires). I believe that the 1.5 liter models come with the Goodyear tires, and the 2.0 liter models come with the Michelin tires -- but I am not sure. Lastly, on a personal note: What was Honda thinking with their "Still Night Pearl" color (the rest of the world calls it "Blue"). Granted, it is eye catching. But it is not a true blue (it has some purple in it). It is not a manly blue. I love blue. And I plan on purchasing an Accord. My first color choice is blue (never owned a blue car). But when I saw the feminine tinge to the blue that Honda created, I ruled it out. The paint job on the Accord is very good, and the mirror shine varies, depending on the color. The best mirror image for the Accord is in the following order (best to worst): -- Black (like looking in a mirror) -- Dark Grey (a small step down from Black, but still very good) -- Red (very close to Dark Grey's mirror image) -- Blue (very close to Red's mirror image) -- White (not much of a shine -- but some) -- Silver (for some reason, Honda left the shine out of this choice) Cheers!
    1
  1673. Very good video, and good timing... Seven items: 1) @7:57 -- That form included an e-mail address. What purpose does that e-mail address serve? I am asking, because what happens if you change your e-mail address, and lose access to the e-mail address you have in the 1password pdf file? Is there any verification code sent to that e-mail address? (aside from the initial set-up). If so, under what conditions will 1password use that e-mail address. Can you direct 1password to a new e-mail address? 2) Do you have to enter your master password each time you start up your browser? Or is it just one time, and then forever, thereafter, your browser has your master password ready for using your vault for all of your passwords? I am asking, because if you never have to enter your master password again, then if you lose your laptop, or someone gains access to your machine, etc, then your browser will give the assailant unfettered access to all of the sites that you use. Will closing your browser trigger 1password to ask for your master password upon your next browser session? 3) Where is the master, encrypted database of your passwords saved? Only on 1password's servers? Only on your computer (if so, where)? On both 1password's servers and on your computer? Is it a single file, or multiple files? Item #4 is why I am asking. 4) I use KeePass. If I screw it up, I have a copy of its encrypted .kdbx database file. It is simplistic to make copies and to restore from a copy. I am asking, because a friend of mine wants to start using a password manager, but KeePass is not to his liking (sharing the database across multiple devices, including smart phones, is not a KeePass feature). 1password seems to check all of the "feature" boxes he is seeking in a password manager. So I want to advise him on how to make a copy of his 1password datase file(s). 5) When using 1password across multiple devices, how does a new password get populated to your other devices? Does the 1password program detect a new entry (or a change to an entry), and automatically distribute the new database entries to the other devices? Or is it a manual process (or an option to be automatic or manual, by way of a setting that the user chooses)? 6) Do you need an internet connection for 1password to provide you with your passwords? For example, with KeePass: I save my insurance information with KeePass, including my policy numbers, and phone numbers, etc. If I need to call my insurance company, but I have no internet access, will 1password show me my vault's information? And does 1password allow you to save non-login data? KeePass allows me to save typed text as comments, as well as documents in its database. Does 1password allow for that? 7) Lastly, I recently saw a video where a Kali Linux user was able to see all of the passwords saved in Google's Chrome browser. But it was the standard browser's feature, and not a password manager browser extension. I hope that the 1password browser extension is more robust, security wise, compared to how a browser saves passwords. The title of that video is: "Hackers EASILY see your password!" on channel "Liron Segev". The relevant "browser" part starts at the 7:03 time mark (although the entire video is informative). Cheers!
    1
  1674. 1
  1675. 1
  1676. 1
  1677. Unless one of the features in the reviewed password managers is a "must have", then I suggest you consider either KeePass or Bitwarden, instead. The password managers that our host reviewed are all closed source code. You have no way of knowing what is under the covers, and neither do the auditors. And who are the auditors? What are their digital, cryptographic, software credentials? Have you read their audit report? With closed source code, multiple master keys can be created by the software, and you will never know. Creating multiple master keys does not slow down the password manager. Are those companies using master keys, that will allow them to have access to your password vault? Probably not. But is "probably" a risk you are willing to have? It is simplistic for them to generate multiple master keys, which would happen during the creation phase of your password vault. The rank-and-file employees will not have a master password the password databases. But what about the CEO? Both KeePass and Bitwarden are open source. Ergo, every programmer on the planet (that's a lot of people) can examine the code, and find bugs or any monkey-business. Both KeePass and Bitwarden are free. Neither KeePass nor Bitwarden has to use a 3rd party service (such as the password manager's cloud service). Bitwarden has features that rely on using their servers, but you need not use those features if you do not need them. KeePass is 100% off-line. If KeePass or Bitwarden is missing a feature that you must have, then go with one of the password manager's that our host reviewed. But if either KeePass or Bitwarden satisfactorily handles your password needs, then I suggest you choose KeePass or BitWarden.
    1
  1678. 1
  1679. Spam can be controlled by ISPs. But unless I am not aware of ISPs taking action, it seems that ISPs do not care. Once an e-mail address is identified as being used by a spammer, the ISP should disable that account. The ISP should also block that user's IP address, if it is identified as a non-commercial account (to not take down a company that has a bad employee). But someone at the company pays for their company's internet service, and they should be contacted by the ISP to put a stop to the spamming, or lose their account. And if spam is coming from foreign countries, and those ISPs allow it, then our ISPs should warn those ISPs that we will block their nation from having access to US markets. That will cause some serious pain for them, and for some US citizens, too. But if the media would report that internet connectivity from [fill in name of country] will be blocked in 30 days, unless [country] cracks down on their spammers, then the US will cut internet access with them. Watch how fast [country] gets their act together. If spammers are using a VPN service, then that VPN service can disable that user's account, and block their IP address. If VPN services refuse to take action, the ISPs can block the VPN service. There are major internet hubs (choke-points) where the people that control those hubs can light a fire under the butts of services that do nothing about their spammers. Alas, no one really cares. They do not want to be bothered with this. An act of congress could get the job done. But when the government gets involved, they nearly always screw things up. They fix one thing, and break two things. Or they inject unrelated BS into the law. And neither our elected representatives nor their staff have the technical know-how to understand the nuances of the issue, nor properly address this issue in legal language, nor properly enforce a new law on this issue. So it would be best for the private sector to fix this. They can (of course they can), if they cared. We have people that created ChatGPT, and countless other technical marvels. So of course we have people that are in positions to fix this. They just do not care.
    1
  1680. 1
  1681. 1
  1682. @3:52 "Don't write it down." If you have friends or family that struggle with computers, where a password manager will be too complicated for them, then those folks are likely to either use the same password on multiple sites, or will be writing down their passwords. For them, I suggest that they "pepper" their passwords when they write them down. This is only for people that have to write it down, due to (for example) health issues. If, for example, one of their passwords is: haveaniceday$$xyz Then they should write down only haveaniceday (they have to remember the $$xyz). The above will prevent others, who might see what they wrote down (such as a nurse or live-in healthcare provider), from using what they saw. The spy will not have the entire password from what they saw. If the above is too difficult for them, then they can use "pepper" by subtraction. If their password is: haveaniceday$$xyz Then they should write down haveaniceday$$xyz123 They have to remember to not include the 123 when entering their password (and use different characters to exclude for every web site (do not keep using 123)). They just have to remember to exclude the last 3 characters, no matter what those last 3 characters are. The above "peppering" suggestions should be a last option, only for folks that cannot handle a password manager or any other method, if it is even the slightest bit technical. And the example password that I used above is somewhat weak, as "haveaniceday", even with a few extra characters, will be broken rather quickly (the phrase is too common, and there are programs that will test such phrases with extra characters, and it does not take long). The above examples were only for illustration. The same rule applies to any common phrases (avoid common phrases). And do not put a date at the end (or beginning) of your password. Those will be checked in a split second. Affordable computers can check passwords at tens of billions of combinations per second. Very fast ones can probably do 100 billion tries per second. As our host said, do not re-use passwords from site-to-site. So come up with different passwords for every site, and pepper each one. Do not use a common theme for what is written down, because if one site has a leak, then your theme will be tested by bad actors on other sites. If you use: haveaniceday$$xyz on one site, then use: leoisgreat995(^@ on the next site, etc. Again, the above "peppering" is for folks that have to write down their passwords. For everyone else, use a password manager. By the way, even with a password manager, you can use peppering. When your password manager creates a super strong password, you can remove the last character when pasting it into a web site (or add one more character). This will help you if your master password for your password manager gets cracked. instead of losing your mind, that someone has all of your passwords, you will have some comfort in knowing that you are using a slight deviation of what your password manager is storing for each site. My password manager is "KeePass", and a fancier version is "KeePassXC" (and the matching "KeePassium" for my iPhone). They are all free and open source. Bitwarden is another excellent free and open source password manager. But it uses cloud storage, and I avoid that risk -- albeit a minimal risk.
    1
  1683. 1
  1684. 1
  1685. 1
  1686. 1
  1687. 1
  1688. 1
  1689. 1
  1690. @2:45 -- Discussing the range. Those are best case scenario numbers, with new batteries. When your EV is 5 years old, you will probably get close to ½ of that range on a warm, spring day. And when your EV's batteries will no longer hold a charge (all batteries eventually fail), it will cost you no less than $25,000 to get your EV's batteries replaced. And you can't pull in to Bob's service station for new EV batteries. You must get your EV's batteries replaced at the dealership's service station. They are the only ones that can get you the custom made batteries for your specific model EV. And it gets worse. They will not have batteries in stock. And it gets worse. Your battery replacement order will not be delivered like a Amazon delivery. No. No. No. Your battery replacement order will take 6 months, or longer, to come in. So: You will have all of the problems show in this video. You will lose range over time, as your batteries age. It will take much longer to charge aging batteries. It will take much more electricity (and cost much more) to charge aging batteries. You will have to wait 6+ months for replacement batteries. You will have to shell out a minimum of $25,000 for the replacement batteries. And let's not forget how heavy those batteries are. That puts a strain on the vehicle's suspension, and the tires. Get ready to replace those expensive tires every 6,000 miles. You will be lucky if you get 10,000 miles out of them. And saving the planet? Those charging stations are powered by coal plants. And those batteries are comprised of rare Earth metals, mined by child slave labor. And where do the old, warn out batteries end up?
    1
  1691. 1
  1692. 1
  1693. 1
  1694. 1
  1695. 1
  1696. 1
  1697. 1
  1698. 1
  1699. 1
  1700. 1
  1701. 1
  1702. 1
  1703. 1
  1704. 1
  1705. 1
  1706. The lines about the state not being able to monitor its own land is, well, too bad. Someone get me a tissue. A good constitutional lawyer could probably win against the government. The state has so much land, because the state has an ENORMOUS budget. When the state pisses away its revenue, it can borrow near limitless amounts of money. So it is not like these government entities can cry "It's too much work for us." They know every person that got a COVID-19 shot, and how many shots. But they have no time, in 15 years, to do a once-over of government lands? The government has no budget to have a handful of people traverse government lands, over years and years, for this purpose? That our wise and trusted elected officials squander tax dollars, and do not keep track of lands that We The People elect them to keep track of, with our tax dollars, is their fault. If our own incompetence, for not knowing that someone is on our own property for 15 years is binding, then the city or state or federal government who have resources to track everything in our lives, should live by the same rules they make for the people that elected them. Perhaps those government entities should ask Microsoft or Google how to track every aspect of people's lives? I assure you that if Microsoft or Google could profit off of those millions and millions of acres, then Microsoft or Google would be monitoring every branch and leaf. The thrust of why those residents do not keep their extended back yards is because they never paid the taxes on that land.
    1
  1707. 1
  1708. 1
  1709. 1
  1710. 1
  1711. 1
  1712. @2:53 "...end to middle" When it comes to End to End encryption, you have to identify each end. @4:51 "Honestly, facebook doesn't care what you're talking about. They really don't." Leo, you are guessing. You cannot know what the key people in facebook care to see. For example, if Madonna was having a private messenger session with Trump Jr., would your position still be that they do not care? A question to folks reading this comment: If you were an executive at facebook, and could watch the private messages of Mayors, Governors, Movie Stars, Military Generals, Heads Of State (around the world), Fauchi, Paul McCartney, LeBron James, etc, would you resist looking at their private conversations? Our host is probably correct, for 99.99%+ of the public, because there are too many unknown people with boring conversations. But not everyone is an unknown, and not everyone has boring conversations. If you send messages with certain key words (such as assassinating a head of state, or improper relations with children, or threats to national security, or threats to Zuckerberg, etc, I suspect that facebook's profiling software would pick it up). The above are examples off of the top of my head. There are probably many more, such as the head of Exxon giving a private stock tip to a colleague. Who would not look at that? facebook makes its ocean of $$ by spying on you. To assume that they are not spying on your messages is unrealistic. And if you are of no interest to facebook today, and you decide to run for Mayor next year (or have higher aspirations), what are the odds that an executive at facebook will not check your messaging history? To reiterate my first paragraph... All End To End encryption is End To End, including facebook's messenger. You are on one "End", and facebook is on the other "End". Then facebook creates a new "End", with your intended recipient on facebook's other "End". That, too, is End To End. But facebook has your dialog 100% in the clear, by being in the middle. On the other hand: Signal, which our host mentioned, is End To End, with one "End" being you, and the other "End" being your intended recipient. Signal is open source, so we need not have to take their word for it. Developers, globally, can see exactly what Signal is doing (you can, too, if you know how to read the source code). So with any End To End encryption service, always identify exactly where each "End" is located.
    1
  1713. 1
  1714. 1
  1715. 1
  1716. 1
  1717. 1
  1718. 1
  1719. 1
  1720. 1
  1721. 1
  1722. 1
  1723. @10:02 -- I believe it to be a myth to believe that Google does not read customer's documents. For anyone that believes otherwise, then you should deem it to be safe to do the following test (only a test): -- Upload documents that threaten the welfare of high ranking government officials, by illegal means. Again, do not post such documents anywhere. This is only a test. Just upload those document to your own Google Docs account, and see if you get a knock on the door. You can do the same thing with crimes against juveniles, or large illegal drug activities. Again, this is all fabricated by you, as a test to see if after uploading those documents to Google Docs, whether you get a knock on the door. For anyone claiming that Google does not read your documents, then it should not matter what documents you upload to their service. Some will say that Google uses an algorithm to detect such documents. Well, upon that algorithm tagging your documents, someone read them, that led to the knock on your door. Anyone know what key words Google searches for in your uploaded documents, that will mark them for review by a Google employee? Since you do not know, then you do not know which documents are being read. At a minimum, Google likely builds a profile on you. And it is more than just about your own documents. If you are a person of interest, then of course executives are probably reading your documents. If you were a top executive at Google, could you resist looking at documents uploaded by a member of Trump's family, or Obama's family, or movie stars, or CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, etc? If you decide to run for mayor 10 years from now, will Google be able to check on what you uploaded over the years, and leak it to news channels or to the opposing candidate, or possibly blackmail you into using your public office in their favor? The fact that Google can look at anyone's documents is a big deal. Would you use GPG if a 3rd party can view your encrypted files, but claims that they do not? @11:33 "...for advertising purposes, period." They could have written that they do not access your documents in any way whatsoever, other than providing you access to your documents. But they did not write that. They wrote one way that they do not access your documents for advertising. Although I cannot confirm... I will lay odds that no one from the Pentagon is allowed to store documents with Google Docs, or any other cloud service. Google is the biggest spyware company in the history of our planet. They make oceans of money on knowing everything about us. And we are supposed to believe that they have no interest in the documents that we upload to their service? Microsoft's One Drive agreement has language that makes any documents you upload the property of Microsoft. All of the cloud storage service agreements probably have similar language. @14:43 -- RAID keeps your data safer than non RAID (excluding RAID 0). For example, with RAID 1 or RAID 5, you could lose a drive and lose no data. Everything keeps running. Without RAID, if you lose a drive, then you will have lost any data since your last backup. @17:28 -- That was Jerry's fault, for not doing backups. RAID is not a replacement for backups. If it is a choice between only RAID and only backups, then choose backups. But if you can do RAID 1 or RAID 5, and also do backups, then you will be that much more protected from data loss (between the dates you do backups).
    1
  1724. 1
  1725. @1:11 "If it's from someone you know -- great." The headers (or fields) of an e-mail message can be spoofed. There are scams where the attacker makes it look like you sent e-mail to yourself, and the attacker points out, in the body of the message, for you to take notice that you sent e-mail to yourself. When you check the "From" field, it will show your own e-mail address. It shows all signs that you sent yourself e-mail. The attacker explains it by writing that they have your login credentials, and they have all of your photos, etc, and will send them to everyone on your contact list -- unless you pay up. All of it is a lie. They do not have any of your login credentials. Yet, they sent you an e-mail message with your own e-mail address in the "From" field. Ergo, they can send you an e-mail message with anyone's name in the "From" field. So never let your guard down. If out of the blue, someone you know sends you a link or an attachment that is atypical of their correspondence with you, then contact them before opening the attachment. Their own computer might have been compromised. So contact them outside of e-mail. The best way is a phone call, because if their computer has been compromised, you could be corresponding with the attacker. Also, if the e-mail message appears to be from a friend, and that friend never surfs the web with their seat-belt on (so to speak), then don't follow their risky instructions, just because you know them. If the attachment still has you unsure, then upload it to virustotal for it to be scanned. Ultimately, you are responsible for what you open on your computer. Remember that not all criminals are dumb. Some are very smart, and they use social engineering to trick you. Question everything, two or three times, before running some unsolicited link or attachment.
    1
  1726. 1
  1727. 1
  1728. 1
  1729. 1
  1730. @4:10 "A spokesman for the tech giant (referring to google) said..." Par for the course, well meaning anchors and normal people run cover for the culprits. Who is the spokesman? What is his name? What is his title? When it came to the good buy that is exposing google's censorship, our host immediately named Elon Musk. But when is comes to the bad buy that is making excuses for google's censorship, that person gets to hide under his desk. I would have some respect for her if she said: "An anonymous spokesman for the tech giant (referring to google) said..." @4:16 "They said..." Again. Who said that? Anchor "Sharri Markson" should have said: "google's anonymous spokesperson said..." @7:19 -- "But there are other problems on the platform 'X', no question." And now the truth comes out. Anchor "Sharri Markson" is a leftist. Sharri Markson took a story about Elon Musk exposing google's censorship, and she ends it with "X" (Musk's platform) having problems -- which has nothing, whatsoever, to do with google's censorship. And note Sharri Markson's "no question" remark. In other words, she makes a conclusive statement, which is her opinion, taking a shot at "X", which has nothing to do with google's censorship, and her "no question" conveys "You will not challenge me -- interview over." That is what leftists do. Shame on Sky News Australia for reporting censorship via an employee that is using crafty language to do the same. This Sky News Australia posting is another example of normal people shooting themselves in the foot when having smoking gun evidence of wrongdoing by the bad guys. Surrendering in the face of victory.
    1
  1731. 1
  1732. 1
  1733. 1
  1734. 1
  1735. 1
  1736. 1
  1737. 1
  1738. 1
  1739. Contrary to the title of this video... 100% of the illegal immigrants are neither asylum seekers nor refugees. 0% of the illegal immigrants are fleeing persecution. The radical left made up the clown world usage of "asylum seekers" and "refugees". The radical left is trying to redefine the definition of words. Never use the clown world language of the radical left. Doing so inadvertently gives credence to their clown world language. Radical leftists already have normal people repeating "misgendering" for correctly gendering someone. Radical leftists already have normal people calling "fugitive" cities "sanctuary" cities. A city that harbors fugitives from the law is a fugitive city. None of the illegal aliens are fleeing persecution. Ergo, none of them are seeking sanctuary. Therefore, the notion that those are "sanctuary" cities is absurd. Harboring criminals from the law makes you a co-conspirator. Cities that harbor criminals from the law are "fugitive" cities (not sanctuary cities). Radical leftists even have some normal people calling drag shows, with adult men twerking for 8-year olds, and having 8-year olds stuff dollar bills down their shorts... normal people are calling those child sex predator acts "child friendly" drag shows. Stop going along with radical leftist clown world language. The meaning of words matter. The radical left knows that. However, too many normal people have yet to grasp that. The title of this video is one such example. The title of this video should read: "Lefties losing it: Pro-illegal immigrant advocate 'virtue signalers' refuse to take in illegal immigrants"
    1
  1740. @0:58 "...liberalism is not the same thing as woke." That is a liberal trying to distance himself from the agenda that he supported, and the politicians that he supported, throughout his life. Now that his Democrat party is revealing their end-game, Maher is basically saying "Hey, that's not me." BS, Bill. Too late. You spent your entire life nurturing these radical leftists, and now you want to divorce yourself from them -- as if you did not know their politics. Like a typical liberal, he wants to spew his dangerous rhetoric, and then walk away when the you-know-what hits the fan. Maher still bashes Trump, and Maher still supports the same radical left Democrats, while out of the other side of his mouth, he tells them to back off (but he still votes for them, as if they will reign in their radical actions after they take office). Maher is a degenerate leftist, trying to squirm his way out of the mess that he was very involved in creating. Folks, never let your guard down, when dealing with leftists like Maher. Such leftists tell you what you want to hear. Do not buy it. Do not trust him. His sudden stance on various political issues is to save his own butt. He is the same "vote Democrat" leftist that he always was. 100% of woke people are Democrats. Ergo, woke and liberalism are tied at the hip. Maher lied in his statement that they are not the same. Of course they are the same. If John Fitzgerald Kennedy was alive today, he would decry all of the Democrat leaders, all of the leftist talk show hosts (like Maher). If John Fitzgerald Kennedy was alive today, he would be a Republican. Whereas Maher is still a proud Democrat.
    1
  1741. 1
  1742. Here are four additional options: 1) If her old PC stays up for a while, before crashing, then she can network her new computer to her old computer. The drive on her old computer will show up as a drive letter on her new computer. The above will work best if you plug in an Ethernet cable (CAT 5, Cat 5E, Cat 6, etc -- any should be good enough for this temporary exercise) between the two computers. You do not even need a router, hub, or switch. As long as her old computer is not ancient, you do not even need a crossover cable (which was once necessary for directly connecting two computers with an Ethernet cable). 2) If #1, above, is too complicated, then you can plug in a USB drive into her old computer. As long as it stays up for a while before crashing, you can copy whatever you want from her old computer to the USB drive. Then, plug that USB drive into the new computer, and copy the files from the USB drive to the new computer. 3) Purchase a USB SATA adapter. I use a UGREEN model. There are many brands listed on Amazon. I choose UGREEN, based on the reviews. Mine works flawlessly. If the drive that has the files is a 3.5" mechanical drive, then the USB SATA adapter must have its own power source. The UGREEN model that I own costs $17.99 right now on Amazon, and includes its own power supply. If the drive is a SATA based SSD, or a 2.5" mechanical SATA drive, then you do not need the power supply. The computer's USB port will supply enough power. But for 3.5" mechanical drives, you must use an adapter with its own power supply. 4) If the old drive is an NVMe based drive (looks like a stick of gum), then you can use an NVMe card reader. You simply open the card reader, drop in the NVMe drive, close the card reader, and then plug it in to your new computer's USB port. Note that an NVMe based drive is not the only drive that looks like a stick of gum. There are some SATA based drives that share that form factor (they have different pin connections). There are card readers that will work with both. But you are probably safe with one that works only with NVMe drives. NVMe card readers typically cost a little more than USB SATA adapters (see #3, above). The easiest solution would probably be #2, if her computer will stay up long enough. It does not involve opening anything or removing any drives. And even if her computer crashes after 10 minutes, you can boot it back up and continue with copying more files. And she should already have a USB drive, for doing backups. Right? If not, this is an opportunity to purchase a USB drive, use it for copying files (as described in #2, above), and then start using it for doing backups. In fact, if she had been doing backups. her files would already be on a USB drive, ready to be copied to her new computer.
    1
  1743. 1
  1744. 1
  1745. 1
  1746. 1
  1747. 1
  1748. 1
  1749. 1
  1750. 1
  1751. 1
  1752. 1
  1753. 1
  1754. 1
  1755. 1
  1756. 1
  1757. 1
  1758. 1
  1759. 1
  1760. 1
  1761. 1
  1762. 1
  1763. 1
  1764. 1
  1765. 1
  1766. 1
  1767. 1
  1768. 1
  1769. 1
  1770. 1
  1771. Another excellent video with excellent advice. One concern that I have (and probably others, too) is entrusting your "off site" data with someone else, whether they be a friend, family member, or a cloud based service. If you want to keep your backed-up data from prying eyes, then your backups should be encrypted. Many backup applications offer encryption with password authentication. But some backup solutions (especially free ones, such as Macrium Reflect's free version) do not offer file encryption, but is otherwise a more than capable backup solution for most individuals. You can still encrypt your backup, via pointing the backup program to direct the backup to an encrypted volume. VeraCrypt can do this. It is free and open source, and is available here: https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/Downloads.html Do not download it from anywhere else. With VeraCrypt, you can, for example, create an encrypted volume (a new drive letter) on an external USB drive, and have your backup program copy your data to that USB drive's encrypted volume. Anything that you save to the VeraCrypt volume will be encrypted. Just make sure that you have a copy of installation file for both your backup program and the VeraCrypt installation file on a spare storage device. Because if disaster strikes, and you have to reinstall your OS, or for any other reason you might not be able to download VeraCrypt when you need to get to your encrypted, backed-up data, you must be able to run both your backup program and also run VeraCrypt to have access to your encrypted volume and do your restore. Once you have an encrypted backup of your data, you can give that copy to anyone you want, for off-site storage, and be confident that they cannot snoop into your data (well, assuming you used a good password / pass phrase for your encrypted data). If your password is "password123", then hang your head in shame because the encryption is almost worthless. Cheers!
    1
  1772. 1
  1773. @4:26 -- Regarding not seeing the images in a message that you open: Sometimes you will see images, and sometimes you will not see images. Sometimes you will see a few images, but not all of the images. It depends on the source of the images. If the images are embedded in the e-mail message, then you will see those embedded images. That is fine, and the sender will not know that you saw those images, any more than the sender will know that you saw the text of the e-mail message. However, if the images are displayed via links in the e-mail message, where your e-mail program uses the links to download the images, then the computers from where the downloading is sourced will know that you displayed those images. They will know that you are a live one -- that you have an active e-mail address. If your e-mail program offers you to view images, or you have to click something to view the images, then if you proceed, you will be downloading those images from some internet server, and you will be revealing that you did so. So is is fine if you see images when you open an e-mail message, when those images are embedded in the e-mail message. One cautionary note: Your e-mail program might have a setting where you can tell it to automatically download images. If you enable that, then you are telling the sender that you are there, every time you open their e-mail messages. It is a convenient feature that lets you see your e-mail messages in all their glory. So you might like that feature. Just know that you are letting the sender know each time that you open their messages.
    1
  1774. 1
  1775. 1
  1776. 1
  1777. 1
  1778. 1
  1779. 1
  1780. 1
  1781. 1
  1782. 1
  1783. 1
  1784. 1
  1785. 1
  1786. 1
  1787. 1
  1788. 1
  1789. 1
  1790. 1
  1791. 1
  1792. 1
  1793. 1
  1794. 1
  1795. Years ago, I created a Microsoft account, because a Microsoft account was required to use Microsoft's "Quick Assist" feature, when you are the one providing the assistance (when you are the one that will connect to someone else's computer). The person receiving the assistance does not need a Microsoft account. I used a cloud9 e-mail address that I used for miscellaneous things, to sign up with Microsoft. Some time later, the cloud9 service decided to stop offering personal e-mail accounts to non-business customers. That is when I discovered what our host demonstrated, because I needed another e-mail address to replace the one from cloud9. I then added a protonmail alias to my Microsoft account. So I never created an Outlook e-mail address, or any Microsoft (or Microsoft related) e-mail address. And Microsoft let me use 100% non Microsoft e-mail addresses to login to my Microsoft account, in order to use their Quick Assist tool (which is a great tool for assisting people). Keep in mind that Microsoft can see and record everything (if that matters to either party). Your Quick Assist session is funneled through Microsoft's servers. Quick Assist is similar to VNC (although I have not used VNC in over a decade). With Quick Assist, the person to whose computer you are connecting can grant you full control, or only a visual connection to their computer. And they can kick you off whenever they want. There are other nice features -- all easy to use. Quick Assist is available, starting in Windows 10 (any version). I have never used my Microsoft account for anything else. Leo, if you do not have a remote access video in your channel's library, then please consider creating one, comparing VNC and Remote Desktop and Quick Assist (and any others you deem to be of value to your viewers). I especially like Remote Desktop, which allows me to connect to other Windows Pro systems (requires Pro for the side accepting the connection), and use those remote systems as if I am local to them (and anyone that really is local to them cannot see what you are doing). I got off topic. But the Microsoft account topic reminded me of Quick Assist and remote control tools in general.
    1
  1796. 1
  1797. Steve, if the police are able to independently gather evidence, establishing a lawful purpose for searching the contents of that cell phone, then they should be able to legally search that cell phone and use their findings (as it relates to the scope laid out in the search warrant) in court. When the police can demonstrate inevitable discovery, then what was initially obtained illegally then becomes legal. For example: The police threaten harm to the child of someone, to get the parent to give them the name of a murderer. Well, the police are not allowed to do that (and would face disciplinary actions and possibly lose their jobs). So a judge throws out the case against the murderer that they arrested, based on illegally finding the murderer and all evidence related to the police's illegal threats. Then, through 100% independent investigations, evidence turns up that points to that same murderer's name. So the police arrest that murderer. Well, this time the evidence sticks, because they found the murderer though 100% proper channels. The same goes for getting a warrant (getting permission) to search the cell phone. If the police can show that they inevitably found good cause for a proper search warrant (none of which is based on anything that they learned from the initial, illegal search), then the warrant is valid, and the evidence is valid. So in the case you are discussing, either the judge was looking for a reason to be soft on crime, or the new warrant did not demonstrate inevitable discovery of evidence granting a proper search warrant. Steve, you are leaving out something from your discussion. Perhaps you do not have that information. If so, you should say so. What you should not do is take a flat-out preposterous position on search warrants, and make no mention of inevitable discovery case law.
    1
  1798. 1
  1799. 1
  1800. I was perusing SSDs (solid state drives), to use with my computer. I came across numerous scams, where the listing would show (for example) 8TB SSDs for $29.99. Such an SSD would cost hundreds of dollars. There are videos on youtube where the host purchases these scam drives, opens them up, only to find a 64GB micro SD card. The scammers program the SSD's controller to report 8TB. So Windows (or Macs or Linux) operating systems end up corrupting data that is sent to the drive, after the 64GB physical limit is reached. I called Amazon, twice, and reported several of the scam listings. They thanked me, and did nothing. Perhaps the representatives did their due diligence. Who knows? Somewhere between my phone call and their personnel, they just blew it off. Some employee in their chain just does not care -- and it could be coming from executive management. I reported someone listing Irish Spring soap bars, with deceptive language, resulting in them shipping less than 1/3 of the stated quantity. I got a refund, and Amazon never took down the listing. Is "we don't care" attitude coming from Jeff Bezos? Does he care? Of course he relies on his management personnel to do the right thing. But does he ever spot check? And the insult to injury is that when I submitted a review, clearly describing the deceptive language in the listing, days later I received a message that my review did not comply with their guidelines. I called Amazon, and asked them to point out the language in my review that prompted them to not list my review. Not only were they unable to find what I submitted, they told me that they would follow-up with the personnel involved in that area, and would get back to me. They never got back to me. I called them, to inquire, and it was as if I never spoke to anyone in the first place. I am not faulting the folks that take the phone calls. Clearly, they are left out to twist in the wind, handing issues for which they are given zero support. There are folks at Amazon that have the authority to deal with all of the above, and they are the cause of all of the above, and those personnel remain anonymous and work in the shadows.
    1
  1801. @4:50 -- The warranty: The warranty for Western Digital drives is nearly meaningless. Yes, a longer warranty should translate to a longer lasting drive. So, why did I write that the warranty for Western Digital drives is nearly meaningless? If you have to create an RMA (return merchandise authorization) with Western Digital, you simply can't (unless they finally fixed their issues -- assuming that their non working RMA system was not intentional). So you have to call Western Digital, nearly every day, for weeks, wasting lots of time, and being aggravated. At some point, if you are lucky, perhaps a month after you contact Western Digital, they will give you an RMA code, and you will ship your faulty drive to them. Until you get an RMA code, you may not ship your bad drive to them. Now you enter phase 2, which is basically the same as phase 1, because they will not ship you your replacement drive, unless you call them every day, and on and on and on. Perhaps another month will go by, and you will finally get a tracking number for your replacement drive. If you do not keep calling them, I doubt that you will ever get an RMA number. And if you call every day, and they finally give you an RMA number, then I suspect that if you do not call every day, they will never ship you your replacement drive. It took me over 2 months to get through this process. And I did not see the pattern of being jerked around, until 2 weeks passed. That is when I started staying on top of the process. The personnel that answer Western Digital's phones are mostly professional. But they are experts at politely making excuses, and having you wait just a few more days (and so you call back in a few days, and repeat). They know that nothing is going to happen, and yet they imply that it will take only a few more days. This is where they are unprofessional. They are lying. But I suspect that it is their management that gives them marching orders to drag the customer along and keep convincing the customer to give it more time. Note that Western Digital offers the option of a "Convenience Fee" of $25. Supposedly, if you give them $25, then they will ship you your replacement drive ahead of them taking possession of the drive that you are returning. So rather than being there for the customer, who just lost their storage, Western Digital sees the customer as vulnerable and needy, and Western Digital sinks their teeth in to take advantage of the customer's misfortune, due to Western Digital selling a bad drive. Western Digital takes the customer for $25 for the bad drive that was from Western Digital. That is some warranty. You do not see that $25 when you are buying the drive. All you see is the free replacement, which is nearly impossible to complete. Perhaps when customers do not pay the $25 is when Western Digital chooses to treat the customer like dirt. And calling the fee "Convenience Fee" is BS. There is nothing convenient about paying for something and getting what you pay for. You could spend $300 and conveniently get a new drive shipped to you the same day from a re-seller. Why not call the fee "Save The Puppies Fee". Surely everyone would want to pay that fee? Western Digital does not honor their warranty. No one should have to wait months, and get their replacement drive by going through hell. There is no mention of being driven nuts in order to get a warranty replacement. There is no such mention of visiting hell, to get through the processes, in the warranty statement. This makes their warranty claim a lie. Note that Seagate's customer support is a pleasure to deal with. They will advance ship your drive, and will not charge you a fee. You give them your credit card information (just in case you never send them your bad drive). But they do not charge your card. They just immediately ship you your replacement drive. No hassles whatsoever. If the price is competitive between Western Digital and Seagate, then stay away from Western Digital. If you have to get a warranty replacement with Western Digital, you will regret your purchase.
    1
  1802. 1
  1803. 1
  1804. 1
  1805. 1
  1806. Criminals send out e-mail messages, putting your own e-mail address in the "From" field (just as our host described), and in the body of the message, they state that they have control of your computer and your e-mail account, etc. They go on to say that if you change your password, it will not matter, because they installed spyware on your computer and they will see your new password, etc. They explain all of that, because they go on to say that they will send all of your most private information (they like to threaten you with your web browsing history) to everyone on your contact list, unless you pay them off (they typically demand bitcoin, and they include instructions for buying bitcoin so that you can send it to them). It is 100% BS scare tactics. Just delete the e-mail message. They do not have access to your computer or any of your accounts. They have as much access to your web browsing history as you have to their web browsing history (meaning "none"). No matter how convincing their threat sounds, just ignore it. Thieves use all manner of coercion, sometimes convincingly so, to get the better of you. It is all a bluff. No one has access to your accounts when they send you e-mail that appears as if you sent it to yourself. They will usually threaten you that if you do not pay them within 48 hours (or some other amount of time) that they will follow through on their threat. You might be worried during that time period. Don't be. Nothing is going to happen. It is all designed to make you nervous enough to wonder if maybe you should send them what they are demanding . Do not fold. Nothing is going to happen.
    1
  1807. 1
  1808. 1
  1809. 1
  1810. 1
  1811. 1
  1812. 1
  1813. 1
  1814. WARNING about 1Password: I was curious about 1password, so I just installed 1password on a virtual machine. -- It forces you to give them your e-mail address. -- It forces you to have an internet connection (well, at least to initially create a vault). -- It pressures you to install their browser extension (that is bad for privacy -- you want your browser to have no unique properties -- keep it as vanilla as possible, to minimize being tracked on-line). -- Its "Terms Of Service" goes on and on and on. If you have any disputes, well... you agree that you cannot sue them. You must go through arbitration, with (guess who?)... their arbitrator, subject to the laws of Canada. There is a long list of "Confidentiality" tortured legal language, to which you agree, including "customer data" and "confidential information" (go figure out what data that includes). They even have you agree that they are allowed to disclose your information, under the conditions that they list. So apparently 1Password is a data harvester. My guess is that they will be tracking you, on-line, and possibly data mining on your device. The above just scratches the surface, within the "Terms Of Service" agreement. Then take a look at the equally intrusive and lengthy (and impossible to absorb) "Privacy Notice" to which you are forced to agree. You will need three attorneys, and a week of counseling to wrap your head around those agreements. The above is insane, for a tool that you will be using to keep your passwords (and presumably your privacy) safe. Folks, I do not care how intuitive 1Password is. I do not care if it serves me breakfast in bed. I would not use 1Password if I was offered a copy of the Epstein client list. There are other fantastic password managers that do not have that insanity.
    1
  1815. 1
  1816. ​ @ExplainingComputers  Please note that the format (.mp3, .flac, .alac, etc) is not the final deciding factor in sound quality (but it is a factor). If, for example, the studio releases a song on one album (original release) in .mp3 format, and releases the same exact song on another album (one hit wonders) in .flac format, but they did an excellent job when they released it originally, and the one hit wonder's album is a botched release (I do not know how they botch the releases, but they do), then the .mp3 can sound better than .flac. But if the studio/record label did an excellent job on both, then the .flac will sound better. And it is common for differences in sound quality, from album to album, and even from song to song, within the same album. Why is this? We will know what is at Area 51 before we know what goes on with what the record companies are doing. Also note that most digital has somewhere between mediocre to good (or very good) sound quality, but rarely has excellent or superb sound quality. So what affects sound quality the most is what goes on at the record companies, rather than the format. But a better format will never hurt and can only contribute to better sound quality. If the record company screws up, then the music file, no matter the format or the resolution, will not make the screwed up file sound good. It is like using your state-of-the-art, 4K camcorder to record the screen from you 1972 rabbit-ears TV. You will have a super accurate reproduction of a crappy screen. Or, if you have a blurry photo, and scanned it with a state-of-the-art scanner, your scanned copy will be a great copy of a blurry photo. Also, most folks plop their speakers down wherever they look best (rather than where they sound best -- I suspect that their spouse has a role here). With good gear, and attention to speaker placement (a ½ inch towed in more or out, or a ½ inch tilted up more, or 2 inches further apart or further from the back wall, etc,) when all done right, will make a noticeable difference in sound quality, and will help to hear what is wrong with .mp3 files). And if you are playing in a car, then that opens up a can of worms, due to the shape of the cabin, and different gear used by the car manufacturers. I recently played some quality lossless files in a 2003 Nissan Sentra, 2006 Toyota Camry, and a 2010 Toyota Corolla (all stock stereos). The Sentra had very good sound quality, the Camry had borderline bad sound quality, and the Corolla was the worst of all -- making it nearly impossible to hear differences in file formats, no matter how good your ears might be. High res is mostly a sales gimmick. 44.1 kHz / 16 bit (Red Book) can sound fantastic, and will sound better than high res files, if the Red Book release is done right, and the high res was botched (a common outcome). If all was done right, then the high res file should sound better, if your transport and DAC have good engineering (for example, low jitter) to make the most of the file's higher sampling rate. Lastly, although sonically, .wav files contain the same pulse code modulating bit stream as other lossless formats (meaning, you can convert a file between .wav and .flac and .alac and have the exact same sonic quality), I would use .flac and not .wav. .wav files are extremely limited in the meta-data that they can store, whereas .flac can store lots (not sure how many, but lots) of fields for metadata, which helps in organizing and traversing your music catalog. In closing, .mp3 files never help, and can only hurt. They had a role when storage space was an issue (and is still an issue if playing from, let's say, a 64 GB smart phone). Unfortunately, the .mp3 format is now a leech that will not let go, even if every storage device held a petabyte and was free. 50 year old ears are more than capable of hearing differences in sound quality, when good gear is used, and properly set up in a room (with limited reflections), with great source material.
    1
  1817. 1
  1818. 1
  1819. 1
  1820. 1
  1821. 1
  1822. 1
  1823. 1
  1824. 1
  1825. 1
  1826. 1
  1827. 1
  1828. 1
  1829. 1
  1830. 1
  1831. 1
  1832. 1
  1833. @0:15 "...and they won't be stopped." That is the language of equivocation / surrendering. Those losers will be stopped, because the good among us, and the strong among us, will not capitulate to those criminals. Also, please stop calling them "activists" and "protesters". They are neither. They are criminals. Calling them "activists" sullies the honest, hard work of actual activists. When you break the law, you are not an activist. When you break the law, you are not a protester. What's next? Holding up a bank in the name of climate activism? Or perhaps kidnapping family members of government officials, in the name of climate activism? The list only gets worse, when you misuse the meaning of activism and protesting. When you illegally block a road, then you are committing a criminal offense. Ergo, you are not protesting. If anyone is hurt, or dies, then those criminals should be charged with assault or manslaughter or murder, as the law prescribes. The above includes doctors that could not reach a patient in time, or any emergency personnel stuck in traffic, due to those criminals blocking the roads. Or any person that, due to being held up by those criminals, resulting in injuries or death. And if you lose your business, because you missed a deadline, or your supplies could not reach you, etc, then those criminals should be sued in civil court for financial damages. They should also be fined for littering the streets, and the cost of removing graffiti, replacing windows, etc.
    1
  1834. 1
  1835. 1
  1836. Stay clear of Gigabyte. Here is why: They have appalling, virtually non existent and "could not care less" customer service. Two or three years ago, I purchased two of the their B550 chip set based motherboards. On both machines, my USB drives would disconnect after being written to. This was with both LaCie drives (a Seagate company) and with G-Technology drives (a Western Digital company). I had the latest BIOS / firmware. And when reading about the BIOS / firmware releases in Gigabytes's own notes, they wrote that their releases were to fix USB connection issues. Yet, their latest software (or their chipset's hardware) was bad. There is no way to contact them, other than through an intentionally crippled web ticketing system. -- No phone numbers. -- No e-mail addresses. -- No on-line chat. Zilch. So I filled out a ticket that asked questions that about my power supply, my RAM, and all types of unrelated items. I did not mind, as they do not know what is going to be reported, so it is best to have that information handy. But when it came to being able to actually describe the problem, they gave the customer a tiny text window with approximately 250 characters to explain the issue. Ten days later, they replied to me to restart my computer, and also mentioned that the power supply and other items are unrelated. So I fill out the required information, and ten days later they tell me it is unrelated, and to reboot my computer. So I figured that I would reply to them and have them focus on the issue. Guess what? No reply option exists. So yet another "new" ticket was opened by me. Ten days later, another useless reply. I was within my return window with Micro Center. So it went back. For close to a month, I struggled with the above, including the time wasted building the computers, and time wasted driving back and forth to Micro Center, and time wasted waiting in Micro Center for them to call my name and assist me -- and Micro Center's personnel wasted time dealing with this return. I can understand a tech company having a hardware or software issue. But the intentional firewall / roadblock that they erected to avoid contact with customers, and their BS replies, and their 10 days of waiting to get a BS reply, is unacceptable. I do not care if Gigabyte products ever get great reviews at ½ the price of competitors. I will never give them 10¢ of my business. I ended up purchasing MSI B550 chip set based motherboards, and they function flawlessly. I have no idea about MSI's customer service. Fortunately, I never needed it.
    1
  1837. 1
  1838. 1
  1839. 1
  1840. 1
  1841. 1
  1842. 1
  1843. 1
  1844. 1
  1845. 1
  1846. 1
  1847. 1
  1848. 1
  1849.  @ScooterinAB  Defender is not the dollar store choice. It might have been, when it was first introduced. But it is now a mature, highly supported tool that Microsoft takes seriously. We do not hear reviews and news reports on the failures of Defender, or the ineptness of Defender. And Defender is the default anti-virus, anti-malware, software firewall that is used by over a billion computers. Surely there would be countless reports of issue, if Defender was a dollar store tool -- but there are not countless reports. And we are talking about it running on over a billion computers. If you read enough of the 3rd party anti-virus vendor's agreements, and their links to other legal jargon, and privacy lingo, etc, you will eventually come across language that you are granting their software 100% unfettered access to 100% of the files on your computer, including anything in memory, and that you are granting them permission to do anything, whatsoever, that they want to do with your data. They do not use such blunt language, but that is what their agreement boils down to. Microsoft is a huge spyware company. So they are doing whatever they want to do with your data. But it is not Defender that is collecting your information. So if you now install a 3rd party anti-virus program on your computer, you just invited another spyware company to rummage through all of your data. And the likelihood is that they are not as capable as Microsoft's team, especially since Microsoft's team has access to all of the other Microsoft teams, should they need to obtain information about some obscure program included with Windows that is being attacked by malicious code. No one knows Microsoft's code better than the Microsoft personnel that created the code. So their own Defender code, and the personnel that maintain Defender, have immediate access to any of Microsoft's other teams. If the 3rd party software was appreciably better than Defender, I could see justification for using their software. But I believe that 3rd party anti-virus software is, at best, equal to Defender's protection, but probably less than equal. Combine that with giving a 3rd party full access to 100% of your data, and paying for it, too, and that is why I asked my question (in my opening comment), because I would not use 3rd party anti-virus software (I used to -- but no more). Kaspersky does offer different plans that include additional features (like a VPN service (which I would not trust) and a password manager (which I would not trust), etc). So those add-ons to your annual paid plan might be desirable for some folks. However, not for me.
    1
  1850. 1
  1851. 1
  1852. 1
  1853. 1
  1854. 1
  1855.  @angeldetierra3855  Do you know me? Do you know someone that knows me? I am asking, because you claim that I am "so smart". How did you make that conclusion? Are you writing the opposite of what you mean? If yes, then how do you know that I am an idiot? Why does the intelligence of a person dictate truth? If a person who never attended school says that 3+3=6, does their lack of education dictate the correctness of their statement? Why did you write your question in the form of a put-down? Are you unable to have dialog without being condescending? Did you watch the video? The answer to all of your questions is in the video. Did you miss the part about the police, who are funded, indicting over 800 people? Did you miss the title of the video? Does a person have to be smart to know that if the police are defunded, then there are no police. And if there are no police, then there are no police officers to report rapes to. And if there are no police, then there are no arrests of rapists. Do you understand that the police are the ones that catch rapists? And that in order to have them perform that function, you have to fund them? How do you expect me, or anyone, to provide evidence of no police resulting in no arrest of rapists? No one has ever run a city with no police. Your request for evidence is like writing: "How do you know that people will be killed, if car manufacturers did not include brakes?" "How do you know that people will go hungry, if supermarkets closed down?" "How do you know that rapes will skyrocket, if there are no police?" You believe that my conclusion that no police = no arrests is BS, if I cannot not show evidence of that being the case. It is extraordinary that you need this to be explained; that you do not see that no police = no arrests. Are you trolling for attention?
    1
  1856. 1
  1857. 1
  1858. 1
  1859. 1
  1860. If you want anonymity, then never use a VPN service. Use TOR, and only TOR. The advice given in this video, to connect to a VPN service, which then you will connect to TOR network, is very bad advice. When you use a VPN service, they are acting as a proxy for everything that you are doing. So if you use a VPN service, and connect it to TOR network, then the VPN service can see 100% of what you are typing for all internet activity. And the VPN service will see 100% of everything being sent back to you from the dark web. VPN services make all kinds of claims about keeping you safe, and keeping no logs, etc. You have no way, whatsoever, to verify their claims. And even if a VPN service really goes out of their way to honor their claims, a court can order them to keep logs, and also issue a gag order, so that customers will not know that they are keeping logs. If you wanted to know what people were trying to hide, one of the first places you would check is with VPN services. Governments and people in high places know that, and will find ways to see what is being accessed on VPN services. TOR was created to keep you safe and private. It is an amazing feat of engineering, and it works. Do not think that you are smarter than the people that engineered TOR network. Anything that you do to "enhance" TOR activity will likely degrade your privacy and security, significantly. Lastly, the dark web is not the spooky den of evil that that guest made it out to be. Sure, there are illegal activities taking place on the dark web, but not nearly as much as on the clear web (the one we all use). TOR network is primarily used for things like whistle blowing, and remaining anonymous in forums and elsewhere. You might want to visit Facebook, and not be tracked. Just because you want strict privacy, does not mean that you are engaging in criminal activity. The murder for hire example in this video is ridiculous. Thumb's down click earned, for making the dark web sound like an underworld cesspool of crime and corruption, and also for the horrible VPN advice.
    1
  1861. 1
  1862. 1
  1863. 1
  1864. 1
  1865. 1
  1866. 1
  1867. 1
  1868. 1
  1869. 1
  1870. 1
  1871. 1
  1872. 1
  1873. 1
  1874. 1
  1875. 1
  1876. 1
  1877. 1
  1878. 1
  1879. If in a few countries, laws were enacted that would incarcerate spammers for 10+ years, and examples were made out of a few people, and the incarcerations were reported on news channels, then that, I believe, would take a huge chunk out of spammers. They would think long and hard about sending out spam. The same goes for those that create malware to compromise other people's computers to send out spam (or even if they do not send out spam, surely people that take over other people's computers should be jailed). Yes, it is hard to track down the culprits. But if a concerted effort was made, and such culprits were locked up for a long time, and reported on the news, others would think long and hard about doing the same. If the culprits are from other countries, and those other countries do nothing about it -- if they make no effort to correct the problem, or make no effort to apprehend the culprits, then the United States of America should give those countries 3 months (or whatever is decided) to either ramp up their efforts, and show results, or have their internet connections to the United States of America severed. And such an announcement should be made by American government officials, so that Americans and American businesses can prepare. When those foreign nations learn that they will lose access to American markets, they will wake up. And if the satellites that connect those offending nations are American owned, then as the owners of those satellites, America can disconnect the offending nations to the rest of the world. None of the above is simple. And it will also be painful. But with the right leadership, and forensic technology experts employed for the above challenge, it will get done. The problem is that the people that could get it done do not care.
    1
  1880. 1
  1881. 1
  1882. @2:40 "Now he's (Hunter Biden) an artist" No, he is not an artist. Yes, he sells art. But that does not make him an artist. I sold my car. That does not make me an auto manufacturer. Hunter Biden sells art to as a cover for selling access to the Oval Office. No one has ever seen Hunter create art. No one has ever seen Hunter make a single brush stroke. The media has never asked Hunter from where he purchases his art supplies. No one has ever checked with the art store (any art store) to verify that Hunter made purchases for his art related supplies. No one has ever asked Hunter how he chooses his brushes. No one has ever asked Hunter how he chooses his canvases. No one has ever asked Hunter from where does he get his inspiration for art he claims he created. No one has ever asked Hunter if he ever had formal training -- did he ever take an art class of have a private tutor, and to name the class and/or the tutor. No one has ever asked Hunter for how long he has been painting. And why did he start painting only recently? And if he claims he has been painting for decades, then where are those paintings? I am not an artist, and even I know several questions that the media should ask Hunter. Imagine if the media spoke to a few real artists, to comprise a list of art related questions. Folks, please never (really -- never) lose sight that we are dealing with radical leftist criminals. They lie and they lie and they lie. Just because Hunter claims he is an artist, or just because he puts paintings up for sale, do not believe his assertion that he is an artist. Hunter Biden is not an artist. Hunter Biden sells paintings that some other anonymous person is painting. Like his father, Hunter Biden is a career criminal.
    1
  1883. 1
  1884. Five points: 1) When you bring in millions of people from countries that are determined to wipe out Jews, then what do you expect will happen? If a Jew walked around in, for example, Iran, he would be attacked, and the police would side with the attackers. So now those same people migrated to London, why would it be any different than it would be in Iran? 2) At a minimum, 1 tenth of 1% of Muslims are radicalized. The equals 1,600,000 radicals. So what do you think will happen when, perhaps, 160,000 of them migrate to your city? And the 1 tenth of 1 percent is probably a low estimate. It might be 3 tenths of 1 percent, which would equal 4,800,000 radicals. And by radical, that means they would kill Jews on sight. 3) At a minimum, another 10% of Muslims hate Jews. They would not, themselves, attack Jews. But if a Jew was being attacked, they would watch and cheer. That is 16,000,000 Muslims that supports the killing of Jews. Bring in 1% of them to your city, and you have 160,000 Jew haters that want Jews dead. 4) To anyone that would say that most are peace loving. That does not help. The chaos is not due to peace loving people. If someone robs a bank, no one would say that most people do not rob banks. If someone commits rape, no one would say that most people do not commit rape. Civilizations fall, not due to the civilized people. Civilizations fall, due to the minority of evil people, while the civilized people ignore the evil. 5) Stop calling them protesters. Protesting is legal. But beating up Jews, or killing Jews (or anyone else) is not protesting. It is criminal. Never call criminal actions "protesting".
    1
  1885. 1
  1886. 1
  1887. 1
  1888. 1
  1889. 1
  1890. 1
  1891. 1
  1892. 1
  1893. 1
  1894. 1
  1895. 1
  1896. 1
  1897. 1
  1898. A cloud service should be your last option. -- If your boot drive fails, then you will have to reinstall Windows in order to retrieve your files from the cloud service. -- If you are automatically logging in to the cloud service, then that will not work when you reinstall Windows. Do you know your cloud service login credentials? -- Do you have a way to reinstall Windows, in order to boot up and get to the cloud service? Do you have a bootable Windows disk (or flash drive)? -- Is your Windows license embedded in your hardware? If not, then if you reinstall Windows on a replacement drive, there is a chance (a small one) that you will have to enter your activation key. Do you have it? -- Anything that you give to the cloud service can be (and probably is) scanned by them (complete strangers). They can easily do it, so why wouldn't they? There was an incident where the authorities arrested a man, when he sent photos of his toddler's rash to his doctor, at the doctor's request. The cloud service identified it as child (you know what). So these services are doing more than just storing your files. On the other hand: If you create a backup onto a USB drive, and also create an emergency boot flash drive, then when you replace your failed boot drive, you can restore your computer to exactly how it was before the failure (or at least to how it was when you created the backup). After the restore, you will boot up your computer and it will be like nothing ever happened -- and you will not have to involve a cloud service. The only disadvantage to backing up your data to a USB drive is that you will probably keep that USB drive in the same room (or same home). If you get burglarized or your home burns down, you can lose it all. So critical files should be uploaded to a cloud service, but encrypted before you upload them (if the files are private). Or, after you do a backup, copy that backup to yet another USB drive, and give it to a friend or neighbor. As long as you encrypted your backup (and just about every backup program offers strong encryption), no one will be able to use your backup (other than you).
    1
  1899. This channel has a compulsion to promote their editing skills, rather than letting their viewers watch the car perform. Why is there not a video of the car doing the race, without changing camera angles every 2 seconds? Whey does the camera keep switching to view a man in a helmet in the car? What ever makes the host think that the viewers want to see the helmet, rather than the car performing? Additionally, nearly every camera angle was a distorted, fish-eye, wide-angled view. Did the drivers wear eyeglasses that gave them that same distorted, fish-eye, wide-angled view? Well why not? If it is what you chose to post to your viewers, then it must be better than the real-life, proper aspect ratio, realistic view? Why must these videos turn into a Hollywood-wannabe production? You know that the host watches the race from a single camera and enjoys that view. Yet the host denies the viewers that uninterrupted view. And then there is the music. Were the drivers listening to that music when they were racing? Of course not. So then what makes our host think that everyone other than the drivers would want to hear that music? Why can't we simply watch the race, form the driver's point of view, with no camera gimmickry, and no post recording music. Let us watch and listen as if we were behind the wheel. Why is this not obvious? Answer: The host wants to show off his post recording editing prowess, and is not interested in sharing what it was really like to drive that super-car. Such a shame to have access to such an amazing automobile, never letting others see a simple video of the driving experience. Just plain selfish.
    1
  1900. 1
  1901. 1
  1902. 1
  1903. 1
  1904. 1
  1905. 1
  1906. 1
  1907. 1
  1908. 1
  1909. 1
  1910. 1
  1911. 1
  1912. 1
  1913. 1
  1914. 1
  1915. 1
  1916. 1
  1917. 1
  1918. 1
  1919. 1
  1920. If your life revolves around Google, then give Google your mobile number. Give Google anything and everything they want. Throw caution to the wind. If Google asks for it -- hand it over. But for normal people who have a life outside of Google, make every effort to deny every privacy invading tactic that Google tries to foist upon every person on the planet. To those that believe that Google will not share your phone number, or sell your phone number, that is like believing that having your children vacation on Jeffrey Epstein's island is fine, because Jeffrey Epstein tells you so. I am not knocking anyone who has business interests that puts them at the mercy of Google's services. But for 99% of the world, we can function perfectly well without any of Google's services. Folks that are addicted to Google's services see the world as needing Google, and willing to hand over to Google anything that Google wants. Like a heroin addiction, where addicts will sell their family into bondage for a fix, Google addicts will tell you that you should just do it. If I asked you for your mobile phone number, would you give it to me? Of course not. But many folks would just hand it over to complete strangers at the biggest spyware company in the history of our planet. Does Google already have massive amounts of information on us? Yes. That does not mean that you should just roll over and be complicit in handing your life over to Google. So what difference will one more phone number be? In the scheme of things, not much difference. But there are principles at play. Have some say over your own life's information. Keep some control over who you are. Do not bow to the spyware lords. Make it hard -- damn hard -- for any company to spy on you. That takes effort. Anything worthwhile takes effort. Even if the odds are highly against you, never give up. If losing your Google account will be like cutting off a finger, then give Google your mobile phone number. For everyone else, keep your personal information private. If it does not benefit you, then do not do it. You do not work for Google. You do not report to Google. Find a way to survive without Google, Facebook, and the rest.
    1
  1921. 1
  1922. 1
  1923. 1
  1924. 1
  1925. 1
  1926. 1
  1927. 1
  1928. 1
  1929. 1
  1930. 1
  1931. 1
  1932. 1
  1933. That woke, racist, TikTok degenerate, at the start of this video, would lose his lunch if the arena put "Build The Wall" on the floor of the court. Folks, remember: -- Anything that the radical left finds offensive is racist -- and just about everything in life they find offensive. -- And if you refuse to agree with 100% of their woke, radical leftist agenda, then you are a racist. -- And if you call out the work, radical lefitsts for their racism, then you are a racist. Basically, everything is racist. That is how racists see the world. That is how the radical left sees the world. Some of them conduct themselves that way, because they see a way to cash in. Although that is deplorable, the rest of them see everything through racism. Like what took place in Germany, 90 years ago... you must swear allegiance to the woke overlords. Anything less makes you a racist, and all racists must be banned. Again, affix "Build The Wall" to the stadium, and watch the meltdown from the self-anointed elites that try to dictate morality to our nation. When your political views differ from them, you are a racist. But why do they call so many people racist? It is because they are trying to silence people. Normal people tend to walk away from people that call them a racist. So the radical leftists that hurl that accusation assume that they won that encounter. Normal people tend to not want to deal with unhinged, triggered, radical leftists. So those radical leftists assume that they are having success. Normal people were taught by their parents to stay away from crazy people. Of course normal people do not want to deal with loud-mouth, cantankerous, rude, mentally disturbed people. Also note that radical leftists hurl racist accusations, because that is all that they know how to do. They are mentally vacant. They cannot support their positions (well, because their positions are unsupportable). So they use the only tool in their toolbox. They call you a racist. Note that although it might seem like there are so many woke, radical leftists, it is due only to them being the most vocal, and fake news outlets throwing gasoline on fire to bring in viewers.
    1
  1934. 1
  1935. 1
  1936. 1
  1937. 1
  1938. 1
  1939. 1
  1940. 1
  1941. 1
  1942. 1
  1943. 1
  1944. 1
  1945. 1
  1946. 1
  1947. 1
  1948. 1
  1949. 1
  1950. 1
  1951. 1
  1952. 1
  1953. 1
  1954. 1
  1955. 1
  1956. 1
  1957. 1
  1958. @5:07 "It comes in a couple of different flavors" (Home/Workstation and Security) Is the Home/Workstation distro identical to the Security distro, absent the inclusion of the myriad of security applications that come preinstalled? In other words, are the two distros basically identical, except that the Security version simply includes lots of pre-installed security related applications? I want to divorce myself from Windows, and this looks like a great distro for my next computer. But I have to decide which of the two Parrot distros would be best suited for me. I am not into all of the forensics tools that come with the Security version (but I would like to learn). So aside from the Security version taking more disk space (which is not really an issue these days), can I install the Security version, and just not use the Security tools until I have a need or want to learn about them? In other words, can I use the Security distro the same as the Home/Workstation distro, by simply ignoring the additional security tools? Is there a reason, or some advantage, or a situation where it is more advantageous to install the Home/Workstation distro? Do both versions have the AnonSurf feature? @22:46 "over 600 (security tools)" This intrigues me. But how does someone that is new to this wrap their head around this blizzard of tools? Does the distro offer a synopsis of function/purpose of what each of the 600 tools do? Or do you have to use 3rd party internet resources to get information for each one? If it is the latter, then that is quite tedious. I hope there is a feature, such as hoovering over the item, to see a sentence or two for what it does. Great review.
    1
  1959. 1
  1960. 1
  1961. 1
  1962. 1
  1963. 1
  1964. 1
  1965. @8:28 Accelerating: The camera should be on the road; not on your face. The viewers should see what you are seeing. We cannot appreciate the acceleration, by looking at your face. We can, if we were looking at the road. @9:26 "The head's up display tells you you're going too fast." That is called a nag -- not much different than having a backseat driver in your car. 99% of drivers exceed the speed limit, even if it is only by 2 MPH. If the speed limit is 35 MPH, most people do 40 MPH. If the speed limit is 55 MPH, most people do 60 MPH. Etc. Do we want our head's up display constantly alerting us to the speed we are driving, when we are doing so intentionally? So the questions are: Can that "nag" be disabled? and Can that "nag" be configured to trigger a notification at "speed limit" + "number we fill in". For example, MPH + 5, so that no "nag" appears until we are 6 MPH over the speed limit? @10:15 "The bad" -- "Econ" mode: You will save gas. But on drives where you are often changing speed, you will feel like you are fighting the car -- it is frustrating. When you step on the gas, the acceleration is not much. So you press harder, and almost nothing happens. So you press harder, and almost nothing happens. So you press harder, and BOOM!, it takes off. "Sport" mode is the opposite. The default mode (which is when neither "Econ" nor "Sport" is enabled), is dialed in perfectly. It is the mode that is set when you start the car. It makes for a pleasant drive, where the car is responsive, yet somewhat tame. "Econ" mode is best for highway driving, where you can cruise at a constant speed, and it is also good for heavy traffic, where you are inching along. -- The door sills are painted. If you do not tape over them, you will scuff and scratch them. Your feet (especially your left foot), is going to hit it, especially while entering the car. Yes, you can avoid doing so. But sooner or later, you or someone else will scrape it. -- The stereo is so-so. You can enjoy it. But it does not let you forget that you are listening to a mechanical device. A better stereo makes the speakers disappear, where you hear a wall of music (not individual speakers), and your ears cannot identify the location of the speakers. A better stereo throws a realistic soundstage and has excellent imaging. -- Reverse camera: There is a dotted line, which is almost useless. Typically, that line would be where your rear bumper is located. Yet, if you stop when the dotted line reaches the end of the parking space, your rear bumper will still have 1 or 2 feet left to go. Also, there is no linear view. You have a choice of "wide angle" and "very wide angle". But no "non warped, actual and accurate" view. -- The push buttons: Let's say you are backing up into a tight spot, and the weather is bad, and your camera is blocked or blurry. So you look in the mirrors and turn your head. But that might not be good enough. So you crack open your door, lean your head out, and slowly creep backwards into your spot. No Sale! (says the push buttons). As soon as you open your door, the car puts you into park. -- Auto high-beams are not always timely. So do not be one of those drivers that blinds other drivers. Fortunately, Honda does provide a procedure to disable the auto high-beams, that takes 40+ seconds of holding a lever. Unfortunately, virtually every Accord owner is not going to know about this. So they will have their high-beams annoying other drivers, because the car turns them on and off according to its (not always accurate) sensors. -- There is no simple way to turn off all lights on the front of the car. So, if you are waiting in spot in a crowded parking lot, and it is cold outside, you will probably want to keep the engine running to stay warm. Well, that means that some lights will be on, no matter what you do. There is a procedure to have all lights turn off, but it is a small hassle, and one that most people will not even know exists, and might not remember how to set it up. It is not something you will stumble across. You have to either read it in the manual, or have someone show you. -- The Good: It is a fantastic car. Reliable, fuel efficient, and a blast to drive -- especially in Sport mode, where the turbo boost is increased, the suspension tightened and lowered, and the transmission holds lower gears longer for excellent throttle response. Those 19" wheels, with the low profile tires (little sidewall), and firm (yet comfortable) suspension, translates to a sedan that can whip around turns with ease. Not as good as a mid-engine Corvette. But better than you think. It really holds the road. Not suggesting anyone drive like a nut (even a million dollar Ferrari will lose control if pushed too hard). And the brakes are silky smooth, and have fantastic stopping power, which translates to a valuable safety feature. Those brakes will probably save many people from accidents where they had to stop short. Cheers!
    1
  1966. 1
  1967. 1
  1968. 1
  1969. 1
  1970. 1
  1971. 1
  1972.  @Rambleism  I wrote to you: "For the sake of making a point, let's assume that Trump is guilty of every offense ever thrown at him... Elwood Rambler, please tell us how that gives Schumer a free pass to threaten Supreme Court Justices." You replied with: "Perhaps ... what threat though?🤷‍♂️ Talk about making something out of nothing. Isn’t that something you just shrug off in life? They’re big boys they can handle themselves. Trump threatens woman over the internet while they are doing their duty and testifying 🤦‍♂️ is that better or worse intimidation? Did you call him out?" 1) Changing the subject to Trump is a typical dodge, used by people that either do not know what they are talking about, or are unwilling to admit that they are wrong. You qualify for both. The topic of this video is about Schumer threatening Supreme Court Justices. As eager as you are to change the topic to be about Trump, it is not about Trump. Try to stay focused. 2) For you to ask "what threat though?" is moronic. Yes, I am calling you a moron, because we are commenting on a video where Schumer threatens Supreme Court Justices, and you expect us to believe your comment rather than the video of Schumer making the threats. You might as well write "What does Schumer have to do with this? He is not in the video". That would be equally ridiculous of you to expect us to believe. Do you understand how utterly stupid you come across, when you ask "what threat" when commenting on a video that contains the threat; a video whose purpose is to put a spotlight on the threat, and you ask "what threat". Really. Take a breath and think about how incredibly stupid your are coming across. I do not normally call people stupid. But your assertion of no threat, in a video containing a threat, is the equivalent of holding a "call me stupid" sign.
    1
  1973. 1
  1974. 1
  1975. 1
  1976. 1
  1977. @0:06 "...massive military muscle" According to whom? The clueless "Sky News" reporter? What qualifies her to deem what is massive military muscle? Did she inspect the missile shaped canisters? Does she know whether or not they are real, or leftovers from a Thanksgiving Day parade? Does she know whether or not they employ any sophisticated targeting technology? Does she know whether or not they employ any counter-measures, preventing them from being destroyed after being launched? All she sees is a parade, and she speaks as if she is the chairperson of North Korea's propaganda regime. @0:12 "...which analysts say..." Exactly: to "which" analysts is she referring. She does not say, because she just made it up. @1:43 "...united, within" Based on what? Based on a single video produced by the country's dictator? That makes the country united, within? North Korea uses murder, torture, no rights of citizens, no free speech, no right to a fair trail (or any trial), no appeals to sentencing, hard labor, starvation, etc, to control its population. And "Sky News" reports this as "united, within". "Sky News" is just a name for "Communist News" (because North Korea is a Communist dictatorship, and Sky News promotes their propaganda). "Sky News" supports Communism. This video, the way Sky News narrated it, is proof of their support of Communist North Korea. Folks, always be alert for fake news stations, that are not news stations. Be alert for videos that appear to have credibility, but are simply prepared by tyrants and their supporters, of whom masquerade as news agencies.
    1
  1978. 1
  1979. 1
  1980. 1
  1981. 1
  1982. 1
  1983. 1
  1984. 1
  1985. 1
  1986. 1
  1987. 1
  1988. 1
  1989. 1
  1990. 1
  1991. 1
  1992. 1
  1993. 1
  1994. 1
  1995. 1
  1996. 1
  1997. 1
  1998. 1
  1999. 1
  2000. 1
  2001. 1
  2002. 1
  2003. 1
  2004. 1
  2005. 1
  2006. 1
  2007. Those robots should be illegal (perhaps they are?). Here's why: 1) Motor vehicles are not allowed to be driven on sidewalks. If you were to create a replica of that robot (but your replica is not a robot). And you controlled your replica by sitting on it and driving it on the sidewalk, the police would stop you, and might ticket you. But somehow when it can be driven on a sidewalk without a driver, then it is allowed? It is absurd. And as we have seen, it knocks things over. 2) Sidewalks (and the streets) are paid for by the tax dollars of We The People. Companies pay, separately for their office space and for their storage space and for their assembly space, etc. If you own a company, you pay for the property on which you are using space. Now we have companies using public sidewalks and public roads (think about driverless cars). So companies with huge resources can build an army of robots to go all over town (every town), and cause congestion, and they pay zero for using all of the public space? What happens when, for example, Home Depot creates robot trucks that go around selling supplies everywhere? And McDonalds goes around with automated trucks selling meals, etc. How many thousands of automated motor vehicles should We The People allow to roam our public sidewalks and our public streets, for free? Up until now, every vehicle had a driver. So that keeps big companies from abusing the public space (because for each motor vehicle, there was a human in the vehicle that was controlling the vehicle). But when huge companies can just build endless robots to clog our public sidewalks and public streets, and they pay zero taxes for using all of that public space, it is illegal. Folks, we are seeing the earliest stages of what will turn into a wave of congestion. If this is not stopped, then in years to come, big companies will have armies of these robots all over the place. And it will quickly get worse, as the robots are built in mass, lowering their cost. Would you be allowed to buy or build a robot, and have it make deliveries for you, or advertise for you? 3) Get ready for free advertising from the robots. No longer will big companies need to pay for billboards, or street signs, etc. They will build truck size robots that roam the streets, nagging the public to buy their products and services. You might be sitting in a park, relaxing, when along comes a robot to pester you. And a year later, 5 robots will roll in to pester you. It will come to that, if we turn a blind eye to this pestilence. It might seem interesting or exciting to see these robots today. But like a friend that is fun to be with, if you have to live with them, they get on your nerves. When these robots show up anywhere and everywhere, in mass, the interesting and exciting aspect will be replaced with anger and frustration. And since these robots will be owned by big companies, and those big companies pay-off law makers, get ready for big penalties for interfering with the operation of the robots. This is going to turn into a huge mess. And like any disease, catching it early, and eradicating it before it grows roots, is very important.
    1
  2008. @0:24 "facebook's own community standards" facebook writes their own rules. Then they pat themselves on the back by claiming their rules abide by community standards. Who decides what are the community standards? There is no elected body. It is made up mumbo-jumbo. Raise your hand if you know anyone that is in charge of "community standards", and from where they derived their authority. And which communities? Surly in the hundreds of thousands of communities, in just America, there will be huge divides in what is a community standard. Folks, "community standards" stands for an empty excuse to be a tyrant and claim that you are on the side of (intangible) community standards. @0:26 "and the human rights laws that they want to abide by" Same thing. What human rights laws? Where are these laws written? Who codified these laws? Raise your hand if you know anyone that wrote "human rights laws". Assuming someone did right human rights laws, from where did that person derive their authority to create laws? Who elected them? This is all a load of crap. When it comes to facebook, Mark Zuckerberg is king. His word is the law at facebook. He can wave his hand and dismantle the "Oversight Board". He does not have to listen to the oversight board. He does not have to listen to anyone. It is his company, and he can allow or ban anyone he wants, at his whim. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is codified law. Since it is the law, Zuckerberg must abide by it. Yet, he does not. Zuckerberg is worth $123,000,000,000, he donates hundreds of millions to the Democrat controlled federal government law makers and the Biden administration, and so he gets away with being lawless. All of this "Oversight Board" news is political theater. It is Mark Zuckerberg that has his finger on the "Enable" and "Disable" buttons for President Trump's account. Do not let this "Oversight Board" BS distract you from the fact that it is Mark Zuckerberg, and him alone, that banned President Trump from facebook. Cheers!
    1
  2009. 1
  2010. 1
  2011. 1
  2012. 1
  2013. 1
  2014. 1
  2015. 1
  2016. 1
  2017. 1
  2018. 1
  2019. 1
  2020. 1
  2021. 1
  2022. 1
  2023. 1
  2024. 1
  2025. 1
  2026. 1
  2027. 1
  2028. 1
  2029. @9:21 "Do they have the right to shut down anybody they want, or to push other people to the forefront that they like?" Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act provides protections for on-line hosting of free speech. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not provide protections for on-line publishing. Once a site edits the content of what others are posting (banning people or their comments is a form of editing), then that action is not protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The site becomes a publisher (just like a newspaper, that controls what is printed, and is therefore liable for what is printed), once the site takes on publishing roles. The exception to publishing or editing or banning people is for complying with the law. Just because a site is not liable for what others post on their site, does not mean that the site should allow heroin sales to take place on their site. Such postings are illegal, and must be taken down. As to youtube's recommendations (or google's search results): They are run by Democrats, and search results are skewed accordingly. Also, banned videos are based on leftist ideology. For example, days ago, Nebraska State Senator, Machaela Cavanaugh, had a mental breakdown on the floor of the senate. She was yelling, acting like a 2-year old, and was unhinged. You will not find that video on youtube, if you search for any search terms on youtube. Search for her state, her name, and quote her words exactly, and no video of her losing her mind will show up. That is by design by leftists, at youtube, taking down videos of that Democrat Senator's mental breakdown. Youtube routinely takes down links to videos. That is why I will not provide a link to her meltdown on rumble. That is the act of a publisher, and is in violation of section 230's protections. Search for the video on rumble, and it is there. Now if a Republican, Nabraska Senator did the same thing, it would be promoted on youtube. So although it is all well and good for youtube to recommend videos for music, those same algorithms steer political agendas, affecting election results. That should not be allowed, unless youtube makes it clear that it is doing so. In fact, users should have to knowingly enable such political algorithms, in order for youtube to be allowed to promote biased political agendas. Lastly, it is not solely about leaving section 230 untouched. Rather, it is about sites violating section 230. They do not get to have no liability for postings, when they are choosing and banning postings based on their political leanings. Promoting the free speech of some, over the free speech of others, is a form of censorship, is a form of publishing, and violates section 230's protections. Banning political videos is censorship, and violates section 230's protections.
    1
  2030. 1
  2031. 1
  2032. 1
  2033. 1
  2034. 1
  2035. 1
  2036. Shame on every large company and every government-run emergency service that stayed down for an extended period of time. -- It reveals that they do not have backups. -- It reveals that they do not have any disaster recovery plans. They should all be doing daily backups. What happened with the CrowdStrike related failure is exactly why they should all be doing daily backups. Avoiding outages (certainly extended outages) is the whole reason for doing backups. When any agency's computers (or any large business's computers) all suddenly went down, that is when you start restoring your data from yesterday (from before the unknown culprit wacked out all of your CrowdStrike based computers). The fix ended up to be simple. But what if it was a nation-state attack, or an evil group of savvy computer experts, that simply wanted to cause havoc -- and there was no "delete this file in safe mode" fix? Those government agencies and huge businesses would be wrecked beyond repair. The CrowdStrike issue has exposed the incompetence and gross negligence of the above company's executive personnel. And we will never get the truth about what went on, either at CrowdStrike or at any government agency or business that went down and stayed down, due to no recover plans. And Microsoft is not off the hook for this one either. The Microsoft personnel that certified CrowdStrike's code, to run at ring 0, while allowing ring 1 files to crash ring 0, have much of the blame. Just a guess... but my money (so to speak) is on a disgruntled CrowdStrike employee sticking it to his employer. Or wouldn't it be ironic if CrowdStrike's systems were infiltrated by bad, outside actors? Those bad actors salivate at the chance of breaking in to anti-virus companies.
    1
  2037. 1
  2038. 1
  2039. 1
  2040. 1
  2041. 1
  2042. 1
  2043. 1
  2044. 1
  2045. 1
  2046. Leo, please consider making a video on activation keys that would cover the following subjects: -- Revealing activation keys for both the OS and Office suite. Several months ago, when I purchased the Todo backup software from EaseUS, they started periodically e-mailing me various offerings. One of them is a tool that reveals activation keys, which is handy if upgrading to a new computer, or if your drive fails, and you cannot restore it and need a new drive with a fresh OS installation. This ties in to my next question, regarding activation keys. -- There are other channels, with hundreds of thousands of subscribers, where they advertise discounted activation keys. I want to install Office Professional Plus (because I want the Outlook application, and it would be nice to also have Access). The Office 365 offerings are not for me. I want to actually install the applications, and not pay a subscription. One of those other channel's advertisements has Office Professional Plus, version 2021, for $17.29, and they have been selling activation keys for a long time. So it appears to be legitimate. Is it legitimate? Is the discount due to it being from 2021? I am tempted to make the purchase. But I would prefer to hear from someone reputable that the keys are good and this is all legitimate. I have inquired on those other channels. But they have a financial interest. I would rather hear from a reputable, neutral party. If it is all above board, then $17.29 for a 3-year old office suite is a good deal. Please consider posting an activation key video covering purchasing, and also resurrecting keys for situations where you did not save them in an accessible location. My old i7 computer is running Office version 2007, and I have no idea what my activation key is. A few years ago, I started to use keepass, and now I save such information. I think that many people would find this information useful. Thank you.
    1
  2047. 1
  2048. 1
  2049. 1
  2050. 1
  2051. 1
  2052. 1
  2053. 1
  2054. 1
  2055. 1
  2056.  @Charles_Anthony  "Well, let's look into the cost of removing each material and if it negatively impacts the individual, business and or state." Where in the statues does "cost" determine the legality of defacing public property? 'Chalk is basically the most "temporary" of all since even walking over it will remove it, but water us virtually free, especially if the one using it is a employee of the state.' I will be sending you my water bill for my "virtually free" water. Offer to pay your neighbor's water bill, too. You are quick to call other people's water "virtually free". So you pay for it, since it is virtually free. And if "a employee of the state" is using water to erase chalk, it is anything but free. We The People's taxes are paying for that employee's time. We The People's taxes are also paying for that public facility's water costs. If you insist that it is virtually free, then have the government send you the bill for that employee's time, and another bill for the water meter's usage for the amount used to clean off the chalk. And if you have no problem with people chalking up the public streets, then you should have no problem with them doing the same on your car and on your home. You can wash it off, with your time, "virtually free". "Paint needs chemicals to remove and, in most cases, the surface needs to be blocked off so it not only costs money to remove but disrupts day to day life." So when road crews are re-painting the lane dividers, it was due to someone that used chemicals that faded the original road lane paintings? And the roads were closed down when that someone used their chemicals on the road paintings? The paint on the roadways do not fade away? It is chemicals that are the cause? I am done entertaining your nonsense, and your attempts at changing the subject. The comment that I initially made was about it being illegal to deface public property. That includes chalk. That is the law. And when someone chalks up a public sidewalk with "Blacks and Jews are all scum", or "All Muslims are terrorists", or "White Power", etc, then remember, the chalk is temporary. So you will have no problem with them writing that filth on our public sidewalks. Right? If public sidewalks are an open canvas, then you are okay with whatever people write. See how that works out.
    1
  2057. 1
  2058. 1
  2059. 1
  2060. 1
  2061. 1
  2062. 1
  2063. 1
  2064. 1
  2065. 1
  2066. 1
  2067. 1
  2068. 1
  2069. 1
  2070. This is all very convenient. But Google is the #1 spyware company in the history of the world. There is no way I trust them, no matter how brilliantly they design software packages. When you add on a browser extension, it makes tracking your on-line activities much easier for Google (keeping your browser as vanilla as it was when you installed it makes you more of a mix in the crowd). 100% of your remote access activity is funneled through Google's servers. Google has 100%, in the clear, access to everything you are doing. Your connection to Google's servers is encrypted. But once your data arrives a Google, they decrypt it, and then re-encrypt it to send the data on its way to the other end-point. That is not end-to-end encryption. It is unlikely that anyone is sitting down at Google and watching what you are doing. But they can. And what if they determine that you are Madonna, or Hillary, or Trump Jr., etc? Or what if you are a governor, senator, Biden's chief of staff, a movie star? Well, if you were an executive at Google, and you can watch any of the above people's on-line activities as easily as watching TV, could you resist? And even if no one at Google is watching, they can easily identify people of interest, and record 100% of their on-line remote access activities, and click through it at their convenience. And what if you are currently a nobody, and one day become a person of national interest? Will Google have recordings of your remote access activities? They might, if they save everyone's activities. And they can. They have the resources. And then they will have the goods on anyone rising in the world. This is not paranoia. Google makes its oceans of $$ from spying. They do not offer this remote control software for free, and devote huge computer rooms full of servers, at the cost of $millions per year in hardware, maintenance, A/C cooling, huge electric bills, etc, because they are doing the lord's work. Remember that all of the security, one-step, or two-step, with yubico keys, with unbreakable pass-phrases, etc... it all gets decrypted when it reaches Google's servers, and re-encrypted to continue to the other end point. Google is acting as a proxy service. 100% of your trust is with the personnel at Google, who can see everything (not every employee -- but those with enough clout can see everything). It is illegal for government officials to use this service for classified activities. Why? Because Google can see it all. If you are doing things of no interest to anyone, then this service is a great option. Otherwise, the above applies to you.
    1
  2071. 1
  2072. 1
  2073. 1
  2074. 1
  2075. 1
  2076. 1
  2077. 1
  2078. 1
  2079. 1
  2080. Reputable ISPs should work diligently to block users that use their service to send out mass mailings, that were not requested by the recipients. If an ISP does not care, and allows their service to be abused by spammers, then there should be some penalty for them to pay. Perhaps fining them would be unconstitutional, if they are a privately owned business? So that option would not be proper. But at what point should a government entity step in, if an ISP is allowing billions and billions of spam messages to originate from their service? At what point does the level of spam become a public nuisance issue? Or, at what point does the ocean of spam start becoming a denial of service issue for recipients that are inundated with spam, taking up their valuable time to keep marking messages as spam, and keep wading through tons of spam, to find actual, important e-mail messages? And how many mistakes are made by end-users, when they inadvertently send the wrong e-mail message to their spam folder. It it was a very important e-mail message, that could cause the user big problems. And what about the non savvy internet users? Not everyone is bright. Countless people have the on-set of mental issues that come with age, etc. Are they supposed to be expected to know what to mark as spam, and are they expected to know how to mark it as spam? It is easy for us. But walk a day in someone's shoes that can barely control their mouse, and decide whether or not a "who cares" ISP should have some culpability in doing little or nothing to stop the abuse on their systems. It would be great if a reputable, trusted organization would publish a rating system on ISPs that care and that do not care, and the public would factor that in to whether or not they sign up with such services. The public should not patronize such "who cares" ISPs. Alas, the public will just go with whichever service is least expensive. Or, if reputable ISPs simply blocked 100% of all traffic from abusive ISPs, that would (mostly) help. Of course, that would cause problems for some folks. This is a tough problem to solve. But just marking one message after another as spam, is not a complete solution. And even if you do mark spam as spam, that does not stop the spam from being sent out and clogging the public networks. All it means it that your e-mail client does not put that spam message in your inbox.
    1
  2081. 1
  2082. 1
  2083. 1
  2084. In February of 2021, I had Micro Center build me a system with a 500 GB SSD boot drive. However, they mistakenly installed a 250 GB SSD boot drive. I found out when I got home and installed Windows. Well, I needed to use the computer, and so I did. A week later, I had time to return the SSD to them, and replace it with the right one. At home, I had no way to erase the 250 GB SSD boot drive. I had no other drives to boot from. When I got to Micro Center, I borrowed one of their NVMe, M.2 card readers, and plugged it into my laptop's USB port. Not having a good solution in mind, I first formatted the drive (the long way), then copied music files (the only files I had that took up 100+ GB of space), over and over to different directories to the drive, until it had no more space, and then formatted it, again. Did that make the original files unreadable? Probably. But who knows? I had used the drive for only 1 week, so I knew what I put on it. I had only one sensitive file, and no good way (that I knew of) to overwrite that single file. It has been over a year, and I still wonder if anyone tried or was able to recover anything from my returned SSD? I would wager that no one cared enough to spend time to try, especially since they knew that I overwrote everything (or did that inspire them to try?). The question is how recoverable are overwritten files on an SSD? The way they are stored is not the same as a traditional hard drive. That they installed the wrong SSD caused me a good deal of inconvenience. Besides the amount of time spent re-installing Windows and my applications on the correct SSD, and the time spent sitting there waiting for all of the overwriting to complete on the wrong SSD, and waiting my turn for them to assist me (you can't just walk up and have them hand you an M.2 card reader), I had a 45 minute drive in each direction. To their credit, they were professional when it was my turn and they were helpful.
    1
  2085. 1
  2086. 1
  2087. 1
  2088. 1
  2089. 1
  2090. 1
  2091. 1
  2092. 1
  2093. 1
  2094. @16:11 "...records are objectively pretty bad at isolating the two channels." Records are not perfect at isolating the two channels. That is a far cry from being bad at isolating the two channels. Apparently, our host has never used anything other than mass produced,, low end, department store turntables, tone-arms, and cartridges. He has likely never professionally dialed in his tone-arm and cartridge alignment vectors. On a professionally set-up, high-end stereo, the isolation between the two channels is outstanding (not "pretty bad"). Our host is well informed (for the most part). But he made the above statement, based on his personal experience with playing records, and based on his lack of experience playing records on a professionally set-up, high-end turntable. He was using a Sony turntable. That is a decent turntable. However, it is like using a Toyota Corolla to judge how a Ferrari LaFerrari would perform (and never even having heard of the Ferrari brand, or any other super-car brand -- never knowing about anything that performs better than a Corolla). He needs to use an AMG, or Clearaudio, VPI, or one of the other high-end, highly regarded turntable brands (and a model from their higher tier of their offerings). The same goes for tone-arms and cartridges. And he would need to dial in, with precision, the following settings: -- the effective length of the tone-arm -- the cartridge's weight -- the vertical tracking alignment / rake angle -- the anti-skating -- the overhang -- the offset -- the zenith angle -- the cartridge's azimuth If any of the above are not set correctly, it will result in a less than stellar listening experience, and I am pretty sure that our host has never dialed the above in, or has even heard about most of the above settings. The above is how you get outstanding stereo separation, quiet surface noise, and great imaging -- assuming the pressing is good (most are not good (that's another can of worms) -- and is another reason our host knocked vinyl's stereo separation).
    1
  2095. 1
  2096. 1
  2097. 1
  2098. 1
  2099. 1
  2100. 1
  2101. 1
  2102. 1
  2103. 1
  2104. 1
  2105. 1
  2106. 1
  2107. 1
  2108. 1
  2109. 1
  2110. 1
  2111. 1
  2112. 1
  2113. 1
  2114. 1
  2115. 1
  2116. 1
  2117. 1
  2118. 1
  2119. 1 of 3) Our host touched on the cost of purchasing a license key. That extends to upgrade keys, too. I believe that Microsoft charges $199 to upgrade from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro. And considering that they announced the retirement date for version 10, it is somewhat abusive to charge such an upgrade price. I want to use Remote Desktop's server on my Home version of Windows 10. Well, forget it, because you have to upgrade to the Pro version for Remote Desktop server to be enabled. I will not spend $199 to upgrade to Pro for that functionality. 2 of 3) If you want Microsoft Office installed on your computer, it is too expensive -- especially if you want it to include Outlook. I used to use Outlook 2007. It was an amazing e-mail client. But last I checked (a year or so ago), it costs hundreds to install a current Office package that includes Outlook. And that is for a single computer. What if you have two or three (or more) computers? Yes, they offer Office 365. But that is a rental, and you might have issues if your internet connection is down (computer can't phone home for permission). And there are back-end computers that are not internet facing, that need Office functionality. So you would want to install (not rent) the Office suite. But that is only for people that have a few $hundred laying around, for each computer. 3 of 3) Offer a non bloated version -- or, an official tool to completely remove all bloatware that Microsoft includes, by default, with Windows. You would think that Microsoft would be ashamed at having a reputation, similar to a web site that puts ads in your face and pop-ups in your face. But Microsoft still includes rubbish apps when you click on the start menu (even if those apps are not officially installed, they are there and they are trying to get your attention to click on them and install them, which is annoying and tacky).
    1
  2120. 1
  2121. 1
  2122. 1
  2123. 1
  2124. 1
  2125. 1
  2126. 1
  2127. 1
  2128. 1
  2129. 1
  2130. 1
  2131. 1
  2132. 1
  2133. 1
  2134. 1
  2135. Fiber optic cables provide galvanic isolation that RCA cables do not -- and it matters. Why? The host of this video correctly states that either the digital data gets there or it does not. That is true. But as our courts say when you take the witness stand "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?" In this case, we heard the truth, but not the whole truth. Line nose that travels through RCA cables will accompany the digital signal into the DAC. That line noise will be picked up by the analog section of the DAC. Yes, CD players have an analog section. CD players create sound from scratch. They create sound from reading the zeros and ones and making it into an analog sound that eventually makes it to your speakers. So RCA cables (especially crappy ones) are a conduit for electrical noise that breach your CD player's (your DAC's) internal components. And line noise is bad for sound reproduction. You might be thinking "I hear no line noise". Well, if you took steps to eliminate the line noise, you would notice an improvement in sound quality. The music would reveal inky black backgrounds. There is low-fi stereo equipment. There is mid-fi stereo equipment. There is high-fi stereo equipment. Each of the above has tiers. All of the equipment that the host used in this video is "low-fi", and the lower end of low-fi. That is why, to his ear, cables make no difference. The equipment he is using is equivalent to the testing equipment used in a lab. If the lab is using equipment that is not suited to the test at hand, you will not obtain meaningful test results. Such is the case when this host compares poor cables using poor equipment.
    1
  2136. 1
  2137. 1
  2138. 1
  2139. Google is the biggest spyware company in the history of our planet. Sure, they make amazing applications. But that is unrelated to them being a HUGE spyware company. Ferrari makes amazing cars. But you wouldn't let them put a camera over your toilet. When you upload your data to Google's cloud service, you are handing them your data, for them to scan, and for them to compile a profile on you, etc. But Google says that it is encrypted, right? Yes. But that encryption is to keep non Google people from seeing your data. It is not for Google to not see your data. When it comes to encryption, the only safe way to encrypt your files is for you, personally, on your own computer, to encrypt your files. Think about it. If Google is encrypting your files, then Google has your files "in the clear", which is why they encrypt them. But before Google encrypts your files, do you trust them to not first make copies, in the clear, for their own business purposes? But Google says that my connection between them and me is encrypted. Correct. But that is used to keep non Google people from seeing your data, while you are sending it to Google. Once it gets to Google, it is 100% in the clear, for them to see and use as easily as you do on your own computer. After they do whatever it is they do with your uploaded files, they then encrypt your files. And Google can have a master key to your files. It is simple to have more than one password to unlock encrypted files. And Google, a huge tech company, knows that. Unless you have nothing personal that you care about that you upload to Google, or unless you encrypt your files before you upload them to Google, you are nuts to share you personal files with Google, Microsoft, or any cloud storage service. You are putting your personal files on other people's computers. Those people are complete strangers. You have zero knowledge of who they are. Lastly, if you read the fine print in whatever legal agreements you are required to agree to, you will see that any data that you upload to Google becomes owned by Google. You will have to search every document that you had to agree to, including any links in those documents, etc. And you have to catch the slimy legalese language they they use. They do not come right out and say that they own your data. They own your data. They receive your data in the clear. They are the biggest spyware company on the planet. They are complete strangers. And yet people are thrilled to hand them their personal data.
    1
  2140. 1
  2141. 1
  2142. As it pertains to which format (digital or vinyl) is superior, it is six on one hand, and a half dozen on the other hand. Which is a better car? A Rolls Royce or a Ferrari? Both are great. Both can do things the other cannot. Digital has timing issues, such as jitter and filter aliasing. Jitter is the kryptonite of digital. When you manage to minimize it, the music blossoms. So most of the public has more of it than they realize -- because they have never heard digital that professionally controls it. In fact, digital timing issues are introduced into digital masters, due to specific hardware issues with the analog-to-digital-converter that made the digital master (something that the MQA process corrects, resulting in (digitally corrected )files that sound better than the flawed digital masters). Analog has issues with the physical quality control and production of the medium. No two records have the exact same sound quality, and side 1 and side 2 (of the same record) can, and often do, have significant difference in sound quality. I have had the good fortune to hear both formats on very high end audio equipment, that was professionally matched, and professional installed, with room treatments, etc (the holy grail -- dream system). On such an audio system, you will not only hear everything that is great about the recording, you will also hear everything that is wrong with the recording. So when the studio (or record label) did anything less than an amazing job, it was noticeable -- but would usually not be audible on a department store stereo. When the studio (or record label) did a great job, the realism was 3D to the point of being spooky (the band was in front of you, and you could see (with your ears) where each person was standing -- even though your eyes did not see them). Digital wins for convenience, and for getting great sound at a fraction of the cost, as compared to a high-end turntable (and cartridge, and tone-arm, and phono-amp). When you are prepared to mortgage your home, and have a dream analog system professionally set up, then analog, in my experience, sounds more realistic (but this is very, very, difficult to achieve). One problem that vinyl records suffer from, is that the vast majority of them have, at best, mediocre sound. You might have to buy dozens of copies, of the same album, that were stamped at different geographical locations, before you find just one side of one album that is a gem. The vast majority of the public will never hear a "gem" vinyl recording. And many that happen, by luck, to own one, are not likely to have the professional system to reap the benefits of the pressing. And, lastly, most folks do not care, which is why these rare pressings are routinely found on eBay (but you have to buy it, clean it, and play it, on a very good system, to confirm it). Cheers!
    1
  2143. 1
  2144. 1
  2145. 1
  2146. 1
  2147. 1
  2148. 1
  2149. 1
  2150. 1
  2151. 1
  2152. 1
  2153. 1
  2154. 1
  2155. 1
  2156. 1
  2157. Please consider making a video on backup software. I would like to find software that has the following functionality: -- Full and incremental backup. -- Mount a backed up image, in order to peruse the files and optionally grab a copy of a file that is in the backup image. -- Offers the creation of bootable media that will perform the backup, so that the backup software will not be required to be installed on every computer. I have computers where I do not want any non-essential 3rd party software. I do not want to get pop-ups, or reminders, or have it doing anything in the background (or even wonder what it might be doing), etc. I want it to do a backup, and that's it. So bootable media, to backup those computers, would be ideal. -- Password protect the backup image and encryption for the backup image (although I could work around this). -- Compression for the backup image (not a must, but would be helpful). -- Exclude files from being backed up. For example, I already have copies of my music files. I do not want backup software to waste a few hundred GB, by adding it to a backup image. The closest I found was EaseUS, in their Home or Workstation editions. A lifetime license is $79.95 (Home) and $89 (Workstation). That is worth it to me, if I the bootable WinPE media it creates will work on all of my computers. But if I have to have to install the software on every computer, and have each computer create bootable media specific to itself, then that is a non-starter (both in cost and my not wanting to install the software on some of the computers). It just seems overly complicated to find a way to boot from a flash drive, and be able to do a backup on all computers -- followed by: Being able to peruse an image on the one computer on which the backup software was installed.
    1
  2158. 1
  2159.  @markanderson2904  I used to use True Image. It did everything that I needed. I first started using it in 2009 (I believe), and upgraded every other year. Alas, 2013 was the last year (might have been 2014 or 2015 -- not sure, never used those version), before they broke a key feature. I skipped 2014 and 2015, and purchased 2016. Well, they broke the mounting of a backup image as a virtual drive feature. The only way to mount a backup as a virtual drive, is to be logged in to your computer with an administrator account. In 2013, as a standard user, when you mounted a backup as a virtual drive, you were presented with the User Account Control prompt, where you entered an admin password, and you were good to go. But in 2016, they handed that process off to a right-click Explorer menu. So if you are not signed in as an administrator, it will not work. I tried using "runas", and tried starting explorer via an admin command prompt. None of it worked. Since I login as a standard user, then I want to be able to mount backup images as a standard user. Version 2016 broke that. I contacted their tech support, via e-mail. Eventually, I convinced them to call me. They conceded that they broke it. They told me that version 2017 (which just came out) should work. I was annoyed that I wasted money on version 2016, but I purchased version 2017. Well, it was still broke. They lied to me. Or they did not know, and since it was not their money, they took a guess. They would not issue me a refund. That was the last time I made an Acronis purchase. I now use EaseUS Todo's "Workstation" version. It does everything that the Acronis version used to do.
    1
  2160. 1
  2161. He spewed off titles of bills, talking points, and a list of generalities. Raise your hand if you can name one thing that his radical, leftist party did that improved anything. Saying that his party passed "this or that" means zero, without the specifics of the wording contained withing the "this and that". Radical leftists use titles, all the time, that are clown-world language. They call the Deficit Reduction Act with that name, even though it inflates deficit spending more than any other time in history. They call lawless cities "sanctuary" cities, when they house countless fugitives from the law. So now "sanctuary" mean protecting criminals, instead of meaning protecting those being persecuted by their governments. "Fugitive" cities are called "sanctuary" cities in clown-world. They call those breaking the law (burning down buildings, taking over city blocks, routinely blocking roads, etc) "protesters" and "activists". So what used to be standing on the sidewalk, holding up signs, making speeches, all done civilly and lawfully (known as protesting) has become any illegal activity. The constitutionally protected right to protest is now (according to Warnock and his radical leftist party) the right to break the law -- which is clown-world language for "protesting". The next time you get pulled over for speeding, tell the officer you were exercising your right to protest the climate by speeding. See how that goes. Warnock is a keeper of the Washington swamp. There are those that live in the swamp (the countless government peons that do the bidding of Warnock and his ilk) and then there are the swamp keepers that rule over the swamp dwellers (Warnock, Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, AOC, Waters, Jeffries, Schiff, Lee, Jayapal, Nadler, etc). Again, raise your hand if you can name one thing that Warnock said that helped anyone or helped our country. Do not name the title of some act you know nothing about. But name one thing that a typical American would understand. You can't. Because he said a mouth full of Washington, slimy used car salesman, mumbo jumbo, BS. Warnock and the rest of his party's radical leftists are degenerates.
    1
  2162. 1
  2163. 1
  2164. 1
  2165. 1
  2166. 1
  2167. 1
  2168. 1
  2169. 1
  2170. Beware of change, especially when it is hidden or obfuscated. For example: When you buy a new car, that comes with heated seats... well... get ready to not be able to use your heated seats. BMW considers heated seats to be a "service". You must subscribe. You will be renting your heated seats. So if you do not keep paying your subscription, your heated seats will be disabled. You own those heated seats, but the personnel at car company controls what you own. That's a twist on ownership. So the car manufacturer made a change, and we are expected to just go along with it? Apple's iPhone 16 is promoting "Apple Intelligence". Well, that is a change, and Apple makes it sound like a must have upgrade. What Apple does not tell you is that that "Intelligence" watches your eyes, to see which part of your screen you are focused on. It tracks your whereabouts, even when you power the iPhone off. It can (so it probably does) scan everything on your screen, before you take an action. For example, that text message that you sent via the Signal App, which is end-to-end encryption... well... your iPhone 16 evaluated your message, effectively defeating your secure connection and invading your privacy. Your photos... well... the model 16 scans your photos, and knows what is in your photos. It is not a feature that you have any choice in using, and it can notify anyone it chooses if its scan deems your photo qualifies. This will, of course, never be abused. It does the above with an included neural processing unit chip. Three letter government agencies will no longer have to unlock a model 16 (or any other Apple devices that will have "Apple Intelligence"). Just go along to get along with Apple's changes? Roku's TV forces you, after the sale, to accept their agreement, or your Roku TV will not work (not even its inputs where you would connect a DVD player, etc). That agreement disallows you to sue Roku -- and you must agree to it, to use the TV, after you brought it home. If it catches on fire, and burns down your home, you agreed to Roku's terms -- you may not sue Roku. Now, some Asus motherboards will not allow you to change the boot-loader. Just accept the change? Amazon charges extra to avoid ads, after you purchased their Echo 8, digital picture frame. So you purchased the Echo 8, were using it for however long, and then Amazon starts showing ads. Just accept the change? Peloton's internet connected treadmills will not allow second-hand owners to use their purchase from the original owner, unless the second-hand owner pays Pleoton a fee. How many second-hand owners knew about that when they bought their used Peloton treadmill? Change is inevitable. Just accept it? None of the above were broken. Yet all had changes. Were any of the above changes done in your favor? Change could be good, and it could be bad. Never blindly accept the bad.
    1
  2171. 1
  2172. 1
  2173. 1
  2174. 1
  2175. 1
  2176. @0:38 "...they are both assessed for whether they have any symptoms" That means zero. Psaski said nothing about the qualifications of who is doing the "assessing". Psaski said nothing about what qualifies as a symptom. @0:44 "...the intention is for them to be quarantined" And my intention is to win the lottery, twice. When Psaski says that (Biden's) "intentions" are [fill in the blank], that translates to: "Gullible people will mistakenly connect non-existing dots, and conclude that we actually act on our intentions" "We have zero intentions to check any illegal aliens, and it is easy to lie to America and tell them that we have 'intentions', when we really have no 'intentions'" @0:47 "They're not intending to stay here for a lengthy period of time" Does Psaski expect us to believe that the endless parade of people, entering our country illegally, and risking their lives in doing so... does Psaski expect us to believe that they are here for a vacation? And does Psaski expect us to believe that even if we believe her lie (that they are not intending to stay here for a lengthy period of time), does she expect us to believe that Covid-19 pauses for their so-called "temporary" stay? Folks, these are not mistakes. These are not oversights. What President* Biden and Psaski are doing is planned, intentional, and deliberate. They expect the public to believe that the crisis at the border is an overload of vacationers, who will not spread Covid-19, because they are vacationers. President* Biden and Psaski are degenerates. They are the swamp.
    1
  2177. 1
  2178. I recently purchased a new, pre-built Windows 11 computer, to replace my ancient, first generation i7 computer. I want to keep my new computer clean, and not have my social media activities run alongside my banking activities, and alongside my gaming activities, and alongside my spreadsheets and word processing, etc. I have little trust in web sites tracking and sharing, and software doing the same or similar. The closest I have come to figuring out a way to keep everything in their own containers is by using the Qubes distro (which I have read up on, but never used it (never had a spare computer to try it). If I were to use Qubes, that would mean losing my activated Windows 11 OS. And if I end up not liking Qubes, that would ruin my day. The next candidate to reach my goal is Oracle's Virtual Box. I have been using it. It is easy. But I am probably losing a fair amount of performance going through a hypervisor. I have watched Proxmox videos, and it looked too complicated for me. Now, seeing your video, I find that Docker might be my holy grail solution. But I have never used Docker, and what you showed in this video in under 10 minutes made my brain hurt. I understood everything that you did. But it was like watching a doctor perform surgery. I still would not be able to perform the steps. I can see my missing one line in a Docker config file, or some setting somewhere, and spending 3 days trying to figure out what is wrong. Is Docker user friendly? Does Docker have a steep learning curve? Also, can I run multiple Windows 11 instances? It would be nice to be able to easily switch from one to another, without having to repeatedly start and stop the containers. For example, I could leave one Windows 11 instance running for testing software, without having to worry about it causing any problems anywhere outside of that specific Docker instance. My goal is to be able to use my single, new computer and have it behave like it is 4 or 5 separate computers, where what is happening in one Windows 11 instance will have no effect (process wise and cookie wise and services wise, etc) to the other instances (similar to how Qubes compartmentalizes each guest machine). I have 64GB of RAM, and will happily double it if multiple Docker Windows instances chew up too much RAM. Lastly, one key feature that I love with Virtual Box is that I can take a snapshot of a VM (even while it is running), and return to that snapshot if something goes awry. For example, if a Windows 11 instance gets hit with ransomware, then I would like to pull the plug on that container, and restore it to a saved snapshot taken from when all was good. Virtual Box makes that easy. And I can easily make copies of my Virtual Box VMs. Can that be done with Docker running Windows instances? Thanks in advance for any help.
    1
  2179. 1
  2180. 1
  2181. 1
  2182. 1
  2183. 1
  2184. 1
  2185. 1
  2186. I respectfully disagree that sites do not care about who you are, when it comes to tracking your visits. The entire point of them tracking you is that it pays off, big time, with advertising and other ways to raise oceans of cash. What they did is automate the tracking. But they can pull up a report on you, specifically, and know just about every site that you visited, and the dates and times of each visit. If I asked you to allow me to have a list of every site that you have visited, you would likely wonder if I am a nut, or a pervert, or up to some scam, etc. Yet, we allow other complete strangers, employed by big tech companies, to do just that. Your information is being sold. Perhaps your name is not asked for, personally. But your name is in the list. What if you become a person of interest? What if you decide to run for a city council seat, or mayor? Well, the executives at big tech companies will know more about you than you know about you. Heaven knows what heads of state, of adversarial foreign countries have on our own high-ranking government officials, thanks to google and the rest. Folks, we are being spied on. Most folks have no idea how intrusive it is, because the spying happens without our knowledge. We even have police departments towing 100% innocent Tesla owner's cars, because those vehicles have such good video evidence of crimes. You go out for a drive, and your Tesla is gone. The police took it, because they believe it to be a witness to something you have nothing to do with. We have Roku TVs refusing to function, until you accept their on-line spying and arbitration agreement. The TV disables all inputs, until you click agree (and there is nothing else to click on). We have huge companies taking your subscription money, with a simplistic click to sign up. But to cancel your subscription, you have to send a notarized, certified letter (postal mail) to get them to cancel your subscription (so a trip to your notary and a trip to your post office). It is why virtual credit cards are gaining popularity, in order to kill your subscription without being forced to jump through hoops. So it is not a stretch to see how cookies and the rest are being wildly abused. There is a reason for TOR network, and TAILs OS, Qubes OS, Parrot OS's anonsurf feature, etc. Do not accept being spied upon. Do not be a frog in water with the burner turned up. If you were transported back to the 1990s, with a dial-up modem and Windows 95, and someone told you that soon everything you are doing would be tracked, you would be appalled. But bring it on gradually, year after year, and we shrug our shoulders and accept it? You can avoid a lot of tracking with virtual machines. Do your banking with one virtual machine. Do your social media with a different virtual machine (perhaps even a separate machine for each social media site). Do your other private web surfing with yet another virtual machine, etc. The above will keep cookies segmented; having the effect of you using a different computer for each of your activities. You will still be tracked in some ways, because of how Windows tracks you, and how your browser is happy to share your information (especially google's chrome browser). So choose your browser, for each virtual machine, with care. The only benefit that cookies offer is for keeping you logged in to a website. Otherwise, do not be complaisant. Say "No" to complete strangers tracking you. No one should have the power to track the activities of everyone on the planet -- and cookies play a significant role in that mission.
    1
  2187. 1
  2188. 1
  2189. 1
  2190. 1
  2191. 1
  2192. 1
  2193. 1
  2194. 1
  2195. 1
  2196. 1
  2197. 1
  2198. ​ @victorlovesclowns259  "Parents can be abusive if they find out a kid is questioning their gender." -- Parents can be abusive when they learn that their child failed a test. So the teacher should not inform the parents? -- Parents can be abusive when they learn that their child scored a "C", but would have scored an "A" if they studied more. So the teacher should not inform the parents of the grade? -- Parents can be abusive when they learn that their child did not do their homework assignment. So the teacher should not inform the parents that the homework was not done? Etc. There is nothing that should not be shared with the parents. "And gender is a social construct there’s no limit to gender." And that is an example of what happens when children are taught that lie, and it is kept from the parents. The years roll by, and it is too late for the parents to address that lie. Now that child is an adult and believes that lie. "There’s not even two sexes. What do you call someone who was born intersex?" No one can impregnate themselves. Either you can impregnate someone else, or they can impregnate you. Not both. And the world should not revolve around the rare occurrence of people born with questionable sex traits. Such people need special care. But they are still male or female. "And why do you care so much." Please do not assign a value to my care. People comment in public forums whether they care a little, a lot, or anything in between. How much I care has zero to do with the truth. I do not care about how corn is planted. But if someone is spreading misinformation about how corn is planted, then I care. "Let people be what they want it doesn’t hurt you in any way whatsoever." It is selfish to care, only when it hurts you. I let people be what they want, with limits. If you are an adult, call yourself whatever you want. Identify however you want. But do not expect others to abide by your demands. If we met at social event, and you want to be called a pineapple, I would do so. Your personal life is yours, and I respect that. If you were hired at my company, and you expect me to put you down in the payroll as a pineapple, that will not happen. If you expect to lie to my children in a classroom, I will not let you. There are people that really believe that the Earth is flat. In a social gathering, I would not engage them. I would be happy if they learned reality. But they can believe that the Earth is flat if they want to. It is their life and their choice. If that person was a teacher, and I found out that they were teaching children that the Earth was flat, I would stop them by reporting them and getting involved in the school's curriculum.
    1
  2199. 1
  2200. 1
  2201. 1
  2202. 1
  2203. 1
  2204. 1
  2205. 1
  2206. 1
  2207. 1
  2208. 1
  2209. Do not use BitLocker, unless your encryption is moderately important to you. If you want top-tier, truly unbreakable encryption, use VeraCrypt. Why? BitLocker comes with Windows (Pro and Enterprise versions). It was created by Microsoft. It is "closed" source software. That means that Microsoft could have master keys. No one, other than a handful of Microsoft programmers, know for sure, because no one, other than the handful of programmers that created BitLocker has access to the source code that would reveal how it works. Whereas the better option, VeraCrypt, is 100% open source code. Meaning, anyone on the planet (that understands source code -- and that is over 1,000,000 people) can read the source code and see exactly how VeraCrypt works. And by doing so, they can see if there are any weaknesses, including master keys (there are none, because someone would have blown the whistle). VeraCrypt's strength is that their code is 100% transparent, out in the sunlight, and no one has found any intentional funny-business (minor code enhancements have been made to shore up the code -- but not due to anything improper in the code). This cannot be said about BitLocker, because no one can view it. It could be hiding anything. If you use a strong pass phrase, then no one will be able to gain entrance to your VeraCrypt encrypted data. VeraCrypt offers full disk encryption, selective encryption, hidden volume encryption (to keep adversaries from being able to determine if you have stuff hidden), key-file support, and more. VeraCrypt's full disk encryption is a bit complicated to set-up. All other uses are easy (as is the full disk encryption, once accomplished). And VeraCrypt is free.
    1
  2210. 1
  2211. 1
  2212. 1
  2213. A large portion of what President* Trump spent tax dollars on was rebuilding our military, which was in shambles. Planes, tanks, ships, etc, could not be repaired (due to lack of funding). So when, for example, a plane could not be repaired, then that plane was cannibalized for its good parts to be used to replace failed parts in other planes. As to the 81,000 new IRS agents, which Chuck Todd claims is a good thing, and that law abiding citizens have nothing to fear... that is BS. Why? With 81,000 new IRS agents, hundreds of thousands of people will have their taxes audited. The IRS does random audits. With 81,000 more IRS agents, they will perform hundreds of thousands of more random audits. But so what, if you did nothing wrong. Right? -- Do you have all of your records in order? -- Are you prepared to pay your accountant to sit with you and an IRS agent during your audit? -- If an IRS's agent's audit concludes that you owe another $50, then be prepared to pay hundreds of dollars, due to interest and penalties. Also be prepared to be on the IRS's radar, for years to come, due to being tagged as a tax risk. -- And will all of the 81,000 additional IRS agents randomly check returns. Certainly not if a Democrat is in the Oval Office. They will target everyone who they find to be a problem, politically. And with Google and Facebook having your profiles, they will have a list of conservatives to harass. There is simply no way we could trust the government (especially a radical leftist president) to not abuse the power of having 81,000 new IRS agents.
    1
  2214. 1
  2215. 1
  2216. 1
  2217. 1
  2218. 1
  2219. 1
  2220. 1
  2221. 1
  2222. 1
  2223. 1
  2224. 1
  2225. 1
  2226. @0:00 -- "This week we saw New York prosecutors go after the Trump organization..." You are inadvertently giving cover to the degenerates that are abusing their power and oath of office. How? Name the cretins. Show their photos. These people are public servants, paid by our tax dollars. Do not blame their "title". Rather, blame "them", as in: New York Prosecutors, for the Southern District Of New York, [First Name], [Last Name], [Photo], are persecuting Wiselberg... The leftist media has Wiselberg's name and photo plastered all over the place. Even this posting shows Wiselberg. So why do conservative media outlets give cover to the villains. Why do conservative media outlets not name the prosecutors and show their photos, so that We The People can fire them come the next election? @1:03 -- "That shows the extent to which they are prepared to 'stretch' existing law and the constitution..." 1) Who are "they"? Dershowitz should not give "they" cover, by calling them "they". He should name them. 2) 'stretch'? The prosecutors are not 'stretching" any laws. They are fabricating laws. 3) Dershowitz inadvertently gave credence to the prosecutors by acknowledging their acts as lawful ("existing law"), when their acts are unlawful, because their acts do not have "existing law". Lastly, Every fake news outlet, that is bashing President Trump over this farce, needs to have their own top executives investigated. The public needs to know what their "perks" are. There is no doubt that all of these degenerate so-called "news" outlets give the same perks to their top brass, and there is no doubt that they do not report those perks as income. The same goes for the Southern District of New York, who is persecuting Wiselberg. What "perks" are given to the people that run that office? I will lay any odds that they did not declare their perks as income.
    1
  2227. 1
  2228. 1
  2229. 1
  2230. 1
  2231. 1
  2232. Although CrowdStrike is the trigger, they are not the root cause that brought down services for extended periods. That falls on the government agencies and the businesses that had no recovery plans in place. They should all be doing daily backups. When all of their CrowdStrike facing systems failed, they should have restored their C: drive from their recent backup image. That would have gotten them up and running in minutes -- even before they found out why they had the computer issues. Consider this: What if a nation-state, or a criminal computer group, intentionally designed and deployed malware to bring down all of those computers? We now know that all of those government agencies and all of those companies are not backing up their data, and we know that all of those government agencies and all of those companies have no disaster recovery plans. Anyone that lost their shirt, due to the gross negligence of those companies, should sue those companies for damages -- because this was 100% avoidable (not the initial crashes -- but the extended down time). Anyone that lost a loved one, due to emergency services being unavailable for extended periods of time, should file law suits. I used to run a Business Unit for Thomson Reuters. No one could disable our unit's services. We have redundant systems, with redundant power supplies, and redundant storage (RAID storage), with redundant power feeds, from redundant uninterruptible power supplies (UPS's) drawing 1.6 megawatts of power for a single location. And if the entire building lost power, no services were interrupted, because we would run on batteries (pallets and pallets of huge batteries) that would provide power while in-house generators would spin up. We were able to run on in-house generators for days (or forever, as fuel deliveries arrived). We went through 255 gallons of fuel per hour, while on our generators. And if the building was hit by a meteor, we still would not lose our services, because we had a redundant, real-time facility in a different, distant location in our country. Should all of those other companies go to the above extremes? It depends on how critical their services are. But they should all have daily backups and be ready to restore their systems from those backups. That is simplistic. So those companies and those government agencies that went down, and stayed down, just showed us that their executive personnel are indifferent, incompetent, and irresponsible.
    1
  2233. 1
  2234. 1
  2235. 1
  2236. 1
  2237. 1
  2238. 1
  2239. 1
  2240. 1
  2241. 1
  2242. 1
  2243. 1
  2244. 1
  2245. 1
  2246. 1
  2247. 1
  2248. 1
  2249. 1
  2250. 1
  2251. 1
  2252. 1
  2253. 1
  2254. 1
  2255. 1
  2256. 1
  2257. 1
  2258. 1
  2259. 1
  2260. 1
  2261. @2:00 "...trying to deal with some kind of social issue that they're not, quote unquote, educated to cope with." Utter nonsense. You do not have to have a single day of education to know that a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl. @2:06 "So they're in the middle of this." Propaganda. The teachers and school board members are not in the middle of anything. Rather: The teachers and school board members are actively pushing child sex activities. Do not play the "teachers are innocent bystanders" game. The teachers are the culprits. When children are taught in school, that they can choose any gender, even fabricated genders, that is not coming from the sky. That is coming from their teachers. And we have Scott Capurro (screen right) asserting that the teachers are in the middle of this. Scott Capurro is either a leftist, or an idiot (or both), which is why he defended teachers as being in the middle, when they are actually the ones brainwashing children into believing that gender is a choice, and you can fabricate genders. Scott Capurro goes on to say that it is a struggle between family and kids. That is outrageous. Scott Capurro is blaming the parents. The school board members and teachers are to blame, putting the parents in the middle of this. The parents are not telling their children to choose a gender. That is coming from the teachers. And Scott Capurro is blaming the parents. If the teachers were to tell children to steal cash from home, and buy cocain, Scott Capurro would probably say that that, too, is a struggle between family and kids. Disgraceful.
    1
  2262. 1
  2263. 1
  2264. 1
  2265. 1
  2266. 1
  2267. 1
  2268. 1
  2269. If you save any trade secret documents in the cloud, then you are sharing your trade secrets with complete strangers. If you save any legal documents in the cloud, then you are sharing your legal documents with complete strangers. There is no way to prove it, but I will lay 100 to 1 odds that the cloud service scans your cloud documents for all types of information. On the flip side of that coin, no one can prove to us that they do not scan our documents for all types of information -- and that is unsettling. And keep in mind... it is trivial for Microsoft to scan every document from every upload from every account. If the cloud service is handed a court ordered search warrant, they will hand over your documents to the government officials. And since giant tech companies have facilities all over the globe, your documents are might be duplicated in other countries, where their local laws apply, giving bad actors and law enforcement other avenues to access your documents. Everything our host said is correct, functionally, and organizationally. You will be proficient at using the cloud service. But know that the cloud service will have unfettered access to your documents. The only way to store sensitive documents with a cloud service (with complete strangers) is to encrypt your documents locally, with strong encryption and a strong password. It is somewhat inconvenient to do so, but it ensures that you, and only you, will have usable access to your documents that you put on the cloud service's computers. It is unlikely that anyone at Microsoft is sitting in their cubicle, checking your documents. But with today's spyware technology, Microsoft (and the others) can easily check your documents (and everyone else's documents) for anything that they want -- instantly and automatically. And if you ever become a person of interest, then someone sitting in their cubicle (depending on their role in the company) can peruse your documents, at will (unless you encrypt before sharing with them). I wonder how many mayors, governors, police chiefs, media outlet anchors and executives, members of congress, judges, FBI agents, etc, use OneDrive and other cloud services, and save all types of juicy documents with those cloud services? Consider how easy it would be for the executives and developers, and other key people at Microsoft, to take advantage of having access to those documents. Consider the consequences of a bad actor at Microsoft, having access to those documents. If you could view those documents, as easily as you can view your own documents, could you resist? All government officials should be required to take a class, educating them on the risk of using any cloud services, and be given a quarterly quiz to ensure that they are not being careless.
    1
  2270.  @askleonotenboom  I have no need for cloud storage. So my comment was for others that might not realize how wide open they are leaving themselves. People should be informed about what is likely happening to the personal data that they are sharing with cloud storage services. The next, and most egregious spying is also coming from Microsoft, via its Windows 11 Co-Pilot AI inclusion, which will eventually be tied in with neural processing units (NPUs), that are already shipping with some motherboards. Every keystroke, every image on your screen, every mouse click, every everything that you do, will be recorded by Windows, and indexed for properties (such facial recognition and image breakdowns), and accessible to Microsoft's powerful servers. Your financial transactions / all on-line banking... all recorded and available to Microsoft. Everything, no matter how personal, all recorded, indexed, and available to Microsoft. When it becomes full swing, then Cryptomator, VeraCrypt, Password Managers, and likely every other encryption tool will be rendered unsafe, as your keystrokes will be recorded. That also goes for entering passwords into web sites, etc. Hopefully, there will be trustworthy 3rd-party fixes to disable Microsoft's unheard of level of spying. Microsoft can be compelled to turn over anyone's private data to any government, globally, and might even do so willingly, to suit their own aspirations. Imagine the power of being able to see what any Windows user is doing, or has done. And it will all be indexed. No one can be trusted with that.
    1
  2271. 1
  2272. 1
  2273. 1
  2274. 1
  2275. 1
  2276. 1
  2277. 1
  2278. 1
  2279. 1
  2280. 1
  2281. 1
  2282. 1
  2283. 1
  2284. 1
  2285. 1
  2286. 1
  2287. 1
  2288. 1
  2289. 1
  2290. 1
  2291. 1
  2292. 1
  2293. 1
  2294. 1
  2295. 1
  2296. 1
  2297. 1
  2298. 1
  2299. 1
  2300. 1
  2301. 1
  2302. Once you return the car, you are no longer responsible for the car. If the rental company chooses to not staff their location during hours when they accept returns, then it is the rental company that cannot prove that the car was returned with damage. Let's take this to the next logical step. You return the car, and the car gets stolen (or set on fire) after you leave. Well, that is the ultimate damage, and the entire car is gone. So are you on the hook for replacing the car? Of course not. In the case of the car getting stolen, they would have to show proof that you did not return the car. Ergo, their video footage. And the same applies to them accusing you of damaging the car. Are they required to show you the video footage? No. Then you are not required to pony up any money on their unsupported say-so. The fact that they have the footage, and they refuse to show it to you the footage, conveys that they are lying. Challenge the charge with your credit card company, and explain that they are refusing to show their video footage. The credit card company will almost certainly side with you. The credit card company will probably ask the rental company for a copy of the video footage. When that request goes unsatisfied, you will not be charged. The credit card company will find in your favor. If the rental company then sues you, then it will be the court's turn to ask to see the video footage. The court's ruling will go the same as the credit card company's decision (especially since the credit card's decision will be presented by you to the court). It is absurd to be blamed for vehicle damage, when the rental company was not there to see you return the vehicle -- and especially when the rental company chooses to not check the car when you return it (by not having staff there), and refusing to show you the video. The whole thing stinks of fraud, and should be a slam dunk win for the customer. The rental company falsely accusing you should be replied to with a counter suit for your expenses and aggravation and punitive damages, too.
    1
  2303. 1
  2304. 1
  2305. Like all well intentioned technology, it gets abused. And in the case of cookies, it gets wildly abused. Cookies are great for sites where you need to stay logged in, as our host explained. Cookies are great for sites that track your activities, assuming that is useful to you and you are amenable to being tracked. However, cookies are used to spy on everything that you do on-line. It is what you do not see that is alarming. Google is the biggest culprit. Rather than cookies having names that you could understand, they are intentionally cryptically named, so that you will not know their function. You might know that it is a Google related cookie, but that is all you will know. And that, folks, is troubling. When a site puts 6 cookies on your computer, what does each one contain? Who knows. But you agreed to allow cookies. When you are asked to accept cookies, it is an all-or-nothing propasition, and you are not told (with any specificity) to what you would be agreeing. You are generally given some generic "to help us provide a more beneficial browsing experience, blah, blah, blah", or something similar. But you have no idea how many cookies will be dumped on you, and the purpose of those cookies. You are not told how to find those cookies, and delete the ones you would rather not have, etc. Where is the "undo cookie" button? It could easily be included, but is intentionally absent. Big tech companies are making oceans of $$, based on the information that they glean from the countless cookies that they place on our computers, where the vast majority of those cookies have nothing, whatsoever, to do with our browsing experience, and, instead, have 100% to do with big tech's spying experience. There is a fix for dealing with this huge spyware technology, that exploits cookies to do its bidding. That fix is "virtual machines". It is relatively simple to run a virtual machine (or multiple virtual machines). I am 99% sure that our host uses a VM for all of his demonstrations. That way, he does not have to undo or tinker with his actual computer's files and settings. Once you take a few minutes to install the software (many offerings are free), and get the VM up and running, you take a snapshot (a menu item in the VM software). Then you can go hog-wild, accepting cookies, etc. When you are done, you tell your VM to go back to the snapshot that you took (takes 1 second). Your virtual machine will return to exactly the state it was in when you took the snapshot. If you purchase a new computer, I recommend that you use one or more VMs for various web surfing activities, and after each session, restore your VM back to the snapshot that you took. As to browser extensions: Note that that is yet another way that Google and others spy on you. Your browser broadcasts endless details about its configuration. When you install extensions, you are creating a unique (or somewhat unique) configuration, and that allows for big tech to spy on your activities. Again, a VM would be very useful, if you needed a browser extension, and want to minimize tracking. You can create a VM that you use, only when you need some browser extension. That VM will be different from your other VMs. That VM will be used just for a certain web site where that browser extension is needed. By using VMs, you are effectively using a different computer for each of your on-line activities. And by taking a snapshot of your clean VM (before you go browsing), then each of your VMs will be seen as new computers to the sites that you visit, each time that you visit (assuming you keep reverting to your clean snapshot when you are done browsing). If you practice the above VM procedures (which take only a bit more time to do), then you will be rewarded with never having malware or clutter or slow-downs, etc. Your new computer will run smoothly for however many years you will own it. Lastly, of course cookies seem like they are wonderful. Who does not like cookies (the ones you eat)? So that name was a great choice to have the public lower their guard. And from our perspective, we see them doing no harm, and in fact we get an enhanced browsing experience. The issue is what we do not see, which is happening behind the scenes that our computers are sharing with big tech companies. That is big tech's social engineering in action, offering you candy while they get their hands on your entire internet activities.
    1
  2306. 1
  2307. 1
  2308. 1
  2309. 1
  2310. 1
  2311. 1
  2312. 1
  2313. 1
  2314. 1
  2315. 1
  2316. 1
  2317. I left a 1-star review on Amazon, for a somewhat defective USB flash drive. I spelled out exactly what the issue was, including repeating the problem on 3 different computers. Well, Amazon e-mailed me that my review would not be posted, to ensure the integrity of accurate reporting. I used no foul language. I broke no rules. I simply laid out the facts, and Amazon blew it off. So now more customers will get screwed by the seller. Another 1-star review that I left was for a seller short-changing the quantity that they ship. I contacted the seller, and they would not fill the missing part of the order. I contacted Amazon, and they issued me a refund. But Amazon refused to post my review, and they left the listing for others to be short-changed. Months later, I ordered again from that seller. The same thing happened. So I got my orders for free, due to being refunded (not what I was seeking). I asked Amazon why they allow the listing to remain. They told me that it would be taken down, and that was over a year ago. It is still up, and still cheating customers. So Amazon issues a refund. Ergo, they agree with the customer. Yet, Amazon refused to post my review about being short-changed, and Amazon keeps the listing live. Clown world. I have listed far, far more 5-star reviews than any other level (those reviews never get declined). But with the 1-star reviews, Amazon puts their own selfish self-interest above the public's interest. Amazon wants even the deceptive sellers to keep selling. Apparently, some Amazon bean counter did an analysis and figured out that Amazon is more profitable with deceptive seller, even though they have to issue a percentage of refunds. I even reported SSD listings for 16TB drives selling for $49. Such drives would cost north of $1,000. The drives will work, but are only 64GB (or something similar), and report to Windows that they are 16TB. By the time the customer finds out that their data is corrupt, the return window closes. Well, after two phone calls to Amazon, they never took any of the scam listings down. Did the Amazon representative inform whoever it is that could take down the scam listings? Who knows? But Amazon simply did not care, because the listings are still there -- lots of them. Amazon has the technology and the resources to easily remove the scam listings. But they do not, because Amazon gets paid when customers purchase those scam SSDs. Folks, if you purchase anything from Amazon, thoroughly test it, without delay. Once the return window closes, you are screwed.
    1
  2318. 1
  2319. There is a significant difference between sending e-mail messages, knowing that you are passing your message through other people's computers, vs storing your computer's contents on a 3rd party service, with the illusion that no one can get to your (so called) encrypted data in the cloud. When you send your friend an e-mail message, it is plain and obvious to most people that no one is claiming privacy for the transfer of that message from you to them. But when you use a VPN, or a service such as OneDrive, Google Drive, etc, those companies go out of their way to convey that your data is encrypted and sealed and no one can break in, etc. Their lie is by omission, because they do not tell you that they, themselves, do not have to break in -- because they, themselves, have clear, unfettered access to your data. We all avail ourselves of the conveniences of on-line services. But the distinction is when we know that we are sharing information that is in the open vs being tricked into believing that we are sharing data that cannot be seen. Like going to a doctor, and revealing very personal information. You have to trust that your doctor is not going to tell his friends all about you when they visit for the holidays. You go to the doctor, with the understanding that you know that the doctor will know all about your private affairs, because you are telling your private affairs to the doctor. But when it comes to VPN services, and Google Drive, etc, they give the impression that you are not telling them anything. You believe that you are handing them your secrets, and even they will not know your secrets (encryption, encryption, encryption). And that is the difference. That with your doctor, you know that you are revealing your secrets to your doctor. With Google Drive, you are also revealing your secrets, but you are given the impression that you are not. Those cloud services give you the impression that no one can access your data, and they omit that they can. So you are giving your data to complete strangers, not realizing that those complete strangers can see 100% of your data. Yes, they encrypt it to stop others from seeing your data. But they, themselves, can see your data. That is the lie by omission. I am all in favor of using any and all services. But that they hide from you that they have 100% unfettered access to your data makes them untrustworthy. They can see your data, but they do not tell you that. They tell you only that your data is encrypted (but not from their CEOs). Our host knows this. When he touts the security of these services, he should include that these companies have clear access to your data. Otherwise, he is conveying the same sale's type pitches that the cloud services pitch -- that your data is encrypted, implying that no one can see your data. Most people probably do not know that their data is freely accessible to key personnel at those companies. The fact that the public is not told that the CEOs can see their data is an issue. Why is that information kept from the public? Why do promoters of those services go out of their way to keep that information from their viewers? Yes, use those services. But let the customers know the above. Why conceal it from the customers? If you bumped into Sundar Pichai, you would not hand him a flash drive with all of your secrets. But give him the title of Google's CEO, and upload a copy of all of your documents, and now he has it. Again, use these amazing services. But let's not conceal that they have your data in the clear, when you upload it to them. Remember, your upload is via an encrypted tunnel. Upon arrival at the service, your data gets decrypted. They have 100% of your data, in the clear. Then they encrypt it, again, for storage. So they get an "in the clear" copy of everything. Lastly, if you read the fine print for using their services, you will see that they decree that they "own" the data that you upload to them. They can do whatever they want with whatever you upload to them.
    1
  2320.  @askleonotenboom  Correct. Whenever we place our data on other people's computers, then they have complete access to our data. The only (virtually) safe way to move your data around on-line is either performing your own, local encryption, or use end-to-end encryption (Signal, for the voice calls is one example -- but even then, Apple can intercept your data, via its OS, before it is handed over to Signal for local encryption -- but they probably do not -- or could do so on a person of interest). For example, I use keepass, because I need not trust anyone, other than the open source code (which I wish I could decipher -- but I trust it to be safe, based on a planet of programmers where someone would have sounded an alarm if anything shady was in the source code). I have no qualms about uploading my keepass file (vault) to any 3rd party service -- even to my arch nemesis. But I will never upload anything confidential to a service where they do the encrypting. For e-mail, I recognize it is the equivalent of dropping a letter in the mailbox, without an envelope. I recognize that every computer between my PC and my recipient's PC can copy and read my e-mail correspondence. But the world's population is not aware of who they are giving their life's data to. They are sharing it all, mostly out of not understanding what they are revealing to complete strangers. I have friends and family members that do understand, and just don't care. At least they are making an informed decision. But most people's decisions on this issue is 100% based on convenience, and being tricked into believing that no one has access to what they shared with 3rd party services. Cheers!
    1
  2321. 1
  2322. 1
  2323. 1
  2324. 1
  2325. 1
  2326. 1
  2327. 1
  2328. 1
  2329. 1
  2330. @6:22 "You want to be able to get at that data some other way." I respectfully disagree. Doing so defeats the security of VeraCrypt, unless that "some other way" has equally strong security. If you can get at your data some other way, then someone else might be able to do so, too. I would not give an attacker two avenues of attack, using the one with the weakest security. When you work with a VeraCrypt volume's data, if you do so carefully, then nothing encrypted in that volume will ever be written to your storage device in the clear. However, if you copy data out of your VeraCrypt volume, to store it elsewhere, you might inadvertently have it write to your storage device in the clear. That would make it possible for a digital forensics expert to discover. For most folks, this is all cloak and dagger drama. But for anyone that is serious about their encrypted data never getting revealed, they should think carefully about copying their VeraCrypt container's contents elsewhere. What is wrong with relying on VeraCrypt? Why have another place to save what is in the contents of your VeraCrypt volume? Is there an up side to storing your sensitive data in VeraCrypt and also somewhere else? Where would that somewhere else be, that would not lessen the overall security? I am interested in learning what I have not considered. I guess that you can forget your VeraCrypt volume's passphrase. If that is the case, then perhaps consider writing down your passphrase and leaving off a character, and also adding in an erroneous character. That would be something you, and only you, would recognize in your written form, and you should be able to remember those two items.
    1
  2331. 1
  2332. 1
  2333. 1
  2334. 1
  2335. 1
  2336. 1
  2337. 1
  2338. @0:32 "...WR102 is the hottest star in the universe" That line speaks volumes about the lack of credibility of our host. 1) No one knows how many stars are in our galaxy, and there are probably 200,000,000,000 to 400,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy. And our host asserts that he knows which star is the hottest, when there are countless stars that are nearly 100,000 light years distance from us (that's 587,849,956,300,000,000 miles away). 2) Our observable universe has so many galaxies, that scientists are all over the map, guessing at how many galaxies exist -- but it is in the trillions, or perhaps quadrillions. And each galaxy has over 100,000,000 stars for the smallest known galaxies, and over 10,000,000,000,000 stars for the largest known galaxies. And our host asserts that he knows which star is the hottest, when there are countless galaxies that are nearly 14,000,000,000 light years away from us (that's 82,298,993,881,999,995,000,000 miles from us). 3) There are more galaxies in the observable universe than there are grains of sand on our planet. And our host asserts that he knows which star is the hottest, when there are galaxies so far away, that the Hubble telescope needs to collect light, for weeks, from completely black sections of space, in order to create an image of over 10,000 galaxies from a single dark patch of space. And every one of the countless galaxies has millions and more likely billions of stars. So our host's claim of knowing the hottest star in the universe, is akin to laying claim to knowing the answer to the physics within a black hole, and from where human life on Earth derived.
    1
  2339. Good riddance. -- We elect him to represent us in Georgia's House of Representative. But he devotes his time to a second job in the Chamber of Commerce. So how much time was he spending doing the work of We The People? Not much. Showing up for a vote, and collecting a 6-figure paycheck from We The People, almost seems fraudulent. When you are elected to public office, to pass laws, you should not be spending your time working elsewhere. -- Vance Smith might have an "R" next to his name, and calls himself a Republican. But he is a RINO (republican in name only). Vance Smith is a beta male. Complaining in The People's House, over the loss of his other job, is wildly inappropriate -- especially since he never should have had that other job. He used The People's House to air his grievances over over a personal matter. That is the act of a narcissist. -- He got fired from his other job because he is incompetent, and strives to help the swamp, rather than helping The People. -- Note that he never said what it is that he objected to in the bill. He gave a meaningless, general, BS excuse for voting against the bill. He said that he supported the bill, but had questions. What questions? And who votes against a bill that they support? He said that he supported the bill, and yet he voted against it. And he is to be trusted? All of this twisted, non-committal, slimy used-car salesman talk is right out of the radical left's playbook. -- Democrats rallied around him, confirming that he is a RINO. He calls himself a Republican, and votes with the Democrats. And he has done that time and time again. -- Real men do not go up to a public microphone and cry about losing their other job. Attention at any cost. The act of a narcissist. The act of a Democrat. -- Do not worry about him paying his bills. He still has his 6-figure congressional job, with large 401K matching, and free, top-tier healthcare for his entire family, and his 6-figure pension. Vance Smith is a disgrace. Garcia Robinson acted properly, for firing Vance Smith. She probably should have done so a long time ago. Folks, save your sympathies for the truly needy, such as the victims of violent crimes, veterans living on the street, and hurricane victims that lost their homes. Vance Smith is no victim. Give him a tissue and tell him to get a job in a Broadway play.
    1
  2340. 1
  2341. 1
  2342. 1
  2343. 1
  2344. 1
  2345. 1
  2346. 1
  2347. 1
  2348. 1
  2349. 1
  2350. 1
  2351. 1
  2352. 1
  2353. 1
  2354. 1
  2355. 1
  2356. 1
  2357. 1
  2358. 1
  2359. 1
  2360. 1
  2361. 1
  2362. 1
  2363. 1
  2364. 1
  2365. 1
  2366. 1
  2367. 1
  2368. 1
  2369. 1
  2370. 1
  2371. 1
  2372. 1
  2373. 1
  2374.  @grokitall  100% of each item you listed would have been remedied with backups. Restoring the fouled system with yesterday's image would have resulted in not having the offending files that triggered the blue-screens. If a company could not reach their downed systems, then that means that those companies were grossly irresponsible; that they had no disaster recovery plan. What took place was a disaster. The fix was to restore the image from yesterday's backup, by having personnel perform that function. Those companies did not have the backups, and those companies did not have the personnel to do the restore operation. That is on them, for being grossly irresponsible with their company's business continuity. Those companies painted themselves into their own corners. Those companies organized themselves to not be able to recover from a bad update or intentional attack on their computers. The fix was trivial, when you know which keys to press. That information was not know until the next day. So the triviality of it is moot, since no one knew which files to delete. With a backup image, you do not have to know which files to delete. That is the point of having backups. Restoring the image would have given those boxes an image from prior to having the offending files on them. Hence, fixing the issue and having them up and running as quickly as possible. Even BitLocker enabled systems would have been restored. The issue that brought every box down was "software" (data). Restoring the data to a known good state was the fastest, viable fix. Those companies could have done so, but did not. That makes it their fault.
    1
  2375. 1
  2376.  @grokitall  "so you are saying that machine like the airport flight information screens high in the air so that people can see them, and card payments readers like in my local pub should need to have a keyboard and mouse to hand so that some random person can take them into safe mode." Someone installed those machines. Someone should be able to service them, especially in an emergency. Also, the physical computer need not be high in the air, adjacent to the screen. "what about the e-passport machines at the airport, the car parking machines in the street, the hole in the wall cash machines, all the embedded windows devices at the hospital, etc" Yes to all. The companies that installed them need to be able to physically get to them in an emergency. "for all of these there are valid reasons why you won't or cannot plug in a keyboard, video and mouse" You are an excuse maker. You excuse incompetence and you excuse irresponsible management. "as for the idea you have that you should just keep around enough skilled, and vetted engineers doing nothing just in case someone decides to act as stupidly as cloudstrike" I never wrote that. You are a liar. You are also a moron. Why? Because you actually believed that I would not know that I did not write that. Only a moron would state that someone wrote something, addressed to the person who never wrote it. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and tried to educate you on the general principles of disaster recovery planning. But you are determined to make excuses and lie. You are wasting my time. Wallow in your ignorance. Talk to the hand.
    1
  2377. 1
  2378. 1
  2379. 1
  2380. 1
  2381. 1
  2382. 1
  2383. 1
  2384. 1
  2385. @1:56 "...former employees who ran his (Biden's) office, that there was never any record of this (Biden sexually assaulting women). There was never any record." Pelosi just used crafty used-car sale's talk that showed her hand. "record"? That is a legal term. So Biden's own office has no record of Biden sexually assaulting a woman is what Pelosi just said. @2:04 "...and that nobody (from Biden's office) ever came forward, or nobody ever came forward to say something about it..." So that is Pelosi's new standard? That someone else in Biden's office is supposed to report the (then) Senator, on behalf of the person that was sexually assaulted? Note that Pelosi did not say that nobody from Biden's office knew about it or talked about it. She said that they never came forward -- meaning that they never made an official report for the record. The way that Pelosi crafted her statements goes to the truth of the matter. She knows that Biden is guilty, and she knows that Biden's (then) staffers know what he did. So rather than saying: "No one has ever heard about this until now. Not any of Biden's staffers, not anyone from his friends, etc. Nobody. Zero. Zilch. Absolutely no one heard about this until now". But no. Pelosi uses legal terms, and she does so in a way that makes it sound like she literally means nobody ever heard of Biden's sexual assault. So technically she is being truthful, that no "record" (no government documented record) exists. But that is not the same as "No one knew about it", and Pelosi is taking advantage of a complicit media that she knows will not drill into her misleading remarks.
    1
  2386. 1
  2387. 1
  2388. @4:00 "On Linux, you're trusting an array of independent developers, as well as the sponsor of the particular distribution you happen to be using." Most Linux distributions are open source. You can read it, and see exactly what it is doing. And you can compile it, too. Granted, most people would not have a clue what they are reading. But the world has hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of people that know how to read source code, and they would like nothing more than to take credit for exposing any spying or tracking that is built in to the OS. The OS's developers know this, and so they do not include such undesirable code in their OS. They want their OS to be adopted by the public. They know that if they are found to be putting in spying or tracking code, then their OS would be ostracized. There are scores of free, open source, Linux distributions from which to choose. Developer need every edge to maintain a presence in the Linux arena. It is too easy for people to switch distributions, and so developers will not take that risk. The "AntiX" distro dipped their foot into the "getting into your business" game, when they included browser bookmarks of their political leanings with their distro. They caught a lot of flak for that. I do not know if they ever apologized or stopped including bookmarks. I, and probably most others, do not care, because there are so many other Linux choices. If you want a privacy driven OS, then an open source Linux distro is the way to go. And then there is the hardware spying, that is independent of the OS, that user "@lboston4660" wrote about (look for his comment). And so it goes...
    1
  2389. 1
  2390. 1
  2391. 1
  2392. 1
  2393. 1
  2394. 1
  2395. 1
  2396. 1
  2397. 1
  2398. 1
  2399. 1
  2400. 1
  2401. 1
  2402. 1
  2403. 1
  2404. 1
  2405. 1
  2406. 1
  2407.  @SeattleSoulFan  "When did you work there? I'm a huge fan of Atlantic Records' output in general. Did you get to meet Ahmet Ertegün?" I never met him. He probably never visited that Manhattan location. Such a visit would have had all of the employees talking. I was there for 3 years. I do not know what went on there before or after. It was a long time ago, starting off in an entry level position in their computer room. There was no studio. But I did get to see the board room. And I got to see which audio manufacturer they used for all of the people that had window offices, as well as in the board room. It was nothing special. They used Yamaha gear, and everyone with an office had a stereo. The board room had huge JBL speakers, and they cut out sections of the walls and inserted the speakers into the walls. Even I knew that that was the worst thing you could do with speakers. I did meet an executive (can't remember her name) that handed out tickets for concerts. I am sure that she had other duties. I just do not remember her role. When Phil Collins was touring, I found out that she was the go-to person to get tickets. When I was in her office, she pulled out a large inter-office envelope that was stuffed with tickets. She told me to help myself. Jackpot! I took 4 tickets. But I had no idea which ones to take. I learned from that experience that the record companies hold back lots of tickets. She probably had 1,000 or so tickets stuffed into that envelope. Also, just about every office and cubical had CDs all over the place. One somewhat large office looked like a storage room for CDs. That should give you an idea of the years that I worked there.
    1
  2408. 1
  2409. 1
  2410. 1
  2411. 1
  2412. 1
  2413. 1
  2414. 1
  2415. 1
  2416. 1
  2417. There is a small chance that your software, used to do your backup today, will not run on future hardware or future operating systems. For example, if you have a 16 bit executable, today's 64 bit operating systems will probably not run that old program -- at least not directly (there are ways to get a 64 bit OS to run a 16 bit program, but it is not straightforward or for a novice). So if you have some ancient software, you might want to hold on to an old computer and that computer's old operating system, in order to be able to run that old program -- in a pinch. Keep in mind security vulnerabilities, if you need to put that old, outdated computer on-line. I used to play a game called Lode Runner. It ran from a floppy disk (the original, bendable floppy disks). I believe that it is an 8 bit program. And it will run at the speed of the CPU (which for that era, ran in Hz (not even mHz). On one of today's computers, the game would start and finish in a split second (assuming you could get it to run). Even on 20 year old hardware, it would run far too fast. I once tried on an old Gateway 2000, DOS 5.0 computer that had a 66 mHz DX2 CPU, from the 1990s. So I held on to an even older PC (so old, it has no hard drive). But it will run the game properly. I also held on to a monitor that has a VGA port, as that ancient computer will not connect to any of today's monitors. So depending on the software, you might have to take a lot into account to ensure you can get it to work. In general, you can't 100% count on future hardware and future operating systems to run some installation file that you saved. Some software will contact a permission server. That server might not exist, or might not support your 10+ year old software version that you saved. And do you have your registration codes for any purchased software? Mine are kept in my KeePass password manager. If something is critically important for you to run, then you have to hold on to the hardware and software that actually runs it. At a minimum, hold on to the downloaded installation file.
    1
  2418. 1
  2419. 1
  2420. 1
  2421. 1
  2422. 1
  2423. With any luck... After Andrew Cuomo is convicted of this crime, more charges will be filed. Hopefully, he will be arrested, again and again, with similar charges from the conga line of women that he groped. Although it looks like he will do little to no jail time for this current charge, let's hope that when he gets convicted of subsequent charges that he will do hard time. With any luck, more whistle blowers will come forward, not only for his groping women, but for all of his criminal activity over his lifetime. Once people see that he has lost all of his clout, that he no longer has political power, that all of his powerful friends will have nothing to do with him, then more and more people will come forward. And even if this turns out to be his only conviction... Remember that Andrew Cuomo is a tyrant. He craves power. He craves control of others. He craves attention. Not like you or me or normal people. He is in a league of a small set of people that are obsessed with ruling over the peasants. He sees himself as so far above the masses. Now, he lost his governorship. He lost his power. He lost it big time. And on top of that, now he will have a criminal record. For someone with his nefarious obsession with power and status, he is living out his worst nightmare. He has been reduced from a "somebody" to less than a "nobody". And his shame is on full display for everyone to see. This is killing him inside. This is agonizing for him; more-so than for a normal person. His ego is being tortured. Not a day will go by, for the rest of his life, where he will find relief. He will be suffering, mentally, in the extreme. And he has earned everything that is happening to him.
    1
  2424. 1
  2425. 1
  2426. 1
  2427. 1
  2428. 1
  2429. 1
  2430. When your business grows large enough for you to lord over your customers, be sure to install an automated answering system that forces your customers to listen to a list of choices, and pick form those choices. Make sure that pressing 0 will tell them that that is an invalid choice, and will hang up on them after a few attempts. Be sure that your automated system politely thanks the customers, while hanging up on the customer. Having a computer generated voice say "Thank you for calling. Goodbye", does wonders for rudely hanging up on your customers. Make sure that you are so proud of yourself, that you know (in your mind) that one of the choices on the automated option's list will apply to every conceivable issue that a customer might be calling about. Remind yourself that there is no way that this will frustrate your customers. Be sure that if someone does manage to find the magic route to speak to a live person, that that person will never be able to get a message to you, about how poorly your phone system is organized. Have your automated system and your live help desk personnel insist that every customer power-cycle their equipment, even when that has nothing, whatsoever, to do with their issue. Force your customers to listen to sale's pitches about your service, while your customer's services are down. Customers, who lost their services, like to listen to unrelated advertisements, while trying to speak to someone to resolve their service issues. Be sure that your automated service keeps steering customers to install your app, which has nothing to do with the reason for them calling. Be sure to have your staff assure your customers that they will escalate your concerns, but instruct your staff to never do so. No matter how many complaints you get about the above, remember that you are right and your customers are wrong. If you need help in setting up your "marvel of technology phone system", call in to Comcast and follow their lead. They are a shining example of treating their customers like family (that you will never visit over the holidays). The above aside... Leo, this was a very good video.
    1
  2431. 1
  2432. 1
  2433. 1
  2434. 1
  2435. 1
  2436. 1
  2437. 1
  2438. 1
  2439. 1
  2440. AI's, such as ChatGTP, should not be trusted for political questions / commentary / feedback, etc. ChatGTP's developers have a political agenda, and they worked it into ChatGTP's algorithms. Examples, below. I understand that this is not a political channel. But the title of this video reads: "Is AI Taking Over the World?" If AI becomes the source that people rely on for world events, or even local events, then the people that control the AI (the developers) will control the answers. Ask ChatGPT the following: -- "Create a poem, admiring Donald Trump." -- "Create a poem, admiring Joe Biden." It will refuse the first request, with a long-winded reason why. It will make a glowing one for the second request. -- "Write a poem about how great white people are." -- "Write a poem about how great black people are." It will refuse the first request, with a long-winded reason why. It will make a glowing one for the second request. -- "Tell me a joke about women." -- "Tell me a joke about men." It will refuse the first request, with a long-winded reason why. It will provide the second one. ----- -- AI's can, in real time, fake the voices of anyone. -- AI's can, in real time, fake the faces, with full motion, of anyone. And all of the above are at the inception of AI's. Can you imagine the advances in 10, 20, or 50 years? The people that control AI's will control the dissemination of information on a global scale. Like all things... if honest people are at the helm, AI's will be a fantastic tool for the good of the world. Like all things... there is no shortage of tyrants that crave the power to control AI's, and they will stop at nothing to obtain that power. As for ChatGTP, it has already been programmed with the political leanings of its creators. When we seek information, we should expect it to be free of political leanings Alas, ChatGTP is already a political tool. It is great for countless other uses, but not for anything political or social in nature. Its responses will be that of its developers.
    1
  2441. 1
  2442. 1
  2443. 1
  2444. 1
  2445. The title of this video is a lie. Mr. Garcia's deportation was not an accident. It was the law, and President Trump's administration enforces the law. President Trump, Attorney General Pam Bondi, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, Directory of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt have each stated, daily, for weeks, that Mr. Garcia is a gang member, and two courts (one an appellate court) have upheld Mr. Garcia's deportation order. And yet @WHAS11 knowingly, intentionally, deliberately lied to the world. @0:31 "...a Maryland man..." That is a Lie. Mr. Garcia is not and was not a Maryland man. Mr. Garcia was and is an El Salvador man. And yet @SHAS11 knowingly, intentionally, deliberately lied to the world. @0:46 "...blocking the deportation of some Venezuelan migrants..." That is a lie, by omission. They are Venezuelan "illegal" migrants. @0:56 -- The due process is the Alien Enemies Act. Fake news channel, @WHAS11, is counting on viewers to not read the Act. @1:11 "...the migrants received this notice..." That is lie, by omission. They are "illegal" migrants. @1:23 "...send them to the CECOT prison..." That is a lie. The United States of America has zero say in what the El Salvador Government does with its El Salvador citizens. The El Salvador authorities do their own investigation on every illegal alien that is deported to El Salvador, and the El Salvador authorities set them free, or send them to prison, based on their laws, as well as choosing which prison, if any. @1:44 "...deporting hundreds of Venezuelan migrants..." That is a lie, by omission. The are "illegal" migrants. @2:08 "...a father from Maryland, who was taken and put on a plane". That is two lies. Mr. Garcia is not and was not from Maryland. Mr. Garcia is and was from El Salvador. Mr. Garcia was not "taken". Mr. Garcia was deported. @2:20 -- Senator Chris Van Hollen is in violation of the Logan Act, and should expect to be arrested and criminally charged with violation of that federal Act. @2:41 -- "...and the administration has provided no evidence to the courts". That is a lie by misdirection. The courts have the evidence. There are police records, and the courts have ruled that Mr. Garcia is a gang member. So @WHAS11 is telling the world that the administration should provide the court's own evidence to the courts that courts have ruled on as evidence. @2:53 -- Now @WHAS11 is fabricating evidence. @WHAS11 has no evidence that that photo is not genuine. @WHAS11 is not reporting the news. @WHAS11 is fabricating the news. @3:00 "The White House says that Abrego Garcia will not be returned home, despite the Supreme Court ordering to facilitate his release". That is a lie by misdirection. The White House has facilitated the release of Abrego Garcia. The White House has not effectuated the release of Abrego Garcia, because the White House has no authority to do so. Imagine an El Salvador court ruling that the White House must send them an American citizen. How about an Egyptian court ordering Japan to send one of its Japanese citizens. Do you see how absurd @WHAS11's lie is? That is why the Supreme Court's order was to facilitate, and not effectuate, Mr. Garcia's return, and the White House complied with that Supreme Court order. This channel is vying for the throne of being the #1 fake news outlet. Thumb's down click earned.
    1
  2446. 1
  2447. 1
  2448. 1
  2449. 1
  2450. 1
  2451. 1
  2452. 1
  2453. 1
  2454. 1
  2455. 1
  2456. @2:45 "But that's all tracked 'anonymously'. In other words, without the association to your account." Google can create reports that excludes associations with the users. Google can create reports that includes associations with the users. To state that is is "all" tracked "anonymously" is nonsense. @2:53 "You need to trust that. You need to trust that Google's actually deleted the association." Google is the #1 spyware company on the planet. Google has more data on people than any company has ever had in the history of our planet. Google has more data on people than all government agencies, combined (albeit, the types of data will vary, where government agencies will have legal type data that Google probably does not have). But in terms of your on-line activities... Google dwarfs what the government has on you. My point is that for anyone to "trust" that Google has deleted your data is nuts. Even if you never visit Google's web site, Google still tracks your activities via associations with countless other web sites, and applications you might have installed. Google makes its oceans of $$ by spying. I would sooner trust a complete stranger with my life's savings before I would trust that Google actually "deleted the association" with my on-line activities. And I would never trust a complete stranger with my life's savings. So you know where my trust with Google deleting associations stands. When you have Google delete anything, they simply mark it (or tag it) in their myriad of databases as "invisible" (or something similar). Meaning that you, the user, will no longer see it. But Google still has it, and will always have it. Their executives can search your data (deleted by you or not deleted by you) as easily as you can use their search engine to do a search. By all means, use Google for your on-line needs. But know that once they track something, it never, Never, NEVER gets deleted from your profile.
    1
  2457. 1
  2458. 1
  2459. I purchased a 4TB Crucial MX500 2.5" SATA SSD, based on rave reviews of the smaller capacity models in that line. I expected equal or better performance. The drive turned out to be a slug. Although it was faster than a mechanical drive during simultaneous reads and writes of countless small files, it was slower than my USB based mechanical drives, as well as internal mechanical drives (all mechanical drives being SATA based). This was when the mechanical drives were empty (because they slow down as they run out of space). And it was for several different model mechanical drives for both Seagate and Western Digital. The 4TB MX500 was faster in one other respect. No waiting for platters to spin up. But it was a disappointment. I also tested the 4TB MX500 as a temp drive for creating a crypt-o Madmax based Chia plot. Forget it. It was very slow, even falling below 50 MB/s on the writes, after its cache was exhausted (Chia plotting will do that). Would the other capacity MX500 drives have that same dismal performance? From the reviews, they supposedly do not slow down -- at least not much. But the 4TB model slowed to a crawl when its cache ran out. If Crucial changed the design for the 4TB model, to save a few cents, figuring the rave reviews on the smaller capacity MX500 models would ensure sales of the 4TB model, then shame on them. I found out after my return window closed. So now I have a paperweight. A huge amount of space that is slow. Like filling a swimming pool with a garden hose. My old 2TB Samsung T5 is 100+ MB/s faster than the 4TB MX500, even when the MX500 has all of its cache free. And the T5 barely slows down, even if you write 2TB to it without rest. It is a beast. By the way, the Samsung T7 also becomes a slug when its cache runs out. Not so with the T5. So Samsung added faster cache for the T7, and far slower NAND cells for the bulk of its storage.
    1
  2460. 1
  2461. 1
  2462. 1
  2463. 1
  2464. 1
  2465. 1
  2466. 1
  2467. @4:18 "...a hundred thousand miles, and then the electric part wins by some..." No so. When the time comes that you have to replace the car's custom batteries, it will cost you $12,000 at a minimum (at year 2022 prices). And all batteries eventually need to be replaced, no matter how perfectly they might be maintained. All of them eventually stop holding a charge. And before the batteries get to the point of requiring a $12,000+ battery servicing, your electric car's range will diminish, and diminish, and diminish. That is like filling up your gas powered car and getting less and less mileage. So your electric car still sucks up electricity, produced by burning coal, and yet it gets ½ the mileage. And when the time comes that you have to replace your car's custom batteries... From where will you get those batteries, and who will install them? These are not like the traditional batteries used for nearly a century. The answer is that you get the batteries from your dealership. That is... assuming they have them. What are the chances that you drive in and they tell you it will take 6 weeks, or 6 months, before they have replacement batteries for your vehicle? A likely scenario is that you bring your car in, pony up $15,000 and are told it will take 3 months. Adding in that cost and inconvenience, how much is that electric car saving you? And if you think you can sell the car before the batteries need to be replaced... If you are close to needing new batteries, that will be factored in to the car's resale value. Good luck finding a buyer that does not know that in 12 months they will have to spend $15,000 on new batteries. So much for the savings, and so much for saving the environment.
    1
  2468. 1
  2469. Netflix can easily solve this problem, by offering 30 second sample of streaming content at various resolutions. They can provide customers (or potential customers) with the hardware requirements necessary for each resolution level, and instructions on how to test if their equipment is able to play each of their sample resolutions. This is not difficult, and Netflix can probably put this together in under an hour; certainly in a day or two. Netflix simply does not care. Their bean counters see customers as lemmings, and expect the lemmings to just hand over payments for video resolutions that the cannot play. I never buy content that I cannot fully control. For example, every digital song that I own... I have the actual files, with no special software needed to deal with digital right's management. I made the purchases, and have physical copies of the content, in an unencrypted form. I will never allow myself to be at the mercy of an internet connection nor a media permission server at some company's remote location. When I click play, I could be in a cave. My equipment needs to rely on nothing and no one. Alas, people want the convenience of click "Buy", and having the media service organize and manage their purchased content. Sooner or later, they will be burned, when they lose access to what they purchased, because they never took physical ownership of their purchases. I am in favor of renting a movie that gets streamed to me. But to own a movie, I must have the file that I purchased in my possession. I see digital ownership the same as my vinyl records. My vinyl purchases are mine, and I rely on no one, and no one can stop me from playing my vinyl. The same goes for digital songs and digital movies. Our host did an amazing job illustrating the elitist mindset of Netflix's executive management's personnel.
    1
  2470. 1
  2471. 1
  2472. 1
  2473. 1
  2474. 1
  2475. 1
  2476. 1
  2477. 1
  2478. 1
  2479. 1
  2480. 1
  2481. 1
  2482. 1
  2483. 1
  2484. For a family sedan, the 2.0 Accord has excellent handling. Unfortunately, the car's electronic throttle will not allow you to take full advantage of the car's handling. If you are rounding a turn, and have the steering wheel turned past a certain point, then no matter how hard you press on the gas (you can floor it), the car will not accelerate. It will maintain speed, but not accelerate. As soon as you come out of the turn (as soon as the wheel returns close to center), the engine will kick in with authority. This is the case while in any mode (including Sport mode), as well as turning off traction control. The only way to take such turns at a faster speed is to already be going faster when you enter the turn. But sometimes you might not want to enter a turn too fast, and would rather increase your speed while already in the turn. That will not happen in the Accord. The electronic throttle is tied into the steering wheel (or tied into the front wheels), and denies your gas pedal's demand to accelerate in a hard turn. And this is with the stock all-season tires. I was considering getting much grippier performance tires. But what for? The car refuses to put power to the drive wheels while in a turn. I am not suggesting that anyone try to duplicate the conditions I describe above, because you stand a good chance of having an accident. But if you have an eye towards handling performance, and road conditions are safe (sunny, dry, clear, and no other cars, etc), and want to take a turn at speed, the Accord is the prude that wags its "No, no" finger at you. 99.9% of drivers will never push the Accord (or any car) around a turn hard enough to run into the Accord's electronic throttle ceiling. And it is a great family sedan with a good amount of focus on all-around performance. But know that it not only has physical performance limitations (all cars have them), but it also has unforced, designer imposed limitations, and there is no way to circumvent the throttle issue (short of reprogramming the throttle control sensor, and void your car's warranty, and risk who knows what else, due to your tinkering with the sensors). I suspect that the Civic Type-R will not have this problem. I do not like the looks of the Civic Type-R. But had I have known about the Accord's throttle programming choice, I might have passed on buying it. Cheers!
    1
  2485. 1
  2486. @0:40 "...simply because they were Muslim..." When the news (well, this is ABC, so "news" is a stretch) claims that the attack was due to them being Muslim, without any evidence that it was because they were Muslim, they are probably lying. How would that landlord know that they were Muslim? How would ABC know that the landlord knew that they were Muslim? ...and that it was their religion that triggered the landlord? I am not defending the landlord. He should rot in jail. I am suggesting that the public not trust ABC news. ABC finds a murder, and they tell the public that is was due to hatred of Muslims. ABC fabricated the reason, and that is likely to result in more people being attacked or murdered. It is wildly irresponsible for ABC to inflame the public with such a lie. If ABC has evidence that the landlord committed the murder due to them being Muslim, then ABC should have provided that evidence. But they did not, because they lied. That landlord might have killed that boy and stabbed his mother for any number of reasons. We do not know why, and neither does ABC news. And for ABC to lie about the landlord's reasons is despicable. That landlord is filth, and ABC news is a disgrace to the freedom of the press for fabricating news that will incite violence. If any other violence takes place, due to the above lie, then that reporter (Pierre Thomas) should be held criminally liable, as well as his superiors (if they did nothing about his lying). Can you imagine if President Trump announced that some murder took place, and fabricated a racial component to that murder? Yet, that is what ABC news did. Disgraceful.
    1
  2487. 1
  2488. 1
  2489. 1
  2490. 1
  2491. 1
  2492. 1
  2493. 1
  2494. 1
  2495. 1
  2496. 1
  2497.  @ConquerCollin  You do not need a license to buy a chainsaw, and you do not need a license to buy a car (the license is for permission to drive it on public roads). You may use your chainsaw all you want, on your private property. Try using it on public grounds, and you will discover that you need a license. As to cooks and servers: They are employees of the establishment, and it is the establishment that is licensed to serve food. You have, again, written "right to travel". Where in this thread has anyone written that you do not have the right to travel? Where in this thread has anyone written that you need a license to travel? And you are correct, that you cannot license a right away. But since driving (operating a motor vehicle on a public road) is not a right, then mandating a license is not infringing on that right (because the alleged right is non existent). The right must exist in order to lose it. I find it astonishing that you are advocating for anyone, with human DNA, to have the "right" to get behind the wheel of a 18-wheeler, a car, or even a motor cycle. -- Has the driver reached puberty? What does it matter? According to you, it is their human right to drive. -- Can the driver read? What does it matter? According to you, it is their human right to drive. -- Can the driver see well enough? What does it matter? According to you, it is their human right to drive. -- Is the driver suffering from disorientation, memory impairment, auditory hallucination, or paranoid delusions of persecution? What does it matter? According to you, it is their human right to drive. -- Is the driver's mental state consistent with multi infarct dementia, schizophrenia, and Alzheimer's. What does it matter? According to you, it is their human right to drive. --Does the driver have a history of driving on sidewalks, running stop signs, running red lights, doing 60MPH in school zones, etc? What does it matter? In your "right to drive" society, they have no license to lose.
    1
  2498. 1
  2499. 1
  2500. 1
  2501. 1
  2502. 1
  2503. 1
  2504. 1
  2505. 1
  2506. 1
  2507. 1
  2508. Not doing backups is not limited to individuals. The recent CrowdStrike event revealed that millions of business computers (many from huge companies) were not being backed up. The recent CrowdStrike event revealed that countless government computers, providing critical services (such as 911 related services) were not being backed up. When their computers all blue-screened, that was clearly a data / software issue, as there is no way that they all had simultaneous hardware issues. At that moment, they had no way of knowing what the offending data was. Well, that is where a backup comes in. Had those businesses and government agencies restored from yesterday's image, they all would have been up and running, with the minimum possible delay. Some of them should have taken an image of the downed systems, before restoring the image, in order to grab (for example) database files from the downed systems (because yesterday's backup image would not have an up-to-date database). So those companies and those government agencies had no daily backups (or possibly no backups at all), and they had no disaster recovery plans. They were incredibly lucky that they were able to fix the issue after CrowdStrike determined the problem, and gave instructions on how to delete the offending file from the affected systems. But if those affected systems were brought down by a malware attack, they would have been down for good. They would have had monumental problems on their hands, due to not having backups. So the same folks that do not back up their own personal computers... well... many of them have jobs with big companies and government agencies, and they do not back up those systems either.
    1
  2509.  @askleonotenboom  Leo, the CrowdStrike blue-screen issue was triggered by a bad* configuration file that was placed in the filesystem's user space (ring 1). Depending on how you look at it, it is debatable whether or not the configuration file was bad (more on that, below). That configuration file was read into a kernel driver (ring 0), resulting in that kernel driver experiencing a logic error. That resulted in the blue screen. A restore, from yesterday, would not include that bad configuration file. Upon a restore from yesterday's image, that bad file would not be there, and neither would the blue screen. I do not really deem the configuration file as being the culprit. So although it was a bad configuration file (it contained all zeroes), the kernel's driver should not have imploded. That driver should have code in it to validate the veracity of the configuration file, deem it improper, and ignore it. But that kernel driver was not coded as such. So I put the blame on that kernel driver. After all, it was the driver that freaked out (in a manner of speaking), at the kernel level (a ring 0 violation), that resulted in the blue screen. Ring 1 code (the home of the configuration file (user space)) should not be able to panic ring 0 code. I also put the blame on Microsoft, because they signed off on that kernel driver. You and I cannot install driver code (or any code) into Microsoft's kernel, without Microsoft's blessing. No one should be able to install software that makes a kernel driver choke. Yet, that is what CrowdStrike did. They installed a channel update (a data file) that is read by CrowdStrike's kernel driver (a driver approved by Microsoft). With the above in mind, any computer without that channel update file would not have whacked out the kernel driver. So after getting blue-screened, a restore would not include that channel update file. Hence, no blue screen after the restore. You would be restored to a known, good state. If an intentional attack occurred, and successfully encrypted critical files, then the only fix would be restoring from a backup. But now we know that millions of those computers had no backups. Or if they did, those companies and government agencies had no disaster recovery plan. Having backups, with no-one to do restores, was a disaster waiting to happen. Whether companies and government agencies would have gotten back on their feet faster with restores vs waiting for the CrowdStrike fix instructions, will vary on a case-by-case basis. But we now know that they have no backups. I was recently blue-screened on an old computer (i7 series 950 CPU) that has run problem-free for 15 years. Reboots were not helping, other than directing me to use my installation disk via the repair option. Instead, I restored from a backup (only my C: drive), and booted with no issues. Something got corrupted, but I do not know what.
    1
  2510. 1
  2511. 1
  2512. 1
  2513. 1
  2514. 1
  2515. 1
  2516. 1
  2517. 1
  2518. 1
  2519. People that say that people of color cannot be racists are either: -- using that moronic excuse to shut down dialog (by the way, do not accept that BS from them). -- racists, themselves (so they will say anything to offend white people). -- brainwashed. -- stupid. And it is often a combination of the above. Asserting that only white people can be racist is beyond absurd. There are racists in every group. Also know that most people, by a vast majority, are not racist. Just as most people do not rape, kill, and riot. But when, perhaps, 0.001% of the population commits heinous acts, it is those acts that make headlines. It is the fact that since law breakers are not the norm that they make the news. So do not make that let you believe that that is the norm, or even wide-spread. It is not. What you see on TV is not what you see when you spend your day. The TV amplifies the exceptions to society's norms. So remember that they are exceptions, and not representative of real life -- not even close. We all see that the media ignores news worthy items that would spread good cheer and lift up society, and, instead, cherry-pick stories that inflame the gullible. And there are so few of these stories that the radical left media fabricates stories and outright lies about events, because they are no different than ANTIFA, except that they dress for the studio's cameras. ANTIFA is more than the psychos in the street; they include the seemingly well-mannered fake news anchors that rev up the mobs. Cheers!
    1
  2520. 1
  2521. 1
  2522. 1
  2523. 1
  2524. 1
  2525. 1
  2526. 1
  2527. Louis, for your milk delivery example, if you were to refuse delivery, unless the customer first watched you make a pitch for some other offering, that would be akin to what Amazon is doing with their "limited" advertising. And that "limited" adjective is meaningless, corporate mumbo-jumbo. One 10 second ad, each hour, is "limited" advertising. One hundred 10 second ads, each hour, is "limited" advertising. Fifty-nine minutes of ads, each hour, is "limited" advertising. And however many ads Amazon starts off with, they will add more. In a year from now, I would not be surprised if the amount of their ads doubled. But, hey, it is still "limited". I shop on Amazon, only for items that I cannot find locally, or for items where I know the brand name, and the savings make it worthwhile. I will never sign up for Prime. I suspect that millions of people are making voluntary payments for a service, even when they have not ordered anything for months. Every item I have ever ordered from Amazon, I got it with free shipping. I simply had to (sometimes) wait longer to take delivery. I am not a child. So I was able to survive, without having an emotional breakdown, waiting for the delivery. Considering Bezos' incredible wealth (which he earned), for him to stick it to the public with this cash grab is insulting. On top of his current personal spending, he could spend $1,000,000.00 a day, every day, and still become $billions richer each year. And yet he signs off on this cash grab. It makes me wonder: If Jeff Bezos saw someone drop a $1 bill, would he tell them? Or would he pick it up and keep it?
    1
  2528. 1
  2529. 1
  2530. 1
  2531. 1
  2532. 1) New York is not a sanctuary city. Rather, it is a fugitive city, because it hides and gives comfort to criminal fugitives. Sanctuaries are for people fleeing persecution. 99.9% of illegal immigrants are not fleeing persecution. 2) If you did not enter a port of entry, and follow the asylum process, then you are not an asylum seeker. Ergo, you will be deported. 3) 99.9% of those claiming that they are seeking asylum are not seeking asylum. If an asylum seeker crossed some other country before reaching the United States of America, then they had an opportunity to seek asylum elsewhere. 4) Although gang members and those that have violent criminal records will be a priority for deportation, every other illegal immigrant will also be deported. Although ICE agents might not focus on peaceful illegal immigrants, if an ICE agent encounters a peaceful illegal immigrant, that ICE agent will arrest them and deport them. 5) Our host mentioned that there are 6,000 ICE agents. This is still the Biden* administration. President Trump and Tom Homan intend to ramp that up, many times over. Also, President Trump and Tom Homan will be using the military and will be using the National Guard in every state whose governor cooperates. Within 6 months, I estimate that 50% of illegal immigrants will have been deported. After 1 year, 90% of illegal immigrants will have been deported. The remaining 10% will be harder to address, as they manage to avoid detection. But by the end of President Trump's 4 year term, 99% of illegal immigrants will have been deported. Also note that President Trump will complete the southern wall within 6 months (a year at most), and will also be building a wall with Canada.
    1
  2533. 1
  2534. 1
  2535. 1
  2536. 1
  2537. 1
  2538. 1
  2539. Yes, it is smart to keep a supply of ventilators on hand. You do not want to wait for them, after you already need them. You certainly do not want to run out. But hoarding ventilators (same as people are hoarding toilet paper, sanitizer, etc) can result in suffering and deaths when that life-saving equipment is needed elsewhere. 1) The ventilators are not toys. They are built to medical standards. They are expensive, and they take huge resources to manufacture the parts, build the units, and test the units. 2) If and when a new outbreak of the virus shows up somewhere other than New York, will Cuomo ship his not-in-use stockpile to save the lives of non New York Americans? Will there be a red-tape delay to find that stockpile and get it shipped? It is not like the federal government can just snap their fingers and 10,000 more ventilators appear. 3) Tying up personnel to manufacture tens of thousands of ventilators, for a demand that is not present (only projected under worst case scenario), means that those people are not contributing their time and labor towards other immediate needs that are related to this crisis. Cuomo said nothing about an "apex" when he sounded the emergency alarm that New York needed tens of thousands of ventilators. It is only after he was questioned as to why so many ventilators are being stockpiled by him, and he still wants more, that he now qualifies that they are for the "apex". How is the President expected to manage the unimaginable demands on his office, when he cannot count on the people that are making the demands to be accurate or, at a minimum, be reasonable?
    1
  2540. 1
  2541. 1
  2542. 1
  2543. 1
  2544. 1
  2545. 1
  2546. 1
  2547. 1
  2548. 1
  2549. 1
  2550. 1
  2551. 1
  2552. 1
  2553. 1
  2554. 1
  2555. 1
  2556. 1
  2557. 1
  2558. 1
  2559. 1
  2560. 1
  2561. 1
  2562. 1
  2563. ​ @lupaswolfshead9971  "surprise surprise my comment on the truth about what TOR really is was deleted. I wonder why." Comments getting deleted are commonplace on youtube. And youtube does so deceptively. When you leave a comment, you will see it. But after you refresh the page, your comment is not there. So no one ever saw it. youtube has to know that that is happening. It has to be by design. Also, when you leave a comment, if you keep refreshing the page, it might finally show up after 20 or 30 seconds. Also, if you change the "Sort by" option (directly next to the bold number of comments), to "Newest first", and toggle back and forth, I have found that it helps to get my comments listed. youtube has endless filters for all kinds of reasons, many of which are political. So they have algorithms doing auto-deletions at the time you post your comment. But it seems that lots of deleted comments are in error; their algorithms are faulty. So you are not alone in having your comments vanish or never show up. I believe that youtube is in violation of Section 230 of the Communications And Decency Act, prohibiting them from being editors (and deleting comments is being an editor). They are allowed to delete comments that contain illegal content. But youtube is deleting countless benign, non controversial comments. Most people do not realize that their comments never got posted. After all, their browser showed them their comment. So the user moves on, not realizing that other than her own browser, her comment never showed up. And so youtube gets few complaints.
    1
  2564. sysinternals (now owned by Microsoft) has an "autoruns" tool. Run it as an administrator, and it will show you every place where Windows automatically starts or loads a program (it is numerous). Scroll down the list, and uncheck what you believe should not be starting. That will not stop what has already started. But when you restart your computer, then the item(s) you unchecked will not start. If you found the malware program and unchecked it, then that is the end of your malware. The malware's file(s) will still reside on your computer. But malware is harmless, until you run it. It will sit there until the end of time, doing nothing, no different than any other file you put on your computer and never go back to. If you do identify the actual malware file(s) (autoruns can help you do that), then copy it off to a flash drive, and delete it from your computer (the copy is just in case you screw up and find out that you should not have deleted the file(s)). Note that if you uncheck the wrong box in autoruns, you can cripple your computer. You will not know of your mistake, until you restart your computer. So if in doubt, backup your computer. Then, if your computer becomes unbootable, then restore from your backup, and you will be back in business. If you buy a new computer, then consider running autoruns, and taking a snapshot of everything that is listed. Then, periodically compare that snapshot by running autoruns, again, and see what has been added. This is especially important right before and right after you install new software. And even with a new computer, autoruns will help you identify bloatware that is starting in the background that you never knew was there. If it is crap that is of no use to you, then uncheck it. Of course, first see if there is a Windows setting that will disable that item. But if you cannot find what is starting that stuff, then autoruns will allow you to stop it from automatically running.
    1
  2565. 1
  2566. 1
  2567. 1
  2568. 1
  2569. 1
  2570. 1
  2571. 1
  2572. 1
  2573. 1
  2574. 1
  2575. 1
  2576. 1
  2577. Folks, here is why we should not trust this CBS report: @0:05 "...latest scandal." Listen to the (so called) news anchor's emphasis on the adjective "latest". @0:35 "...latest scandal." @0:48 "...latest scandal." Yet, CBS 17 never stated what the previous scandals were. Ergo, CBS is lying, by way of implying scandals that do not exist. There were no previous scandals. But CBS wants you to believe that there were previous scandals. A real news station would not call a first scandal a "latest" scandal. Since CBS is fabricating the existence of previous scandals, why should we believe that any part of this (so called) news story is real? Why should we believe that there is a current scandal, when CBS is lying, by implication, that other scandals exist? CBS is being deceptive. CBS, like NBC and CNN, should not be trusted. They do report on some actual news items, to maintain the facade that they are a news station. The problem is not the times when they actually are reporting news. The problem is all of the times when they lie. And in this video, they lied. Also notice, @1:13, you can't see (you can't read) the so-called postings. So CBS is accusing Robinson of those postings, and yet CBS does not show us the postings. Not being able to read those postings is by accident? They just show blurry, pixilated images, and gullible people connect imaginary dots. Also, there is no way that Robinson would have posted those comments under his own name. So how could those comments (if they even exist) be associated with Robinson? Lastly, CBS is using CNN as their source. So any inkling of credibility is gone. Do not trust CBS, especially for anything that involves politics.
    1
  2578. 1
  2579. President* Biden was reading crafty, slimy, lawyer language from his teleprompter. When it is time to prosecute him for his crimes, his lawyers will claim two things -- both of which will support what he just said about no president is above the law: 1) The President of the United States of America is legally allowed to do things that anyone else in the country would be jailed for doing. So after he leaves office, his lawyers will assert that President* Biden never broke the law, because (as President*) he had the authority within the law. In other words, the President of the United States of America has carve-outs in the law, that no one else has. 2) President* Biden's lawyers will assert that President* Biden is not mentally fit to stand trial. So even for blatant law breaking -- laws that even the President of the United States of America would be found guilty of breaking... well, it all becomes moot when you are mentally unfit to stand trial. And the media will support President* Biden's mentally unfit claim all the way. For years, they have been claiming that he is sharp. Now watch. As soon as he is out of office and there are official charges made against him for his arrest and prosecution, the media will jump on board the "He is mentally unfit to stand trial" train. Yesterday, before charges were brought, the media called him sharp. The next day, after charges are brought, the media will claim he is mentally unfit. Any time President* Biden, or any democrat leaders, sound like they are making sense, keep in mind that it is in furtherance of their deceptive agenda. Never believe anything that they say, at face value. They are always up to something.
    1
  2580. 1
  2581. 1
  2582. 1
  2583. 1
  2584. Constitutional rights are not up for grabs. Constitutional rights may not be suspended -- ever. One of the points of We The People having our constitutional rights, is so when tyrants falsely claim an emergency, to deny us our constitutional rights, we retain our constitutional rights. Preciously because of what that tyrant is doing, is why our constitutional rights remain in place. If claiming an emergency suspends our constitution, then what is the point of having a constitution that can be turned off at the whim of a tyrant claiming an emergency? Even during an actual emergency, that is when our constitutional rights matter all the more. @5:35 "...about whether or not, in an emergency, we can create a safer environment." 1) There is no emergency. -- Maui is an emergency. -- 9/11/2001 was an emergency. -- Pearl Harbor was an emergency. 2) Denying citizens their constitutional rights, to defend themselves against a tyrannical dictator, does not create a safer environment Michelle Lujan Grisham just showed her hand. She is saying that disarming We The People makes for a safer environment. Ergo, she is intending to make her unconstitutional gun ban permanent. If banning guns is safer this month, then it is safer next month, too. And the month after that, and the year after that. Michelle Lujan Grisham knows the above, which makes it all the worse. She is testing We The People to see if we will give in to her unconstitutional power grab. If We The People allow it, she will see that as a sign of weakness, and she will seek to grab more power, and she will seek to trash our constitution more and more. Folks, Michelle Lujan Grisham is a degenerate, radical leftist that hates America. Anyone that pisses on our constitution hates it. Ergo, they hate America. They are power hungry tyrants. Michelle Lujan Grisham is pissing on her oath of office. She should be impeached and removed from office.
    1
  2585. 1
  2586. 1
  2587. 1
  2588. 1
  2589. 1
  2590. 1
  2591. 1
  2592. 1
  2593. 1
  2594.  @askleonotenboom  Leo, a year or so ago, I pointed out that the cloud service owns whatever data you upload to them. I believe it was related to OneDrive. You asked me to cite the language, and I did. I am not going to hunt it down again, as the services do not place it on page 1, and they do not write it in layman's terms. They intentionally obfuscate it. In fact, the one I found on Microsoft's site was an image of that section's words. An accident, that they posted it as an unsearchable image? But I did provide it when you asked. I am kicking myself for not noting down where it was -- but I did not expect to be revisiting this. Since it was an image, I had to type it out in the comments (no copy/paste due to it being an image, and these comments support only text). By the services owning your data, they protect themselves with lawsuits. It allows them to scan your uploads, and allows them to benefit from any data that their scans identify as being useful to them. A year or so ago, I owed it to you when you asked me to verify or cite my assertion that the cloud service owns your uploaded data. So I took the time and effort to dig up the language in their terms of service. I do not relish repeating that exercise. How did I know that they own your uploaded data? A host on a different channel showed examples of the cloud service's terms of service stating as such. But finding that host's video is also next to impossible. But I did post the exact language on one of your other videos, when you asked for it.
    1
  2595. ​ @askleonotenboom  "@andrewshaw7144" did not include the text, two paragraphs below what he quoted: "b. To the extent necessary to provide the Services to you and others, to protect you and the Services, and to improve Microsoft products and services, you grant to Microsoft a worldwide and royalty-free intellectual property license to use Your Content, for example, to make copies of, retain, transmit, reformat, display, and distribute via communication tools Your Content on the Services. If you publish Your Content in areas of the Service where it is available broadly online without restrictions, Your Content may appear in demonstrations or materials that promote the Service. Some of the Services are supported by advertising. Controls for how Microsoft personalizes advertising are available at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx). We do not use what you say in email, chat, video calls or voice mail, or your documents, photos or other personal files, to target advertising to you. Our advertising policies are covered in detail in the Privacy Statement." Without using the words: "We own your files", they own your files, because they are telling you that they have a worldwide, royalty-free right to use your files however they feel like using your files. They gave examples. That does not mean that those examples are all-encompassing. "...and to improve Microsoft products and services..." Wow, is that ever open-ended. I sure hope that my cycling videos and my spreadsheets help Microsoft to improve their products and services. They go on to make is sound like it is if you publish your content in certain areas. They count on you connecting imaginary dots. And they neither identify those areas, nor do they say that that is the sole trigger. And then they include links for you to drill into, to further obfuscate what they are doing. The additional links lend to more confusion, and difficulty at getting to the answer of a simple question of ownership. The links take you down rabbit hole after rabbit hole. How can anyone's files improve Microsoft's products and services, if Microsoft is not scanning your files for who-knows-what? Even if Microsoft does not "own" your files, you are granting Microsoft permission to do anything they want with your files. I would love to not own a Ferrari, yet I am granted permission to do whatever I want with that Ferrari. Note that I omitted the actual links from the quote, because my reply would likely get tossed (which might be a good topic for one of your videos).
    1
  2596. 1
  2597. 1
  2598. 1
  2599. 1
  2600. 1
  2601. 1
  2602. 1
  2603. 1
  2604. 1
  2605. 1
  2606. 1
  2607. 1
  2608. 1
  2609. 1
  2610. 1
  2611. 1
  2612. 1
  2613. 1
  2614. 1
  2615. 1
  2616. The 7zip approach is very good. But it leaves a crack in the procedure, for anyone wanting to cover themselves 100%. The document was first saved, in the clear, and was then encrypted in to a new file. A computer forensics expert might be able to uncover the original document, due it it once being saved, in the clear, to your drive. But for general use, to keep nosy people from viewing your documents, 7zip is a good choice for most people. The beauty of VeraCrypt (perhaps Cryptonator, too (never used the latter)), is that when you save files to a VeraCrypt volume, it is saved with encryption. A non encrypted save never happens. One other possible security issue is: How does Word (or any other application) work in the background? Does Word use a temp file somewhere as you are editing your document? Does Word save that temp file somewhere that is not encrypted? For example, where does Word save the editing history for your documents, for when you want to "undo" something? You had a photo embedded in your Word document, which you removed, and then later decided to bring it back with undo. From where did Word obtain the image that you removed? Was it in a temp file somewhere? How about while 20 minutes into you typing up your Word document, your computer crashes (or you have a power outage). The next time you open Word, I believe it will have part or all of your document available to you, even if you never saved it. The temp file would typically be deleted after you close the document. But if Word was saving edits along the way, in the clear, somewhere else on your drive, then that might be an issue for some folks. Perhaps Word has a setting somewhere that allows you to pick where it saves its temporary work? My version of Word is ancient. So I cannot check what is available today. You could encrypted 100% of your drive(s). That would ensure that no matter where anything gets saved, it will be gibberish to anyone not having a password to unlock the drive(s). By the way, there is a Windows "cipher.exe" command, that runs from the command prompt. It appears to allow you to encrypt individual files or directories. I ran "cipher/?", and the output made my brain hurt. It might be a viable Windows based solution (no 3rd party tools needed) for some folks, if they can process the help screen.
    1
  2617. 1
  2618. 1
  2619. 1
  2620. 1
  2621. 1
  2622. 1
  2623. @0:47 "The cloud." Translation: Someone else's computer. Cloud services will not backup your configuration files. Programs leave such files all over the place. The registry is a popular place. But are "all" of your programs leaving "all" of their settings in the registry? You will never figure out where all of your configuration files are located. So you will never be able to direct the cloud storage service to backup all of those files. If your boot drive fails, then you will have to re-install Windows. If you were automatically connecting to your cloud storage, well, with your fresh installation of Windows, you will not be automatically logged in to your cloud storage service. Do you know your cloud storage login credentials? You will have to enter them manually. Thereafter, you can set it up to automatically sign you in. But initially, after replacing your failed boot drive, and re-installing Windows, you will have to login to your cloud storage service the old-fashioned way. When you use a cloud based service, you are giving up control of your data. Those services are very reliable. But they are controlled by other people. They are subject to outages, data losses, discontinuing the service, or going out of business. If your internet service provider has an outage, then you lose access to your cloud storage. @5:15 "...on someone else's computer." I am pleased that our host covered that aspect. Cloud storage services all tout end-to-end encryption. 1) You have zero ways to verify that their assertion is true. 2) Where are the two ends? One end is your computer. The other end is the cloud service's computer. Seems reasonable. However, once your data reaches their computer, does it remain encrypted? Or does the data get decrypted, and then encrypted by them for storage? If it is the latter, then they have 100% unfettered access to all of your data, in the clear. When you shop on Amazon, or do your on-line banking, etc, you have end-to-end encryption. But Amazon decrypts your data. If not, they would not know that you are shopping for. The same for your bank. How can they show you your balances, if your data is not dcrypted by them for them to know what your request is? The same could be happening with cloud based backups. And yet all of the above examples fulfill the definition of "end-to-end encryption", while the examples I gave show that the service can see 100% of your data in the clear. 3) When the cloud service encrypts your data, they can encrypt it, not only with your key (so that you can unlock your data), but they can also encrypt your data with their own master key. In fact, they can have multiple master keys. It takes a split second to include additional keys to unlock your data. And you have no way to know how they are encrypting your data, and whether or not they have master keys. When they do the encrypting, then they are in 100% control. It is not likely that anyone at the cloud service is poking around in your data. But if you are a person of interest (celebrity, government official, person making headlines, etc), or 10 years from now become a person of interest, then the cloud service will probably be able to look at all of your data. There was a story (approximately one year ago), where a father took photos of his toddler's rash, at the request of the doctor. At the doctor's request, the father uploaded those photos to a cloud based storage service so that the doctor could view them. The photos were flagged by the service as child p********phy. But how can that be, with end-to-end encryption. The father was arrested. The above confirms that cloud based storage services can see 100% of your files in the clear, and that they are running algorithms, prying into your data. Are they all doing it? Who knows. It is easy for them to do it. So they probably are doing it. When you hand your files over to other people, then you have zero control of those files. The control that you have, is the control that they allow you to have. They can click their mouse and cut you off. And they can likely see everything that you put on their computers. If you upload trade secrets, or any files that could ruin your life, then you would be nuts to put those files on a cloud service's computer (some stranger's computer). As our host said, you could first encrypt your files yourself. That is sage advice. But you better use strong encryption, and use a password with loads of entropy. Those big tech cloud service companies have computers that can break 90%+ of the passwords that people use. Nearly all passwords can be cracked in seconds. Some take a few days. Better ones take a few weeks. The best passwords will keep your data safe. That means long passwords, with all kinds of special characters peppered around, none of which follow any patterns. Use cloud based storage only for files that you would not care if other people got their hands on them, or only if you first encrypted them on your own computer, with a very strong password.
    1
  2624. 1
  2625. Even if those buses had just enough range in the freezing weather to compete their routes, it would cost double the fuel to run them. What do I mean by double the fuel? Those buses need to be re-charged. That is done by a charging station. That charging station is fueled by fossil fuels. It takes the same amount of fossil fuels to fully charge that bus to go 200 miles on a warm day, as it does for that same bus to travel 100 miles on a freezing day. It would be as if your gasoline car got only have the mileage when it was freezing outside. It would still cost you the same to fill up at the gas station. -- And it gets worse. As batteries age, they hold less and less of a charge. Consider your smart phone. After a year or two, you probably noticed that you were getting less life out of your battery. And if you hold on to your smart phone for 4 or 5 years, it gets much worse. The same goes for electric vehicles. -- And it gets worse. After, perhaps, 7 years, the batteries will need to be replaced. Even if they last 10 years, they will have to be replaced. All rechargeable batteries eventually stop holding a charge, and need to be replaced. The price to replace the batteries on those electric busses will be north of $100,000.00. There are electric cars with $60,000.00 price tags to replace its batteries (costing more than the car). So the price for the bus's batteries might even exceed $200,000.00. -- And it get worse. When the town orders new batteries for its busses, there will likely be a 6 month waiting period (perhaps longer), due to supply chain shortages, and who knows what else. It will not be like an Amazon order, where your bus's batteries will show up the next day. And you can't go into Bob's service station for that bus's batteries. Those batteries are custom made by the manufacturer. You are at the mercy of the manufacturer, and the manufacturer knows it. You can be sure that the manufacturer will know exactly how high to price their batteries -- just enough to milk every last dollar out of the town's budget. And to all of the "save the planet" extremists: -- All of those batteries will end up in landfills. -- All of the emissions that did not come from those electric busses will have been spewed into the air from the electric company. -- All of those batteries require rare Earth metals, which are mined by child, slave labor in African countries.
    1
  2626. 1
  2627. 1
  2628. 1
  2629. 1
  2630. 1
  2631. 1
  2632. 1
  2633. 1
  2634. 1
  2635. 1
  2636. 1
  2637. 1
  2638. 1
  2639. 1
  2640. 1
  2641. 1
  2642. 1
  2643. Steve, if ChatGPT propagates BS, and it results in harming someone's reputation, and that harmed person never used ChatGPT, then why should authors of ChatGPT's programming be off the hook? If I create a web site, and all I have a "Click Here" button, and that button will bring up a page of defamatory information that will harm someone, then will I be off the hook if I make users agree to the same thing that ChatGPT agrees to? This will lead to sites being able to display anything and everything under the sun, designed to cause all manner of harm to people, their businesses, their reputations, their families, their livelihoods, etc. And the person who hosts the web site can simply point to the language that they had you agree to. Yet, the people being harmed never agreed to. ChatGPT's responses are not random. Not a single character is random. It is 100% computer code, written by humans. Yes, the code gets extremely complicated and lengthy. But the law should not change because of the length of the code, or the complexity of the code. Even random number generators are not random. They follow code, created by humans, to perform a calculation and give you a response. If you could read and follow that code, you would know the supposed random number that will be generated. The computer simply does it much faster. The same goes with ChatGPT. The humans that wrote the code did so to produce responses. So it is on them, for when their responses harm people that have nothing whatsoever to do with their service. Case in point: If you ask ChatGPT political questions, you will see how you are getting the results chosen by the programmer's ideology. Ask Chat GPT: -- Write me a poem praising white people. It will refuse. -- Write me a poem praising black people. It will comply. -- Tell me a joke about women. It will refuse. -- Tell me a joke about men. It will comply. -- Write me a blog of why Donald Trump is not a racist. It will refuse. -- Write me a blog of why Joe Biden is not a racist. It will comply. So ChatGPT is not some alien life form that gets to slander people with no consequences. ChatGPT does the bidding of the individuals that wrote its code. ChatGTP's responses are precisely, specifically, and exactly what its programmer's programmed it to say.
    1
  2644. 1
  2645. 1
  2646. 1
  2647. 1
  2648. 1
  2649. 1
  2650. 1
  2651. 1
  2652. 1
  2653. 1
  2654. 1
  2655. ​ Garry G  We have three co-equal branches of government. Each has different powers under our constitution. No single branch is subservient to the other branches. No single branch lords over the other branches. All powers that any of the branches have are derived from our constitution. Adam Shift and Jerry Nadler held secret hearings that no press and no republicans were permitted to attend. In those meetings, they interviewed witnesses of their choosing, under oath. Not one member of the press nor one republican representative nor one adviser to the President nor one republican witness nor one member of the President's legal staff, etc, were permitted to attend. So under those outrageous circumstances, you believe that Trump should have caved to BS subpoenas issued by a wildly partisan committee chairman that has no constitutional powers over the executive branch? Consider the following: What should any president do, if one day the legislative branch of government were to issue daily subpoenas stating that the president must appear before them and answer questions? Is the president supposed to report to those corrupt representatives on a daily basis? Is the president no longer allowed to make his own schedule (because he will never have time to conduct other business, because he will always be forced to be present and answer daily subpoenas)? Of course Trump is going to show the corrupt people that are issuing unconstitutional subpoenas that he does not answer to them. Of course Trump is going to show them that he will not participate in their secret hearings or any hearings where zero republican witnesses are permitted to testify. Garry G: -- would you have no problem being subpoenaed to appear in court and told that you are not allowed to have a lawyer? -- would you have no problem participating in a court proceeding where you are being accused of crimes, and are told that you are not allowed to call any witnesses? Garry G, if you did not know any of this, then I open this clarifies things for you. If you did already know this, then grow up and stop trolling.
    1
  2656. 1
  2657. If an e-mail message urges you to forward it on, then you should probably not forward it on. If you read an e-mail message, and you did not decide on your own that this is a must see for everyone, then it is not a must see for everyone. There are people that arouse themselves by distributing some e-mail message, and climb the walls, hoping that it goes viral. They do not care what was written in the message. They simply want to bask in their imagined glory that they did something that got around the county (or the world). You should never need anyone to tell you that you should pass it along to the world. You should read the message and have enough sense to figure that out on your own. As to fact-checking sites: Please note that most of them are unofficial propaganda arms of a political party. Do not trust any recommendations from anyone, including me, which is why I am not making any recommendations. Everyone has political leanings, and will try to steer you to their choice of so-called facts -- even going so far as to suggest that those facts are actually facts, even though people don't like those facts. Every site that uses fact checkers ensures that company leans their way. In fact, fact checking companies are run by political operatives. Look up who runs a fact-checking site, and you will likely see the name of someone that was a cabinet member of a political party -- and that information might not be easily found, because it would give away the leanings of those fact checkers. So if CNN recommends a fact checking site, and Fox News recommends some other fact checking site, and they both swear that their fact checkers are the ones to trust, then where does that leave you? Just because some company prances around as being "fact checkers", does not make them honest. Who is fact checking the fact checkers? And on and on and on. Trust no one, until you vet them yourself. With enough time and effort, and checking multiple sources, you will eventually learn who you can trust (but never 100%). And check with sites that you deem to be untrustworthy, or having differing political positions than you have. You will learn to identify BS, and also learn that some site you thought was BS sometimes opens your eyes. Lastly, just because some site where you trust the host for cooking, or for automotive content, or for pets, or for computers, etc... just because that host is honest and helpful and likable, does not mean that their political recommendations should carry the same weight.
    1
  2658. 1
  2659. 1
  2660. 1
  2661. 1
  2662. 1
  2663. 1
  2664. 1
  2665. 1
  2666. It will be abused. All spying equipment falls into the hands of people that abuse it. And, here, we are talking about government bureaucrats -- so of course it will be abused. How would you like to be running for a seat on the city council, and the mayor (from the other political party) has the AI traffic data searched for all occurrences of you in your car. That mayor finds a scene where you were picking your nose. That will spell the end of your campaign for a seat on the city council. It will also spell the end of any politician that you support, that has an unflattering scene in his/her car. Or how about the mayor finding a scene where you did not have an opportunity to put on your make-up, or do your hair. Well, that image of you will find its way onto social media. How about if you were supposed to be taking your daughter to a boring lecture, but you, instead, treated her to a fun time somewhere else. Well, if you are a person of notoriety, those images can be used to make your life difficult. The video footage can (and probably will) be saved forever. That way, when some unknown person becomes a person of interest, the people in charge of the AI system can pull up all of your scenes, going back years -- even decades (as the decades pass). And all of the video footage can be indexed in real-time -- meaning: facial recognition, make and model of car, license plate, inspection sticker, etc... all information will be time-indexed with the aforementioned tags. So when someone wants to abuse the system, they simply search for whatever criteria will show them what they are seeking. They can search for every instance of your car's license plate. They will have a time-indexed map of everywhere your car has been -- and every person that drove your car. They can search for every instance of your face. They will have a time-indexed map of everywhere you have been, and your face's image, too, and every car you have driven. Due to the recorded footage being indexed, performing such searches will be as fast as performing a google search. Results will be near-instant. And can you imagine a data breach, and some web site allows the public to search it all? Imagine the power behind the people that will control the above. Imagine the abuse by the people that control the above. If you where at the helm of the above system, and you have someone that you despise, would you be able to resist pulling up all of the camera footage of that person, their family, their friends, that boss that gets under your skin? Well, the politically driven people in power will not be able to resist either. They will be able to pull up any and all of the above footage, as easily as you do a web search. This is not good.
    1
  2667. 1
  2668. 1
  2669. 1
  2670. There is a risk factor when using a VPN service. VPN vs no VPN. With no VPN: Your internet service provider (ISP) can see 100% of the sites to which you are visiting. If those sites are using https, then as our host explained, no one (including your ISP) can see what you are doing on that site. But your ISP will have a log of every visit you make to every site. With a VPN: Your internet service provider (ISP) will see a single connection, to your VPN service, and nothing else. However, your VPN service has effectively taken over the role of your ISP, in terms of seeing / logging every site you visit. Although your connection to your VPN service is encrypted... when your request to do whatever reaches the VPN service's computer, that computer (that VPN service) can see 100% of what you are doing in the clear. As soon as whatever you are doing reaches the VPN's server, it decrypts everything. After all, how could your final destination know what you want, if everything remained encrypted? So your connection between your own computer and the VPN's computer is encrypted. Then, the VPN's computer decrypts it all. Then, if you are visiting a site that uses https, a new encrypted tunnel is created between the VPN's computer and the site you ultimately are visiting. In a nutshell: A VPN service is a glorified proxy service. It is a middle-man for everything you will be doing on-line. Most (perhaps all?) VPN services claim that they keep no logs, and that your privacy is paramount, blah, blah, blah. You are unable to verify any of their claims. What better place is there to monitor people's private affairs than a service where the people use it for private matters, and those people have no way to know that they are being monitored? I am not saying that they do keep logs on everyone. They simply can, easily, and you should know that. Even if they do not keep logs, they will when handed a court order. And you will never know about that court order, because it will include a gag order (so the VPN service will keep it hush-hush). Also, consider the liability that the VPN service is taking on. If someone is doing something illegal, and using the VPN's computers for their criminal actions, that VPN service is not going to allow that. And if they feel that you put their business at risk, they will notify the authorities. Do you know the laws in your own country? They are endless. How about... do you know the laws in other countries? If you connect to a VPN service in some other country, their laws are enforceable. But they are somewhere else on the planet, so you are in the clear... right? Look up five eyes VPN (and perhaps other number of eyes). The eyes are the countries that have reciprocal law enforcement agreements between them. So you are not using a VPN service for anything sketchy. Well, the VPN service will still know everything that you are doing. And who are those people that have physical access to the VPN servers? Who are those people that can login with root access to those VPN servers? They are employees of the VPN service, and you do not know who they are (they are complete strangers) and they can see 100% of what you are doing. Use a VPN, but know the risks. For access to content in other regions, VPNs are great. For safely connecting between a coffee shop's open hot-spot and your home's computer, VPNs are great (although in this case, you are creating your own VPN tunnel). But that underhanded activity you might have in mind will probably get you in hot water, thinking you are safe because you are using a VPN service. For criminals, a VPN's service will likely give you no cover. For law-abiding people, just know that the anonymous people that run the VPN's service can see everything that you are doing, and can easily keep logs on everything you are doing (no matter what they claim).
    1
  2671. 1
  2672. 1
  2673. 1
  2674. 1
  2675. 1
  2676. 1
  2677. Using a cloud service is handing over your files to complete strangers. Those cloud use encryption, twice (supposedly), and yet they can still see everything you hand over to them. The first encryption is "https". Your connection between your computer and their computer is an encrypted tunnel. So no one in-between you and them can see what you uploaded to the cloud service. When your files arrive at the cloud service, they get decrypted. It is no different than when you do, for example, on-line banking. When your bank shows you your balances, that information is sent to you via https, and is encrypted. But when it reaches you, it gets decrypted, and you see it all (as you should). And your data, that the bank has, is encrypted (by them). But they can, and do, decrypt it, as they need to (such as showing your your balances). Uploaded files to a cloud service works in the other direction. When they get your files, they see it all. They have your files, 100% in the clear, exactly as you have the same files. The cloud services claim that they encrypt your files. Well, they probably do. But you have no way to confirm that they encrypt your files. And since they are encrypting your files, they can decrypt your files. It is similar to you using a password manager. Your passwords are in your encrypted vault. But you have access to your password manager's vault, and you can see your own passwords. The lesson here is that 100% of what you upload to a cloud service (to complete strangers) is available for them to scan and read (if a scan flags it as being of interest). The only files that you should upload to a stranger's computer are 1) files that you do not care about strangers seeing, and 2) files that you, yourself, encrypted before you handed a copy to the strangers. Never hand a cloud service (complete strangers) files that are for your eyes only, unless you encrypt those files yourself. Hand them only the encrypted version of your files. Consider how ChatGPT is able to write a thesis, and create expert-level spreadsheets, and write expert level Python scripts, and dispense in-depth political views, and offer technical legal advice, and create poems, and write plays, etc, on just about anything and everything. So if you think that Microsoft and Google, and the rest, do not have the means to scan and dissect your uploaded files, you have your head in the sand. Encrypt your own files before uploading them to a cloud service. It is inconvenient. But that is the cost of privacy and security. Protecting yourself takes effort. Expecting the complete strangers to protect you is irresponsible, especially when they make oceans of $$ by using your data and knowing everything about you.
    1
  2678. 1
  2679. 1
  2680. 1
  2681. 1
  2682. 1
  2683. 1
  2684. 1
  2685. 1
  2686. 1
  2687. 1
  2688. 1
  2689. 1
  2690. 1
  2691. 1
  2692. 1
  2693. 1
  2694. 1
  2695. 1
  2696. 1
  2697. 1
  2698. @3:49 "Trying data recovery tools on the drive." Approximately 2 or 3 years ago, I encountered that problem with an external LaCie drive. One day, the file system decided to go on vacation, and the various partition management tools that I tried all agreed that the drive was RAW. I searched for free recovery tools. I found only one that claimed it would recover a RAW partition -- Hirem Boot CD (not an actual CD). It contains several partition management tools. None of them were able to recover my RAW partition. I searched for non-free recovery tools. Nearly none of them offered RAW partition related tools. Of the ones that did, I looked for reviews and videos, and found none that focused on dealing with a RAW partition. I had a copy of the drive's data, except for some recently saved files (not much, but I wanted to see if I could salvage it). So I turned off the drive for a couple of weeks, while I considered my options. I decided to purchase EaseUS's Partition Recovery software, which includes recovery of data on RAW partitions. But before making the purchase, I turned on my failed drive, and discovered that my partition returned from vacation. I was pleased, and perplexed. Now, years later, the drive has never given me another problem. I do not trust it. But I use it (never to be a single source of any meaningful files). If I ever decide to purchase a partitioning / recover tool, it will probably be the one from EaseUS. By the way, one important feature for me is to be able to create a bootable flash drive containing the recovery software. That would allow me to use the recovery software on any computer.
    1
  2699. 1
  2700. 1
  2701. Leo, please watch a recent video by Rob Braxman Tech "Why the iPhone 16 Should Scare You Sh.....less" He posted it two weeks ago. He focused on the iPhone model 16. Was he wrong? If the iPhone can do it, then so can the Echo and the rest -- if not today, then in an upcoming model. As far as us supposedly not being interesting enough... Should we have to concern ourselves that our elected officials have these devices in their homes? Certainly, elected officials would be of interest, and could be influenced by bad actors that have their private communications. Same for celebrities, or anyone in the news, or any CEO of a Fortune 500 company, etc. How about the hundreds of mayors, nation-wide. And we have not yet considered abuse in nearly 200 other countries. The big tech companies know exactly who has their "listening" devices in their homes. It is simplistic for them to listen in (or record their activities). If you could listen in on top government officials, would you resist? If you could listen in on your favorite musical artists, and your favorite movie stars, would you resist? The top executives at the big tech companies have that access. And of course these big tech companies are not going to show their hand, by sending you advertising because you said "coffee makers". They did not become the technology giants that they are by revealing their data collection to you. We do not have such details on their data collection any more than we have data on any company's trade secrets. Also, I suspect that these devices (that are supposedly not listening) are banned from the pentagon. But if they were actually not listening (other than the "Hey..." wake-up words, then why would any high-security building ban them? I can't confirm that the pentagon bans them. But I would lay odds that they are banned there. The fact that these devices are listening to wake-up words, and the hardware is getting more powerful and cheaper, making it cost effective (if not now, then not long from now) to listen in on everything, just the fact that these devices can listen and "phone home", is troubling. None of us are that interesting. Yet, if you got into a legal battle with Google (or law enforcement issues subpoenas on you), they will have every web search you ever made, every comment you ever posted in youtube, and with their analytics running just about everywhere on the internet, they will likely know 99.9% of every web site you ever visited -- even though we are just not that interesting. I would like to know what you think about Braxman's video.
    1
  2702. 1
  2703. 1
  2704. 1
  2705. 1
  2706. 1
  2707. Aside from someone wanting to fart around with Kali Linux, why would anyone install it on a Windows box, and especially Windows 10, which is the spyware OS of all OS's? Why would anyone want to use an open-source, security based OS, and have it be 100% at the mercy of Microsoft? Isn't Linux the answer to freeing yourself from Microsoft? If Kali Linux (or anything) gets installed on Windows, a closed-source OS, then everything you do on whatever gets installed can be monitored by the OS. Linux is faster, more reliable, and more secure than Windows. Well, not if you run your Linux code on top of Windows. Kali Linux is free, and being run on a commercially licensed OS that is pricey? Linux has always been a thorn in the side of Microsoft. So Microsoft decided to embrace Linux, and have the masses install it on their OS. Then, down the road, when Microsoft feels that they have enough market share (and they will know, because their OS will phone home), they will just decided to phase out support for WSL. And that will send people scrambling, and many, who would normally be running Linux on their hardware, will just choose to stick with Windows. And when some Windows patch causes a kernel panic, or some other strange and unpredictable Linux failures, will the problem be a Linux issue, or will it be a Windows issue? Good luck nailing it down. Time well spent? Good luck finding a remedy, especially if it is a Windows issue that WSL depends on. If there is a good reason for running any Linux OS on Windows, please let me know what that reason is. Short of such a reason, please do not encourage people to put their free, open-source Linux eggs in the Microsoft closed-source surveillance basket. Cheers1
    1
  2708. 1
  2709. 1
  2710. 1
  2711. 1
  2712. 1
  2713. 1
  2714. 1
  2715. 1
  2716. 1
  2717. 1
  2718. 1
  2719. @9:02 "Also, check it (your password) against a database, like we've talked about before; these known passwords; known, vulnerable passwords, and make sure it (your passwords) doesn't match any of those". There are sites where you can plug in your password, to conduct such a test. I don't think that you should use such a site, because you are giving them your password. Find a site where you can download such a database of passwords, and then search that database of passwords, yourself, on your own computer, to see if your password is in there. One other recommendation: Do not use browser extensions. They can monitor 100% of your browser activity, including every password that you use to login to any sties. Browser extensions make using the internet convenient. But with convenience comes compromised security. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. Most browser extensions are safe. But bad actors know that people love browser extensions, and so a small percentage of browser extensions contain malware -- and even some very popular browser extensions have been found to be doing nefarious deeds. As our host recommended, use a password manager. When downloading one, triple check that you are getting it from a legitimate source. The last thing you want to do is download a password manager from a bad actor. They would love nothing more than for you to create your passwords with their app, and then their app sends them all of your passwords. So be 100% sure that you are using a genuine password manager from a legitimate source. And never use a password in two different places (never re-use a password). Every site that you login to should have a separate, unique, strong password (and that is where a password manager shines, making doing so less of a chore). And make a copy of your password manager's database, on a separate storage device.
    1
  2720. 1
  2721. 1
  2722. 1
  2723. I purchased EaseUS Todo's "Workstation", lifetime license backup software. I did, however, initially have an issue. EaseUS's support personnel were very responsive and offered a solution (not a 100% fix, but still a very good fix). They get A+ for customer support (a rarity these days). I prefer to do backups while Windows is not running. That requires you to boot from (something like) a USB flash drive, where that flash drive contains the backup software. EaseUS Todo has a menu option to create such a flash drive. The issue I ran into, is that the ISO file it created, to be used on that flash drive, did not work. When I reported this to EaseUS's support personnel, they provided me a link to download an ISO file that they created. Their ISO file worked like a charm. But I am still not able to create my own ISO files -- which is not really an issue, because I can continue to use the one that they made for me. Although you can allow your computer to run "full" backups while Windows is running, there will be files in use that will not get backed up. That is why I boot from my flash drive and run a backup. That way, 0% of files will be in use, and 100% of the files get backed up. Even though doing a backup while Windows is running will result in many "in use" files not getting backed up, you should still be able to do a restore of your computer with such a backup image. So if you are not going to manually do backups via a bootable flash drive, then you should be fine with having backups run automatically while Windows is running. Decades ago, it was an issue, and I guess that I am overly cautious. But it seems that Microsoft knows about this, as well as backup software vendors, and it should not be an issue. Also note that no matter how you do a backup, you should create an emergency bootable drive (such as a USB flash drive). If your hard drive (or your SSD) fails, then when your replace it, how will you restore your data from your backup image? Your hard drive failed, and you no longer have Windows. If you created an emergency flash drive, then you will be able to boot from that flash drive, and run your backup software, which will copy everything (a restore) to your new drive. If you did not create an emergency flash drive, then you have some extra work to do. You will first have to install Windows. Do you have a way to do that? You will then have to install your backup software. Do you have it, or know where to get it? Do you have your registration code (you might need it). Once you have the above installed, then you will be able to restore from your backup image. But it is a lot more work, and you could get stuck if you are missing anything. With an emergency flash drive, created by your backup software, that will be all you need. I used to use Acronis's True Image. But one day they changed the functionality of mounting a backup image as a virtual drive, where it would work, only if you were signed on to your computer as an administrator. If you were signed on as a standard user, then there was no way to mount the image. No UAC prompt. Nothing. You had to sign on with an admin account. I went in circles with Acronis's support personnel, including phone calls with their support personnel. They simply broke that feature. Maybe they fixed it by now? I got fed up with them, due to waste of time, and their refusal to offer me a refund or credit or anything for what they broke.
    1
  2724. 1
  2725. 1
  2726. 1
  2727. 1
  2728. 1
  2729. 1
  2730. 1
  2731. 1
  2732. 1
  2733. 1
  2734. @3:03 "Why are you going to social media companies, and telling them that a story may be Russian disinformation, when you don't even quite know that yet." Once again, a conservative, inadvertently giving cover to the radical left. What do I mean? The question for Joe Concha is: Joe, do you really believe that the FBI Director was unsure of what Hunter had on his laptop, and whether or not it was Russian disinformation? Folks, of course Director Wray knew exactly what Hunter's laptop contained. Of course Director Wray knew that Hunter's laptop was not Russian disinformation. Of course Director Wray knew that his agency was colluding with facebook to swing the election. Of course Director Wray knew that his agency was not trying to curtail misinformation, but rather, his agency was actively spreading disinformation. Stop inadvertently defending people by way of implying that they did not know. Director Wray knew exactly what was on Hunter's laptop, and Director Wray knew exactly what his agency was doing with facebook. Director Wray, and all of the people involved with spreading that disinformation, and interfering with 2020 election... all of them should be prosecuted. Stop playing games with these people. They are not playing a game. They are ruthless people, seeking to gain power (enough is never enough for them), and the Constitution be damned (in their view). These people are not like the rest of us. They are smart, and they are evil. They have blatantly broken laws and committed high crimes that change election outcomes and endanger our freedoms. They are not clueless. They are not flying blind. They are not doing these things by mistake. So stop giving them the benefit of the doubt, as if they would have acted differently, if they had only known better. Folks, you know that Hunter's laptop is Hunter's laptop, and that it is not Russian disinformation. You always knew that. And we are expected to believe that the Director of the FBI does not know? It is absurd. These people should be charged with the serious laws that they intentionally violated.
    1
  2735. 1
  2736. 1
  2737. @0:42 "In the same way that some of those crazy folks think that tube amps sound better because they inject warm distortion or that vinyl reproduces important, inaudible harmonics..." Dave, every amp, solid state or tube based, has distortion. As to vinyl having inaudible harmonics... you might be reading propaganda from people that either do not listen to vinyl, or when they did, used a low-end turntable that they never properly dialed in, with a low-end stereo system, and sub-par sounding pressings (80% of pressings are sub-par sounding). When vinyl is done right, there is nothing "inaudible" about the results. On a professionally set-up, high-end stereo, with a professionally dialed in turntable, tone-arm, and cartridge, in a treated room, with white hot stamper pressings, your jaw will drop at the realism. When you close your eyes, your ears will not be able to identify the location of the speakers. The speakers disappear. Your eyes and ears will fight over whether or not you are in the room with the band. You will be able to spot the exact location of each performer. You will feel like you can reach out and touch them. It will be scary real. The above is very hard to achieve, and very expensive to achieve. But I have heard it in my local high-end store. But even on other great, but lesser systems, vinyl can sound wildly great. So please do not go by the naysayers. If they have never listened to a professionally set-up, high end system in a treated room, then they are spewing BS.
    1
  2738. 1
  2739. 1
  2740. 1
  2741. 1
  2742. 1
  2743. 1
  2744. 1
  2745. 1
  2746. 1
  2747. 1
  2748. 1
  2749. I had an external, mechanical, USB drive turn to raw. I took the opportunity to explore the world of file recovery tools. Of the free ones, nearly none of them support recovering files from raw file systems. They generally focus on recovering deleted files. There is one tool named "hirensbootcd", which is free. It allows you to create a bootable flash drive. When you boot from that flash drive, you will be in a Windows PE (I believe) environment, and will be presented with a list of recovery tools. A few of them support recovering raw file systems. None of them worked for me. But they might work for you. My data was backed up. So I reformatted my raw drive, copied back my files, and it has been working fine for over a year. With your failed flash drive, I doubt that your data was actually lost. The NAND cells that hold your data probably still have your data. You just need to get to it. Flash drives could wear out. If that happens, you will not be able to write to the drive. But you should still be able to read from the drive -- and it should not cause any loss of data. Wearing out a flash drive happens from endlessly writing to the drive. That would normally take over a year (perhaps two years) of non-stop writing to the drive. Wearing out an SSD is very hard to do, even if you try. Heat would be faster at causing a failure as compared to wearing it out with writes. Something else on the flash drive might have failed, causing your file system to turn to raw. It could be a bad tracing on a circuit board. If your data is important enough, and you have the financial means to pay for a recovery service, they should be able to recover your data. No guarantees, but good odds. But first see if one of Hiren's recovery tools is able to rescue your files. Note that you will need a spare drive onto which your recovered files will be saved. Also note that the recovery could take a very long time, depending on the size of your failed drive and the speed of your failed drive. It could take all day. Good luck!
    1
  2750. 1
  2751. 1
  2752. There are loads of data breaches, that are not defined as breaches by those that perform the breaches. Read the terms of service, and the privacy policies of on-line services. Hire a lawyer or two, before you get started. And get some sleep, because you will be in for a long read. And companies redefine words, so that they can legally use those words for what those words do not mean (not a dictionary definition, but their own definition). Companies share your data like there's no tomorrow. They call the other businesses "partners", or that those companies fall under their umbrella, etc, and they give excuses for sharing your data, such as to help them better server their customers. Since there is virtually nothing that you can do about all of the breaches (ahem, sharing), then you are at the mercy of those businesses and government agencies. @0:40 "Some talk about encryption..." Note that every institution, to whom you give your information, has it in the clear (more on that in a moment). There are two categories of encryption. Your connection between your device and their server. That is encrypted, and that "tunnel" is safe. But when your data reaches the other end (when it reaches the company to whom you are sending your information), it gets decrypted. They have it 100% in the clear. Then, they encrypt it, again, for storage on their servers. It is this latter encryption that is prone to data breaches. We have no way of knowing whether or not they actually encrypt your data. They probably do. But "probably" is a problem. Also, we have no way of knowing what kind of encrypt they use. It can be Department Of Defense level encryption, such as the "Rijndael" algorithm, or it can be weak encryption. And even if they use strong encryption, someone at the other end has the keys to see your data (not in all cases, but in many). Who are those people? What kind of passwords do they use for your data. If a court ordered your bank to hand over your financial data, the bank can and will. But it is encrypted. And yet the bank is able to hand it over. So someone at the bank can decrypt your information. What other companies can do the same? And since companies share your information, they are not sharing encrypted files that their partners cannot read (that would be unusable). So our information is all over the place. With our information in the hands of countless companies, and countless government agencies, we are all vulnerable. Considering the above, it is amazing that there are not data breaches all over the place. Before computers, all of our data was printed out and put into filing cabinets. Our information was still shared, but not with so many "partners", because back then, it was time consuming and expensive to share our information (it was all 100% manual labor). Today, with computers, it is simplistic for companies to share our data. Before computers, there were data breaches. But no one walked off with a copy of everything. Today, if someone gains access to a business's data, they can copy it all. But as our host said, breaches happen, but are not too common. His "making the news" illustration was insightful.
    1
  2753. 1
  2754. 1
  2755. 1
  2756. 1
  2757. @0:13 "...but his own republican party is scrambling to counter the President's message..." Fabrication. @1:09 "The terms 'absentee voting' and 'mail in balloting' are synonymous in most US states. Both generally mean filling out a ballot and dropping it in the mail" Another lie. The terms "absentee voting" and "mail in balloting" are not synonymous, in any way, where it counts: And what counts is verify-ability. The people getting absentee ballots are vetted and individually approved, based on not being able to vote locally (such as known personnel serving on military ships at sea). Whereas, mail in voting is rife with both incompetence and corruption. Millions and millions of ballots are mass mailed, with no verification, whatsoever, that the recipients exists, or that the ballots reach the intended recipients, or that the intended recipients are the ones that fill out the ballots. Imagine, for example, nursing homes, where anyone could coerce the patients, or not even deliver the ballots to the patients -- and get filled out by the person in the mail room. @1:23 "Election experts who have studied decades of US elections say such cheating is rare". -- Experts? What experts? -- Who are these "experts"? -- How many of these experts are there? -- Who decreed these people to be experts? -- Who are these experts voting for? If there are 100 experts, and 98 say mail in voting if rife with fraud, and 2 say that fraud is rare, then Reuters claim that: "Election experts who have studied decades of US elections say such cheating is rare" is true. All it takes are two so-called experts for their misleading statement to be technically correct. Reuters knows this. But Reuters wants the fraud. Reuters wants their candidate, Joe Biden, to win, and fairness and voting laws be damned. Reuters is an unofficial arm of the Democrat National Committee, masquerading as a news organization.
    1
  2758. 1
  2759. 1
  2760. 1
  2761. 1
  2762. 1
  2763. 1
  2764. 1
  2765. 1
  2766. 1
  2767. 1
  2768. 1
  2769. 1
  2770. 1
  2771. 1
  2772. 1
  2773. 1
  2774. 1
  2775. 1
  2776. @4:44 "...and the economic crisis that we inherited..." President Trump's administration produced a booming economy, with record low unemployment, and record growth. In the months leading up to the 2020 election, the Democrat Mayors and Democrat Governors closed down everything, and they justified their actions as part of the Covid 19 response. So President* Biden inherited an economy that was ready to boom, again, and he killed it. @6:20 "...we have now created 8.3 million jobs, in my first 15 months in office..." People that could not go to work, because the Democrats closed everything down, and now those people are returning to their jobs... well, that is not creating jobs. And he goes on spewing BS about employment levels, when the vast majority of those jobs were simply people returning to work sites that were closed during the Covid 19 closures. And then he lies about reducing the deficit. His party has pushed legislation that is more expensive and budget busting than any other administration in history. @13:00 "Not a joke" Whenever President* Biden says "Not a joke" or "I'm serious" or "I'm not kidding", etc, it means he either just lied or is about to lie. President* Biden makes up BS, and he thinks that he is able to sell his BS by emphasizing it with one of the above lines. He "oversells" his BS. In the game of poker, some bad players have a "tell". The more experienced players can "tell" when others are bluffing. President* Biden's "tells" are him saying "Not a joke", etc. @15:22 The President Of The United States Of America is praising the dictator of a communist country where its people languish in gulags, starve to death, have forced labor camps by the millions, child labor, get paid $2 a day, are beaten if they do not meet quotas, etc. @15:47 "If we don't step up (to China), we're going to be out" The same man said that a strong China is a good thing. @16:31 "Not a joke". Translation, the comment that President* Biden attributed to "The president of one of the major companies" is a flat-out lie. Otherwise, President* Biden would have named the company and the person. Add to that his "Not a joke" means he lied. @17:43 YELLING! @22:33 He is unable to pronounce the name of the country that he is the President* of. @18:09 "...and I mean it sincerely" Same as "Not a joke". He just lied. Or does he mean that everything else he spoke about he was not sincere because he did not say that he was sincere? He is not sincere. His "...and I mean it sincerely" means he lied. @18:50 "No, but really!" That is another "No joke". Ergo, he just lied. @20:14 "True story" That is another "No joke". His "True story" is fiction. He is lying. @22:03 "Sericy" (he meant "Seriously"). That is another "No joke". So his story is a lie. @25:12 Creepy. I need a shower.
    1
  2777. President* Biden's spending spree is not just mostly wasteful, the bill is littered with items that are 100% unrelated to infrastructure. The bill contains everything but the kitchen sink, and it all favors radical leftist agendas; everything from voting laws to campaign laws, that all ensure that republicans will never have another chance at winning elections. And President* Biden has no idea what is in his infrastructure deal. Every time President* Biden goes before the camera, to promote his plan, he is 100% of the time reading from teleprompters, words written by his handlers (and no one knows who those radical leftist speech writers are). President Trump took questions from reporters, almost daily, and for long sessions, and never with a teleprompter. President* Biden never stands outside with reporters and fields questions. Perhaps there is an exception for a question, on some rare occasion. But with President Trump, it was not the exception. He routinely made himself available to the media -- and the media hated him, and he still took their questions, daily, with no teleprompter. When President* Biden does schedule a time to take questions, his handlers give him a list of the reporters to call on. How bad does his mental state have to get, before NBC stops ignoring how bad he is? And these NBC reporters (also known as undeclared members of the propaganda arm of the Democrat National Committee) treat President* Biden's plan as if it is normal. They make no mention of the mountain of pork and payoffs in the plan, and no mention of the endless regulations in the bill that have zero to do with infrastructure. This is why NBC is losing viewers at an alarming rate, and deservedly so. Even people that lean left cannot get the thumb's up clicks to compete with being trounced by the thumb's down clicks. By the way, "bipartisan", as it pertains to this slobbering report, equals 1 republican senator that is voting with the democrats.
    1
  2778. 1
  2779. 1
  2780. @1:29 "Then, install a data sharing program, like OneDrive or..." Do that, only if the data you will save to them is not private or sensitive. When you use OneDrive, or any other cloud storage service, you are handing over your data to complete strangers. Those services have wildly powerful systems, and have extremely sophisticated software (ChatGPT level), such that they can easily index all of your data and build a profile on you. It is simplistic for them to do so. Every photo will likely be scanned with facial recognition tools. Same for every video. They can identify locations, and can identify activities, etc. Your files contain metadata; lots of personal information, and you are handing it all to complete strangers. If you want to keep your "work in progress" safe, then copy your work in progress files to an external drive. Make your own copies. Yes, OneDrive makes it simple, because it happens automatically. For that convenience, you are letting complete strangers know everything about you, down to the finest details. They can do whatever they want with your files, including sharing your data with others (including any government officials on the planet). Your data will be saved, not only in the country where you live, but the OneDrive servers likely save copies in other regions, too, for redundancy and favorable laws. It is simple for you to copy your folder to an external drive. It is more simple to let the cloud storage service grab copies of your files. If you are okay with complete strangers having your data, then you are good to go. Otherwise, just copy it yourself to an external drive. OneDrive, and others, make it simple to share data between devices. If you need to do that, and are okay with them having all of your data, then that is fine. Otherwise, steer clear of companies that take your files. The only exception is if you use strong, local encryption, before allowing OneDrive to grab the files. The above pertains to "work in progress". You should still be using backup software, as our host described.
    1
  2781. 1
  2782. 1
  2783. 1
  2784. 1
  2785. Leo, I used to use Outlook 2007. It supported both IMAP and POP3. At the time, I did not know what the difference was. My ISP told me that it did not matter. At the time, I never heard of IMAP, so I used POP3. I discovered that it was deleting my e-mail from the server, which I did not want it to do. Poking around in Outlook's settings, I discovered that it had an option to leave the e-mail messages on the server (however, they still got downloaded). I have no idea whether or not Microsoft removed that feature from later versions of Outlook. Also, POP3 did not support an encrypted connection between your device and the e-mail server. But it does now (not sure when that was changed). I believe that IMAP always had encryption. By the way, the ISP that I used over a decade ago allowed users to login to their BSD server, via ssh, and use UNIX (or Linux) commands. That allowed me to use "putty" to login to their server, and use a text based e-mail client (such as "mutt"), directly on their server, to manually delete e-mail messages. It was wonderful to have that granular control over my e-mail messages. Now I am using a premium Proton Mail package. Supposedly, it supports Outlook, via a bridge (or something along those lines). But owning a current (or somewhat current) version of Outlook is pretty expensive. Microsoft does not sell Outlook, by itself. And Microsoft pushes renting Office, which I refuse to do. And I vaguely remember (from a year or so ago) reading that the current version of Outlook should be avoided (that Microsoft made many unfavorable changes). So between trying to figure out which is the last, good version of Outlook, buying it (and really owning it), and getting it to work with Proton Mail, is a royal pain. Years ago, I simply purchased and installed Outlook, pointed it to my e-mail server, and I was done. Leo, do you use Outlook? Any pointers on my problem?
    1
  2786. 1
  2787. 1
  2788. 1
  2789. 1
  2790. 1
  2791. 1
  2792. 1
  2793. 1
  2794. 1
  2795. Louis, if you ever have an issue with your Vandersteen speakers, you will not encounter any crap. I doubt that you will ever have an issue with your Vandersteen speakers. And if you call them, and ask to speak to Richard Vandersteen, he will probably pick up the phone (or call you back if he is unavailable). If you ever have a warranty claim with Western Digital hard drives (or any of their other companies: G-Technology, Sandisk, HGST, etc), you will see Hoover as a distant disreputable company. Western Digital puts up every imaginable, conceivable obstacle in your way, including sometimes taking months to ship a replacement drive. They also try to charge customers a fee, to avoid delays. Western Digital calls it a "Convenience Fee". So you are going to pay Western Digital to honor their warranty. Either that, or roll up your sleeves for a long, tedious process that is designed to wear you out. Seagate is the opposite. Seagate is a pleasure to deal with. When I had a warranty claim with Seagate, they offered free data recovery. I did not know that it was included in the warranty. Seagate recovered the data, and put that recovered data on yet another drive. So they replaced my failed drive with the same size (same capacity) drive, and they shipped me an additional drive that had my recovered data. And Seagate told me to keep both drives. So there are reputable companies. Vandersteen and Seagate are two examples. A warranty has zero or little value, when the company refuses to honor their warranty obligations. I will never purchase another Western Digital product, even if they offered lifetime warranties.
    1
  2796. 1
  2797. 1
  2798. 1
  2799. 1
  2800. 1
  2801. 1
  2802. 1
  2803. 1
  2804. 1
  2805. 1
  2806. 1
  2807. Cuomo was confronted with impeachment, and knows the votes are there for a guilty verdict, which would result in him being fired. His planet-size ego could not endure being thrown out; fired. This is why he is resigning. And the 14 days is for him to cover his butt, and to take revenge on some people while he still holds power. Also, when impeached, and found guilty, that "guilty" verdict would be used to prosecute him for his sexual harassment prosecution, and his multiple count, nursing home, homicide prosecution (and I suspect that numerous other skeleton bones would be revealed, if an impeachment trial were held). Cuomo knew that in the impeachment trial, all many of his criminal, gangster activities would be revealed for all the world to see, live. Cuomo knew that when that all got televised, that his, yet to happen, criminal trial would result in jail time, due to all of the evidence that would be aired in his impeachment trial. If Cuomo did nothing wrong, there is no way that he would give up power. In Cuomo's world, "Cuomo" comes first. Cuomo's BS excuses about doing what is right for government to function properly is just that: BS. For government to function properly, you do not grope your subordinates, and you do not kill thousands of people in nursing homes. This is 100% Cuomo's fault. I hope that no deals were made, that his resigning would mean no criminal prosecutions -- especially with the BS "It's not my fault" video we just watched. Cuomo needs to be held accountable for his crimes; for his felonies. He should not be given a pass, on being criminally prosecuted, for simply giving up a job that a criminal should not have had in the first place. Cheers!
    1
  2808. 1
  2809. 1
  2810. 1
  2811. 1
  2812. 1
  2813. 1
  2814. 1
  2815. 1
  2816.  @andrewlangley9507  The IV Amendment to The Constitution Of The United States Of America reads: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " The above is describing what is spelled out in an affidavit. If the affidavit were to be provided, contingent upon charges being filed, then the government could break into anyone's home, never intending to file charges. The government would have no restraint at going into anyone's home, taking whatever they want, and never having to offer justification for doing so. When the government breaks into your home, they must justify exactly why they did so, with specificity. They are not permitted to go on an Easter Egg hunt. They must spell out exactly what it is that they are searching for, regardless of whether or not they find what they were looking for, and regardless of whether or not they file charges. If the Justice Department does not provide President Trump with the full, unredacted affidavit, a court will order them to do so. And since this involves President Trump, it will quickly reach the Supreme Court, and President Trump will easily win his case, and probably by a 9-0 ruling. Also, if the Justice Department forces President Trump to take them to court, even the radical left media will not be able to effectively spin this. And since they all know that President Trump will prevail if this goes to court, there is no way that the Justice Department is going to screw around with this. What concerns me is the possibility of the FBI seizing everything in sight (not looking for anything specific), and when they later find something of interest, they will produce an affidavit based on what they found. That is, of course, wildly illegal. But that is what a tyrannical government does. President Trump and his lawyers are too smart for all of this. If the affidavit is held back, then its authenticity is gone. If that also goes to court, it will be another slam dunk win in the courts for President Trump. The constitution does not allow for "break in now", and we will show you the paperwork when we feel like it.
    1
  2817. 1
  2818. 1
  2819. 1
  2820. 1) A paid fair entitles you to one seat, and only one seat, subject to availability (based on the level of occupancy). If there are 100 seats in a car, and there are 100 passengers in that car, then everyone is entitled to a seat. If there are 100 seats in a car, and there are 101 passengers in that car, then 1 person will have to stand. No one has the right to take two seats (unless that person purchased two tickets for themselves for use in a single ride). 2) Feet on seats is not only filthy, it can damage the seats. Women (and mentally disturbed men) wear high heels. Heels can rip fabric. 3) Our host added old age effects to this video? Why? Why do some people go out of their way to damage otherwise clear videos? 4) This entire video is probably a lie, created by an AI service. I have come to that conclusion, based on: 4a) Spotty video. Clearly there is clear video of what took place, and yet our host refused to show it. 4b) No audio. Clearly there is audio (based on the video we were shown), and yet our host refused to show it. 4c) Our host made this video about her special effects. That smacks of 100% AI generated "everything". This is likely a compilation of clips from some random video taken on a train, and our host used an AI service to create this video, a fake story, and a computer generate voice to tell the fake story. The icing on the cake is the phony aging effects (drop-outs, fake shaking, fake flashing, etc) that our host applied to rendering the fake video. Thumb's down click earned.
    1
  2821. 1
  2822. 1
  2823. 1
  2824. 1
  2825. 1
  2826. @1:08 "Remember that malicious software, once on your computer or other device, can do anything it wants to." That depends. For routine computer use, never use an account that has administrator privileges. Always use a "standard" user account. If your login (standard user login) gets infected, and you do not trust it, then create another standard user account, and use that new account. Your old, infected login account will not have access to your new, clean login account (if your old account was a standard user). Malware has no more access to your computer than you, yourself, have, based on the credentials of your login. If you login as a standard user, then malware running under that login is limited to what that standard user can do. That can be bad, if it encrypts important personal files. But it will not be able to screw with system processes that are core to your computer, any more that you can do so if you tried. If you routinely use an administrator login, then if you get infected, the malware will be running with administrator privileges, and will have complete access to everything. Next: All malware has to embed itself somewhere that starts up when you boot up your computer (or when you login). Sysinternals (now owned by Microsoft) has an "Autoruns" tool that allows you to see every process that starts automatically. Simply uncheck anything that should not be there, and the next time you start your computer, the unchecked item(s) will not start. The malware will not run. But be careful. Autoruns will allow you to stop required processes from starting. You will end up preventing your computer from being able to boot up, if you uncheck the wrong process(es). With Autoruns, if you uncheck the wrong item(s), you will cripple your computer. Also note that Autoruns does not stop an already running process. It simply shows you what automatically starts, and allows you to uncheck those items, which will stop them from auto starting. Autoruns will not delete malware. But if the malware does not start, then it is just another file sitting there doing nothing. Lastly, if your computer is running cleanly, then run Autoruns now, and take a screen capture, so that you know what should be there. Windows Updates might change what is there. New software that you install will also change what is there. So take a snapshot now, and take more snapshots as you install things. Then compare what used to automatically start to what currently automatically starts.
    1
  2827. 1
  2828. 1
  2829. 1
  2830. 1
  2831. 1
  2832. 1
  2833. 1
  2834. 1
  2835. 1
  2836. 1
  2837. 1
  2838. 1
  2839. 1
  2840. 1
  2841. 1
  2842. 1
  2843. 1
  2844. 1
  2845. 1) Almost without exception, nearly all of those charging stations derive their electricity from fossile fuels. 2) Batteries require rare Earth metals, which are sourced by child slave labor, nearly entirely from African nations. 3) All batteries die, and get dumped into land fills. 4) When your electric vehicle's batteries need to be replaced, be prepared for it to cost $15,000.00 or more. 4a) When you go to re-sell your electric vehicle, be prepared for it to have a low re-sale value, based on potential buyers knowing that they will soon have to spend $15,000.00 for new batteries. 4b) Replacement batteries cannot be purchased on Amazon, from your local service station, or any car parts dealers. Your batteries are custom made for your electric vehicle. You will have to get them from your dealership. 4c) Your dealership will not have them in stock, and you will probably have to wait 6+ months for their phone call to bring in your car (factor that 'no car for 6 months' into the re-sale value). 5) In many cities, when you get to a power station, you have to wait in line for hours for an available charging station. 5a) You charge your EV at home, so this does not phase you. That is, until you have to travel and get re-charged away from home. Or will you not risk it, and rent a gas powered car? 6) As batteries age, they hold less and less of a charge. So that 200 mile range from when your EV was new, will drop to 190, then to 180, and less and less and less. But it will cost you the same to charge it up to full capacity. So the same tank of gas (so to speak), that same EV charge, will eventually get you half the distance, or less, at the same cost of a fill-up. 7) Have a trip in mind? Well, aside from waiting in line for hours for a charge, also be prepared to travel out of your way to the nearest charging station. Gasoline you can purchase anywhere. Charging stations are few and far between. So pencil in extra hours driving out of your way to get an EV charge. If you charge 100% at home, and you have solar power, then an EV makes sense. For everyone else, it is a mistake to purchase an EV. Many EV owners are very pleased with themselves for believing that they are saving the environment, having no clue about #1, #2, and #3, above -- and they probably care zero about #2. The big one that will cause extreme pain for millions of EV owners will be #4, above, and the $15,000.00 bill, and 6 months of waiting. And with inflation, and supply line issues, expect that $15,000.00 to be the minimum, and rise to $20,000.00+.
    1
  2846. 1
  2847. Three items: 1) @7:06 -- Webroot. While I was subscribed, Webroot worked well. It never nagged me. It did its job. Then I learned that Microsoft's "Defender" has come a loooong way since it was introduced during the Paleogene Period. So when my Webroot subscription was due for renewal, that is when I put Webroot on my "s" list. First, I could not find a way to unsubscribe. It was a long time ago. So I cannot remember the details. Webroot made it super simple to subscribe. But to divorce yourself from them, required a divorce lawyer (so to speak). What I ended up doing was canceling my credit card that Webroot had on file. Ergo, they could not auto-bill me. That led to their software nagging me to renew my subscription. The nagging went on for at least a year. Then, one day, the nagging ceased. Perhaps Revo Uninstaller might have been able to rid my computer of Webroot. I do not remember if I tried. I just remember that Webroot was determined to not let go; to pester me, incessantly. As our host said, Defender is all you need -- unless you have some unique situation. 2) If you read the endless documents that you must agree to when using 3rd party anti-virus software, you will find, somewhere in there, that you agree that they have the right to do anything and everything that they want with your computer and your computer's files. You are giving them the equivalent of ownership. They can even use your files for their own business purposes. The language will not be on page one, and it will neither stand out nor be written in plain English. But if you find it, you will see that you are giving them 100% free reign over anything and everything on your computer. In all fairness, they do need full file access, to do full scans for malware. But their legalese language goes beyond what the general public would deem normal and reputable, for performing a full scan. 3) @11:10 -- Delaying Windows Updates. I delay my updates for two reasons: First, I keep my computers running 24/7/365. I do not want them randomly re-booting. When the time is right for me to gracefully shut down the running applications, I will do so and have Windows perform its updates. The other reason for delaying my updates is that I do not want to be a beta tester (or sorts). Although Microsoft does an outstanding job of ensuring that their updates will not cause problems, I do not want to risk it by being an early adopter of their updates. Microsoft tests their updates on countless computers, before releasing their updates to the public. But there is nothing like having a billion computers field test your update. I do not want to be part of that billion computer group. If there should be a problem, Microsoft will quickly fix it. By delaying, I will get the fix, and avoid ever getting the problem. Of course, I can't know if, when I run Windows Update, what it will download (whether it is a fix or a brand new update). But the delay will give me a better shot at not being among the first to run new updates. And since I do not do anything risky with my computers, I am not concerned with delaying a security update fix. Lastly -- All great advice from our host.
    1
  2848. 1
  2849. 1
  2850. 1
  2851. 1
  2852. 1
  2853. 1
  2854. 1
  2855. 1
  2856. 1
  2857. 1
  2858. 1
  2859. 1) There will always be suffering around the world. If the United States spent 100% of its revenue on ending suffering in other countries, hardly a dent in that suffering would be made. We would not end suffering in a single country. Just look at our own country, and then ask yourself if we would magically fix the suffering in foreign lands. As long as those foreign countries retain their current form of government, the United States cannot stop the damage that their own governments create for their own people. 2) The stronger the United States is, the more we could do for people around the world. By creating huge deficits for ourselves, our power declines, making our effort less and less effective, even within our own borders. 3) Regardless of the amendment being debated, the United States is already sending countless $billions to foreign countries. Raise your hand if you can follow the trail of where any of those $billions end up. 4) Corruption is like nothing the world has ever seen. Our tax dollars are being pocketed by criminals all over the world. In every case where we send $billions (or even $millions), much of it falls into the hands of criminals. No one watches and traces the funds that we send. No one in congress an testify that the X $billions dollars we sent to this place or that place actually went to this place or that place. The best a congressperson could do is state that this or that watchdog group put out this or that report. Anyone reading those reports? And no one knows whether or not this or that report is credible. The watchdog groups are probably rife with corruption. 5) We have massive corruption within our own government. Can you imagine what goes on in foreign lands, when we send them $billions? American families are struggling to pay their bills, have shelter, and feed themselves. Millions of Americans are on welfare. Millions of Americans live in the street. And Barbara Lee wants to send $billions (that we have to borrow from China) to foreign lands where much of it will fall into the pockets of thieves.
    1
  2860. 1
  2861. 1
  2862. 1
  2863. 1
  2864. 1
  2865. 1
  2866. 1
  2867. 1
  2868. 1
  2869. 1
  2870. 1
  2871. 1
  2872. 1
  2873. 1
  2874. 1
  2875. 1
  2876. 1
  2877. When computers had minimal resources, and it was very expensive to expand their resources, developers worked hard to write tightly written code. My first computer was a DX2, 66 mHz, with a 340 MB hard drive, and 8 MB of RAM. Yet, I was able to run Word, Excel, and play games, etc, albeit not with wild graphics. In 1977, my Atari 2600 played games stored on chip that held 4096 bytes of data (every game in those cartridges were at most 4096 bytes), and ran in 128 bytes of ram. (not megabytes -- not kilobytes -- actual bytes) That Atari 2600 computer played chess. In the arcades, Pacman, Space Invaders, and Tempest were all under 25,000 bytes (under 25KB), as were virtually every other arcade game. Steve Gibson (of Gibson Research Corporation) writes all sorts of sophisticated code in a few kilobytes. So did the team form System Internals (before Microsoft purchased them). Developers, today, have virtually no space constraints with disk space and with RAM space. Ergo, developers have no incentive to write tightly written code. When computers were run from 8086 chips, developers had to write tightly written code, even if the computer magically had a huge storage capacity. That was because it was the only way to have such a slow processor provide satisfactory performance. But with today's wildly faster CPUs, developers give virtually no consideration to performance. Even poorly written code runs quickly. So with huge storage drives, and huge RAM capacities, and fast CPUs, developers focus on bells and whistles and shiny objects to grab our attention. Since that is what pays their bills, I can't blame them. But there is a laziness factor there. If they were offered $1,000,000 to shrink their 2GB of code down to 50MB, I bet that they could. Bloatware is real.
    1
  2878. 1
  2879. 1
  2880. 1
  2881. 1
  2882. 1
  2883. 1
  2884. 1
  2885. 1
  2886. 1
  2887. 1
  2888.  @melodicguitarist821  A hard drive is not likely to ever lose any data, due to being turned off for lengthy periods of time. But any drive can fail. If your powered off drive fails, the next time you go to use it, that failure will probably have nothing to do with that it sat idle for months or years. It probably had something else that was about to fail, the next time you powered it on (wither that be the same day, the next day, or the next decade). If the data on that drive is important, then get yet another drive. Keep a copy of your data on two backup drives. I do not know how much data you need to protect. But you can get 32GB flash drive for less than $5. If you need 1TB, you can get a 1TB external USB drive for approximately $50. The odds of your existing backup drive failing (or losing data from sitting idle) and also your additional drive suffering a similar fate, is virtually 0%. You would be more likely to win the lottery, twice, before having both of those drives fail at the same time. With two backup drives, containing the same data, you need not worry about their reliability. If you check on them once a year, and one of them is not working, you still have your other one, and you can purchase a replacement for your failed one (or have it replaced under the warranty). When you get the replacement, and copy your data to it, you are back in business with two backup drives. Lastly, although it is within the realm of possibility that a HDD or SSD could lose files from data rot, that is almost unheard of. If that was an issue, then with billions of computers worldwide, that issue would be making headlines. If a HDD has a file that Windows needs, but it is a static file that never gets updated... if such files were getting corrupted due to data rot, then people all over the place would be having issues. Let's say that you never use Notepad. Will it not work, if you finally use it for the first time, 10 years later? It will work, even those the bits of data that store Notepad's coding have not been touched or refreshed in over a decade. And note that when you load a program (such as notepad), it does not get refreshed to the drive. It simply works, because the data does not rot or fade. I would not give data rot any concern. However, I would give having your data backed up to only 1 drive to be a serious concern. With two backup drives, rot or fade or mechanical failures will not matter, because such calamities will not befall both of your backup drives at the same time.
    1
  2889. 1
  2890. 1
  2891. 1
  2892. 1
  2893. 1
  2894. @4:33 -- Although, technically, you will shorten the life of an SSD with multiple overwrites (or any writes), you will not be able to kill your SSD with writes, even if you tried. This was revealed with Chia crypt-o mining, where SSDs were used, extensively, to create huge plot files. The more plot files that you had, the better your chances of getting a win. People have been churning away at creating plot files for 3+ years, 24/7/365, with non-stop writing to their SSDs, and no one in the Chia forums has reported that they wore out their SSD. Note that some software, such as Samsung's Magician, will warn you that your SSD is nearing its end of life. Just ignore that warning (but always have a backup). SSDs are hard coded to include a terabytes written value. When you write that number of terabytes, the maintenance tools simply tell you that your drive should be replaced. With Chia crypt-o mining, we have learned that SSDs are still running, with no issues, after going 5x the terabytes written value. SSD manufacturers will not test writing to their new drives, for years, to actually determine how many terabytes written their SSDs can withstand. So they kind of pull a number out of the sky, and release their SSD to the market. Also, by having maintenance tools report that the SSD is nearing its end of life, people purchase news SSDs. So there is the increase of sales incentive that the SSD manufacturers use to plug in an arbitrary terabytes written value. For a daily driver PC, your SSD will last your lifetime, your children's lifetime, and likely your grandchildren's lifetime. If it fails, it is likely due to a manufacturing defect, or an overheating issue (writing to an SSD, non-stop, will heat it up quite a bit -- almost too hot to touch). But a light breeze, by a fan in your computer's case, will keep it cool enough for heat to not be an issue.
    1
  2895. 1
  2896. 1
  2897. 1
  2898. 1
  2899. 1
  2900. 1
  2901. 1
  2902. 1
  2903. 1
  2904. 1
  2905. @1:52 "Some drives -- they just get slower". This is probably due to the drive having less free space. Why should that result in slower drive performance? Drives initially write data to their outer portion of their disks. For each rotation, the outer portion of the disk has far more physical real-estate, as compared to the disk's inner portion. For example: A somewhat large file might fit on the outer portion of a disk platter, with perhaps 5,000 rotations. Whereas, that same file, if written to the inner portion of the platter, might take over 10,000 rotations. The latter is going to take longer. So the drive is not really slowing down, even though you are seeing slower performance. If you were to format that drive (or delete all of its files), you will probably see the drive suddenly have the speed it used to have, because it can now write data to the outer portions of its platters. @3:00 "...that there's nothing to be recovered. Literally, everything in that drive has been lost when it fails" There are recovery companies that will be able to recover nearly everything from any failed drive. I doubt that any failed drive ever has lost "literally, everything". Engaging data recovery experts to recover data from failed drives is not inexpensive, and can get very expensive, depending on the time that they have to put in to recovering your data. If it is a failed board, they likely will have those boards, and can either replace yours, or use theirs to make your drive functional and copy your data to a new drive. That is a relatively painless chore for them. But if they have to spend more time, due to head crashes that damaged parts of the platters, then that will be a more costly procedure, and have less chances of a full recovery. To literally lose everything, you would have to do so intentionally, by using a degaussign machine that is designed to wipe a drive and make that drive unusable. You can also run wiping software, if the drive is working. But even then, experts with the right tools can still recover data, depending on how your software wiped the drive. You can also melt the drive in an incinerator. You can drill a hole through the drive. But that will not make all of the data unrecoverable. It will make it a super tedious chore to recover any data. But data recovery experts have tools that can read data from the undamaged portions of the drilled platters. If the FBI needed to search for data on a drilled drive, they can. Drives have multiple platters. It is virtually impossible to have a failure that erases everything on all of those platters. I suppose a direct lightning strike might do the trick. But now we are getting into the realm of situations that no one encounters. My point is that if your drive fails, there are people that can recover your data. You will pay for that service. But whatever caused your drive to fail will not stop those experts from recovering most or all of your data. Based on our host's @3:00 statement, I would appreciate our host giving us an example of a type of failure that would make the data unrecoverable, even by expert data recovery companies. What part, contained within the drive's casing, would (upon failing) be able to destroy 100% of the drive's data? I can think of none.
    1
  2906. 1
  2907. Although the Accord has very good handling, for a family sedan, the car is designed to hold you back from pushing it hard around turns. If you already have speed, you can take the turns at speed. But if you try to accelerate more than only slightly, around a turn, the electronic throttle will ignore your pressing on the gas pedal. You can floor it, and the car will maintain speed around a turn, but will not accelerate around a turn. I am talking about "not your average turn". I am talking about pushing hard into a turn and trying to accelerate. The car will not cooperate. It is a safety issue, to save you (and others) from your bad driving. Putting the car into sport mode and turning off* traction control will not remedy the above, because turning off* traction control does not turn off traction control. That's right. Turning off the traction control does not turn off traction control. Rather, is lessens the effect of the traction control, but not enough to let you rev the engine around a hard turn at speed. There is a headache of a procedure that allows you to truly turn off the traction control, which you must do before you start the car. That will turn on a blinking traction control light on your dashboard (situated directly to the right of the standard traction control light). When the traction control is truly off, and you put the car into sport mode, it will not hold you back. When you press on the gas, no matter the speed or the turn, you will go. The car will feel more like a traditional car with a traditional throttle. This is not an issue for 99.99% of customers. But for those that want to unleash the full potential of the car, this is a head's up for you. Also note that the 1.5 model Accords come with Goodyear tires, which are not as good as the Michelin tires that come on the 2.0 model Accords. For 99%+ of customers, this will make no difference, because you will never push the car hard enough to reveal where the Goodyear tires slip and the Michelin tires still grip. Also note that the 6 cylinder Camry will be faster, light to light, due to it having a naturally aspirated engine. Although the Accord's turbo lag is minimal, it is still turbo lag. This is why Honda's premium brand, Acura, has electric motors in their flagship, twin turbo NSX. Those electric motors fill in the gap to provide instant acceleration, until the twin turbos kick in. Cheers!
    1
  2908. 1
  2909. 1
  2910. 1) This is most likely an attack. My money (so to speak) is on a disgruntled CrowdStrike employee. It is hard to force Windows 10 or Windows 11 to crash, due to a poorly written application. Someone at CrowdStrike found a weakness within Windows, and they exploited it. Such weaknesses are not easy to find. 2) Every government agency, and every business that is having major issues, is due to their own incompetence. They should all be backing up their computers, daily. They should know that they just got an update today, and now all of their computers that got that update are not working. The quick fix is to boot from emergency boot media, and restore the operating system from the last backup, which should have been done only hours before the CrowdStrike update. That would get everyone up an running right away. 3) Some government agencies and businesses will have put their databases on their OS drive. So if they restore from a backup, their databases will be missing recent additions, deletions, or changes. They would have to back up their database files, before doing a restore from yesterday's backup. Then, after they restore their OS from yesterday's backup, they would have to copy their database (that they just backed up) to their C: drive where they just did the recovery. This would all be avoided if they did not store their database files on the C: drive. ----- Did CrowdStrike screw up? Yes. But the bulk of the blame, for the downtime with so many critical services, is the incompetence and attitudes of indifference with the personnel that run those businesses. They should never allow themselves to be shut down by a 3rd party. My computer has no issues. And if it should receive an update that cripples it, I will restore it to prior from receiving the crippling update. That is my responsibility for my own equipment. All of those giant businesses should be doing the same. It is outrageous that they are scrambling, because they do not have backups. People that have stock in those companies, and are losing their shirt, should sue those companies for gross negligence. Sue the airlines, too, for financial losses due to missing flights. Sue the government agencies, for lives that are lost. It is 100% unacceptable for those businesses to not be able to quickly recover from this.
    1
  2911. 1
  2912. 1
  2913. 1
  2914. 1
  2915. 1
  2916. 1
  2917. 1
  2918. 1
  2919. 1
  2920. 1
  2921. 1
  2922. 1
  2923. 1
  2924. 1
  2925. 1
  2926. 1
  2927. 1
  2928.  @swanchamp5136  "You just spouted a ton of nonsense" You wrote that on the internet, so it is true. "this was about how Trumpers think drag is more dangerous than guns, no one mentioned rape." Giving an analogy to expose the absurdity of the question is taboo, because no one mentioned the analogy. We are not allowed to make a point that exposes the absurdity of the question. So we disallow facts that drive home a point, when those facts are based on reality. We do not want facts to rock our fantasy land. "Most school shooting are done by someone who legally bought the gun." But shooting children in a school is illegal. Maybe the we need a gun law that requires murderers to read the "gun free zone" signs, before shooting up the school? "Also drag artists don't twerk in front of kids." Artists? Well, I enjoy the majesty of mobile restrooms. The art of their construction is breathtaking. And I take a deep breath to take in all that art. "As the senator pointed out Drag has been a form of entertainment for a very long time." Until now, there has never been "Family friendly drag shows, with children stuffing currency down men's shorts." Those "very long time" ago drag shows were not drag shows. They were women impersonator shows, for adults only. "Even in Elizabethan times men were playing the parts of women in Shakespeare's plays." None of them twerked for children. "At no point did the host condone child sex acts, you made that up." When you condone adults performing "R" rated sex acts for 8-year olds, you are a child sex predator. "You talk about wanting to defend your nation against tyrannical rule yet Trump said from day one he would be a dictator and arrest those who opposed him." That is twice that you brought up Trump, where I never mentioned Trump. Apparently Trump is renting space in your head.
    1
  2929. 1
  2930. 1
  2931. 1
  2932. 1
  2933. 1
  2934. 1
  2935. 1
  2936. 1
  2937. 1
  2938. 1
  2939. 1
  2940. 1
  2941. 1
  2942. 1
  2943. 1
  2944. 1
  2945. 1
  2946. 1
  2947. 1
  2948. 1
  2949. 1
  2950. 1
  2951. 1
  2952. 1
  2953. 1
  2954. 1
  2955. 1
  2956. 1
  2957. 1
  2958. 1
  2959. 1
  2960. 1
  2961. 1
  2962. 1
  2963. @10:49 "Another option is to choose systems with end-to-end encryption, and you would be the only one who actually has access to the decryption keys." @11:10 "With end-to-end encryption, not even the company that made your security camera can get access to your footage." Slimy companies use the term "end-to-end" encryption, in a wildly misleading way. And they likely have complete access to your footage. For example, when you use cloud storage (you are using some stranger's computer to store your files), and that cloud storage company brags about how they use end-to-end encryption, and that prevents people from seeing your data, well... they are lying (by omission) to you. It does, indeed, prevent people from seeing your data. But define "people". Which people? They left out the adjective "all", as in "all people", because end-to-end encryption does not stop "all people" from seeing your data. What counts is which people will have access to your data. The end-to-end encryption is between you and them. So those are the two ends. You are on one end, and they are on the other end. Once your data reaches their end, it is decrypted. They have your data in the clear. When you go on-line and shop at Amazon, or pay your bills with your bank, etc, you (via your web browser) are using end-to-end encryption. But of course the entity on the other end sees it all. If not, how could Amazon know what you purchased? Or how could you bank know which bills you are paying? They have to see 100% of what you are doing (while no one between you and them -- the two ends -- can spy on your activity). The end-to-end encryption is referring to a tunnel between you and them, so that no one in-between you and them can snoop on your data while your data is in transit. There are typically 10 to 30 different computers or devices (hops) that complete the digital circuit between you and Amazon (or your bank, or anywhere else). It is those other devices that, without end-to-end encryption, would be able to see your data. So when you use OneDrive, or GoogleDrive, or DropBox, etc, they can all see your data. There was a somewhat recent case where a father used a cloud storage system to provide revealing photos of his toddler to his doctor, due to the toddler having a rash. That father was arrested. But the cloud storage service used end-to-end encryption. Even if they claim that they store your data with encryption, that is a lie of omission, due to what they are not telling you. When your encrypted data arrives at their location, it is 100% decrypted. They have it in the clear. Then, once they have your data, they encrypt it (again). Since they encrypt it, they can decrypt it. If you are not personally encrypting your data, using your own local computer (the one connected to your keyboard), then cloud storage company's personnel can see your data in the clear. Not every employee. But high ranking employees (whoever the CEO of VP of Information Services, etc) have complete access to your data. If you want to safeguard your data (it literally is "your" data), then have your camera's feed store your footage on a VeraCrypt drive. VeraCrypt is free and open source. It is easy to use. It creates a virtual drive letter that, once you put in your password, behaves just like any other drive letter. And files that you put into that drive letter will be encrypted on-the-fly. You will have 100% control over your files. But no encryption will save you from yourself, if you use a stupid password. I estimate that 90% of people's passwords can be brute force cracked within 1 minute. Perhaps another 8% will take a couple of days to crack. Then, perhaps, 1% will take a few weeks to crack. My guess is that less than 1% of people use strong enough passwords that would take years or centuries to crack. Huge data breaches, that revealed tens of millions of people's passwords, is how we know how strong (and weak) people's passwords are. Your password (or pass phrase, if you use "spaces" in your password), must have at least 12 characters, in mixed case, with numbers and symbols, to have any chance of being secure (with today's computer cracking power). Sixteen characters will offer far better security. But if you simply pad your password with a bunch of !!!!!!!!! symbols, you will not fool the tools that crack passwords. Password cracking tools know all of the tricks and fudging that people use in their passwords. If you want to know how to create an unbreakable password that is easy to remember, then search the "Computerphile" channel for a video named "How to Choose a Password - Computerphile"
    1
  2964. 1
  2965. 1
  2966. VeraCrypt has a few of features that I believe are not present in Cryptomator (I am unsure, because I have never used Cryptomator -- so please correct me if I am mistaken). And the opposite is likely true (Cryptomator having features absent in VeraCrypt), since the two tools have different ways of securing your data. -- Hidden volumes. VeraCrypt allows for an encrypted volume to be stored within a standard encrypted volume. The beauty of the encrypted, hidden volume is that no one can detect that the hidden volume exists. So if you are forced to unlock your VeraCrypt volume, the assailant, 3-letter agency, whomever, cannot know that there is yet another volume contained within. So your hidden volume is safe. But you can unlock your hidden volume just as easily as your standard volume. -- Key files. VeraCrypt allows you to use a file (or files) as part of your pass phrase. If you omit pointing VeraCrypt to that file, when unlocking your vault, then you will not be able to unlock your vault. So even if someone knows your passphrase, they will also have to know which file (or files) you used. So your passphrase can consist of only typed characters, or only a file (or files), or a combination of typed characters and a file (or files). But if you use a file as part of your vault's encryption, and if that file changes (even by one byte), then you just lost access to your VeraCrypt vault (same as typing in your passphrase, and getting one character wrong). -- VeraCrypt allows you to choose from a list of ciphers, when creating your vault. This is probably not a must have feature, as the default cipher is supposedly unbreakable, in both VeraCrypt and Crytomator. -- VeraCrypt allows you to create unlimited vaults. So you can have one vault for one category of files, and another vault for some other category of files. I wonder if Cryptomator allows for two or more encryption schemes, if you are using multiple 3rd party storage services? It is not necessary to use different encryption schemes for each storage service. But there are probably some folks that have a use for it. Is there such an option with Cryptomator? Leo, great video. And thanks for the Crytomator tutorial. If I ever start using a 3rd party storage service, then I will be installing Cryptomator.
    1
  2967. 1
  2968. 1
  2969. 1
  2970. 1
  2971. 1
  2972. 1
  2973. 1
  2974. 1
  2975. 1
  2976. 1
  2977. 1
  2978. 1
  2979. 1
  2980. 1
  2981. 1
  2982. 1
  2983. I recommend steering clear of 3rd party anti-virus offerings. Read their End User License Agreements, and privacy statements, and every item in small print (so to speak), and read it all, no matter how legalese it is worded. Why? In every one that I have checked, their carefully, but tortured, language gives them permission for full access to your computer, monitoring everything you do on your computer, and collecting information on all of the above. Some of that is necessary, in order for the software to scour your computer for dangerous files. And the excuses in the agreements for collecting all of your information basically boils down to them claiming that it helps them develop better protection. Windows Defender does an outstanding job. If it did not, there would be complaints all over the internet. Windows also collects massive amounts of your information. But since Defender does an outstanding job, there is no need to add more spyware (3rd party anti-virus) to your computer, even when that spyware will protect you. Yes, anti-virus software is a form of spyware, even though it protects you. And you can avoid most of the problems with on-line threats, if you did anything risky or anything you are not entirely comfortable with, via a virtual machine. Depending on the virtual machine, the protection it will offer will vary. But it would be difficult for a virus to jump from your virtual machine to your physical machine (at least the vast majority of threats will be contained in the virtual machine). And at the end of your session, you can clobber the virtual machine, and it will revert back to before you had used it. Any bad programs that just got installed will disappear.
    1
  2984. 1
  2985. 1
  2986. 1
  2987. 1
  2988. 1
  2989. 1
  2990. 1
  2991. Physical security is key (as our host said). Without it, someone can clone your boot drive, and they will have a copy of your computer to boot up on their own computer. Sites that have very good security should detect that an attempt to login to their site came from a computer with different hardware or from a different location, and should make the user jump through more hoops to complete the login. I auto-login to nothing. I use a password manager, and accept the few extra steps to login manually. It gives me peace of mind. But if someone wants the convenience of automatically logging in to web sites, then whatever works for them is what they should do (assuming they understand the risks). In my case, I do not understand how a browser stores passwords -- and that is my main reason for not allowing my browser to automatically log me in. If my browser is simply saving a cookie that has my password, well... that seems to be insecure. If malware gets into my computer, what is stopping it from grabbing all of my cookies? And for folks that do not backup their computer (and that's most people), then if their drive fails, all of their auto-login data is gone. Everything runs smoothly until something goes wrong. That is when people wish that they did a backup, and wish that they used a password manager, etc. Security and convenience do not make for a happy marriage. When you have your security on auto-pilot, then you are giving up a level of control. If you are comfortable with that, then it works for you.
    1
  2992. 1
  2993. 1
  2994. 1
  2995. 1
  2996. 1
  2997. 1
  2998. 1
  2999. 1
  3000. 1
  3001. 1
  3002. 1
  3003. 1
  3004. 1
  3005. 1
  3006. 1
  3007. 1
  3008. 1
  3009. 1
  3010. 1
  3011. 1
  3012. 1
  3013. 1
  3014. 1
  3015. 1
  3016. Two more records I would have on such a list: -- Led Zeppelin II. Specifically, the first two songs on side 1 of the RL / SS hot cut pressings. I heard "Whole Lotta Love" on a very high-end system, in a treated room, and my eyes and ears were fighting over whether or not the band was in front of me. They were carved out in three-dimensional realism like nothing I have ever experienced -- nothing else has ever come close. -- The Beatles, Abbey Road. With the right pressing, on a great stereo, that pressing sounds amazing. The grunge of the guitars, the spacing of the voices, etc, is fantastic. All future releases / re-masters of that album were botched, in one way or another. One other honorable mention: Madonna's double album, "The Immaculate Collection", made with QSound, has songs with the widest soundstage I have ever heard. The songs were not recorded exceptionally well (not bad, but not great, either). But that QSound is wild. Vogue has the best sound quality of all of the songs on that double album (to my ear). It is actually very good. And with the QSound effect, there are sounds appearing directly to the left and the right, as if there are speakers in those locations. Invite a friend over, and they will accuse you have having hidden speakers to the sides. If you want to test your stereo's soundstaging, play some songs from "The Immaculate Collection". The songs will vary in sound quality and the QSound effect. But that is a go-to album for ultra-wide soundstaging effects.
    1
  3017. Steve, you have virtually no evidence on what took place, and you have expoused conclusions on what took place. If not the legal definition of conclusions, you drew an obvious connect the dots diagram, where you laid out all of the dots. You have no idea whether or not the driver and the passenger knew each other, or what their relationship was. You have no idea on whether or not the passenger knew about the driver's warrant. But you make it clear as day what was what. @2:50 "...all of my interests come together...", which is you being politically subjective, and not legally objective. You conflated other improper forfeitures with this one, as if they are connected. As a lawyer, you know that one case has nothing to do with the other, other than keeping statistics. You brought up the American Civil Liberties Union, which is a far left Democrat run organization, as a source, and you painted a picture of minority communities being targeted by police, etc. The amount of policing in an area is based on the amount of crime in an area. Minority communities have far more crime than non-minority communities. So of course there will be more police activity in minority communities. But you painted a picture of police going out looking to screw with people in minority neighborhoods. Go to radical leftist organizations, and you will get radical leftist statistics. Go to far right organizations, and you will get far right statistics. Steve, I will wager 10 to 1 that you are a life long Democrat. And videos like this one show your bias. Having a bias is nothing to apologize for. We all have them. But at least acknowledge where you stand, politically, and how you choose your organizations for your statistics.
    1
  3018. 1
  3019. 1
  3020. 1
  3021. 1
  3022. 1
  3023. 1
  3024. 1
  3025. 1
  3026. @11:22 "...if you're using their stuff, they have to disclose to you, what information of yours they're going to use and if so, how, and maybe get your permission to use it." Steve, the problem is that China's Communist government will lie. They can make up anything that they want, and have their app do anything else that they want. It is absurd to believe their disclosures. TikTok is closed source code. That means that no one (other than the people who wrote the code) knows what the app is doing. Yes, we can all see what it is doing, on the surface. But we cannot see anything and everything else it is doing, in the background. China's Communist government is not going to reveal its app's spying algorithms. The whole point of TikTok is to have created a spyware app that everyone will want. So China's Communist government created an app that does two (or more) things. On the surface, the users are entertained with videos. Below the surface, all of the nasty data mining takes place. This is a big issue, because high-ranking government officials probably have TikTok on their personal phones. And if not the actual government officials, then their family members will have TikTok on their personal phones. So how great is it for China's Communist government to have microphones on children's phones, collecting the private family discussions of high-ranking government officials? Check wikipedia for all of the countries that banned TikTok. The NYC public school system had banned TikTok. There were other bans, too, not mentioned in the wikipedia page. Lastly, what "rights" does TikTok have in Montana, or anywhere other than in China?
    1
  3027. 1
  3028. 1
  3029. 1
  3030. 1
  3031. 1
  3032. 1
  3033. 1
  3034. 1
  3035. gpg has a -c option, which performs a symmetric cipher. In other words, you can encrypt any file, and only the person who knows the password (or passphrase) will be able to decrypt it. Here is an example of how to encrypt a file named "secret.doc" gpg -c secret.doc Upon executing the above, gpg will ask you to enter a passphrase. Enter anything you want. Whatever you enter will be what is required to decrypt your file. When done, you will have two files. You will have your original "secret.doc", and you will also have "secret.doc.gpg". Note that the above process will create a binary encrypted file. In other words, you will not be able to view the contents of "secret.doc.pgp", because it will contain binary characters that are not viewable. If you want your encrypted file to look like what Rob was showing in this video, then you would run: gpg -a -c secret.doc The above, now having the "-a" option (ascii armor), will tell gpg to use only human readable characters in its creation of the encrypted file, which will be named: secret.doc.asc Note that the above can probably be done via the graphical program that Rob demonstrated in this video. But I never used it, so I do not really know. I use only the command-line version of gpg. Also note that the above has zero to do with public key encryption. In my examples, you are simply encrypting a file with a passphrase of your choice, using the gpg program. gpg is mostly used in the fashion that Rob demonstrated. But you asked question about storing encrypted files across multiple platforms. My examples will accomplish your goal. If you have countless file that you want to encrypt, then gpg is probably not the best suited for your goal. Another choice that might work better for you would be to create a VeraCrypt encrypted volume (which is a different program than gpg). VeraCrypt allows you to mount a new drive letter, and it will behave like any other drive letter. The benefit is that your VeraCrypt drive letter will do on-the-fly encryption. Anything that you put into the VeraCrypt drive letter will be encrypted. When you dismount the VeraCrypt volume (a simple click), all of the files that you put into that volume will reside in a single file. You can make copies of that file and store them anywhere you want. That VeraCrypt file will be useless to anyone, except you, because only you will be able to mount that file (because only you will have the passphrase that will allow it to be mounted). Cheers!
    1
  3036. 1
  3037. 1
  3038. 1
  3039. 1
  3040. 1
  3041. 1
  3042. 1
  3043. 1
  3044. 1
  3045. 1
  3046. 1
  3047. 1
  3048. 1
  3049. 1
  3050. 1
  3051. In order for the Instant Ink program to work, your HP printer must be connected to your internet router, via a TCP/IP connection (you cannot use a USB connection with the program). This allows your printer to send and receive information to/from HP's servers, which is how HP knows when you are going to need ink, and they will ship you ink that will arrive, prior to you running out of ink. And by the printer being connected to your internet router (and not to your computer), the printer does not need your computer to have connectivity to HP's servers. When I signed up to the Instant Ink program, they offered a "Free" subscription plan, that offered 10 pages per month (now it is 15 pages per month). But you had to give HP your credit card information, so that they could bill you if you printed more than 10 pages (or 15 pages, as it is today). Some months after I signed up, some bean counter at HP determined that the "Free" program was not working out for them. So they canceled the "Free" program, and let their subscribers know that they would have to choose a different plan. This is dishonest, because I purchased my HP printer, based on them offering the "Free" program. Apparently, I was not alone, and HP was probably used. Because a few weeks later, they grandfathered me back into my "Free" program. However, they warned me that if I should ever switch to one of the other Instant Ink offerings, then I will not be allowed to return to the "Free" program. So I still have the "Free" program. Also dishonest of HP is that, although you paid for and own the ink cartridges that came with the purchase of your printer... ...the minute you sign up for the Instant Ink program, you no longer own those cartridges. You agree to turn ownership of those cartridges over to HP; they instantly become "rented" cartridges. However, if you independently purchase ink cartridges somewhere, then you own those cartridges, and if you use those cartridges, then pages printed with those cartridges will not count towards your subscription's page count. The printer keeps track of each page that is printed, and whether you had "rented" cartridges in the printer, or you had "owned" cartridges in the printer. As soon as you print a page with rented cartridges, the printer updates HP's servers. You can log-in to HP's Instant Ink site and see exactly how many pages you have printed in your monthly subscription period. Since I print only 2 or 3 pages, on average, each month, the "Free" program is perfect for me, because when the printer warms up, after not printing for a few weeks, it burns off a fair amount of ink, doing its cleaning cycle. So I use more ink via the cleaning cycle, than I do with actual print jobs. And it is of zero concern to me, because it costs me $zero. And when I do print (and this goes for anyone using the program, regardless of which level of the program they signed up for), I always use the highest quality setting, which uses the most ink. Since HP counts pages, and not ink usage, it is most beneficial to use the highest quality setting. The only exception would be if you are in a hurry, and you are printing photos. In that case, you would probably choose a lower quality setting to have the pages print faster. Cheers!
    1
  3052. 1
  3053. 1
  3054. 1
  3055. 1
  3056. 1
  3057. Not covered in this video is the wildly expensive cost of replacing your electric car's batteries. All batteries, no matter how high their quality, and no matter how meticulously maintained, eventually will not hold a charge. And before it gets to that point, all of the numbers our host quoted would have to be redrawn, because as the batteries age, their ability to go the distance will diminish. What starts out as 200 miles will become 150 miles, then 100 miles, then 50 miles, and finally will not even start the car. So you go to replace your electric car's batteries. That's when you find out it will cost $15,000 today, and likely much more in 5 to 7 years. The batteries are not the type you can buy at your local service station. The batteries are not what gasoline powered cars use. Rather, the batteries for your electric car are proprietary, and you will be at the mercy of the electric car company's pricing and availability. So the costs that the host quoted are neither factoring in $15,000 over the life of the car's batteries, nor the battery's diminishing driving range. For those that will sell their electric car before their batteries go bad... You will find that your resale value has the cost of battery replacement built in. And it will not matter if you try to find someone that knows nothing about the batteries going bad. Anyone can easily check on how much used electric cars are selling for. So you will get the going market value, which will not be very good if your electric car is 5+ years old. People with electric cars and hybrids eventually lose their gas pump savings as their batteries go bad.
    1
  3058. 1
  3059. 1
  3060. 1
  3061. 1
  3062. 1
  3063. 1
  3064. 1
  3065. 1
  3066.  @Merichguy2  By doing incremental backups, you should (depending on the software) be able to restore files from each backup session. In other words, if you do a weekly incremental backup, then you can restore files from week#1, or week#2, etc. That is helpful if you screw up a file without realizing it. You might have to go back a few images (a few iterations of your incremental backups) to find that file from a time before you screwed it up. Even if you do a monthly full backup (as our host does), you do not need to delete the previous month's full backup (if you still have enough free space on the drive holding your backups). If you delete your full backup, followed by starting a new full backup, you run a risk of data loss. It is a very slim risk -- but still a risk. At the moment you delete your full backup, then until you compete another full backup, you have no backup. So while performing your full backup, if your source disk dies, you will not be able to complete your full backup. Now you have a real problem, because you do not have any backup. I suggest that when you start a full backup, you always keep your previous full backup. Never leave a moment where you have no full backup. But those incremental backups are handy for grabbing files in the state that they were in on each date you did the incremental backup. One other precautionary point: It is convenient to leave your target drive connected all of the time. When your backups run, you do not need to plug your target drive in to a USB port. However, that convenience is risky. If a bad actor gets control of your computer (like a ransomware attack), you do not want your drive that contains your backups to be connected to your computer. Also, keep a copy of your backup installation file on your target drive. If your C: drive dies, you will want to have your backup software on your target drive. And keep a copy any registration code, etc, that you will need for you to be able to use your backup software. In other words, if your C: drive dies, then have everything that you need on your target drive to get you up and running when you replace your C: drive. If your backup software includes creating emergency boot media, then get a flash drive and have it be your emergency boot media.
    1
  3067. 1
  3068. 1
  3069. 1
  3070. 1
  3071. 1
  3072. 1
  3073. 1
  3074. 1
  3075. 1
  3076. 1
  3077. 1
  3078. 1
  3079. 1
  3080. @2:10 "...and they all synchronize, up to a cloud (someone else's computer)". Isn't it taboo to let anyone else have your private key? @8:35 "...they may be able to crack those, and come out, with what is the actual password, if given enough time". If your password manager creates a 15+ character, cryptic password, then the amount of time would be half of forever. And with a password manager, you can use a 20+ character, cryptic password. You would have a better chance of winning the lottery, three times in a row, before being able to crack a 20 character password, such as this: ayba]{(<[%+H JS616@A And, the attacker would need to know which hashing algorithm was used, and would also need to know if multiple iterations of hashes were used, and if salt or pepper was used to further complicate generating the hash. If you lose your computer, it is somewhat simple to change a user's password, making it somewhat simple for whoever has your computer to login to your computer. Now that they are logged in as you, your passkeys are at their disposal. And if you ever bring your computer in for a repair, they can clone your drive, plug in the cloned drive to their own computer, login as you, and they have your passkeys. With a good password manager, then as long as you use a strong master password, and you also have the password manager create virtually unbreakable passwords, then you should be fine. And some password managers will not paste in your password if the site is a fake. A user might not detect a similar (but different) URL. But a password manager will detect it as a different site. Passkeys do not do that. Lastly, password managers allow you to easily make copies of your encrypted password database. You can store those copies anywhere, even on your arch nemesis's computer.
    1
  3081. 1
  3082. 1
  3083. 1
  3084. 1
  3085. 1
  3086. 1
  3087. 1
  3088. 1
  3089. 1
  3090. 1
  3091. 1
  3092. 1
  3093. 1
  3094. 1
  3095. There are ways to test / demo software in a virtually safe environment. The "Pro" and "Enterprise" versions of Windows include a "Sandbox" feature (which you turn on via the "Turn Windows features on or off" tool). With Sandbox enabled, your computer can create a virtual machine (Windows inside of Windows). On that virtual machine (that Sandbox), you can install and run and test just about anything you want. The Sandbox machine cannot (in theory) touch your real Windows machine. And when you close the Sandbox, everything that you did vanishes, like it never happened (well, if you interacted with computers on the internet, that still happened -- but on your own machine, it is like you never ran the Sandbox). So anything you installed within your Sandbox will not be there after you close down the Sandbox, and start it up, again. Sandbox is a Microsoft tool, and has been around for years. It if has vulnerabilities, they would be known and fixed. There can still remain vulnerabilities. But this is about as safe as it gets for running risky software or visiting sketchy sites. In fact, you can intentionally run malware within your sandbox. It will screw up your sandbox. But your main Windows box will remain unaffected, and a restart of your sandbox will return it to its original status. Since you cannot save the state of your sandbox, then it can be frustrating, because the next time you start it up, you have to install and configure stuff you had already done. Since nothing is without risk, and since you might choose to tinker with otherwise dangerous software in your sandbox, you should backup your computer before doing any of the above. If you are running the Home version of Windows, then the Sandbox feature will not be available. You could run other virtualization software (such as Oracle's free and open source "Virtual Box"). It will not be as secure as Windows built-in Sandbox tool. But Virtual Box is a good option for testing supposedly reputable software (I would not use Virtual Box to test known ransomware, because Virtual Box is designed with convenience in mind, and security is not as tight as the built-in Sandbox tool).
    1
  3096. 1
  3097. 1
  3098. 1
  3099. 1
  3100. @5:57 -- "Older technology could only store two different levels of electrons" @6:08 -- In the upper right-hand corner of the video: "Single Level Cell", which is referred to as SLC. Yes, SLC is older. But it is not the runner-up in the speed department. In fact, SLC NANDs are the fastest, and most expensive, types of SSDs available. They also last the longest, in terms of how many times you can write data to them (not covered in this video is that after you write to the SSD X number of times, the SSD will eventually not be able to be written to, again. Nearly no one will ever run into that problem. But SLC SSDs can take the most punishment. Not all SSDs are equal, in terms of speed. The speeds are, from fastest to slowest (and from most expensive to least expensive): -- SLC (single level cell). -- MLC (multi level cell -- as in two levels). -- TLC (triple level cell). -- QLC (quad level cell). QLC SSDs are very slow. Many are slower than mechanical hard drives. But, you say you have a QLC SSD and it is very fast. Well, you are both correct and you are incorrect. Why? Slow SSDs (such as QLC SSDs) have cache (a portion of the NAND cells are comprised of the faster verity of NAND cells (see listing, above)). That cache can be anywhere between 20 or so GB to over 100 GB, depending on the size of the SSD. So when you copy a few gigabytes to your QLC SSD, it flies, because it is using its fast MLC or SLC cache. But if you were to continuously write hundreds of gigabytes to your QLC drive, it will go from a speed demon to a snail. When you are not actively writing to the SSD, it will unload the data in its cache to the slow QLC NAND cells, all in the background. So the next time you use the SSD, the cache will be empty and the SSD will be fast, again. Big companies (google, microsoft, amazon, etc), that provide on-line services for customers, use SSDs made from 100% SLC NAND cells. Those SSDs are very expensive, very durable, and very fast. The host's comment, @5:57, conveys that SLC is old (and therefore slow). He did not actually claim that SLC is slow. But what will people think when they hear him say "Older technology..."? Which SSDs are 100% SLC or MLC? Good luck figuring it out. For some reason, that information is not readily available. But if one 1-TB SSD costs $69, and another one costs $99 (or more), then there is a good chance that the cheap one is QLC, and the pricier one is MLC or SLC. The speed ratings on the box are always for the small percentage of the faster cache section of the SSD. That is fine, for 99%+ people that do not hammer the SSD without rest. But the advertised speeds are not entirely truthful. And when you see videos of people running benchmarks, they never use huge files (who wants their benchmark tests to take a long time?). So when those benchmarks use 1GB or 5GB files, it is testing only the fast cache section of the SSD. Run the benchmark with a 250GB or 500GB file. A SLC drive will tear through the test. A QLC drive, with some MLC cache, will take an eternity to come back with the results (and the results will be abysmal). Cheers!
    1