The Devil’s In The Details

December 27, 2012

What I Never Knew About My GMail: 2 Messages At Once

Filed under: Productivity,Technical — silvamethod @ 12:58 am
Tags: , ,

I almost fell off my chair when I first discovered I could open 2 messages — more really — at a time.

Understandably, I usually rely on the “?” help display when in GMail for new options (or these days, even to remember old ones).  But no where are they to be found!  But in this case, Google search was my friend.  And this is it:

Select the message, and

     SHIFT + “O”            Open message in separate window

     CTRL + “O”             Open message in separate TAB

I didn’t happen across this by chance, and as I mentioned Google search is my best friend. to that end, the place I found the SHIFT + “O” tip was on a GMail-inspired page within the greater site, and authored by Heinz Tschabitscher.  And although the CTRL + “O” was not included in Heinz’s article, it was certainly inspired by the other.

Thanks, Heinz.


January 14, 2009

Green-minded Google Search Energy Consumption Wins Acclaims From Harvard University

Filed under: Technical — silvamethod @ 11:59 am
Tags: , , ,

Green-minded Google Gets Red-faced Over Search Energy Consumption Claims

OK; if Google is doing anything other than glowing Red from gleeful embarassement then they should.  Because that amount of energy — even on the high end of 10 g/search — is nothing; nada; zip!  Even when multiplied by the millions of searches every, ..  however often.  Replace that with the amount it would otherwise require to get in your car, drive through traffic to the library, the amount of energy used by the library itself, the time it takes to search through card files, or yet more computers with electronic card cataloging, ordering the books from inter-library exchange, driving back home, driving back to the library again to get your remaining research books, performing the research, getting back into the car and driving to the library to return the research materials, and then, finally, repeating the process “n” number of times with other libraries, newspapers, magazines, etc.

The truth is that you will produce more carbon dioxide from breathing during the time it takes you to just drive to library, not including the amont I’ll create from the car itself.

Nope; I’d say that if Google can increase the speed and quality of their searches by spending 100x more persearch, I say, “Yes!”

May 7, 2008

An Unintelligent (& Expected) Reaction From Those Who Teach Our Children

Filed under: Personal,Political,Politics,Spiritual — silvamethod @ 11:35 am
Tags: , , ,

In LAND ‘O LAKES, Fla., a teacher is being threatened with termination for a “Magic Trick,” resulting in a charge of, what else, wizardy! What a leap of faith to make — or should I say a lack of it — to immediately charge this man for wizardry. And one can only assume that those who charged him have no idea of what wizardry is, or what it suggests, as if they had, I’m sure they would have stopped short of getting themselves involved with what I’m certaim will cost them $ millions. And it should.

So what if this man is a “wizard.” That is, what if he does dabble in witchcraft? Or more explicitly, let’s say he’s regularly performing the ceremony of the great-rite, with all its nudity, and sex, and, well, sex? Or even more scandelous, what if he attends a group ritual in a building with dozens or even hundreds of others (Catholics) where they injest human blood and body tissue?

So nothing! This man has been wronged, and he has been wronged in front of the entire world, and for what — a childish, slight-of-hand trick. Well, Jim Piculas, your ship has come in. And with god, allah, the great-pumpkin, and the ACLU behind you, may you reap your rewards in this world, and then (some day) laugh at all of them from the geat beyond.

read more | digg story

March 11, 2008

“G” Spot, or No “G” Spot; Is There Really Any Question?

Filed under: Personal — silvamethod @ 12:54 am
Tags: , ,

So once again a question has arisen regarding Dr. Ernest Grafenberg’s discovery of the elusive, holy-grail of sexual orgasms — the “G” Spot.

I find it interesting that researchers have the time (or funding, for that matter) to research such questions. Ask any woman who has enjoyed the long, intense, and eventually explosive orgasm resulting from intense, “G” spot stimulation, or any of the lucky men (or women) who enjoy the admiration of the women for whom they’ve helped reach this pinnacle of pleasure, and there’s no question to be considered, except perhaps why some women fail to achieve them.

First, the somewhat rigid, engorged washboard-like tissue on the upper part of the vaginal wall cannot be missed. I’ve never been with a woman yet who has been without this characteristic tissue; however, as many as half were themselves unaware of the existence of this most important part of their sexual pleasure center. Even after discussing it, some found its stimulation to be too distracting, and couldn’t get past the initial sensation of having to urinate — a typical, though mistaken feeling due to the pressure “G” spot stimulation places on the bladder.

The really disappointing thing about raising doubt in a woman’s mind regarding her “G” spot is that she may be turned away from this most wonderful experience. And it is often only a matter of faith that many women are operating on when it comes to this elusive spot, since reaching it themselves may be difficult, if not awkward.

Additionally, many men find it difficult enough believing in the “G” spot’s existence without having researchers hypothesizing its nonexistence.  It requires a somewhat adventurous man, with a somewhat adventurous woman, plus a little direction, to find the “G” spot, as it is done so by touch alone. And this can be complicated when the woman’s response to its initial stimulation may
be the feeling of having to urinate. For some men, it goes against the locker room sex instruction of machismo and rapid thrusting.

So ladies — and you know who you are — ignore these researches and begin a close re-examination of that wonderful area of your anatomy.  And men, feeling is believing, and the results, well, they form the proof positive. And finally, to the researchers, if you have to ask the question, then you’ve been doing far too much of your research in the lab, and I recommend homework.

Furthermore, having successfully executed this protocol many times, if any of you skeptical lady researchers would like to experience it first hand, you’ve got my eMail.

February 1, 2008

Microsoft’s SteadyState Software: How Did We Miss This?

Filed under: Uncategorized — silvamethod @ 11:34 pm
Tags: ,

How did Microsoft pull this one off without my noticing it? Without so many noticing? Just the other day I heard about SteadyState by Microsoft — a product that allows the management of a Windows (XP) PC controlling changes to [essentially] C: drive resources. The name – SteadyState – explains the goal of the product — to provide a means to restore a PC to previous state, preventing all or some of the changes that can be made, and then being able to return it to a known state simply by rebooting.

Windows Vista users out of luck? Nope. At least not for long, as there is a beta version for Vista (2.5) that will soon be available. But, why would Windows/Vista need it? I thought it was supposed to be a bastion of securely-hardened computing? Or is that only because no one is using it? Well, no matter, as there will be a version for Vista soon.

Oh! The cost! I forgot to mention that Microsoft is charging a whopping $0.00 for SteadyState! And let me be one of the first (hardly) to commend Microsoft for offering what is clearly a magnificent security system free of cost. Perhaps they’ll open source it. You think? Hah.

Easy to install, a clean uninstall, and extremely user-friendly screens to walk you through any level of hardening your system, what’s not to like?

So what do you secure? This does not replace policy manager; this is better, and it compliments policy manager. And there’s way too much to cover here (follow the link above for that kind of detail), but here’s a few things you can do: prevent AUTORUN on inserting CD’s; prevent loading software; prevent the upload or download of information to a thumbdrive; prevent specific programs from running by selecting them from a list; and prevent changing system configuration items like video, screen resolution.

Check it out for yourself, find it at the Microsoft shared access site. Think about the applications. If you’re own business, and you deploy multiple PC’s, I don’t have to tell you that. But what about that “shared” PC you might have — in the lobby of a hotel, or even your personal PC that your kids use from time to time. For the former, you can lock it down hard, preventing any changes at all. For the latter, you can be more flexible knowing that your nightly reboot will set everything back — back to a steady state.

December 13, 2007

Eli Lilly Mistakenly/Unfairly Under Fire over ZYPREXA

Filed under: Political — silvamethod @ 7:19 am
Tags: , , ,

I can’t help but to be continually amazed at man’s ability to jump to conclusions. But then my father often reminded me of the cliché, “… you should walk a mile in his shoes before ..;” before what? Before pointing out the most passed over indication that litigation-happy Americans have had staring them in the face? And what is that, you ask? I’ll save that for the end. What I am referring to is best exemplified by an article recently written by a supposed ZYPREXA victim. I say supposed because the argument he points out is an old and tired one: that this guy took “A,” and because “B” suggests — without, I might add, any evidence whatsoever — that taking “A” causes diabetes, that the big, bad, pharmaceutical company that provided him with “A” is involved in a conspiracy to cover up the fact that “A” causes diabetes. Go ahead, read the article for yourself.

And to add to, if not what makes it, the conspiracy theory, the big, bad pharmaceutical company also make a treatment for diabetes! Oh my! Could it be true? Sure; and Mars could be inhabited by little-green men (and women, I suppose) also.

So where does this argument break down, you might ask? Of course you won’t ask, because he never made a good case in the first place, so there really isn’t an argument. First of all, let’s look at the drug, “A” (psssst! “A” = ZYPREXA). People who take the drug do not take it for the treatment of diabetes, they take it because they hear voices that aren’t there, and they develop wild conspiracy theories. In other words, they treat people for a condition that makes them incapable of rendering capable decisions about what is real and what is not. That fact that it’s still something he believes when he is under a treatment schedule suggests one of two things, either of which is very plausible: 1) the treatment is not working for him; or, 2) he developed the theory when he was at a “low,” and cannot distinguish the correctness of something that developed when he hadn’t the wherewithal to assess it.

Option 1 is obvious, so I won’t go there, and option 2 is, well, you decide: if you as someone with schizophrenia — but with his symptoms being successfully suppressed — if he really heard voices prior to taking medication, he’ll tell you yes, because it was very real at the time.

What’s disturbing about the writer’s comments is that he begins saying that the drug “… was ineffective for my condition ..,” but went on to say that in spite of its ineffectiveness, he continued to take it “from 1996 until 2000.” I certainly don’t fault the writer for following the guidance of his psychiatrist, but what competent medical professional would continue to prescribe something that was ineffective? One can’t help but wonder what other drugs may have been improperly prescribed — drugs that by themselves, or in combination, could have caused the diabetes.

So what was it I was saving for the end? What is it that has been so easily passed-over by a litigious society? It’s the link between certain psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and diabetes! That’s right! I believe we should be taking a really close look at disorders of the islets of Langerhans and the [greater] possibility that the somatotropin release-inhibiting hormone, once thought to only impact one’s growth pattern, could be the root cause of various psychoses.

This could be why so many people with weight problems, so many people with diabetes, develop schizophrenia!

After all, I’m just say’in.

October 11, 2007

Hello world!

Filed under: Uncategorized — silvamethod @ 4:22 am

How appropriate that my friends at WordPress should think to help me begin my web-blogging experience with the age-old adage “Hello World.”   Well, I won’t second guess them — as they have been in this business  much longer than me — and I’ll keep this as my general “hello” to all of the many who I’m certain will be visiting my blog.

Powered by