|
Post by whollygoats on Jun 25, 2019 15:40:32 GMT
Okay...So, my advisor came by, heard my complaints, said, "You've got adware problems. What browser are you using?"
When told, he dumped Chrome and reinstalled Firefox with some ad blocks....Ta da! Problems gone. No more pesky random adlinks and no pagejump insert pages.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jun 25, 2019 16:07:04 GMT
You have an advisor?
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jun 25, 2019 21:12:05 GMT
Yes...a friend. Who has extensive computer experience. More than I do, at least. But then, that is not particularly difficult.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jun 25, 2019 21:22:28 GMT
Good that it's fixed. Good that you're on Firefox!
|
|
|
Post by Kye on Jun 25, 2019 21:28:18 GMT
As I recall, Chrome is a sandbox so just deleting it and downloading it again should have done the trick.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jun 25, 2019 21:42:59 GMT
According to my friend, Chrome is headed towards disallowing any adblock with its use as a browser. It will become an open field of fire for advertisers.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jun 26, 2019 0:44:31 GMT
It has happened to me before but then it stopped. I am not sure why
|
|
|
Post by kingedmund on Jun 26, 2019 5:29:32 GMT
It just did that to me as well. It stopped. Weird.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jun 26, 2019 8:15:26 GMT
Chrome is a product of Google, an advertising business. It's not surprise they are moving towards blocking ad blockers.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jun 26, 2019 11:14:34 GMT
I have trained my self to ignore all adverts. I just get irritated by the flashing images. I'd be content with an ad blocker that stopped those and left the others in place.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jun 26, 2019 19:13:39 GMT
Flashing adverts are highly irritating ... for the same reason that the advertisers think they are good ... it draws your attention. Which is theft in a way: everyone has a limited amount of attention capacity, some less than others.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jun 27, 2019 16:36:51 GMT
Even if they stop blocking working in the browser you can always just install an ad-blocking proxy instead. I used to use one and it stopped the ads in programs such as MSN, too, not that many people use that kind of program any more!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 1, 2019 17:59:27 GMT
Back to Brexit... HuffPost UK is conducting a rather interesting live poll of its online readers. When do you think Brexit will happen?Before Halloween | 7% | On Halloween | 10% | After Halloween | 11% | Never | 72% |
As a predictor, it is worthless of course, but what it does show is that HuffPost readers are heavily in favour of No Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Jul 1, 2019 19:11:15 GMT
Being in favour of something isn't the same thing as believing it will happen. I'm in favour of me winning several big Premium Bond prizes between now and Christmas, but I don't expect it to happen.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 1, 2019 20:14:36 GMT
That's true in general but in this case, I think it really does mean the responders are in favour. I can't see very many people saying we won't leave the EU if they really want to.
|
|
|
Post by JoeP on Jul 2, 2019 8:29:34 GMT
On the contrary ... because this whole debacle has been contrary and negative ... many committed leavers could vote "when will brexit happen? never" because they aren't satisfied with progress so far and don't trust the government to do it.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jul 2, 2019 17:22:21 GMT
I think the question about leaving should have been predicated an who you wanted to carry it out, if you did. I never trusted the government to do it, whether it was voted for or not. Cameron bailing the instant the vote didn't go his way said everything! He never intended to leave and had no plan for it. Not a good start!
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 4, 2019 11:17:53 GMT
Cameron promised to give us a referendum in the run up to the 2015 election only because of discontent in his own party (the ERG group of 100 MPs were pushing for it). He didn't expect to win a majority but instead, he though he would have to form an alliance again with the Liberal Democrats. But the Lib Dems would have refused point blank to entertain the idea of a referendum and Cameron would have used it against the Lib Dems as a bargaining point. He was so wrong and ended up having to give us a referendum.
So it wasn't just incompetence on his part, it was miscalculation and deceit that gave us this mess. I believe 5/6 of all MPs actually voted in the referendum for Remain, without any pressure from their parties, which means they knew leaving the EU was the wrong thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Jul 19, 2019 9:32:44 GMT
Just when you didn't think it could get more crazy, a group of senior Tories are hatching a plan to send the Queen to the next EU Summit instead of Boris Johnson* if he insists on No Deal against the wishes of parliament.
* If as expected he becomes Prime Minister
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Jul 19, 2019 11:19:18 GMT
I don't think it's at all a serious plan. The overriding unwritten constitutional rule is that the monarchy isn't involved in politics.
This is just a stunt by a few idiots who wish to put pressure on Boris. Boris is smart enough to see right through the stunt, so it achieves nothing besides allowing those 'group of senior Tories' to make themselves look more stupid. We already knew they were stupid: now we know they're even stupider than we first thought.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 19, 2019 15:00:06 GMT
So...this whole 'monarchy isn't involved in politics' thing a rather recent, isn't it?
If memory serves, Charles I dissolved several parliaments in a row, including shutting them down for eleven years of 'personal rule'.
After watching the national epileptic seizure that is Brexit, I keep wondering when Lizzy will step in and sweep aside all the syphilitic ranting of the Tories, dissolve parliament and attempt to start over. You have a royalty and, so far as I can see, such a response is exactly what the otherwise useless vestigial appendage of the constitution is there for. If not, what the fuck is it there for? If it is not useful for something, then for crepes sake, get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by ceptimus on Jul 19, 2019 17:03:57 GMT
Royalty hasn't really had any say in politics for the last hundred years plus, and that doesn't look likely to change. - It gives us a head of state without the hassle of having to run elections.
- People who like it, say it brings the tourists in - though I don't believe that: tourists seem just as keen to visit Versailles and similar places where there are no longer any monarchs.
- It provides a sort of reality show, for those who're interested - something similar to USA's "Keeping up with the Kardashians".
- If we did elect a head of state (President) then I suppose that person would have some political power - and there seem to be more than enough politicians with their snouts in the trough already.
- Personally, I would cut back heavily on the royals - keep the Queen and the first few in line for the throne, but all the other hangers on like Harry, Megan, Prince Andrew, Prince Edward, Princess Anne, Prince Michael of Kent, and the list goes on, would get nowt from the taxpayer.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Jul 19, 2019 18:37:49 GMT
Royalty hasn't really had any say in politics for the last hundred years plus, and that doesn't look likely to change. - It gives us a head of state without the hassle of having to run elections.
Excuse me, but you still have elections because you elect to positions lower than royalty....and probably always will. So, you are saying that you have an entirely useless 'head of state' because electing them would be some kind of additional burden. I say "Poppycock". I'm with you. Is the same with former Russian royal properties, as well. People like to see 'wretched excess'. Remove the royal family members and continue the silly pomp and circumstance and tourists will still flock to your shores....and, with the pestilential royals out of the way, you can open the various estates for tours and events. I agree that your royals are, by analogy, the same as our Kardashians, but, for the life of me, I don't know why anybody might take any pride or comfort in that similarity. Indeed, I think it casts your royals into and even darker and more sinister light. I'm just suggesting that you use something which you already have as part of your constitutional construct, but has devolved in to something like the human body's vestigial appendix....useless, but still capable of destroying the entire edifice. Whatever for? If you are not going to give them a role with purpose within the constitutional construct, then why even bother keeping a sampling? Reminder....These things, if kept around, have the possibility of growing beyond control. But then, you might use this approach and fervently hope the opposite effect is realized and they naturally die out without further issue.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Jul 19, 2019 23:37:45 GMT
I'd get rid of the lot personally but - they'd just end up rich aristocrats I guess. The Royals are the worst part of the system but they are not all of it. Far too many Lords, Ladies and all the rest of the bollocks out there.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 6, 2019 1:25:26 GMT
So, it's stalemate. The EU says NonI always thought a Brexit deal was impossible.
|
|
|
Post by Moose on Aug 21, 2019 1:36:41 GMT
*opens one eye*
Did we leave yet?
*closes eye again*
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 21, 2019 11:23:42 GMT
Do we have food and medicine shortages? Are people stockpiling food? Are there threats of petrol shortages? Has the IRA resumed their bombing campaigns? No? Then I guess we haven't left yet.
|
|
|
Post by spaceflower on Aug 21, 2019 16:55:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Aug 21, 2019 21:16:45 GMT
There are signs tonight that Angela Merkel and Boris Johnson have renamed the Irish backstop (possibly with slight changes) and are willing to implement it. If my supposition is correct, it will make it politically acceptable for the UK government to implement Theresa May's deal, as was, and for Johnson to claim a success in implementing something entirely new.
ETA: President Macron says 'Non'. He's fed up with Brexit and wants it all over and done with. So we're back to square 1 with a No Deal Brexit looming ever more certain.
|
|
|
Post by whollygoats on Aug 22, 2019 22:14:58 GMT
So...Did I see that there is an actual date attached to this being 'decided'? Something about Halloween.
So, does this mean that once you've actually Brexited, you awaken the next day as All Saints?
As if.
|
|