NotHereToPlayGames

Totally agree! The first thing I always did back in the day was to edit and save chord.wav at HALF VOLUME. I kept it as the same "sound", but the original would scare the living sh#t out of me, I'd jump out of my chair and hit my knee or stub a toe each and every time that d#mn sound popped up!

Please do not copy-and-paste your post as a PM to members that have absolutely ZERO to do with "startisback".

I'm from a family of six kids. We all have a saying (sarcastically, of course) we will all throw out randomly and it fits here, "If everybody in the world were exactly like me, there would be no problems."

I ditto this. Browser's were never meant to be used this way. And neither was your own brain, as far as that goes. An exceprt from https://www.howtogeek.com/773721/listen-you-dont-need-that-many-browser-tabs-open/ People tend to think that they’re “good” at multitasking if they’re able to perform multiple tasks at once. However, that isn’t taking into account a very important part of it — are they performing those tasks well? Multitasking is a big reason why people keep so many tabs open, but it can have the opposite effect. Too many tabs can create information overload. The constant switching between tabs can lead to short attention spans. All of this trains your brain in a way that makes working efficiently more difficult in the future. Studies have backed this up as well. Some studies have found that heavy multitasking can cause you to perform worse on cognitive tests. One study ran MRI scans on the brains of multitaskers and found they had less brain density in areas that controlled empathy and emotions. That’s, uh, not good. Doing multiple tasks at once doesn’t make you more productive. You’re just splitting your attention and every time you switch tabs you lose concentration. Stick to one task at a time, complete the task, and then close the tabs and move on to the next thing. Your brain will thank you.

Totally Cool !!! I thought I was the only one! I don't have a landline or a cell phone! Haven't since 2001.

Speaking of "broadcasts" - I have a curiosity question. I don't watch football and refer to the Super Bowl as the "Tidy Bowl". And when the "wardrobe malfunction" was the talk-of-the-town several years back, it only took me mere seconds to see it was INTENTIONAL, that it was PLANNED. I mention it because that PLANNED incident altered broadcast television - all "live" broadcasts MUST be on a DELAY to give the broadcaster time to react to mishaps (planned or otherwise). I have even LESS interest in "Oscars" and "Grammys" type of useless-to-me-TV. But all of us that watch the news are well aware of Will Smith and Chris Rock "slapgate". My question is this - the "live" broadcast MUST, by FCC Regulation, be on a DELAY, so why did the broadcaster not use that mandated delay and "cut to commercial" ???

That's kind of the "mistake" that I have made. I have Netflix and Hulu but tend to binge-watch something on one for a full month and not touch the other, so I paid that month for it just to sit there! Then there's folks like my sister that has Netflix, Hulu, Peacock, Disney, and Epix and those are just the one's that I know of. They probably have a few that they've forgotten about but yet still pay the monthly subscription.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Tab-Hoarder

Same here. My computer setup is five widescreen monitors and the tv is 90-degrees to my right. So not really to my back, but I have to turn 90-degrees to see it. It's generally just background noise unless I'm streaming because streaming is done on the big screen.

I requested an accounting of donations and was denied. I can not donate to ANY cause where there is no public accounting of funds.

FYI - this web site only allows 1.95 MB for attachments and I'm at 1.92 MB. I will be deleting all attachments in this thread this coming weekend to free up my allocated attachment space. So if anybody needs the content archived, please do so now, I will not be keeping attachments for anybody that comes along and asks for them "six months from now".

It's the swiss-army knife of web filtering. It's "too much" for most people. Most people are happy with NoScript versus actually being able to EDIT the scripts. Most people are happy with Stylus for editing css. Most people are happy with Greasmonkey to inject js/css. Most people are content with blocking cookies versus filtering the contents inside that cookie. Et cetera. And only a very tiny handful of folks want one app to do "all of the above". The cipher bit is over my head. The original Proxomitron was created by Scott Lemon in 1999. Proxomitron Reborn was created by "amy" a few years ago and it's still in its infancy. Cloudfare "capchas" cannot be handled by XP + Proxomitron. Not sure if that can be fixed by "amy" or not.

The digital converter box was a stop-gap measure intended for low-income residents. According to a Techwalla article, there were 33,962,692 of them handed out. The program ended in July 2009.

Yeah, not for everyone. I've been using Proxomitron since 2004 and it was first released in 1999. It used to have a following about 8x that of MSFN but "times have changed".

If you've used any other 360Chrome version, then I would suggest deleting their entries from the Windows Registry. Outside of that, all you need to do is download, extract, then launch via the 360Loader.exe file.

The "method" of removing more possible-but-unwitnessed telemetry changed right around rebuild 5. I should have kept better notes but didn't since there were only five or six of us even using 360Chrome at the time. We're probably still under 20 or so of us. v11 works great for me on one of my XP machines with only 2gb RAM but is stretched to its limit if I try to load too many tabs.

For now at least My current pass-the-time project has been comparing/contrasting/benchmarking Vista "extended kernel" with 7. The writing has been on the wall for roughly two years that XP isn't going to last "forever".

I didn't really keep logs between rebuilds. But can say that I do not do anything at all with the "core" / "browser engine" (neither does Humming Owl on his versions). v13 will use more RAM than v12. v12 will use more RAM than v11. I personally use v11 for everything except ONE web site (my water bill requires v13 ). But as far as one rebuild over the other, RAM consumption will be the same from one to the next.

I know, same here. I know I've had my days also, lol.

My Windows Explorer does not access the internet, I get an "Application not found" error - intentionally set up this way. What you do is go to your C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer folder (and C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer folder if 64-bit OS) and rename IEXPLORE.EXE to something like IEXPLORE.EX_ then create a folder by the name of IEXPLORE.EXE XP does not allow a FOLDER and a FILE to be named the same, so I rename the FILE and create a FOLDER with the files original name so that XP can't "recreate" the FILE that I am intentionally blocking. edit - I go one step further. This file/folder naming scheme completely disables Internet Explorer! But I keep it as the system's "default" web browser! I have never set Mypal, New Moon, or 360Chrome as a "default" web browser. So my XP doesn't really have a "default" web browser - intentionally. I started doing this decades ago when "software installations" first started OPENING a web browser page and take you to the developer's web site or open a 'thank you for installing' web site. When the installer forces a web page to open, it basically tracks/records the IP Address of everybody that installed the trialware software - not on my system!

All is good with dad - aside from an 81yr old thinking he "needs" a brand new plugin hybrid at $40,000 PLUS when he can't drive to and from the pharmacist without KNOCKING OVER HIS OWN MAILBOX. My theory - the "reason" we have technologies like "lane assist", "backup cameras", "auto-braking", et cetera is because OLD FARTS *REFUSE* to admit that they SHOULD NOT BE DRIVING! But anywhoo... .xpi files are for Mozilla-based browsers. .crx files are for Chromium-based browsers. I get my NoScript .crx from here -- https://www.crx4chrome.com/crx/237635/ In fact, I download all of my .crx extensions from crx4chrome and never directly from the Chrome Web Store (which will not work when using the "ungoogled" version anyway). All I really do is uncheck a few of XP's Internet Properties settings. And then I do NOT allow 360Chrome to "revoke" either. Also, my XP has Internet Explorer completely disabled so the OS cannot "piggyback" on top of IE and "connect" to anything. At least that's always been my assumption, I don't exactly monitor network traffic 24/7 for 20 years and read logs every night

It's a card game here in the US. If you think another player is stretching the truth, you yell out "BS" and he/she has to show his/her cards to prove they weren't stretching the truth.

An Intel Core 2 Duo T7500 with no web sites open and seven extensions will load three processes ranging from 71.2k to 84.2k. An Intel Core i7-4770 with two MSFN pages open and six extensions will load four processes ranging from 58.8k to 88.5k with the "current" tab at 225.9k. These numbers will always fluctuate. For the sake of reference, I'm showing a much MUCH higher 436.8k to 522.4k range for Roytam's BNavigator's one process with one extension and two Google tabs open. Yes, you can import HTML bookmarks. NoScript 5.1.9 is a legacy Firefox version numbering. I do not recall the first version available for Chrome, I use version 11.2.3 and intentionally do not use any of the newer versions of NoScript. Mileage may vary. Yes, English ONLY and NO Chinese. Will work perfectly on XP SP3 with SSE2.

Yikes! That price is on par with our 32" non-smart TVs. You can get a 32" smart-tv for BELOW that if you opt for 720p resolution! But 2000-3000 Euro for a 16-channel MUX? Wow! Here in the States, when broadcast went digital, the government provided "free" converter boxes. I did not get one and had HEATED arguments at the time with coworkers making MORE MONEY than me getting their "freebie" when they didn't even have any analog TVs at home! The government should have NOT "given them" to people that could AFFORD THEM, in my humble opinion.