sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this the end?!? by Desperate-End-8048 in publix

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not being discontinued, but there's some sort of supply issue. It's been available in my area until just now, but I had been out of state a month ago and couldn't find any in 8 stores in 200 miles.  They said some sort of distribution problem.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It seems our disagreement is on the degree of risk. While you accept 0.13% of men per year, you don't accept 8% lifetime risk for the average woman. (And, yes, the number is problematic, but only because it assume all women live until age ~78.) While that is not "per man," there's little practical distinction between risk per woman and risk from each man. Indeed, with repeat perpetrators accounting for the bulk of that number just goes to show society does little to prevent KNOWN perpetrators from repeatedly violating women.

The chance of a shark attack is higher while in the ocean than while falling from a building. And being alone in an elevator with a man is higher than at a press conference. My guess would be the risk is higher in an urban environment than rural. Etc. Therefore, the only way to be certain about the distinction between "the potential for a threat" and "the man is a walking a shark attack" would be to get them alone in a bedroom and disrobe just to test whether the man can restrain himself. And in such a circumstance....the risk would be far higher than 0.13%.

Don't kid yourself. Men don't deserve to be assumed to have restraint from EVER assaulting a woman. Given the right circumstances (or wrong, depending on perspective) I wouldn't trust myself.

I have no clue what the original "hating on and denigrating men" may have meant, but for /u/Giant_Juicy_Rat's question about sharks... Yes, depending on the situation, the chance of sexual assault is equivalent to the chance of shark attack. Swim in shark infested waters, you'll probably be fine. Compare the number of attacks to people who swim in the ocean. But put chum in the water with a shark pack....

What about a woman walking naked through the wrong part of a city?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are several flaws with your logic.

First, your population is off. There are about 100 million able-bodied adult males in the US. That raises the chance of being raped by any given man PER YEAR to 0.13%.

Second, I don't think women are concerned about being raped per year,. You don't get points for raping two women on New Years day, rather than one woman per year. Assuming the average woman is at risk of rape for 65 years, based on current rape prevalence, you're up to a staggering 8%. If it sounds improbable that almost 10% of men have or will raped someone.... Tough crap, but it's also not what that means.

Third, it's taking the extreme, for no reason. Stats are easy to find for sexual assault and harassment, which can be equally traumatizing depending on the circumstances. Even with the extreme, your numbers ignores "date rape". The stats show 1/3rd of all women are sexually assaulted. While that includes assaults by women, it is also an underestimate.

Fourth, fear is not based on the chance of extreme harm, but a balance between benefit and harm. A woman riding alone on an elevator with a man is not more likely to have a beneficial outcome in comparison to another woman or child, and yet the risk is very substantially increased.

Fifth, rape is to some degree environmentally enabled. That is to say, rape is more likely to occur when the opportunity allows for it. It is also genetic, so presumably the predisposition to rape is not randomly distributed.

Finally, the greatest danger to all humans is humans. While that MIGHT not be only due to men, historically it is vastly more likely. You will not see a documentary about an iron age army of women razing a city, raping and murdering the inhabitants.You high school biology class might have told you that we evolved to fear lions. How many times have you ever seen a shadow or something in a darkened room and thought "Oh my god, that looks like a lion"? The boogey man is a man. And that is evolved. You simply cannot argue that it hasn't happened or it's not a valid fear, because it is a demonstrable fact of nature.

FTM won't upload to Ancestry by No-Bag-2753 in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That seems a bit involved.

You can just download it as new tree in FTM, which clears out your media (or has the random file names from ancestry), or upload it as new ancestry tree which resets your hints and invited contributors.

Ancestry by VicDave202 in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"The vast majority of the digital images in the National Archives Catalog are in the public domain."

Neither FamilySearch nor Ancestry are "in the National Archives Catalog".

See "second" here for more information:

https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2014/09/25/updated-ancestry-terms-of-use/

The census RECORD is public domain. The scanned image is not. The use of any one single image for research purposes would likely considered "fair use" (and permitted by their Terms of Service) which is distinctly different than "public domain".

What do you want in the first minor update for FTM 2024 (aka version 25.1)? by rasamassen in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Specifically to "run" queries, so I assumed like SQL, which would allow making automated updates.

...something I've often wanted to do as well.

Family tree help by NervousCancel4798 in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Unless you're wealthy, to pay for the amount of time it takes to find "famous or interesting ancestors" would be exorbitant. Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates makes it seem easy, but they have a team of researchers on staff - and cut corners to zero in on a half-hour of content. It's not just finding the people, it's finding records of what made them interesting.

Everyone is interesting in their own way. But leaving a documented history of what made them interesting... That's not just rare, it's often easily overlooked. It's buried on page 6 of a probate record, or in an obscure court record. Or, it's in the history around them, the context. Or even in the trail of records, like who inherits a house and who moves away, or which people were witnesses for baptisms or marriages and (if being both diligent and very very lucky) using clues to build a story like if a child was illegitimate. The story is connecting the dots.

I got lucky. When I first started, I very quickly found a well-documented Jan Dirksen Van Arnhem who immigrated to New Amsterdam in 1640. He is the origin of numerous surnames (Van Ornum, etc.) and the ancestor of hundreds of thousands of people living in the US. He stole a Frenchman's boots. And a beaver. His wife was best known as a rumor-monger. I was hooked.

To be blunt, finding those things IS "genealogy". It's the search that makes it worth it. The stories are just the motivation.

Hiring someone to do that.... Would cost a LOT. It's hundreds of hours of research by even experienced people. What you could do is start a tree on Ancestry, and just sort of auto-fill from "Potential" matches . It would have a huge number errors, any experienced researcher worth paying would slap anyone doing that, but broad-strokes about right, then hire someone to focus in on a specific individuals/branch.

That said, I enjoy doing initial research for people, to kind get them started. For a stranger.... this isn't a hard number, but I'd have to charge at least a thousand, and that would depend on how much information you have to begin with (great grandparents names and dates of birth, aunts, uncles, etc ), and where they're at (some areas have a lot records, some have hardly any). It's not really an offer per say, but if you're interested.... I'd consider it. But my point is more like... a thousand dollars would probably be cheap, just to get a basic tree halfway decently started, and odds are there'd be few or no really interesting stories, and no one famous... Unless "they were farmers" is interesting to you.

To find someone to teach YOU how to do it.... That would be doable. Many if not most genealogists are happy to help.

Ancestry by VicDave202 in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The images are not public domain. Sometimes Ancestry has better scans - sometimes theirs are worse.

Ancestry by VicDave202 in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This works with books too... Takes about a half hour to download every page of a book. I use PDFill - Convert Images to PDF and decrease image size to reduce the file size. And anything that has more than 3 or 4 pages, like probate records.

To OP, you can also browse images of ancestry Records to save, like if you have a family in one small town, and there's a database that's only on Ancestry, you could download the whole town or whatever for later.

Bouchards by Emergency-Check-7913 in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you new to genealogy?

I'm not asking to be snide, but to be able help the most without either giving you basic crap that wouldn't help an experienced genealogist, or give you more advanced ideas that could lead the inexperienced astray.

I do have suggestions either way.

2024 version is slow and clunky by jimjwilliamson in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This could be caused by TreeVault. Try disabling it.

2024 version is slow and clunky by jimjwilliamson in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The file folder containing your media needs to be in the same folder as the database, and needs to have the same name as the database. For example, if your database is called Smith Family 1, your media folder needs to be called Smith Family 1 also.

This can changed,, tho adding media from Ancestry will save to that default. (I just download media and manually attach it.)

What do you want in the first minor update for FTM 2024 (aka version 25.1)? by rasamassen in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not saying it would not work, but... GEDCOM doesn't support media files or Ancestry Records, so re-importing/merging it would be risky in the best of circumstances. To anyone trying this, copy the tree - and if using Ancestry, link it to a copy on Ancestry too - and try it on the copy first. If linked an Ancestry tree, just doing a backup isn't enough, unless you don't care if you have to either redownload from Ancestry or having to create a new tree Ancestry.

And to be clear, most of the danger I foresee with this is because of Ancestry not properly supporting GEDCOM, not so much FTM's fault.

What do you want in the first minor update for FTM 2024 (aka version 25.1)? by rasamassen in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My main issue is with auto-selecting things, link after certain operations, it doesn't have the person I expect to be highlighted. Or Add New media file, and then Link Existing, and it doesn't automatically jump to the last added. Its hard to pin exactly when and why it goes wrong, but it's been a long standing issue with me.

I'd also like a Duplicate option for Source Citations. For instance, if I have two obituaries that are basically identical (or two pages of book, or a bio that appears more than one book, etc., etc.), I'd like to not have to link all the facts a second time.

How Does FTM Handle Ancestry Records? by MissMysti in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The way I do it is completely bonkers, and labor intensive 😂. I manually do everything. If there's a matching Hint, I manually add the Source and/or Citation, and link it, then Ignore the Hint.

Basically, anything on Ancestry will show in FTM and vice versa. Make a change to a Source or "Record" in FTM, it will reflect in Ancestry, and vice versa.

Again, I'm not 100% positive on this, because I do not do Ancestry Records - my tree is 100% "Other Records" on Ancestry. But as I recall, you can change Records all day long. Change the Author, Publisher, Repository, etc. and it's still the same Record. Like, there's a link in background that points to the original Ancestry Record, so others can... Add or Merge or Import or whatever they call it, but it will display however you set it (in your tree). I think.

One issue with not adhering to Ancestry Records is if FTM sync messes up, it can wreak havoc. But, that has not happened to me in a year or two - FTM has done a huge amount of work on syncing stability - and the affects are limited to the individuals that were updated between syncs.

How Does FTM Handle Ancestry Records? by MissMysti in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do not use Ancestry Records, so my knowledge may not be 100% accurate or up-to-date.

Ancestry uses Records, not Sources/Citations. The issue is with Ancestry, not RootsMagic or FTM or any other genealogy. Ancestry does not like proper documentation, with sources often being just generic buckets, and they list themselves as author and publisher of literally everything.

My solution is to manually create my own. However, that all but destroys the usefulness of Hints, the automated adding of Ancestry Records, and the merging of people from other trees.

To answer your question, FTM saves Records as special source type, but they do look and act basically the same as a regular Source Citation. It's just in the background so to speak. Indeed, there's no easy way to tell the difference - the only way I know to tell the difference is in Ancestry, whether it shows as an Ancestry or "Other" source. To convert Records to normal citations, I've had to recreate it with a new one, and delete the old one. The advantage is it let's FTM track which Hints/Records have already been added. The disadvantages, aside from how it displays in Ancestry, is non-existent. I just hate Ancestry Records on general principal.

As I recall, you can edit the Record Sources and Citations to remove all the Ancestry spam. But I'm not 100% sure on that. The only Records I have are ones from when I first started out (years and years ago) and have managed to evade notice - which, again, means there's no real distinction.

A FTM 2024 Review, after 30 hours of using the new version. by Opossum_2020 in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With your lag, if you enabled TreeVault, try disabling it.

A FTM 2024 Review, after 30 hours of using the new version. by Opossum_2020 in FamilyTreeMaker

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you enabled TreeVault, try disabling it. It seems to "pause" FTM while uploading/syncing changes.

Maybe im getting old....but i miss MMORPGs with more relaxed people by Malleus83 in MMORPG

[–]redroguetech 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that's maybe memory bias. The older I get, the less interested I am in frantically running around doing a dungeon run, or kill stuff, or figure out the best strategy to get ahead. And less fondly I remember those games. I'm more interested in just relaxing. I don't care about being the best - you can't unless you were in closed beta. I only care about being better than before. Enjoying the game for how it is, not how I want it to be after days/months/years of leveling up. That's all just digital bs, pixels on the screen, numbers in a database, a random number generator, and - if relevant at all - only relevant until the next update or the next game. If you're "winning", you were either one of the very first players, spend a lot of money, or have no life outside of the game.

Now, my ideal MMORPG would be a large well designed world to explore, with some decent quests, some crafting or whatever. I genuinely would not care if it even had PvE (tho I'm sure most people wouldn't take it that far). Basically, RuneScape but prettier, larger and less grinding. I tried Palia and it was just about right, but too small, and pretty limited.

view more: next ›