You know, if youre going to set up strawmen, it really doesnt lend much credibility to your side of the argument either. Im pretty sure neither Huckabee nor 99% of Republicans arent snake handlers, nor did they speak in tongues, nor do they call science "witchcraft"...but dont let facts get in the way of your fallacies.
Now that I think of it, Obama claims to be Christian... OK if we call him a snake-handler, or antiscience? How bout we just call him communist? Or are such attacks only in poor taste and fallacious when theyre directed at democrats?
You know, any time someone claims "X will cost Y people their jobs", and its about increasing efficiency or reducing overhead, the question pops into my head-- WHY do Y people deserve their jobs? Should taxpayers or consumers just set aside a budget to pay these people to dig holes and just fill them in again? Would cutting such a program be villified as "Costing thousands of americans their hard-earned jobs"?
Guns can be used illegally just as speech can. That does not mean either the first or second amendments have been violated, nor that we live in a police state. My criticism is that your comment was misleading and innacurate, and not in some trivial way-- the Supreme Court just smacked down DCs attempt to restrict firearm ownership, which makes your statement all the more irritating.
I dont know about thinkness, maybe 1.5"? Made of plastic and aluminum. And TBQH, I dont really want to be paying for high end materials on a business laptop-- the thing is for work, not for showing off.
Also, if I whack an apple laptop with a hammer while it is writing data, it will chip, and the data will likely be lost. Sorry to break it to you, but the innards are made by the same manufacturers that everyone else uses: WD, Samsung, Foxconn, Broadcom, Intel.
For you. For me, it's a vital functionality, and one of reasons I don't touch Chrome with a ten foot pole.
1) Wrench --> Options --> Under the Hood --> Content settings. 2) Block sites from setting any data. 3) When you browse to a site, click the "cookie w/ x" icon in the title bar. Review your cookies, choose which to allow, and whether it is for session only. Its actually handled BETTER than other browsers, as you can review said cookies before allowing them.
This, again, is why this regulation is all around terrible.
I'm glad somebody with sufficient authority is looking out for my privacy, because it's hard enough to do it by myself.
Im going to assume you use internet explorer.
1) Tools --> Internet Options --> Privacy 2) Move the slider to "Block all cookies" 3) Click apply. Youre done! Cookies can never threaten your freedom again!
And that option has only been there for what....10 years now? I remember learning about that back in 2001 when people were getting all freaked out about cookies, when i was just a teenager with no technical skill. And I know that Firefox and Chrome and Opera and Lynx and Links (having used them on google recently, it asks you for every cookie) and probably the now-dead Netscape all have similar, easily found options for those who actually care.
This law doesnt solve any problem that would not be better solved by people who care setting their options properly. Or if you really have a hardon to legislate, make new updates / installs of browsers require the user to opt in or out of cookies altogether, or make a choice to allow some with consent. Problem solved.
Those are rather easily blocked in every popular browser's default setup. In chrome for example, all 3rd party cookies are blocked. Took all of...2 minutes to find that option and set it.
This isnt a problem, its that people dont care, and the ones who claim to care dont care enough to educate themselves about the web they are using.
If Bing cannot track you, it cannot monetize you. What makes you think a corporation wants to lose billions a year on a search engine that raises 0 revenue?
You see, over here, we actually care about privacy and our governments do actually help to protect it.
In other words, by protecting people from themselves we make them more free, is that it?
Look, this isnt hard. Dont want facebook to try to monetize you? Dont use facebook. If people care enough about such things they will educate themselves on them; if they do not, they will not.
Over here in the US, you see, there has historically been an emphasis on "freedom to do things" rather than "freedom from things", though here too it is changing recently.
Claiming "diversity" as a security point sounds rather like "security through obscurity". There is some truth to it, as you avoid situations where one exploit hits the entire linux ecosystem, but thats not security as much as it is mitigation.
Having update code inside the browser would lead to the same obnoxiousness that firefox has-- non admin users getting pestered to update, and then unable to actually perform said update (as the browser would be running as a non-admin user).
Having the updater running under an admin account seperate from the browser makes a lot of sense, as the updates actually are applied regularly (again, unlike firefox where out of date browsers are QUITE common).
I dont understand this. People want to use Google's product, but dont trust the company (who incidentally has a pretty clear "heres what we do with your data, and how to disable it in chrome). So instead of grabbing the open source Chromium and unticking the "send my data to Google" boxes, you go to a completely unvetted third party who claims "we've removed the nasty bits, and did some unspecified tweaking to make it faster and better!" and download their binaries? Which, I note, have no source code available to actually check?
What makes you think SRWare is trustworthy? Wheres THEIR privacy policy, I note their site doesnt even list one? Has anyone actually audited the thing to make sure its not leaking info to SRWare?
I dont know about you, but Id much rather just untick chrome's "send my info to Google" option boxes than trust some unknown 3rd party with neither history nor published privacy policy.
Flying is a service you purchase from a private entity, not a human right. Dont like the security (and personally, I think its retarded and ineffective)? Get your own cessna, or dont fly.
...except that they are 13" screens, while the laptop in question was a 15.6 laptop with quite a lot already thrown in.
And as you note...
The 13" MacBooks NOW have an i7 build option
....while I said "6 months ago", when i7 macbooks were certainly not $1500. At this time, youre comparing that $1500 macbook to a $800 laptop. Throw in an SSD and youre maybe at $1000. Bluetooth and wireless N and the full stack of RAM, and youre at $1200, and more features than that macbook, Ill wager, all with 2" more of screen real estate and an operating system that actually supports TRIM for that SSD that the macbook doesnt have.
You live in a dream world if you think macs can stack up on a price/performance scale against PCs and laptops. They have a nice OS, and nice cases, and pretty design, but cheap they are not.
How, exactly, does one rate case construction? I saw a fairly nice core i3 HP ProBook for $450, and I think their builds are quite excellent. Can apple match THAT?
Im pretty certain that if you found a seller, and had a place to keep them, you could own an M1 Abrahms, a flamethrower, and an M16. You probably wouldnt want to take them off of your private property, and would likely be partially liable if someone stole your Abrahms and started wrecking downtown, but there are a lot of people who collect the types of guns that you seem to think are illegal.
Regardless, the 2nd amendment doesnt guarentee that every type of gun must be available to you ANYWAYS. Guns as a category are NOT illegal as you stated.
He's mocking this person whos computer he is fixing, on the internet, because she knows less about computers than he does. In my book, that makes you kind of a jerk, if not total douche.
Have any of you complainers thought that maybe a time to fix their computer is also an opportunity to chat with them? You know, be sociable, without calling them morons? Or if not, perhaps a time to sharpen your skills?
I mean, if you like neither the people, nor the work, why dont you simply decline instead of getting up on a soapbox about it?
Far and away the safest option is to take an image of the machine in a known-good state and restore to that. It'll take about 15 minutes.
We're talking about friends and familiy here. How many do you know who keep images of their computer-- or even can locate their OS (not to mention office) reinstall disks?
There are times to do a reformat/re-MBR/reinstall, but 50% of infections are remarkably poorly done and can be removed in 5 minutes by logging in as a different user (or from a live-boot linux disk) and removing a single EXE from %appdata%. Lots of viruses are trending that way because of the lack of admin-by-default in newer OSes, and its easier to craft a cross-windows virus in user mode than hoping that the user wont freak out at a mysterious popup that makes their screen go dark.
I just salvaged several computers like that in the last 3 months (and in return had several very pleasant evenings chatting with their owners, and getting dinners). You can tell when they are fixed through a number of ways-- a still-rooted PC (rooted with the common, commercially made rootkits) will reinstall the noticable elements of the infection within a few days. If you identify the particular rootkit or virus, you can generally find out the symptoms too-- an infection with Sality will go adding autorun.infs to network shares, replacing folders with EXE lookalikes, and disabling the task manager. Run the sality repair tool, and those issues should disappear-- if task manager "mysteriously" gets disabled again, you missed some infected EXEs.
And unfortunately, a reinstall/reformat is NOT the only way to be sure-- far from it. The MBR can also be compromised, and a windows reinstall will not fix that always. Network shares can be compromised. External storage can be compromised.
No, the proper way to deal with a modern infection is either A) nuke all backups and data (which im sure is a lovely option to those who are apathetic about their friends), or B) figure out exactly what sort of infection you have and form a workable response. The folks over at BleepingComputer seem to think it IS possible to respond to, and remove rootkits with reasonable certainty. Noone is perfect-- not even the rootkit writers.
The whole "once compromised, never sure" thing may apply to servers, where attackers would have an incentive to craft a specialized rootkit and infiltration attack, but on home computers, id say 90% certainty while retaining all programs and data is better than nuking everything and going for 95% certainty.
Maybe geeks trying to make points about how big of a sacrifice theyre making, and how stupid everyone else is, has some relation to the treatment they get.
A computer is a heck of a lot easier to fix than a screwed up engine. Id be willing to bet that if steve had fired up GMER, or Combofix, or one of Kaspersky's dedicated removal tools, the issue could have been resolved in less time than it took him to write his rant about how stupid she was for not understanding something that clearly isnt her area of expertise.
I tend to get friends and family who give me dinner or gift cards etc when i fix their machines; but perhaps not being a total douche about it has some bearing on the matter.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, if youre going to set up strawmen, it really doesnt lend much credibility to your side of the argument either. Im pretty sure neither Huckabee nor 99% of Republicans arent snake handlers, nor did they speak in tongues, nor do they call science "witchcraft"...but dont let facts get in the way of your fallacies.
Now that I think of it, Obama claims to be Christian... OK if we call him a snake-handler, or antiscience? How bout we just call him communist? Or are such attacks only in poor taste and fallacious when theyre directed at democrats?
You know, any time someone claims "X will cost Y people their jobs", and its about increasing efficiency or reducing overhead, the question pops into my head-- WHY do Y people deserve their jobs? Should taxpayers or consumers just set aside a budget to pay these people to dig holes and just fill them in again? Would cutting such a program be villified as "Costing thousands of americans their hard-earned jobs"?
I was unable to locate said policy on their site, link?
Guns can be used illegally just as speech can. That does not mean either the first or second amendments have been violated, nor that we live in a police state. My criticism is that your comment was misleading and innacurate, and not in some trivial way-- the Supreme Court just smacked down DCs attempt to restrict firearm ownership, which makes your statement all the more irritating.
I dont know about thinkness, maybe 1.5"? Made of plastic and aluminum. And TBQH, I dont really want to be paying for high end materials on a business laptop-- the thing is for work, not for showing off.
Also, if I whack an apple laptop with a hammer while it is writing data, it will chip, and the data will likely be lost.
Sorry to break it to you, but the innards are made by the same manufacturers that everyone else uses: WD, Samsung, Foxconn, Broadcom, Intel.
I think most browsers already have this.
For you. For me, it's a vital functionality, and one of reasons I don't touch Chrome with a ten foot pole.
1) Wrench --> Options --> Under the Hood --> Content settings.
2) Block sites from setting any data.
3) When you browse to a site, click the "cookie w/ x" icon in the title bar. Review your cookies, choose which to allow, and whether it is for session only.
Its actually handled BETTER than other browsers, as you can review said cookies before allowing them.
This, again, is why this regulation is all around terrible.
I'm glad somebody with sufficient authority is looking out for my privacy, because it's hard enough to do it by myself.
Im going to assume you use internet explorer.
1) Tools --> Internet Options --> Privacy
2) Move the slider to "Block all cookies"
3) Click apply. Youre done! Cookies can never threaten your freedom again!
And that option has only been there for what....10 years now? I remember learning about that back in 2001 when people were getting all freaked out about cookies, when i was just a teenager with no technical skill. And I know that Firefox and Chrome and Opera and Lynx and Links (having used them on google recently, it asks you for every cookie) and probably the now-dead Netscape all have similar, easily found options for those who actually care.
This law doesnt solve any problem that would not be better solved by people who care setting their options properly. Or if you really have a hardon to legislate, make new updates / installs of browsers require the user to opt in or out of cookies altogether, or make a choice to allow some with consent. Problem solved.
Thats why the user can read the public privacy policy and decide whether to allow the cookie or not.
I cannot imagine how this law could be sanely implemented.
Those are rather easily blocked in every popular browser's default setup. In chrome for example, all 3rd party cookies are blocked. Took all of...2 minutes to find that option and set it.
This isnt a problem, its that people dont care, and the ones who claim to care dont care enough to educate themselves about the web they are using.
If Bing cannot track you, it cannot monetize you. What makes you think a corporation wants to lose billions a year on a search engine that raises 0 revenue?
You see, over here, we actually care about privacy and our governments do actually help to protect it.
In other words, by protecting people from themselves we make them more free, is that it?
Look, this isnt hard. Dont want facebook to try to monetize you? Dont use facebook. If people care enough about such things they will educate themselves on them; if they do not, they will not.
Over here in the US, you see, there has historically been an emphasis on "freedom to do things" rather than "freedom from things", though here too it is changing recently.
Claiming "diversity" as a security point sounds rather like "security through obscurity". There is some truth to it, as you avoid situations where one exploit hits the entire linux ecosystem, but thats not security as much as it is mitigation.
Having update code inside the browser would lead to the same obnoxiousness that firefox has-- non admin users getting pestered to update, and then unable to actually perform said update (as the browser would be running as a non-admin user).
Having the updater running under an admin account seperate from the browser makes a lot of sense, as the updates actually are applied regularly (again, unlike firefox where out of date browsers are QUITE common).
I dont understand this. People want to use Google's product, but dont trust the company (who incidentally has a pretty clear "heres what we do with your data, and how to disable it in chrome). So instead of grabbing the open source Chromium and unticking the "send my data to Google" boxes, you go to a completely unvetted third party who claims "we've removed the nasty bits, and did some unspecified tweaking to make it faster and better!" and download their binaries? Which, I note, have no source code available to actually check?
What makes you think SRWare is trustworthy? Wheres THEIR privacy policy, I note their site doesnt even list one? Has anyone actually audited the thing to make sure its not leaking info to SRWare?
I dont know about you, but Id much rather just untick chrome's "send my info to Google" option boxes than trust some unknown 3rd party with neither history nor published privacy policy.
Flying is a service you purchase from a private entity, not a human right. Dont like the security (and personally, I think its retarded and ineffective)? Get your own cessna, or dont fly.
...except that they are 13" screens, while the laptop in question was a 15.6 laptop with quite a lot already thrown in.
And as you note...
The 13" MacBooks NOW have an i7 build option
....while I said "6 months ago", when i7 macbooks were certainly not $1500. At this time, youre comparing that $1500 macbook to a $800 laptop. Throw in an SSD and youre maybe at $1000. Bluetooth and wireless N and the full stack of RAM, and youre at $1200, and more features than that macbook, Ill wager, all with 2" more of screen real estate and an operating system that actually supports TRIM for that SSD that the macbook doesnt have.
You live in a dream world if you think macs can stack up on a price/performance scale against PCs and laptops. They have a nice OS, and nice cases, and pretty design, but cheap they are not.
How, exactly, does one rate case construction? I saw a fairly nice core i3 HP ProBook for $450, and I think their builds are quite excellent. Can apple match THAT?
Im pretty certain that if you found a seller, and had a place to keep them, you could own an M1 Abrahms, a flamethrower, and an M16. You probably wouldnt want to take them off of your private property, and would likely be partially liable if someone stole your Abrahms and started wrecking downtown, but there are a lot of people who collect the types of guns that you seem to think are illegal.
Regardless, the 2nd amendment doesnt guarentee that every type of gun must be available to you ANYWAYS. Guns as a category are NOT illegal as you stated.
He's mocking this person whos computer he is fixing, on the internet, because she knows less about computers than he does. In my book, that makes you kind of a jerk, if not total douche.
Have any of you complainers thought that maybe a time to fix their computer is also an opportunity to chat with them? You know, be sociable, without calling them morons? Or if not, perhaps a time to sharpen your skills?
I mean, if you like neither the people, nor the work, why dont you simply decline instead of getting up on a soapbox about it?
Far and away the safest option is to take an image of the machine in a known-good state and restore to that. It'll take about 15 minutes.
We're talking about friends and familiy here. How many do you know who keep images of their computer-- or even can locate their OS (not to mention office) reinstall disks?
There are times to do a reformat/re-MBR/reinstall, but 50% of infections are remarkably poorly done and can be removed in 5 minutes by logging in as a different user (or from a live-boot linux disk) and removing a single EXE from %appdata%. Lots of viruses are trending that way because of the lack of admin-by-default in newer OSes, and its easier to craft a cross-windows virus in user mode than hoping that the user wont freak out at a mysterious popup that makes their screen go dark.
I just salvaged several computers like that in the last 3 months (and in return had several very pleasant evenings chatting with their owners, and getting dinners). You can tell when they are fixed through a number of ways-- a still-rooted PC (rooted with the common, commercially made rootkits) will reinstall the noticable elements of the infection within a few days. If you identify the particular rootkit or virus, you can generally find out the symptoms too-- an infection with Sality will go adding autorun.infs to network shares, replacing folders with EXE lookalikes, and disabling the task manager. Run the sality repair tool, and those issues should disappear-- if task manager "mysteriously" gets disabled again, you missed some infected EXEs.
And unfortunately, a reinstall/reformat is NOT the only way to be sure-- far from it. The MBR can also be compromised, and a windows reinstall will not fix that always. Network shares can be compromised. External storage can be compromised.
No, the proper way to deal with a modern infection is either A) nuke all backups and data (which im sure is a lovely option to those who are apathetic about their friends), or B) figure out exactly what sort of infection you have and form a workable response. The folks over at BleepingComputer seem to think it IS possible to respond to, and remove rootkits with reasonable certainty. Noone is perfect-- not even the rootkit writers.
The whole "once compromised, never sure" thing may apply to servers, where attackers would have an incentive to craft a specialized rootkit and infiltration attack, but on home computers, id say 90% certainty while retaining all programs and data is better than nuking everything and going for 95% certainty.
Maybe geeks trying to make points about how big of a sacrifice theyre making, and how stupid everyone else is, has some relation to the treatment they get.
A computer is a heck of a lot easier to fix than a screwed up engine. Id be willing to bet that if steve had fired up GMER, or Combofix, or one of Kaspersky's dedicated removal tools, the issue could have been resolved in less time than it took him to write his rant about how stupid she was for not understanding something that clearly isnt her area of expertise.
I tend to get friends and family who give me dinner or gift cards etc when i fix their machines; but perhaps not being a total douche about it has some bearing on the matter.
Guns are illegal? Didnt get that memo.