Just curious would SLI video cards and popular games actually work well with 64 bit Windows?
Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're stuck with 32 bit windows there's no point having much more than 2GB RAM if you're doing SLI, given you have 4GB addressing space and the video cards would take a large chunk of that addressing space.
For raytracing and much scientific computing it will still be cheaper to buy more machines add more cores and get a lot better performance;).
The 5GHz CPU will be good for computing tasks that cannot take advantage of many cores AND where a 5GHz x85 is a good match. Example: some games and single threaded CPU intensive desktop apps.
If you have lots of money and need to solve not so parallelizable problems quickly you might choose an IBM POWER6 computer instead:).
They should get a clue and realize the reason why I (and I suspect many other people) use wikipedia is because it's NOT a dead tree encyclopedia. If I really wanted a dry academically written encyclopedia I've one in my home which I've not touched in years.
Just the other day I saw that "People Eating Tasty Animals" was marked for deletion twice. While it's not as notable as "roe vs wade", IMO it was an important case (whether or not you liked the verdict).
Also, there are plenty of articles which are not written in an "encyclopedic way", but those are the bits I like.
for example: "Deed of change of name" (which was recently brought to my attention)
Edited snippet: "There are various reasons why a person would want to change his or her name: * to replace a frivolous name given by their parents (e.g., old name James Bond, new name Jason Bond; a well known example is Elton John, who changed from Reginald Kenneth Dwight in favour of a career in the Music Industry)"
The last bit is definitely not "encyclopedic in style", but I like it:). If the "encyclopedia" policy was followed strictly that bit would be replaced/removed.
The way wikipedia currently works, I think only spam or vandalism articles should be deleted. Because with deletion you lose a LOT of stuff permanently. There is no history etc. They could always leave the page and history there, then replace the final page with a standard "deleted/not notable/<other reason>" and people can go to history to see the article if they want.
If it's a namespace/clutter issue, why don't they just move all the stuff they consider not notable in a "not notable" section.
e.g./wiki/notnotable/webcomic1/
Anyway, I don't really care if wikipedia destroys their own usefulness - IMO the wikipedia has become successful in spite of the policies, power-mad admins and "leadership" than because of it. It's a wiki, lots of people used it and it grew. If wikipedia doesn't want to hold "nonnotable" stuff I'm sure someone eventually would and a decent search engine should help me find it.
Well look at it this way, he's stupid because that's a stupid way to make money.
Seems he didn't make very much per laptop. How long does it take to reformat and reinstall the different types of laptops he steals AND be sure the snitchware is really gone?
AFAIK if you're trying to install a vanilla Windows XP on some of these laptops it's a pain - drivers etc. Heck installing XP from scratch is a bigger pain than installing Linux. Most people don't know that since Windows usually comes preinstalled.
Where are you going to get the license key from? If you use the original "hidden/rescue partition" to reinstall, the snitchware might be bundled and slipstreamed into the final OS.
Reselling laptops with Ubuntu on them probably cuts into profits too and it still takes time to install Ubuntu on them.
He could have just sold the ram and parts from the notebooks he steals. Or got a proper job instead, work his way to the top and legally steal money big time;).
Lastly, you can often report your computer as stolen to the manufacturer and they can help cause problems for the final user when they call up for support. It doesn't necessarily mean you'll get it back easily though - there's all that legal stuff that the manufacturer may not want to get involved with.
But at least they didn't call it 1.2 and then rename 1.2 to 2, and then later go on to call a subsequent version Web 2.0 Enterprise Edition.
Anyway I personally think this is a good thing as long as your own company isn't buying into that bullshit:).
They should outsource many of those CEOs too, given that they all sound about the same. Seems what lot of them do is is to basically sound confident and say lot of optimistic nothings with a PR firm standing by just in case. If they actually say anything substantial it could get them in trouble with investors or the securities people or legal.
Sure a few CEOs make a big positive difference, but it's just a few unfortunately. Not an easy job to do right actually, so fine if those that do get paid a lot. But not fine for those screw ups. Maybe companies should start with a relatively moderate salary and decide on how big the "adjustment" is after considering financial results over say 3 years, not quarterly/yearly plus regular qualitative surveys from customers and employees taken over that same period. This should discourage slash n burn CEOs (HP anyone?).
Forbes high class? I don't get that impression from their website and web content though.
A few of the magazines I bother reading: The Economist (ok they have a strong free market bias but their science section is often interesting), New Scientist is pretty decent.
But I figure game magazines might only be useful for some exclusive bundled freebies. I've scanned through some and seems most reviews are written more for the game maker's benefit than the game buyer's benefit. OK some reviews are for the writer to show he can string some words together...
A demo of the game is useful. Decent video clips of the game in action might be ok, plus some comments like "game Y is like X, and just like X I like/hate Y because of ABC". Doesn't matter if the commenter hated X, if you liked X, you might like Y too:).
I prefer to wash with water and soap, then dry with a towel.
This toilet paper stuff sounds rather painful and unhygienic:). Wiping your rear end with magazine paper is probably worse. Hope you don't get paper cuts...
"I'm not sure how many years ago RAID software on linux was sending out notification emails"
OK so how do you detect that the RAID is degraded on a IBM x3550 or HP DL300 (or whatever recent server) running suse 10.2 or kubuntu? mdadm works fine for software raid, but how about hardware raid?
How do you find out the various temperatures of those servers? I'm sure they do have sensors.
smartmontools and lm-sensors work fine for desktop drives and boards but they don't for recent servers (as mentioned), maybe they did work for you in 1996 but they sure don't work now.
Everytime I get a kernel update from novell/suse (2 - 3 times a year or more) I have to do make modules_prepare and then recompile the vmware shim stuff otherwise vmware doesn't work. Once in a while I believe the same thing happens for nvidia's stuff. I've NEVER had to do that for windows updates. It's not just me - someone else said this: "Every time I upgrade the kernel I have to go through hoops to get VMware server working again. Vmware 1.0.0.4 fixed many things and worked good until I upgraded last night. I feel like I stepped on a chewing gum - stop, drop everything I was doing and spent a couple hours on something that I could have avoided if I chose different path." - I believe this was for 2.6.23 where the usual shim recompile steps stopped working (meanwhile I'm sticking to distro kernel updates and leaving the bleeding edges to other people).
Trouble is I find it easier to get lm-sensors to monitor hardware on stuff like Asus, MSI etc, than on IBM, Dell, HP servers:).
Not saying any of it is the linux devs fault, I'm just pointing out the problem.
Similarly I can (and do) monitor software RAID, I also use smartmontools to monitor desktop ATA drives, send emails etc, but when it comes to servers with mpt/adaptec/whatever RAID it's so much harder (either have to jump through lots of hoops - install java, etc, or it just doesn't work).
You just learn what you can trust your relatives/friends/colleagues/employees/subordinates/bosses with.
Nobody can be trusted in everything. Nor is everyone competent in everything.
I do get impatient/annoyed/angry with stupidity and ignorance, but it's malice and dishonesty I find hard to accept in a friend.
So, even dogs could be my friends as long as they're not too malicious or dishonest (stealing a dog treat and pretending not to have done so is tolerable;) ).
Anyway on the subject of competence and trust: publishing whistleblowers email addresses really does a lot of damage. Doesn't just affect the present ones. There are already lots of disincentives to be a whistleblower, so in the future more people will just "shut up" and go with the flow.
So the main problem I see is why were people likely to be incompetent in this area allowed access to such addresses? If you want to keep a secret you should minimize the number of people who know that secret.
A sufficiently high level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
I believe this case qualifies. They put the whistleblower addresses in To field _TWICE_ (RTFA). The people responsible should be jailed because they are an obvious danger to too many people.
If I'm not a qualified bus driver I don't pretend to be one or even try driving a bus when other lives depend on me doing things correctly.
The 300 of you are all kernel driver devs but most drivers don't belong in the kernel. So 10 of you can hang around and maybe a few years before 2038 the rest of you will be needed;).
Meanwhile a fair number of us need: 1) RAID monitoring tools (bad to have a RAID system but no way to know if a drive has failed) 2) Temperature/fan/etc sensor monitoring. 3) did I hear one or two mentioning printer drivers? 4) Video drivers. 5) Sound drivers. 6) NIC drivers. 7) Virtualization hardware stuff.
The problem I see is for a fair number of these is you might actually have "drivers" (I use the term loosely) for say RHEL4, but not for RHEL3, Ubuntu or OpenSUSE, or whatever.
The main problem I suppose is hardware companies not wanting to cooperate in ways that the Linux people want.
But with 32 bit Windows, you can typically use the same drivers from Win2K onwards at least until that crap called Vista. Whereas with Linux, there's a fair chance that a kernel update would break something.
Theo does has a point. I've personally caused a VMware host to crash from a vmware guest by changing the date on the guest O/S to something invalid. I doubt that's exploitable other than as a DoS attack but given the weird sort of stuff that's needed to enable copy and paste and other "magic", I won't be surprised if there are more exploitable bugs.
But, VM technology is old stuff. It's just the x86 people are reinventing it and sometimes poorly. Heard something like this from one of the "new VM" people, "If we have VM problems we just go ask the IBM guys what they used to do in the old days to deal with that";).
Sure there's probably exploitable security bugs in many VM implementations. But that does not mean there will be exploitable security bugs in all VM implementations.
You could run a pure x86 PC emulator and I think it'll be quite safe, though rather slow:). It's not going to be so easy to break out of an Apple II emulator and get the Windows machine it's running on 0w3ned.
Can one really claim that it is impossible to get a virtualized machine as secure as an emulated machine (in practice anyway)?
I'm actually fine with people's salaries differing by a lot. You do a good job, you get good pay, you do an excellent job you get excellent pay. You do something that nobody else wants to do or knows how to do, AND create great value, then great if you get tons of money.
But so far most of the top paid CxOs aren't a good deal. They get paid more, not because they're good at doing good stuff for the company, but they're good at getting the board to pay them more. It's a form of legitimized corruption if anything.
CEOs can make a positive difference - witness Apple under Steve Jobs vs the other guy. And yes there is a shortage of good ceos (there's a shortage of good programmers too), but I think CEO pay should be tied more to long term performance rather than measures easily fooled by pump and dump or "slash and burn" CxO schemes.
"We have people who freak out if an icon on their desktop changes, what do you think is going to happen if they have to sit down in front of OpenOffice and learn new words and icons for commands?"
So what do you think of Microsoft Office 2007 and Vista? I suggest the whole lot of companies like yours should get together and sponsor someone to make a free XP compatible operating system so that you can continue doing things the same way, since Microsoft no longer appears interested in providing their paying customers major improvements, and they seem determined to drag everyone to Vista, Office 2007 (of course they would, otherwise if they don't and compatibles appear, they become like a BIOS vendor and lose their monopoly).
I do use Windows 2K/XP because some stuff is just too _hard_ to do on a Linux distro. But I do use Linux stuff as well because some stuff is just too hard to do on Windows.
I've tried Vista a few times already (we have it for testing) and wow it's crap. It makes a new PC slower than my 6 year old PC at home running Win2K (with the exception of boot up times - Win2K really sucks for bootups;) ).
1) It's not so simple to "previously turn off something", if it's never been installed before.
2) Whatever it is, Microsoft is doing lots of "Yeehaw! Cowboy" stuff and it's costing companies a fair bit of resources. But most will still keep coming back for more: "it's really my fault Microsoft only slaps me when I do something silly".
UAC is a primitive and crap security model after so many years and billions of dollars. All UAC does is allow Microsoft to shift more blame to the user, without actually helping the user.
With UAC, Joe Average has to do something similar to solving the halting problem. Sure you might be able to guess correctly in most cases, but why should you have to rely on guessing?
I am trying to get the Desktop and OS people to implement the following:
In your haste to tell me to google for things I've known well for more than a decade, you appear to have missed the main points: 1) How would I provide easy and secure WiFi access to anonymous users using Windows, Macs etc, without them being able to see each others traffic? 2) This sort of thing is in theory possible as it is proven by the _example_ of https.
Say you're running a cafe and you want to provide free access and have it reasonably secure - users can't see or successfully fake each other's traffic (they could still do DoS attacks but that's wireless for you).
https shows that is possible to encrypt stuff and keep one end anonymous, while having the anonymous participants still unable to snoop each other's traffic.
Whereas with WEP if everyone uses the same key, they can see each other's traffic, same goes for WPA with PSK. I believe you have to set up something like WPA (or WPA2) and don't use the PSK mode, add a radius server and use the same username and password (or set the radius server to accept everything), but there is no standard to make it easy. Users have to configure stuff (in error prone ways), and they have to type stuff, and admins need to set up extra servers.
I was using https as an example. I never said it can or should be done exactly like https. It just should be done better than the existing crap out there.
Slashdot Mirror
Just curious would SLI video cards and popular games actually work well with 64 bit Windows?
Correct me if I'm wrong but if you're stuck with 32 bit windows there's no point having much more than 2GB RAM if you're doing SLI, given you have 4GB addressing space and the video cards would take a large chunk of that addressing space.
It's not all good if you ran the same jobs and got different answers after 6 days :)
For raytracing and much scientific computing it will still be cheaper to buy more machines add more cores and get a lot better performance ;).
:).
The 5GHz CPU will be good for computing tasks that cannot take advantage of many cores AND where a 5GHz x85 is a good match. Example: some games and single threaded CPU intensive desktop apps.
If you have lots of money and need to solve not so parallelizable problems quickly you might choose an IBM POWER6 computer instead
They should get a clue and realize the reason why I (and I suspect many other people) use wikipedia is because it's NOT a dead tree encyclopedia. If I really wanted a dry academically written encyclopedia I've one in my home which I've not touched in years.
:). If the "encyclopedia" policy was followed strictly that bit would be replaced/removed.
/wiki/notnotable/webcomic1/
Just the other day I saw that "People Eating Tasty Animals" was marked for deletion twice. While it's not as notable as "roe vs wade", IMO it was an important case (whether or not you liked the verdict).
Also, there are plenty of articles which are not written in an "encyclopedic way", but those are the bits I like.
for example: "Deed of change of name" (which was recently brought to my attention)
Edited snippet:
"There are various reasons why a person would want to change his or her name:
* to replace a frivolous name given by their parents (e.g., old name James Bond, new name Jason Bond; a well known example is Elton John, who changed from Reginald Kenneth Dwight in favour of a career in the Music Industry)"
The last bit is definitely not "encyclopedic in style", but I like it
The way wikipedia currently works, I think only spam or vandalism articles should be deleted. Because with deletion you lose a LOT of stuff permanently. There is no history etc. They could always leave the page and history there, then replace the final page with a standard "deleted/not notable/<other reason>" and people can go to history to see the article if they want.
If it's a namespace/clutter issue, why don't they just move all the stuff they consider not notable in a "not notable" section.
e.g.
Anyway, I don't really care if wikipedia destroys their own usefulness - IMO the wikipedia has become successful in spite of the policies, power-mad admins and "leadership" than because of it. It's a wiki, lots of people used it and it grew. If wikipedia doesn't want to hold "nonnotable" stuff I'm sure someone eventually would and a decent search engine should help me find it.
For me the difference between hardware and software nowadays is:
:).
software = stuff I can configure/modify.
hardware = stuff other people configure (e.g. too hard for me to configure).
Ever reflashed a router, modem, cd burner etc? Or patched an Intel CPU using a BIOS update? Software
Ever hear someone regard all the computers, routers, switches etc in his organization as "hardware"?
Maybe she works in advertising and buys it for the ads ;).
Well look at it this way, he's stupid because that's a stupid way to make money.
;).
Seems he didn't make very much per laptop. How long does it take to reformat and reinstall the different types of laptops he steals AND be sure the snitchware is really gone?
AFAIK if you're trying to install a vanilla Windows XP on some of these laptops it's a pain - drivers etc. Heck installing XP from scratch is a bigger pain than installing Linux. Most people don't know that since Windows usually comes preinstalled.
Where are you going to get the license key from? If you use the original "hidden/rescue partition" to reinstall, the snitchware might be bundled and slipstreamed into the final OS.
Reselling laptops with Ubuntu on them probably cuts into profits too and it still takes time to install Ubuntu on them.
He could have just sold the ram and parts from the notebooks he steals. Or got a proper job instead, work his way to the top and legally steal money big time
Lastly, you can often report your computer as stolen to the manufacturer and they can help cause problems for the final user when they call up for support. It doesn't necessarily mean you'll get it back easily though - there's all that legal stuff that the manufacturer may not want to get involved with.
What's so good about using opendns? They look like they're doing a variation of Verisign's Site Finder.
How about running your own DNS server? Or get a list of DNS servers from various ISPs round the world that work and rotate through the IPs.
But at least they didn't call it 1.2 and then rename 1.2 to 2, and then later go on to call a subsequent version Web 2.0 Enterprise Edition.
:).
Anyway I personally think this is a good thing as long as your own company isn't buying into that bullshit
They should outsource many of those CEOs too, given that they all sound about the same. Seems what lot of them do is is to basically sound confident and say lot of optimistic nothings with a PR firm standing by just in case. If they actually say anything substantial it could get them in trouble with investors or the securities people or legal.
Sure a few CEOs make a big positive difference, but it's just a few unfortunately. Not an easy job to do right actually, so fine if those that do get paid a lot. But not fine for those screw ups. Maybe companies should start with a relatively moderate salary and decide on how big the "adjustment" is after considering financial results over say 3 years, not quarterly/yearly plus regular qualitative surveys from customers and employees taken over that same period. This should discourage slash n burn CEOs (HP anyone?).
Forbes high class? I don't get that impression from their website and web content though.
:).
A few of the magazines I bother reading: The Economist (ok they have a strong free market bias but their science section is often interesting), New Scientist is pretty decent.
But I figure game magazines might only be useful for some exclusive bundled freebies. I've scanned through some and seems most reviews are written more for the game maker's benefit than the game buyer's benefit. OK some reviews are for the writer to show he can string some words together...
A demo of the game is useful. Decent video clips of the game in action might be ok, plus some comments like "game Y is like X, and just like X I like/hate Y because of ABC". Doesn't matter if the commenter hated X, if you liked X, you might like Y too
I prefer to wash with water and soap, then dry with a towel.
:). Wiping your rear end with magazine paper is probably worse. Hope you don't get paper cuts...
This toilet paper stuff sounds rather painful and unhygienic
"I'm not sure how many years ago RAID software on linux was sending out notification emails"
OK so how do you detect that the RAID is degraded on a IBM x3550 or HP DL300 (or whatever recent server) running suse 10.2 or kubuntu? mdadm works fine for software raid, but how about hardware raid?
How do you find out the various temperatures of those servers? I'm sure they do have sensors.
smartmontools and lm-sensors work fine for desktop drives and boards but they don't for recent servers (as mentioned), maybe they did work for you in 1996 but they sure don't work now.
Everytime I get a kernel update from novell/suse (2 - 3 times a year or more) I have to do make modules_prepare and then recompile the vmware shim stuff otherwise vmware doesn't work. Once in a while I believe the same thing happens for nvidia's stuff. I've NEVER had to do that for windows updates. It's not just me - someone else said this: "Every time I upgrade the kernel I have to go through hoops to get VMware server working again. Vmware 1.0.0.4 fixed many things and worked good until I upgraded last night. I feel like I stepped on a chewing gum - stop, drop everything I was doing and spent a couple hours on something that I could have avoided if I chose different path." - I believe this was for 2.6.23 where the usual shim recompile steps stopped working (meanwhile I'm sticking to distro kernel updates and leaving the bleeding edges to other people).
Thanks very much!
:).
Trouble is I find it easier to get lm-sensors to monitor hardware on stuff like Asus, MSI etc, than on IBM, Dell, HP servers
Not saying any of it is the linux devs fault, I'm just pointing out the problem.
Similarly I can (and do) monitor software RAID, I also use smartmontools to monitor desktop ATA drives, send emails etc, but when it comes to servers with mpt/adaptec/whatever RAID it's so much harder (either have to jump through lots of hoops - install java, etc, or it just doesn't work).
You just learn what you can trust your relatives/friends/colleagues/employees/subordinates/bosses with.
;) ).
Nobody can be trusted in everything. Nor is everyone competent in everything.
I do get impatient/annoyed/angry with stupidity and ignorance, but it's malice and dishonesty I find hard to accept in a friend.
So, even dogs could be my friends as long as they're not too malicious or dishonest (stealing a dog treat and pretending not to have done so is tolerable
Anyway on the subject of competence and trust: publishing whistleblowers email addresses really does a lot of damage. Doesn't just affect the present ones. There are already lots of disincentives to be a whistleblower, so in the future more people will just "shut up" and go with the flow.
So the main problem I see is why were people likely to be incompetent in this area allowed access to such addresses? If you want to keep a secret you should minimize the number of people who know that secret.
A sufficiently high level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
I believe this case qualifies. They put the whistleblower addresses in To field _TWICE_ (RTFA). The people responsible should be jailed because they are an obvious danger to too many people.
If I'm not a qualified bus driver I don't pretend to be one or even try driving a bus when other lives depend on me doing things correctly.
The 300 of you are all kernel driver devs but most drivers don't belong in the kernel. So 10 of you can hang around and maybe a few years before 2038 the rest of you will be needed ;).
Meanwhile a fair number of us need:
1) RAID monitoring tools (bad to have a RAID system but no way to know if a drive has failed)
2) Temperature/fan/etc sensor monitoring.
3) did I hear one or two mentioning printer drivers?
4) Video drivers.
5) Sound drivers.
6) NIC drivers.
7) Virtualization hardware stuff.
The problem I see is for a fair number of these is you might actually have "drivers" (I use the term loosely) for say RHEL4, but not for RHEL3, Ubuntu or OpenSUSE, or whatever.
The main problem I suppose is hardware companies not wanting to cooperate in ways that the Linux people want.
But with 32 bit Windows, you can typically use the same drivers from Win2K onwards at least until that crap called Vista. Whereas with Linux, there's a fair chance that a kernel update would break something.
Theo does has a point. I've personally caused a VMware host to crash from a vmware guest by changing the date on the guest O/S to something invalid. I doubt that's exploitable other than as a DoS attack but given the weird sort of stuff that's needed to enable copy and paste and other "magic", I won't be surprised if there are more exploitable bugs.
;).
:). It's not going to be so easy to break out of an Apple II emulator and get the Windows machine it's running on 0w3ned.
But, VM technology is old stuff. It's just the x86 people are reinventing it and sometimes poorly. Heard something like this from one of the "new VM" people, "If we have VM problems we just go ask the IBM guys what they used to do in the old days to deal with that"
Sure there's probably exploitable security bugs in many VM implementations. But that does not mean there will be exploitable security bugs in all VM implementations.
You could run a pure x86 PC emulator and I think it'll be quite safe, though rather slow
Can one really claim that it is impossible to get a virtualized machine as secure as an emulated machine (in practice anyway)?
I'm actually fine with people's salaries differing by a lot. You do a good job, you get good pay, you do an excellent job you get excellent pay. You do something that nobody else wants to do or knows how to do, AND create great value, then great if you get tons of money.
But so far most of the top paid CxOs aren't a good deal. They get paid more, not because they're good at doing good stuff for the company, but they're good at getting the board to pay them more. It's a form of legitimized corruption if anything.
CEOs can make a positive difference - witness Apple under Steve Jobs vs the other guy. And yes there is a shortage of good ceos (there's a shortage of good programmers too), but I think CEO pay should be tied more to long term performance rather than measures easily fooled by pump and dump or "slash and burn" CxO schemes.
7.5 you suffer whilst the rich CxO buys a new plane for himself, etc
I suppose in that ideal world you mention the speed of light is infinite.
But in the pesky world I live, there's this thing called latency or "lag time".
So convergence takes a long while to happen, and I use "long while" rather loosely.
"We have people who freak out if an icon on their desktop changes, what do you think is going to happen if they have to sit down in front of OpenOffice and learn new words and icons for commands?"
;) ).
So what do you think of Microsoft Office 2007 and Vista? I suggest the whole lot of companies like yours should get together and sponsor someone to make a free XP compatible operating system so that you can continue doing things the same way, since Microsoft no longer appears interested in providing their paying customers major improvements, and they seem determined to drag everyone to Vista, Office 2007 (of course they would, otherwise if they don't and compatibles appear, they become like a BIOS vendor and lose their monopoly).
I do use Windows 2K/XP because some stuff is just too _hard_ to do on a Linux distro.
But I do use Linux stuff as well because some stuff is just too hard to do on Windows.
I've tried Vista a few times already (we have it for testing) and wow it's crap. It makes a new PC slower than my 6 year old PC at home running Win2K (with the exception of boot up times - Win2K really sucks for bootups
1) It's not so simple to "previously turn off something", if it's never been installed before.
2) Whatever it is, Microsoft is doing lots of "Yeehaw! Cowboy" stuff and it's costing companies a fair bit of resources. But most will still keep coming back for more: "it's really my fault Microsoft only slaps me when I do something silly".
And why should you trust opendns more than the little you trust verisign?
AFAIK the smart ones go into politics.
;).
Then you just make what you do legal.
Or just keep ignoring people and keep doing illegal stuff. Just make sure you diebold a couple of elections and somehow get reelected
Distract the masses with supersize meals and "reality tv".
UAC is a primitive and crap security model after so many years and billions of dollars. All UAC does is allow Microsoft to shift more blame to the user, without actually helping the user.
With UAC, Joe Average has to do something similar to solving the halting problem. Sure you might be able to guess correctly in most cases, but why should you have to rely on guessing?
I am trying to get the Desktop and OS people to implement the following:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/156693
It's not what I call advanced, but I believe it could actually help people get things done more safely.
In your haste to tell me to google for things I've known well for more than a decade, you appear to have missed the main points:
1) How would I provide easy and secure WiFi access to anonymous users using Windows, Macs etc, without them being able to see each others traffic?
2) This sort of thing is in theory possible as it is proven by the _example_ of https.
Say you're running a cafe and you want to provide free access and have it reasonably secure - users can't see or successfully fake each other's traffic (they could still do DoS attacks but that's wireless for you).
https shows that is possible to encrypt stuff and keep one end anonymous, while having the anonymous participants still unable to snoop each other's traffic.
Whereas with WEP if everyone uses the same key, they can see each other's traffic, same goes for WPA with PSK. I believe you have to set up something like WPA (or WPA2) and don't use the PSK mode, add a radius server and use the same username and password (or set the radius server to accept everything), but there is no standard to make it easy. Users have to configure stuff (in error prone ways), and they have to type stuff, and admins need to set up extra servers.
I was using https as an example. I never said it can or should be done exactly like https. It just should be done better than the existing crap out there.