No FF has its own list. However it only has "Delete or Distrust . . " as one option not two.
It's actually two options that work differently depending on the type of certificate.
If the cert was built-in to Firefox, then "Delete or Distrust..." removes all the trusts for the cert but does not delete it. This means that the cert can't be used to validate anything, but it also means that you don't have to re-install Firefox to get back a built-in cert that was accidentally deleted.
If the cert was not built-in, then "Delete or Distrust..." deletes the cert. Since you obviously imported it once, you should be able to do so again if you delete by mistake.
For both types of certs, "Edit Trust..." will allow you finer control over the types of trust (and is what you use to restore a "distrusted" built-in cert).
However if you insist on fanless, the answer is to go large, not small. A tiny system like a mini has to have fans since there isn't much room for heat sinks.
Tell that to the massive heat sink on the ASUS E35M1-I motherboard.
With that and a quiet laptop hard drive and fanless power supply, it's finally truly possible to build a completely silent (from 3 feet or so) small form-factor machine that doesn't perform like 5-year-old hardware.
If I can get an i3 and H61 board for $89 I'd probably buy that instead.
Very unlikely, as the cheapest H61 board is about $40, and I can't find an i3 that will fit it for less than $110, and both those prices are rock-bottom, include rebates, etc. Real world would be closer to $180 for the combo.
There is obviously some performance loss with a VM, as anything that it tries to do that is privileged will result in a fault that the hypervisor has to deal with.
But, if the hypervisor has extra knowledge of the underlying OS (which is the only code that should be doing privileged things...user space doesn't do that), some of the performance loss can be mitigated. You can also have hardware that works better with virtualization, like the latest Intel chips allowing individual PCIe paths to be virtualized or passed directly to the VM.
But, do you realize that the Momentus XT is slower, smaller, and more expensive than regular mechanical drives?
That article also shows that although they are much smaller for the same price (or much more expensive for the same storage), a real SSD will absolutely destroy the Seagate hybrid drive.
If you minimize a window it has nowhere to go and just disappears (alt-tab still works though).
Minimized windows always go to the same place regardless of whether Explorer is running...they are moved so that their upper left corner is at a very negative
coordinate.
Since the upper left of the upper left-most screen is at (0,0) and the "minimized" windows are moved to something like (-16000,-16000), they aren't visible on any display. The only thing that Explorer does with minimized windows is notice that it happened and optionally draw the animation.
If the attackers were worth their salt, after gaining access they would drop in their own custom replacements for patch, make and gcc.
Since patch, make, and gcc are all GNU tools and not part of the Linux kernel, the only harm would be to the single copy on the kernel.org machine. If that machine isn't part of the build process (i.e., if it was merely a file repository), then nothing would be compromised.
It would also be pretty easy to see because builds from other machines wouldn't match.
I suspect few people on slashdot still use FTP unless they really have to (no alternatives offered).
A few factors (ssh server config, client CPU, server CPU, etc.) can make SFTP orders of magnitude slower than FTP, especially if the network link is fast.
For updating a website over your Internet connection, it probably won't matter, but when transferring 100GB over LAN, it can make a huge difference.
That the current infrastructure sucks pretty bad to have had "not-a-hurricane" do quite a bit of damage, and the time to fix those infrastructure issues is before an actual hurricane hits.
Actually, I have had my Core i7-920 running at 3.2GHz for nearly 3 years now. Stock is 2.67GHz. Sure, this isn't anything like record overclocking, but it is 20% faster for less than $40 for the cooler. At the time I bought, a CPU with 3.2GHz as stock speed would have cost me over $300 more.
Idle temps are about 16C (/. doesn't like the ° HTML entity) over ambient, with about 30C over ambient at 100% load. With the chip able to handle nearly 100C, I'm about 40 degrees below that.
The thing is Linux based, has a Windows, OSX and Mac consoles and its cheaper then vSphere by a factor of 10 or so and requires no vCenter nonsense (its automation is cluster-based and distributed across hosts - the only sane approach in a VM datacenter!)
With no functional live migration, no storage migration, no support for high availability without adding Red Hat clustering, no equivalent to DRS, no distributed networking, and a bunch of other "no's", Parallels Bare Metal includes only 1/10th of the features of the full-blown vSphere, so it only makes sense that it is 1/10th the cost.
Also, the ESXi hypervisor is free, and pretty much does everything that Parallels Bare Metal does. And, once you start spending $1000, vSphere becomes the clear winner.
They never accused him of anything. He was a part of an investigation.
No, he was a suspect. If he was merely a source of information for the investigation, they would have asked him for the information, or possibly used a subpoena. Warrants are only used when it is likely that the entity in possession of the evidence would have reason not to hand it over because it would incriminate them. As an example, you don't need a warrant for security camera footage if you are not accusing the owner of the security camera of a crime that the security camera footage could be used as evidence against them. It's probably TV shows that have created this belief, as cops often threaten unrelated people with a "warrant", when in reality a subpoena would be the appropriate document.
Heck, I was part of an investigation into a 3-car motor vehicle crash. I had been walking down the sidewalk at the time. I certainly didn't do anything criminal, but I was able to provide evidence.
What would your reaction have been if the police had physically detained you as their first action, instead of asking if you had seen anything? This is the difference in this case. Instead of just asking, they immediately treated the man as a suspect. If you had been treated as a suspect (i.e., possibly at fault for the crash), instead of a witness, how would you feel about it?
They should either figure out the problem before the copy happens (which they can do in most of the cases where you want to merge folders or have identical file names) so that you don't have a half-botched job; or keep copying the files that can be copied in the background while you're waiting for input from the user on the troublesome cases. If Windows 8 fixes that problem, I'll be gleefully happy because I don't like babysitting copy operations.
Other than cases where I'm cherry-picking files to copy, robocopy gets all my copying business.
Microsoft could pretty much solve every file copying issue with Explorer by adding a shell extension that allowed you to right-mouse drag the files and choose "copy with robocopy".
The idea is a linked list with two pointers per node such that the pointers describe two different sequences (e.g. in a list of customer records, one set of pointers traverses the list according to last name and the other according to first name).
And, this is the problem with software patents.
Anybody who has ever used indexes in a database would immediately realize that this patent is the same thing using a slightly different data structure. Every CS student who takes a data structures class has had to endure the "now use to implement assignment 3", and would see this patent as obvious. And yet, the reason it was approved as a patent is because nobody sane had ever believed that something as simple as a linked list could be patented, so there isn't enough "prior art" to make it "obvious".
If this keeps up, it won't be long before somebody patents a wheel in such a way that the circular nature is used to sue every company for infringement.
How about this one. In hindsight, I'd call it pretty obvious.
I wouldn't call it "pretty obvious", but I would say that we definitely need to go back to the "supply a working model" requirement for patents like this. Otherwise, anybody can just put together a few things that may or may not be "obvious", but could eventually hamstring an industry, since the patent would be much broader than any actual device.
An invention is not new if a single piece of prior art discloses each and every element in the claimed invention.
Which leads to so many stupid patents of the form "...with a computer" or "...on the Internet".
Rather, they have to explicitly list the prior art references that can be combined to teach each and every element of the invention.
So, what you're saying is that because nobody has patented "a computer" or "the Internet", all those stupid patents can't be rejected because "they're not obvious". Well, that explains the mess we're in.
That being said, I have been talking to one of my friends who works for Verizon. Apparently, due to companies like Straight Talk (sold by Walmart), Verizon will be offering a pre-paid unlimited text/talk/data plan. Their information sheets show it available for $50/month. Now, this is on their prepaid plans only, but what is interesting, is apparently any VZW phone can work with this prepaid plan, which means I can take my Droid when my contract ends and move to prepaid.
Don't bet on it. I tried that, but Verizon has two different "data" styles, and phones that have full access to the Internet (Android, iPhone, etc.) must use the one that has caps and cannot be pre-paid. Other phones (that use more of a "walled garden" system of Internet access) can get unlimited data on pre-paid, but they generally only have access to only mobile web sites and e-mail.
You should be able to move your phone to Straight Talk, but you won't be able to get the sort of plan you are talking about directly from Verizon. This means that you probably won't get things like 4G, but you will still be stuck with a phone that has all the Verizon bloatware installed.
I've had an android with Verizon for a year and a half, and it hasn't been till the past month or two that I've broken 300MB/month.
I've only had an Android phone for about 4 months, and my usage is e-mail and some web browsing...no social networking, streaming audio/video, etc., and I ran over 400MB last month.
And, I am grandfathered onto Verizon's unlimited plan.
As am I (and my wife, who will be upgrading soon from her Blackberry Storm). I don't know how people who use their phone for anything can afford to be on Verizon now with the tiny caps.
there are these things called cases for ipads and they prop it up just fine.
Why is it that every Apple device requires that you spend at least an extra 20% beyond the purchase price of the device to get the accessories that are required to make the device functional in the real world?
It's also useful in the garage when I have the service manual for the vehicle I'm servicing (and/or AllData) in electronic format; it's much more convenient than a laptop when you're under a car looking at a diagram or checking a torque spec.
I don't mind risking permanent damage to a $100 shop manual, but unless you have some sort of disposable cover over the iPad, I can't imagine putting a $500 piece of computing equipment into a place where it will get greasy, even if you are extremely careful. It would be different if it was a device that was intended to be used in that sort of situation.
Plus, when I'm home, not being able to access content directly off my NAS is a pain (I'm supposed to FTP it over, then play it, or drag and drop it, or put it on an SD card or USB key... that's too cumbersome... I've got a NAS, if've got wifi... talk ! In the end, I'm still using my netbook for that...).
There are quite a few Android apps that allow you to browse filesystems over WiFi. I don't know if any of them work with your tablet/NAS/filesystem combo, but you could try.
If all else fails, you could run a web server on your NAS. It's clumsy, but it should allow you easy access to the content.
You seriously need to learn how account management should be done and the tools available to help you do so. You should be using a password management system that tracks all passwords and requires all password changes go through it, then you make it policy for two factor verification of any new IT related software to verify the new software is properly linked up to the password management system, meaning not only the guy who installs it, but someone else verifies the pw management system is linked and working properly.
None of this matters if the disgruntled IT guy was able to make sure that every time any admin user logged in, a trojan ran with no effect until after his access was terminated. Then, it started doing evil things.
Also, as far as password management goes, one of the big problems with VMware vSphere is that the management server has root access to every hypervisor. So, if the disgruntled IT guy can make sure they get access to the vSphere server (again, using the trojan that runs long after they have be de-authorized), then it's pretty easy to do exactly what TFA talks about, even if you have a "password management system". But, a truly evil person would have known the backup schedule and merely added errors to the data until it was on every backup, then wiped the sources.
No, IT guys aren't special, you just think you are and you're too ignorant to realize you really can't do anything more than be fucking obnoxious.
It's pretty obvious that only someone with full administrative access to every computer on your network can do the type of damage that keeps on giving, even years after they have left.
I can think of about 10 different ways to have a task run at a given time, and I'm sure there are a lot more. I can also think of about 10 different ways to make sure that the task starting code gets put where it needs to be so it can eventually be executed, some of which would be restored from backup.
If the task wasn't "erase everything" but rather "cause subtle but painful error", it could go months before people even think it's something other than "cosmic rays". Even a re-image of the machine that seemed to be the problem wouldn't help, as multiple machines would have the problem, and spread it like any other trojan. With a really determined disgruntled admin, even a simultaneous re-image of all machines wouldn't do the job, as you'd have some data somewhere, so anything that could run a script and was backed up could reinfect the network.
I saw one of the TV announcers for the Toronto Raptors chatting on his cell phone when it loudly rang in his ear. guess he was one of the 13%.
Since most phones will alert you in some way if you have another call while already on a call, that could just be a misconfiguration so the alert was too loud.
Slashdot Mirror
KDE 3.5 was far far better than any 4.X version. KDE 4.0 was actually the reason I switched from Kubuntu to Ubuntu in the first place.
I like KDE 4 better than Gnome 3, so I'm probably changing to it. I never used KDE 3.x, so what makes 4.0 so bad in comparison?
No FF has its own list. However it only has "Delete or Distrust . . " as one option not two.
It's actually two options that work differently depending on the type of certificate.
If the cert was built-in to Firefox, then "Delete or Distrust..." removes all the trusts for the cert but does not delete it. This means that the cert can't be used to validate anything, but it also means that you don't have to re-install Firefox to get back a built-in cert that was accidentally deleted.
If the cert was not built-in, then "Delete or Distrust..." deletes the cert. Since you obviously imported it once, you should be able to do so again if you delete by mistake.
For both types of certs, "Edit Trust..." will allow you finer control over the types of trust (and is what you use to restore a "distrusted" built-in cert).
However if you insist on fanless, the answer is to go large, not small. A tiny system like a mini has to have fans since there isn't much room for heat sinks.
Tell that to the massive heat sink on the ASUS E35M1-I motherboard.
With that and a quiet laptop hard drive and fanless power supply, it's finally truly possible to build a completely silent (from 3 feet or so) small form-factor machine that doesn't perform like 5-year-old hardware.
If I can get an i3 and H61 board for $89 I'd probably buy that instead.
Very unlikely, as the cheapest H61 board is about $40, and I can't find an i3 that will fit it for less than $110, and both those prices are rock-bottom, include rebates, etc. Real world would be closer to $180 for the combo.
You're both right.
There is obviously some performance loss with a VM, as anything that it tries to do that is privileged will result in a fault that the hypervisor has to deal with.
But, if the hypervisor has extra knowledge of the underlying OS (which is the only code that should be doing privileged things...user space doesn't do that), some of the performance loss can be mitigated. You can also have hardware that works better with virtualization, like the latest Intel chips allowing individual PCIe paths to be virtualized or passed directly to the VM.
But, do you realize that the Momentus XT is slower, smaller, and more expensive than regular mechanical drives?
That article also shows that although they are much smaller for the same price (or much more expensive for the same storage), a real SSD will absolutely destroy the Seagate hybrid drive.
If you minimize a window it has nowhere to go and just disappears (alt-tab still works though).
Minimized windows always go to the same place regardless of whether Explorer is running...they are moved so that their upper left corner is at a very negative coordinate.
Since the upper left of the upper left-most screen is at (0,0) and the "minimized" windows are moved to something like (-16000,-16000), they aren't visible on any display. The only thing that Explorer does with minimized windows is notice that it happened and optionally draw the animation.
If the attackers were worth their salt, after gaining access they would drop in their own custom replacements for patch, make and gcc.
Since patch, make, and gcc are all GNU tools and not part of the Linux kernel, the only harm would be to the single copy on the kernel.org machine. If that machine isn't part of the build process (i.e., if it was merely a file repository), then nothing would be compromised.
It would also be pretty easy to see because builds from other machines wouldn't match.
I suspect few people on slashdot still use FTP unless they really have to (no alternatives offered).
A few factors (ssh server config, client CPU, server CPU, etc.) can make SFTP orders of magnitude slower than FTP, especially if the network link is fast.
For updating a website over your Internet connection, it probably won't matter, but when transferring 100GB over LAN, it can make a huge difference.
Oh? And just what would those implications be?
That the current infrastructure sucks pretty bad to have had "not-a-hurricane" do quite a bit of damage, and the time to fix those infrastructure issues is before an actual hurricane hits.
Actually, I have had my Core i7-920 running at 3.2GHz for nearly 3 years now. Stock is 2.67GHz. Sure, this isn't anything like record overclocking, but it is 20% faster for less than $40 for the cooler. At the time I bought, a CPU with 3.2GHz as stock speed would have cost me over $300 more.
Idle temps are about 16C (/. doesn't like the ° HTML entity) over ambient, with about 30C over ambient at 100% load. With the chip able to handle nearly 100C, I'm about 40 degrees below that.
The thing is Linux based, has a Windows, OSX and Mac consoles and its cheaper then vSphere by a factor of 10 or so and requires no vCenter nonsense (its automation is cluster-based and distributed across hosts - the only sane approach in a VM datacenter!)
With no functional live migration, no storage migration, no support for high availability without adding Red Hat clustering, no equivalent to DRS, no distributed networking, and a bunch of other "no's", Parallels Bare Metal includes only 1/10th of the features of the full-blown vSphere, so it only makes sense that it is 1/10th the cost.
Also, the ESXi hypervisor is free, and pretty much does everything that Parallels Bare Metal does. And, once you start spending $1000, vSphere becomes the clear winner.
They never accused him of anything. He was a part of an investigation.
No, he was a suspect. If he was merely a source of information for the investigation, they would have asked him for the information, or possibly used a subpoena. Warrants are only used when it is likely that the entity in possession of the evidence would have reason not to hand it over because it would incriminate them. As an example, you don't need a warrant for security camera footage if you are not accusing the owner of the security camera of a crime that the security camera footage could be used as evidence against them. It's probably TV shows that have created this belief, as cops often threaten unrelated people with a "warrant", when in reality a subpoena would be the appropriate document.
Heck, I was part of an investigation into a 3-car motor vehicle crash. I had been walking down the sidewalk at the time. I certainly didn't do anything criminal, but I was able to provide evidence.
What would your reaction have been if the police had physically detained you as their first action, instead of asking if you had seen anything? This is the difference in this case. Instead of just asking, they immediately treated the man as a suspect. If you had been treated as a suspect (i.e., possibly at fault for the crash), instead of a witness, how would you feel about it?
They should either figure out the problem before the copy happens (which they can do in most of the cases where you want to merge folders or have identical file names) so that you don't have a half-botched job; or keep copying the files that can be copied in the background while you're waiting for input from the user on the troublesome cases. If Windows 8 fixes that problem, I'll be gleefully happy because I don't like babysitting copy operations.
Other than cases where I'm cherry-picking files to copy, robocopy gets all my copying business.
Microsoft could pretty much solve every file copying issue with Explorer by adding a shell extension that allowed you to right-mouse drag the files and choose "copy with robocopy".
The idea is a linked list with two pointers per node such that the pointers describe two different sequences (e.g. in a list of customer records, one set of pointers traverses the list according to last name and the other according to first name).
And, this is the problem with software patents.
Anybody who has ever used indexes in a database would immediately realize that this patent is the same thing using a slightly different data structure. Every CS student who takes a data structures class has had to endure the "now use to implement assignment 3", and would see this patent as obvious. And yet, the reason it was approved as a patent is because nobody sane had ever believed that something as simple as a linked list could be patented, so there isn't enough "prior art" to make it "obvious".
If this keeps up, it won't be long before somebody patents a wheel in such a way that the circular nature is used to sue every company for infringement.
How about this one. In hindsight, I'd call it pretty obvious.
I wouldn't call it "pretty obvious", but I would say that we definitely need to go back to the "supply a working model" requirement for patents like this. Otherwise, anybody can just put together a few things that may or may not be "obvious", but could eventually hamstring an industry, since the patent would be much broader than any actual device.
An invention is not new if a single piece of prior art discloses each and every element in the claimed invention.
Which leads to so many stupid patents of the form "...with a computer" or "...on the Internet".
Rather, they have to explicitly list the prior art references that can be combined to teach each and every element of the invention.
So, what you're saying is that because nobody has patented "a computer" or "the Internet", all those stupid patents can't be rejected because "they're not obvious". Well, that explains the mess we're in.
That being said, I have been talking to one of my friends who works for Verizon. Apparently, due to companies like Straight Talk (sold by Walmart), Verizon will be offering a pre-paid unlimited text/talk/data plan. Their information sheets show it available for $50/month. Now, this is on their prepaid plans only, but what is interesting, is apparently any VZW phone can work with this prepaid plan, which means I can take my Droid when my contract ends and move to prepaid.
Don't bet on it. I tried that, but Verizon has two different "data" styles, and phones that have full access to the Internet (Android, iPhone, etc.) must use the one that has caps and cannot be pre-paid. Other phones (that use more of a "walled garden" system of Internet access) can get unlimited data on pre-paid, but they generally only have access to only mobile web sites and e-mail.
You should be able to move your phone to Straight Talk, but you won't be able to get the sort of plan you are talking about directly from Verizon. This means that you probably won't get things like 4G, but you will still be stuck with a phone that has all the Verizon bloatware installed.
I've had an android with Verizon for a year and a half, and it hasn't been till the past month or two that I've broken 300MB/month.
I've only had an Android phone for about 4 months, and my usage is e-mail and some web browsing...no social networking, streaming audio/video, etc., and I ran over 400MB last month.
And, I am grandfathered onto Verizon's unlimited plan.
As am I (and my wife, who will be upgrading soon from her Blackberry Storm). I don't know how people who use their phone for anything can afford to be on Verizon now with the tiny caps.
there are these things called cases for ipads and they prop it up just fine.
Why is it that every Apple device requires that you spend at least an extra 20% beyond the purchase price of the device to get the accessories that are required to make the device functional in the real world?
It's also useful in the garage when I have the service manual for the vehicle I'm servicing (and/or AllData) in electronic format; it's much more convenient than a laptop when you're under a car looking at a diagram or checking a torque spec.
I don't mind risking permanent damage to a $100 shop manual, but unless you have some sort of disposable cover over the iPad, I can't imagine putting a $500 piece of computing equipment into a place where it will get greasy, even if you are extremely careful. It would be different if it was a device that was intended to be used in that sort of situation.
Plus, when I'm home, not being able to access content directly off my NAS is a pain (I'm supposed to FTP it over, then play it, or drag and drop it, or put it on an SD card or USB key... that's too cumbersome... I've got a NAS, if've got wifi... talk ! In the end, I'm still using my netbook for that...).
There are quite a few Android apps that allow you to browse filesystems over WiFi. I don't know if any of them work with your tablet/NAS/filesystem combo, but you could try.
If all else fails, you could run a web server on your NAS. It's clumsy, but it should allow you easy access to the content.
You seriously need to learn how account management should be done and the tools available to help you do so. You should be using a password management system that tracks all passwords and requires all password changes go through it, then you make it policy for two factor verification of any new IT related software to verify the new software is properly linked up to the password management system, meaning not only the guy who installs it, but someone else verifies the pw management system is linked and working properly.
None of this matters if the disgruntled IT guy was able to make sure that every time any admin user logged in, a trojan ran with no effect until after his access was terminated. Then, it started doing evil things.
Also, as far as password management goes, one of the big problems with VMware vSphere is that the management server has root access to every hypervisor. So, if the disgruntled IT guy can make sure they get access to the vSphere server (again, using the trojan that runs long after they have be de-authorized), then it's pretty easy to do exactly what TFA talks about, even if you have a "password management system". But, a truly evil person would have known the backup schedule and merely added errors to the data until it was on every backup, then wiped the sources.
No, IT guys aren't special, you just think you are and you're too ignorant to realize you really can't do anything more than be fucking obnoxious.
It's pretty obvious that only someone with full administrative access to every computer on your network can do the type of damage that keeps on giving, even years after they have left.
I can think of about 10 different ways to have a task run at a given time, and I'm sure there are a lot more. I can also think of about 10 different ways to make sure that the task starting code gets put where it needs to be so it can eventually be executed, some of which would be restored from backup.
If the task wasn't "erase everything" but rather "cause subtle but painful error", it could go months before people even think it's something other than "cosmic rays". Even a re-image of the machine that seemed to be the problem wouldn't help, as multiple machines would have the problem, and spread it like any other trojan. With a really determined disgruntled admin, even a simultaneous re-image of all machines wouldn't do the job, as you'd have some data somewhere, so anything that could run a script and was backed up could reinfect the network.
I saw one of the TV announcers for the Toronto Raptors chatting on his cell phone when it loudly rang in his ear. guess he was one of the 13%.
Since most phones will alert you in some way if you have another call while already on a call, that could just be a misconfiguration so the alert was too loud.