Given enough computational power there is no reason why some kind of entity couldn't emerge (or be created) within this environment that was capable of pondering it's own existence and studying it's own environment scientifically.
Uhh, care to back that up? I've yet to see my computer contemplate anything, and it can play Crysis.
You're begging the question.
Why yes:) I argue: I said there is no reason why it isn't possible. What is the reason?
Me may someday have the computing power to make some pretty complex simulated environments and see what emerges. Your computer that plays Crysis is more powerful than the worlds #1 super computer in 1997, and probably more powerful than the total all the worlds computing resources at some point in the early 1970s (necessarily so, even in 2011 Crysis runs lke a dog on a couple of billion-transistor GPUs). We are a long long way from the physical limits of how powerful we could build a computing device. Whatever actually happens, theoretical limits are not a problem, plenty of room for a plausible thought experiment.
But importantly difficult != impossible. The nature of a turing machine and any simulation is it must be able to simulate itself inside itself. How are we to know we are not in one now? Is there any test of which layer deep we are on? Thats what I was getting at.
Quantum theory to me is a hint we may be living in a simulation. Therefore consciousness is subjective phenomena.
If you were in a simulation the best test would be looking for the inevitable discrepency in the physics of the environment which would emerge as you approached the limits of the computational substrate. On a small scale things would start to look fuzzy and the rules of the system would stop making useful predictions.
We are biological computers experiencing itself subjectively.
Contemplate this thought experiment:
You have a supercomputer cluster, in which you create a simulated environment where life can evolve (maybe you intervene to speed things up but nevertheless it's allowed to evolve and change to some extent).
Given enough computational power there is no reason why some kind of entity couldn't emerge (or be created) within this environment that was capable of pondering it's own existence and studying it's own environment scientifically.
You reveal yourself as a creator to this being and have a conversation with it, explain it isn't real.
The being reveals it has created it's own simulations within the simulation, in order to study it's environment.
It may respond "You on the outside have no more evidence than you do that your existence is real, and that you are not in a simulation yourself. Which from my demostration is equally likely"
Crap.
"You created me in your image, so you could see yourself"
I always find it stupid that even here people say that malware on Linux would not be able to gain root like in Windows. Spam bots, fake antiviruses, password stealing nasties and so on run perfectly fine under normal user account. There is no reason why they would require admin privileges. All the personal files are accessible on normal user account and spam can be send without root too. Sure, it could hide a little bit better if it had root access, but there's plenty of tricks to pull out under normal account too. It's like a guy making everything overcomplicated by thinking how he needs to act like a perfect guy and take the girl to a fancy restaurant and many dates before having intercourse with her. Sometimes it's just easier to go for a ladyboy - a woman with mens desire for sex. Requiring access to root account would be more common situation with something like hacking servers since you need to modify logs and really hide in the system. Most likely you also need to get access to HTTP ports and under Linux you need root account for those. But malware runs perfectly fine under user account.
Absolutely. If Malware needs admin, it's disturbingly easy to phish for a sudo password. Linux tends to ask for your sudo password a dozen times a day, training users to enter it like a reflex. Linux, unfortunately, depends a great deal on not being installed on 90% of the worlds computers for any muppet to use, and having a disproportionate number of tech savvy geeks in it's userbase.
Interestingly Android and Chrome OS are linux that do just fine without needing a sudo password. It seems sandbox based security models are superior to the old way of doing things.
After all it's better to have security by design, rather than security that offloads responsibility to the meat puppet that entered it's credentials.
Is bringing along the old interface of mice & menus helping or hurting? I particularly like the new "swipe up" gesture to scroll down of a touchscreen rather than the traditional "elevator window" model of scroll bars where clicking up scrolls up.
Try scrolling to the bottom of a long menu / a lot of text. You'll see why the "elevator window" scroll bar is superior to finger swipe is superior to what you describe. It also gives some visual queues of where you are in the list and how far there is to go up or down where a touch alternative doesn't.
Also, an equivalent the indispensable Home and End keys are notably absent in a touch interface, perhaps replaced by some non-discoverable gesture I haven't found by guesswork or a google search yet.
So I don't see the mouse and keyboard going away yet.
You DO NOT need to close applications in Android. It's handled automagically by the OS.
It's a hangover habit from the desktop world where you need to close applications when your finished with them. You don't need to even think of it on Android and how it works is rather a refreshing piece of OS design (to the point Apple somewhat copied it for iOS).
Task killer apps are not necessary and actually work to destablise and lag your phone if you over use them (as I found out the hard way). Learn to let go of the need to control everything and your phone will work faster and crash less often, and you'll have some time and brainpower spared.
Apples designs are so pared down, minimal, featureless that the patent reads more like a generic description of a form factor, not of a distinct and novel device.
This is revenue driven obviously as miss-typed URLs usually redirect to a search engine, each search being exposure to advertising. Doing away with URLs by default would drive even more traffic to search engines.
This is not about usability or security, especially since it is a huge backwards step in the latter from the point of view of phishing.
How about baseing such as decision on considering what users want / need / might find useful, rather than some developers opinion of whether the technology has merit. Failing all that, because it gives users and web content creators an open source alternative choice?
If ETs have the technology to cross interstellar distances then presumably staying hidden from human detection is a trivial technological problem. They may also have plenty of reason to stay hidden, ie to not to disturb us. Especially since we are so obviously easily disturbed. Thus I find it absurd we even bother debating alien technology being on earth at all, why assume we could even percieve it? Leave it to the loons. Area 51 is probably nothing, and if it is something then we're not going to know about it.
The "weird multiplier" effect better called and exponential problem.
For a traditional rocket the fuel mass required increases with the square of payload. Because you have to lift the extra fuel too, and the extra vehicle mass to contain it. This is why stages are used because can ditch a lot of mass and aero drag part way through a flight. (Single stage to orbit rockets have repeatedly been shown to be too heavy to fly).
Air-breathing jets have a massive increase in specific impulse and the lift to drag ratio of a plane-like form means you can reach 10-20km and high mach numbers with a tiny fraction of the fuel mass of a traditional launch vehicle.
No suprise then this is highly attractive design goal. By my crude calculations for a traditional rocket, if you could magically kick it up to mach 5 and put it up at 25km altitude, you'd be able to reduce the fuel mass to about as low as 30% for the same payload.
Still a feature-starved sparse looking uninspired clone of USC (which still has a kludgey unfinished feel), copying the abysmal rating system. Desktop linux could benefit greatly from a decent App Store.
I really wish developers would actually take a look at competitors are doing and get some inspiration.
Taking a look at, for example: Mac App Store, Android Market web store, Intel's App-up, Chrome Web App store, even AllMyApps for windows is a good one to look at. Even Linux Mint's App portal is a good effort.
Linux has had good package management and delivery for a long long time, all it's been missing is a good, navigable and appealing front end for it.
Qubes OS seems to be another excercise in paranoia. It looks like a cool project, but I don't think it will catch on.
Security in a contemporary OS is rather easy to fix. I'll provide a hint. It's always been a bad idea to have two security levels basically "root" with unrestricted access to everything and "users" not enough access to be useful yet enough access to be able to destroy steral or tamper with a users entire collection of data. Oh and ten times a day you'll have to elevate to root to get anything done.
You'll type your password like a reflex or set up visudo/UAC etc so you don't have to enter it.
So on a contemporary OS it's not even necessary to gain administrator priveledges to do a whole lot of damage.
Why do I need to hand over an admin password (either admin/root or a sudo password) every time an application wants to install or change anything? Why do applications have to dip so deep into a low level parts of the OS just to do something basic?
As a thought experiment: ponder how trivially easy it would be to phish for a users sudo password in linux. This would catch out a mom & pop style 'user' who would punch in the password as they do like a reflex in good faith.
Any protection is purely illusory. Apple could not possibly review every single line of code for malicious behaviour and vulnerabilities. Also the slow and drawn out review process means users will be using outdated and unpatched software for longer. Apple can only check for obvious malicious behaviour, exploits will still be discovered.
Apple's Killswitch only offers some protection from badly behaved applications.
It's worse in the iOS App Store because Objective C is such an obscure language.
Couldn't that also be interpreted as "necessarily simple"?
Older generations don't get it not because of its complexity, but its simplicity. They might understand better if everything had a label and step-by-step info, but for the rest of us that do understand, this just adds complexity when it might not be needed.
That might also be interpreted as "there is no substitute for plain English" in designing a graphical interface. In the quest to make things ever more simple, minimal and pretty, the complexity is merely moved elsewhere, to deciphering the metaphor. It's not really making things simpler, it's just shuffling things around for the sake of aesthetics. So is it really adding complexity if it makes it simpler?
If there is a requirement of a learning curve in a UI, isn't it reasonable for the UI to provide the user with what they need to know? For most of us enthusiasts, admins, developers that troll/. we get a kick out of figuring things out in the absence of information. We just don't read the instruction manual. I think this cognitive bias reveals itself in how we design interfaces, we unwittingly make them a little puzzle to solve, and we feel we've failed if it is too simple. Truth is we can't suffer noobs, and we unintentionally scuttle their user experience.
However unfortunately we represent about 2% of the human race, no wonder we're so hated by the other 98% who has to try get something done with what we've built.
I purchased a iPod Touch and sent it to my aging parents living in the country, having faith in Apple that it would be "easy to use" and I wouldn't have to help them with it as I do with most other technology. Not so. They'd called me not long after turning on saying "It doesn't work, it's not doing anything it has an arrow and a symbol on it's screen and does nothing". I guessed that perhaps the iPod is completely unusable until plugged into iTunes, later I learn the first screen you see is an arrow pointing at a iTunes logo, apparently a little puzzle you need to solve to figure out what to do with it (buried several pages into the quick start guide with text too small for my parents to read, is a mention of having to download and install iTunes first). In pure hubris, apparently the UI designers felt no need to tell the user what to do in Plain Fucking English. Lacking the obvious "Please connect me to a computer with iTunes" message and actually include CD with the software on it laid a trap for people who were not previously familiar with such technology or with Apple products.
Talking them through downloading and installing iTunes over a dial-up like rural internet connection was HELL. By the time I drove out there a couple of days later, they had gone to the local electronics shop and bought a $50 8gb mp3 player with a big colour screen, and filled it with music easily, having already been familiar with how to get files on to an external drive. Naturally I had some difficulty returning the iPod, despite local consumer law being on my side on this one.
While the cry for Plain Fucking English is sometimes heeded, of course, there are problems with intelligible English in interfaces. Brings to mind your average error message. Half the time the developers aren't even sure what it was intended to mean.
Pointless benchmarks. How about more commentary on usability speed? My fairly typical 2008-spec desktop rig has 4gb of RAM and my aging monitor is 1920x1080. My slightly battered old notebook is not even far behind this. So why do developers insist on making using as little memory as possible even if you happen to have an ass-load of it?
Why do they have to waste my time making me click extra, hiding things away just to save another 50px of screen real estate?
Since Natty, Linux usabilty seems to be is taking backwards steps.
I'm just waiting for a UI that not only has no controls at all, but decides what I might like to see next for me. Would be similar to continuous streaming videos. Advertisments could be in "breaks".
Perhaps allow me to choose from a number of 'channels' to provide the illusion of choice.
It's not completely implausible that something like the Zombie apocolpyse could occur. Rabbies, Syphillius, Toxoplasma Gondii are examples of pathogens known to affect behaviour. If one of these or something similar became much more easily tranmissable and had a rapid and dramatic effect on behaviour you'd have yourself your Zombie apocolypse. Walking undead is of course bollocks.
CDC have actually probably seriously considered this scenario.
In windows you could do this easily from the CLI using a single command... oh wait I see your point.
BUT Windows does have a GUI registry editor with a search features. Not really harder than a GUI text editor - you'd have to be a real novice to bung that up. Although it's still awful and otherwise intellegent people still do bung it up.
BUT linux scatters text files all over the place, you need to know where to go looking for it, or get on google to find out. Lord help you if you make a typo in the wrong place.
Anyway, the command would be (in an admin CMD shell)...
REG ADD HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet/v EnableActiveProbing/t REG_DWORD/d 0
Now I haven't tested that, but if you need to copy and past a command out of a forum without checking it out first your a noob and the OS in question is broken by design.
Electromagnetic waves can interfere constructively, in fact it's rare a given volume of space the dimensions of the wavelength has a single photon of that length in it. Any "safe limits" are very nominal, you could have harm occuring with much lower intensity EM.
Pointless. If our own technological civilisation is anything to go by, any radiowaves broadcast into space is a brief aberation, as more sophisticated communication becomes more efficient, lower power and increasingly inward angled.
Unless they are specifically beaming something very powerful in our direction and have been doing it for million years, we just wont see it.
Has anyone done the math on if it's even possible for typical terrestrial radio transmissions to be detectable above background noise accross interstellar distances?
Slashdot Mirror
Given enough computational power there is no reason why some kind of entity couldn't emerge (or be created) within this environment that was capable of pondering it's own existence and studying it's own environment scientifically.
Uhh, care to back that up? I've yet to see my computer contemplate anything, and it can play Crysis.
You're begging the question.
Why yes :) I argue: I said there is no reason why it isn't possible. What is the reason?
Me may someday have the computing power to make some pretty complex simulated environments and see what emerges. Your computer that plays Crysis is more powerful than the worlds #1 super computer in 1997, and probably more powerful than the total all the worlds computing resources at some point in the early 1970s (necessarily so, even in 2011 Crysis runs lke a dog on a couple of billion-transistor GPUs). We are a long long way from the physical limits of how powerful we could build a computing device. Whatever actually happens, theoretical limits are not a problem, plenty of room for a plausible thought experiment.
But importantly difficult != impossible. The nature of a turing machine and any simulation is it must be able to simulate itself inside itself. How are we to know we are not in one now? Is there any test of which layer deep we are on? Thats what I was getting at.
Quantum theory to me is a hint we may be living in a simulation. Therefore consciousness is subjective phenomena.
If you were in a simulation the best test would be looking for the inevitable discrepency in the physics of the environment which would emerge as you approached the limits of the computational substrate. On a small scale things would start to look fuzzy and the rules of the system would stop making useful predictions.
Crap that sounds familiar.
We are biological computers experiencing itself subjectively.
Contemplate this thought experiment: You have a supercomputer cluster, in which you create a simulated environment where life can evolve (maybe you intervene to speed things up but nevertheless it's allowed to evolve and change to some extent).
Given enough computational power there is no reason why some kind of entity couldn't emerge (or be created) within this environment that was capable of pondering it's own existence and studying it's own environment scientifically.
You reveal yourself as a creator to this being and have a conversation with it, explain it isn't real.
The being reveals it has created it's own simulations within the simulation, in order to study it's environment.
It may respond "You on the outside have no more evidence than you do that your existence is real, and that you are not in a simulation yourself. Which from my demostration is equally likely"
Crap.
"You created me in your image, so you could see yourself"
I always find it stupid that even here people say that malware on Linux would not be able to gain root like in Windows. Spam bots, fake antiviruses, password stealing nasties and so on run perfectly fine under normal user account. There is no reason why they would require admin privileges. All the personal files are accessible on normal user account and spam can be send without root too. Sure, it could hide a little bit better if it had root access, but there's plenty of tricks to pull out under normal account too. It's like a guy making everything overcomplicated by thinking how he needs to act like a perfect guy and take the girl to a fancy restaurant and many dates before having intercourse with her. Sometimes it's just easier to go for a ladyboy - a woman with mens desire for sex. Requiring access to root account would be more common situation with something like hacking servers since you need to modify logs and really hide in the system. Most likely you also need to get access to HTTP ports and under Linux you need root account for those. But malware runs perfectly fine under user account.
Absolutely. If Malware needs admin, it's disturbingly easy to phish for a sudo password. Linux tends to ask for your sudo password a dozen times a day, training users to enter it like a reflex. Linux, unfortunately, depends a great deal on not being installed on 90% of the worlds computers for any muppet to use, and having a disproportionate number of tech savvy geeks in it's userbase.
Interestingly Android and Chrome OS are linux that do just fine without needing a sudo password. It seems sandbox based security models are superior to the old way of doing things.
After all it's better to have security by design, rather than security that offloads responsibility to the meat puppet that entered it's credentials.
Is bringing along the old interface of mice & menus helping or hurting? I particularly like the new "swipe up" gesture to scroll down of a touchscreen rather than the traditional "elevator window" model of scroll bars where clicking up scrolls up.
Try scrolling to the bottom of a long menu / a lot of text. You'll see why the "elevator window" scroll bar is superior to finger swipe is superior to what you describe. It also gives some visual queues of where you are in the list and how far there is to go up or down where a touch alternative doesn't.
Also, an equivalent the indispensable Home and End keys are notably absent in a touch interface, perhaps replaced by some non-discoverable gesture I haven't found by guesswork or a google search yet.
So I don't see the mouse and keyboard going away yet.
You DO NOT need to close applications in Android. It's handled automagically by the OS.
It's a hangover habit from the desktop world where you need to close applications when your finished with them. You don't need to even think of it on Android and how it works is rather a refreshing piece of OS design (to the point Apple somewhat copied it for iOS).
There is a lot of misunderstand about how Android multitasks, which is really rather innovative that we could have used in operating systems a long time ago. Read up here: http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/04/multitasking-android-way.html
Task killer apps are not necessary and actually work to destablise and lag your phone if you over use them (as I found out the hard way). Learn to let go of the need to control everything and your phone will work faster and crash less often, and you'll have some time and brainpower spared.
Apples designs are so pared down, minimal, featureless that the patent reads more like a generic description of a form factor, not of a distinct and novel device.
This is revenue driven obviously as miss-typed URLs usually redirect to a search engine, each search being exposure to advertising. Doing away with URLs by default would drive even more traffic to search engines.
This is not about usability or security, especially since it is a huge backwards step in the latter from the point of view of phishing.
How about baseing such as decision on considering what users want / need / might find useful, rather than some developers opinion of whether the technology has merit. Failing all that, because it gives users and web content creators an open source alternative choice?
If ETs have the technology to cross interstellar distances then presumably staying hidden from human detection is a trivial technological problem. They may also have plenty of reason to stay hidden, ie to not to disturb us. Especially since we are so obviously easily disturbed. Thus I find it absurd we even bother debating alien technology being on earth at all, why assume we could even percieve it? Leave it to the loons. Area 51 is probably nothing, and if it is something then we're not going to know about it.
The "weird multiplier" effect better called and exponential problem.
For a traditional rocket the fuel mass required increases with the square of payload. Because you have to lift the extra fuel too, and the extra vehicle mass to contain it. This is why stages are used because can ditch a lot of mass and aero drag part way through a flight. (Single stage to orbit rockets have repeatedly been shown to be too heavy to fly).
Air-breathing jets have a massive increase in specific impulse and the lift to drag ratio of a plane-like form means you can reach 10-20km and high mach numbers with a tiny fraction of the fuel mass of a traditional launch vehicle.
No suprise then this is highly attractive design goal. By my crude calculations for a traditional rocket, if you could magically kick it up to mach 5 and put it up at 25km altitude, you'd be able to reduce the fuel mass to about as low as 30% for the same payload.
Still a feature-starved sparse looking uninspired clone of USC (which still has a kludgey unfinished feel), copying the abysmal rating system. Desktop linux could benefit greatly from a decent App Store.
I really wish developers would actually take a look at competitors are doing and get some inspiration.
Taking a look at, for example: Mac App Store, Android Market web store, Intel's App-up, Chrome Web App store, even AllMyApps for windows is a good one to look at. Even Linux Mint's App portal is a good effort.
Linux has had good package management and delivery for a long long time, all it's been missing is a good, navigable and appealing front end for it.
Because these things are designed by pale creatures who don't get outdoors much, except to walk to the next dimly lit hipster cafe with fast WiFi.
Fortunately, business monitors and laptops are almost exclusively matte finish -or at least have that option- for brightly lit office space.
Was this modded funny because it said a week? LOL
Was this modded funny because it was a week not 24 hours?
Qubes OS seems to be another excercise in paranoia. It looks like a cool project, but I don't think it will catch on.
Security in a contemporary OS is rather easy to fix. I'll provide a hint. It's always been a bad idea to have two security levels basically "root" with unrestricted access to everything and "users" not enough access to be useful yet enough access to be able to destroy steral or tamper with a users entire collection of data. Oh and ten times a day you'll have to elevate to root to get anything done. You'll type your password like a reflex or set up visudo/UAC etc so you don't have to enter it.
So on a contemporary OS it's not even necessary to gain administrator priveledges to do a whole lot of damage.
Why do I need to hand over an admin password (either admin/root or a sudo password) every time an application wants to install or change anything? Why do applications have to dip so deep into a low level parts of the OS just to do something basic?
As a thought experiment: ponder how trivially easy it would be to phish for a users sudo password in linux. This would catch out a mom & pop style 'user' who would punch in the password as they do like a reflex in good faith.
Any protection is purely illusory. Apple could not possibly review every single line of code for malicious behaviour and vulnerabilities. Also the slow and drawn out review process means users will be using outdated and unpatched software for longer. Apple can only check for obvious malicious behaviour, exploits will still be discovered.
Apple's Killswitch only offers some protection from badly behaved applications.
It's worse in the iOS App Store because Objective C is such an obscure language.
It's just been replaced by one exactly the same as the previous.
Couldn't that also be interpreted as "necessarily simple"?
Older generations don't get it not because of its complexity, but its simplicity. They might understand better if everything had a label and step-by-step info, but for the rest of us that do understand, this just adds complexity when it might not be needed.
That might also be interpreted as "there is no substitute for plain English" in designing a graphical interface. In the quest to make things ever more simple, minimal and pretty, the complexity is merely moved elsewhere, to deciphering the metaphor. It's not really making things simpler, it's just shuffling things around for the sake of aesthetics. So is it really adding complexity if it makes it simpler?
/. we get a kick out of figuring things out in the absence of information. We just don't read the instruction manual. I think this cognitive bias reveals itself in how we design interfaces, we unwittingly make them a little puzzle to solve, and we feel we've failed if it is too simple. Truth is we can't suffer noobs, and we unintentionally scuttle their user experience.
If there is a requirement of a learning curve in a UI, isn't it reasonable for the UI to provide the user with what they need to know? For most of us enthusiasts, admins, developers that troll
However unfortunately we represent about 2% of the human race, no wonder we're so hated by the other 98% who has to try get something done with what we've built.
I purchased a iPod Touch and sent it to my aging parents living in the country, having faith in Apple that it would be "easy to use" and I wouldn't have to help them with it as I do with most other technology. Not so. They'd called me not long after turning on saying "It doesn't work, it's not doing anything it has an arrow and a symbol on it's screen and does nothing". I guessed that perhaps the iPod is completely unusable until plugged into iTunes, later I learn the first screen you see is an arrow pointing at a iTunes logo, apparently a little puzzle you need to solve to figure out what to do with it (buried several pages into the quick start guide with text too small for my parents to read, is a mention of having to download and install iTunes first). In pure hubris, apparently the UI designers felt no need to tell the user what to do in Plain Fucking English. Lacking the obvious "Please connect me to a computer with iTunes" message and actually include CD with the software on it laid a trap for people who were not previously familiar with such technology or with Apple products.
Talking them through downloading and installing iTunes over a dial-up like rural internet connection was HELL. By the time I drove out there a couple of days later, they had gone to the local electronics shop and bought a $50 8gb mp3 player with a big colour screen, and filled it with music easily, having already been familiar with how to get files on to an external drive. Naturally I had some difficulty returning the iPod, despite local consumer law being on my side on this one.
While the cry for Plain Fucking English is sometimes heeded, of course, there are problems with intelligible English in interfaces. Brings to mind your average error message. Half the time the developers aren't even sure what it was intended to mean.
Pointless benchmarks. How about more commentary on usability speed? My fairly typical 2008-spec desktop rig has 4gb of RAM and my aging monitor is 1920x1080. My slightly battered old notebook is not even far behind this. So why do developers insist on making using as little memory as possible even if you happen to have an ass-load of it?
Why do they have to waste my time making me click extra, hiding things away just to save another 50px of screen real estate?
Since Natty, Linux usabilty seems to be is taking backwards steps.
I'm just waiting for a UI that not only has no controls at all, but decides what I might like to see next for me. Would be similar to continuous streaming videos. Advertisments could be in "breaks".
Perhaps allow me to choose from a number of 'channels' to provide the illusion of choice.
It's not completely implausible that something like the Zombie apocolpyse could occur. Rabbies, Syphillius, Toxoplasma Gondii are examples of pathogens known to affect behaviour. If one of these or something similar became much more easily tranmissable and had a rapid and dramatic effect on behaviour you'd have yourself your Zombie apocolypse. Walking undead is of course bollocks.
CDC have actually probably seriously considered this scenario.
In windows you could do this easily from the CLI using a single command ... oh wait I see your point.
/v EnableActiveProbing /t REG_DWORD /d 0
BUT Windows does have a GUI registry editor with a search features. Not really harder than a GUI text editor - you'd have to be a real novice to bung that up. Although it's still awful and otherwise intellegent people still do bung it up.
BUT linux scatters text files all over the place, you need to know where to go looking for it, or get on google to find out. Lord help you if you make a typo in the wrong place.
Anyway, the command would be (in an admin CMD shell)...
REG ADD HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\NlaSvc\Parameters\Internet
Now I haven't tested that, but if you need to copy and past a command out of a forum without checking it out first your a noob and the OS in question is broken by design.
Electromagnetic waves can interfere constructively, in fact it's rare a given volume of space the dimensions of the wavelength has a single photon of that length in it. Any "safe limits" are very nominal, you could have harm occuring with much lower intensity EM.
Pointless. If our own technological civilisation is anything to go by, any radiowaves broadcast into space is a brief aberation, as more sophisticated communication becomes more efficient, lower power and increasingly inward angled.
Unless they are specifically beaming something very powerful in our direction and have been doing it for million years, we just wont see it.
Has anyone done the math on if it's even possible for typical terrestrial radio transmissions to be detectable above background noise accross interstellar distances?