Enemies would be more eager to blow the whistle, if their only drive was to make the target look foolish. In this case, continuing access to the data would be a much larger driving factor, so I'd be very surprised if an enemy would ever consider blowing the whistle at all. I'd guess that any foreign government who did have illicit access to NSA data is really pissed at the whole situation post-Snowden, because now their access may be cut off, if it hasn't been already.
Seems you're too young to have heard of StarDivision:
StarWriter 1.0 was written by Marco Borries in 1985 for the Zilog Z80. Borries formed StarDivision in Lüneburg the following year.
Sun acquired StarDivision in 1999.
Seems you're too young to remember that StarOffice didn't use OpenDocument; it used a binary format. It was only after Sun rebranded the suite from StarOffice to OpenOffice that OpenDocument was released. Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, the first OpenDocument release was in 2005, 6 years after the acquisition of Star Division by Sun. That sounds about right to me, as I was using the suite at the time, so I have no reason to doubt Wikipedia's information.
Tell me: What is it that geeks really like? Any idea?
It's learning. Figuring things out. Whether it's a computer, DNA, or next generation rocket engine doesn't matter.
Now, how hard is it for anybody, whether they know computers/Windows or some other thing, to type
shut down windows update
into Google?
The problem isn't that someone doesn't know a specific thing about computers. I couldn't give a damn what someone doesn't know. What I care about is what they're unwilling to learn.
If you refuse to learn how to do something so simple in the correct way, or even just don't even think to find out, then you're not a geek. You're a redneck who removes paint with a 12 gauge.
The page mentions industrial espionage conducted by the NSA back as far as the Cold War; that section specifically, no, it doesn't. I'd guess it was a "post the URL after I've already clicked some links" error, which is somewhat easy to do on Wikipedia.
I've known about this bug for a couple of years, at least. I didn't know the details until now, but I've known that Windows Update on XP has been getting slower and slower, and using more and more memory for a long time.
Wow. Remember when/. used to be populated by, you know....actual geeks? Geeks who knew how to do technical things with computers?
Killing the svchost.exe process to shut down Windows Update is the equivalent of paint removal with a 12 gauge shotgun. It'll work, but it causes a lot of other problems at the same time.
Lots of other services run in that same svchost process, and I'm guessing one of those on your machine was the Windows Audio service, which is why you lost audio. On the other hand, you most definitely do not need to "just sit through it."
net stop wuauserv
This properly shuts down the Windows Update service, and doesn't cause any collateral damage with other services, either.
Wow. 4 hours for your VM to check for updates? What the heck processor are you running this thing on? I've got a bare-metal 1GHz PIII with 256MB RAM (all it will hold, unfortunately) and it only takes 10 minutes or so to finish the update check process.
Why not just do: net stop wuauserv That way you're not killing processes, and possibly corrupting the update database, which causes its own set of problems. In fact, I've got a desktop icon that does exactly that on one of my XP machines, so I can kill it quickly when I need the machine to be responsive in less than 10 minutes...
I'm not sure why any intelligent person would think this is funny. THREE operating systems have come out after XP-- it's not like this 12 year old OS is the latest from Microsoft. You're making Linux zealots look even dumber than they are.
That's exactly why it's funny, you crusty old bastard. (At least, judging by your UID, anyway....) Besides, I'm guessing in a few years we'll start seeing the same problem on Vista and 7, too.
Whereas if some blow-hard shouts "God hates fags" where is your god to weigh in on this? Basically followers say god believes whatever they do.
Well, the "God hates fags" crowd also states that the Bible is the pure word of God. The Bible states pretty categorically that God does not, in fact, hate fags, so basically, God is there to correct them. You just write them off as a bunch of hypocritical bastards (which they may very well be) but then you send the entire religion and God with it, which is simply guilt by association.
... as it is that you've the blind faith to assert there is a god to argue about in the first place. Why are we even bothering to discuss the purported existence of this pipe dream, pie in the sky, spirit fairy in the first place? Because those like you feel some need for such a monstrosity to exist to complete you in some way? If you do, why on Earth should we care about that problem of yours, other than it may paint you as a potentially dangerous, reality avoiding, psychopathic personality?
Have a nice day (sky fairy or not).
Wow. That's an awful lot of vitriol and personal attacks (Dangerous? Psychopathic? Really?) against someone who simply pointed out that the argument you were making isn't what the original poster asked for evidence of. This isn't a flamewar. Or, at least, it didn't start out that way. You made it that way. All the OP asked for was evidence that god(s) were created by humans to explain what they don't understand. How does this turn into someone being dangerous and psychopathic? You really do sound like a religious nutjob, who attacks anyone who disagrees with their worldview. But you're worse, because they asked for a scientific argument, in which evidence was to be presented in favour of a position. Since your inflammatory comments about "dangerous" personalities imply that scientific, provable arguments are useful, because they're not based on baseless faith like religion is, you should be welcoming of this type of argument, but you're not. You're a hypocrite of the worst kind.
This is not IBM suing the NSA. This is an investor of IBM suing IBM for cooperating with the NSA, and thereby damaging IBMs market valuation, causing said investor to lose money.
Why then do small cars have it? Bigger cars, fair enough, but a two door Fiesta?
The lightest Fiesta still weighs well over a ton, unladen. Assuming the weight distribution will be front biased, with it being a front engine/front wheel drive car, that's probably 650 lbs on each front wheel, before you put a person in the car. That will be easy to steer at speed, but not necessarily in a parking lot. Then there's the fact that people expect power steering on a car, regardless of whether it really needs it or not.
Besides, most rear wheel drive cars are bigger cars. So if "front wheel drive inertia" is the reason for power steering, then why are you now claiming that bigger cars need power steering, when those same cars are less likely to be front wheel drive?
And, no, I'm not making shit up. I've had complete electrical failure in a big ass Volvo at speed. Not remotely funny.
Great. Good for you. WTF does this have to do with your "front wheel drive inertia" thing? For that matter, was your "big ass Volvo" a FWD or RWD car? I've driven a 1/2 ton GMC pickup truck with a blown power steering hose before. Weighed about 2 tons, and a complete pig to park in that state. Get it out on the highway, though, and the steering felt a little heavy, but was perfectly usable.
Assange posted footage of an Apache helicopter crew murdering innocent civilians. How could he possibly have that footage if he wasn't involved in the murders? It is clear that Assange or his associates would have to have installed the video recording device in the helicopter.
It's also quite clear that the unauthorized video recording device caused the trigger to be pulled, shooting all those people. Since the only possible way for this to happen is for Assange to have set up a remote control trigger pull on the camera, it's obvious that Assange killed that van full of kids!
Question: How or why then does he say he has the logs? At the very least he apparently received them, which would mean he is involved, so Yes.
WTF? By that logic, we were all involved in 9/11. After all, we've all seen (therefore received) the videos of the planes flying into the WTC, so the most of THE ENTIRE WORLD WAS INVOLVED IN IT!!!!!!111!11eleventy!111!
Men don't like fat chicks. Chicks don't like fat chicks. Fat chicks don't like being fat.
This is somewhat of an over generalization, wouldn't you say? There are certainly men who like fat chicks. There are certainly chicks who like being fat. Just because *you* don't like fat chicks, doesn't mean that there aren't men out there who like their women with curves.
So, pardon my french, but....fuck you and your fat shaming.
How do people have so little clue as to how their car works?
Power brakes, on a gasoline powered car, are run by intake manifold vacuum. It does not take a belt to run them. The entire accessory drive system could explode, and as long as the engine was still running, the power brakes would be completely unaffected. Having said that, there is a significant vacuum reservoir, with a check valve preventing leakage, even when the engine is shut off. Try this: Park your car on a hill. Apply the parking brake, and shut off the engine. Leave it overnight. The next morning, don't start the car. Turn the key enough to unlock the steering column, but no further. Don't touch the brake pedal yet. Make sure it's in neutral, and release the parking brake. Once the car has started rolling, press the brakes, and see how easy it is to stop the car. Then, release the brake pedal, roll downhill, and press the brake to stop again. Still feels normal, doesn't it? And this is after the car has sat for several hours, rather than only seconds after the engine has stalled.
Now the third time, all bets are off. The vacuum reservoir on most cars has enough capacity for two full brake presses; some even more. Barring a vacuum leak, though, there will *always* be enough power assist to bring the car to a stop with power-assisted brakes.
This doesn't apply to diesels, which have no intake manifold vacuum, so usually run the power brakes with a belt-driven pump.
If ignition happens at the wrong time for an extended period, then you're right. A spark advanced too far for a significant period of time can cause holed pistons, cracked heads, etc. However, screwing up the ignition timing for the couple of seconds it's going to take to stall the engine is going to cause pretty much bupkis in physical engine damage.
Whenever I needed to hit reserve on my bike, I didn't even need to restart, unless I was nearly stopped when it ran out. If it ran out on the highway, which is mostly what happened, I just wound out the throttle while I reached down and flipped the fuel cock to reserve, and within a couple of seconds, I was accelerating again.
Slashdot Mirror
Enemies would be more eager to blow the whistle, if their only drive was to make the target look foolish. In this case, continuing access to the data would be a much larger driving factor, so I'd be very surprised if an enemy would ever consider blowing the whistle at all.
I'd guess that any foreign government who did have illicit access to NSA data is really pissed at the whole situation post-Snowden, because now their access may be cut off, if it hasn't been already.
Seems you're too young to have heard of StarDivision:
StarWriter 1.0 was written by Marco Borries in 1985 for the Zilog Z80. Borries formed StarDivision in Lüneburg the following year.
Sun acquired StarDivision in 1999.
Seems you're too young to remember that StarOffice didn't use OpenDocument; it used a binary format. It was only after Sun rebranded the suite from StarOffice to OpenOffice that OpenDocument was released. Incidentally, according to Wikipedia, the first OpenDocument release was in 2005, 6 years after the acquisition of Star Division by Sun. That sounds about right to me, as I was using the suite at the time, so I have no reason to doubt Wikipedia's information.
Jerks like me, huh? Really?
Tell me: What is it that geeks really like?
Any idea?
It's learning. Figuring things out. Whether it's a computer, DNA, or next generation rocket engine doesn't matter.
Now, how hard is it for anybody, whether they know computers/Windows or some other thing, to type
shut down windows update
into Google?
The problem isn't that someone doesn't know a specific thing about computers. I couldn't give a damn what someone doesn't know.
What I care about is what they're unwilling to learn.
If you refuse to learn how to do something so simple in the correct way, or even just don't even think to find out, then you're not a geek. You're a redneck who removes paint with a 12 gauge.
Errr.x What?.x?
The page mentions industrial espionage conducted by the NSA back as far as the Cold War; that section specifically, no, it doesn't.
I'd guess it was a "post the URL after I've already clicked some links" error, which is somewhat easy to do on Wikipedia.
I've known about this bug for a couple of years, at least. I didn't know the details until now, but I've known that Windows Update on XP has been getting slower and slower, and using more and more memory for a long time.
Wow. /. used to be populated by, you know....actual geeks? Geeks who knew how to do technical things with computers?
Remember when
Killing the svchost.exe process to shut down Windows Update is the equivalent of paint removal with a 12 gauge shotgun. It'll work, but it causes a lot of other problems at the same time.
Lots of other services run in that same svchost process, and I'm guessing one of those on your machine was the Windows Audio service, which is why you lost audio.
On the other hand, you most definitely do not need to "just sit through it."
net stop wuauserv
This properly shuts down the Windows Update service, and doesn't cause any collateral damage with other services, either.
Wow. 4 hours for your VM to check for updates? What the heck processor are you running this thing on? I've got a bare-metal 1GHz PIII with 256MB RAM (all it will hold, unfortunately) and it only takes 10 minutes or so to finish the update check process.
Why not just do:
net stop wuauserv
That way you're not killing processes, and possibly corrupting the update database, which causes its own set of problems.
In fact, I've got a desktop icon that does exactly that on one of my XP machines, so I can kill it quickly when I need the machine to be responsive in less than 10 minutes...
That's what you get for buying Intel.... :P
I'm not sure why any intelligent person would think this is funny. THREE operating systems have come out after XP-- it's not like this 12 year old OS is the latest from Microsoft. You're making Linux zealots look even dumber than they are.
That's exactly why it's funny, you crusty old bastard. (At least, judging by your UID, anyway....)
Besides, I'm guessing in a few years we'll start seeing the same problem on Vista and 7, too.
Whereas if some blow-hard shouts "God hates fags" where is your god to weigh in on this? Basically followers say god believes whatever they do.
Well, the "God hates fags" crowd also states that the Bible is the pure word of God. The Bible states pretty categorically that God does not, in fact, hate fags, so basically, God is there to correct them. You just write them off as a bunch of hypocritical bastards (which they may very well be) but then you send the entire religion and God with it, which is simply guilt by association.
... as it is that you've the blind faith to assert there is a god to argue about in the first place. Why are we even bothering to discuss the purported existence of this pipe dream, pie in the sky, spirit fairy in the first place? Because those like you feel some need for such a monstrosity to exist to complete you in some way? If you do, why on Earth should we care about that problem of yours, other than it may paint you as a potentially dangerous, reality avoiding, psychopathic personality?
Have a nice day (sky fairy or not).
Wow. That's an awful lot of vitriol and personal attacks (Dangerous? Psychopathic? Really?) against someone who simply pointed out that the argument you were making isn't what the original poster asked for evidence of. This isn't a flamewar. Or, at least, it didn't start out that way. You made it that way.
All the OP asked for was evidence that god(s) were created by humans to explain what they don't understand. How does this turn into someone being dangerous and psychopathic? You really do sound like a religious nutjob, who attacks anyone who disagrees with their worldview. But you're worse, because they asked for a scientific argument, in which evidence was to be presented in favour of a position. Since your inflammatory comments about "dangerous" personalities imply that scientific, provable arguments are useful, because they're not based on baseless faith like religion is, you should be welcoming of this type of argument, but you're not. You're a hypocrite of the worst kind.
This is not IBM suing the NSA. This is an investor of IBM suing IBM for cooperating with the NSA, and thereby damaging IBMs market valuation, causing said investor to lose money.
Why then do small cars have it? Bigger cars, fair enough, but a two door Fiesta?
The lightest Fiesta still weighs well over a ton, unladen. Assuming the weight distribution will be front biased, with it being a front engine/front wheel drive car, that's probably 650 lbs on each front wheel, before you put a person in the car.
That will be easy to steer at speed, but not necessarily in a parking lot.
Then there's the fact that people expect power steering on a car, regardless of whether it really needs it or not.
Besides, most rear wheel drive cars are bigger cars. So if "front wheel drive inertia" is the reason for power steering, then why are you now claiming that bigger cars need power steering, when those same cars are less likely to be front wheel drive?
And, no, I'm not making shit up. I've had complete electrical failure in a big ass Volvo at speed. Not remotely funny.
Great. Good for you. WTF does this have to do with your "front wheel drive inertia" thing? For that matter, was your "big ass Volvo" a FWD or RWD car?
I've driven a 1/2 ton GMC pickup truck with a blown power steering hose before. Weighed about 2 tons, and a complete pig to park in that state. Get it out on the highway, though, and the steering felt a little heavy, but was perfectly usable.
Maybe the NSA needs help understanding phone calls made in a language spoken by less than half a million people alive!
Well, it's their own fault. If they included the dead people who speak the language, they'd have a much better chance of translating it all.... :P
Assange posted footage of an Apache helicopter crew murdering
innocent civilians. How could he possibly have that footage
if he wasn't involved in the murders? It is clear that
Assange or his associates would have to have installed
the video recording device in the helicopter.
It's also quite clear that the unauthorized video recording device caused the trigger to be pulled, shooting all those people. Since the only possible way for this to happen is for Assange to have set up a remote control trigger pull on the camera, it's obvious that Assange killed that van full of kids!
Question: How or why then does he say he has the logs? At the very least he apparently received them, which would mean he is involved, so Yes.
WTF? By that logic, we were all involved in 9/11. After all, we've all seen (therefore received) the videos of the planes flying into the WTC, so the most of THE ENTIRE WORLD WAS INVOLVED IN IT!!!!!!111!11eleventy!111!
Is it free? And where do you get it?
Really? Just look around. It's fucking EVERYWHERE!!!
Men don't like fat chicks. Chicks don't like fat chicks. Fat chicks don't like being fat.
This is somewhat of an over generalization, wouldn't you say?
There are certainly men who like fat chicks. There are certainly chicks who like being fat.
Just because *you* don't like fat chicks, doesn't mean that there aren't men out there who like their women with curves.
So, pardon my french, but....fuck you and your fat shaming.
No difference at all when I tried it - maybe your car has an automatic transmission and the engine drops to zero RPM before the car is stopped?
Maybe his car is a piece of shit and the vacuum check valve in the power brake system is leaking like a screen door in a battleship.....
How do people have so little clue as to how their car works?
Power brakes, on a gasoline powered car, are run by intake manifold vacuum. It does not take a belt to run them. The entire accessory drive system could explode, and as long as the engine was still running, the power brakes would be completely unaffected.
Having said that, there is a significant vacuum reservoir, with a check valve preventing leakage, even when the engine is shut off.
Try this:
Park your car on a hill. Apply the parking brake, and shut off the engine.
Leave it overnight. The next morning, don't start the car. Turn the key enough to unlock the steering column, but no further. Don't touch the brake pedal yet. Make sure it's in neutral, and release the parking brake. Once the car has started rolling, press the brakes, and see how easy it is to stop the car. Then, release the brake pedal, roll downhill, and press the brake to stop again. Still feels normal, doesn't it? And this is after the car has sat for several hours, rather than only seconds after the engine has stalled.
Now the third time, all bets are off. The vacuum reservoir on most cars has enough capacity for two full brake presses; some even more. Barring a vacuum leak, though, there will *always* be enough power assist to bring the car to a stop with power-assisted brakes.
This doesn't apply to diesels, which have no intake manifold vacuum, so usually run the power brakes with a belt-driven pump.
If used on a motorcycle, it can mean the rider can lose control, causing a crash, fatality, and lawsuits.
What is the alternative for safely stopping a speeding motorcycle?
A clothesline. Oh...wait. That only stops the rider, not the bike.....
If ignition happens at the wrong time for an extended period, then you're right. A spark advanced too far for a significant period of time can cause holed pistons, cracked heads, etc.
However, screwing up the ignition timing for the couple of seconds it's going to take to stall the engine is going to cause pretty much bupkis in physical engine damage.
Whenever I needed to hit reserve on my bike, I didn't even need to restart, unless I was nearly stopped when it ran out. If it ran out on the highway, which is mostly what happened, I just wound out the throttle while I reached down and flipped the fuel cock to reserve, and within a couple of seconds, I was accelerating again.