What is this "UAC annoyance" of which you speak? I ask in all seriousness because I've been using Vista almost since it was relased and the only times I see UAC are when I'm either installing something or futzing around with files which don't belong to my user account, both of which would seem to be valid reasons to prompt me.
I'm just a bit too paranoid to right away break out the "run as admin" option as a first troubleshooting step. Process Monitor is a fantastic little tool for figuring out what an uncooperative app is trying and failing to access. Sometimes it's just a case of loosening permissions on one particular directory or reg key, and I like to try that before giving anything blanket admin privileges.
Everyone has heard a similar story, or has a friend of a friend that this happened "personally" to. Problem is, it's all complete bullshit. Show me one credible source that documents someone being labelled as a sex offender for having consentual sex with a younger girlfriend
Google for the names mentioned and you'll turn up news reports in credible newspapers, court documents, etc. There's even a report of a girl getting the sex offender label for having sex with a younger boyfriend.
Maybe it will go some way to shutting up the people who constantly cry "think of the children" and complain about "teh dangers of teh intarweb", and it's not like it's being forced upon those who don't want to use it.
Think of it like getting banned from a forum because the admin thinks you are a troll.
On a free forum to which you have paid nothing this makes sense, but I'd imagine the students pay some quite hefty fees to the university in the expectation of receiving full access to all services for their money.
"consumer products" only
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
One rule for Tivo and another rule for IBM?
Why should I have less right to install modified code on my mainframe than on the box under my TV?
For all Stallman's huffing and puffing about defending freedom, it sounds like he caved in to big business here.
His computer sent out a DHCP *REQUEST*. His computer said: "Can I have an IP address on this network? Can I have the information I need to get online from this access point?"
To which the access point replied: "Yes, you can have X.X.X.X. You can route your traffic through X.X.X.X."
He *asked* to use the network, and the network said *yes*.
He *tried* the door handle. The door opened. Does this mean he had an automatic right to go inside? Technically possible != legal.
I managed to get around the issue by routing my email through my ISP's email server (which is static), although it was very annoying to have to do that.
Why is it annoying to have to do this? Even if you do need to run a local mail server for your company, just configure your ISP's server as your 'smarthost' and you'll be fine. I don't see the problem.
When are these going to go away? Nobody I know uses a CRT any more. Why not include a DVI connector on the back instead? For that matter, why do all graphics cards and many low-end LCD screens employ these old VGA interfaces?
If you make certificates too easy to obtain then every phisher and his dog will just buy one and create a false impression of legitimacy. If you try too hard to restrict them to bona fide companies then you risk shutting out the mom and pop outfits. What's the answer?
Anyone what approach Firefox takes compared to IE7 here?
Not to be picky, but on my Solaris boxes, I don't call up McAffee every time a security vulnerability is released, nor do I call them to protect my AIX systems from Crackers either. I expect that Sun and IBM, respectively, will secure their OS, issue patches, and provide the appropriate tools to manage security.
As usual it's that old bugbear antitrust rearing its ugly head again. McAffee et al claim that MS is going to produce its own anti-malware tools and lock them out of the market, kind of like if Sun hardened Solaris in such a way that you had to run their supplied Sendmail and it segfaulted when you tried to install Postfix.
That said I think increased security trumps competition in this case. I don't want any APIs for 3rd parties to mess with the Windows kernel because malware writers will just use them too.
do think they need to restrict access to the kernel, but why from software makers such as Norton, AVG, McAfee?
If a means is offered for Norton, AVG, and McAfee to bypass the security then you can bet your bottom dollar that hackers and malware writers will use it as well. Personally I'd rather not have deliberate holes in my kernel just to keep 3rd party security companies happy.
a tiny move could turn them into all-out sharing of code between Linux and Solaris
Do you really think the sharing would be in anything other than one direction? What incentive would Sun have to see all their crown jewels taken and added to Linux?
It seems like giving them away to people would be a far better way of getting rid of old, but still usable, computers
Not necessarily. Often these old machines are highly inefficient in terms of the computing power they provide vs the electricity they consume. Sure, having one of these at home would be cool - in fact I did used to use the next model down as my home server - but these days I just don't want to either pay the power bill or try to justify the waste of resources. Sometimes it really is better just to let this old kit go to silicon heaven.
Shouldn't an employer have the right to fire a worker who wastes too much time online?
Sure, but time online should not be treated any differently to time spent on the phone or reading a newspaper. Seems perfectly sensible to me. That's what the judge is saying. Beats me why so many folks think we need special rules and regulations whenever THE INTERNET is involved.
Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players."
In that case surely a better angle of attack would be to force MS to stop their shady business practices. Even if they were forced to unbundle some stuff from Windows, they could just offer 'financial incentives' to PC makers who put it all back again.
not be forced by the OS/kernel maker to include one and pay a penalty even if they don't want it
I haven't RTFA, but how is MS penalising computer makers for including 3rd party IM programs, media players, etc? Only this month I set up a laptop (Sony I think) which included bundled copies of Yahoo Messenger and RealPlayer alongside Windows Messenger and Windows Media Player. Did Sony have to pay some terrible price to be able to do this?
Surely a manufacturer's freedom to bundle Yahoo Messenger with their system != Microsoft being forced to remove Windows Messenger from their OS.
To fund the BBC, just raise everyones taxes a bit and get rid of this bureaucratic mess.
The problem with the government funding the BBC out of general taxation is that it would open them up to accusations of being under government control. The licence fee which they collect and administer themselves allows them to at least claim independence.
Slashdot Mirror
What is this "UAC annoyance" of which you speak? I ask in all seriousness because I've been using Vista almost since it was relased and the only times I see UAC are when I'm either installing something or futzing around with files which don't belong to my user account, both of which would seem to be valid reasons to prompt me.
And you don't trust a judge and jury to appreciate the difference?
I'm just a bit too paranoid to right away break out the "run as admin" option as a first troubleshooting step. Process Monitor is a fantastic little tool for figuring out what an uncooperative app is trying and failing to access. Sometimes it's just a case of loosening permissions on one particular directory or reg key, and I like to try that before giving anything blanket admin privileges.
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/stories/2007/10/26/wilsoned_1028.html
Google for the names mentioned and you'll turn up news reports in credible newspapers, court documents, etc. There's even a report of a girl getting the sex offender label for having sex with a younger boyfriend.
Maybe it will go some way to shutting up the people who constantly cry "think of the children" and complain about "teh dangers of teh intarweb", and it's not like it's being forced upon those who don't want to use it.
One rule for Tivo and another rule for IBM?
Why should I have less right to install modified code on my mainframe than on the box under my TV?
For all Stallman's huffing and puffing about defending freedom, it sounds like he caved in to big business here.
He *tried* the door handle. The door opened. Does this mean he had an automatic right to go inside? Technically possible != legal.
...who has never, ever, since they first got online bought a single damn thing via clicking an ad on a web site?
When are these going to go away? Nobody I know uses a CRT any more. Why not include a DVI connector on the back instead? For that matter, why do all graphics cards and many low-end LCD screens employ these old VGA interfaces?
If you make certificates too easy to obtain then every phisher and his dog will just buy one and create a false impression of legitimacy. If you try too hard to restrict them to bona fide companies then you risk shutting out the mom and pop outfits. What's the answer?
Anyone what approach Firefox takes compared to IE7 here?
As usual it's that old bugbear antitrust rearing its ugly head again. McAffee et al claim that MS is going to produce its own anti-malware tools and lock them out of the market, kind of like if Sun hardened Solaris in such a way that you had to run their supplied Sendmail and it segfaulted when you tried to install Postfix.
That said I think increased security trumps competition in this case. I don't want any APIs for 3rd parties to mess with the Windows kernel because malware writers will just use them too.
Can someone tell me how this is any of the business of Congress?
... to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"
"The Congress shall have power
Sadly it's pretty much accepted that internet == commerce.
the Linux Kernel 2.5 codebase
Err... isn't that rather out of date now? Last time I checked 2.6 was where it was all happening.
a tiny move could turn them into all-out sharing of code between Linux and Solaris
Do you really think the sharing would be in anything other than one direction? What incentive would Sun have to see all their crown jewels taken and added to Linux?
It seems like giving them away to people would be a far better way of getting rid of old, but still usable, computers
Not necessarily. Often these old machines are highly inefficient in terms of the computing power they provide vs the electricity they consume. Sure, having one of these at home would be cool - in fact I did used to use the next model down as my home server - but these days I just don't want to either pay the power bill or try to justify the waste of resources. Sometimes it really is better just to let this old kit go to silicon heaven.
Shouldn't an employer have the right to fire a worker who wastes too much time online?
Sure, but time online should not be treated any differently to time spent on the phone or reading a newspaper. Seems perfectly sensible to me. That's what the judge is saying. Beats me why so many folks think we need special rules and regulations whenever THE INTERNET is involved.
Microsoft used contractual restrictions and financial incentives to "force PC makers to accept Windows PC operating systems with the bundled Windows Media Player and to restrict the ability of PC makers to preinstall or promote competing digital media players."
In that case surely a better angle of attack would be to force MS to stop their shady business practices. Even if they were forced to unbundle some stuff from Windows, they could just offer 'financial incentives' to PC makers who put it all back again.
not be forced by the OS/kernel maker to include one and pay a penalty even if they don't want it
I haven't RTFA, but how is MS penalising computer makers for including 3rd party IM programs, media players, etc? Only this month I set up a laptop (Sony I think) which included bundled copies of Yahoo Messenger and RealPlayer alongside Windows Messenger and Windows Media Player. Did Sony have to pay some terrible price to be able to do this?
Surely a manufacturer's freedom to bundle Yahoo Messenger with their system != Microsoft being forced to remove Windows Messenger from their OS.
To fund the BBC, just raise everyones taxes a bit and get rid of this bureaucratic mess.
The problem with the government funding the BBC out of general taxation is that it would open them up to accusations of being under government control. The licence fee which they collect and administer themselves allows them to at least claim independence.