Nothing, as far as I can see. Doesn't really have anything to do with spam, either, in any meaningful sense, unless "spam" now means any large-scale use of email.
No, but large scale use of unsolicited email + hiding the source = spam to me...though it's not UCE cause it's not commercial...
The disguised e-mails, being sent to key Iraqi leaders, urge them to give up, to dissent and to defect.
The U.S. military and intelligence officials were apparently hoping that the Iraqis do not realize where the e-mails are coming from.
I'm not sure you understand here. The.NET Framework is a collection of objects (similar to the Win32 API's) that all.NET managed code has access to. Managed.NET code must be written with certain constraints, however.
C++ is not designed with these constraints in mind. Managed C++ is, basically, C++ following those constraints (and is a mess). C# is a new language designed around those constraints, using similar syntax to C++ and Java (to make it easier to learn). VB.NET is a rewrite of Visual Basic that gives it a lot of the power of C++, but retains some of VB's simpler syntax (to make it easier to learn). They're not different only in syntax, though...there are differences in rules and functions as well. Sure, you can write programs that do the same things in VB.NET as in C#, but some things are easier in one than the other...which has pretty much always been the case with different programming languages.
Standard C++ can be compiled with/clr and will be compiled to IL bytecode, therefore using CLR. You can not, however, use standard C++ to access the.NET Framework...that requires managed C++ (or another.NET safe language).
But, C# and VB.NET aren't the only languages out there. ActiveState has Python.NET and Perl.NET, there's COBOL.NET, Fortran.NET, Forth.NET, and even Pascal.NET (and many others).
But, managed code is a new addition to.NET that requires some adoptions in the programming languages. Why didn't MS port C++ or VB6 to.NET? They pretty much did...it's called Visual C++.NET and Visual Basic.NET.
Like I said, if you're not a Windows developer (which you don't seem to be), then this largely means nothing to you.
I would guess that MS would put some code signing abilities into the domain controller's of the network, leaving the System Admin to sign code as safe. Therefore, the SA could sign scripts he writes, and sign custom apps as well as safe to run on member PC's.
With Windows 2000 already including Certificate Services, I'd definitely put money on that road for program signing....Who knows what the hell it'll mean for digital media, though.
Mod the parent up. He's the first one with half a clue on what.NET is, rather than what MS is positioning on what.NET can do.
Don't forget, however, that the.NET Framework also means that (theoretically, at least...and in reality for the most part) you can write in C#.NET, VB.NET, etc. and still have access to the same objects...so you can keep the language you're most familiar with.
Also,.NET allows multiple versions of shared libraries, ending "DLL Hell" (which really hasn't been a problem for around 5 years, but whatever). It's also allows for granular and inheritable permissions on program's actions (Program X is allowed to access the network, therefore Component Y called by Program X is allowed to access the network)...though it requires a good development team that knows what they're doing and does it properly (so it probably won't work out too well).
SOAP, XML, and Web Services are really just applications and languages of.NET...and a vision of MS's future program services (where your program can call on another program located on your server, or halfway around the world, to process data and return it...sort of like a global #include)...but it's not really living up to the hype yet.
If you're not a developer or system admin,.NET means very little to you. If you're a developer, you probably should look into it, unless you're into Java. System Admins can probably wait a year or so before playing with Windows 2003 Server and some actual.NET applications.
BTW, if you haven't seen WinDriverBackup, it sure does make life easier. Free personal and inexpensive pro versions available from jermar.com. (Doesn't like older Win95 setups much, but otherwise works great.)
I hadn't seen it before, but it does look like it would make my life easier...thanks for the tip! I'm almost hoping for a reinstall tomorrow just to try it out. =)
The majority of the time, consumers have borked thier installation. When the computer no longer boots, what do you do?
Depends on the OS. In the ubiquitous Win9x, you boot into safe mode and troubleshoot. Start with startup files (autoexec.bat, config.sys, *.ini, etc.). Then restore the registry backup (scanreg/restore). Then move to drivers, disabling a group of them as you go (usually I've found that sound drivers are the most common problem...dunno why)-a bootlog.txt file may be of some help here. Then restore system.1st (the original registry). In 99 out of 100 cases, if you can boot Safe Mode you can boot Windows.
I clean up after my own messes thank you. Why RRR? It's quicker and gets the computer back to the customer faster.
Perhaps it's faster for you, though I doubt it. Figure 15 mins to back up data. Then, it takes a minimum of 1-1.5 hours to reinstall Windows itself. Then, you have to load the drivers. This can take anywhere from 0 (in the rare case that Windows has all the drivers) to 30 minutes (having to track down drivers) to just short of forever (drivers not available, need CD, etc.). Then you have to reinstall applications or explain to the customer that they'll have to do it...I figure at least 30 mins here (updated IE + IE/Windows hotfixes, MS Office, Antivirus, etc.) with the hope that the customer has possession of all the CD's and has brought them to your shop. Now, setup their internet access and email if they use dialup...figure 15 mins to get the dial up number, username/password, import back their backed up email and address book, etc. So, at the end of 2-3 hours working time (not to mention waiting for the customer to return your calls for backup questions, username/password issues, bringing their software in, etc.), the customer has a nice fully functioning system.
Of course, they're still going to want all the associated crap they had on there in the first place, you probably forgot to backup and restore something, and they probably didn't have the necessary disks for reinstall of some app or another.
There's alot of issues I can track down and fix within 2-3 hours...and their computer is just like they brought it to me, except for the problem has been fixed. And I only took an hour (minimum charge). Which do you think is a better way to go?
Not to say that a reinstall isn't warranted at times...either for technical reasons or the customer would rather start with a clean slate. In those cases, the disadvantages are somewhat inevitable, and should be explained to the customer.
It's not the hard way...it's actually the easy way. Learn Windows, learn Google, and fix the damn thing! If you've seen the problem before, it takes 15 mins to fix it. Othertimes, it may take an hour to research and fix it, but it sure beats the hell out of a reinstall.
Wrong, you must be from the east side or some shit. The three R's are retry, reboot and reinstall. The 3 R's usually work well on windows systems. Really if something doesn't work and you retry it lots of times it'll work, if that doesnt do it, reboot. Rebooting seems to solve 90% of windows problems.
You guys need a certification in something...but computers ain't it. Reinstall is the absolute LAST option, only to be used when you're (a) out of options, or (b) know the fix would take longer than rebuilding the machine. Not entirely true on corporate machines that have disk images and automated app installs, but then they don't bring their PC's to the shop, do they?
Why can't you just find the problem and fix it? Is it that difficult? If it is, perhaps you should look for a new line of work, instead of leaving competent techs like myself to clean up after you or trying to explain why you formatted someone's PC (and usually screwed it up even more by losing data, settings, or not installing drivers, etc) for no reason.
You may not reverse engineer on a train, you may not reverse engineer in the rain. You may not share files with a fox, you may not let files leave this box...
It's not exactly Seussian, but it does rhyme =) (taken from the actual Win2K Pro EULA on my system):
Don't use on multiple PC's, we'll call the software Nazi's.
If this is an upgrade, you better have paid.
This covers an update, it's not up to fate.
You can sell your CD, if they agree to me.
Don't reverse engineer, or live in fear.
If we cancel at will, you throw it in a landfill.
We collect your details, and we read your emails.
Sun says don't trust java, because it will harm ya'.
There are no warranties, we will not hear your pleas.
It's protected by copyright, so don't try to fight.
You will be tried in Redmond, we will have a big lawyer fund.
You must be crazy, to read to the end of me.
All I'm really asking for is a theme/mode/setting for regular Windows installs to be workable on a Lo-res device (Not just TV, but open it up to cheap LCD displays for 'embedded' systems and whatnot).
All depends on what you want to do with your PC on your TV. As far as general desktop goodness goes, give Talisman or a similar shell replacement (Object Desktop has a nice one as well) a try. They'll allow you to create your own theme with as large of buttons as your heart desires. Of course, apps are another issue all together...it's dependent on the app. Throwiing a skin together in WinAmp3 shouldn't be too difficult though, and now that it plays video files too, you may have a winner there. Gaming at 640x480 on a TV has never been a problem for me, so I think you're covered there too. To min/max/close apps that aren't skinnable, try using the keyboard combos instead of manipulating the mouse pointer.
Maybe some day developers will start using standard widgets and fonts and then you'll actually be able to control them, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
The purpose of a PVR is simple and clear, and doesn't require all the complexity (and expense!) of a PC to manage.
A PVR's purpose is clear, and as demonstrated, MS has done a decent job of getting that part down. Of course, MS is trying to build a Media Center, of which PVR functionality is only one part. It's the most visible part because of the success of TiVO and the like, but MS isn't stopping there (like TiVo and ReplayTV do).
Already, XP MCE adds support for a host of other video and audio files, and can continue to add support for other or newer formats (that's the beauty of a PC, it can be taught to do new things with software).
I'd expect some video editing programs to be released that can edit MS's bastardized MPEG-2 content Real Soon, and a way to convert them to DivX as well (commercial or otherwise). MS may even see the light and drop the format all together.
You can easily archive content to removable storage, or add internal or external drives for archiving (will your TiVO burn DVD's?).
Indexing and searching are a natural addition, as is streaming to other "receivers" (PC's with MCE Client software for AV decoding connected to other TV's) around the network.
Make no mistake, MS isn't building a PVR. MS is testing the waters for a MS Digital Media Server in your home. It's classic MS...throw together existing components, wrap it up in a pretty GUI, and release v1.0. Figure out the bugs and add a few small features and release SP1. Then, if it sticks, run with it and add feature after feature until it's too bloated and cumbersome to take any more. If it doesn't stick, shelve it and write it off.
My prediction: It won't stick...not right now. But it'll be back (whether from MS or someone else) in about 3-5 years, and it'll be a pretty profitable market to be in.
I have a TiVo.
I use a TiVo instead of piping my cable through my computer for a reason.
Its the same reason I have a football games on my GameCube.
Some things are just better without the PC.
Why would I use awkward PVR abilities of my PC (requiring me to sit in a specific spot, and use a mouse) when I can plop down on my couch and pick up the TiVo remote?
Did you not read the article and decide to comment anyway (like this guy, who at least made a valid point)? Or are you Reading Comprehension Challenged? Either way, surely you've noticed the variety of remote control hardware and software available for PC's now? Not to mention that the XP MCE PC reviewed comes with a (preinstalled even!) remote? And, there's always ATI's Remote Wonder to work with your AIW card, so you can sit on your couch and control your PC in another room. And of course, the XP MCE (as mentioned in the article, is targeted towards being either in your living room or your TV and PC combined (for smaller spaces)p>
There's a reason speciliazed components sell better than PC software geared to do the same thing.
Yeah, but I always thought it was a matter of stability and ease of setup, and sometimes even quality...but maybe it's more consumer ignorance, which you might want to look into becoming the poster child of.
Too bad that TRS-80 dungeon game that tried to be realtime but couldn't keep up with my typing as a 10 year old isn't on the list.
Surely you don't mean one of the greatest games of all time, Dungeons of Dagorath do you? Incredible sound effects (for the era, of course), inventive gameplay (having to actually figure out how to use falsks and rings?!?), probably one of the first good FPS ever made! Interesting factoid: DoD was only about 8KB in size!
Eh? Exchange servers don't verify licenses...that's a job left up to the Windows Licensing Service. Disable it and you're done. Unless you have SBS...but, by design, that's only 1 server.
Now, if your joke would have been "How many servers does it take to send an Exchange email?", and the punchline "60. 59 to clean the viruses, and 1 sendmail server to send the damn thing." That would have been funny.
XP has a built in firewall (better than nothing). I believe XP Pro also has TCP/IP filtering and IPSec rules that can permit/deny based on ip address, port, and direction. Benefit of using the IPSec rules is that it can be done without a reboot, and you can export the REG files for simple doubleclicking modifications.
Running Windows is no excuse for being insecure.
Re:If you want a prefabricated house
on
Open Source Housing
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Having done some rearch into this area recently, I have to disagree. First off, manafactured and/or mobile homes are trailers. Factory built or modular homes are the made in the factory then transported to site type, and they are built to the same codes as site built (aka stick built) homes...manafactured homes are not. They're basically a site built house that's built in a factory, borken apart into 2-4 modules, and transported on site and put back together. See here for more info.
That being said, modular homes are a bit less expensive. Anywhere from $40-$70/sq ft on the plans I've seen. Of course, that doesn't include foundation and site improvements (water hookups, sewer/septic system, basement + walls, etc.) so figure in about $7,000-$10,0000 for that. Also, the homes are about 90% finished, and need trimming out (gutters, shutters, drywall seams, etc.). That adds about %7-$10/sq ft. Overall, it seems to be around $10-$20/sq ft cheaper than a comparable site built home (which is around $100/sq ft for a good sized house).
Modular homes can easily surpass site built in quality. There's a few reasons for this. First, it's much easier to control quality in a factory than on a job site. Inspectors can easily check the entire progress of a home, not just on a few announced site visits. Factory machinery is more precise than a $15/hour day laborer framer with a circular saw (and if you've ever seen and talked to a typical framing crew, you'd probably not want to move into any house). Modular homes have to be built to withstand transportation and being lifted by a crane, as well as stand without the support of the other parts of the house.
Of course, a good site built home is still that...a well built home. And some modular manafacturers cut corners in materials, and some don't. As with anything else, it pays to do your homework.
Modular homes are taking more and more of the market every day. I think it's where a good chunk of the industry is headed in the near future. Modular homes can look like any other (yes, even that 6,000 sq ft log cabin), and can be customized to a good extent (floor plans, fixtures, cabinets, carpet, etc. normally exterior dimensions are fixed by model).
"monetary damages" could be very significant; people who might have subscribed instead just read it here.
Yeah, cause everyone was going to subscribe to read that one article.
Re:You know, Fresco...doesn't ring a bell?
on
Fresco M1 Released
·
· Score: 2
I thought it was Freesco the whole time I was reading the blurb. I kept asking myself, what's with this Berlin name? Then I clicked thru and realized it wasn't...Oh well. I like Freesco better anyways. =)
To a point. But the problem with firewalls is that they lead admins to believe that their boxes are secure. Before I install a firewall for a customer, I always tell them that it won't provide more security, if the box is already insecure.
That's a blatant lie. Why wouldn't a machine, whether secure or insecure to begin with, be more secure behind a firewall? If that was the case, there really wouldn't be a market for firewalls, would there? The point is that a Windows box CAN be hardened, but even so, it's wise to put it behind a firewall...just like a UNIX box.
Yes, and that shows which processes are listening on those ports?
See, on any modern Unix, I can do netstat -ap. This will show not only the ports, but which processes are using them, which was pretty much my point. Once you know which process is responsible, you can make an informed decision as to whether the port needs to be open or not.
Jeez..if you want to be picky, here you go. ActivePorts (freeware), AntiY, and the one I use TCPView Pro. Oh, and here's a list of about 10 more. Or do a Google search (or Snort) on the port number and take an intelligent look at your taskmanager.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but large scale use of unsolicited email + hiding the source = spam to me...though it's not UCE cause it's not commercial...
C++ is not designed with these constraints in mind. Managed C++ is, basically, C++ following those constraints (and is a mess). C# is a new language designed around those constraints, using similar syntax to C++ and Java (to make it easier to learn). VB.NET is a rewrite of Visual Basic that gives it a lot of the power of C++, but retains some of VB's simpler syntax (to make it easier to learn). They're not different only in syntax, though...there are differences in rules and functions as well. Sure, you can write programs that do the same things in VB.NET as in C#, but some things are easier in one than the other...which has pretty much always been the case with different programming languages.
Standard C++ can be compiled with /clr and will be compiled to IL bytecode, therefore using CLR. You can not, however, use standard C++ to access the .NET Framework...that requires managed C++ (or another .NET safe language).
But, C# and VB.NET aren't the only languages out there. ActiveState has Python.NET and Perl.NET, there's COBOL.NET, Fortran.NET, Forth.NET, and even Pascal.NET (and many others).
But, managed code is a new addition to .NET that requires some adoptions in the programming languages. Why didn't MS port C++ or VB6 to .NET? They pretty much did...it's called Visual C++.NET and Visual Basic.NET.
Like I said, if you're not a Windows developer (which you don't seem to be), then this largely means nothing to you.
With Windows 2000 already including Certificate Services, I'd definitely put money on that road for program signing....Who knows what the hell it'll mean for digital media, though.
Don't forget, however, that the .NET Framework also means that (theoretically, at least...and in reality for the most part) you can write in C#.NET, VB.NET, etc. and still have access to the same objects...so you can keep the language you're most familiar with.
Also, .NET allows multiple versions of shared libraries, ending "DLL Hell" (which really hasn't been a problem for around 5 years, but whatever). It's also allows for granular and inheritable permissions on program's actions (Program X is allowed to access the network, therefore Component Y called by Program X is allowed to access the network)...though it requires a good development team that knows what they're doing and does it properly (so it probably won't work out too well).
SOAP, XML, and Web Services are really just applications and languages of .NET...and a vision of MS's future program services (where your program can call on another program located on your server, or halfway around the world, to process data and return it...sort of like a global #include)...but it's not really living up to the hype yet.
If you're not a developer or system admin, .NET means very little to you. If you're a developer, you probably should look into it, unless you're into Java. System Admins can probably wait a year or so before playing with Windows 2003 Server and some actual .NET applications.
I hadn't seen it before, but it does look like it would make my life easier...thanks for the tip! I'm almost hoping for a reinstall tomorrow just to try it out. =)
Depends on the OS. In the ubiquitous Win9x, you boot into safe mode and troubleshoot. Start with startup files (autoexec.bat, config.sys, *.ini, etc.). Then restore the registry backup (scanreg/restore). Then move to drivers, disabling a group of them as you go (usually I've found that sound drivers are the most common problem...dunno why)-a bootlog.txt file may be of some help here. Then restore system.1st (the original registry). In 99 out of 100 cases, if you can boot Safe Mode you can boot Windows.
Perhaps it's faster for you, though I doubt it. Figure 15 mins to back up data. Then, it takes a minimum of 1-1.5 hours to reinstall Windows itself. Then, you have to load the drivers. This can take anywhere from 0 (in the rare case that Windows has all the drivers) to 30 minutes (having to track down drivers) to just short of forever (drivers not available, need CD, etc.). Then you have to reinstall applications or explain to the customer that they'll have to do it...I figure at least 30 mins here (updated IE + IE/Windows hotfixes, MS Office, Antivirus, etc.) with the hope that the customer has possession of all the CD's and has brought them to your shop. Now, setup their internet access and email if they use dialup...figure 15 mins to get the dial up number, username/password, import back their backed up email and address book, etc. So, at the end of 2-3 hours working time (not to mention waiting for the customer to return your calls for backup questions, username/password issues, bringing their software in, etc.), the customer has a nice fully functioning system.
Of course, they're still going to want all the associated crap they had on there in the first place, you probably forgot to backup and restore something, and they probably didn't have the necessary disks for reinstall of some app or another.
There's alot of issues I can track down and fix within 2-3 hours...and their computer is just like they brought it to me, except for the problem has been fixed. And I only took an hour (minimum charge). Which do you think is a better way to go?
Not to say that a reinstall isn't warranted at times...either for technical reasons or the customer would rather start with a clean slate. In those cases, the disadvantages are somewhat inevitable, and should be explained to the customer.
It's not the hard way...it's actually the easy way. Learn Windows, learn Google, and fix the damn thing! If you've seen the problem before, it takes 15 mins to fix it. Othertimes, it may take an hour to research and fix it, but it sure beats the hell out of a reinstall.
You guys need a certification in something...but computers ain't it. Reinstall is the absolute LAST option, only to be used when you're (a) out of options, or (b) know the fix would take longer than rebuilding the machine. Not entirely true on corporate machines that have disk images and automated app installs, but then they don't bring their PC's to the shop, do they?
Why can't you just find the problem and fix it? Is it that difficult? If it is, perhaps you should look for a new line of work, instead of leaving competent techs like myself to clean up after you or trying to explain why you formatted someone's PC (and usually screwed it up even more by losing data, settings, or not installing drivers, etc) for no reason.
It's not exactly Seussian, but it does rhyme =) (taken from the actual Win2K Pro EULA on my system):
All depends on what you want to do with your PC on your TV. As far as general desktop goodness goes, give Talisman or a similar shell replacement (Object Desktop has a nice one as well) a try. They'll allow you to create your own theme with as large of buttons as your heart desires. Of course, apps are another issue all together...it's dependent on the app. Throwiing a skin together in WinAmp3 shouldn't be too difficult though, and now that it plays video files too, you may have a winner there. Gaming at 640x480 on a TV has never been a problem for me, so I think you're covered there too. To min/max/close apps that aren't skinnable, try using the keyboard combos instead of manipulating the mouse pointer.
Maybe some day developers will start using standard widgets and fonts and then you'll actually be able to control them, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
A PVR's purpose is clear, and as demonstrated, MS has done a decent job of getting that part down. Of course, MS is trying to build a Media Center, of which PVR functionality is only one part. It's the most visible part because of the success of TiVO and the like, but MS isn't stopping there (like TiVo and ReplayTV do).
Already, XP MCE adds support for a host of other video and audio files, and can continue to add support for other or newer formats (that's the beauty of a PC, it can be taught to do new things with software).
I'd expect some video editing programs to be released that can edit MS's bastardized MPEG-2 content Real Soon, and a way to convert them to DivX as well (commercial or otherwise). MS may even see the light and drop the format all together.
You can easily archive content to removable storage, or add internal or external drives for archiving (will your TiVO burn DVD's?).
Indexing and searching are a natural addition, as is streaming to other "receivers" (PC's with MCE Client software for AV decoding connected to other TV's) around the network.
Make no mistake, MS isn't building a PVR. MS is testing the waters for a MS Digital Media Server in your home. It's classic MS...throw together existing components, wrap it up in a pretty GUI, and release v1.0. Figure out the bugs and add a few small features and release SP1. Then, if it sticks, run with it and add feature after feature until it's too bloated and cumbersome to take any more. If it doesn't stick, shelve it and write it off.
My prediction: It won't stick...not right now. But it'll be back (whether from MS or someone else) in about 3-5 years, and it'll be a pretty profitable market to be in.
Did you not read the article and decide to comment anyway (like this guy, who at least made a valid point)? Or are you Reading Comprehension Challenged? Either way, surely you've noticed the variety of remote control hardware and software available for PC's now? Not to mention that the XP MCE PC reviewed comes with a (preinstalled even!) remote? And, there's always ATI's Remote Wonder to work with your AIW card, so you can sit on your couch and control your PC in another room. And of course, the XP MCE (as mentioned in the article, is targeted towards being either in your living room or your TV and PC combined (for smaller spaces)p>
Yeah, but I always thought it was a matter of stability and ease of setup, and sometimes even quality...but maybe it's more consumer ignorance, which you might want to look into becoming the poster child of.
Actually, Office does use a OS starrtup trick to initialize shared resources and fonts. See here for Office 97, here for Office 2000.
Of course, even without this speed boost, Office is still faster than competitors, so I don't doubt that the Office coders know what they're doing.
Just don't pass on your capitalization skills!
Yeah, Lotus Notes is unbearably slow and UI-deficient ON the LAN, so your users won't even notice the difference over dial-up!
Now, if your joke would have been "How many servers does it take to send an Exchange email?", and the punchline "60. 59 to clean the viruses, and 1 sendmail server to send the damn thing." That would have been funny.
Linkified. I'll take 15% of the billing rate for data analysis and report generation.
Running Windows is no excuse for being insecure.
That being said, modular homes are a bit less expensive. Anywhere from $40-$70/sq ft on the plans I've seen. Of course, that doesn't include foundation and site improvements (water hookups, sewer/septic system, basement + walls, etc.) so figure in about $7,000-$10,0000 for that. Also, the homes are about 90% finished, and need trimming out (gutters, shutters, drywall seams, etc.). That adds about %7-$10/sq ft. Overall, it seems to be around $10-$20/sq ft cheaper than a comparable site built home (which is around $100/sq ft for a good sized house).
Modular homes can easily surpass site built in quality. There's a few reasons for this. First, it's much easier to control quality in a factory than on a job site. Inspectors can easily check the entire progress of a home, not just on a few announced site visits. Factory machinery is more precise than a $15/hour day laborer framer with a circular saw (and if you've ever seen and talked to a typical framing crew, you'd probably not want to move into any house). Modular homes have to be built to withstand transportation and being lifted by a crane, as well as stand without the support of the other parts of the house.
Of course, a good site built home is still that...a well built home. And some modular manafacturers cut corners in materials, and some don't. As with anything else, it pays to do your homework.
Modular homes are taking more and more of the market every day. I think it's where a good chunk of the industry is headed in the near future. Modular homes can look like any other (yes, even that 6,000 sq ft log cabin), and can be customized to a good extent (floor plans, fixtures, cabinets, carpet, etc. normally exterior dimensions are fixed by model).
I think I'd call the Enquirer first...then my lawyer to start the negotiations. =)
Yeah, cause everyone was going to subscribe to read that one article.
I thought it was Freesco the whole time I was reading the blurb. I kept asking myself, what's with this Berlin name? Then I clicked thru and realized it wasn't...Oh well. I like Freesco better anyways. =)
That's a blatant lie. Why wouldn't a machine, whether secure or insecure to begin with, be more secure behind a firewall? If that was the case, there really wouldn't be a market for firewalls, would there? The point is that a Windows box CAN be hardened, but even so, it's wise to put it behind a firewall...just like a UNIX box.
Yes, and that shows which processes are listening on those ports? See, on any modern Unix, I can do netstat -ap. This will show not only the ports, but which processes are using them, which was pretty much my point. Once you know which process is responsible, you can make an informed decision as to whether the port needs to be open or not.
Jeez..if you want to be picky, here you go. ActivePorts (freeware), AntiY, and the one I use TCPView Pro. Oh, and here's a list of about 10 more. Or do a Google search (or Snort) on the port number and take an intelligent look at your taskmanager.