You seem to have missed the part where the users deliberately execute these files.
Users are dumb fucks like you wouldn't believe, but once they learn to make files executable (and they will need to, so long as there is anything worth downloading on the Internet), this advantage is nullified, so there's really no point bothering.
Dumb shits deserve to get pwned. And their regular upgrades to deal with their crap-infested machines just subsidises hardware for the rest of us.
I saw something similar on, IIRC, Beyond 2000 (when it was still on TV in Oz, 10 years ago). It was like a large corkscrew, rather than a flat pane. A flat pane would appear to have a solid core as it spun, while the corkscrew didn't have that problem.
If they really wanted to reduce the amount of damage malicious code could do, they would create a unix like permissions environment
If you're referring to Windows, what the fuck are you smoking? Windows has a far more powerful permissions system than traditional Unix rwx (or even POSIX ACLs), and it works for any object, not just files.
But so what? Unless you remove the ability to execute all unauthorised applications, you can't stop malware - it runs as the user, it doesn't need system access. And it's the user's computer anyway, anything he runs is "authorised" by that fact alone; the best you can do is try to inform him of what he should and shouldn't be executing, be it through signed binaries or just good program design (eg. not executing embedded macros unless he deliberately runs them). But the basic fact remains is that the user can execute whatever he wants, and whatever he executes can do anything the user can do.
with an automated way of setting permissions levels
To what end? User separation only works when the admin knows what the fuck he's doing. Allowing regular drooling n00bs to maintain their own machines, even if user levels are automatically handled for him, will accomplish very little in reality.
but with the user retaining full control
Bingo. You cannot give the user "full control" AND protect him from himself. This is basic fact, no amount of Unix fairy dust will help you here.
I'm not going to argue your tin-foil-hat theory about the dark side of Trusted Computing, since I happen to agree there.
We've also got VMS, Tandem and zSeries systems that do similar things, daily to monthly (ish) depending on the subsystem in question, and what's being done to it. Not exactly rare.
Whether or not a piece of hardware "just works" depends on what drivers were included in the OS. It's quite likely your XP installation(/media) is much older than your OSX one.
Nevertheless, nearly every piece of hardware I try on my XP box works first go. I certainly don't expect exotic hardware that wasn't released before XP, like my digital TV tuner, to work without installing drivers. But by the time the next Windows release is due, I expect this hardware to be not so exotic anymore, and that drivers will be included.
Anyone who has a problem with religions (ANY religions) being discussed in school is not someone who can be educated. Whether you like it or not, Christianity, Muslim, Jewish, Greek Mythology, Buddism, and other religions all have played a strong part in history.
Very sneaky. Teach religion because it's part of history? OK - make it a part of a history course.
The problem with religious education is that it is normally taught as fact, like it was a church sermon and not an educational class. Frankly, foisting religious doctrine on children should be considered child abuse.
If you want to teach a particular religion, get someone of an "opposed" religion to teach it instead.
I used to use VMS and that was definitely multiuser
Were you running a GUI on that, or a terminal session? Windows supports that kind of thing just fine; what it can't (or won't, coz of licensing) allow is multiple desktops. Does X even allow multiple users to share the same instance of X concurrently?
and I've heard rumors that NT is a dumbed down VMS
The core OS was done by a lot of the same people (IIRC, DEC shafted the VMS team, so MS poached them quicksmart and thanked the $DEITY), but they share no code.
There are many virtual hosters whose reverse DNS does not match the domain they are hosting. Or in my case with static IP home DNS that does resolves to something, but my domain name. And I suppose we can say bye, bye to many backup MX servers as well.
I don't think he means that the delivery DNS match the envelope sender, only that the delivering IP have valid and matching forward and reverse DNS records. This would not affect virtual hosts, MXs, send-only or receive-only relays, or SMTP HELO.
Or in my case with static IP home DNS that does resolves to something, but
[not?] my domain name
Too bad. Get an account with a decent provider that will give you a proper reverse DNS, or accept the fact that you are a second class netizen and relay your mail through your ISP.
Preferably the former, as it may force more ISPs to offer the service.
Used to do this back in ye olde DOS shareware days. I think RTPatch was the most common of the commercial ones.
Re:We've been seeing a lot of this "safe" nukes st
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 1
just the nuclear waste of the reactor. Should be no problem, right?
Waste is of no concern to the country using the things, only the USA. And I don't see the DoE/US g00berment going broke anytime soon, do you?
Re:We've been seeing a lot of this "safe" nukes st
on
Port-A-Nuke
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Don't most reactors keep their waste on-site because the g00berment is still fucking around with waste site proposals? If there's no method of disposal yet, then it's pretty hard to include it in the price. Not to mention the actual disposal won't happen for 30 years - technology and costs can change quite a bit in that time.
(State Premiere): most of the country is fucking desert, and we're raking in $billions into the state's public health and education system every year using.0000001% of it to store the worlds nuclear waste! SUCKERS!!
and proponents of green energy do not seem to understand their science: you can't scale up geothermal, wind, solar, tidal, ocean thermal gradient, etc, to meet one tenth of the modern world's energy needs
.
and of course, the "just use less energy" crowd: when you figure out how to tell people to stop using gas and nuclear and start riding bikes, get back to me
They don't want to understand, or offer any alternatives.
The human race are pretty much utter fucktards; we like telling people what to do. Shit, even our good traits are best harnessed through ultimate conflict (war & capitalism/free market).
There is no control in clean, free, limitless energy (or subset thereof). There is however control to be had in dirty, expensive, limited energy, ie. telling you how you must live to use less energy.
The above methods are control-freak nirvana. They at least seem clean (cute fluffy bunnies lay eggs containing solar panels after all, you don't need nasty chemicals to make them), and you can't argue that the Sun, wind or tides will go away anytime soon, but they are limited in so far as much of it can be harnessed per unit of time, even if they will effectively last forever. Perfect.
You know the "right wingers" (whoever the fuck they are this week) are retards when they simultaneously blame the "left wingers" for both advocating AND rejecting nuclear power.
Isn't PCAnywhere like VNC? So does X11 allow you to detach an entire desktop environment and reconnect to it later, with all the apps within still running like nothing ever happened?
There are different uses for roaming desktops vs exporting an application's display.
Um... remote desktop client and server is definately in XP Pro (along with remote assistance). Of course it's only good for one user at a time (I assume this is an artificial limitation). What comes with the Servers is likely the full dealie that allows multiple concurrent desktops.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have missed the part where the users deliberately execute these files.
Users are dumb fucks like you wouldn't believe, but once they learn to make files executable (and they will need to, so long as there is anything worth downloading on the Internet), this advantage is nullified, so there's really no point bothering.
Dumb shits deserve to get pwned. And their regular upgrades to deal with their crap-infested machines just subsidises hardware for the rest of us.
I saw something similar on, IIRC, Beyond 2000 (when it was still on TV in Oz, 10 years ago). It was like a large corkscrew, rather than a flat pane. A flat pane would appear to have a solid core as it spun, while the corkscrew didn't have that problem.
It would seem range is a function of the active side (sensor) not the passive side (the thing you carry).
I use an RFID card where I work too... the sensors in the carpark have 10 times the range as the door locks inside.
Then there's the auto-pay ones for tollways that can read all sorts of vehicles at high speeds from many metres away.
If you're referring to Windows, what the fuck are you smoking? Windows has a far more powerful permissions system than traditional Unix rwx (or even POSIX ACLs), and it works for any object, not just files.
But so what? Unless you remove the ability to execute all unauthorised applications, you can't stop malware - it runs as the user, it doesn't need system access. And it's the user's computer anyway, anything he runs is "authorised" by that fact alone; the best you can do is try to inform him of what he should and shouldn't be executing, be it through signed binaries or just good program design (eg. not executing embedded macros unless he deliberately runs them). But the basic fact remains is that the user can execute whatever he wants, and whatever he executes can do anything the user can do.
To what end? User separation only works when the admin knows what the fuck he's doing. Allowing regular drooling n00bs to maintain their own machines, even if user levels are automatically handled for him, will accomplish very little in reality.
Bingo. You cannot give the user "full control" AND protect him from himself. This is basic fact, no amount of Unix fairy dust will help you here.
I'm not going to argue your tin-foil-hat theory about the dark side of Trusted Computing, since I happen to agree there.
We've also got VMS, Tandem and zSeries systems that do similar things, daily to monthly (ish) depending on the subsystem in question, and what's being done to it. Not exactly rare.
(WTF did you expect?)
It's called "Baby Poo Yellow" and is often painted on pool floors (makes the water look bluer/greener or something, I forget).
</useless info>
Whether or not a piece of hardware "just works" depends on what drivers were included in the OS. It's quite likely your XP installation(/media) is much older than your OSX one.
Nevertheless, nearly every piece of hardware I try on my XP box works first go. I certainly don't expect exotic hardware that wasn't released before XP, like my digital TV tuner, to work without installing drivers. But by the time the next Windows release is due, I expect this hardware to be not so exotic anymore, and that drivers will be included.
^^ what he said.
And don't forget the Sun, which is also a sun.
Or you can call Earth, Terra (making us Terrans, w00t!), Terra's moon, Luna, and Terra's star Sol.
Clear as mud?
The problem with religious education is that it is normally taught as fact, like it was a church sermon and not an educational class. Frankly, foisting religious doctrine on children should be considered child abuse.
If you want to teach a particular religion, get someone of an "opposed" religion to teach it instead.
The core OS was done by a lot of the same people (IIRC, DEC shafted the VMS team, so MS poached them quicksmart and thanked the $DEITY), but they share no code.
Too bad. Get an account with a decent provider that will give you a proper reverse DNS, or accept the fact that you are a second class netizen and relay your mail through your ISP.
Preferably the former, as it may force more ISPs to offer the service.
Used to do this back in ye olde DOS shareware days. I think RTPatch was the most common of the commercial ones.
Don't most reactors keep their waste on-site because the g00berment is still fucking around with waste site proposals? If there's no method of disposal yet, then it's pretty hard to include it in the price. Not to mention the actual disposal won't happen for 30 years - technology and costs can change quite a bit in that time.
How hard a sell can nuclear waste disposal be?
.0000001% of it to store the worlds nuclear waste! SUCKERS!!
(State Premiere): most of the country is fucking desert, and we're raking in $billions into the state's public health and education system every year using
The human race are pretty much utter fucktards; we like telling people what to do. Shit, even our good traits are best harnessed through ultimate conflict (war & capitalism/free market).
There is no control in clean, free, limitless energy (or subset thereof). There is however control to be had in dirty, expensive, limited energy, ie. telling you how you must live to use less energy.
The above methods are control-freak nirvana. They at least seem clean (cute fluffy bunnies lay eggs containing solar panels after all, you don't need nasty chemicals to make them), and you can't argue that the Sun, wind or tides will go away anytime soon, but they are limited in so far as much of it can be harnessed per unit of time, even if they will effectively last forever. Perfect.
Isn't PCAnywhere like VNC? So does X11 allow you to detach an entire desktop environment and reconnect to it later, with all the apps within still running like nothing ever happened?
There are different uses for roaming desktops vs exporting an application's display.
Um... remote desktop client and server is definately in XP Pro (along with remote assistance). Of course it's only good for one user at a time (I assume this is an artificial limitation). What comes with the Servers is likely the full dealie that allows multiple concurrent desktops.
CA is also home to various fruity things...