At worst, you might have killed a few passengers and made flying even more inconvenient for everybody else. If you chose your flight poorly, a marshal probably would have subdued you and you would be awaiting trial (I don't really have any sense of how quick they are to shoot...maybe you would be dead).
Marshall, shmarshall. The other passengers would have whooped your ass, regardless of what sort of weapon you managed to smuggle on board. This is why 9/11 cannot happen again: the public is now aware that some hijackers may be suicidal terrorists, which means "sit down and shut up" may not be the best strategy to ensure survival. Flight 93 marked the beginning of this change, but they figured it out too late to save the plane; any future hijacking attempts will be less successful.
They used to be the company that gave us what Apple gave us a decade ago, now they are the company that gives us what Google gave us a decade ago.
Microsoft is a big company; they haven't stopped giving us what Apple gave us a decade ago. Windows 7's taskbar behaves remarkably similarly to Mac OS X's Dock.
(To be fair, Mac OS X 10.0 was released in March 2001 and Windows 7 should be out later this year, so that's only eight and a half years, not a full decade. Also, Windows 7's taskbar has some cool new features, but Apple is incorporating a better implementation into their next OS, to be released around the same time.)
I mean, have you seen Developers Developers, Developers? Do you really think anyone decided to try Microsoft because of that?
No, but in Microsoft's defense, that was never meant to be marketing. That was a pep rally for Microsoft's existing customers who are already doing software development on Microsoft's platform, and was meant to make them feel valued and important. The Internet allows us to take things people say out of context, and sometimes they sound ridiculous. For the people who were in the room at the time, it didn't seem that crazy.
Even if you have your keypad locked, you can still dial 911. If the keypad gets hit, bumped, or stressed in the right way while in your pocket, it can manage to dial 911 and connect you without you knowing.
Good thing the iPhone doesn't have a keypad, then.
I have a Nokia N75 on AT&T, and while several of the phone's features are so broken as to be unusable, tethering works great (as long as you're not running Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard; it works fine on 10.4 Tiger - but it's been awhile since I tried it on 10.5, so maybe they've fixed that?).
Admittedly I've never set up multiple views, but something about that definitely doesn't sound right.
Do you mean to say that the recursive resolver on the LAN view is forwarding all queries to your zone's nameservers in the US, or do you mean that it's forwarding queries for your domain to your zone's nameservers while resolving everything else exactly the way you want it to?
If the former, you've obviously misconfigured it, because it wouldn't do that if you didn't tell it to.
If the latter, that definitely seems a little odd - it would make sense if you were really running two totally different nameservers that don't share data, but this is one server offering two different views. Still, if this is really what's happening, perhaps the solution is to treat it like two different nameservers, and set the LAN view to explicitly forward queries for your domain to the external view. Is that possible?
Like I said, I haven't done it, so I don't really know how it's supposed to work, but what I'm thinking is, your LAN view is behaving exactly the same way any other random nameserver should behave: by checking to see who's authoritative for your domain, and querying those servers, instead of using the authoritative data it already has locally. It's easy to set up a forwarding zone that will override this behavior, and maybe that would work here, even though it seems like there should be a simpler way.
Is it actually much faster, or is it just taking up one core of your dual core processor?:)
Heh, I imagine that's part of it too, but they've set it up to only scan when the system is idle, and if memory serves, you can configure it to never scan while certain applications are running. It shows a little graph of your CPU usage so you can more easily see what's going on. The scanning itself probably isn't actually faster (on the same hardware), but they've rearranged the software to make it less intrusive, which is what people hated.
That was NAV2007. It didn't support Vista out of the box, but eventually they released an update, and it seemed to work OK for me.
However, NAV2009 is MUCH better. I suspect that Vista forced them to do some major rewrites in 2007 (because 2006 was a steaming pile of crap), and they realized that by cleaning up their crap they could actually improve the end-user experience while making life easier for themselves in the long run. NAV2008 sucked less, and in 2009 they've completely redesigned how the program operates. It's as though they realize everyone hates them and they have competition now. Seriously, if you haven't tried it yet, you should download the NAV2009 trial to see what I'm talking about.
Note: I am not affiliated with Symantec, and I'm currently running AVG Free on my Win7 box.
The new version of Norton AV is much faster than older versions; they've really worked on cleaning up that problem. As for removing it, if the uninstall fails for some reason, the Symantec Norton Removal Tool (SymNRT) will definitely get rid of it.
I understand that you're looking for something free (I'm running AVG on my Windows 7 box at home), but for those who don't mind paying a subscription fee, you should definitely download the free 2-week trial. NAV2006 was a horrible steaming pile of crap, but this isn't that. I have no affiliation to Symantec and do NOT recommend any of their other software (360, Internet Security, SystemWorks), but NAV is what I recommend to my clients.
No, it sucks for you, and a lot of other people, but it's pretty cool for most of us. Vastly improved picture quality, looks great on my LCD projector, and I don't have to pay monthly subscription fees.
As I understand it, Internet Explorer 6 can't be installed on Vista or later, except inside an emulator that's running XP (and operating systems running under emulation still need security patches).
Microsoft will stop releasing security patches for Windows XP in five years. If your business relies on something that only works in IE6, you have until 2014 to figure out a new solution, or continue running an unsupported operating system with no security updates available.
However, you may have difficulty before then, if new PCs start shipping with hardware that isn't supported by WinXP. Of course this assumes you have an existing site license that covers the use of WinXP on new PCs; Microsoft has stopped selling WinXP, so when OEMs and retailers run out of copies, you won't be able to buy it - and the option to downgrade from Vista to XP will end in less than two months.
Why would they do this? This is going to compete against both pay-per-view/HBO and DVD sales/rentals, both of which bring in real revenue. Are they really betting the ad revenue from Epix will offset that loss? Or are they simply trying to attract attention without a business model?
Hmm. Somebody should make a rape simulation game, where you play as the victim rather than as the rapist. If your 55% number is accurate, it should do pretty well.
Here in Oregon, we vote by mail. Vote buying and coercion is theoretically possible, but it's such a cultural taboo that it hasn't been a problem - if anyone tried to buy votes, there would be enough of a public outcry that it would have to stop. In other states with a different culture, this may not be the case.
Our vote by mail system is probably vastly more secure than Arizona's online voting system, but this theoretical vulnerability does exist in both systems. However, most states have a provision for voting absentee, often with no restrictions (i.e. you simply request an absentee ballot; you don't have to provide a good reason why you can't make it to the polls). In last year's election, various groups were encouraging people to vote absentee, to make sure their votes would be counted in case of problems on Election Day. Absentee voting is just as susceptible to vote buying and coercion, but I've never heard anyone suggest that it's been a problem.
They can take all the measures they want to secure the root, if they keep letting unscrupulous registrars sell domains it all will be for naught anyways. Wake me up if they ever decide that for some reason they feel security and stability are suddenly more important than profit.
DNSSEC won't reduce spam, but it will help to solve other problems.
DNS queries shouldn't resolve significantly faster, except for the first DNS lookup performed for each TLD. The first time you look up a.com domain, sure, it takes an extra half a second to look up who's authoritative for.com, but for the next.com domain you want to look up, that's already cached.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not expensive to maintain them (gravel isn't expensive)--but it is labor-intensive.
Hmm, an inexpensive but labor-intensive requirement in a state with ridiculously high unemployment? That sounds like a bonus.
Posting to undo accidental mod
Uhh, yeah, except you're the first post. Unless I'm missing something, there was nothing here for you to moderate.
At worst, you might have killed a few passengers and made flying even more inconvenient for everybody else. If you chose your flight poorly, a marshal probably would have subdued you and you would be awaiting trial (I don't really have any sense of how quick they are to shoot...maybe you would be dead).
Marshall, shmarshall. The other passengers would have whooped your ass, regardless of what sort of weapon you managed to smuggle on board. This is why 9/11 cannot happen again: the public is now aware that some hijackers may be suicidal terrorists, which means "sit down and shut up" may not be the best strategy to ensure survival. Flight 93 marked the beginning of this change, but they figured it out too late to save the plane; any future hijacking attempts will be less successful.
They used to be the company that gave us what Apple gave us a decade ago, now they are the company that gives us what Google gave us a decade ago.
Microsoft is a big company; they haven't stopped giving us what Apple gave us a decade ago. Windows 7's taskbar behaves remarkably similarly to Mac OS X's Dock.
(To be fair, Mac OS X 10.0 was released in March 2001 and Windows 7 should be out later this year, so that's only eight and a half years, not a full decade. Also, Windows 7's taskbar has some cool new features, but Apple is incorporating a better implementation into their next OS, to be released around the same time.)
I mean, have you seen Developers Developers, Developers? Do you really think anyone decided to try Microsoft because of that?
No, but in Microsoft's defense, that was never meant to be marketing. That was a pep rally for Microsoft's existing customers who are already doing software development on Microsoft's platform, and was meant to make them feel valued and important. The Internet allows us to take things people say out of context, and sometimes they sound ridiculous. For the people who were in the room at the time, it didn't seem that crazy.
Everything else you said was spot on. ;-)
Even if you have your keypad locked, you can still dial 911. If the keypad gets hit, bumped, or stressed in the right way while in your pocket, it can manage to dial 911 and connect you without you knowing.
Good thing the iPhone doesn't have a keypad, then.
I have a Nokia N75 on AT&T, and while several of the phone's features are so broken as to be unusable, tethering works great (as long as you're not running Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard; it works fine on 10.4 Tiger - but it's been awhile since I tried it on 10.5, so maybe they've fixed that?).
Admittedly I've never set up multiple views, but something about that definitely doesn't sound right.
Do you mean to say that the recursive resolver on the LAN view is forwarding all queries to your zone's nameservers in the US, or do you mean that it's forwarding queries for your domain to your zone's nameservers while resolving everything else exactly the way you want it to?
If the former, you've obviously misconfigured it, because it wouldn't do that if you didn't tell it to.
If the latter, that definitely seems a little odd - it would make sense if you were really running two totally different nameservers that don't share data, but this is one server offering two different views. Still, if this is really what's happening, perhaps the solution is to treat it like two different nameservers, and set the LAN view to explicitly forward queries for your domain to the external view. Is that possible?
Like I said, I haven't done it, so I don't really know how it's supposed to work, but what I'm thinking is, your LAN view is behaving exactly the same way any other random nameserver should behave: by checking to see who's authoritative for your domain, and querying those servers, instead of using the authoritative data it already has locally. It's easy to set up a forwarding zone that will override this behavior, and maybe that would work here, even though it seems like there should be a simpler way.
Is it actually much faster, or is it just taking up one core of your dual core processor? :)
Heh, I imagine that's part of it too, but they've set it up to only scan when the system is idle, and if memory serves, you can configure it to never scan while certain applications are running. It shows a little graph of your CPU usage so you can more easily see what's going on. The scanning itself probably isn't actually faster (on the same hardware), but they've rearranged the software to make it less intrusive, which is what people hated.
That was NAV2007. It didn't support Vista out of the box, but eventually they released an update, and it seemed to work OK for me.
However, NAV2009 is MUCH better. I suspect that Vista forced them to do some major rewrites in 2007 (because 2006 was a steaming pile of crap), and they realized that by cleaning up their crap they could actually improve the end-user experience while making life easier for themselves in the long run. NAV2008 sucked less, and in 2009 they've completely redesigned how the program operates. It's as though they realize everyone hates them and they have competition now. Seriously, if you haven't tried it yet, you should download the NAV2009 trial to see what I'm talking about.
Note: I am not affiliated with Symantec, and I'm currently running AVG Free on my Win7 box.
The new version of Norton AV is much faster than older versions; they've really worked on cleaning up that problem. As for removing it, if the uninstall fails for some reason, the Symantec Norton Removal Tool (SymNRT) will definitely get rid of it.
I understand that you're looking for something free (I'm running AVG on my Windows 7 box at home), but for those who don't mind paying a subscription fee, you should definitely download the free 2-week trial. NAV2006 was a horrible steaming pile of crap, but this isn't that. I have no affiliation to Symantec and do NOT recommend any of their other software (360, Internet Security, SystemWorks), but NAV is what I recommend to my clients.
I can get MORE digital channels than analog, and the picture quality is infinitely better.
Digital TV sucks for everyone.
No, it sucks for you, and a lot of other people, but it's pretty cool for most of us. Vastly improved picture quality, looks great on my LCD projector, and I don't have to pay monthly subscription fees.
Updates in Vista uses a seperate contral panel applet, presumably its the same in 7.
It is. Not much has changed in 7 from a user's perspective, other than the new taskbar, which is awesome (for Windows).
If somebody got a full list of bugs / sec updates for linux everymonth (all software), i'm quite sure that "31" would be quite a low number.
Slackware has released three security patches in the past 30 days: Cyrus-SASL, Pidgin, and NTP. 31 doesn't sound low to me.
"if new PCs start shipping with hardware that isn't supported by WinXP" then we'll just have to run WinXP in virtual machines under Linux.
It's not any less prone to viruses and security exploits if the hardware is emulated.
As I understand it, Internet Explorer 6 can't be installed on Vista or later, except inside an emulator that's running XP (and operating systems running under emulation still need security patches).
Am I wrong?
Microsoft will stop releasing security patches for Windows XP in five years. If your business relies on something that only works in IE6, you have until 2014 to figure out a new solution, or continue running an unsupported operating system with no security updates available.
However, you may have difficulty before then, if new PCs start shipping with hardware that isn't supported by WinXP. Of course this assumes you have an existing site license that covers the use of WinXP on new PCs; Microsoft has stopped selling WinXP, so when OEMs and retailers run out of copies, you won't be able to buy it - and the option to downgrade from Vista to XP will end in less than two months.
And more appealing for other people. Corporate management can be weird.
Why would they do this? This is going to compete against both pay-per-view/HBO and DVD sales/rentals, both of which bring in real revenue. Are they really betting the ad revenue from Epix will offset that loss? Or are they simply trying to attract attention without a business model?
Hmm. Somebody should make a rape simulation game, where you play as the victim rather than as the rapist. If your 55% number is accurate, it should do pretty well.
I'd like to see the public outcry about that.
Here in Oregon, we vote by mail. Vote buying and coercion is theoretically possible, but it's such a cultural taboo that it hasn't been a problem - if anyone tried to buy votes, there would be enough of a public outcry that it would have to stop. In other states with a different culture, this may not be the case.
Our vote by mail system is probably vastly more secure than Arizona's online voting system, but this theoretical vulnerability does exist in both systems. However, most states have a provision for voting absentee, often with no restrictions (i.e. you simply request an absentee ballot; you don't have to provide a good reason why you can't make it to the polls). In last year's election, various groups were encouraging people to vote absentee, to make sure their votes would be counted in case of problems on Election Day. Absentee voting is just as susceptible to vote buying and coercion, but I've never heard anyone suggest that it's been a problem.
"sexually transmitted diseases"?
"sexual abuse support groups"?
"sexual harassment statistics"?
"sex discrimination"?
"sex education"?
"safe sex"?
All blocked?
They can take all the measures they want to secure the root, if they keep letting unscrupulous registrars sell domains it all will be for naught anyways. Wake me up if they ever decide that for some reason they feel security and stability are suddenly more important than profit.
DNSSEC won't reduce spam, but it will help to solve other problems.
DNS queries shouldn't resolve significantly faster, except for the first DNS lookup performed for each TLD. The first time you look up a .com domain, sure, it takes an extra half a second to look up who's authoritative for .com, but for the next .com domain you want to look up, that's already cached.