C:\>help cacls Displays or modifies access control lists (ACLs) of files
CACLS filename [/T] [/E] [/C] [/G user:perm] [/R user [...]]
[/P user:perm [...]] [/D user [...]]
filename Displays ACLs. /T Changes ACLs of specified files in
the current directory and all subdirectories. /E Edit ACL instead of replacing it. /C Continue on access denied errors. /G user:perm Grant specified user access rights.
Perm can be: R Read
W Write
C Change (write)
F Full control /R user Revoke specified user's access rights (only valid with/E). /P user:perm Replace specified user's access rights.
Perm can be: N None
R Read
W Write
C Change (write)
F Full control /D user Deny specified user access. Wildcards can be used to specify more that one file in a command. You can specify more than one user in a command.
Seems that Windows has somewhat more advanced controls here.
If you find a copy of the Jargon File before ES-"raving lunatic"-R took it over, you'll see that it defines hacker to mean "one who breaks into systems" without any sort of warning about incorrectness. It is only when ESR took over that suddenly this became "strongly deprecated".
I can't remember whether that version even had an entry for cracker in it. But don't take that as an implied assertion that it didn't.
If you read the news article, it says that although he sent several emails, not one was sent to security@microsoft.com - the advertised place to send them.
He sent them to, amongst others, abuse@hotmail.com. This is the place that they will get mails from everyone complaining about a spammer etc - it's like receiving the wrong order from Amazon and sending an email to hostmaster@amazon.com, then flaming them for taking so long to respond.
HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0 Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 13:10:14 GMT PPServer: H: LAWPPREGU4A002
It's a 404. It returns a 404 code. It says it's a 404 on the page. Just because you understand so little of the HTTP protocol to think that 404 means "displays apache logo" doesn't make MS wrong.
did anyone else notice the taskbar buttons in the frickin' middle of the taskbar?
Well, the person who wrote it explicitly in the article to name but one.
Re:These sorts of questions apply to all devices..
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
Clearly not a chemist. It'd be fun to see how well your purely functional car would do without being painted. Maybe you should try scratching your car's paintjob if you think it's so unimportant.
Well, y'see, the parent poster is obviously someone who doesn't have a compsci degree, but has taught himself x86 assembler. It's the only explanation for his unrealistic, unworkable, rhetoric filled post.
No, "too" meaning "at the same time as being amongst the fastest".
Using your inexplicable analogy, that would be more like the somewhat less agreeable "McDonalds makes some of the best hamburgers money can buy, and with the best price/quality ratio". Were that true, it most certainly would be something to think about.
Or, leaving the bizarre analogy behind, if you actually look at the tables, not only does MS dominate all positions when sorted by price/performance, but in the table linked above (i.e. the best non-clustered performance) not only does MS appear three times, including the number 2 spot, showing it is extremely capable, but it also, in all thress cases, has the best price/performance of every entry.
Any more meat-patty based metaphors you'd like to use to explain that?
Interesting that the 3 MS solutions (SQL server on Windows Server 2003) all also offer the best price/performance ratio too. Just something to think about.
A new Sourceforge is exactly what we need; another repository for half-baked ideas from incapable coders who will never release any files, but suggest that perhaps an industry experienced lead developer may possibly want to work full time on their CD alphabetising framework.
Naturally there's nothing grammatically wrong with his words, except for the abuse of "pejorative". However, there is much that is stylistically wrong. Were I reading a text on any non-geeky subject I would be very surprised to see those particular phrases, as the immediate impression is that the author picked a set of words from random points in the review and then checked for alternatives in a thesaurus. This is the expected behaviour of a smart-ass 14 year old, but is not "exquisite English".
Incidentally, I am highly educated, including the subject of the English language, and I would never presume to classify my direct attack on bombastic language as "witty". As a tit-for-tat reaction to your ad hominem I should point out that the word you were looking for was "ought" not "aught", although I hasten to add that pointing out such a petty error would be of no interest but for the fact you had insulted me.
With respect to your parenthetical, I must tip my hat to you. Firstly because Slashdot would be a far better place if rebuttals such as yours were considered part of discussion rather than earning off-topic moderations. Secondly, I agree wholeheartedly that good English is never a sin, and furthermore that bad English very often is.
I bid you farewell, with the suggestion that you re-write that phrase yourself, and see how much clearer, better flowing, and less wordy it is.
Why would anyone write the following? I have highlighted the particularly ridiculous phrases for your skim-reading pleasure.
Flickenger has a "conversational" writing style I found easy to parse. If you hang out with Linux geeks very much, you'll recognize his way of communicating and easily assimilate what he has to say.
What - think you'll sound cool by using such geeky phrases? You don't.
What the fuck is wrong with you fucking Americans? Just because it sounds like that when garbled by trailer-trash doesn't mean it's pronounced like it. Here's a hint for the clue impaired:
"congradulations" is spelt "congratulations"
And, more pertinant to this post: "specious" is spelt "suspicious"
It seems that the article's author is quite the opposite though, supporting Windows by talking out of his arse. To quote the relevant gibberish from the article:
While all systems have vulnerabilities, as recently demonstrated by the Linux Slapper Worm (X42), the vast breadth and extent of vulnerability is
not uniquely a Microsoft problem[emphasis his], and for very specific reasons <snip>
How can you place any trust in him when he doesn't even realise that Slapper was a Windows worm and fuck all to do with Linux? Especially as he then uses this fallacy to mak a point?
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't a better topic considering it's a review be "The Almighty Book"? LOL!
...making it impossible to hide one's scat-fetish porn collection from any other users?
Seems that Windows has somewhat more advanced controls here.
If you find a copy of the Jargon File before ES-"raving lunatic"-R took it over, you'll see that it defines hacker to mean "one who breaks into systems" without any sort of warning about incorrectness. It is only when ESR took over that suddenly this became "strongly deprecated".
I can't remember whether that version even had an entry for cracker in it. But don't take that as an implied assertion that it didn't.
No it's not already been posted before - you told me I had to wait 20 seconds, but it wasn't posted. Stupid damned slashcode coders.
He sent them to, amongst others, abuse@hotmail.com. This is the place that they will get mails from everyone complaining about a spammer etc - it's like receiving the wrong order from Amazon and sending an email to hostmaster@amazon.com, then flaming them for taking so long to respond.
Well, the person who wrote it explicitly in the article to name but one.
Clearly not a chemist. It'd be fun to see how well your purely functional car would do without being painted. Maybe you should try scratching your car's paintjob if you think it's so unimportant.
Well, I just get a picture - then again, I actually know how to keep a system patched so I'm not running 3 year old bugs.
Well, y'see, the parent poster is obviously someone who doesn't have a compsci degree, but has taught himself x86 assembler. It's the only explanation for his unrealistic, unworkable, rhetoric filled post.
In that case you are the biggest fucktard I have ever seen post - and on Slashdot that's saying something.
Using your inexplicable analogy, that would be more like the somewhat less agreeable "McDonalds makes some of the best hamburgers money can buy, and with the best price/quality ratio". Were that true, it most certainly would be something to think about.
Or, leaving the bizarre analogy behind, if you actually look at the tables, not only does MS dominate all positions when sorted by price/performance, but in the table linked above (i.e. the best non-clustered performance) not only does MS appear three times, including the number 2 spot, showing it is extremely capable, but it also, in all thress cases, has the best price/performance of every entry.
Any more meat-patty based metaphors you'd like to use to explain that?
Interesting that the 3 MS solutions (SQL server on Windows Server 2003) all also offer the best price/performance ratio too. Just something to think about.
One of the better ones in fact.
Oh, very nice indeed. No really, I'd normally rip a new one for your lame April fools, but seriously, kudos!
A new Sourceforge is exactly what we need; another repository for half-baked ideas from incapable coders who will never release any files, but suggest that perhaps an industry experienced lead developer may possibly want to work full time on their CD alphabetising framework.
Incidentally, I am highly educated, including the subject of the English language, and I would never presume to classify my direct attack on bombastic language as "witty". As a tit-for-tat reaction to your ad hominem I should point out that the word you were looking for was "ought" not "aught", although I hasten to add that pointing out such a petty error would be of no interest but for the fact you had insulted me.
With respect to your parenthetical, I must tip my hat to you. Firstly because Slashdot would be a far better place if rebuttals such as yours were considered part of discussion rather than earning off-topic moderations. Secondly, I agree wholeheartedly that good English is never a sin, and furthermore that bad English very often is.
I bid you farewell, with the suggestion that you re-write that phrase yourself, and see how much clearer, better flowing, and less wordy it is.
Ooh - clever! Such a fancy word! Shame it makes absolutely no sense in the context. Nice attempt to look intellagunt though.
Not that I believe you modded me anyway.
Logging on in the morning and getting FP.
It was cancelled because it is the most overrated film ever, and they realised that those outside slashdot wouldn't touch it with a shitty stick.
"congradulations" is spelt "congratulations"
And, more pertinant to this post:
"specious" is spelt "suspicious"
Idiots.