Question: To use Google's DNS service, is it enough to change your DNS settings in your router? Doesn't each computer get the DNS settings from the router, if no specific DNS address has been configured?
Or, must you use specific DNS settings in each operating system?
In Windows XP, does the following configuration cause a computer to get the DNS address from the router to which the computer is connected? Start/ Settings/ Network Connections/ Choose the connection/ Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)/ Properties/ General/ Obtain DNS server address automatically/ ??
All but the first line of the grandparent comment was generated by the Firefox plugin WOT, Web of Trust. I just copied and pasted from "View Web Source".
The grandparent comment demonstrates an example of the poor quality of open source documentation. That site not only has poor documentation, but it also tries to exploit vulnerabilities in your browser.
What is the current listing status for fatamorgana.com?
Site is listed as suspicious - visiting this web site may harm your computer.
Part of this site was listed for suspicious activity 4 time(s) over the past 90 days.
What happened when Google visited this site?
Of the 11 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 8 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2009-12-02, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2009-12-02.
I don't think that's correct. The end result of medical treatment being more efficient is that there will be a lot less opportunity to bill for unnecessary procedures, for example.
Efficient medical treatment would cause prices to drop.
Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.
Constitution of Verizon:
"... it is a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to:"
"(k) use the service in any fashion for the transmission or
dissemination of images... in a manner that is obscene, sexually explicit,..."
That, of course, uses Verizon's definitions of "obscene" and "sexually
explicit", which subscribers can't know in advance, and Verizon executives
probably don't know in advance. But they sure will recognize it when they see
it?
Unfortunately for the executives at Verizon, a large part of the
traffic on the internet is sexually explicit, and no one has been able to
define "obscene" in a completely accurate manner.
I'm not arguing in favor of pornography. I'm arguing in favor of
logic.
CBS News, the New York Times, and other publications suggest that
your skepticism is correct:
Be skeptical about flu reports. There appears to be
manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers.
It scares me how much joking there is when there is corruption in government. Plenty of evidence shows that there is pressure to elect senators and representatives who are not skilled at thinking for themselves, and this Slashdot story provides more of that evidence.
Here is what is apparently a worse example: Articles in The Atlantic magazine, CBS News, the New York Times, and other publications suggest that you should be skeptical about flu reports. There appears to be manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers.
If you love your country, you will think seriously about your country's problems.
My translation [explanatory comments in brackets]:
Test of the security of the electronic voting system
From Tuesday to Friday this week, 10 to 13 November, the Supreme
Electoral Tribunal (TSE) will hold the first public testing of security in
electronic voting machines that will be used in the elections of 2010, and of
the other provisions of the electronic voting system. During those days, 38
specialists in computer science and network engineering will try try to find
vulnerabilities in the [voting computer] programs in a competition conducted
within the court. The purpose is to test the software and to receive
contributions for the improvement of computerized voting.
The participants who submit the three ideas most relevant to
improvement of the system will be awarded 5,000 reais [about 2,873 U.S.
dollars], 3,000 [$1,724], and 2,000 [$1,149]. This initiative to expose the
electronic ballot box system for public testing is unprecedented in the
Electoral Court. The tests were approved unanimously during a TSE
administration meeting on 30 June 2009. The public testing of security in the
electronic voting system [used in Brazil] will serve to verify possible
vulnerabilities in the system, for example, whether it is subject to possible
violations or fraud.
Minister Ricardo Lewandowski was appointed by the Court to coordinate
the testing. In his opinion, this is an opportunity to demonstrate the
security of electronic voting machines, as well as to show "the total
transparency with which the Court deals with the subject". The results will be
analyzed and disseminated by a committee composed of members outside Electoral
Tribunal, called the Evaluation Committee.
-----
My comments: As Brazil has shown over the years, it is possible to
make secure voting software. The fact that so many vulnerabilities
in U.S. voting software have been easy to demonstrate gives many the
impression that the vulnerabilities are there because some group wants to
exploit them.
As the article says, the purpose of the test was partly a
demonstration of the openness of the Brazilian electronic voting system. There
were, of course, other tests for vulnerabilities in the voting software used
in Brazil, but they were done privately.
For $50,000 maybe you should develop in-house technical support, since it won't be just $50,000 in licenses, it will eventually be another $50,000 in support, perhaps.
Maybe the big picture is that Intel has not been successful, generally, at
making products other than processors and chipsets and motherboards.
Intel had a consumer division which was closed. I don't know the
reason for closing the division, but all the Intel consumer products I
reviewed had major flaws.
Right now I'm trying to find a graphics driver for an Intel chipset
motherboard. The Intel web site is amazingly complicated to use.
Generally, Intel employees say they are unhappy with CEO Otellini.
Stories are told of extreme inefficiency in every area besides the main
business.
Once I called for Intel technical support, and told the technical
support representative about a major problem with the Intel web site. He said,
"We are updating it, that will be fixed soon." A year later, I called again
about something else. I accidentally got the same Intel representative. When I
asked him about the fault on the web site that was still exactly the same, he
made exactly the same statement.
Be skeptical about flu reports. For example, almost all reports about the flu give an incorrect name, possibly showing the level of understanding of the author. "H1N1" is a major type of flu, not a specific strain.
I notice that whenever there is a lot of joking on Slashdot, there is apparently an underlying feeling of skepticism, even if the skepticism is not conscious.
Note that the map linked in the grandparent comment says "*This map indicates geographic spread and does not measure the severity of influenza activity." Apparently that means that, if one person in a state had the flu, the entire state would be marked by the CDC as having flu activity.
"Remember the Bailout Bill did fail to pass the first time it was voted upon..."
It failed to pass because some people wanted different provisions. It was certain that it would pass.
"The execs had no idea what government would do."
For years before the present financial crisis, there were financial executives interviewed on television who talked about "moral hazard", in a laughing fashion. The meaning of "moral hazard" was always that they knew the U.S. government would give taxpayer money to the banks.
The entire problem was that a law was passed in the early days of the G.W. Bush administration that allowed unlimited leverage. Some banks were leveraged by a factor of 30 to 50 on some deals. That meant that a drop in prices of 2% caused the banks to be in debt.
Don't you find it unusual that you see that statement made again and again, even though few people know much about the issue? Someone want people to think that, apparently.
In fact, the legislation that allowed huge, unlimited leverage was passed in the early days of the first G.W. Bush term.
"bubble keep going up". Bubbles don't always go up. That's why they are
called bubbles.
Everyone in the financial industry knew two things: 1) The bubble
would collapse, and 2) The U.S. government, led by the Federal Reserve Bank,
composed of former financial industry executives, would make the taxpayers
give money to the financial institutions.
You didn't read the Rolling Stone article linked in the grandparent comment, did you? Or anything else
about Goldman Sachs and the financial collapse?
Note that the "Federal Reserve Bank" is not a bank, it is not federal,
and there is nothing in reserve. Three lies in three words, in the name!
This Slashdot comment, The Investment Banking cohorts JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are the
**huge** winners, discusses some of the new ways Goldman Sachs will make
money in the future using the power of government. That Slashdot comment links to the
Rolling Stone article, but that copy of the article has been removed. See the
link to the article in the grandparent comment.
The corruption is not new. For example, see the May 13, 2002 article
in Business Week, How Corrupt Is Wall Street? New revelations have investors
baying for blood, and the scandal is widening Quote: "Consider Enron,
which has paid $323 million to Wall Street in underwriting fees since 1986,
according to Thomson. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS ) pocketed $69 million of
that..." Enron, of course, went bankrupt when it was discovered the
company was dishonest.
Beginning in 2002, Warren Buffett began very publicly calling
derivatives "financial weapons of
mass destruction". That particular part of the corruption was allowed by
the removal of laws designed to prevent fraud, at the beginning of George W.
Bush's first term. Nothing was done to reinstate the laws, and that's why we
are suffering now. Why was nothing done? Numerous articles say the corruption
was allowed to happen because Goldman Sachs people, and other financial
company executives control the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.
If the past is any guide, Intel will be fined a trivial sum like
$100 million, and the corruption and anti-competitive activity against AMD
will continue.
Part of loving the U.S. is becoming aware of, and trying to stop,
the corruption in government.
My understanding, from talking with Intel employees, is that Paul Otellini
is not a good CEO.
My understanding is that only one member of the Intel Board of
Directors has any technical knowledge. How can people with no technical
knowledge oversee an enormously high-tech company? They can't.
Intel board member John L. Thornton was president and CEO of Goldman
Sachs Group, it says. Goldman Sachs helped engineer the present financial collapse. Since the
collapse, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable. The U.S. government has done
NOTHING to prevent further abuse.
Look at the comments on his article. Numerous people say it is incorrect.
What about the case where there is a drive in a system that is a clone of the system drive?
In my opinion, there should have been an announcement that NewSID would be removed long before it was actually removed. That would have given time for people to make comments. It also would have given time to change documents on the Microsoft web site that say that having a different SID is important.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks again for your help.
Another question: In Windows XP, what does this setting mean:
"Register this connection's addresses in DNS"
I found that at Start/ Settings/ Network Connections/ Choose the connection/ Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)/ Properties/ General/ Advanced/ DNS/
In the same tab, what do these settings mean?
"Append primary and connection specific DNS suffixes"
"Append parent suffixes of the primary DNS suffix"
I discovered this web page: How To Find Out What My DNS Servers Address Is.
For windows, it says to run
which outputs the DNS server addresses actually being used.
There are instructions for Linux, also.
Question: To use Google's DNS service, is it enough to change your DNS settings in your router? Doesn't each computer get the DNS settings from the router, if no specific DNS address has been configured?
Or, must you use specific DNS settings in each operating system?
In Windows XP, does the following configuration cause a computer to get the DNS address from the router to which the computer is connected? Start/ Settings/ Network Connections/ Choose the connection/ Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)/ Properties/ General/ Obtain DNS server address automatically/ ??
All but the first line of the grandparent comment was generated by the Firefox plugin WOT, Web of Trust. I just copied and pasted from "View Web Source".
The grandparent comment demonstrates an example of the poor quality of open source documentation. That site not only has poor documentation, but it also tries to exploit vulnerabilities in your browser.
Safe BrowsingDiagnostic page for fatamorgana.com
What is the current listing status for fatamorgana.com?
What happened when Google visited this site?
Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware?
Has this site hosted malware?
How did this happen?
The constitution expresses the sentiment of our culture in the United States. I was merely mentioning that Verizon goes against that sentiment.
I don't think that's correct. The end result of medical treatment being more efficient is that there will be a lot less opportunity to bill for unnecessary procedures, for example.
Efficient medical treatment would cause prices to drop.
Constitution of the United States:
... abridging the freedom of speech.
... in a manner that is obscene, sexually explicit, ..."
Bill of Rights -- Amendment I
Congress shall make no law
Constitution of Verizon:
"... it is a violation of the Agreement and this AUP to:"
"(k) use the service in any fashion for the transmission or dissemination of images
That, of course, uses Verizon's definitions of "obscene" and "sexually explicit", which subscribers can't know in advance, and Verizon executives probably don't know in advance. But they sure will recognize it when they see it?
Unfortunately for the executives at Verizon, a large part of the traffic on the internet is sexually explicit, and no one has been able to define "obscene" in a completely accurate manner.
I'm not arguing in favor of pornography. I'm arguing in favor of logic.
Everything I don't want to talk about is Off Topic.
CBS News, the New York Times, and other publications suggest that your skepticism is correct: Be skeptical about flu reports. There appears to be manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers.
It scares me how much joking there is when there is corruption in government. Plenty of evidence shows that there is pressure to elect senators and representatives who are not skilled at thinking for themselves, and this Slashdot story provides more of that evidence.
Here is what is apparently a worse example: Articles in The Atlantic magazine, CBS News, the New York Times, and other publications suggest that you should be skeptical about flu reports. There appears to be manipulation of government warnings to increase profit for vaccine makers.
If you love your country, you will think seriously about your country's problems.
My translation [explanatory comments in brackets]:
Test of the security of the electronic voting system
From Tuesday to Friday this week, 10 to 13 November, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) will hold the first public testing of security in electronic voting machines that will be used in the elections of 2010, and of the other provisions of the electronic voting system. During those days, 38 specialists in computer science and network engineering will try try to find vulnerabilities in the [voting computer] programs in a competition conducted within the court. The purpose is to test the software and to receive contributions for the improvement of computerized voting.
The participants who submit the three ideas most relevant to improvement of the system will be awarded 5,000 reais [about 2,873 U.S. dollars], 3,000 [$1,724], and 2,000 [$1,149]. This initiative to expose the electronic ballot box system for public testing is unprecedented in the Electoral Court. The tests were approved unanimously during a TSE administration meeting on 30 June 2009. The public testing of security in the electronic voting system [used in Brazil] will serve to verify possible vulnerabilities in the system, for example, whether it is subject to possible violations or fraud.
Minister Ricardo Lewandowski was appointed by the Court to coordinate the testing. In his opinion, this is an opportunity to demonstrate the security of electronic voting machines, as well as to show "the total transparency with which the Court deals with the subject". The results will be analyzed and disseminated by a committee composed of members outside Electoral Tribunal, called the Evaluation Committee.
-----
My comments: As Brazil has shown over the years, it is possible to make secure voting software. The fact that so many vulnerabilities in U.S. voting software have been easy to demonstrate gives many the impression that the vulnerabilities are there because some group wants to exploit them.
As the article says, the purpose of the test was partly a demonstration of the openness of the Brazilian electronic voting system. There were, of course, other tests for vulnerabilities in the voting software used in Brazil, but they were done privately.
For $50,000 maybe you should develop in-house technical support, since it won't be just $50,000 in licenses, it will eventually be another $50,000 in support, perhaps.
Maybe the big picture is that Intel has not been successful, generally, at making products other than processors and chipsets and motherboards.
Intel had a consumer division which was closed. I don't know the reason for closing the division, but all the Intel consumer products I reviewed had major flaws.
Right now I'm trying to find a graphics driver for an Intel chipset motherboard. The Intel web site is amazingly complicated to use.
Generally, Intel employees say they are unhappy with CEO Otellini. Stories are told of extreme inefficiency in every area besides the main business.
Once I called for Intel technical support, and told the technical support representative about a major problem with the Intel web site. He said, "We are updating it, that will be fixed soon." A year later, I called again about something else. I accidentally got the same Intel representative. When I asked him about the fault on the web site that was still exactly the same, he made exactly the same statement.
Be skeptical about flu reports. For example, almost all reports about the flu give an incorrect name, possibly showing the level of understanding of the author. "H1N1" is a major type of flu, not a specific strain.
I notice that whenever there is a lot of joking on Slashdot, there is apparently an underlying feeling of skepticism, even if the skepticism is not conscious.
Note that the map linked in the grandparent comment says "*This map indicates geographic spread and does not measure the severity of influenza activity." Apparently that means that, if one person in a state had the flu, the entire state would be marked by the CDC as having flu activity.
"Remember the Bailout Bill did fail to pass the first time it was voted upon..."
It failed to pass because some people wanted different provisions. It was certain that it would pass.
"The execs had no idea what government would do."
For years before the present financial crisis, there were financial executives interviewed on television who talked about "moral hazard", in a laughing fashion. The meaning of "moral hazard" was always that they knew the U.S. government would give taxpayer money to the banks.
The entire problem was that a law was passed in the early days of the G.W. Bush administration that allowed unlimited leverage. Some banks were leveraged by a factor of 30 to 50 on some deals. That meant that a drop in prices of 2% caused the banks to be in debt.
The financial industry took advantage of weaknesses it created and weaknesses it found.
Brazil didn't suffer much and recovered easily because it has laws against too much leverage.
Don't you find it unusual that you see that statement made again and again, even though few people know much about the issue? Someone want people to think that, apparently.
In fact, the legislation that allowed huge, unlimited leverage was passed in the early days of the first G.W. Bush term.
So, you are guessing that the members of the Intel board of directors knew about Intel breaking the law? Shouldn't they lose their jobs?
Could you explain to me how you think that allowing a company to break the law is looking out for the interests of the stockholder?
How can a board of directors "look out for the interests of the stockholder" if the directors cannot understand the business of the company?
"bubble keep going up". Bubbles don't always go up. That's why they are called bubbles.
Everyone in the financial industry knew two things: 1) The bubble would collapse, and 2) The U.S. government, led by the Federal Reserve Bank, composed of former financial industry executives, would make the taxpayers give money to the financial institutions.
You didn't read the Rolling Stone article linked in the grandparent comment, did you? Or anything else about Goldman Sachs and the financial collapse?
Note that the "Federal Reserve Bank" is not a bank, it is not federal, and there is nothing in reserve. Three lies in three words, in the name!
This Slashdot comment, The Investment Banking cohorts JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs are the **huge** winners, discusses some of the new ways Goldman Sachs will make money in the future using the power of government. That Slashdot comment links to the Rolling Stone article, but that copy of the article has been removed. See the link to the article in the grandparent comment.
The corruption is not new. For example, see the May 13, 2002 article in Business Week, How Corrupt Is Wall Street? New revelations have investors baying for blood, and the scandal is widening Quote: "Consider Enron, which has paid $323 million to Wall Street in underwriting fees since 1986, according to Thomson. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS ) pocketed $69 million of that..." Enron, of course, went bankrupt when it was discovered the company was dishonest.
Beginning in 2002, Warren Buffett began very publicly calling derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction". That particular part of the corruption was allowed by the removal of laws designed to prevent fraud, at the beginning of George W. Bush's first term. Nothing was done to reinstate the laws, and that's why we are suffering now. Why was nothing done? Numerous articles say the corruption was allowed to happen because Goldman Sachs people, and other financial company executives control the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.
If the past is any guide, Intel will be fined a trivial sum like $100 million, and the corruption and anti-competitive activity against AMD will continue.
Part of loving the U.S. is becoming aware of, and trying to stop, the corruption in government.
My understanding, from talking with Intel employees, is that Paul Otellini is not a good CEO.
My understanding is that only one member of the Intel Board of Directors has any technical knowledge. How can people with no technical knowledge oversee an enormously high-tech company? They can't.
Intel board member John L. Thornton was president and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, it says. Goldman Sachs helped engineer the present financial collapse. Since the collapse, Goldman Sachs has been very profitable. The U.S. government has done NOTHING to prevent further abuse.
Look at the comments on his article. Numerous people say it is incorrect.
What about the case where there is a drive in a system that is a clone of the system drive?
In my opinion, there should have been an announcement that NewSID would be removed long before it was actually removed. That would have given time for people to make comments. It also would have given time to change documents on the Microsoft web site that say that having a different SID is important.