Of course, if they require the system partition to be encrypted too that might prevent Vista from working.
A lot of the arguments in favor of it are bogus. For example in TFA they give as the number one reason that temporary files and Virtual memory are protected. This is pretty silly. First even right now VM can be done securely. Massive compromises of data are not likely to happen via either. And if someone is concurrently logged in so that they could even access the temporary files then they can access the encrypted hard disk in general. They seem to be confusing access permission with FDE. Moreover If one is worried about data leaks via tmp and VM then one should be even more worried about data leaks via content indexing like spotlight, google desktop, and MS's next Filesystem (Whenever that happens)
Depending upon what layer this happens at it seems to me it could wrench a lot of virtual machine implementations too.
The problem with just encrypting home directories only matters if the machine is shared. FOr example, if there is some shared database on the machine that is supposed to be accessible to more than one user, encrypting the home directory only is a problem. On the otherhand for most laptops (in the fed gov) one assumes they are single user nearly always.
At my intitution were worried about all sorts of personally identifiable information. There does not seem to be any quantitative guidelines for this. Even one SS number is apparently too much. And it's not just the info I might be aware of but the info that might be there that I'm not aware of that counts too. For example, if someone sends me a resume. Even if I never read it, It might contain birth dates and other personal info. Hence I need to protect all the e-mail.
Now the hackles being raised are that this means we can't use Macs and maybe not linux since there are no acceptable enterprise-worthy full disk encryption systems. If you know of some, expecially for macs please reply with details below. But the term "acceptable" and "enterprise-worthy" matter a great deal. You can't just go installing full disk encryption based on some open source solution that might or might not get updated to work with the next version of say debian or fedora in a timely way. It has to have a method of key escrow that is usable. etc... Hence people are looking to windows.
Another raging argument is what full disk encryption means. Surely something like mac's built in encryption of home directories and if need be combined with secure virtual memory would be sufficient to protect anything but very critical information. The answer we are hearing is No and "maybe". We are beinf pushed to use Entrust which all users I have heard from say is a disaster. There's going to be huge data recovery issues. And I don't see it as likely that Entrust will always be assured of working across OS upgrades
Personally I'd prefer to see encryption done in a transparent hardware layer.
In the long run this going to be good for the branded commerical OS, and the Linuxes backed by commerical vendors. The reason is that in the end you'd have to be pretty stupid to encrypt your whole disk with anything not supplied by the OS vendor because it simply has to work right under all circumstances and there simply has to be one person you can call when it fails. It woul dbe intolerable to have to have the OS vendor say well it's not our problem and the encryption vendor saying they are trying to work with the OS vendor to figure out why the kernel upgrade broke it.
And when it does break after you hit the "Software update" button or worse corporate HQ pushes the update overnight to your computer there is no failsafe mode! the computer won't boot. Corprorate HQ can't even contact your computer to undo the problem after the reboot. you can't even donwload a patch from the vendor or let them know it was broken. You can't even look up their phone number. Nor can you go to your neighbors computer to download a patch since his machine is broken too.
Other arguments people are unsure of 1) is home directory encryption enough 2) what about removable media? 3) what about FAT tables? 4) boot tracks? 5) virtual memory?
The fact that this order is zero tolerance with no asseement of risk seems to prove it is ill conceived.
It's a stake through the heart for all non-comercial linux
Wikipedia has a terribly written entry that tries to break down the timeline. There's tonnes of better places on the web where people have discussed what they think happened. like here. Or just google for explanations of primer the movie. The good news is there is no official explanation so there's multiple possibilities.
The thing I like about the layered hierarchy of the film is that to understand the third layer you have to watch it two or three times.
One of the really delightful things about the electro-positron anihilation form of time travel is that if you assume you could really build a time machine that could do it it get's rid of the paradox that defeats all other time-travel concepts.
namely, in this form of time travel you cannot trvale back to a point in time before the machine and the traveler first existed.
The way it works is this for a positron is this. A photon splits into an electron positron pair that propagate forward in time as matter and then anihilate creating a photon. Another way to look at this is that the positron is an electron traveling backward in time. So what you have is two electrons, one of which is traveling backward in time from the future to the moment when the photon "split", and one that is traveling forward in time to the moment then the other photon was created. Thus the backward timeline cannot go backward beyond the point where the spilt event occurred and the forward time electron can't go forward beyond the time when the reverse electron started back.
For people and a time machine the "split event" is when you turn on the time machine and get in it. As you travel forward in time your future self is traveling backward in time. You can't go forward unless you're future self goes backward. Those two events bound the interval of time so your future self can't go back and kill you before you invent the time machine. And your past self can't go forward beyond your normal life span.
It's a very clever story idea because for once the time travel does not have any inconsistencies.
Okay it's not "out of the box" but it's nearly all drag and drop (if you use fink commander) or the mac package installer.
Basically fink is a major chunk of Debian . Thousands of packages.
The best part is that fink is all self consistent unlike the package managers on linux which seem to always get all twisted around depending on which linux or which compat-lib you are using.
So Unix package management in my experience is a lot easier on macs than on linux.
Best part is this: unistalling the packages you installed to get back to zero again is one drag and drop to the trash. Try that on linux.
if you have a modern computer and want a full service experience with very little hassle then try Ubuntu. That's what it's good at. Works well out of the box and full featured and runs on most computers. Fully modern Apps.
On the other hand for people using old gear they want to extend the life of then the heavy weigh linuxes will bog. If they also don't know squat about linux and can barely navigate the file browser but want simple functionality (word processing, note taking, web and e-mail) then DSL has a nice interface: all icons on the desk top. minimal screen real estate, a suite of ultra light weight applications, easy package management, and INSANLEY fast boot times. No need to dual boot since the CD boot is ludicrously fast on old computers (under a minute on a pentium 2 133 Mhz).
DSL_not is just like DSL but has more graphics heavy apps. In particular you get a more modern open-save dialog that does not use the old file path navigations styles.
Anything else between these two extremes is more a matter on specialized usage. E.g. want something more full featured than DSL but still pretty lightweight and also want to run Windows Apps in WINE? then try Slackware's killbill edition. Which is a nice compromise.
Want something with lots of security tweaking possibilities, and more enterprise worthy (slower updates of apps), then maybe Debian with it's awesome package management?
Whant something you could get some pay-for-it support? Redhat or Suse? Maybe wnat it for free then fedora? entriprise then Cent--oh heck what's the entriprse fedora called?
Primer is the hardest movie to figure out I've ever watched. I had to watch it a couple times. The narrator in not a reliable person so that misleads you. And there's tonnes of innocuous looking details and weird stuff that happens that seem to make no sense. But actually all make perfect sense.
What sucked me in, perhaps not you, and got me to watch was the start where they show some physicist trying to do garage science and capturing the feel of it so perfectly. Then the slow puzzle of figuring out what the hack the anti-gravity machine is doing. By then you start noticing how the story has little glitches in it that turn out to be important. If you don't watch it two or three times it's impossible (really) to figure out what actually just happened. Why for example was someone lurking in a car outside their house. Ever figure that one out?
Firewall did a pretty good job of getting almost exactly computers right. When a hacker is trying consecutive ports they add a rule to the fire wall. They actually invoke the right program from the command line. No uber hacker manages to hack in. And the way they secure the data center is to remove all the terminals and USB ports rather that some miracle sentry machine. The data center is just a pile of Dells in racks, no wierd high tech crap. the bad guys have to get physically inside the data center, trick someone at a remote data center to scroll the file on screen and then copy off what is on the computer screens using a jury rigged camera. Then they laboriously have to use OCR to actually read the cam-scans. It's a little hokey that they could so quickly get some software that would translate the serailezed output of a fax-scanner bar to a scan image, but not too hard to believe it possible--after all faxes do just that plus OCR to boot.
Going beyond computers, My favorite movie for getting the science right is Primer. They really capture how scientist talk about ideas as they develop them. Their initial theories are close but wrong. they use old but servicable test equipment. The time travel actually works too. Really! it's the only movie in which the Time travel does not defy the known laws of physics--they just exgaerate it a bit bit.. (in a nutshell, they borrow the only known method of time travel (which is electron positron pairs splitting from a photon then recombining--a positron can be modeled as an electron going backwards in time) and then suppose that one could do the same with macroscopic thing like a human. Thus to travel backward in time, the subject also has to travel forward in time from the past so that the two timelines can merge.)
It's entirely possible for someone to create an active pages site that inhibits deep linking. The judge is just saying that just because the site does not actively prohibit deep links that you are entirled to deep link. You can of course do so, but if you are asked to stop then you are supposed to stop.
it's not entirely unlike trespassing. I can put up a 20 foot concrete wall topped with razor wire to compell you to knock before you enter. Or I can leave the borders of my property open and put up a nice sign saying please do not trespass but not take active measures to stop you.
The judge did not say that you cannnot deep link. Just that if there are reasonable indications like the no tresspassing sign you should not do so.
Since we already have robots.txt protocols there's already a mechanism to automate this for web spiders.
Nintendo's edge can vanish in a flash if either sony, xbox, introduces a wii mote of thier own. Then Nintendo has the weakest machine and no input device advantage. Thus Nintendo's remianing advantage will be two fold. 1) the early sales lead gives then a critical market size where developers are willing to write for the wii-mote
2) ubiquity of the controller: if the controller is just an add-on for sony and xbox and not in every home then designers wont' design games thet require it.
I'd assume the controller would add atleast $50 to the cost of a sony or xbox so bundling in every system might not work at their present price point unless its a loss leader for the game sales.
The nice thing for nintendo is that they won't have to plow money into game development to sell their platform. Xbox and sony will live r die on who produces the finest collection of games the earliest. Wii finesses that battle. Just build the remote and the games will come.
This makes a zero space snapshop of me. preserves everything except permissions. This is not a backup it's a snapshot. do the backup with rsync. then take a snapshot.
A vulnerability in Microsoft Word could allow an attacker to compromise a vulnerable system.
I. Description
Data used by Microsoft Word to construct a destination address for a memory copy routine is embedded within a Word document itself. If an attacker constructs a Word document with a specially crafted value used to build this destination address, then that attacker may be able to overwrite arbitrary memory.
An attacker could trigger this vulnerability by convincing a user to open a specially crafted Word document.
Holy smokes bat man. How on earth is a pointer value being stored in the data? Would not a pointer be some aspect of the memory allocation of the program itself and have nothing to do with the document??? Someone please explain.
Someof these bugs can penetrate macs, but is there an actual exploit the pentration on macs? For just one or all three?
Are these fully macro virsues or are these actual binary executables being injected?
If we have binary executables being injected by some sort of buffer overrun, then I wonder what happen on intel macs. Does the exploit inject i86 code or ppc code. Does Rosetta run the PPC injection or does the i86 injection run on it's own.
Once they start charging they come under a new set of laws that makes them a regulated telecom. when they were not charging it was arguable they were not under the regulation jurisdiction of the US justice dept or FCC. Thus by giving it away for free they built up a lot of anti-establishement street cred. That's a nice bit of viral marketing buzz.
Now they will have to include backdoors for phone line tapping under US laws if they operate inside the USA. Sure they may be based outside the US and have global customers. Think that makes a whoot of difference to the Justice department? Might as well say the same for cocaine dealers: they may operate in the US but their corporate headquarters is in Medelin Columbia.
Robert X. Cringely says they are almost singlehandedly responsible for the death of the major newspapers. His point is that the highest margin activity at news papers is the classified ads. Even the circulation department is a net loss. And you can't compete with Free.
Obviously the question arrises as to whether that's just the natural course of evolution and it's time for the dinosoaurs for find a new bussiness model. That's too glib a response for two reasons. First, it's a matter of huge consequence to the nation and to democracy in general to have a plethora of news sources that get their profits from the masses directly so they are not beholden to a few key advertisers. Second, craig's list is a temprary anamoly. It might be said to be a loss leader for whatever is going to replace it. But someday it's going to die or get forced out of bussiness. For example, as has been widely predicted when net neutrality goes away people running big sites are going to have to start paying the ISPs for access to their customers. Or maybe Craig's list will go public or it's owners finally decide to cash in on the latent ten billion dollar value they have.
In any case we won't have free classified ads forever. But in the mean time we might loose all the newspapers.
I'm not happy with that trade. Free does not always mean the results are good. It's like someone was giving you free internet explorers for a while and you nearly lost netscape.
How do I actually buy TY disks? When I try there's so many counterfeits on the market that I don't know how to assure myself I am getting these. The problem gets far worse when one wants to minimize the price one pays so one is looking at on-line discount office supply companies without the reputation and high prices of the big chains.
T-mobile's.... coverage maps seem to take into account individual towers, and have rather detailed plots of levels of service.
My point was that it's not the detail of the maps or the areas that are uncovered that bother me. It's the fact that these maps themselves are optomistic. T-mobile simply has lower threshold for what they call "coverage" than Verizon. If you stand in a green area of a verizon map and a green area of a t-mobile map, In my experience you will more often find that T-mobile coverage will have higher fluctuations on when it is actually possible to receive calls. Worse this is not spatial vatiation but temporal. So averaged over time all the green is accessible but not simultaneously and at all times.
This is huge deal. In the city all providers are about the same and which one is slightly better is for people who have nothing better to argue about. In the rural areas there's enormous differences. All of them will show you coverage maps but they mean different things. For example a T-mobile coverage map means, empricially, it's possible you might be able to make a call from this location some of time, but that will vary by the hour. Whereas Verizon's maps seem to mean you have a good expectation to making a call from this location nearly all of the time.
I'd like to say something positive about T-mobile so I'll say this. When you call they are really good about trying to fix you problem and actually send out people in the field to check the addresses and actually go up to the towers and check. Verizon's tech support is populated by people who seem to be intent on wasting your time till you give up.
But at the end of the day what it comes down to is, "Can I reasonably expect to receive calls when I give out my phone number", and T-mobile gets a big ding for exagerating theoir coverage.
I don't have a problem with companies that have less coverage because they also charge less than verizon or offer other perks. What I do have a problme with is people who lie about their coverage. It's a big deal because you have to sign these freakin' 1 or 2 year contracts to get any sort of decent rates and it sucks going in blind. They won't let you out cause they lied, and even if you had a court case it's not going to be worth your effort to sue them over it.
So we need some sort of rating for "coverage claims are true" in the consumer reports.
So boo-hoo about your dropped calls. At least you can connect and get calls all the time.
The V in VBA is for virus, or so I always thought. I'm glad to hear it go. MOST users don't use it. it shoul dbe off by default. it's a macro virus waiting to happen just like Active scripts in IE were.
The data rates when reading or writing one of these would be pretty high. If there were 1000 tracks then that would be 1GB/track if it were spinning at 3600 RPM that would be arounf 500 Gigabits per second. You'd need sever times that in electrical bandwith to keep the squarewave sharp. That's terrahertz modulation rates even for the shortest reads.
So to do this at all your going to need 100 or more read heads and data channels to get the modulation rate down, or there would have to be orders of magnitude more tracks. Or possibly there's some way you could encode the bits in different overlapping frames such that the data rate of any one frame was lower. For example by using different reconstruction laser spatial patterns for different frames could use physics to select which frame was being selected.
Otherwise this is drinking from a fire hose even for the shortest reads, and the equipment needed would be prohibitively expensive.
The same problem happens when writing: how do you buffer a gigabyte of data to deliver it that fast. It ain't gonna be in the main RAM.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, if they require the system partition to be encrypted too that might prevent Vista from working.
A lot of the arguments in favor of it are bogus. For example in TFA they give as the number one reason that temporary files and Virtual memory are protected. This is pretty silly. First even right now VM can be done securely. Massive compromises of data are not likely to happen via either. And if someone is concurrently logged in so that they could even access the temporary files then they can access the encrypted hard disk in general. They seem to be confusing access permission with FDE. Moreover If one is worried about data leaks via tmp and VM then one should be even more worried about data leaks via content indexing like spotlight, google desktop, and MS's next Filesystem (Whenever that happens)
Depending upon what layer this happens at it seems to me it could wrench a lot of virtual machine implementations too.
The problem with just encrypting home directories only matters if the machine is shared. FOr example, if there is some shared database on the machine that is supposed to be accessible to more than one user, encrypting the home directory only is a problem. On the otherhand for most laptops (in the fed gov) one assumes they are single user nearly always.
At my intitution were worried about all sorts of personally identifiable information. There does not seem to be any quantitative guidelines for this. Even one SS number is apparently too much. And it's not just the info I might be aware of but the info that might be there that I'm not aware of that counts too. For example, if someone sends me a resume. Even if I never read it, It might contain birth dates and other personal info. Hence I need to protect all the e-mail.
Now the hackles being raised are that this means we can't use Macs and maybe not linux since there are no acceptable enterprise-worthy full disk encryption systems. If you know of some, expecially for macs please reply with details below. But the term "acceptable" and "enterprise-worthy" matter a great deal. You can't just go installing full disk encryption based on some open source solution that might or might not get updated to work with the next version of say debian or fedora in a timely way. It has to have a method of key escrow that is usable. etc...
Hence people are looking to windows.
Another raging argument is what full disk encryption means. Surely something like mac's built in encryption of home directories and if need be combined with secure virtual memory would be sufficient to protect anything but very critical information. The answer we are hearing is No and "maybe". We are beinf pushed to use Entrust which all users I have heard from say is a disaster. There's going to be huge data recovery issues. And I don't see it as likely that Entrust will always be assured of working across OS upgrades
Personally I'd prefer to see encryption done in a transparent hardware layer.
In the long run this going to be good for the branded commerical OS, and the Linuxes backed by commerical vendors. The reason is that in the end you'd have to be pretty stupid to encrypt your whole disk with anything not supplied by the OS vendor because it simply has to work right under all circumstances and there simply has to be one person you can call when it fails. It woul dbe intolerable to have to have the OS vendor say well it's not our problem and the encryption vendor saying they are trying to work with the OS vendor to figure out why the kernel upgrade broke it.
And when it does break after you hit the "Software update" button or worse corporate HQ pushes the update overnight to your computer there is no failsafe mode! the computer won't boot. Corprorate HQ can't even contact your computer to undo the problem after the reboot. you can't even donwload a patch from the vendor or let them know it was broken. You can't even look up their phone number. Nor can you go to your neighbors computer to download a patch since his machine is broken too.
Other arguments people are unsure of
1) is home directory encryption enough
2) what about removable media?
3) what about FAT tables?
4) boot tracks?
5) virtual memory?
The fact that this order is zero tolerance with no asseement of risk seems to prove it is ill conceived.
It's a stake through the heart for all non-comercial linux
Wikipedia has a terribly written entry that tries to break down the timeline. There's tonnes of better places on the web where people have discussed what they think happened. like here. Or just google for explanations of primer the movie. The good news is there is no official explanation so there's multiple possibilities. The thing I like about the layered hierarchy of the film is that to understand the third layer you have to watch it two or three times.
You can't go back in time and kill your father.
One of the really delightful things about the electro-positron anihilation form of time travel is that if you assume you could really build a time machine that could do it it get's rid of the paradox that defeats all other time-travel concepts.
namely, in this form of time travel you cannot trvale back to a point in time before the machine and the traveler first existed.
The way it works is this for a positron is this.
A photon splits into an electron positron pair that propagate forward in time as matter and then anihilate creating a photon. Another way to look at this is that the positron is an electron traveling backward in time. So what you have is two electrons, one of which is traveling backward in time from the future to the moment when the photon "split", and one that is traveling forward in time to the moment then the other photon was created. Thus the backward timeline cannot go backward beyond the point where the spilt event occurred and the forward time electron can't go forward beyond the time when the reverse electron started back.
For people and a time machine the "split event" is when you turn on the time machine and get in it. As you travel forward in time your future self is traveling backward in time. You can't go forward unless you're future self goes backward. Those two events bound the interval of time so your future self can't go back and kill you before you invent the time machine. And your past self can't go forward beyond your normal life span.
It's a very clever story idea because for once the time travel does not have any inconsistencies.
Fink install TexMac
Okay it's not "out of the box" but it's nearly all drag and drop (if you use fink commander) or the mac package installer.
Basically fink is a major chunk of Debian . Thousands of packages.
The best part is that fink is all self consistent unlike the package managers on linux which seem to always get all twisted around depending on which linux or which compat-lib you are using.
So Unix package management in my experience is a lot easier on macs than on linux.
Best part is this: unistalling the packages you installed to get back to zero again is one drag and drop to the trash. Try that on linux.
if you have a modern computer and want a full service experience with very little hassle then try Ubuntu. That's what it's good at. Works well out of the box and full featured and runs on most computers. Fully modern Apps.
On the other hand for people using old gear they want to extend the life of then the heavy weigh linuxes will bog. If they also don't know squat about linux and can barely navigate the file browser but want simple functionality (word processing, note taking, web and e-mail) then DSL has a nice interface: all icons on the desk top. minimal screen real estate, a suite of ultra light weight applications, easy package management, and INSANLEY fast boot times. No need to dual boot since the CD boot is ludicrously fast on old computers (under a minute on a pentium 2 133 Mhz).
DSL_not is just like DSL but has more graphics heavy apps. In particular you get a more modern open-save dialog that does not use the old file path navigations styles.
Anything else between these two extremes is more a matter on specialized usage. E.g. want something more full featured than DSL but still pretty lightweight and also want to run Windows Apps in WINE? then try Slackware's killbill edition. Which is a nice compromise.
Want something with lots of security tweaking possibilities, and more enterprise worthy (slower updates of apps), then maybe Debian with it's awesome package management?
Whant something you could get some pay-for-it support? Redhat or Suse? Maybe wnat it for free then fedora? entriprise then Cent--oh heck what's the entriprse fedora called?
Primer is the hardest movie to figure out I've ever watched. I had to watch it a couple times. The narrator in not a reliable person so that misleads you. And there's tonnes of innocuous looking details and weird stuff that happens that seem to make no sense. But actually all make perfect sense.
What sucked me in, perhaps not you, and got me to watch was the start where they show some physicist trying to do garage science and capturing the feel of it so perfectly. Then the slow puzzle of figuring out what the hack the anti-gravity machine is doing. By then you start noticing how the story has little glitches in it that turn out to be important.
If you don't watch it two or three times it's impossible (really) to figure out what actually just happened. Why for example was someone lurking in a car outside their house. Ever figure that one out?
Firewall did a pretty good job of getting almost exactly computers right. When a hacker is trying consecutive ports they add a rule to the fire wall. They actually invoke the right program from the command line. No uber hacker manages to hack in. And the way they secure the data center is to remove all the terminals and USB ports rather that some miracle sentry machine. The data center is just a pile of Dells in racks, no wierd high tech crap. the bad guys have to get physically inside the data center, trick someone at a remote data center to scroll the file on screen and then copy off what is on the computer screens using a jury rigged camera. Then they laboriously have to use OCR to actually read the cam-scans. It's a little hokey that they could so quickly get some software that would translate the serailezed output of a fax-scanner bar to a scan image, but not too hard to believe it possible--after all faxes do just that plus OCR to boot.
Going beyond computers, My favorite movie for getting the science right is Primer. They really capture how scientist talk about ideas as they develop them. Their initial theories are close but wrong. they use old but servicable test equipment. The time travel actually works too. Really! it's the only movie in which the Time travel does not defy the known laws of physics--they just exgaerate it a bit bit.. (in a nutshell, they borrow the only known method of time travel (which is electron positron pairs splitting from a photon then recombining--a positron can be modeled as an electron going backwards in time) and then suppose that one could do the same with macroscopic thing like a human. Thus to travel backward in time, the subject also has to travel forward in time from the past so that the two timelines can merge.)
Finally, I really like the 13th floor.
Next time read the post before you reply to it.
It's entirely possible for someone to create an active pages site that inhibits deep linking. The judge is just saying that just because the site does not actively prohibit deep links that you are entirled to deep link. You can of course do so, but if you are asked to stop then you are supposed to stop.
it's not entirely unlike trespassing. I can put up a 20 foot concrete wall topped with razor wire to compell you to knock before you enter. Or I can leave the borders of my property open and put up a nice sign saying please do not trespass but not take active measures to stop you.
The judge did not say that you cannnot deep link. Just that if there are reasonable indications like the no tresspassing sign you should not do so.
Since we already have robots.txt protocols there's already a mechanism to automate this for web spiders.
You didn't score well on the reading comprehension test did you? I'd say more but I don't think you will read beyond the first sentence.
Nintendo's edge can vanish in a flash if either sony, xbox, introduces a wii mote of thier own. Then Nintendo has the weakest machine and no input device advantage. Thus Nintendo's remianing advantage will be two fold.
1) the early sales lead gives then a critical market size where developers are willing to write for the wii-mote
2) ubiquity of the controller: if the controller is just an add-on for sony and xbox and not in every home then designers wont' design games thet require it.
I'd assume the controller would add atleast $50 to the cost of a sony or xbox so bundling in every system might not work at their present price point unless its a loss leader for the game sales.
The nice thing for nintendo is that they won't have to plow money into game development to sell their platform. Xbox and sony will live r die on who produces the finest collection of games the earliest. Wii finesses that battle. Just build the remote and the games will come.
MS should buy it for longhorn and dump DOS.
find -d /Users/me | cpio -dpl mybackup
This makes a zero space snapshop of me. preserves everything except permissions. This is not a backup it's a snapshot. do the backup with rsync. then take a snapshot.
I sometimes use rdiffbackup too
Someof these bugs can penetrate macs, but is there an actual exploit the pentration on macs? For just one or all three?
Are these fully macro virsues or are these actual binary executables being injected?
If we have binary executables being injected by some sort of buffer overrun, then I wonder what happen on intel macs. Does the exploit inject i86 code or ppc code. Does Rosetta run the PPC injection or does the i86 injection run on it's own.
Once they start charging they come under a new set of laws that makes them a regulated telecom. when they were not charging it was arguable they were not under the regulation jurisdiction of the US justice dept or FCC. Thus by giving it away for free they built up a lot of anti-establishement street cred. That's a nice bit of viral marketing buzz.
Now they will have to include backdoors for phone line tapping under US laws if they operate inside the USA. Sure they may be based outside the US and have global customers. Think that makes a whoot of difference to the Justice department? Might as well say the same for cocaine dealers: they may operate in the US but their corporate headquarters is in Medelin Columbia.
Any how, welcome to the Machine, skype.
Obviously the question arrises as to whether that's just the natural course of evolution and it's time for the dinosoaurs for find a new bussiness model. That's too glib a response for two reasons. First, it's a matter of huge consequence to the nation and to democracy in general to have a plethora of news sources that get their profits from the masses directly so they are not beholden to a few key advertisers. Second, craig's list is a temprary anamoly. It might be said to be a loss leader for whatever is going to replace it. But someday it's going to die or get forced out of bussiness. For example, as has been widely predicted when net neutrality goes away people running big sites are going to have to start paying the ISPs for access to their customers. Or maybe Craig's list will go public or it's owners finally decide to cash in on the latent ten billion dollar value they have.
In any case we won't have free classified ads forever. But in the mean time we might loose all the newspapers.
I'm not happy with that trade. Free does not always mean the results are good. It's like someone was giving you free internet explorers for a while and you nearly lost netscape.
How do I actually buy TY disks? When I try there's so many counterfeits on the market that I don't know how to assure myself I am getting these. The problem gets far worse when one wants to minimize the price one pays so one is looking at on-line discount office supply companies without the reputation and high prices of the big chains.
This is huge deal. In the city all providers are about the same and which one is slightly better is for people who have nothing better to argue about. In the rural areas there's enormous differences. All of them will show you coverage maps but they mean different things. For example a T-mobile coverage map means, empricially, it's possible you might be able to make a call from this location some of time, but that will vary by the hour. Whereas Verizon's maps seem to mean you have a good expectation to making a call from this location nearly all of the time.
I'd like to say something positive about T-mobile so I'll say this. When you call they are really good about trying to fix you problem and actually send out people in the field to check the addresses and actually go up to the towers and check. Verizon's tech support is populated by people who seem to be intent on wasting your time till you give up.
But at the end of the day what it comes down to is, "Can I reasonably expect to receive calls when I give out my phone number", and T-mobile gets a big ding for exagerating theoir coverage.
I don't have a problem with companies that have less coverage because they also charge less than verizon or offer other perks. What I do have a problme with is people who lie about their coverage. It's a big deal because you have to sign these freakin' 1 or 2 year contracts to get any sort of decent rates and it sucks going in blind. They won't let you out cause they lied, and even if you had a court case it's not going to be worth your effort to sue them over it.
So we need some sort of rating for "coverage claims are true" in the consumer reports.
So boo-hoo about your dropped calls. At least you can connect and get calls all the time.
The V in VBA is for virus, or so I always thought. I'm glad to hear it go. MOST users don't use it. it shoul dbe off by default. it's a macro virus waiting to happen just like Active scripts in IE were.
Javac is the coolest program written in C++ :-)
So to do this at all your going to need 100 or more read heads and data channels to get the modulation rate down, or there would have to be orders of magnitude more tracks. Or possibly there's some way you could encode the bits in different overlapping frames such that the data rate of any one frame was lower. For example by using different reconstruction laser spatial patterns for different frames could use physics to select which frame was being selected.
Otherwise this is drinking from a fire hose even for the shortest reads, and the equipment needed would be prohibitively expensive.
The same problem happens when writing: how do you buffer a gigabyte of data to deliver it that fast. It ain't gonna be in the main RAM.
I'm sure there are Latex Trojans too. Used 'em myself.