What part of "Customers who are using Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista are protected from currently known web based attacks due to Internet Explorer 7.0 protected mode" do you fail to understand?
DRM enables a music rental model, allowing me unlimited access to content for the price of a single album per month. Falls under category 3.
It is an oddly liberating experience (well, if you're into the whole doing things the "legal way" thing). No more hunting to find the best song on an album so you don't waste money. No more worrying that the new artist you want to try out is worth listening to. And if you happen to find an artist you like it isn't a problem to get EVERYTHING they have with just a few clicks. And hey, if I don't like it I can delete it without feeling like I just wasted money.
I used to maybe buy one cd every few months. Now I download probably a dozen albums per month.
Lots of people argue that you lose access to that content if you discontinue your subscription -- and you do. However, the only reason to cancel said subscription is if it is no longer a reasonable value (ie: you download less than 1 album per month). The thing is, new music is always coming out, and I don't see myself "exhausting" the value of my subscription anytime in foreseable future.
System restore is the backup mechanism. If you've got system restore enabled, it manages creation of restore points (which include registry backups) and deletion of old restore points on a regular basis. If your registry is corrupted, it is supposed to fallback to a version of the registry contained in a previously generated restore point. If none of the restore points have a valid snapshot of the registry (ex: you've disabled system restore or your drive is horked) you're SOL.
They are the same basic CPU, but customized in different ways. The biggest difference is the design of the VMX units. The Xenon has twice as much L2 cache available. There are also many more minor differences (such as instructions that allow greater control over the use of L2 cache) that would appear to make it possible for developers to "coerce" the processor closer to peak utilization.
My problem with that attitude (money should be made from support, not sale) is that it encourages the creation crappy software that is difficult to use. Computers should empower people -- people shouldn't need to pay a "support fee" to be able to effectively use a computer or the software running on it.
Isn't WGA validation required to download non-security updates off of the Microsoft website? Meaning if you refuse to run WGA you are not allowed to download non-security updates? Shouldn't your refusal to run WGA send a "user refuses to run WGA" notification to the website so that it does not allow you to download those non-security updates (you have 4 states that need to be tracked: "new" machine [send user to download WGA stuff], user refuses WGA [tell user they can't download xyz because WGA was refused], user passed WGA [let user download stuff], user failed WGA [send user to priracy reporting site])?
When a DLL is loaded, the entire DLL is not loaded into memory; only the pages needed are loaded. If the other pages are needed at a later time, they're loaded on demand.
Disabling virtual memory forces the OS to load the entire DLL into memory, even if it only needed one page.
Effectively, you're forcing the computer to cache data it doesn't need AND you are preventing it from tossing those pages if something else happens to need the memory.
You can stream about 30-40 megabytes of non random data per second. If your drive's read/write head is running all over the disk to load 50 dll's, you're 30-40mb/s turns into 1mb/s.
And Vista is not so dumb that it dumps working set data to increase cache size.
Not only that, but the author also implies that Microsoft's IT department backs up employee computers on a regular basis, which would be right up there with one of the more absurd things I've heard in awhile.
Bullcrap -- it depends on the content in the MSI. The install is handled by two processes; one that handles executing portions of the install that require admin privs (msiexec.exe running as the SYSTEM user), and a second that handles the unelevated portion (msiexec.exe running as the user that launched the msi).
Don't believe me? Go to the system32 folder and look at msiexec.exe -- note it doesn't have a shield icon on top of the binary icon. Don't trust that? Open up the binary in a resource editor and look at the application manifest. If you can't find any xml that says "", it isn't going to prompt by default when it launches -- you only get the prompt once it needs to create/interact with the elevated instance of the installer.
In Vista you cannot have any installer do any setup things (like prepping directories or checking to upgrade a program) without running as admin. This is madness, because you are going to always be telling vista it's OK for even the most trivial installer to go ahead and elevate.
This is incorrect, per previous poster's comments. If you keep everything in the user's profile and install using MSI, you won't have to elevate.
That being said, how many windows apps do you know of that DON'T install to the program files folder?
Yeah, I can't think of any either.
Or are you arguing that it should be ok for software without admin privs to go modify content outside of the user's profile?
Partly that, and partly "I don't want tech support dealing with home users that are having VM issues". And he is right, as most typical home users probably don't even know what a virtual machine is. Or for that matter, care.
When the odds of a disaster occuring approach that of the odds of being struck by lightning, my willingness to care about the difference decreases significantly. Especially when excercising common sense serves to further cut the odds of a problem occuring (ie: don't install crap from people you don't know, don't stand outside in the middle of a thunderstome, etc).
In this case, all of the applications are "good enough" to me that performance doesn't seem to be the primary deciding factor (ie: if everything else were equal, then yes it would influence the decision, but if it weren't...those other factors might take priority).
It sounds like you aren't examining risk for 1 "vehicle", but rather a fleet of them; I would certainly expect your risk analysis to be different than what I'd use for my home pc.
Yeah, it's not like they have a database that correlates something like a "license tag" to a physical address. The cops wouldn't even know where to begin searching for the vehicle so they could retrieve the planted thumb drive on it.
You assume that: a) it would be legal to break into your garage to retreive the device (it's not) b) they always have a current address (they don't) c) that one state has easy access to another's license database
It isn't a simple matter of "oh, I'll just pop this thing on there and get it back later... and then if they drive to location x they're a crook." Retreiving the data requires some active effort from the police; certainly more effort than is practicle for random survelance.
How they follow you is mostly beside the point, but it is not totally irrelevant.
So long as it is not an intrusive act, why does it matter? Why is this different from using satellite imagery, camera footage, or aircraft? (bear in mind I refuse to accept any "because it is cheaper than foo" arguements as valid)
You must love to hear yourself talk
Pot. Kettle. Black.
"Cops sometimes follow people around in their cars without a warrant and that's ok, so cops following people around 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months on end without a warrant is ok too." That's a fallacy of composition and the judge just bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Cops CAN follow people around 24 hours a day 7 days a week for months on end without a warrant. In fact, they DO. Or do you somehow think that taking down the mob bosses happened in just a few days? There is no fallacy of "composition" at all here.
We'll if it's ok for the cops, it must be ok for me too. I can go make a cheap rig and stalk anyone I want legally,
Stalking is a persistent and unwanted pursuit of an individual by another that would cause a reasonable person to fear. You can legally follow someone around with your cheap rig all you want, so long as you don't cause them to fear you.
The moment you make them afraid of your persuit is the instant it becomes stalking, and when you cross the barrier from legal to illegal.
It most certainly does enable surveilance that is not possible otherwise, if the cops get bored, tired, cranky and stop tailing me I'm free and clear, with this device they can tag me and check in from their desks any time they want without anyone being any wiser.
"The police are human, and technology isn't" argument is not valid. To say otherwise implies that police shouldn't be allowed to patrol an area in a car (because it allows them to "monitor" an area larger than they could on foot). Or that radar and laser guns shouldn't be usable by police to nab speeders. Or that police can't use aircraft to track a fleeing suspect.
Tracking a suspect is not an activity which requires a warrant. The fact that technology enables them to be better at, or that the activity is more cost effective, isn't grounds for requiring a warrant. You may not LIKE having a more efficient police force, but that also isn't a valid arguement for restricting use of technology.
Now, if the technology allowed them to obtain information they would not otherwise be able to obtain without a warrant (ex: an IR camera to observe activity inside a private area), THEN you've got a valid arguement for requiring a warrant. But that isn't the case here.
As a side note, the tracking devices used in this case doesn't allow the police to "check" your location at a whim while at they're desk; they have to retrieve the device after planting it to download the data. This also makes it relatively impossible to use for purposes of tracking random citizens -- it has to be a target they can reacquire after planting the device.
While the laws from area to area vary and the particulars of some of the scenarios may not be legal in some regions, generally my point is that so long as the device does not damage the vehicle in any fashion it is likely legal to "plant" it (except in cases where the activity explicitely prohibited by law).
And yes, I heard about the people living in Boston with brains the size of peas. With the standard Boston is setting for defining what an IED is, any radioshack kit-based piece of electronics would fit the bill. In fact, I've got a project I built about 15 years ago out of LEDs and parts from a broken 286 sitting in my office that looks far more menacing than the mooninite device... (omg, it's got a battery... and wires... and blinking lights).
Slashdot Mirror
What part of "Customers who are using Internet Explorer 7 on Windows Vista are protected from currently known web based attacks due to Internet Explorer 7.0 protected mode" do you fail to understand?
Your rant might be interesting if, perhaps, malicious action were possible with this exploit on Vista. (it isn't)
DRM enables a music rental model, allowing me unlimited access to content for the price of a single album per month. Falls under category 3.
It is an oddly liberating experience (well, if you're into the whole doing things the "legal way" thing). No more hunting to find the best song on an album so you don't waste money. No more worrying that the new artist you want to try out is worth listening to. And if you happen to find an artist you like it isn't a problem to get EVERYTHING they have with just a few clicks. And hey, if I don't like it I can delete it without feeling like I just wasted money.
I used to maybe buy one cd every few months. Now I download probably a dozen albums per month.
Lots of people argue that you lose access to that content if you discontinue your subscription -- and you do. However, the only reason to cancel said subscription is if it is no longer a reasonable value (ie: you download less than 1 album per month). The thing is, new music is always coming out, and I don't see myself "exhausting" the value of my subscription anytime in foreseable future.
Following Moore's Law, a 2 year old computer 50% slower than the modern day equivelent. Seems like a decent enough definition of "old" to me ...
It isn't even new to Vista. Win2k3 and WinXPSP2 do this as well.
Will the 360 let me stream stuff from my computer and my neighbor's computer?
6 0/digitalmedia/pc.htm
Yes, though not at the same time: http://www.xbox.com/en-US/support/systemuse/xbox3
System restore is the backup mechanism. If you've got system restore enabled, it manages creation of restore points (which include registry backups) and deletion of old restore points on a regular basis. If your registry is corrupted, it is supposed to fallback to a version of the registry contained in a previously generated restore point. If none of the restore points have a valid snapshot of the registry (ex: you've disabled system restore or your drive is horked) you're SOL.
The dll performs the mapping from the "nice" function call you see in MSDN to the system call(s) required to perform the desired operation.
He doesn't work for Square, he works for Mistwalker. He was the original FF guy.
They are the same basic CPU, but customized in different ways. The biggest difference is the design of the VMX units. The Xenon has twice as much L2 cache available. There are also many more minor differences (such as instructions that allow greater control over the use of L2 cache) that would appear to make it possible for developers to "coerce" the processor closer to peak utilization.
My problem with that attitude (money should be made from support, not sale) is that it encourages the creation crappy software that is difficult to use. Computers should empower people -- people shouldn't need to pay a "support fee" to be able to effectively use a computer or the software running on it.
Isn't WGA validation required to download non-security updates off of the Microsoft website? Meaning if you refuse to run WGA you are not allowed to download non-security updates? Shouldn't your refusal to run WGA send a "user refuses to run WGA" notification to the website so that it does not allow you to download those non-security updates (you have 4 states that need to be tracked: "new" machine [send user to download WGA stuff], user refuses WGA [tell user they can't download xyz because WGA was refused], user passed WGA [let user download stuff], user failed WGA [send user to priracy reporting site])?
Where's the fire here?
Unfortunately, that isn't a valid test case.
When a DLL is loaded, the entire DLL is not loaded into memory; only the pages needed are loaded. If the other pages are needed at a later time, they're loaded on demand.
Disabling virtual memory forces the OS to load the entire DLL into memory, even if it only needed one page.
Effectively, you're forcing the computer to cache data it doesn't need AND you are preventing it from tossing those pages if something else happens to need the memory.
You can stream about 30-40 megabytes of non random data per second. If your drive's read/write head is running all over the disk to load 50 dll's, you're 30-40mb/s turns into 1mb/s.
And Vista is not so dumb that it dumps working set data to increase cache size.
Bingo.
Not only that, but the author also implies that Microsoft's IT department backs up employee computers on a regular basis, which would be right up there with one of the more absurd things I've heard in awhile.
whine whine bitch bitch. Maybe you should just download and use the free plugin that allows you to import 2007 documents into 2003?
a milyid=941B3470-3AE9-4AEE-8F43-C6BB74CD1466&displa ylang=en
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?f
Xml:
Bullcrap -- it depends on the content in the MSI. The install is handled by two processes; one that handles executing portions of the install that require admin privs (msiexec.exe running as the SYSTEM user), and a second that handles the unelevated portion (msiexec.exe running as the user that launched the msi).
Don't believe me? Go to the system32 folder and look at msiexec.exe -- note it doesn't have a shield icon on top of the binary icon. Don't trust that? Open up the binary in a resource editor and look at the application manifest. If you can't find any xml that says "", it isn't going to prompt by default when it launches -- you only get the prompt once it needs to create/interact with the elevated instance of the installer.
In Vista you cannot have any installer do any setup things (like prepping directories or checking to upgrade a program) without running as admin. This is madness, because you are going to always be telling vista it's OK for even the most trivial installer to go ahead and elevate.
This is incorrect, per previous poster's comments. If you keep everything in the user's profile and install using MSI, you won't have to elevate.
That being said, how many windows apps do you know of that DON'T install to the program files folder?
Yeah, I can't think of any either.
Or are you arguing that it should be ok for software without admin privs to go modify content outside of the user's profile?
Partly that, and partly "I don't want tech support dealing with home users that are having VM issues". And he is right, as most typical home users probably don't even know what a virtual machine is. Or for that matter, care.
When the odds of a disaster occuring approach that of the odds of being struck by lightning, my willingness to care about the difference decreases significantly. Especially when excercising common sense serves to further cut the odds of a problem occuring (ie: don't install crap from people you don't know, don't stand outside in the middle of a thunderstome, etc).
In this case, all of the applications are "good enough" to me that performance doesn't seem to be the primary deciding factor (ie: if everything else were equal, then yes it would influence the decision, but if it weren't...those other factors might take priority).
It sounds like you aren't examining risk for 1 "vehicle", but rather a fleet of them; I would certainly expect your risk analysis to be different than what I'd use for my home pc.
Yeah, it's not like they have a database that correlates something like a "license tag" to a physical address. The cops wouldn't even know where to begin searching for the vehicle so they could retrieve the planted thumb drive on it.
... and then if they drive to location x they're a crook." Retreiving the data requires some active effort from the police; certainly more effort than is practicle for random survelance.
You assume that:
a) it would be legal to break into your garage to retreive the device (it's not)
b) they always have a current address (they don't)
c) that one state has easy access to another's license database
It isn't a simple matter of "oh, I'll just pop this thing on there and get it back later
How they follow you is mostly beside the point, but it is not totally irrelevant.
So long as it is not an intrusive act, why does it matter? Why is this different from using satellite imagery, camera footage, or aircraft? (bear in mind I refuse to accept any "because it is cheaper than foo" arguements as valid)
You must love to hear yourself talk
Pot. Kettle. Black.
"Cops sometimes follow people around in their cars without a warrant and that's ok, so cops following people around 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for months on end without a warrant is ok too." That's a fallacy of composition and the judge just bought it hook, line, and sinker.
Cops CAN follow people around 24 hours a day 7 days a week for months on end without a warrant. In fact, they DO. Or do you somehow think that taking down the mob bosses happened in just a few days? There is no fallacy of "composition" at all here.
We'll if it's ok for the cops, it must be ok for me too. I can go make a cheap rig and stalk anyone I want legally,
Stalking is a persistent and unwanted pursuit of an individual by another that would cause a reasonable person to fear. You can legally follow someone around with your cheap rig all you want, so long as you don't cause them to fear you.
The moment you make them afraid of your persuit is the instant it becomes stalking, and when you cross the barrier from legal to illegal.
Are you ok with driving a car while the odds of having an accident are > 0.01%?
It most certainly does enable surveilance that is not possible otherwise, if the cops get bored, tired, cranky and stop tailing me I'm free and clear, with this device they can tag me and check in from their desks any time they want without anyone being any wiser.
"The police are human, and technology isn't" argument is not valid. To say otherwise implies that police shouldn't be allowed to patrol an area in a car (because it allows them to "monitor" an area larger than they could on foot). Or that radar and laser guns shouldn't be usable by police to nab speeders. Or that police can't use aircraft to track a fleeing suspect.
Tracking a suspect is not an activity which requires a warrant. The fact that technology enables them to be better at, or that the activity is more cost effective, isn't grounds for requiring a warrant. You may not LIKE having a more efficient police force, but that also isn't a valid arguement for restricting use of technology.
Now, if the technology allowed them to obtain information they would not otherwise be able to obtain without a warrant (ex: an IR camera to observe activity inside a private area), THEN you've got a valid arguement for requiring a warrant. But that isn't the case here.
As a side note, the tracking devices used in this case doesn't allow the police to "check" your location at a whim while at they're desk; they have to retrieve the device after planting it to download the data. This also makes it relatively impossible to use for purposes of tracking random citizens -- it has to be a target they can reacquire after planting the device.
While the laws from area to area vary and the particulars of some of the scenarios may not be legal in some regions, generally my point is that so long as the device does not damage the vehicle in any fashion it is likely legal to "plant" it (except in cases where the activity explicitely prohibited by law).
... (omg, it's got a battery ... and wires ... and blinking lights).
And yes, I heard about the people living in Boston with brains the size of peas. With the standard Boston is setting for defining what an IED is, any radioshack kit-based piece of electronics would fit the bill. In fact, I've got a project I built about 15 years ago out of LEDs and parts from a broken 286 sitting in my office that looks far more menacing than the mooninite device