I immediately thought of Higashi no Eden, as well, when I saw this. Speaking of 'Eden, it was a great show, but it ended way too soon. I just hope the movie makes up for that.
So I might not know what I'm talking about. Didn't I state that I was voicing an opinion? Snide comments and cruel name-calling is the first things the truly ignorant provide. Why not, instead, provide a URL to some documentation or list some information on the topic before jumping to lewd remarks?
To get back on topic: Does anyone have a URL to documentation on these SID schema so that I (and possibly others) may look it over and scream obsceneties at it in private?
>> Yet This number is the CD-KEY that you're required to enter at startup. What else could it be?
> Well it could be a randomly generated number with some guarantee (?) of uniqueness.
Well... this is completely possible, but it's not the "correct" way to do this task. Let's take a look at this: Most (if not almost all) random number generators use a time-stamp to seed the randomness of a static function. Let us speculate that we have two systems: A and B. Just for the sake of differentiation, A is a Sun UltraSparc running Solaris; and B is an Intel PC running NT 4.0 SP5. Also, we'll speculate that both A and B are running the EXACT same random number generator function. What would happen if these generators were to be seeded with the same number? The answer? They'd return the same "random" number. This is bad if you're looking to generate a "Unique" number.
If Microsoft used a "random" number generator to guarantee a unique station ID, they made a horrible mistake. What if I were to power-up two machines at the same time with the same hardware, a clone of the automated install, and everything were to work in "ideal" conditions? Most likely, I'd end up with 2 computers which looked alike, had different IP addresses, different MAC addresses, but would have this "Security Identifier" be the same on both. Not a smart idea, IMO.
Now, with Intel adding a "random number generator" into their new chipset (i820), the effectiveness of this style of "unique ID" generation will be more effective and accurate.
I've NEVER had a problem with any version of NT and Ghosting, but this doesn't mean that there "couldn't" be a problem. This is, after-all, Micro$oft we're talking about.
"#10. Cloning Windows NT -... a unique number, a security identifier (SID)..."
Yep. This number is the CD-KEY that you're required to enter at startup. What else could it be? Nowhere are you asked for a different number which is named "security identifier." This is a false claim that "cloned systems will incur problems with networking." There's ABSOLUTELY no reason to think that this will ever happen. NT, even though I hate it with a passion, has no provision for checking this "SID", except for the rare occasion where a program might want to check the OEM/CD-key number. No crashes will happen, no "there is the same SID on this network" errors will pop up in the middle of a product build, no "goofy wackness" will happen and make you re-install the OS.
This is just a scare tactic by Micro$oft. They want to make sure that everyone is using a unique number so they can watch what you're doing with their software and, thus, market to you more efficiently. More money for Bill, right? (He can send some of it MY way... minus the hit-man, of course) Administrators whom are worth their salt know that copying NT to a new system causes no problems. Why should one open EVERY little package and pull out EVERY CD and have ALL the cd-keys ready so that you can waste an entire week getting 300 systems set up and working on a network? What I have done in the past, and will continue to do in the future is still purchase all the minimum pieces that I am required by law (the product licences, mainly) and install on one drive and copy it over to all the other drives and modify all the network stuff (Hostnames, TCP/IP numbers and subnet masks) so they become unique.
Micro$soft shouldn't get their panties in a bind over this. It's silly to try to scare people into submission. The US government does this enough as it is!
Note to US government and Microsoft: The opinions expressed in this specific post/reply are mine and mine, alone. The opinions do not modify my behaviour in society or denote any wrong-doing. Please, no hit-men of FBI agents.:)
Just looking at my own situation, my reply to the question "Would I want genetic modification of our children?" would be an adamant "Yes." The reason? Well... if I were gene-modified before I was born, then I probably wouldn't be ailing from Rhumatoid arthritis, acute dyslexia, or absence of short-term memory. This is, however, with the understanding that the field weren't hindered and research on the aforementioned diseases and their genetic causes was being done by researchers in large masses.
The human culture, as it is currently, opposes genetic modification for mainly religious reasons, IMO, however there are the select few of us putting those reasons aside and still opposing it with the argument that if they "can't get it, why should anyone else?" They don't want to be left our or feel their net worth diminished.
On seperate posts in this forum, I've noticed references to "Gattaca", a movie about genetic modifications, whose protagonist is not gene altered (as opposed to everyone else in the firm where he was trying to advance his career.) This may seem a bit overdramatic, but it is an aspect of ourselves to feel that we must overcome our flaws and promote ourselves above the "more advanced." Personally, I believe that we aren't in a war against anything but diseases, anymore. We shouldn't over-alter our genes, however, we should snip the malaise "right out". No more arthritis; no more diabetes; no more dyslexia; no more Downs syndrome.
True, it's a lofty goal, but if you were/are a parent, woulnd't you want your children to be "superiour" to yourself? I sure would; that's the whole point of procreation and the advance of civilization.
Computer/technical companies want to be near large metropolitan areas. Unfortunately, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and South and North Dakota don't sport enough population to get the attention of a major computer/technical company. Wisconsin, Missouri, and Minnesota are the exceptions to the aforementioned, but are still losing out to states like Texas, California, Washington, and Oregon. Illinois is yet another exception, because it is the home to one of the 10 largest cities in the US. Beyond that, South Dakota is yet another rarity, because there is no good reason why Gateway is there. One day, someone decided that it would have been better in one podunk city than in another podunk city. Gateway is a strange beasty.... so is Ford, John Deere, and Outrage Entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
I immediately thought of Higashi no Eden, as well, when I saw this. Speaking of 'Eden, it was a great show, but it ended way too soon. I just hope the movie makes up for that.
Rest in peace, Internet Radio -- I knew ye well.
I honestly weep for the future.
Really... that wasn't called for.
So I might not know what I'm talking about. Didn't I state that I was voicing an opinion? Snide comments and cruel name-calling is the first things the truly ignorant provide. Why not, instead, provide a URL to some documentation or list some information on the topic before jumping to lewd remarks?
To get back on topic: Does anyone have a URL to documentation on these SID schema so that I (and possibly others) may look it over and scream obsceneties at it in private?
>> Yet This number is the CD-KEY that you're required to enter at startup. What else could it be?
> Well it could be a randomly generated number with some guarantee (?) of uniqueness.
Well... this is completely possible, but it's not the "correct" way to do this task. Let's take a look at this: Most (if not almost all) random number generators use a time-stamp to seed the randomness of a static function. Let us speculate that we have two systems: A and B. Just for the sake of differentiation, A is a Sun UltraSparc running Solaris; and B is an Intel PC running NT 4.0 SP5. Also, we'll speculate that both A and B are running the EXACT same random number generator function. What would happen if these generators were to be seeded with the same number? The answer? They'd return the same "random" number. This is bad if you're looking to generate a "Unique" number.
If Microsoft used a "random" number generator to guarantee a unique station ID, they made a horrible mistake. What if I were to power-up two machines at the same time with the same hardware, a clone of the automated install, and everything were to work in "ideal" conditions? Most likely, I'd end up with 2 computers which looked alike, had different IP addresses, different MAC addresses, but would have this "Security Identifier" be the same on both. Not a smart idea, IMO.
Now, with Intel adding a "random number generator" into their new chipset (i820), the effectiveness of this style of "unique ID" generation will be more effective and accurate.
I've NEVER had a problem with any version of NT and Ghosting, but this doesn't mean that there "couldn't" be a problem. This is, after-all, Micro$oft we're talking about.
"#10. Cloning Windows NT - ... a unique number, a security identifier (SID)..."
:)
Yep. This number is the CD-KEY that you're required to enter at startup. What else could it be? Nowhere are you asked for a different number which is named "security identifier." This is a false claim that "cloned systems will incur problems with networking." There's ABSOLUTELY no reason to think that this will ever happen. NT, even though I hate it with a passion, has no provision for checking this "SID", except for the rare occasion where a program might want to check the OEM/CD-key number. No crashes will happen, no "there is the same SID on this network" errors will pop up in the middle of a product build, no "goofy wackness" will happen and make you re-install the OS.
This is just a scare tactic by Micro$oft. They want to make sure that everyone is using a unique number so they can watch what you're doing with their software and, thus, market to you more efficiently. More money for Bill, right? (He can send some of it MY way... minus the hit-man, of course) Administrators whom are worth their salt know that copying NT to a new system causes no problems. Why should one open EVERY little package and pull out EVERY CD and have ALL the cd-keys ready so that you can waste an entire week getting 300 systems set up and working on a network? What I have done in the past, and will continue to do in the future is still purchase all the minimum pieces that I am required by law (the product licences, mainly) and install on one drive and copy it over to all the other drives and modify all the network stuff (Hostnames, TCP/IP numbers and subnet masks) so they become unique.
Micro$soft shouldn't get their panties in a bind over this. It's silly to try to scare people into submission. The US government does this enough as it is!
Note to US government and Microsoft:
The opinions expressed in this specific post/reply are mine and mine, alone. The opinions do not modify my behaviour in society or denote any wrong-doing. Please, no hit-men of FBI agents.
Just looking at my own situation, my reply to the question "Would I want genetic modification of our children?" would be an adamant "Yes." The reason? Well... if I were gene-modified before I was born, then I probably wouldn't be ailing from Rhumatoid arthritis, acute dyslexia, or absence of short-term memory. This is, however, with the understanding that the field weren't hindered and research on the aforementioned diseases and their genetic causes was being done by researchers in large masses.
The human culture, as it is currently, opposes genetic modification for mainly religious reasons, IMO, however there are the select few of us putting those reasons aside and still opposing it with the argument that if they "can't get it, why should anyone else?" They don't want to be left our or feel their net worth diminished.
On seperate posts in this forum, I've noticed references to "Gattaca", a movie about genetic modifications, whose protagonist is not gene altered (as opposed to everyone else in the firm where he was trying to advance his career.) This may seem a bit overdramatic, but it is an aspect of ourselves to feel that we must overcome our flaws and promote ourselves above the "more advanced." Personally, I believe that we aren't in a war against anything but diseases, anymore. We shouldn't over-alter our genes, however, we should snip the malaise "right out". No more arthritis; no more diabetes; no more dyslexia; no more Downs syndrome.
True, it's a lofty goal, but if you were/are a parent, woulnd't you want your children to be "superiour" to yourself? I sure would; that's the whole point of procreation and the advance of civilization.
Computer/technical companies want to be near large metropolitan areas. Unfortunately, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, and South and North Dakota don't sport enough population to get the attention of a major computer/technical company. Wisconsin, Missouri, and Minnesota are the exceptions to the aforementioned, but are still losing out to states like Texas, California, Washington, and Oregon. Illinois is yet another exception, because it is the home to one of the 10 largest cities in the US. Beyond that, South Dakota is yet another rarity, because there is no good reason why Gateway is there. One day, someone decided that it would have been better in one podunk city than in another podunk city. Gateway is a strange beasty.... so is Ford, John Deere, and Outrage Entertainment.