As an aside, SCOM is a good product, but be sure you have (and are willing to invest) the time to configure it to match your environment. Just because it's also made by MS and has management packs for all of their products doesn't mean you can just flip the on switch and have everything monitored. You will almost certainly be flooded with useless alerts, and not alerted for things that you do care about.
Would anyone deny their cat or dog meat to eat ?.. It's as if animals should get more rights than a human.
(Most?) animals don't have the logical or ethical capacity to even ask themselves the question of whether they should be eating meat or not. They often get away with rape too, but does that mean that humans should?
Blu-ray players are expensive, DVD players are dirt cheap
These things were true a year or two ago. Blu-Ray discs are generally only a few ($2-$4) dollars more than their DVD counterparts now, and with the added space you generally get all of the bonus material that would only be present on the first run "special edition" 2-disc DVD set. It's more or less the same price for me to buy something on Blu-Ray as it is to see it once in a theatre, and I can keep the disc indefinitely.
The players are coming down in price quickly (I guess the laser manufacturing has gotten easier?). I saw one for about $250 new last week, and it was a brand-name player. That's not as cheap as a DVD player can be, but it's about half of what they were 2-3 years ago, so I expect they will just keep dropping.
Even if you have a hi-def TV, unless it's a monster screen you're not going to gain more than a minimally better picture unless (again) it's a HUGE screen.
No, it really is a big difference. I have a 1080P 46" (hardly "HUGE") display and the additional detail is phenomenal. For a well-shot film, the Blu-Ray version is (at least to my eyes) as good as watching it in the theatre.
Also, while it's not currently being taken advantage of, Blu-Ray can support things like deep colour and 3D that DVD can't. Those aren't a big deal now, but I am really looking forward to the increased colour space.
Seriously though, the reason BluRay sales are slow is because they're ridiculously priced. Anything over $20 is ridiculous for a movie.
Where are you buying your movies? Except for brand-new releases, most Blu-Ray releases are $19.99 or less at Amazon. I got a number of them for even less, around $13 for Dark City and the first Terminator. The new releases are usually $22-$24, which is why I don't buy those unless they're a really good film that I liked a lot. My guess is that a lot of that extra $3-$4 cost is for the boneheaded "digital copy" disc that studios are including with many first runs of newly-released films. It's a whole DVD to press and additional packaging. I'd be a bit curious to see their usage stats (since they require online authorization, they must have stats), because I've never even taken one out of the case. The DRM is not something I like, but everything else about Blu-Ray is great IMO. The high resolution makes a *huge* difference on a 1080P display, assuming the source material is of good quality or has been extensively cleaned up (e.g. Blade Runner). I would have preferred the original hard-shell (permanently-attached caddy) format, but as a second choice the standardized cases are excellent - I hate all of the crappy cases (or sleeves - I'm looking at you, Buena Vista) that DVD manufacturers came up with that ended up scratching a ton of discs in shipping. Since I'm sure the DRM will be cracked sooner or later, I'm not really worrying about it. The only other complaint I have about the format (or the use thereof) is the increasing addition of things like pop-up progress bars when I pause a film. Hey, movie studios - I just want to watch the movie, OK? At least make it so it doesn't actually obscure the frame for films that are letterboxed due to being even wider than 16:9.
My understanding is that the reason that people use flash and silverlight for video is so that people cannot save, reuse, and redistribute the content.
I've run across very few streamed videos that can't be downloaded. In the olden days I'd use something like WireShark or Network Monitor to get the URL of the content. Nowadays it's much easier with various Firefox extensions. As far as I know, the reason most sites use Flash or whatnot is because they want the video to be streamable and start more or less instantly. In modern Western society, if you can't start watching the video immediately, how likely are you going to be to remember to watch it after it's downloaded 15-30 minutes (or more) later? The whole (business) idea is to keep peoples' attention, like with television. If they "switch channels", you've lost your advertising opportunity.
Thanks for the link. Something like this (or this) is a lot more interesting (IMO) than the rolling wedge type of robot that's so common in this type of competition.
If those bastards want to live in a hurricane zone, below sea level, fine. Let them. But not on my nickel.
How would you feel about dealing with the massive economic hit to the country involved in all of the people living in similar areas relocating? Whether the government funded it or not, you'd be talking about bringing huge pieces of industry to a standstill for years. Oh, and don't forget about the ruin you'd wreak on the country by shutting down all of the ports on two of the three coasts. Nearly anywhere that is capable of being a useful port is also going to be victim to natural disasters of some kind - whether it's hurricanes in the South or earthquakes in the West. But, you know, while you're relocating all those millions of people, maybe you can have them dig a container-ship-sized canal to Idaho. Not many options for that in the South, since (AFAIK) most of the states between the South and e.g. Michigan (which already has water access) are hit by tornadoes.
Agreed. From skimming over the paper, it looks like this is very much like a system I designed (but never implemented) about a year after the paper you link to was written. Microsoft also has similar technology in the form of the Business Data Catalogue in SharePoint. I hadn't read the paper until now, so I guess the concept is sort of zeitgeisty. Ideally, it would let users work with data sort of like Tom Cruise in Minority Report, or MI6 in one of the two Daniel Craig Bond films - giving users a space to browse, search, and associate data from a bunch of different underlying sources (which the system handles the dirty work of abstracting away to whatever extent is appropriate for the user base). The one I designed was geared toward at least semi-technical users, so it was supposed to do things like colour-code pieces of data to indicate which source they were from and how high the confidence level was if there was a conflict between information in multiple sources or the source was considered less than 100% reliable for some reason. Anyway, I ended up making a very basic, read-only tool at work which implemented the general concept, and the users seem to love it. If I had the time, and hadn't been apparently beaten to it by MS and Google (among others), I'd really like to build the real thing. I can see why the marketing-type guy in TFA kind of went off the deep end describing it. Having all that data at your fingertips is pretty cool, and I remember being similarly excited when I realized what it would let you do, except I had the terminology to describe it accurately.
Of course, they will probably find a way to screw it up down the road, but currently it rocks as an enterprise level document repository.
In its inner workings, it's already pretty screwed up. For example, for anything that shows up as a list (which includes any type of library), the things that look like database columns actually have their data stored in XML format in giant text fields in the database. For wiki articles in particular this is a problem because the entire text of the articles is one of those values in the giant "properties" text field in the database. It's also a problem for lists with lots of "columns", especially if the list/library is set to allow multiple content types, because then each "row" in the list gets all of the properties for each of the content types inserted into its XML text field, even the ones that its content type doesn't use. Besides the obvious performance/scalability issues here (IE you can't create a meaningful SQL index on this data because all of the data you'd want to index is in that one stupid XML field), the SharePoint search indexer basically does a SELECT * into RAM for each list it comes across. So if you have a wiki library with a few thousand articles in it, *bam!* you just ran out of memory and none of them will be indexed.
Most people seem to love SharePoint, so I think MS has done a great job on the front end. I just wish they'd devote the resources to make the back end a lot more solid.
We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light, but we can create stuff that goes faster than the speed of sound.
We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. We create things that travel faster than the speed of light in other media all the time. The blue Cherenkov Radiation glow in fission reactors is caused by particles exceeding the speed of light in water, and creating a light shockwave analogous to the sound shockwave that e.g. supersonic aircraft produce.
This method seems to result in pure distilled water which is generally considered harmful as your sole water supply. It's lacking in minerals that the body uses and also will turn acidic naturally.
I learned this in geology class, but apparently it's not universally accepted as true anymore. If you can find a reliable cite to support it, I'd be interested in reinstating my previous belief though.
Why assume that if they find us, they must have sci-fi movie technology?
Because statistically speaking, it's incredibly unlikely that an alien race would have developed technology at anything close to the same time that we did. So either they will be so far behind that they won't even have radio, or many thousands (if not millions) of years more advanced than us (technology-wise).
This is why the "warn them that we have guns and know how to use them" and "hide under the bed" options are ridiculous. Any alien race we are able to communicate with will almost certainly have the technology to easily wipe us out if they want to, as well as being able to detect the radio waves we've been throwing out into space since the early 20th century.
Imagine the humans of 1900 trying to pose a credible threat to or hide from the humans of 2009. Now imagine the same thing, but it's the Romans or Chinese or a few thousand years ago versus the humans of 2009. Then realize that even a few thousand years is nothing on cosmological scales, so even that vast gap of technology is an eyeblink compared to the differences in technology we would be likely to encounter with an alien race.
Log in as Administrator (or root on *nix) and change the password. No recovery necessary.
Sometimes this isn't practical. For example, in a large enterprise it's easy to end up in a situation where if you can determine the password of a service account, you can get your work done non-intrusively and quickly, versus weeks or months of coordinating with other groups because you needed to change it. If you've inherited a bunch of legacy systems that depend on a single service account, you can pretty much guarantee that if you change the password, you will break *something* you didn't know about. Is this a best practice? No. But if your work is basically a triage situation, which is the most efficient solution?
Implement password policies which are supported through technical measures (group policies or any number of *nix equivalents) and require that everyone change passwords at next login.
The point of using a password cracking utility in that type of environment is to see how well your "technical measures" stand up to password-cracking tools in the real world. It's the difference between calculating how much stress a wing design should withstand, versus testing it to destruction to determine the real-world values.
What you are asking for is speed, aka amphetimines. Your doctor wont give it to you, but get it and it will have the effect you're after.
Your doctor will give it to you if you're diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. Adderall, for example, is dextroamphetamine salts. All of the stimulant-based ADD drugs I'm aware of are related to amphetamines in one way or another (although there's a whole other SNRI class of them that are not stimulants). Concerta is a particularly interesting tangent in terms of the molecule.
One of the many benefits of going the legitimate route is that the product is a lot less likely to kill you or destroy your brain. The dextro- variety has lower neurotoxicity than what you would get on the street. The prescription kind comes in carefully-measured lower doses because it's not intended for a recreational effect. Also, of course, you won't go to jail.
I've never used street speed, but when my doctor was tweaking my dose around initially to find the right one I got a taste of what that would be like, and it was too far in the other direction. I can see the attraction it would have for some people (I remember it as being as though I were inside a crystal cathedral of logic), but I don't think it would be an effective treatment for ADD like lower doses are.
The major difference being the the ADD/ADHD folks can focus fantastically well on something that interests them (like raiding for example).
In my experience, untreated ADD/ADHD means that while you can *sometimes* do that, it's not something you really have control over. IE it's not just interest (or lack thereof) in something, there is some other quality that determines whether you can do the hyper-focus thing on it.
I was diagnosed as having ADD as an adult, and I take prescription stimulants to correct for it. I've been overwhelmingly happy with the results - it's no longer a matter of rolling the dice to see if I can keep something (e.g. math, electronics) in my head long enough to get a handle on it. The problem I have now is finding time to study and make use of all the interests I have.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about whether I should have started taking them at an earlier age. On the one hand, I tend to agree with the people who think giving young people ADD medication tends to turn them into robots when they might have been more creative otherwise. On the other, looking back I notice that I ended up using a *lot* of caffeine anyway (enough to have more of a health effect than the prescription I take now).
If I'd had access to something more effective at the time, I might have gone in a very different direction, career-wise. Whether that's a good, bad, or neutral thing is more subjective, but there is definitely a window in the late teens/early 20s in which someone with ADD is going to limit or eliminate potential career options by their choice of medication or not.
A four letter password is still stronger protection than most people give.
It isn't depending on the system. If you're working with Windows, passwords less than 15 characters in length can be cracked in a trivial amount of time (usually minutes) using a rainbow table-based system like Ophcrack, assuming access to the hash. Some ways to obtain the hashes for privileged accounts: 1 - From the local cache on a workstation (e.g. the service accounts used for remote software installation). 2 - Intercepted off of the network by software like Cain and Abel. 3 - Copied off of a domain controller by someone with remote or physical access to one or more DCs.
I tend to pick "random string" type passwords, write them down and stick them to my computer case.
Why not use a passphrase instead? Even without special characters, no one is ever going to crack one of my 20-to-40 character passwords, unless they've built a custom cracking dictionary filled with every possible combination of lines from films/novels and song lyrics. Since we have a "must include upper/lowercase, a number, and a punctuation mark" policy at work, it would require many, many more variations even than that complex base.
Anyways we can crack the passwords in a couple hours or less from the password hash on a workstation.
If it's taking you "a couple hours" to crack a Windows password that meets the criteria you specified, you're using the wrong tool. Have a look at Ophcrack, then see if you ever want to use a less-than-15-character password on a Windows system again.
I'll stick with RIM/Blackberry (which also has an active and seemingly open developer community) until a Android phone I like comes along.
Are you posting from the mirror universe? When I had a company-provided BlackBerry, I went looking for apps. The only "free" one I found was Opera Mini, AKA Opera Please-Trust-Us-Not-To-Steal-All-Your-Personal-Data-That-Is-Being-Proxied-And-Modified-By-Our Servers-Including-HTTPS-Traffic. I tried out a couple of shareware/paid apps and was amazingly unimpressed. One was a replacement browser which managed to be even less usable than RIM's, and the other was a server-based wrapper for MS Office/OpenOffice that would take screenshots of Office docs and make them available for the phone so they'd look correct, because RIM's viewer/editor programs were so lacking in features. On the other hand, now that I have a G1, I've found a ton of useful, completely free applications. It doesn't have Exchange ActiveSync (yet), but since it's my personal phone I'm not in a huge hurry to get that anyway. Also, it has a browser that actually works. If there's a whole world of BlackBerry stuff I missed, I'd definitely be interested in hearing about it, though.
Its a strange world when you think killing someone for trying to rob you is acceptable.
I don't think that death is an appropriate punishment for theft, but at least where I live, I can understand the frustration that would lead to shooting a car thief. Regular citizens don't generally have a good way of subduing thieves (partly due to government crackdowns on any weapons they can regulate). The police in my area don't even bother to try to stop car thieves. The only time they will do anything more than write a report after the fact is if you have a clear photo that matches someone they know about, or if you somehow prevent the thief from leaving. So effectively there are two options - lethal force, or continue letting the thieves get away with their crimes. If someone continually has their car stolen (I know several people who've had theirs stolen 3 or more times), which of those two options do you think they're going to lean towards?
Note 2: I suspect that "Negotiate" might actually mean "use the operating-system-level security configurations of the client and the server to determine which protocol is acceptable", so that in order to truly *force* Kerberos you might also have to disallow all varieties of NTLM in the security policy for the server. That's just a guess though.
The system-wide WebDAV isn't required. Exchange installs its own, separate WebDAV components, which are.
See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309508/ ("Exchange 2000 components use Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) and other Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) verbs that are not allowed by the default configuration [of the IIS Lockdown and URLScan tools].")
http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/45356/deciding-if-and-how-to-disable-webdav-access.html ("If you're trying to disable Exchange 2003's DAV implementation, be aware that Outlook Web Access (OWA) and several other Exchange components depend on DAV. By blocking specific DAV verbs at the network level (through a firewall) or by installing URLScan, you will break the Exchange DAV implementation."). This last article specifically mentions the separate DAV DLLs for Exchange.
Slashdot Mirror
As an aside, SCOM is a good product, but be sure you have (and are willing to invest) the time to configure it to match your environment. Just because it's also made by MS and has management packs for all of their products doesn't mean you can just flip the on switch and have everything monitored. You will almost certainly be flooded with useless alerts, and not alerted for things that you do care about.
Would anyone deny their cat or dog meat to eat ? .. It's as if animals should get more rights than a human.
(Most?) animals don't have the logical or ethical capacity to even ask themselves the question of whether they should be eating meat or not. They often get away with rape too, but does that mean that humans should?
DVDs cost half or less than blu-ray
Blu-ray players are expensive, DVD players are dirt cheap
These things were true a year or two ago. Blu-Ray discs are generally only a few ($2-$4) dollars more than their DVD counterparts now, and with the added space you generally get all of the bonus material that would only be present on the first run "special edition" 2-disc DVD set. It's more or less the same price for me to buy something on Blu-Ray as it is to see it once in a theatre, and I can keep the disc indefinitely.
The players are coming down in price quickly (I guess the laser manufacturing has gotten easier?). I saw one for about $250 new last week, and it was a brand-name player. That's not as cheap as a DVD player can be, but it's about half of what they were 2-3 years ago, so I expect they will just keep dropping.
Even if you have a hi-def TV, unless it's a monster screen you're not going to gain more than a minimally better picture unless (again) it's a HUGE screen.
No, it really is a big difference. I have a 1080P 46" (hardly "HUGE") display and the additional detail is phenomenal. For a well-shot film, the Blu-Ray version is (at least to my eyes) as good as watching it in the theatre.
Also, while it's not currently being taken advantage of, Blu-Ray can support things like deep colour and 3D that DVD can't. Those aren't a big deal now, but I am really looking forward to the increased colour space.
Seriously though, the reason BluRay sales are slow is because they're ridiculously priced. Anything over $20 is ridiculous for a movie.
Where are you buying your movies? Except for brand-new releases, most Blu-Ray releases are $19.99 or less at Amazon. I got a number of them for even less, around $13 for Dark City and the first Terminator. The new releases are usually $22-$24, which is why I don't buy those unless they're a really good film that I liked a lot. My guess is that a lot of that extra $3-$4 cost is for the boneheaded "digital copy" disc that studios are including with many first runs of newly-released films. It's a whole DVD to press and additional packaging. I'd be a bit curious to see their usage stats (since they require online authorization, they must have stats), because I've never even taken one out of the case.
The DRM is not something I like, but everything else about Blu-Ray is great IMO. The high resolution makes a *huge* difference on a 1080P display, assuming the source material is of good quality or has been extensively cleaned up (e.g. Blade Runner). I would have preferred the original hard-shell (permanently-attached caddy) format, but as a second choice the standardized cases are excellent - I hate all of the crappy cases (or sleeves - I'm looking at you, Buena Vista) that DVD manufacturers came up with that ended up scratching a ton of discs in shipping. Since I'm sure the DRM will be cracked sooner or later, I'm not really worrying about it.
The only other complaint I have about the format (or the use thereof) is the increasing addition of things like pop-up progress bars when I pause a film. Hey, movie studios - I just want to watch the movie, OK? At least make it so it doesn't actually obscure the frame for films that are letterboxed due to being even wider than 16:9.
My understanding is that the reason that people use flash and silverlight for video is so that people cannot save, reuse, and redistribute the content.
I've run across very few streamed videos that can't be downloaded. In the olden days I'd use something like WireShark or Network Monitor to get the URL of the content. Nowadays it's much easier with various Firefox extensions.
As far as I know, the reason most sites use Flash or whatnot is because they want the video to be streamable and start more or less instantly. In modern Western society, if you can't start watching the video immediately, how likely are you going to be to remember to watch it after it's downloaded 15-30 minutes (or more) later? The whole (business) idea is to keep peoples' attention, like with television. If they "switch channels", you've lost your advertising opportunity.
Thanks for the link. Something like this (or this) is a lot more interesting (IMO) than the rolling wedge type of robot that's so common in this type of competition.
If those bastards want to live in a hurricane zone, below sea level, fine. Let them. But not on my nickel.
How would you feel about dealing with the massive economic hit to the country involved in all of the people living in similar areas relocating? Whether the government funded it or not, you'd be talking about bringing huge pieces of industry to a standstill for years.
Oh, and don't forget about the ruin you'd wreak on the country by shutting down all of the ports on two of the three coasts. Nearly anywhere that is capable of being a useful port is also going to be victim to natural disasters of some kind - whether it's hurricanes in the South or earthquakes in the West. But, you know, while you're relocating all those millions of people, maybe you can have them dig a container-ship-sized canal to Idaho. Not many options for that in the South, since (AFAIK) most of the states between the South and e.g. Michigan (which already has water access) are hit by tornadoes.
Agreed. From skimming over the paper, it looks like this is very much like a system I designed (but never implemented) about a year after the paper you link to was written. Microsoft also has similar technology in the form of the Business Data Catalogue in SharePoint. I hadn't read the paper until now, so I guess the concept is sort of zeitgeisty.
Ideally, it would let users work with data sort of like Tom Cruise in Minority Report, or MI6 in one of the two Daniel Craig Bond films - giving users a space to browse, search, and associate data from a bunch of different underlying sources (which the system handles the dirty work of abstracting away to whatever extent is appropriate for the user base).
The one I designed was geared toward at least semi-technical users, so it was supposed to do things like colour-code pieces of data to indicate which source they were from and how high the confidence level was if there was a conflict between information in multiple sources or the source was considered less than 100% reliable for some reason.
Anyway, I ended up making a very basic, read-only tool at work which implemented the general concept, and the users seem to love it. If I had the time, and hadn't been apparently beaten to it by MS and Google (among others), I'd really like to build the real thing.
I can see why the marketing-type guy in TFA kind of went off the deep end describing it. Having all that data at your fingertips is pretty cool, and I remember being similarly excited when I realized what it would let you do, except I had the terminology to describe it accurately.
I began to think that was how they started with wall textures - start with some photo image then photoshop it into unrecognisability.
I don't know if it's the same with EverQuest, but the artists for the Legacy of Kain games would stick photos in as temporary textures to reserve the space in video RAM (space was/is tight on Playstation-series consoles). There are a couple of examples here. Other parts of my site describe things more directly related to TFA, like the city 10/11 rooms in the first Soul Reaver, the room of all in-game artifacts and a deleted, unfinished, but playable room in Defiance, the debug menus for the various games, etc.
Of course, they will probably find a way to screw it up down the road, but currently it rocks as an enterprise level document repository.
In its inner workings, it's already pretty screwed up. For example, for anything that shows up as a list (which includes any type of library), the things that look like database columns actually have their data stored in XML format in giant text fields in the database. For wiki articles in particular this is a problem because the entire text of the articles is one of those values in the giant "properties" text field in the database. It's also a problem for lists with lots of "columns", especially if the list/library is set to allow multiple content types, because then each "row" in the list gets all of the properties for each of the content types inserted into its XML text field, even the ones that its content type doesn't use. Besides the obvious performance/scalability issues here (IE you can't create a meaningful SQL index on this data because all of the data you'd want to index is in that one stupid XML field), the SharePoint search indexer basically does a SELECT * into RAM for each list it comes across. So if you have a wiki library with a few thousand articles in it, *bam!* you just ran out of memory and none of them will be indexed.
Most people seem to love SharePoint, so I think MS has done a great job on the front end. I just wish they'd devote the resources to make the back end a lot more solid.
We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light, but we can create stuff that goes faster than the speed of sound.
We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. We create things that travel faster than the speed of light in other media all the time. The blue Cherenkov Radiation glow in fission reactors is caused by particles exceeding the speed of light in water, and creating a light shockwave analogous to the sound shockwave that e.g. supersonic aircraft produce.
This method seems to result in pure distilled water which is generally considered harmful as your sole water supply. It's lacking in minerals that the body uses and also will turn acidic naturally.
I learned this in geology class, but apparently it's not universally accepted as true anymore. If you can find a reliable cite to support it, I'd be interested in reinstating my previous belief though.
Why assume that if they find us, they must have sci-fi movie technology?
Because statistically speaking, it's incredibly unlikely that an alien race would have developed technology at anything close to the same time that we did. So either they will be so far behind that they won't even have radio, or many thousands (if not millions) of years more advanced than us (technology-wise).
This is why the "warn them that we have guns and know how to use them" and "hide under the bed" options are ridiculous. Any alien race we are able to communicate with will almost certainly have the technology to easily wipe us out if they want to, as well as being able to detect the radio waves we've been throwing out into space since the early 20th century.
Imagine the humans of 1900 trying to pose a credible threat to or hide from the humans of 2009. Now imagine the same thing, but it's the Romans or Chinese or a few thousand years ago versus the humans of 2009. Then realize that even a few thousand years is nothing on cosmological scales, so even that vast gap of technology is an eyeblink compared to the differences in technology we would be likely to encounter with an alien race.
Log in as Administrator (or root on *nix) and change the password. No recovery necessary.
Sometimes this isn't practical. For example, in a large enterprise it's easy to end up in a situation where if you can determine the password of a service account, you can get your work done non-intrusively and quickly, versus weeks or months of coordinating with other groups because you needed to change it. If you've inherited a bunch of legacy systems that depend on a single service account, you can pretty much guarantee that if you change the password, you will break *something* you didn't know about. Is this a best practice? No. But if your work is basically a triage situation, which is the most efficient solution?
Implement password policies which are supported through technical measures (group policies or any number of *nix equivalents) and require that everyone change passwords at next login.
The point of using a password cracking utility in that type of environment is to see how well your "technical measures" stand up to password-cracking tools in the real world. It's the difference between calculating how much stress a wing design should withstand, versus testing it to destruction to determine the real-world values.
What you are asking for is speed, aka amphetimines. Your doctor wont give it to you, but get it and it will have the effect you're after.
Your doctor will give it to you if you're diagnosed with ADD or ADHD. Adderall, for example, is dextroamphetamine salts. All of the stimulant-based ADD drugs I'm aware of are related to amphetamines in one way or another (although there's a whole other SNRI class of them that are not stimulants). Concerta is a particularly interesting tangent in terms of the molecule.
One of the many benefits of going the legitimate route is that the product is a lot less likely to kill you or destroy your brain. The dextro- variety has lower neurotoxicity than what you would get on the street. The prescription kind comes in carefully-measured lower doses because it's not intended for a recreational effect. Also, of course, you won't go to jail.
I've never used street speed, but when my doctor was tweaking my dose around initially to find the right one I got a taste of what that would be like, and it was too far in the other direction. I can see the attraction it would have for some people (I remember it as being as though I were inside a crystal cathedral of logic), but I don't think it would be an effective treatment for ADD like lower doses are.
The major difference being the the ADD/ADHD folks can focus fantastically well on something that interests them (like raiding for example).
In my experience, untreated ADD/ADHD means that while you can *sometimes* do that, it's not something you really have control over. IE it's not just interest (or lack thereof) in something, there is some other quality that determines whether you can do the hyper-focus thing on it.
I was diagnosed as having ADD as an adult, and I take prescription stimulants to correct for it. I've been overwhelmingly happy with the results - it's no longer a matter of rolling the dice to see if I can keep something (e.g. math, electronics) in my head long enough to get a handle on it. The problem I have now is finding time to study and make use of all the interests I have.
I have a lot of mixed feelings about whether I should have started taking them at an earlier age. On the one hand, I tend to agree with the people who think giving young people ADD medication tends to turn them into robots when they might have been more creative otherwise. On the other, looking back I notice that I ended up using a *lot* of caffeine anyway (enough to have more of a health effect than the prescription I take now).
If I'd had access to something more effective at the time, I might have gone in a very different direction, career-wise. Whether that's a good, bad, or neutral thing is more subjective, but there is definitely a window in the late teens/early 20s in which someone with ADD is going to limit or eliminate potential career options by their choice of medication or not.
A four letter password is still stronger protection than most people give.
It isn't depending on the system. If you're working with Windows, passwords less than 15 characters in length can be cracked in a trivial amount of time (usually minutes) using a rainbow table-based system like Ophcrack, assuming access to the hash.
Some ways to obtain the hashes for privileged accounts:
1 - From the local cache on a workstation (e.g. the service accounts used for remote software installation).
2 - Intercepted off of the network by software like Cain and Abel.
3 - Copied off of a domain controller by someone with remote or physical access to one or more DCs.
I tend to pick "random string" type passwords, write them down and stick them to my computer case.
Why not use a passphrase instead? Even without special characters, no one is ever going to crack one of my 20-to-40 character passwords, unless they've built a custom cracking dictionary filled with every possible combination of lines from films/novels and song lyrics. Since we have a "must include upper/lowercase, a number, and a punctuation mark" policy at work, it would require many, many more variations even than that complex base.
Anyways we can crack the passwords in a couple hours or less from the password hash on a workstation.
If it's taking you "a couple hours" to crack a Windows password that meets the criteria you specified, you're using the wrong tool. Have a look at Ophcrack, then see if you ever want to use a less-than-15-character password on a Windows system again.
I'll stick with RIM/Blackberry (which also has an active and seemingly open developer community) until a Android phone I like comes along.
Are you posting from the mirror universe? When I had a company-provided BlackBerry, I went looking for apps. The only "free" one I found was Opera Mini, AKA Opera Please-Trust-Us-Not-To-Steal-All-Your-Personal-Data-That-Is-Being-Proxied-And-Modified-By-Our Servers-Including-HTTPS-Traffic. I tried out a couple of shareware/paid apps and was amazingly unimpressed. One was a replacement browser which managed to be even less usable than RIM's, and the other was a server-based wrapper for MS Office/OpenOffice that would take screenshots of Office docs and make them available for the phone so they'd look correct, because RIM's viewer/editor programs were so lacking in features.
On the other hand, now that I have a G1, I've found a ton of useful, completely free applications. It doesn't have Exchange ActiveSync (yet), but since it's my personal phone I'm not in a huge hurry to get that anyway. Also, it has a browser that actually works.
If there's a whole world of BlackBerry stuff I missed, I'd definitely be interested in hearing about it, though.
I'm not even going to check to see if you're still breathing till I'm changing to my 3rd clip.
I'm only saying that because I care, cayenne8: there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing.
Its a strange world when you think killing someone for trying to rob you is acceptable.
I don't think that death is an appropriate punishment for theft, but at least where I live, I can understand the frustration that would lead to shooting a car thief.
Regular citizens don't generally have a good way of subduing thieves (partly due to government crackdowns on any weapons they can regulate). The police in my area don't even bother to try to stop car thieves. The only time they will do anything more than write a report after the fact is if you have a clear photo that matches someone they know about, or if you somehow prevent the thief from leaving. So effectively there are two options - lethal force, or continue letting the thieves get away with their crimes.
If someone continually has their car stolen (I know several people who've had theirs stolen 3 or more times), which of those two options do you think they're going to lean towards?
Note 1: see this Microsoft article for the official documentation.
Note 2: I suspect that "Negotiate" might actually mean "use the operating-system-level security configurations of the client and the server to determine which protocol is acceptable", so that in order to truly *force* Kerberos you might also have to disallow all varieties of NTLM in the security policy for the server. That's just a guess though.
The system-wide WebDAV isn't required. Exchange installs its own, separate WebDAV components, which are.
See:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309508/ ("Exchange 2000 components use Web Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV) and other Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) verbs that are not allowed by the default configuration [of the IIS Lockdown and URLScan tools].")
http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/38396/critical-webdav-vulnerability-are-your-exchange-servers-safe.html ("You can't disable WebDAV on your Exchange 2000 servers because OWA 2000 depends on WebDAV")
and
http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/45356/deciding-if-and-how-to-disable-webdav-access.html ("If you're trying to disable Exchange 2003's DAV implementation, be aware that Outlook Web Access (OWA) and several other Exchange components depend on DAV. By blocking specific DAV verbs at the network level (through a firewall) or by installing URLScan, you will break the Exchange DAV implementation."). This last article specifically mentions the separate DAV DLLs for Exchange.
OWA doesn't use WebDav
It actually does, as I was most disappointed to discover a year or two ago. I don't have time to find official documentation on the MS website, but here's an example of some testing that was done against it.