...if you ask me they should change it into the machine's hostname.
They might not, but you can:
Start->Run->Regedt32.exe
Navigate to HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curre ntVersion\Explorer\CLSID\
If you do not see a subkey named {20D04FE0-3AEA-1069-A2D8-08002B30309D}, make one.
If the subkey already existed, it may contain a <No Name> value with a REG_SZ data type. Delete that value/data pair.
Edit->Add Value... to create a value named <No Name> with a data type of REG_EXPAND_SZ.
In the String Editor window, paste: User: %USERNAME% on: %COMPUTERNAME% and click OK
Minimize Registry Editor, click on the desktop, and press F5.
Enjoy.
Note that this only changes the behavior in your profile; for a multi-user machine, you'll want to make the same change logged on as each different user. Select the subkey you edited in Registry Editor, choose Registry->Save Subtree As..., and save it as personalcomputer.reg. Now each user can simply double-click the.reg file to add the change to his or her profile.
Make the same changes as above to HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Cur re ntVersion\Explorer\CLSID\ and new users will automatically inherit the change.
DISCLAIMER:Careless and/or ignorant editing of the registry can be an effective way to completely hose your machine. If in doubt, don't touch. If you screw it up, don't blame me - and I almost certainly will not be able to help you fix it. Backups are your friend.
Do you trust them remember to let through packets from machines such as 196.168.0.1, or 10.0.0.1?
You're kidding, right? Every single one of my edge routers and firewalls drops inbound RFC 1918 addresses, and even ISPs which use those ranges internally (such as RoadRunner) certainly drop them at their peers and backbone connections.
Packets with those source addresses should never appear on the Internet backbone. How do you think replies to those packets would return to the originating host?
Although, I supposed those addresses should be properly nested in the NAT packets.
If you are responsible for a network, I urge you to review how NAT works.
...DDoS remote sites take advantage of the limitations of IPv4 (mostly the ease of forging your source IP address) to hide the true sources of the attack.
Which could be all but eliminated if ISPs would implement access lists in their routers to drop packets with source addresses other than those assigned to the downstream networks.
Problem solved without relying on OS vendors or end users to implement anything at all.
'Their' doesn't parse, since it wasn't used in the original sentence.
But yeah, Cthulhu forbid that anyone should have any fun with the language! Anyone who can't figure out 'boxen' probably shouldn't be reading Slashdot; anyone whose undies twist up when they see the word used probably shouldn't be, either.
You and I seem to have a different impression of what a fishing expedition is.
In any case, I am just as bemused by the recent increase in articles and posts on Slashdot that appear to be anti-privacy, as the original poster seems to be about what he perceives as posts and articles which are anti-free speech.
I note with disappointment that his post has been rated "Troll" now. I disagree with his assertion, but his post certainly wasn't a troll. Mildly ironic, considering the 'free speech' angle.
To call product specifications which are released a few weeks or months before they're posted on Apple.com makes a mockery of trade secret protection law.
I didn't say 'trade secret protection laws.' I said 'contract' - as in NDA.
If it's okay to violate an NDA, as long as you do it by telling a reporter what you know, then just what exactly is an NDA for, in your opinion?
Because these individuals whose free speech you want to abridge are not signatories to the privacy contract.
By analogy, then, would you agree that selling stolen property - which you know is stolen - is perfectly legitimate, as long as you're not the one who actually stole it?
And that no one should be able to compel you to reveal the identity of the thief?
Right - I'll be sending some guys around to your place, then. But don't worry - they'll just be stealing information, such as your bank account and credit card numbers. And I'll just be posting them in my blog.
In this case, I don't see anything in the Wikipedia entry that would make me think it's more authoritative than the book in which I originally read the quote.
and it's Ted, not Fred.
I claim lack of sleep. D'oh.
Just because something is flawed doesn't make it shit.
Of course not. Just matching the normal level of hyperbole here on/.
He has also said that Mach, which is the microkernel OSX is based on, is a "piece of shit".
Well, Tannenbaum isn't that impressed with the Linux kernel, for that matter.
I personally don't know jack-diddly about kernel design - but I suspect, given what I've seen during years of working with various software companies, and software in general, is that every microkernel, kernel, etc. is a piece of shit.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap." Fred Sturgeon
He has repeatedly said that he doesn't care about userspace.
As AnonymousKev said below, "I bet he cares when he needs to do some editing, or check his e-mail."
Yeah, I know Linus just does kernel development. It seems to me he ought to care about the user experience just a bit. I guess it isn't as if he's influential or anything./sarcasm
"I don't know such stuff, I just do eyes." -Chew Blade Runner
> The only reason there's slim lightweight Pentium M class laptops is because Apple created the PowerBook.
Now that really is just fanboiism. Thin and lightweight laptops have been available for years - well before the PentiumM, and as long as, if not longer than, thin Powerbooks. I recall owning a thin and lightweight Sony Vaio back in 1998 - based on a PII chip!
Actually that one really does have a shred of truth to it. Apple's original PowerBooks - the 100, 140, and 170, released in 1991, IIRC - were (relatively) thin, light, had built-in trackballs, and were the first to have the keyboard towards the rear of the case, allowing the front to form a wrist rest. And they were dark grey. Damned near every laptop since then has followed this design and layout. Prior machines (including Apple's own Portable) were of the beige-and-luggable, 'just roll the mouse on your thigh' ilk.
Still doesn't have diddly to do with the Pentium M, though.
Hell they are all Von Neumann machines anyway. A computer is a computer is a computer.
Posting from an array of Tinker Toys, are you?
The hardware may be described as "all Von Neumann machines," which, while accurate, ignores speed, size, efficiency, heat output, noise level, cost - all of which are design factors/selling points for small PCs. Or almost all computers, for that matter. You are generalizing beyond the point of usefulness, and in a directon that the classification "Von Neumann machine" is not intended to go.
And ultimately the software has the most significant impact on our experience with computers, and it can't be so trivially described.
...Launch's non-innovative rip and bastardization of Firefly
Ah. I'd missed that bit of history. It looks like that one really can be blamed on Microsoft - they absorbed Firefly to use the underlying technology in Passport, and then let the original site die.
Jeff Boulter was the ex-Firefly employee who built LAUNCHCast from the ashes of Firefly. Microsoft might not have given him the opportunity to preserve the original data.
I lost a couple months of productivity plugging my music collection into FireFly, only to have LaunchCast trash all the data when they took over
I share your pain. I had rated many thousands of songs on LAUNCHCast, was subscibed to a dozen other stations, and had quite a few subscribers myself when Yahoo! absorbed them and sucked the life out of it. I would be even more bitter if I had been part of the Firefly community.
I'll be checking out AudioScrobbler - I had pretty much given up on collaborative music rating systems. We'll see whether this one becomes a victim of its own success, too.
Somethis that can be configured to an individual's tastes, and which can then sample and select new music from the company's music library. Sort of a 'Tivo Suggests' for music. I'd buy that.
Like LAUNCHCast before the RIAA leaned on them, and then Yahoo! acquired it and ripped out everything that made it innovative and cool?
You'd rate songs on a scale from 'never play this again' to 10, and the system would select new songs based on what you'd already rated and insert them into your personal "station" rotation.
But the real killer feature was that you could search for other users whose tastes were statistically similar to your own, subscribe to their stations, and learn about new and different music and artists as some of their favorites were added to your rotation. Want to buy a song? Click on it.
Absolutely cool collaborative software. Unfortunately, if you wanted to expend the effort, you could abuse the system to constuct a station that could (gasp!) play a specific song at a specific time for free, and the RIAA wouldn't allow that.
So the only thing that had gotten me to purchase any new music in years was eviscerated, stuffed full of ads, and then sold to Yahoo! as a 'service' with all the collaboration gone. You could pay money to lose the ads. Whee.
Bitter? Me?
Re:And here are the more interesting posts:
on
Apple Releases Mac Mini
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The difference lies in the latency. CAS 3 SDRAM which worked fine in OS9, prevents OSX from running. I don't know if this always happens, but that is apparently where the trend shows the difference.
Sure, and ArsSineArtificio has already pointed out that OS X increased the strigency of its memory checking. I didn't say that I doubted an OS could detect out-of-spec RAM; I said I doubted it could detect third party RAM. I still doubt it. You're not really disagreeing with me, anyway.
Open your mind. Just because you have a few little successes, does not mean that your experience reflects that of the norm.
Spare me. I've been supporting Macs since 1985. I bother to do things like check the specifications before I install memory. My experience simply doesn't reflect that of those who install any old RAM that fits in the slot, and then wonder why they experience mysterious problems.
Open your mind to the idea that other people might be competent.
Re:And here are the more interesting posts:
on
Apple Releases Mac Mini
·
· Score: 5, Informative
...OSX is really picky about its RAM...sometimes it won't recognize non-Apple branded RAM very well, or so I've heard.
Heard where?
The RAM I've got in my old G4 began its life in a Dell server. It runs OS X just fine. It ran OS 9 and 8.6 just peachy, too. I have trouble believing that an OS could identify the difference between OEM and 3rd party RAM, or behave any differently.
Cheap, flaky RAM, on the other hand, can hose a machine no matter what OS you're running.
But the credit card number I made up was detected as non-existent - or at least the fake website said so.
Now, is there any way to:
1) Generate fake credit card numbers that pass as "valid"
They're probably doing something trivial with Luhn numbers. Trivial to implement, trivial to spoof. Generating apparently valid but fraudulent card numbers is known as carding.
2) Do this, and be certain that no-one actually owns that particular number, and if so, still not get into trouble?
Trouble with whom? The scammers? If you aren't using the number to commit fraud, I wouldn't worry. We want to get the phishers in trouble!
Slashdot Mirror
They might not, but you can:
Note that this only changes the behavior in your profile; for a multi-user machine, you'll want to make the same change logged on as each different user. Select the subkey you edited in Registry Editor, choose Registry->Save Subtree As..., and save it as personalcomputer.reg . Now each user can simply double-click the .reg file to add the change to his or her profile.
Make the same changes as above to HKEY_USERS\.DEFAULT\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Cur re ntVersion\Explorer\CLSID\ and new users will automatically inherit the change.
DISCLAIMER: Careless and/or ignorant editing of the registry can be an effective way to completely hose your machine. If in doubt, don't touch. If you screw it up, don't blame me - and I almost certainly will not be able to help you fix it. Backups are your friend.
Alamo Drafthouse Theater serves real butter on their popcorn - one of several reasons why I prefer to see movies there.
You're kidding, right? Every single one of my edge routers and firewalls drops inbound RFC 1918 addresses, and even ISPs which use those ranges internally (such as RoadRunner) certainly drop them at their peers and backbone connections.
Packets with those source addresses should never appear on the Internet backbone. How do you think replies to those packets would return to the originating host?
Although, I supposed those addresses should be properly nested in the NAT packets.
If you are responsible for a network, I urge you to review how NAT works.
Which could be all but eliminated if ISPs would implement access lists in their routers to drop packets with source addresses other than those assigned to the downstream networks.
Problem solved without relying on OS vendors or end users to implement anything at all.
Have you tried just typing it in to Google?
As in, "They're boxes, not boxen."
'Their' doesn't parse, since it wasn't used in the original sentence.
But yeah, Cthulhu forbid that anyone should have any fun with the language! Anyone who can't figure out 'boxen' probably shouldn't be reading Slashdot; anyone whose undies twist up when they see the word used probably shouldn't be, either.
In any case, I am just as bemused by the recent increase in articles and posts on Slashdot that appear to be anti-privacy, as the original poster seems to be about what he perceives as posts and articles which are anti-free speech.
I note with disappointment that his post has been rated "Troll" now. I disagree with his assertion, but his post certainly wasn't a troll. Mildly ironic, considering the 'free speech' angle.
I didn't say 'trade secret protection laws.' I said 'contract' - as in NDA.
If it's okay to violate an NDA, as long as you do it by telling a reporter what you know, then just what exactly is an NDA for, in your opinion?
By analogy, then, would you agree that selling stolen property - which you know is stolen - is perfectly legitimate, as long as you're not the one who actually stole it?
And that no one should be able to compel you to reveal the identity of the thief?
Right - I'll be sending some guys around to your place, then. But don't worry - they'll just be stealing information, such as your bank account and credit card numbers. And I'll just be posting them in my blog.
Why should free speech trump the rights of an individual or a company to use a contract to keep information private?
Funny, I don't recall e-mailing my post to Linus.
If you care so much, then you evangelize the user experience.
I do.
But then again, who am I to tell J. Random Developer how to spend his/her time?
I usually enjoy your posts, but you might want to switch to decaf for the rest of the day.
After someone tells you a punchline, do you usually ask, "And then what happened?"
Microkernels are more stable than macro's (theoretically) but come at the cost of speed.
Yeah, yeah - micro, macro, CISC, RISC, this here achitecture is the best evar for everything.
Also the speed difference is less and less of an issue today.
Mmmm. You like bloatware, too, don't you?
In this case, I don't see anything in the Wikipedia entry that would make me think it's more authoritative than the book in which I originally read the quote.
and it's Ted, not Fred.
I claim lack of sleep. D'oh.
Just because something is flawed doesn't make it shit.
Of course not. Just matching the normal level of hyperbole here on /.
Well, Tannenbaum isn't that impressed with the Linux kernel, for that matter.
I personally don't know jack-diddly about kernel design - but I suspect, given what I've seen during years of working with various software companies, and software in general, is that every microkernel, kernel, etc. is a piece of shit.
"Ninety percent of everything is crap." Fred Sturgeon
As AnonymousKev said below, "I bet he cares when he needs to do some editing, or check his e-mail."
Yeah, I know Linus just does kernel development. It seems to me he ought to care about the user experience just a bit. I guess it isn't as if he's influential or anything. /sarcasm
"I don't know such stuff, I just do eyes." -Chew Blade Runner
Which is a shame. Booting into OSX once in a while might give him an additional perspective.
Now that really is just fanboiism. Thin and lightweight laptops have been available for years - well before the PentiumM, and as long as, if not longer than, thin Powerbooks. I recall owning a thin and lightweight Sony Vaio back in 1998 - based on a PII chip!
Actually that one really does have a shred of truth to it. Apple's original PowerBooks - the 100, 140, and 170, released in 1991, IIRC - were (relatively) thin, light, had built-in trackballs, and were the first to have the keyboard towards the rear of the case, allowing the front to form a wrist rest. And they were dark grey. Damned near every laptop since then has followed this design and layout. Prior machines (including Apple's own Portable) were of the beige-and-luggable, 'just roll the mouse on your thigh' ilk.
Still doesn't have diddly to do with the Pentium M, though.
Posting from an array of Tinker Toys, are you?
The hardware may be described as "all Von Neumann machines," which, while accurate, ignores speed, size, efficiency, heat output, noise level, cost - all of which are design factors/selling points for small PCs. Or almost all computers, for that matter. You are generalizing beyond the point of usefulness, and in a directon that the classification "Von Neumann machine" is not intended to go.
And ultimately the software has the most significant impact on our experience with computers, and it can't be so trivially described.
Ah. I'd missed that bit of history. It looks like that one really can be blamed on Microsoft - they absorbed Firefly to use the underlying technology in Passport, and then let the original site die.
Jeff Boulter was the ex-Firefly employee who built LAUNCHCast from the ashes of Firefly. Microsoft might not have given him the opportunity to preserve the original data.
I lost a couple months of productivity plugging my music collection into FireFly, only to have LaunchCast trash all the data when they took over
I share your pain. I had rated many thousands of songs on LAUNCHCast, was subscibed to a dozen other stations, and had quite a few subscribers myself when Yahoo! absorbed them and sucked the life out of it. I would be even more bitter if I had been part of the Firefly community.
I'll be checking out AudioScrobbler - I had pretty much given up on collaborative music rating systems. We'll see whether this one becomes a victim of its own success, too.
Like LAUNCHCast before the RIAA leaned on them, and then Yahoo! acquired it and ripped out everything that made it innovative and cool?
You'd rate songs on a scale from 'never play this again' to 10, and the system would select new songs based on what you'd already rated and insert them into your personal "station" rotation.
But the real killer feature was that you could search for other users whose tastes were statistically similar to your own, subscribe to their stations, and learn about new and different music and artists as some of their favorites were added to your rotation. Want to buy a song? Click on it.
Absolutely cool collaborative software. Unfortunately, if you wanted to expend the effort, you could abuse the system to constuct a station that could (gasp!) play a specific song at a specific time for free, and the RIAA wouldn't allow that.
So the only thing that had gotten me to purchase any new music in years was eviscerated, stuffed full of ads, and then sold to Yahoo! as a 'service' with all the collaboration gone. You could pay money to lose the ads. Whee.
Bitter? Me?
Sure, and ArsSineArtificio has already pointed out that OS X increased the strigency of its memory checking. I didn't say that I doubted an OS could detect out-of-spec RAM; I said I doubted it could detect third party RAM. I still doubt it. You're not really disagreeing with me, anyway.
Open your mind. Just because you have a few little successes, does not mean that your experience reflects that of the norm.
Spare me. I've been supporting Macs since 1985. I bother to do things like check the specifications before I install memory. My experience simply doesn't reflect that of those who install any old RAM that fits in the slot, and then wonder why they experience mysterious problems.
Open your mind to the idea that other people might be competent.
Heard where?
The RAM I've got in my old G4 began its life in a Dell server. It runs OS X just fine. It ran OS 9 and 8.6 just peachy, too. I have trouble believing that an OS could identify the difference between OEM and 3rd party RAM, or behave any differently.
Cheap, flaky RAM, on the other hand, can hose a machine no matter what OS you're running.
I suppose you could ask him.
1) Generate fake credit card numbers that pass as "valid"
They're probably doing something trivial with Luhn numbers. Trivial to implement, trivial to spoof. Generating apparently valid but fraudulent card numbers is known as carding.
2) Do this, and be certain that no-one actually owns that particular number, and if so, still not get into trouble?
Trouble with whom? The scammers? If you aren't using the number to commit fraud, I wouldn't worry. We want to get the phishers in trouble!