Most infections START that way. Pop up a browser window with fake widgets and a virus scanner, animate the scrollbar and scare the user with a fake virus alert. The user doesn't realize this is just a browser window and everything in it is faked. Then the scared user clicks the "Clean now" button, voluntarily runs the software, and it's game over. NOW the software can do whatever it wants.
Most malware, being trojans, cannot create native widgets because they are stuck inside of the browser jail, so they simulate system widgets to fool users into believing they are not already jailed to the browser, and then the user inadvertently lets it out of the jail.
Absolutely. However, the people here who think that Thunderbolt is going to dominate peripheral interconnects are missing that point, I think. For the vast majority of interconnects, the things you mentioned are not an issue at all, and thus Thunderbolt offers literally nothing. Right? If I am buying a wheel, it would be silly for me to buy one rated up to 200 miles per hour, when I will only ever need to drive 85 mph, tops. Even if the 200 mph wheel is superior technology, more carefully crafted, has more thoughtful design, if I don't need the benefit it provides, then that has no value to me.
If NASA can help make space travel profitable and commonplace then they will have done something truly great for all humanity till the end of our existence.
NASA cannot do this. It is a government agency that neither knows nor care the tiniest bit about things like "profits." NASA was useful for innovating the precepts of space travel. As the other poster noted, innovations in the economics of space travel are best achieved by private companies for which things like costs and profits are a top concern.
I'd also like to add that I think rockets are often unfairly dismissed. Rockets do not have to be as wildly expensive as they currently are. There's no inherent reason that a rocket flight couldn't be within an order of magnitude the cost of a transatlantic jet flight. It's just that each rocket would have to be amortized over a similar number of flights!
If this is Win7, it doesn't have to be online. Just attach an external USB disk and tell it to back up there. It will automatically do an image+incrementals, auto-delete the oldest images when the disk is getting full, and can be bare-metal restored booting from the Windows DVD. It's actually pretty sweet.
Also: if the registry is hosed, system restore should be able to help you out.
It's not about Microsoft supporting open source as much as it is Microsoft trying to do right by their customers.
Bottom line, Microsoft doesn't want to support VB6 any more. At the same time, there are a lot of parties that still depend on it. So now Microsoft can give other people who want to support it the opportunity to do so, and their customers relying on VB6 won't be completely hung out to dry. The only real reason not to do this would be that it allows those customers to continue not buying into something newer, but they probably figured at this point that wan't going to happen anyways. Or maybe they're willing to take that loss for the customer goodwill.
Either way, it's purely Microsoft looking out for Microsoft. Open source is a means to an end, they really don't care about the "community."
In Powershell, it is actually up to the cmdlet to process each object (or "record" in cmdlet parlance) as-it-comes or all-at-once, for obvious reasons; e.g., how could sort-object sort the objects until it has actually been passed all the objects to sort?
Which is to say that it is streaming when it makes sense to be, and not when it doesn't.
In powershell it is basically the same, except you can filter and sort with anonymous methods. So, for examle,
ps | where-object {$_.Processname -eq "iexplore"}
The neat thing about this what you are piping out the end is objects, not something like a list of PIDS. Now, this is an array (IEnumerable) of objects, so Powershell will automatically use a Format-Table that shows the objects and their properties.
[Censored by stupid junk filter]
But it's still objects being piped out the end, so you can execute methods directly on them, e.g.:
A) ToString() will usually return the "obvious" string representation of an object if there is one (such as the localized date time of a DateTime object). Otherwise, it will return the name of the object type. The full list of properties is always available through reflection, so you can query an object and get a list of its properties, in case you are looking for something other than what ToString() returns.
B) Then you request the property by name. Example, if you want the integer year of a date instead of its full localization, you request $Date.Year instead of just $Date. As an alternative, you can pipe objects to a formatter, like Format-List, which will show a Property:Value list of all the object's properties.
Documentation is not as much of an issue because you can take an object and pipe it to "gm" (or "get-member") to see a list of its public properties and methods via reflection, or with the formatter as above.
Every object has a mandatory.ToString() method, so that ultimately every object can be boiled down to plain text if you want to. Between this and a liberal use if IEnumerable interfaces, a basic formatter can make sense out of a staggering number of objects.
Most users of repository enabled operating systems do exactly that. There is no reason to believe that the trend would not continue if proprietary OS's, i.e., Windows adopted this functionality.
Sure there is. Two reasons, actually: 1. Most users of repo-based systems are self-selected computer experts, as opposed to most users of mass-market systems, who are largely ignorant of the details of how and why software gets on their computer. 2. A lot of software that users want will not be in the repository, for legal or practical reasons, which means people will continue to download from the internet.
I don't know what would be in a Windows repo but I do know that the vast majority of common and not-so-common functionality is fulfilled on Debian by the repositories.
Here's food for though: verifying the safety of open-source software is pretty straightforward. How exactly is Microsoft going to verify the vast universe of closed-source, commercial software sold for Windows without setting policies burdensome to small and open source devs? Including closed-source software intentionally designed to be malicious? I don't see any practical way this can be done, which means the repo is bound to end up vastly overinclusive or vastly underinclusive.
No solution is perfect. Even iOS is vulnerable and it is the paragon of locked down walled garden. However, it stands to reason that the incidence of malware would decrease which is a victory.
For all the reasons I listed, I think the cost would be enormous compared to the benefit gained. Other measures would have a far better cost-to-benefit ratio.
Well, that's how computers work. This is nothing unique to Windows. Either you need admin privilieges to install a system-wide copy of the software, or you only need user privileges to install a user copy. Each has benefits and drawbacks.
There are many benefits to using a GUI, including the ability to simply do what diff, grep, and host of other tools already do. And, you can export to a plain text file if you want to. So I'm having a hard time seeing a GUI event viewer as some kind of obvious fail. Your complaint simply is that it doesn't work the way you are familiar with.
Now, if people had a real repository of software, they could just fire it up and look for the same thing and be virtually certain that nothing in that list would contain any malware at all.
They could, if (A) they fired it up and looked, and (B) what they are looking for IS in the repository, and (C) no malware is in the repository. Leaving aside the practical difficulty of accomplishing (B) and (C) simultaneously, how do you even get to step (A), considering that many of these malicious downloads are the result of email links, website fraud, and google search results? So long as people are going on the internet, and it is possible to bypass the repository, internet scammers will convince people to do download malware.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what system restore does, it backs up the registry hives.
Most infections START that way. Pop up a browser window with fake widgets and a virus scanner, animate the scrollbar and scare the user with a fake virus alert. The user doesn't realize this is just a browser window and everything in it is faked. Then the scared user clicks the "Clean now" button, voluntarily runs the software, and it's game over. NOW the software can do whatever it wants.
Lol look at this knockers on this girl!
If you can't see the vid, just update your linux codecs by clicking here: http://icanhazmalware.deb/
Most malware, being trojans, cannot create native widgets because they are stuck inside of the browser jail, so they simulate system widgets to fool users into believing they are not already jailed to the browser, and then the user inadvertently lets it out of the jail.
Absolutely. However, the people here who think that Thunderbolt is going to dominate peripheral interconnects are missing that point, I think. For the vast majority of interconnects, the things you mentioned are not an issue at all, and thus Thunderbolt offers literally nothing. Right? If I am buying a wheel, it would be silly for me to buy one rated up to 200 miles per hour, when I will only ever need to drive 85 mph, tops. Even if the 200 mph wheel is superior technology, more carefully crafted, has more thoughtful design, if I don't need the benefit it provides, then that has no value to me.
If NASA can help make space travel profitable and commonplace then they will have done something truly great for all humanity till the end of our existence.
NASA cannot do this. It is a government agency that neither knows nor care the tiniest bit about things like "profits." NASA was useful for innovating the precepts of space travel. As the other poster noted, innovations in the economics of space travel are best achieved by private companies for which things like costs and profits are a top concern.
I'd also like to add that I think rockets are often unfairly dismissed. Rockets do not have to be as wildly expensive as they currently are. There's no inherent reason that a rocket flight couldn't be within an order of magnitude the cost of a transatlantic jet flight. It's just that each rocket would have to be amortized over a similar number of flights!
If this is Win7, it doesn't have to be online. Just attach an external USB disk and tell it to back up there. It will automatically do an image+incrementals, auto-delete the oldest images when the disk is getting full, and can be bare-metal restored booting from the Windows DVD. It's actually pretty sweet.
Also: if the registry is hosed, system restore should be able to help you out.
Those two 10 Gbps channels in TB go in opposite directions, you know.
I never knew anyone with a serial port on their car stereo, did you?
What would an iPad or an iPhone transfer at 10 Gbps? You don't really believe their internal storage can operate at that speed, do you?
Wrong. It's about value. If USB3 provides 75% of the value of LightPeak at 50% of the cost, that's a economic win.
You're treating technoloy like a religion, as though purity, superiority, and elegance have intrinsic value. They don't.
Technically, that account has the ability to elevate (like sudo) to admin, but during normal use it is a standard user.
It's not about Microsoft supporting open source as much as it is Microsoft trying to do right by their customers.
Bottom line, Microsoft doesn't want to support VB6 any more. At the same time, there are a lot of parties that still depend on it. So now Microsoft can give other people who want to support it the opportunity to do so, and their customers relying on VB6 won't be completely hung out to dry. The only real reason not to do this would be that it allows those customers to continue not buying into something newer, but they probably figured at this point that wan't going to happen anyways. Or maybe they're willing to take that loss for the customer goodwill.
Either way, it's purely Microsoft looking out for Microsoft. Open source is a means to an end, they really don't care about the "community."
In Powershell, it is actually up to the cmdlet to process each object (or "record" in cmdlet parlance) as-it-comes or all-at-once, for obvious reasons; e.g., how could sort-object sort the objects until it has actually been passed all the objects to sort?
Which is to say that it is streaming when it makes sense to be, and not when it doesn't.
In powershell it is basically the same, except you can filter and sort with anonymous methods. So, for examle,
ps | where-object {$_.Processname -eq "iexplore"}
The neat thing about this what you are piping out the end is objects, not something like a list of PIDS. Now, this is an array (IEnumerable) of objects, so Powershell will automatically use a Format-Table that shows the objects and their properties.
[Censored by stupid junk filter]
But it's still objects being piped out the end, so you can execute methods directly on them, e.g.:
ps | where-object {$_.Processname -eq "iexplore"} | foreach-object {$_.Kill()}
With the expected result.
A) ToString() will usually return the "obvious" string representation of an object if there is one (such as the localized date time of a DateTime object). Otherwise, it will return the name of the object type. The full list of properties is always available through reflection, so you can query an object and get a list of its properties, in case you are looking for something other than what ToString() returns.
B) Then you request the property by name. Example, if you want the integer year of a date instead of its full localization, you request $Date.Year instead of just $Date. As an alternative, you can pipe objects to a formatter, like Format-List, which will show a Property:Value list of all the object's properties.
Documentation is not as much of an issue because you can take an object and pipe it to "gm" (or "get-member") to see a list of its public properties and methods via reflection, or with the formatter as above.
Every object has a mandatory .ToString() method, so that ultimately every object can be boiled down to plain text if you want to. Between this and a liberal use if IEnumerable interfaces, a basic formatter can make sense out of a staggering number of objects.
It is a native command, but only on Vista and later operating systems.
OP didn't even mention the word "virus." Nobody really cares what technical category it falls into. It is malware.
Do you really want to know? Or are you just assuming this is not possible, making ass out of yourself in front of everybody?
wevtutil query-events System > \\server\logs\exported.log
Most users of repository enabled operating systems do exactly that. There is no reason to believe that the trend would not continue if proprietary OS's, i.e., Windows adopted this functionality.
Sure there is. Two reasons, actually:
1. Most users of repo-based systems are self-selected computer experts, as opposed to most users of mass-market systems, who are largely ignorant of the details of how and why software gets on their computer.
2. A lot of software that users want will not be in the repository, for legal or practical reasons, which means people will continue to download from the internet.
I don't know what would be in a Windows repo but I do know that the vast majority of common and not-so-common functionality is fulfilled on Debian by the repositories.
Here's food for though: verifying the safety of open-source software is pretty straightforward. How exactly is Microsoft going to verify the vast universe of closed-source, commercial software sold for Windows without setting policies burdensome to small and open source devs? Including closed-source software intentionally designed to be malicious? I don't see any practical way this can be done, which means the repo is bound to end up vastly overinclusive or vastly underinclusive.
No solution is perfect. Even iOS is vulnerable and it is the paragon of locked down walled garden. However, it stands to reason that the incidence of malware would decrease which is a victory.
For all the reasons I listed, I think the cost would be enormous compared to the benefit gained. Other measures would have a far better cost-to-benefit ratio.
Well, that's how computers work. This is nothing unique to Windows. Either you need admin privilieges to install a system-wide copy of the software, or you only need user privileges to install a user copy. Each has benefits and drawbacks.
Herr Doktor Merwerdichliebe, is that you!?!
There are many benefits to using a GUI, including the ability to simply do what diff, grep, and host of other tools already do. And, you can export to a plain text file if you want to. So I'm having a hard time seeing a GUI event viewer as some kind of obvious fail. Your complaint simply is that it doesn't work the way you are familiar with.
Now, if people had a real repository of software, they could just fire it up and look for the same thing and be virtually certain that nothing in that list would contain any malware at all.
They could, if (A) they fired it up and looked, and (B) what they are looking for IS in the repository, and (C) no malware is in the repository. Leaving aside the practical difficulty of accomplishing (B) and (C) simultaneously, how do you even get to step (A), considering that many of these malicious downloads are the result of email links, website fraud, and google search results? So long as people are going on the internet, and it is possible to bypass the repository, internet scammers will convince people to do download malware.