I've submitted a kernel patch to adjust the 'gettimeofday' POSIX function to account for this 2.68 microseconds. Most of you wont notice a difference, but for real-time applications, this can be a significant interval. We probably need to add some additional 'daylight savings' flag adjustments for applications that do / don't want this adjustments.
Basically, under XP, if system restore is turned on, multiple snapshots of the hives are saved during system restore intervals. By using one of the snapshots from a date earlier than the virus infection you can recover. I've used the procedure on several machines and have recovered them.
Everytime there is a thunderstorm with momentary power outage, the cable modem headend goes offline and it takes hours, if not a day, for Adelphia (here in Maryland) to reboot it. However, they are quick to make sure cable tv service is back on.
Dude, it's the freaking WWW. You should have implicit permission to link to the front page of ANY site, and there's a good argument that if you put anything in the publicly accessible space, then it should be able to be linked to.
Dude, it's called being nice. It can be rude to link to a site and let them be slashdotted without asking them if their servers can handle it. We aren't talking about an site designed for high bandwidth; they offload their ISO downloads to a few mirrors and bittorrent. In addition these guys are overseas in Germany. I didn't want to be responsible for their bandwidth costs to skyrocket.
Seriously, grow some cojones and a brain, and realize that they might WANT you to link to them. Well since I didn't ask them if their server could handle the load, I err'd on the side of kindness. Apparently you prefer to assume 'they might WANT' to be slashdotted.
I've used bootable linux CD-ROM for many system saving tasks. Usually it is to fix windows machines that have been infected with a virus. A friend, neighbor, or coworker will be unable to boot due to some registry corruption or 'missing lsass.exe' virus corruption. Using knoppix I've been able to mount the NTFS file system and repair from a special hidden copy of the system hives.
I've also used Toms root boot disk - which is linux based but much smaller (designed to fit on a floppy).
Recently, I've been using Kanotix distro which was derived/inspired by Knoppix. Its debian sid based and includes many more drivers built in - my laptop wireless works out of the box with Kanotix and the ndiswrapper. It includes 'captive-ntfs' which lets me mount NTFS as writeable (important when modifying those registry hives). Kanotix website is in both German and English. I wont link to it since I haven't asked permission.
From the point of view of the publisher the problem is that what is going to stop you from taking the shows you paid for and re-distribute them in another medium (edonkey, bittorrent,e tc)?
Nothing. But by offering the majority of folks this option the paying users are enough to write off the 'losses'. There will always be cheats and no system will protect against that. The best method in my opinion is to offer an affordable unencumbered way of doing this. They can embrace the new environment we are in or they can perish.
I love these articles because they are so misleading. I don't believe there is a strong correllation between sales and piracy. Sales are higher because the economy is doing better. Could they be even higher if there were no pirating? Perhaps, but I would consider it a small subset of people who would have bought something but didn't. Most people downloading stuff would never have bought it in the first place. If the record label lowered their prices that would also increase sales. Thus lower prices == piracy.;)
The fundamental flaw is that in order to exaggerate their losses they come up with absurd calculations like loss = num_files_shared_last_year * retail_price. That is absurd.
I was watching C-SPAN last night and saw the confirmation hearing of U.S. President Bush's new Commerce Secretary. He was asked by Sen Gordon Smith (R-OR) how he would handle the copyright violations and IP issues that are crippling our innovative entrepreneurial spirit. I believe thre new Commerce Sec nominee has been CEO of Kellogg company. Wasn't that the company who was price-fixing cereal some time ago? Does anyone remember?
Yes, it seems the XP Period version of Windows targeted to females was not selling. MS tried the new Windows with Wings packaging but the odd box size met resistance from retailers who didn't want to waste already cramped shelf space. The 28 day calander application was just too buggy.
Is Microsoft coining a new term - PUS? My machine is infected with PUS.
I can see it now... The following has been identified as PUS. You may choose to keep it, however Microsoft cannot guarantee stability if you allow it to remain installed. Do you wish to disable the following PUS?:
What amazes me is why would anyone trust this sort of application? Other than a virus scanning program, I really don't want any application to have permission to scan, search, and index every file on my harddisk. I don't care what the privacy policies are ; it's not something I'm willing to risk.
Unless you bought a LCD that guaranteed zero dead pixels and it has more than zero, how can you call it a defect? This manufacturing yield problem drove manufacturers and standards organizations to define their displays according to an ISO standard. There are several Class displays, each allowing differing numbers of dead pixels. Just like you can buy your CPU in the 2.4 GHz model or the 3.0 GHz model, you can buy your LCD display at a Class 1 or Class 2 level. (or choose a manufacturer based on their dead pixel policy)
Should I complain that my 2.4 GHz CPU is defective because it will not run Half-Life2 with the same frames per second performance as the 3.0Ghz chip because the 2.4GHz chip failed manufacturing tests to qualify it for 3.0GHz operation?
I find it hard to believe that on a display with 1.2 millions pixels, three bad ones renders your machine less effective. Sure it sucks and sure when you pay a lot for a display you want the best. However, you really didn't pay for the best - the best (guaranteed zero dead) would drive the price above what most could afford.
Why anyone would ever actually believe that you couldn't return an LCD (or laptop) with a dead pixel. This is a manufacturing defect, plain and simple.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. The manufacturing process is about yield. Whenever new technologies come out, the process is not perfect or even cost-effective. Over time efficiencies will occur because new lessons are learned, new manufacturing techniques are used, etc. In the case of these displays, there were a few options. One - guarantee no dead pixels. Had manufacturers done that initially, they yield would be poor - they would have to throw away/waste a lot of production - and the prices of the displays would be very expensive to account for the wasted cost. With such a high cost the devices would never become consumer items, only very expensive business items for limited applications. However, Joe Consumer wants to buy a monitor and he feels $XX.XX dollars is the most he is willing to pay. The manufactur says, well we are throwing away all these manufactured units with a few dead pixels, but we could sell them to you much cheaper.
You have a few choices:
1) Accept the fact that the manufacturing process is not perfect and get dead pixels. 2) Accept the fact that the manufacturing proces is not perfect and avoid the technology. Say, 'hey' this tech is not ready for prime time when it comes to my personal standards; I'm not buying. 3)Accept the fact that the manufacturing process is not perfect and pay extra for a zero dead pixel display. 4)Refuse to accept the facts, keep returning the displays in search of a better one, and still drive up the cost for everyone.
When you buy an CPU that is rated for 2.4 GHz do you call that a "manufacturing defect, plain and simple"? After all the CPU was tested a 3.0 GHz and failed.
Nobody believes that Microsoft focuses on security. Nobody.
I don't think it is just security - it is lack of trust on several levels.
Personally,
1) I do not trust Microsoft with my information
2) I do not that Passport really added any value. From a privacy point of view, I could just as easily maintain multiple passwords on multiple sites with a password manager program - I use Roboform under both IE and Firefox.
3) Companies did not want to hand over an important function of their business to a third party with little gain. Little value is added by letting a third party control this, yet it can provide huge leverage for MS in the future. I forget which year it was, but I recall Bill Gates saying that MS wanted to get a slice of every online transaction.
4) I did not trust that the technology between the website and MS was safe. Some pages seemed to be unencrypted, etc. There did not seem to be any security guidelines required of sites that are Passport enableed - maybe there is, but it seemed lacking to me.
5) I do not trust 'Privacy Policies' - companies can change them whenever they want and in certain instances (like TSA / Airlines) claim that the policies aren't binding, just PR. For me the best Privacy Policy is to not give out the data to the middleman in the first place.
Grandma: Oh my god, how many emails about viagra did he have? Ohhh, I better contact this poor Mr. Mbutu and see if I can help him out. I didn't realize pop had friends in Nigeria. Look at all these money making schemes? How come I never saw any of this money? Oh dear, I had no idea pop was into asian porn... My my, it looks like pop was corresponding with someone about Vicodin.
Sir, Trust is not a universal concept. Some discretion is required. If you do not trust Firefox, that is your choice. You are not willing, in your mind to take a risk. Personally, I do not trust Microsoft. Despite years of press releases and keynote speaches promoting security as 'Job 1' I have lost all trust in them.
Personally, I see little value in a so called 'signed application'. If I visit my bank, I want to see a 'padlock' icon so that I know the data is not being 'sniffed' en route. Other than that, the certificate is not important to me. But that is the level of trust I am comfortable with. My concept of trust includes the concept of established relationship and earned respect. The value of Microsoft signing something doesn't mean anything to me. They are not trustworthy. After using Firefox for several versions, getting a feel for the neighborhood, I trust it.
I understand that websites use mirrors -- thats normal and doesn't normally raise a red flag. I can verify a file contents with an MD5 checksum if I need to.
Each user should has to establish their own level of trust and should not blindly rely on a certificate to tell them if they trust someone/something.
You ask 'How Can I Trust Firefox'? Well you can't blindly. You have to take a risk. I can only tell you that it works fine for me. Regular backups and common sense go a long way.
There is another reason however--Trust is not as important with Firefox as it is with Microsoft IE. The engineers of IE decided to integrate IE into the operating system with Active Desktop, ActiveX, etc. These made IE much more vulnerable. Firefox doesn't do this. It just tries to be a web browser - not a remote code execution environment.
When I said recent, I didn't mean to include Windows 2000. For one, Windows 2000 is not an OS a Walmart home user would buy for their laptop. Second, its 4 years old. Third, since the machine is shipped with 'Lindows' it would require a full retail version of Windows 2000 - not cheap. Lastly, isn't Windows 2000 going end of life June 2005 for the 'average' user (moving into extended support mode)?
Slashdot Mirror
Geez, all the amunition Senator Lieberman needs to regulate the gaming industry is in the Slashdot comments to this article!
Perhaps the games are slowly desensitizing/changing us; we just don't want to admit it.
I've submitted a kernel patch to adjust the 'gettimeofday' POSIX function to account for this 2.68 microseconds. Most of you wont notice a difference, but for real-time applications, this can be a significant interval. We probably need to add some additional 'daylight savings' flag adjustments for applications that do / don't want this adjustments.
See http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=307545 for a description. I used Kanotix for most of the steps rather than booting a Recovery Console.
Basically, under XP, if system restore is turned on, multiple snapshots of the hives are saved during system restore intervals. By using one of the snapshots from a date earlier than the virus infection you can recover. I've used the procedure on several machines and have recovered them.
Give most people a fun game, killer app, or something free and all of a sudden privacy, rights, and legalities vaporize.
Everytime there is a thunderstorm with momentary power outage, the cable modem headend goes offline and it takes hours, if not a day, for Adelphia (here in Maryland) to reboot it. However, they are quick to make sure cable tv service is back on.
Hundreds of thousands of WOW Widows have filed for divorce.
In other news, eHarmony is offering a new 'replace my mate' match service; online gamesplayers are banned from signing up for the service.
Dude, it's the freaking WWW. You should have implicit permission to link to the front page of ANY site, and there's a good argument that if you put anything in the publicly accessible space, then it should be able to be linked to.
Dude, it's called being nice. It can be rude to link to a site and let them be slashdotted without asking them if their servers can handle it. We aren't talking about an site designed for high bandwidth; they offload their ISO downloads to a few mirrors and bittorrent. In addition these guys are overseas in Germany. I didn't want to be responsible for their bandwidth costs to skyrocket.
Seriously, grow some cojones and a brain, and realize that they might WANT you to link to them.
Well since I didn't ask them if their server could handle the load, I err'd on the side of kindness. Apparently you prefer to assume 'they might WANT' to be slashdotted.
I've used bootable linux CD-ROM for many system saving tasks. Usually it is to fix windows machines that have been infected with a virus. A friend, neighbor, or coworker will be unable to boot due to some registry corruption or 'missing lsass.exe' virus corruption. Using knoppix I've been able to mount the NTFS file system and repair from a special hidden copy of the system hives.
I've also used Toms root boot disk - which is linux based but much smaller (designed to fit on a floppy).
Recently, I've been using Kanotix distro which was derived/inspired by Knoppix. Its debian sid based and includes many more drivers built in - my laptop wireless works out of the box with Kanotix and the ndiswrapper. It includes 'captive-ntfs' which lets me mount NTFS as writeable (important when modifying those registry hives). Kanotix website is in both German and English. I wont link to it since I haven't asked permission.
How about a working link?5
http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=231
From the point of view of the publisher the problem is that what is going to stop you from taking the shows you paid for and re-distribute them in another medium (edonkey, bittorrent,e tc)?
Nothing. But by offering the majority of folks this option the paying users are enough to write off the 'losses'. There will always be cheats and no system will protect against that. The best method in my opinion is to offer an affordable unencumbered way of doing this. They can embrace the new environment we are in or they can perish.
I love these articles because they are so misleading. I don't believe there is a strong correllation between sales and piracy. Sales are higher because the economy is doing better. Could they be even higher if there were no pirating? Perhaps, but I would consider it a small subset of people who would have bought something but didn't. Most people downloading stuff would never have bought it in the first place. If the record label lowered their prices that would also increase sales. Thus lower prices == piracy. ;)
The fundamental flaw is that in order to exaggerate their losses they come up with absurd calculations like loss = num_files_shared_last_year * retail_price. That is absurd.
I was watching C-SPAN last night and saw the confirmation hearing of U.S. President Bush's new Commerce Secretary. He was asked by Sen Gordon Smith (R-OR) how he would handle the copyright violations and IP issues that are crippling our innovative entrepreneurial spirit. I believe thre new Commerce Sec nominee has been CEO of Kellogg company. Wasn't that the company who was price-fixing cereal some time ago? Does anyone remember?
10 wget http://localhost/warez/\* 20 pause 10 30 goto 10
Microsoft was dropping Windows XP Period.
Yes, it seems the XP Period version of Windows targeted to females was not selling. MS tried the new Windows with Wings packaging but the odd box size met resistance from retailers who didn't want to waste already cramped shelf space. The 28 day calander application was just too buggy.
The whole situation is just a bloody mess.
DUP!
0 346
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=87343&cid=758
Expire? Why should it expire if it is free?
Because it's a Beta. Most Microsoft Betas expire.
Because its Microsoft. Most Microsoft stuff is not free.
4. POTENTIALLY UNWANTED SOFTWARE.
Is Microsoft coining a new term - PUS? My machine is infected with PUS.
I can see it now...
The following has been identified as PUS. You may choose to keep it, however Microsoft cannot guarantee stability if you allow it to remain installed. Do you wish to disable the following PUS?:
Lilo - Identified as PUS
What amazes me is why would anyone trust this sort of application? Other than a virus scanning program, I really don't want any application to have permission to scan, search, and index every file on my harddisk. I don't care what the privacy policies are ; it's not something I'm willing to risk.
Unless you bought a LCD that guaranteed zero dead pixels and it has more than zero, how can you call it a defect? This manufacturing yield problem drove manufacturers and standards organizations to define their displays according to an ISO standard. There are several Class displays, each allowing differing numbers of dead pixels. Just like you can buy your CPU in the 2.4 GHz model or the 3.0 GHz model, you can buy your LCD display at a Class 1 or Class 2 level. (or choose a manufacturer based on their dead pixel policy)
Should I complain that my 2.4 GHz CPU is defective because it will not run Half-Life2 with the same frames per second performance as the 3.0Ghz chip because the 2.4GHz chip failed manufacturing tests to qualify it for 3.0GHz operation?
I find it hard to believe that on a display with 1.2 millions pixels, three bad ones renders your machine less effective. Sure it sucks and sure when you pay a lot for a display you want the best. However, you really didn't pay for the best - the best (guaranteed zero dead) would drive the price above what most could afford.
Why anyone would ever actually believe that you couldn't return an LCD (or laptop) with a dead pixel. This is a manufacturing defect, plain and simple.
I think you are looking at this the wrong way. The manufacturing process is about yield. Whenever new technologies come out, the process is not perfect or even cost-effective. Over time efficiencies will occur because new lessons are learned, new manufacturing techniques are used, etc. In the case of these displays, there were a few options. One - guarantee no dead pixels. Had manufacturers done that initially, they yield would be poor - they would have to throw away/waste a lot of production - and the prices of the displays would be very expensive to account for the wasted cost. With such a high cost the devices would never become consumer items, only very expensive business items for limited applications. However, Joe Consumer wants to buy a monitor and he feels $XX.XX dollars is the most he is willing to pay. The manufactur says, well we are throwing away all these manufactured units with a few dead pixels, but we could sell them to you much cheaper.
You have a few choices:
1) Accept the fact that the manufacturing process is not perfect and get dead pixels.
2) Accept the fact that the manufacturing proces is not perfect and avoid the technology. Say, 'hey' this tech is not ready for prime time when it comes to my personal standards; I'm not buying.
3)Accept the fact that the manufacturing process is not perfect and pay extra for a zero dead pixel display.
4)Refuse to accept the facts, keep returning the displays in search of a better one, and still drive up the cost for everyone.
When you buy an CPU that is rated for 2.4 GHz do you call that a "manufacturing defect, plain and simple"? After all the CPU was tested a 3.0 GHz and failed.
Nobody believes that Microsoft focuses on security. Nobody.
I don't think it is just security - it is lack of trust on several levels.
Personally,
1) I do not trust Microsoft with my information
2) I do not that Passport really added any value. From a privacy point of view, I could just as easily maintain multiple passwords on multiple sites with a password manager program - I use Roboform under both IE and Firefox.
3) Companies did not want to hand over an important function of their business to a third party with little gain. Little value is added by letting a third party control this, yet it can provide huge leverage for MS in the future. I forget which year it was, but I recall Bill Gates saying that MS wanted to get a slice of every online transaction.
4) I did not trust that the technology between the website and MS was safe. Some pages seemed to be unencrypted, etc. There did not seem to be any security guidelines required of sites that are Passport enableed - maybe there is, but it seemed lacking to me.
5) I do not trust 'Privacy Policies' - companies can change them whenever they want and in certain instances (like TSA / Airlines) claim that the policies aren't binding, just PR. For me the best Privacy Policy is to not give out the data to the middleman in the first place.
Yeah, before you know it, these little fuckers will be ripping the tags off their mattresses! Obviously, P2P is a gateway crime to bigger things.
I once heard that Bernie Ebbers of Worldcom once shared a copyrighted VHS tape with his neighbors. If he had only been stopped then...
(IANAL, in any case)
There was no Indian Anal in this film..period...Stop the fud.
Grandma: Oh my god, how many emails about viagra did he have?
Ohhh, I better contact this poor Mr. Mbutu and see if I can help him out. I didn't realize pop had friends in Nigeria.
Look at all these money making schemes? How come I never saw any of this money?
Oh dear, I had no idea pop was into asian porn...
My my, it looks like pop was corresponding with someone about Vicodin.
Perhaps its better he died...
Sir,
Trust is not a universal concept. Some discretion is required. If you do not trust Firefox, that is your choice. You are not willing, in your mind to take a risk. Personally, I do not trust Microsoft. Despite years of press releases and keynote speaches promoting security as 'Job 1' I have lost all trust in them.
Personally, I see little value in a so called 'signed application'. If I visit my bank, I want to see a 'padlock' icon so that I know the data is not being 'sniffed' en route. Other than that, the certificate is not important to me. But that is the level of trust I am comfortable with. My concept of trust includes the concept of established relationship and earned respect. The value of Microsoft signing something doesn't mean anything to me. They are not trustworthy. After using Firefox for several versions, getting a feel for the neighborhood, I trust it.
I understand that websites use mirrors -- thats normal and doesn't normally raise a red flag. I can verify a file contents with an MD5 checksum if I need to.
Each user should has to establish their own level of trust and should not blindly rely on a certificate to tell them if they trust someone/something.
You ask 'How Can I Trust Firefox'? Well you can't blindly. You have to take a risk. I can only tell you that it works fine for me. Regular backups and common sense go a long way.
There is another reason however--Trust is not as important with Firefox as it is with Microsoft IE. The engineers of IE decided to integrate IE into the operating system with Active Desktop, ActiveX, etc. These made IE much more vulnerable. Firefox doesn't do this. It just tries to be a web browser - not a remote code execution environment.
At least not a recent version of windows.
When I said recent, I didn't mean to include Windows 2000. For one, Windows 2000 is not an OS a Walmart home user would buy for their laptop. Second, its 4 years old. Third, since the machine is shipped with 'Lindows' it would require a full retail version of Windows 2000 - not cheap. Lastly, isn't Windows 2000 going end of life June 2005 for the 'average' user (moving into extended support mode)?