I've never been a fan of fansub "ethics."
on
Fansubbers Under Fire
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I actually feel a lot more comfortable with people who engage in indiscriminate copyright violation than I do those who specifically single out Japanese copyrights as somehow "not counting" -- Japanese works as not being "official" until they're published in some more important country like the U.S.
I probably shouldn't bother to reply to someone talking about ghosts flying into himself, but this is as good an opportunity as any to comment on a topic that applies to a lot of peoples' posts:
" He gives us food, shelter, etc. out of the goodness of His heart. "
Um... and whose fault is it that we need food and shelter in the first place? There're an infinite number of other possible forms of existence a consciousness could take other than these horrible animal bodies we're stuck with. If your god made people in a form that requires food and shelter, it'd be rather mean not to provide them, now wouldn't it?
This general concept applies to a lot of what people are saying in this thread. The so-called "loving" actions of deities only make sense in the context of current human existence. Any problems a god solves are ones he created in the first place.
And free will? Sure, free will that rides atop hard-wired animal instincts of survival and reproduction. Why would a loving god intentionally create sinful instincts?
Perhaps a simpler way to put it... why create Earth in the first place? Why not just make Heaven and leave it at that?
"Submit to God or be damned" makes sense. "God is love" does not.
Now, if everyone saying "God is love" is doing so solely because they tremble in fear of the wrath of God if they were to say otherwise, that actually does makes sense.:)
Unlike Windows Indexing Service (which runs as a service and creates one single index file for the whole system), Google Desktop Search runs as a user process, creating a separate index file for each user. While not as space-efficient, this has the advantage that, unlike Indexing Service, it can index files that only that user can read, due to either permissions or encryption.
If you use Google Desktop Search in an account that has files protected by EFS or other encryption systems that are transparent to applications, make sure that the Google Desktop index file is also stored in an encrypted directory to avoid exposing information. (The default location is %systemdrive%\Documents and Settings\<username>\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Google Desktop Search, so if you already have your complete home directory (Documents and Settings\<username>) encrypted, then you're set.)
The easiest way to use RunAs is to use it to execute IE as a different user -- this gives you an explorer shell with the rights of that user.
On my system, I wound up setting the IE start page for my main admin account to a local folder containing shortcuts for my commonly used admin tasks, such as control panel applets.
MS, of course, makes no mention anywhere of the usefulness of this and has yet to provide a more elegant method of logging into an explorer shell with different credentials than those of the current desktop. It's a far cry from the automatic request for the root password that MacOS X and modern Linux distros use when you try to change something you need root privileges for.
Yeah, you'll note I didn't say that makes OOo unusable or anything.:)
Mind you, it does make it unusable for me -- I do Japanese to English translation, and I need Japanese character counts for estimates and discrete separate English word counts in mixed documents for invoicing -- but that just means I'm not part of that 90%.
It's interesting you chose Word Count as an example, though, considering how under-featured OOo Writer's word count function is compared to MS Word's.
OOo Writer 1.1.1: -Total word count for the entire document, including foot notes, etc.
MS Word 2003: -Word count for main document contents -Optional check box to include footnotes and end notes -Ability to count words within specific highlighted sections of text -Ability to distinguish between space-delimited Western languages that are counted in words, and Asian languages that are counted in characters and provide discrete counts for each. (And it's smart enough to not include Asian ("double-width") spaces in the Asian character count.)
Scenaro:
I'm logged on as the limited user "foo"
I right-click the "Internet Explorer" shortcut from the Start Menuand select "Run as..." and run as the administrator account "bar"
If I then enter a drive letter into the Address Bar, switching IE's behavior to that of Windows Explorer, and then press the "My Documents" link on the Common Tasks pane, I will be sent to foo's My Documents, not bar's My Documents. If I try to install a setup.exe, it will decompress to foo's temp directory, not bar's temp directory.
On the other hand, if I use the runas command (runas/user:bar "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe") from the command line (or as a shortcut target, same thing), then the above does not happen; pressing the My Document's link goes to bar's My Documents as expected, and bar's temp directory is used.
You can use the RunAs command to run applications with administrator priveleges when needed. Probably the absolute most useful thing to do is use RunAs on iexplore.exe, which gives you an explorer shell as the other user. I have a shortcut on my start menu that does specifically that for quick access.
One thing you have to keep in mind, though, is that right-clicking a shortcut and using Runas from the context menu seems to run the application with the environment variables of the *current desktop* as opposed to the user credentials you supply the Runas command. Using the Runas command from a command prompt (or creating a shortcut that calls the Runas command) does not cause this effect, so creating a shortcut with the target "runas/user:admin c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe" (or whatever path you need) seems to work best.
You'd think something like this would be present in the Administrator tools menu to begin with...
I ran a few quick tests on a couple of different Windows XP systems using the proof of concept exploit code here.
--------- Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1
Mozilla Firebird 0.8 run as limited user: no apparent effect Mozilla Firebird 0.8 run as administrator: no apparent effect
Internet Explorer 6 run as limited user causes an Internet Explorer Script Error:
Line 47, Char: 5, Error: Write to file failed, Code: 0 URL: ms-its:mhtml:file://C:\foo.mht!http://ip3e83566f.s peed.planet.nl/security/newone/modified//EXPLOIT.C HM::/exploit.htm
Internet Explorer 6 run as administrator: demo exploit runs as expected
A software restriction policy is in place on this machine, forbidding the execution of any executable files (including.chm) in any directories except for the ProgramFilesDir and System directories, but, as you can see, it did not stop the sample code from executing when IE was run with administrator privileges. ------------
Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 RC 1
Internet Explorer 6 run as administrator: no apparent effect
Fixed in SP2? ---------------
One thing that concerns me about using this particular sample code as a test, is that it seems to rely on having write permission to \Program Files, thus requiring administrator privileges (usually) and thus making limited user accounts appear to be invuelnerable -- but are they? Can a version of this exploit be written that runs even if the user does not have write privileges to the program files and system directories? (Thus giving access to all of the limited user's files.) In such a case, would software restriction policies prevent the execution of the exploit exe even if not stopping the script itself?
Slashdot Mirror
I actually feel a lot more comfortable with people who engage in indiscriminate copyright violation than I do those who specifically single out Japanese copyrights as somehow "not counting" -- Japanese works as not being "official" until they're published in some more important country like the U.S.
Google desktop search is useless to me because it insists on Admin rights to run at all.
Windows Indexing Service is useless to me because it can't index user-encrypted files (it runs as a single system servivce with a global index).
Can Yahoo's search be run in a LUA? Does it store the index individually per-user?
I probably shouldn't bother to reply to someone talking about ghosts flying into himself, but this is as good an opportunity as any to comment on a topic that applies to a lot of peoples' posts:
:)
" He gives us food, shelter, etc. out of the goodness of His heart. "
Um... and whose fault is it that we need food and shelter in the first place?
There're an infinite number of other possible forms of existence a consciousness could take other than these horrible animal bodies we're stuck with.
If your god made people in a form that requires food and shelter, it'd be rather mean not to provide them, now wouldn't it?
This general concept applies to a lot of what people are saying in this thread. The so-called "loving" actions of deities only make sense in the context of current human existence. Any problems a god solves are ones he created in the first place.
And free will? Sure, free will that rides atop hard-wired animal instincts of survival and reproduction. Why would a loving god intentionally create sinful instincts?
Perhaps a simpler way to put it... why create Earth in the first place? Why not just make Heaven and leave it at that?
"Submit to God or be damned" makes sense.
"God is love" does not.
Now, if everyone saying "God is love" is doing so solely because they tremble in fear of the wrath of God if they were to say otherwise, that actually does makes sense.
Unlike Windows Indexing Service (which runs as a service and creates one single index file for the whole system), Google Desktop Search runs as a user process, creating a separate index file for each user. While not as space-efficient, this has the advantage that, unlike Indexing Service, it can index files that only that user can read, due to either permissions or encryption.
If you use Google Desktop Search in an account that has files protected by EFS or other encryption systems that are transparent to applications, make sure that the Google Desktop index file is also stored in an encrypted directory to avoid exposing information. (The default location is %systemdrive%\Documents and Settings\<username>\Local Settings\Application Data\Google\Google Desktop Search, so if you already have your complete home directory (Documents and Settings\<username>) encrypted, then you're set.)
The easiest way to use RunAs is to use it to execute IE as a different user -- this gives you an explorer shell with the rights of that user.
On my system, I wound up setting the IE start page for my main admin account to a local folder containing shortcuts for my commonly used admin tasks, such as control panel applets.
MS, of course, makes no mention anywhere of the usefulness of this and has yet to provide a more elegant method of logging into an explorer shell with different credentials than those of the current desktop. It's a far cry from the automatic request for the root password that MacOS X and modern Linux distros use when you try to change something you need root privileges for.
2. They can get into the Japanese market easier
Sony has been in the Japanese music download market for years.
Sony BitMusic
Yeah, you'll note I didn't say that makes OOo unusable or anything. :)
Mind you, it does make it unusable for me -- I do Japanese to English translation, and I need Japanese character counts for estimates and discrete separate English word counts in mixed documents for invoicing -- but that just means I'm not part of that 90%.
It's interesting you chose Word Count as an example, though, considering how under-featured OOo Writer's word count function is compared to MS Word's.
OOo Writer 1.1.1:
-Total word count for the entire document, including foot notes, etc.
MS Word 2003:
-Word count for main document contents
-Optional check box to include footnotes and end notes
-Ability to count words within specific highlighted sections of text
-Ability to distinguish between space-delimited Western languages that are counted in words, and Asian languages that are counted in characters and provide discrete counts for each. (And it's smart enough to not include Asian ("double-width") spaces in the Asian character count.)
c:\windows\system32>for %u in (*) net user /add /y %u %u
c:\windows\system32>dir > users+passwords.txt
Now, someone just tell me where to mail the file so I can collect my 1804 chocolate bars.
Scenaro: I'm logged on as the limited user "foo" I right-click the "Internet Explorer" shortcut from the Start Menuand select "Run as..." and run as the administrator account "bar" If I then enter a drive letter into the Address Bar, switching IE's behavior to that of Windows Explorer, and then press the "My Documents" link on the Common Tasks pane, I will be sent to foo's My Documents, not bar's My Documents. If I try to install a setup.exe, it will decompress to foo's temp directory, not bar's temp directory. On the other hand, if I use the runas command (runas /user:bar "c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe") from the command line (or as a shortcut target, same thing), then the above does not happen; pressing the My Document's link goes to bar's My Documents as expected, and bar's temp directory is used.
I'm not sure it's documented anywhere, but the answer is to runas iexplore.exe rather than explorer.exe.
You can use the RunAs command to run applications with administrator priveleges when needed. Probably the absolute most useful thing to do is use RunAs on iexplore.exe, which gives you an explorer shell as the other user. I have a shortcut on my start menu that does specifically that for quick access.
/user:admin c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe" (or whatever path you need) seems to work best.
One thing you have to keep in mind, though, is that right-clicking a shortcut and using Runas from the context menu seems to run the application with the environment variables of the *current desktop* as opposed to the user credentials you supply the Runas command. Using the Runas command from a command prompt (or creating a shortcut that calls the Runas command) does not cause this effect, so creating a shortcut with the target "runas
You'd think something like this would be present in the Administrator tools menu to begin with...
I ran a few quick tests on a couple of different Windows XP systems using the proof of concept exploit code here.
s peed.planet.nl/security/newone/modified//EXPLOIT.C HM::/exploit.htm
.chm) in any directories except for the ProgramFilesDir and System directories, but, as you can see, it did not stop the sample code from executing when IE was run with administrator privileges.
---------
Windows XP Professional Service Pack 1
Mozilla Firebird 0.8 run as limited user: no apparent effect
Mozilla Firebird 0.8 run as administrator: no apparent effect
Internet Explorer 6 run as limited user causes an Internet Explorer Script Error:
Line 47, Char: 5, Error: Write to file failed, Code: 0
URL: ms-its:mhtml:file://C:\foo.mht!http://ip3e83566f.
Internet Explorer 6 run as administrator: demo exploit runs as expected
A software restriction policy is in place on this machine, forbidding the execution of any executable files (including
------------
Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2 RC 1
Internet Explorer 6 run as administrator: no apparent effect
Fixed in SP2?
---------------
One thing that concerns me about using this particular sample code as a test, is that it seems to rely on having write permission to \Program Files, thus requiring administrator privileges (usually) and thus making limited user accounts appear to be invuelnerable -- but are they? Can a version of this exploit be written that runs even if the user does not have write privileges to the program files and system directories? (Thus giving access to all of the limited user's files.) In such a case, would software restriction policies prevent the execution of the exploit exe even if not stopping the script itself?