That's a standard safety feature, often found lacking on cheap poorly designed equipment. I usually shoot for high voltage caps to bleed down within a few minutes. Enough time for "Johnny-I-Can-Fix-Anything" to unplug it from the wall and get the screws off the back of the unit using a handy butter knife.
Alas, I find that EES are usually not very good at troubleshooting and repairing electronics. They just aren't familiar with common failure modes and symptoms. Of course I know a bunch of MEs that can't fix their cars either.
More like you're the guy that lost his job because China's hacking group broke in through a zero-day exploit (they do have copies of the W2K source code, ya know), stole the blueprints for your new widget and gave it to a Chinese company who now sells clones for 1/4rd the price. Or that 5 billion that the US Army invested in high tech weapons research is wasted because the Chinese hacked in, downloaded the plans and suddenly are on the same playing field without any investment at all. It's far cheaper to steal technology than to invent it yourself. Hell yes, China is _very_ active in IT warfare.
Try getting that cat to run for 4-hours though. Really not a fair comparison. Hell I can sprint 14mph for short distances and run a much more relaxed 7mph for 10 miles.
Quite yelling, you sound retarded.
Do you have the "automatically approve revisions" checked? I bet you do. What version of WSUS, btw? Normally revisions are changes to the metadata and not a change to the binary patch itself, so this option is on by default and usually considered safe. The problem here is that MS incorrectly marked this update as a revision to the previous Desktop Serach version 2.6 install. I leave it to the viewer to decide if that error was intentional (a trust issue) or a genuine screwup (confidence issue).
Right, like I'm going to download an unknown file from an untrusted source and run it. The link you posted is related to Office 2007 installing WDS and not WSUS installing it.
If the uninstall directory exists, you're much better off running the uninstaller that the patch installs, so that it properly replaces the old versions of files. The directory is hidden, so you might need to change your explorer preferences. Try running "%systemroot$\$NtUninstallKB917013$\spuninst\spuninst.exe/quiet/noreboot" with system or admin rights. I ran this on the handful of machines that got involuntarily updated using psexec and then scheduled a reboot for after hours. Worked like a charm.
Below is the MS response posted on Technet. Reading between the lines, MS is admitting that they inappropriately marked this update as a revision to the previous WDS installations.
WDS revision update, expanded applicability rules, auto-approve revisions Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:58 AM by WSUS
Some customers have reported that update package for KB917013 was being deployed to WSUS clients without having approved the update for installation on their WSUS servers. The original update release, released February 2007 as an optional update, was only applicable on systems which had a version of Windows Desktop Search installed. The recent update Revision 105, had the applicability logic expanded to be applicable to all systems regardless if a prior version of Windows Desktop Search was installed, IF of course, approved in the WSUS Administrative UI or via Administrator-set auto-approval rules.
The initial update would have only been installed if the update had been either auto, or manually approved, and if the applicability criteria was met on the client (that WDS was installed). For some customers, because the original update was approved for install, but because of the previous applicability rules to apply only to clients which had WDS installed, the update was not actually installed.
So what happened with this revision and why did it seemingly deploy itself to all systems in my environment? WSUS by default is set to auto-approve update revisions to minimize administrative overhead and make sure distribution "just works". Keeping in mind, revisions are only titled as such, when metadata or applicability rules of an update package change, never the binaries. Revisions are also of course only auto-approved via this setting, if the original update is approved.
With the expanded applicability rules, and the WSUS default setting to auto-approve new revisions, it may have appeared as if this update was deployed without approval. The initial version of the update would have had to have been approved, and the "auto-approve revisions" option on (by default) in order for this revision to have also been approved and deployed.
To Recap:
- The initial February 2007 release had to be purposely checked/approved by WSUS admins for distribution, because it was an Optional update. - All subsequent metadata-only revisions to that WSUS admin approved February 2007 release would then also be automatically approved for distribution. - The initial February approval is retained throughout the life of the update, regardless of revision. - That said, We will be tightening the criterea for Revisions so that auto-approval of revision behaivors are more predictable and of similar scope as the originial approved update, as we appreciate the confusion this behaivor caused.
Thanks as always for your feedback to make our product s and processes work for our customers.
Below is the MS response posted on Technet. Reading between the lines, MS is admitting that they inappropriately marked this update as a revision to the previous WDS installations.
From http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/default.aspx.
WDS revision update, expanded applicability rules, auto-approve revisions
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:58 AM by WSUS
Some customers have reported that update package for KB917013 was being deployed to WSUS clients without having approved the update for installation on their WSUS servers. The original update release, released February 2007 as an optional update, was only applicable on systems which had a version of Windows Desktop Search installed. The recent update Revision 105, had the applicability logic expanded to be applicable to all systems regardless if a prior version of Windows Desktop Search was installed, IF of course, approved in the WSUS Administrative UI or via Administrator-set auto-approval rules.
The initial update would have only been installed if the update had been either auto, or manually approved, and if the applicability criteria was met on the client (that WDS was installed). For some customers, because the original update was approved for install, but because of the previous applicability rules to apply only to clients which had WDS installed, the update was not actually installed.
So what happened with this revision and why did it seemingly deploy itself to all systems in my environment? WSUS by default is set to auto-approve update revisions to minimize administrative overhead and make sure distribution "just works". Keeping in mind, revisions are only titled as such, when metadata or applicability rules of an update package change, never the binaries. Revisions are also of course only auto-approved via this setting, if the original update is approved.
With the expanded applicability rules, and the WSUS default setting to auto-approve new revisions, it may have appeared as if this update was deployed without approval. The initial version of the update would have had to have been approved, and the "auto-approve revisions" option on (by default) in order for this revision to have also been approved and deployed.
To Recap:
The initial February 2007 release had to be purposely checked/approved by WSUS admin s sfor distribution, because it was an Optional update.
All subsequent metadata-only revisions to that WSUS admin approved February 2007 release would then also be automatically approved for distribution.
The initial February approval is retained throughout the life of the update, regardless of revision.
That said, We will be tightening the criterea for Revisions so that auto-approval of revision behaivors are more predictable and of similar scope as the originial approved update, as we appreciate the confusion this behaivor caused.
Thanks as always for your feedback to make our product s and processes work for our customers.
Bobbie Harder
PM, WSUS
Will the idiots who don't understand the difference between WSUS and Automatic Updates please stop posting!!!! You're just cluttering the place up. For those claiming that WSUS automatically approved the WDS 3.0 install - go check your settings. You may not have auto-approve turned on, but I bet you have "automatically approve revisions" turned on. Update 917013 was marked as a revision to the previous WDS 2.6 install. If you had approved the previous WDS and have this setting on, then WDS 3.0 got automatically approved.
Get off your high horse, because you don't completely understand the problem. It's not whether you're automatically approving "updates". It's whether you're automatically approving revisions to existing updates (which most people have checked). If you had previously approved the WDS 2.6 patch (back in march I think), then WSUS is automatically approving the WDS 3.0 installation because it was marked as a revision of the WDS 2.6 patch.
A picowatt is a unit of power equal to 10^-12 watts, or one-millionth of a microwatt. That's a lot of zeros and a really tiny number.
Lets do some questimating! An average hair is around 50 micrometers thick, so lets guess they are talking about a 0.25 micrometer thick wire. Lets guess they are talking about a 10 cm long piece. Plugging the numbers and their stated power yields a whopping 0.008 watts/squaremeter. A cheap 6% efficient solar cell in bright sunlight (1 sol = 1000watts/sqmeter) gives you 60 watts/square meter. That's 4 orders of magnitude worse than a cheap solar cell.
I haven't run the numbers, but I think they'd be better off using the wire as an antenna and grabbing some of the free emf floating in the air.
One consideration for speed limits is to ensure safe merging. If everyone had a car with plenty of merging power, or the states put in adequately long acceleration lanes, there's no issue with raising the highway speed limits.
He claimed he was done with small scale testing and was ready for full-scale testing. His original intent was to prove the scaling with WB-6. WB-7 and WB-8 were the two alternate designs for full-scale. When WB-6 failed before proving his scaling theories (at least to peer review and potential sponsors), WB7 and WB8 were dropped back to small scale designs.
Actually the results from WB-6 were inconclusive and ended with the destruction of one of the models coils before completing testing. The Bussard's team is claiming that fusion briefly occurred during a few of the millisecond-long run times. Peer scientists are all pretty skeptical, claiming the measurement methods were flawed, that their calculations predict much higher losses, the scaling ration isn't r^5, and that the design will never be able to generate a positive flow of usable energy. Without solid data or independent verification of the results, Bussard is still claiming they can skip the intermediate scale testing and go straight to full-scale. The Navy is wisely funding a small-scale version of WB-7 to get better data to determine if the design has merit. If it does, the concept holds a lot of promise. If it's like the other "cold fusion" claims they want to avoid pouring money into a deadend project.
"may work at lower scales than other projects"???? - One of the main reasons for pushing for the WB7 model was that they couldn't get positive net energy at small scales. The prediction was that they'd need something on the size of a standard fission reactor to see viable energy output. Plus, the design team originally modeled all the coils with as a zero thickness circle and couldn't understand that when they built the thing that the coil circle centers had to be spaced apart which caused field losses. After seeing stupid design errors like that, I don't have much faith in the research team, but still the concept is worth investigation.
Security lesson #1. Can you spot the security problem in this high-security datacenter? Sure, it's got a vault door and armed ninjas. But you didn't count on the night janitor sneaking in a wireless router and plugging it into the network.
You don't need admin rights to read the product key in WXP. (That is unless you're a savy net admin and pushed a policy to change the access rights on the appropriate registry keys). You do need admin rights by default in Vista though.
Actually I use nLite quite a bit and find it useful in a business environment just because I can enable things like this. In a locked down environment, do you really want non-admins to be able to plug in new devices?
Oh no, the Open Office team is falling behind! They need to hurry up and plagiarize the rest of the MS Office Suite features. I mean seriously, when even the menus are almost identical it's obvious that they are just riding MS coattails. They need to make something better, not "almost as good as". Maybe Linux in general will figure this out. Mac has.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a standard safety feature, often found lacking on cheap poorly designed equipment. I usually shoot for high voltage caps to bleed down within a few minutes. Enough time for "Johnny-I-Can-Fix-Anything" to unplug it from the wall and get the screws off the back of the unit using a handy butter knife.
Alas, I find that EES are usually not very good at troubleshooting and repairing electronics. They just aren't familiar with common failure modes and symptoms. Of course I know a bunch of MEs that can't fix their cars either.
Well according to the WhiteHouse http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/homeland/, the Dept of Homeland Security has terrorism as it's primary focus (at least that's how it's justified). However, their org chart http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/DHS_OrgChart.pdf shows they over arch quite a few agencies that don't really have anything to do with terrorism.
More like you're the guy that lost his job because China's hacking group broke in through a zero-day exploit (they do have copies of the W2K source code, ya know), stole the blueprints for your new widget and gave it to a Chinese company who now sells clones for 1/4rd the price. Or that 5 billion that the US Army invested in high tech weapons research is wasted because the Chinese hacked in, downloaded the plans and suddenly are on the same playing field without any investment at all. It's far cheaper to steal technology than to invent it yourself. Hell yes, China is _very_ active in IT warfare.
Try getting that cat to run for 4-hours though. Really not a fair comparison. Hell I can sprint 14mph for short distances and run a much more relaxed 7mph for 10 miles.
If he's saying he won't or can't abide by the EULAs, doesn't that mean he can't use any computers that have XP or MS Word installed?
Quite yelling, you sound retarded. Do you have the "automatically approve revisions" checked? I bet you do. What version of WSUS, btw? Normally revisions are changes to the metadata and not a change to the binary patch itself, so this option is on by default and usually considered safe. The problem here is that MS incorrectly marked this update as a revision to the previous Desktop Serach version 2.6 install. I leave it to the viewer to decide if that error was intentional (a trust issue) or a genuine screwup (confidence issue).
Right, like I'm going to download an unknown file from an untrusted source and run it. The link you posted is related to Office 2007 installing WDS and not WSUS installing it.
/quiet /noreboot" with system or admin rights. I ran this on the handful of machines that got involuntarily updated using psexec and then scheduled a reboot for after hours. Worked like a charm.
If the uninstall directory exists, you're much better off running the uninstaller that the patch installs, so that it properly replaces the old versions of files. The directory is hidden, so you might need to change your explorer preferences. Try running "%systemroot$\$NtUninstallKB917013$\spuninst\spuninst.exe
Below is the MS response posted on Technet. Reading between the lines, MS is admitting that they inappropriately marked this update as a revision to the previous WDS installations.
From http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/default.aspx. (fixed the formatting this time)
WDS revision update, expanded applicability rules, auto-approve revisions
Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:58 AM by WSUS
Some customers have reported that update package for KB917013 was being deployed to WSUS clients without having approved the update for installation on their WSUS servers. The original update release, released February 2007 as an optional update, was only applicable on systems which had a version of Windows Desktop Search installed. The recent update Revision 105, had the applicability logic expanded to be applicable to all systems regardless if a prior version of Windows Desktop Search was installed, IF of course, approved in the WSUS Administrative UI or via Administrator-set auto-approval rules.
The initial update would have only been installed if the update had been either auto, or manually approved, and if the applicability criteria was met on the client (that WDS was installed). For some customers, because the original update was approved for install, but because of the previous applicability rules to apply only to clients which had WDS installed, the update was not actually installed.
So what happened with this revision and why did it seemingly deploy itself to all systems in my environment? WSUS by default is set to auto-approve update revisions to minimize administrative overhead and make sure distribution "just works". Keeping in mind, revisions are only titled as such, when metadata or applicability rules of an update package change, never the binaries. Revisions are also of course only auto-approved via this setting, if the original update is approved.
With the expanded applicability rules, and the WSUS default setting to auto-approve new revisions, it may have appeared as if this update was deployed without approval. The initial version of the update would have had to have been approved, and the "auto-approve revisions" option on (by default) in order for this revision to have also been approved and deployed.
To Recap:
- The initial February 2007 release had to be purposely checked/approved by WSUS admins for distribution, because it was an Optional update.
- All subsequent metadata-only revisions to that WSUS admin approved February 2007 release would then also be automatically approved for distribution.
- The initial February approval is retained throughout the life of the update, regardless of revision.
- That said, We will be tightening the criterea for Revisions so that auto-approval of revision behaivors are more predictable and of similar scope as the originial approved update, as we appreciate the confusion this behaivor caused.
Thanks as always for your feedback to make our product s and processes work for our customers.
Bobbie Harder
PM, WSUS
Below is the MS response posted on Technet. Reading between the lines, MS is admitting that they inappropriately marked this update as a revision to the previous WDS installations. From http://blogs.technet.com/wsus/default.aspx. WDS revision update, expanded applicability rules, auto-approve revisions Posted Thursday, October 25, 2007 3:58 AM by WSUS Some customers have reported that update package for KB917013 was being deployed to WSUS clients without having approved the update for installation on their WSUS servers. The original update release, released February 2007 as an optional update, was only applicable on systems which had a version of Windows Desktop Search installed. The recent update Revision 105, had the applicability logic expanded to be applicable to all systems regardless if a prior version of Windows Desktop Search was installed, IF of course, approved in the WSUS Administrative UI or via Administrator-set auto-approval rules. The initial update would have only been installed if the update had been either auto, or manually approved, and if the applicability criteria was met on the client (that WDS was installed). For some customers, because the original update was approved for install, but because of the previous applicability rules to apply only to clients which had WDS installed, the update was not actually installed. So what happened with this revision and why did it seemingly deploy itself to all systems in my environment? WSUS by default is set to auto-approve update revisions to minimize administrative overhead and make sure distribution "just works". Keeping in mind, revisions are only titled as such, when metadata or applicability rules of an update package change, never the binaries. Revisions are also of course only auto-approved via this setting, if the original update is approved. With the expanded applicability rules, and the WSUS default setting to auto-approve new revisions, it may have appeared as if this update was deployed without approval. The initial version of the update would have had to have been approved, and the "auto-approve revisions" option on (by default) in order for this revision to have also been approved and deployed. To Recap: The initial February 2007 release had to be purposely checked/approved by WSUS admin s sfor distribution, because it was an Optional update. All subsequent metadata-only revisions to that WSUS admin approved February 2007 release would then also be automatically approved for distribution. The initial February approval is retained throughout the life of the update, regardless of revision. That said, We will be tightening the criterea for Revisions so that auto-approval of revision behaivors are more predictable and of similar scope as the originial approved update, as we appreciate the confusion this behaivor caused. Thanks as always for your feedback to make our product s and processes work for our customers. Bobbie Harder PM, WSUS
Will the idiots who don't understand the difference between WSUS and Automatic Updates please stop posting!!!! You're just cluttering the place up. For those claiming that WSUS automatically approved the WDS 3.0 install - go check your settings. You may not have auto-approve turned on, but I bet you have "automatically approve revisions" turned on. Update 917013 was marked as a revision to the previous WDS 2.6 install. If you had approved the previous WDS and have this setting on, then WDS 3.0 got automatically approved.
Get off your high horse, because you don't completely understand the problem. It's not whether you're automatically approving "updates". It's whether you're automatically approving revisions to existing updates (which most people have checked). If you had previously approved the WDS 2.6 patch (back in march I think), then WSUS is automatically approving the WDS 3.0 installation because it was marked as a revision of the WDS 2.6 patch.
Which fits in very nicely with the Navys plans for an all-electric fleet in the future.
A picowatt is a unit of power equal to 10^-12 watts, or one-millionth of a microwatt. That's a lot of zeros and a really tiny number.
Lets do some questimating! An average hair is around 50 micrometers thick, so lets guess they are talking about a 0.25 micrometer thick wire. Lets guess they are talking about a 10 cm long piece. Plugging the numbers and their stated power yields a whopping 0.008 watts/squaremeter. A cheap 6% efficient solar cell in bright sunlight (1 sol = 1000watts/sqmeter) gives you 60 watts/square meter. That's 4 orders of magnitude worse than a cheap solar cell.
I haven't run the numbers, but I think they'd be better off using the wire as an antenna and grabbing some of the free emf floating in the air.
One consideration for speed limits is to ensure safe merging. If everyone had a car with plenty of merging power, or the states put in adequately long acceleration lanes, there's no issue with raising the highway speed limits.
Close. It was intended to nail known criminals for which they could only prove a repeated pattern of committing smaller crimes.
He claimed he was done with small scale testing and was ready for full-scale testing. His original intent was to prove the scaling with WB-6. WB-7 and WB-8 were the two alternate designs for full-scale. When WB-6 failed before proving his scaling theories (at least to peer review and potential sponsors), WB7 and WB8 were dropped back to small scale designs.
Actually the results from WB-6 were inconclusive and ended with the destruction of one of the models coils before completing testing. The Bussard's team is claiming that fusion briefly occurred during a few of the millisecond-long run times. Peer scientists are all pretty skeptical, claiming the measurement methods were flawed, that their calculations predict much higher losses, the scaling ration isn't r^5, and that the design will never be able to generate a positive flow of usable energy. Without solid data or independent verification of the results, Bussard is still claiming they can skip the intermediate scale testing and go straight to full-scale. The Navy is wisely funding a small-scale version of WB-7 to get better data to determine if the design has merit. If it does, the concept holds a lot of promise. If it's like the other "cold fusion" claims they want to avoid pouring money into a deadend project.
"may work at lower scales than other projects"???? - One of the main reasons for pushing for the WB7 model was that they couldn't get positive net energy at small scales. The prediction was that they'd need something on the size of a standard fission reactor to see viable energy output. Plus, the design team originally modeled all the coils with as a zero thickness circle and couldn't understand that when they built the thing that the coil circle centers had to be spaced apart which caused field losses. After seeing stupid design errors like that, I don't have much faith in the research team, but still the concept is worth investigation.
Quantum cryptography is not encryption. A method of secure key exchange perhaps, but it's not encryption.
Security lesson #1. Can you spot the security problem in this high-security datacenter? Sure, it's got a vault door and armed ninjas. But you didn't count on the night janitor sneaking in a wireless router and plugging it into the network.
Or one of the really poor quality Chinese knock-offs that you see all over eBay?
You don't need admin rights to read the product key in WXP. (That is unless you're a savy net admin and pushed a policy to change the access rights on the appropriate registry keys). You do need admin rights by default in Vista though.
Actually I use nLite quite a bit and find it useful in a business environment just because I can enable things like this. In a locked down environment, do you really want non-admins to be able to plug in new devices?
Oh no, the Open Office team is falling behind! They need to hurry up and plagiarize the rest of the MS Office Suite features. I mean seriously, when even the menus are almost identical it's obvious that they are just riding MS coattails. They need to make something better, not "almost as good as". Maybe Linux in general will figure this out. Mac has.