... DEAR.. LORD..
Did anyone of those who commented to the post even _READ_ it? I mean, Holy Crap. How do these people find their way to Slashdot.org?
Of all of the questions asked, the answers were in the original post. Please read it 3 more times. And if you still don't understand, read it 3 more. Or was it just your failed attempt at clever rhetoric?
Then again, maybe this is just a problem that all Slashdot posters experience. I'll simply overlook the ignorace and continue to move forwards.
I'm very well versed in Norton Ghost, but I have little experience with Spybot S&D. So, I decided to test out the application.
I assumed that images could be corrupted using 2 means:
1. Pre-image: Spybot is installed on the Ghost Server PC, deepscans the.GHO image, and makes modifications. 2. Post-image: Spybot is part of the image, and causes damage after the target PC has been successfully imaged.
Pre-Image Testing:
I installed Spybot and quickly checked Spybot's Advanced Settings. In it, I noticed an option to "Ignore File Extensions". *.GHO (Ghost Images) was included in this list, as well as various other extensions (ie,.AEX,.AEP, *.MPEG, *.BAT, *.ICA, etc.)
After further testing, though, it was revealed that Spybot does _not_ appear to scan compressed files. It should not be possible for Spybot to deepscan.GHO images and make changes leading to corruption. Unless, of course, older versions of the software had the ability to scan compressed files.
Post-Image Testing:
Now, what if Spybot is installed as part of the image?
I installed Spybot S&D on a testbed PC with the intention of the application automatically scanning the harddrive and fixing issues
using it's default settings (ie, "spybotsd.exe/autocheck/autofix/autoimmunize/autoclose.) Before executing Spybot however, I captured the testbed image and deployed to a new PC (same hardware configuration).
Upon restart, I was overwhelmed by the amount of legitimate registry entries and required files that Spybot chose to "correct". After Spybot fixed all issues, the Windows OS and our variety of applications were a complete and utter mess. I would officially have to say that Spybot corrupted the system.
I also contacted technicians from 2 major computer manufacturers. Generally, they had the same things to say about Spybot:
Q: How familiar are you with Spybot? A: Very familiar.
Q: Have you ever seen any instances where Spybot corrupts the operating system? A: Oh yeah.. _all_ the time. Our support team receives customer calls all of the time in regards to Spybot. It can damage system files and in many instances would detect spyware but not actually remove it. I'm not too sure about the most recent version, but all old versions are complete crap.
(Last time he had used Spybot was about 1 month ago. He had also mentioned something about Spybot "Installing toolbars". Did the software used to have Ad-Popups or something? I also learned that Spybot has caused Winsock damage in many cases.)
I tried using Spybot manually (rather than automatically scanning and fixing the system), and it seems that Spybot has many false-positives. Of all files detected, Spybot wanted to correct about 30 perfectly legitimate and required files (application dependent). If I was a simple user, I would most likely select ALL entries in this list and delete them without realizing the consequences. Other than those issues, CPU Utilization was pretty high and I tend to have a bad impression (and little respect) for software that is littered with grammatical and spelling errors.
I could see Symantec using a couple available defenses:
1. A Complete Defense: Symantec needs to prove that Spybot does indeed cause corruption of Ghost images. An image is considered an exact replica of the harddrive, but does not necessarily mean the pre-packaged/special format snapshot file. This means that Symantec would only need to prove that Spybot can indeed cause damage to software or the OS. Also note that multiple restarts are required which Spybot can interfere with or damage before the full imaging process is completed.
2. Honest Belief: Symantec would have to prove the facts on which their opinion is based. This was mentioned in a previous post; customers call in with a corrupted image, an
I say make them in much smaller sizes, but in larger numbers (hundreds of Micro-Ramps), then market the product towards advertising companies to pay for the installation costs. They can be installed a locations throughout highways to power their billboards and electronic signs, and the left over energy can be used for other purposes (10kW is quite a bit).
Although the cost would be astronomical, it would be nice to implement this on highways/roads to keep them heated during the colder seasons (ie, Northern Ontario). Snow only stays on the ground because the ground temperature is below freezing. So, keeping the roads at 1 Degree Celsius would keep snow and ice off the roads.
Also, because the ice couldn't melt then freeze and expand, this would be an excellent cost savings measure over the long term: no more cracking or pot holes (which are mainly caused by freezing water.)
The other option are solar panels, but this method might be more cost effective.
Way back in University, I created a mobile microwave emitter (well, battery powered) that I carried around on a shoulder-strap.
There was about 30 minutes of power for a sustained emission - which I used to "plow" my driveway every once in a while at my Northern Ontario home. So much faster than shovelling..
It was fun for a while, but extremely dangerous. I stopped using it when neighbours starting coming over to see what I was doing - I had to tell them that was a simple chemical reaction that was causing my snow to melt which was triggered by my "sound emitter".
I'm a Network Administrator for a very large corporation and I found myself in the very same situation.
I had my own private office, however a request was made by Human Resources for the construction of new offices for their own use. Rather than the $10,000 price tag, I _requested_ that I transfer out to the cubicles on our main floor. Basically, it was a decision I made for the benefit of the company.
I find that no one really _needs_ private offices, unless they participate in confidential conversations. HR, for example. But really, couldn't offices or boardrooms be booked for those type of activities?
Once I was out on the floor, it was very simple to establish security. My main system was placed in a physically secured location (data centre) and I remotely accessed the PC via secure connection.
You have to understand that nothing is really secure. I ran it like a bank - it could be hacked, but I wanted to catch the person afterwords. Everything on the remote PC and local PC was logged and I also trained security cameras (inexpensive purchase for a 2 week DVR) on their locations.
Also, you can install privacy screens on the front of your monitor so that only the person sitting directly in front of it can see the desktop. They also help with glare.
I find it much more enjoyable with the rest of the team now. Having a private office can be rather lonely for managers sometimes.
"Even in a popular war game such as 'World of Warcraft,' if you have a strong character and a newbie comes into the game, you have to take care of him and help him out," he says. "The strong character gets stronger by taking care of the weaker."
Excuse me?
From what I have seen, weak characters are; shunned, teased because of their low level, ganked constantly by players insanely more powerful than they are, challenged to duels by players insanely more power than they are, and constantly abandoned on the battlefield in the middle of a raid. Level 60's spend most of their time trying to entertain or impress lower levels.
Trying to "take care" of a weaker character (ie, power-level a newbie) is a complete waste of time for the Level 60, and will only benefit them if that "weaker character" happens to be their alternate account (or someone they know in real life that can assist them in future instances/quests.)
Slashdot Mirror
... DEAR.. LORD.. Did anyone of those who commented to the post even _READ_ it? I mean, Holy Crap. How do these people find their way to Slashdot.org? Of all of the questions asked, the answers were in the original post. Please read it 3 more times. And if you still don't understand, read it 3 more. Or was it just your failed attempt at clever rhetoric? Then again, maybe this is just a problem that all Slashdot posters experience. I'll simply overlook the ignorace and continue to move forwards.
I'm very well versed in Norton Ghost, but I have little experience with Spybot S&D. So, I decided to test out the application.
.GHO image, and makes modifications.
.AEX, .AEP, *.MPEG, *.BAT, *.ICA, etc.)
.GHO images and make changes leading to corruption. Unless, of course, older versions of the software had the ability to scan compressed files.
/autocheck /autofix /autoimmunize /autoclose.) Before executing Spybot however, I captured the testbed image and deployed to a new PC (same hardware configuration).
I assumed that images could be corrupted using 2 means:
1. Pre-image: Spybot is installed on the Ghost Server PC, deepscans the
2. Post-image: Spybot is part of the image, and causes damage after the target PC has been successfully imaged.
Pre-Image Testing:
I installed Spybot and quickly checked Spybot's Advanced Settings. In it, I noticed an option to "Ignore File Extensions". *.GHO (Ghost Images) was included in this list, as well as various other extensions (ie,
After further testing, though, it was revealed that Spybot does _not_ appear to scan compressed files. It should not be possible for Spybot to deepscan
Post-Image Testing:
Now, what if Spybot is installed as part of the image?
I installed Spybot S&D on a testbed PC with the intention of the application automatically scanning the harddrive and fixing issues
using it's default settings (ie, "spybotsd.exe
Upon restart, I was overwhelmed by the amount of legitimate registry entries and required files that Spybot chose to "correct". After Spybot fixed all issues, the Windows OS and our variety of applications were a complete and utter mess. I would officially have to say that Spybot corrupted the system.
I also contacted technicians from 2 major computer manufacturers. Generally, they had the same things to say about Spybot:
Q: How familiar are you with Spybot?
A: Very familiar.
Q: Have you ever seen any instances where Spybot corrupts the operating system?
A: Oh yeah.. _all_ the time. Our support team receives customer calls all of the time in regards to Spybot. It can damage system files and in many instances would detect spyware but not actually remove it. I'm not too sure about the most recent version, but all old versions are complete crap.
(Last time he had used Spybot was about 1 month ago. He had also mentioned something about Spybot "Installing toolbars". Did the software used to have Ad-Popups or something? I also learned that Spybot has caused Winsock damage in many cases.)
I tried using Spybot manually (rather than automatically scanning and fixing the system), and it seems that Spybot has many false-positives. Of all files detected, Spybot wanted to correct about 30 perfectly legitimate and required files (application dependent). If I was a simple user, I would most likely select ALL entries in this list and delete them without realizing the consequences. Other than those issues, CPU Utilization was pretty high and I tend to have a bad impression (and little respect) for software that is littered with grammatical and spelling errors.
I could see Symantec using a couple available defenses:
1. A Complete Defense: Symantec needs to prove that Spybot does indeed cause corruption of Ghost images. An image is considered an exact replica of the harddrive, but does not necessarily mean the pre-packaged/special format snapshot file. This means that Symantec would only need to prove that Spybot can indeed cause damage to software or the OS. Also note that multiple restarts are required which Spybot can interfere with or damage before the full imaging process is completed.
2. Honest Belief: Symantec would have to prove the facts on which their opinion is based. This was mentioned in a previous post; customers call in with a corrupted image, an
I say make them in much smaller sizes, but in larger numbers (hundreds of Micro-Ramps), then market the product towards advertising companies to pay for the installation costs. They can be installed a locations throughout highways to power their billboards and electronic signs, and the left over energy can be used for other purposes (10kW is quite a bit).
Although the cost would be astronomical, it would be nice to implement this on highways/roads to keep them heated during the colder seasons (ie, Northern Ontario). Snow only stays on the ground because the ground temperature is below freezing. So, keeping the roads at 1 Degree Celsius would keep snow and ice off the roads.
Also, because the ice couldn't melt then freeze and expand, this would be an excellent cost savings measure over the long term: no more cracking or pot holes (which are mainly caused by freezing water.)
The other option are solar panels, but this method might be more cost effective.
Way back in University, I created a mobile microwave emitter (well, battery powered) that I carried around on a shoulder-strap.
There was about 30 minutes of power for a sustained emission - which I used to "plow" my driveway every once in a while at my Northern Ontario home. So much faster than shovelling..
It was fun for a while, but extremely dangerous. I stopped using it when neighbours starting coming over to see what I was doing - I had to tell them that was a simple chemical reaction that was causing my snow to melt which was triggered by my "sound emitter".
I'm a Network Administrator for a very large corporation and I found myself in the very same situation.
I had my own private office, however a request was made by Human Resources for the construction of new offices for their own use. Rather than the $10,000 price tag, I _requested_ that I transfer out to the cubicles on our main floor. Basically, it was a decision I made for the benefit of the company.
I find that no one really _needs_ private offices, unless they participate in confidential conversations. HR, for example. But really, couldn't offices or boardrooms be booked for those type of activities?
Once I was out on the floor, it was very simple to establish security. My main system was placed in a physically secured location (data centre) and I remotely accessed the PC via secure connection.
You have to understand that nothing is really secure. I ran it like a bank - it could be hacked, but I wanted to catch the person afterwords. Everything on the remote PC and local PC was logged and I also trained security cameras (inexpensive purchase for a 2 week DVR) on their locations.
Also, you can install privacy screens on the front of your monitor so that only the person sitting directly in front of it can see the desktop. They also help with glare.
I find it much more enjoyable with the rest of the team now. Having a private office can be rather lonely for managers sometimes.
Excuse me?
From what I have seen, weak characters are; shunned, teased because of their low level, ganked constantly by players insanely more powerful than they are, challenged to duels by players insanely more power than they are, and constantly abandoned on the battlefield in the middle of a raid. Level 60's spend most of their time trying to entertain or impress lower levels.
Trying to "take care" of a weaker character (ie, power-level a newbie) is a complete waste of time for the Level 60, and will only benefit them if that "weaker character" happens to be their alternate account (or someone they know in real life that can assist them in future instances/quests.)