Give us the option to TURN OFF THE AWESOME BAR. I'm sure many people think it's "awesome", but I believe it is a terrible pile of crap that breaks the way browsers have functioned for years, and offers absolutely zero benefits whatsoever. My typing the letter "s" does not mean the browser should assume I need a suggestion for every site I've ever been to where the URL or title might contain the letter "s" -- in fact, I can think of few assumptions more asinine.
Let us turn it the hell off. Solves the problem for people like me, solves the problem for people who want to hide porn, solves the problem for people who just plain don't like it. There is absolutely no reason this shouldn't be a one-click checkbox option, and yet there really is no way to disable it.
To be fair, the US had the technology to go to Mars since the first moon landing. Yes, it would have required a larger ship and better radiation shielding and more supplies, but those are not technical hurdles, they are monetary ones. Had the US actually wanted to do it, and sink the money into it, it could have been done with the technology of the era. It would have been a massive undertaking but completely feasible from a technology standpoint.
However, since the US can't get to the moon anymore at the moment, saying it has the technology or know-how to get to Mars is equally silly. Maybe in another ten years.
apparently it is not only in security that the Linux kernel is lagging by a few years.
Claiming that Windows security is better than Linux is absurd enough. Claiming that it's better than Linux "by a few years" is so outlandish that it casts doubt on everything else you said.
Actually I remember playing some games when I was really little where you had to boot from the game disk, not into DOS first. Kings Quest I -- some ancient CGA version -- comes to mind. They tended to work pretty well but they were a huge pain for exactly the reason you mentioned -- you now had essentially a game console.
What consumer glass tables are more than 4mm thick?
Mine. A few years ago I got a black-glass-top desk. It's about 6 or 7mm thick, I'd guess, just eyeballing it without having done any real measuring, and it's hardly designer or anything -- just picked it up at Office Depot one day. Of course the first thing I discovered when I got it home and put the computer on it is that optical mice don't work on glass.:)
Someone in this thread pointed out that you could put down some paper or a mousepad, which is exactly what I do, but really it's kind of a hassle, as it limits the space in which I can move the mouse, and it's one more thing to shuffle around when I'm rearranging stuff to accomodate laptops or midi controllers or what-have-you. If these things work as well as Logitech is claiming, I'll probably get one.
For one thing, 10 pounds isn't that heavy, especially for a Marine, who is in far better shape and generally stronger than the average doofus on the street. The Marine doesn't necessarily have to throw it all that far, either -- just get it over that wall or whatever, then the robot can drive to the actual area of interest.
I agree. Though I actually use proper spelling and grammar in text messages too (I do not, nor will I ever, tweet). Typing and IRC and IM and such will only affect your language skills if you go out of your way to type like a moron, and like you, I find it more difficult to type incorrectly than correctly. I've never understood the argument "But it's only the internet," which implies that the person in question can, when it really matters, type and spell properly. Of course, seeing their resumes, or proofreading their class papers, it quickly becomes apparant this is not the case.
The difference is that with your Chevy, people are allowed to make 3rd party parts & you are allowed to modify the car however you want - within state sanctioned parameters.
You make a good point.
the law needs to have some provision to allow other people to provide that support
That's where I think it gets dicey. Right now, Windows can only be "supported" by one entity -- Microsoft. If some flaw or bug is found (heh), it's basically impossible for anyone, no matter how talented, to fix it, because it's completely closed. If that's what you mean by support, then I have to disagree, because although the product may be obsolete, much of the technology is not, and forcing Microsoft (or any other software company for that matter) to open it to any schmuck who wants to write patches and updates isn't really fair. And I feel kind of dirty for coming that close to defending Microsoft's rights.:)
If, however, by "support" you mean the ability to activate it once you've changed hardware, write drivers for it, and so forth, then I agree. Third parties can already write drivers for it and I don't know if they have to pay Microsoft for some sort of information, or if it's just something a talented programmer can do, but either way, it's clearly possible to do. And if Microsoft is shelving the product, then they're clearly not interested in making money from it anymore, so what do they care if people continue using it? Modify the activation server to authorise anyone who asks.
Of course they'd drag their feet and say that by doing this, no one would ever upgrade, but that's just not true -- people will upgrade eventually when applications and hardware demand it. It might not be as soon as MS would like but it'll happen.
But back to my main question -- how long is long enough, in your opinion? When does a company get to say "Enough is enough," and cease any further obligations to a product, including making sure others can modify it? Giong back to my Chevy, people were free to make their own parts for the discontinued car, but I can virtually guarantee they weren't getting the blueprints from Chevy to do so. Chevy more or less said "If you want to make parts for that car, fine, but we're through with it and while we wont' stop you, we're not going to help you either."
Of course the zealot in me has to point out that if people would use free operating systems they wouldn't have to put up with this endless stream of nonsense. Outside of a few very specific Windows-only apps that are used by a select few, I see no compelling reason for businesses to continue using Windows and dancing to Microsoft's tune, tracking licenses, putting up with the BSA, paying out the nose for eighty seven different types of CALs, and so on.
Your point is taken, but where do you draw the line? Maybe I still love my old 57 Chevy, but at some point after Chevy stopped making them, parts were harder and harder to find, as were any specific tools to work on it, replacement equipment, and so on. I can't really fault Chevy for not "supporting" me just because I'm choosing to use an ancient and obsolete product.
How long do you realistically expect a company, particularly a software company, to continue supporting a product? When is it acceptable for them to say "The product is discontinued and trying to support it is a waste of our time and money"?
resumably their only recourse would be to sue you and obtain access to your computer systems through the discovery process.
Would that even work? On what grounds would they have any right to look through your stuff? All they ever seem to have is a claim from some disgruntled worker or former worker, often anonymous. If I were a judge I think I'd have a hard time granting anything to anyone whose gripe "We think someone, somewhere, might be running some sort of software -- we're not sure what -- and it's possible they didn't pay for it. We have this information from anonymous hearsay."
So, like you, I've always wondered how the BSA even functions. They aren't law enforcement, they have no legal authority of their own, so if they show up at your door demanding to investigate your computers, what is preventing you from politely telling them to get bent?
Microsoft will be doing the opposite of the reasons listed in the TFA: forcing companies to buy their newest product (Windows 7) instead of allowing them to buy what they want (Windows XP).
My copies of Windoes 95 still run if I want them to. If people want to keep running XP, they can. Why is Microsoft under any obligation to keep selling or supporting a ten year old discontinued product? Isn't that like me whining that the car I *really* want is a car like a 1957 Chevy Bel Air, but Chevy won't allow me to buy what I want from them, instead making me buy a more modern car.
Are all Republicans opposed to all forms of regulation?
No, but it certainly seems like a lot of the loudest conservatives (note: not all conservatives are Republicans and vice versa, but people rarely make the distinction, same with liberals / Democrats) are always shouting about limited government, free capitalism, let the free market solve all our problems, and so on. Really, you need only tune into some conservative talk radio to hear these themes ad infinitum -- think Hannity, Boortz, Limbaugh, Cain, Beck, Levin, and whoever else. When your exposure to conservative ideals comes from these guys, it's easy to think that their constant pounding of the Laissez Faire Drum is a huge plank of the Republican platform. Of course, there is some truth in that, but it's not "all".
It's usually accompanied by lines like "Do you really think the government can do anything right?", but the people asking are usually happy to be protected by a government-run police, fire, and military force, drink from the municpial water supply, drive on state-constructed roads, use cellphones and GPS and other things made possible by NASA, eat food and take medicine knowing it's been inspected by the FDA and they don't need to personally inspect the farm / pharmacy, live and work in buildings that won't collapse because they've been built to government-approved codes, and so forth. Seems a strange position to take, if you ask me.
Okay, tangent over. Back to our regularly-scheduled slashdot.
Well, that sounds astoundingly useless. In a decade of being in "the real world" of work and corporate brouhaha, not once have I ever said "Working on this document sure would be easier if I had a bunch of other people trying to hog the keyboard at the same time and bickering with each other about whose revisions are better and whose turn it is to change something."
No way. When I was a waiter, dozens of people per day would hand me their credit cards. Printed on those cards is all the information necessary to make a purchase -- the issuing bank, the card number, expiration date, confirmation number on the back, hell, even their signature. And they just handed them to me! One might say they were giving me permission to view and possess all that information -- even to record it, since I had to run it through a computer that stored that information, or make an imprint of the card.
My having possession of those cards and their information was not a crime. A crime would have occured had I used that information to commit fraud, by making purchases with credentials that were not my own. There's a world of difference between having information that is not yours, and using that information.
Honestly, this type of argument is tiresome. In general if people are sharing out their entire hard drive, it is through ignorance, not because they meant to do that. Saying you had their "permission" when we all know full well that probably wasn't their intention is disingenuous at best.
This same argument gets rehashed every few months here on Slashdot when it comes to wireless APs. Some smartass invariably says "But my computer 'asked' permission by requesting dhcp and the router 'granted permission' by handing back an IP address!" Please. The owner's ignorance of proper security precautions cannot be construed as permission to run amok with their property.
Once the authorities figure that out they'll just raise the penalty for refusing to hand over your keys. I predict something absurd, like: "Look buddy, make this easy on yourself. We know you murdered the guy, but if you get convicted for that it'll only be fifteen years. If you don't give us the key, though, you're looking at thirty. What's it gonna be?"
Wait, isn't this more like police demanding you unlock a door? You can't hide evidence behind a physical lock, so why should a digital lock be different?
Is that true? Can the police demand you unlock a door, even with a warrant? I may be wrong, but I'm not sure they can demand you help them execute their warrant. You just can't get in their way. Meaning, they want access to that secured room, they have a warrant, they're allowed to try to force the door. If they can't, that's their problem. What if you're not around to give them the key, and they can't force the door -- are you responsible for their inability to access the room?
To me encryption is the same thing. You think I have illegal data on my computer and have a warrant to seize the computer. Okay, here it is. I'm not going to give you the key, but you're legally allowed to force it. If you can't, well.. tough. I gave you the computer, anything after that's your own problem.
Someone please correct me if my interpretation is completely off-base.
Well, no, most people barely understand how their computer works at all. They can kind of drag their way through Windows, but only because they only need to access a few things and they've more or less memorised where to click for those things are. Move their icons around and suddenly it's a huge crisis for them.
Additionally, many households only have one computer. Mom and Dad use the computer sometimes, then little Susie gets on and installs Limewire, accepts all the defaults, and next thing you know, Mom and Dad's files are being shared with the world.
Or maybe the person is just clueless, and doesn't understand the concept of folders and directories. They want to share their music, their music is on the hard drive, they know the hard drive is C:, so that's what they share.
Really there are any number of reasons this could happen, either from sheer idiocy, to ignorance, to total accident. Back in the the day, 2001 or so, I used to search for things like "resume.doc", or random Windows DLLs, in Kazaa, then I knew who was sharing things they probably shouldn't. Then you could do "More files from this user," or whatever the option was, and come up with all kinds of interesting stuff. Never occured to me to search for tax returns, but then, I wasn't really trying to do anything malicious either. The point is that people sharing practically their entire hard drive, without even realising it, has been going on a long, long time.
Offsetting the $35,000 you paid for the car + interest as I am sure you don't have $35,000 in cash laying around, and insurance you paid on it at the tune to $15,000 for full coverage on it for those years.
If it's down to that and some other mid-priced car that uses a conventional engine, that's still coming out on top. I don't think the idea is that the Volt will ever pay for itself in fuel savings, but if you're in the market for a new car, anyway, seems like the Volt will save you some serious cash over the alternative. For the foreseeable future a car purchase is always going to be a net loss; they lose value the second you drive them off the lot. But with a normal combustion engine you're going to be losing a lot more.
But isn't faith defined by the absence of any actual evidence? If it could be repeated, or demonstrated, or falsified, then it wouldn't be "faith", it would be "science" or at least "observation". While I may not know that the specific airplane I'm boarding is mechanically sound, it's hardly a leap of faith -- I've been on airplanes many times, and know that many millions before me have been on many thousands of them. So I can extrapolate that if this airplane was designed with the proper understanding of the mechanics involved, and has been soundly maintained, and the pilot is about as competent as any other of the thousands of pilots who are also flying, then the plane is safe.
While I personally do not interview the pilot or mechanics nor inspect the plane before boarding, I think the difference is that I could, in principle, do this. The reason I don't bother is not because I have "faith" in the plane and pilot, but because it's just too impractical -- however, the option is there for anyone sufficiently motivated.
Another good one is when a potential employer is really keen to know your previous salary.
Salary negotiations are so, so tiresome. I can't stand them. The employer already knows what they're going to offer for the job, so why not just say so, and maybe a little bit of dickering of a few percent?
I've found it best to avoid the topic indirectly. When the subject of salary comes up, I brush it off with a joke or something. "How much were you looking to make here, Mr kitten?" "Oh, ha ha, you know, something in the neighborhood of a quarter million annually with bonuses." "Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Well, we were thinking more like XXXXXX, how's that?" There, you know where you stand and you can negotiate based on that if you want. I've found this to be pretty effective, plus, a little (admittedly terrible) humor injected into the process can almost never hurt.
I am not really assuming that and I agree that the only really sure way is to do it with an unaffected box, but the guy said his father was in India. Presumably, he is not anywhere near his father, else he wouldn't have bothered mentioning that. Ergo, concordantly, vis-a-vis, and some other fancy phrases, sticking a Linux box between things isn't really an option for him, and his father is admittedly not technical so that's not something he could realistically explain how to do over the phone.
For your average doofus botnet, tcpdump or Wireshark running on the local machine will probably be okay, and realistically it doesn't sound like this guy has any other options. The only other thing he could try to do is reflash the router with some Linux firmware and attempt to use the console, but since he's doing this all remotely, that risks leaving his father high and dry if something goes wrong.
3. Other suggestions are to confirm botnet or sniff traffic - I am in the UK, and I can only do so much remotely.
Wireshark and tcpdump can both be installed on Windows. I've found it handy for such things. Have tcpdump log all traffic on your father's machine for a while, outputting to a logfile somewhere, and then get the file on your own machine and do whatever analysis you need.
Couldn't he just run Wireshark on the Windows box in question? tcpdump exists for Windows, as well -- just run it, have it dump to a logfile for an hour, and examine at your leisure.
Slashdot Mirror
Give us the option to TURN OFF THE AWESOME BAR. I'm sure many people think it's "awesome", but I believe it is a terrible pile of crap that breaks the way browsers have functioned for years, and offers absolutely zero benefits whatsoever. My typing the letter "s" does not mean the browser should assume I need a suggestion for every site I've ever been to where the URL or title might contain the letter "s" -- in fact, I can think of few assumptions more asinine.
Let us turn it the hell off. Solves the problem for people like me, solves the problem for people who want to hide porn, solves the problem for people who just plain don't like it. There is absolutely no reason this shouldn't be a one-click checkbox option, and yet there really is no way to disable it.
Unconfirmed things may or may not be included in a minor update of an operating system, according to unknown sources, perhaps. Stop the presses.
To be fair, the US had the technology to go to Mars since the first moon landing. Yes, it would have required a larger ship and better radiation shielding and more supplies, but those are not technical hurdles, they are monetary ones. Had the US actually wanted to do it, and sink the money into it, it could have been done with the technology of the era. It would have been a massive undertaking but completely feasible from a technology standpoint.
However, since the US can't get to the moon anymore at the moment, saying it has the technology or know-how to get to Mars is equally silly. Maybe in another ten years.
apparently it is not only in security that the Linux kernel is lagging by a few years.
Claiming that Windows security is better than Linux is absurd enough. Claiming that it's better than Linux "by a few years" is so outlandish that it casts doubt on everything else you said.
Actually I remember playing some games when I was really little where you had to boot from the game disk, not into DOS first. Kings Quest I -- some ancient CGA version -- comes to mind. They tended to work pretty well but they were a huge pain for exactly the reason you mentioned -- you now had essentially a game console.
What consumer glass tables are more than 4mm thick?
:)
Mine. A few years ago I got a black-glass-top desk. It's about 6 or 7mm thick, I'd guess, just eyeballing it without having done any real measuring, and it's hardly designer or anything -- just picked it up at Office Depot one day. Of course the first thing I discovered when I got it home and put the computer on it is that optical mice don't work on glass.
Someone in this thread pointed out that you could put down some paper or a mousepad, which is exactly what I do, but really it's kind of a hassle, as it limits the space in which I can move the mouse, and it's one more thing to shuffle around when I'm rearranging stuff to accomodate laptops or midi controllers or what-have-you. If these things work as well as Logitech is claiming, I'll probably get one.
For one thing, 10 pounds isn't that heavy, especially for a Marine, who is in far better shape and generally stronger than the average doofus on the street. The Marine doesn't necessarily have to throw it all that far, either -- just get it over that wall or whatever, then the robot can drive to the actual area of interest.
I found the link to starwars.com in the summary very helpful. Without that, I might not have known what Star Wars is.
I agree. Though I actually use proper spelling and grammar in text messages too (I do not, nor will I ever, tweet). Typing and IRC and IM and such will only affect your language skills if you go out of your way to type like a moron, and like you, I find it more difficult to type incorrectly than correctly. I've never understood the argument "But it's only the internet," which implies that the person in question can, when it really matters, type and spell properly. Of course, seeing their resumes, or proofreading their class papers, it quickly becomes apparant this is not the case.
The difference is that with your Chevy, people are allowed to make 3rd party parts & you are allowed to modify the car however you want - within state sanctioned parameters.
:)
You make a good point.
the law needs to have some provision to allow other people to provide that support
That's where I think it gets dicey. Right now, Windows can only be "supported" by one entity -- Microsoft. If some flaw or bug is found (heh), it's basically impossible for anyone, no matter how talented, to fix it, because it's completely closed. If that's what you mean by support, then I have to disagree, because although the product may be obsolete, much of the technology is not, and forcing Microsoft (or any other software company for that matter) to open it to any schmuck who wants to write patches and updates isn't really fair. And I feel kind of dirty for coming that close to defending Microsoft's rights.
If, however, by "support" you mean the ability to activate it once you've changed hardware, write drivers for it, and so forth, then I agree. Third parties can already write drivers for it and I don't know if they have to pay Microsoft for some sort of information, or if it's just something a talented programmer can do, but either way, it's clearly possible to do. And if Microsoft is shelving the product, then they're clearly not interested in making money from it anymore, so what do they care if people continue using it? Modify the activation server to authorise anyone who asks.
Of course they'd drag their feet and say that by doing this, no one would ever upgrade, but that's just not true -- people will upgrade eventually when applications and hardware demand it. It might not be as soon as MS would like but it'll happen.
But back to my main question -- how long is long enough, in your opinion? When does a company get to say "Enough is enough," and cease any further obligations to a product, including making sure others can modify it? Giong back to my Chevy, people were free to make their own parts for the discontinued car, but I can virtually guarantee they weren't getting the blueprints from Chevy to do so. Chevy more or less said "If you want to make parts for that car, fine, but we're through with it and while we wont' stop you, we're not going to help you either."
Of course the zealot in me has to point out that if people would use free operating systems they wouldn't have to put up with this endless stream of nonsense. Outside of a few very specific Windows-only apps that are used by a select few, I see no compelling reason for businesses to continue using Windows and dancing to Microsoft's tune, tracking licenses, putting up with the BSA, paying out the nose for eighty seven different types of CALs, and so on.
Your point is taken, but where do you draw the line? Maybe I still love my old 57 Chevy, but at some point after Chevy stopped making them, parts were harder and harder to find, as were any specific tools to work on it, replacement equipment, and so on. I can't really fault Chevy for not "supporting" me just because I'm choosing to use an ancient and obsolete product.
How long do you realistically expect a company, particularly a software company, to continue supporting a product? When is it acceptable for them to say "The product is discontinued and trying to support it is a waste of our time and money"?
resumably their only recourse would be to sue you and obtain access to your computer systems through the discovery process.
Would that even work? On what grounds would they have any right to look through your stuff? All they ever seem to have is a claim from some disgruntled worker or former worker, often anonymous. If I were a judge I think I'd have a hard time granting anything to anyone whose gripe "We think someone, somewhere, might be running some sort of software -- we're not sure what -- and it's possible they didn't pay for it. We have this information from anonymous hearsay."
So, like you, I've always wondered how the BSA even functions. They aren't law enforcement, they have no legal authority of their own, so if they show up at your door demanding to investigate your computers, what is preventing you from politely telling them to get bent?
Microsoft will be doing the opposite of the reasons listed in the TFA: forcing companies to buy their newest product (Windows 7) instead of allowing them to buy what they want (Windows XP).
My copies of Windoes 95 still run if I want them to. If people want to keep running XP, they can. Why is Microsoft under any obligation to keep selling or supporting a ten year old discontinued product? Isn't that like me whining that the car I *really* want is a car like a 1957 Chevy Bel Air, but Chevy won't allow me to buy what I want from them, instead making me buy a more modern car.
Are all Republicans opposed to all forms of regulation?
No, but it certainly seems like a lot of the loudest conservatives (note: not all conservatives are Republicans and vice versa, but people rarely make the distinction, same with liberals / Democrats) are always shouting about limited government, free capitalism, let the free market solve all our problems, and so on. Really, you need only tune into some conservative talk radio to hear these themes ad infinitum -- think Hannity, Boortz, Limbaugh, Cain, Beck, Levin, and whoever else. When your exposure to conservative ideals comes from these guys, it's easy to think that their constant pounding of the Laissez Faire Drum is a huge plank of the Republican platform. Of course, there is some truth in that, but it's not "all".
It's usually accompanied by lines like "Do you really think the government can do anything right?", but the people asking are usually happy to be protected by a government-run police, fire, and military force, drink from the municpial water supply, drive on state-constructed roads, use cellphones and GPS and other things made possible by NASA, eat food and take medicine knowing it's been inspected by the FDA and they don't need to personally inspect the farm / pharmacy, live and work in buildings that won't collapse because they've been built to government-approved codes, and so forth. Seems a strange position to take, if you ask me.
Okay, tangent over. Back to our regularly-scheduled slashdot.
Well, that sounds astoundingly useless. In a decade of being in "the real world" of work and corporate brouhaha, not once have I ever said "Working on this document sure would be easier if I had a bunch of other people trying to hog the keyboard at the same time and bickering with each other about whose revisions are better and whose turn it is to change something."
No way. When I was a waiter, dozens of people per day would hand me their credit cards. Printed on those cards is all the information necessary to make a purchase -- the issuing bank, the card number, expiration date, confirmation number on the back, hell, even their signature. And they just handed them to me! One might say they were giving me permission to view and possess all that information -- even to record it, since I had to run it through a computer that stored that information, or make an imprint of the card.
My having possession of those cards and their information was not a crime. A crime would have occured had I used that information to commit fraud, by making purchases with credentials that were not my own. There's a world of difference between having information that is not yours, and using that information.
Honestly, this type of argument is tiresome. In general if people are sharing out their entire hard drive, it is through ignorance, not because they meant to do that. Saying you had their "permission" when we all know full well that probably wasn't their intention is disingenuous at best.
This same argument gets rehashed every few months here on Slashdot when it comes to wireless APs. Some smartass invariably says "But my computer 'asked' permission by requesting dhcp and the router 'granted permission' by handing back an IP address!" Please. The owner's ignorance of proper security precautions cannot be construed as permission to run amok with their property.
Once the authorities figure that out they'll just raise the penalty for refusing to hand over your keys. I predict something absurd, like: "Look buddy, make this easy on yourself. We know you murdered the guy, but if you get convicted for that it'll only be fifteen years. If you don't give us the key, though, you're looking at thirty. What's it gonna be?"
Wait, isn't this more like police demanding you unlock a door? You can't hide evidence behind a physical lock, so why should a digital lock be different?
Is that true? Can the police demand you unlock a door, even with a warrant? I may be wrong, but I'm not sure they can demand you help them execute their warrant. You just can't get in their way. Meaning, they want access to that secured room, they have a warrant, they're allowed to try to force the door. If they can't, that's their problem. What if you're not around to give them the key, and they can't force the door -- are you responsible for their inability to access the room?
To me encryption is the same thing. You think I have illegal data on my computer and have a warrant to seize the computer. Okay, here it is. I'm not going to give you the key, but you're legally allowed to force it. If you can't, well.. tough. I gave you the computer, anything after that's your own problem.
Someone please correct me if my interpretation is completely off-base.
Well, no, most people barely understand how their computer works at all. They can kind of drag their way through Windows, but only because they only need to access a few things and they've more or less memorised where to click for those things are. Move their icons around and suddenly it's a huge crisis for them.
Additionally, many households only have one computer. Mom and Dad use the computer sometimes, then little Susie gets on and installs Limewire, accepts all the defaults, and next thing you know, Mom and Dad's files are being shared with the world.
Or maybe the person is just clueless, and doesn't understand the concept of folders and directories. They want to share their music, their music is on the hard drive, they know the hard drive is C:, so that's what they share.
Really there are any number of reasons this could happen, either from sheer idiocy, to ignorance, to total accident. Back in the the day, 2001 or so, I used to search for things like "resume.doc", or random Windows DLLs, in Kazaa, then I knew who was sharing things they probably shouldn't. Then you could do "More files from this user," or whatever the option was, and come up with all kinds of interesting stuff. Never occured to me to search for tax returns, but then, I wasn't really trying to do anything malicious either. The point is that people sharing practically their entire hard drive, without even realising it, has been going on a long, long time.
Offsetting the $35,000 you paid for the car + interest as I am sure you don't have $35,000 in cash laying around, and insurance you paid on it at the tune to $15,000 for full coverage on it for those years.
If it's down to that and some other mid-priced car that uses a conventional engine, that's still coming out on top. I don't think the idea is that the Volt will ever pay for itself in fuel savings, but if you're in the market for a new car, anyway, seems like the Volt will save you some serious cash over the alternative. For the foreseeable future a car purchase is always going to be a net loss; they lose value the second you drive them off the lot. But with a normal combustion engine you're going to be losing a lot more.
But isn't faith defined by the absence of any actual evidence? If it could be repeated, or demonstrated, or falsified, then it wouldn't be "faith", it would be "science" or at least "observation". While I may not know that the specific airplane I'm boarding is mechanically sound, it's hardly a leap of faith -- I've been on airplanes many times, and know that many millions before me have been on many thousands of them. So I can extrapolate that if this airplane was designed with the proper understanding of the mechanics involved, and has been soundly maintained, and the pilot is about as competent as any other of the thousands of pilots who are also flying, then the plane is safe.
While I personally do not interview the pilot or mechanics nor inspect the plane before boarding, I think the difference is that I could, in principle, do this. The reason I don't bother is not because I have "faith" in the plane and pilot, but because it's just too impractical -- however, the option is there for anyone sufficiently motivated.
Is that "faith"? I say no.
Another good one is when a potential employer is really keen to know your previous salary.
Salary negotiations are so, so tiresome. I can't stand them. The employer already knows what they're going to offer for the job, so why not just say so, and maybe a little bit of dickering of a few percent?
I've found it best to avoid the topic indirectly. When the subject of salary comes up, I brush it off with a joke or something. "How much were you looking to make here, Mr kitten?" "Oh, ha ha, you know, something in the neighborhood of a quarter million annually with bonuses." "Ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! Well, we were thinking more like XXXXXX, how's that?" There, you know where you stand and you can negotiate based on that if you want. I've found this to be pretty effective, plus, a little (admittedly terrible) humor injected into the process can almost never hurt.
I am not really assuming that and I agree that the only really sure way is to do it with an unaffected box, but the guy said his father was in India. Presumably, he is not anywhere near his father, else he wouldn't have bothered mentioning that. Ergo, concordantly, vis-a-vis, and some other fancy phrases, sticking a Linux box between things isn't really an option for him, and his father is admittedly not technical so that's not something he could realistically explain how to do over the phone.
For your average doofus botnet, tcpdump or Wireshark running on the local machine will probably be okay, and realistically it doesn't sound like this guy has any other options. The only other thing he could try to do is reflash the router with some Linux firmware and attempt to use the console, but since he's doing this all remotely, that risks leaving his father high and dry if something goes wrong.
3. Other suggestions are to confirm botnet or sniff traffic - I am in the UK, and I can only do so much remotely.
Wireshark and tcpdump can both be installed on Windows. I've found it handy for such things. Have tcpdump log all traffic on your father's machine for a while, outputting to a logfile somewhere, and then get the file on your own machine and do whatever analysis you need.
Couldn't he just run Wireshark on the Windows box in question? tcpdump exists for Windows, as well -- just run it, have it dump to a logfile for an hour, and examine at your leisure.