If usability is defined as letting anything do whatever it wants at any time without the users knowledge on a system then I suppose running as admin would solve that problem.
Actually my strategy is to minimize down time in the event a system gets infected. Using anti-virus as a strategy will make that down time much longer than simply not running as admin.
Your point that a person can still get a virus when not running as admin is moot since the exact could be said for the person running anti-virus software. But if a person is not running as admin the damage is greatly mitigated. Not to mention your chance of getting one are greatly mitigated also since it is more difficult to exploit a limited account than a full admin account.
What software needs full control of a system? And why? Those are questions one should ask when managing any type of system
Between my job, some side work and friends and family I manage close to 70 Windows machines. I have been doing IT since 1992.
When I am asked this question my answer is always this. None. I think antivirus is more trouble than it is worth. First any new viruses will be undetected, second the pain of actually running anti virus outweighs any marginal benefit received from it.
Of course this answer immediately creates a follow up question... Well then what do you do?
The best way to protect yourself is to run as NON - ADMIN. That's it. A coworker recently got a virus and I simply logged in as admin and ran a free online virus scan. It found his problem and removed it.
I'm pretty sure there's a generally-worded fraud law or something somewhere on the books that would catch this since these guys are basically waiting until you buy one thing and then without knowledge or consent billing you for a second thing.
The problem is the pop-up or whatever says something like "Would you also like salsa with your chips? (we'll ship a new jar every month)" and when you click "yes" you are aware of it and are also consenting to it.
Interesting how there's articles about Webkit constantly but it doesn't really have much penetration.
yeah like Linux.
Don't get me wrong, I am not slamming Linux, I am showing the weakness of your argument. I love Webkit because if I get my code working properly with webkit then it is almost assuredly going to work everywhere else. And I like that.
If I write my code to something that is most ideally in line with the "standard", or most "standards compliant" then tweaking for the non compliant browsers will be greatly mitigated.
So I would suggest we all develop with the browser we feel most closely represents the direction we would like to see the web move and build our edge cases after the primary development is done.
You seem to miss my point, and also you make my point. If my child destroys your property the question of negligence/responsibility you cede is asked of the parents which is my point. The fact that degree is considered doesn't invalidate the responsibility.
mosb1000 said this and I am reposting so that others will have an opportunity to read it. For some reason it has been marked as Flamebait, which it most certainly is not. Looks like some of the moderators today are particularly keen on censoring.
Secular schools teach children a lot of non-Biblical things besides evolution and geology (if those things even are non-Biblical, I've read the Bible more than once and I don't think they are).
First and foremost, by handing you children off to someone you don't even know, you are teaching your children that you don't care about them and that you are not concerned about their well being. This sets the stage for greater struggles later in life. As we move into adulthood, gaining self-sufficiency will mean severing all bonds to our parents (as dependency was the only remaining bond). The Bible, by contrast, teaches us that parents should love their children, and that children should respect their parents. So yeah, school turns this one on it's head.
Moreover, you are putting your child in and environment where they receive minimal adult attention and are expected to perform. They are taught that their value as a person is dependent on their academic performance, and they are held to a standard that most cannot meet. As a result, many children are told that they are worthless, simply because they are not proficient at math or reading or some other thing. This contradicts the Bible, which teaches that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that each one of us has something unique to contribute, and that God loves every one of us.
Finally, school teaches objectification. It teaches us that our own value is only in what we can provide for others, and that others are valuable only because of what they can do for us. Students learn to form social hierarchies where they use lies and rumors and gossip to gain advantage over each other. Later, boys learn to lie to girls in order to use them to satisfy sexual urges, while girls learn to submit to that treatment in order to feel valuable. In contrast, the Bible teaches that people have intrinsic value, and that we should not do things out of selfishness or vain conceit, but rather that we should build each other up and take each others burdens while carrying our own loads.
These are fundamental christian values, and a christian parent needs to be directly involved in their child's life in order to teach them. If you have the time to home-school, that is ideal. I think it's also possible to teach good values to a child who is in school, as long as you spend a lot of time with them outside school.
If you've ever attended a school, then you should understand that there are a lot of good reasons you may want to keep your children out of it. I think that those reasons are much more important than trying to enforce some kind of universalized information distribution scheme. Children don't learn much about those subjects in school anyway (they mostly learn about the kinds of things I've discussed above).
They think their children are clay that they must mold according to their beliefs.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed. Let me say it slowly. You want to compel parents to teach their children what you want ("real truth"). I say parents can make those decisions themselves.
Here's your first lesson in Human Rights: YOUR CHILDREN ARE **NOT** YOUR PROPERTY
Children are not anyones property but their care is the RESPONSIBILITY of the parent, not you (unless you are the parent). This is not a question of who's property are they it is a question of who is responsible for them. If my child destroys your property it is my responsibility. Not because they are my property, but rather because I am responsible for them.
your ideas are just plain silly. Adults can expose themselves to whatever ideas they want. But they can not compel other adults to expose their children to those same ideas.
Interesting, but not insightful. Sounds like you have made the decision for everyone, and we should be asking you what we should think and not think. I assume when you say "real information" you mean information you approve of. Maybe you could be some kind of super parent. Can I call you to see if you think I should take my kids to the museum. I mean I wouldn't want them to get any "fake information". Sorry for the caustic tone but your post scares me.
Chrome is particularly loathed by IT departments because you can download it, install it, and run it as a user because the program only installs to the user's application directory.
Think of that, a web browser that runs in user space. Seems like it should be loved by competent IT depatments.
>Mac is still, and long will be the favorite computer of most graphicians/artists.
What are you saying? That people who engage in fantasy, and who have a preference for style over substance prefer Apple products?
You are not making any sense. The OP said the Mac is favored amongst graphic artists. Where did he say they engage in fantasy? Where did he say they prefer style over substance.
It seems that is what YOU are saying, which is inflammatory.
There must be a reason other than 'Photoshop'.
Perhaps the OS? That does it for me, but I am not a graphic artist.
I had a similar idea for mailing lists. The basic idea would be to have the mail server generate a unique (via inserting random spaces line feeds etc.) message to every subscriber. Then if that message gets cross posted you have a method to help identify who posted it.
Slashdot Mirror
If usability is defined as letting anything do whatever it wants at any time without the users knowledge on a system then I suppose running as admin would solve that problem.
Actually my strategy is to minimize down time in the event a system gets infected. Using anti-virus as a strategy will make that down time much longer than simply not running as admin.
Your point that a person can still get a virus when not running as admin is moot since the exact could be said for the person running anti-virus software. But if a person is not running as admin the damage is greatly mitigated. Not to mention your chance of getting one are greatly mitigated also since it is more difficult to exploit a limited account than a full admin account.
What software needs full control of a system? And why? Those are questions one should ask when managing any type of system
Your comment validates my point. It does work. It makes software difficult to install. Virus work best when they are easily installed.
Between my job, some side work and friends and family I manage close to 70 Windows machines. I have been doing IT since 1992.
When I am asked this question my answer is always this. None. I think antivirus is more trouble than it is worth. First any new viruses will be undetected, second the pain of actually running anti virus outweighs any marginal benefit received from it.
Of course this answer immediately creates a follow up question... Well then what do you do?
The best way to protect yourself is to run as NON - ADMIN. That's it. A coworker recently got a virus and I simply logged in as admin and ran a free online virus scan. It found his problem and removed it.
Yes, but do you get the fact that I'm just trolling?
Got it now. I bit, you win.
Don't worry, I'm sure your precious will be wonderful and magical.
My wife and I do have 6 wonderful children, they are all precious, they are all magical. Are those the "precious" that you are refering to?
So you at least get the fact that the OS that will be running on the iPad was designed for a small screen.
The OS sucks on small screens
Now thats the part the tells me you have no idea what you are talking about.
The OS was designed for small screens. And is being used on a larger screen.
When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.
When you do the giving thats great. When that giving is compelled then it aint so great.
I'm pretty sure there's a generally-worded fraud law or something somewhere on the books that would catch this since these guys are basically waiting until you buy one thing and then without knowledge or consent billing you for a second thing.
The problem is the pop-up or whatever says something like "Would you also like salsa with your chips? (we'll ship a new jar every month)" and when you click "yes" you are aware of it and are also consenting to it.
-- Home theater gear from Best Buy is low grade dog food.
Offtopic but I am wondering...
Not being a dog myself, how does one grade dogfood.
Interesting how there's articles about Webkit constantly but it doesn't really have much penetration.
yeah like Linux.
Don't get me wrong, I am not slamming Linux, I am showing the weakness of your argument. I love Webkit because if I get my code working properly with webkit then it is almost assuredly going to work everywhere else. And I like that.
If I write my code to something that is most ideally in line with the "standard", or most "standards compliant" then tweaking for the non compliant browsers will be greatly mitigated.
So I would suggest we all develop with the browser we feel most closely represents the direction we would like to see the web move and build our edge cases after the primary development is done.
wooooosh
You seem to miss my point, and also you make my point. If my child destroys your property the question of negligence/responsibility you cede is asked of the parents which is my point. The fact that degree is considered doesn't invalidate the responsibility.
Well, incest is wrong.
mosb1000 said this and I am reposting so that others will have an opportunity to read it. For some reason it has been marked as Flamebait, which it most certainly is not. Looks like some of the moderators today are particularly keen on censoring.
Secular schools teach children a lot of non-Biblical things besides evolution and geology (if those things even are non-Biblical, I've read the Bible more than once and I don't think they are).
First and foremost, by handing you children off to someone you don't even know, you are teaching your children that you don't care about them and that you are not concerned about their well being. This sets the stage for greater struggles later in life. As we move into adulthood, gaining self-sufficiency will mean severing all bonds to our parents (as dependency was the only remaining bond). The Bible, by contrast, teaches us that parents should love their children, and that children should respect their parents. So yeah, school turns this one on it's head.
Moreover, you are putting your child in and environment where they receive minimal adult attention and are expected to perform. They are taught that their value as a person is dependent on their academic performance, and they are held to a standard that most cannot meet. As a result, many children are told that they are worthless, simply because they are not proficient at math or reading or some other thing. This contradicts the Bible, which teaches that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that each one of us has something unique to contribute, and that God loves every one of us.
Finally, school teaches objectification. It teaches us that our own value is only in what we can provide for others, and that others are valuable only because of what they can do for us. Students learn to form social hierarchies where they use lies and rumors and gossip to gain advantage over each other. Later, boys learn to lie to girls in order to use them to satisfy sexual urges, while girls learn to submit to that treatment in order to feel valuable. In contrast, the Bible teaches that people have intrinsic value, and that we should not do things out of selfishness or vain conceit, but rather that we should build each other up and take each others burdens while carrying our own loads.
These are fundamental christian values, and a christian parent needs to be directly involved in their child's life in order to teach them. If you have the time to home-school, that is ideal. I think it's also possible to teach good values to a child who is in school, as long as you spend a lot of time with them outside school.
If you've ever attended a school, then you should understand that there are a lot of good reasons you may want to keep your children out of it. I think that those reasons are much more important than trying to enforce some kind of universalized information distribution scheme. Children don't learn much about those subjects in school anyway (they mostly learn about the kinds of things I've discussed above).
They think their children are clay that they must mold according to their beliefs.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed. Let me say it slowly. You want to compel parents to teach their children what you want ("real truth"). I say parents can make those decisions themselves.
Here's your first lesson in Human Rights: YOUR CHILDREN ARE **NOT** YOUR PROPERTY
Children are not anyones property but their care is the RESPONSIBILITY of the parent, not you (unless you are the parent). This is not a question of who's property are they it is a question of who is responsible for them. If my child destroys your property it is my responsibility. Not because they are my property, but rather because I am responsible for them.
Mod parent insightful
your ideas are just plain silly. Adults can expose themselves to whatever ideas they want. But they can not compel other adults to expose their children to those same ideas.
Interesting, but not insightful. Sounds like you have made the decision for everyone, and we should be asking you what we should think and not think. I assume when you say "real information" you mean information you approve of. Maybe you could be some kind of super parent. Can I call you to see if you think I should take my kids to the museum. I mean I wouldn't want them to get any "fake information". Sorry for the caustic tone but your post scares me.
Chrome is particularly loathed by IT departments because you can download it, install it, and run it as a user because the program only installs to the user's application directory.
Think of that, a web browser that runs in user space. Seems like it should be loved by competent IT depatments.
I would guess that the 1st gen was/is just as accurate as the 3rd gen.
But you can build your straw man. They are easier to tear down that way.
>Mac is still, and long will be the favorite computer of most graphicians/artists.
What are you saying? That people who engage in fantasy, and who have a preference for style over substance prefer Apple products?
You are not making any sense. The OP said the Mac is favored amongst graphic artists. Where did he say they engage in fantasy? Where did he say they prefer style over substance.
It seems that is what YOU are saying, which is inflammatory.
There must be a reason other than 'Photoshop'.
Perhaps the OS? That does it for me, but I am not a graphic artist.
It may not replace studio computers where you sit in front of 22" professional screen
22", Seems a bit small. 30", now thats more like it. The "smallest" iMac is 21.5"
Wow you are really smart. Thanks for letting us know. But what is this "Anonymous Coward" bit?
However, any DRM scheme needs to be common to all publishers, all resellers and all reader devices.
I would also like to fly walk and sleep at the same time.
I had a similar idea for mailing lists. The basic idea would be to have the mail server generate a unique (via inserting random spaces line feeds etc.) message to every subscriber. Then if that message gets cross posted you have a method to help identify who posted it.