So what you're saying is that you did not manage to disprove that the OS had developed a dislike for your onboard ethernet. This is what the scripts are trying to get at a lot of the time.
All these dumb car analogies. When someone drives your car away (and brings it back before you get up in the morning), you no longer (actually do still) have access to your car....You most likely wouldn't even know about it (because maybe you don't really watch your fuel guage too closely, I know mine catches me by surprise sometimes).
And your car was used in a robbery last night, yet here you are with it at work of all places the next day. You busy boy you.
Your inability to understand technology should not impede my use of it.
They did not remove the bouncer from the door because he was not there to begin with. Just the promiscuous doorman, who didn't let them know he was a total slut. Well, with your superior understanding of technology it should be a trivial matter for you to disable security and open up your connection if you choose to do so, so why don't we make it the other way around? Let's assume that, for the good of the world, wireless routers started coming with encryption enabled by default, using a unique key in flash memory that the initial user can see on a sticker on the back of the physical unit. They can't get their connection going until they actually look at the installation pamphlet to realize there are steps involving that sequence of letters and numbers on the back. They get to learn from it, and you yourself are masterful enough to go straight in and turn that off never to be plagued by it for the life of that router, so I don't see there being a problem for anyone. Well except for the ones that throw away the pamphlet and phone you. But it might be time to look at doing just that.
If your AP/website is indistinguishable from an access point/website that is meant to be public,
Then perhaps the law should require a banner of some sort from APs intended to be for common public use. This could even be the default setting if you like, no change to current practices of those that like to give it away for free. The clueless that don't realize they should turn the banner off (since they are already clueless enough to not enable WPA) aren't legally allowed to grumble when something like this happens, and everybody wins, like the wardriving crackers looking for places to safely do nefarious deeds from.
How sure are you of that? For all we know, the kiddie porn division of the FBI is looking very closely at this house due to past activity incurred by this uninvited guest. They may not find anything on the host's computer when they come and kick the door in, but there are a lot of ways that such a situation could still go pretty bad for the owner of the router.
But this was a guy in a car parked outside the house. It's not like he was a neighbor that couldn't tell the difference between routers and didn't know any better. He had no other business to be parked there, other than to use wifi that he didn't ask permission to use. It's like he just walked into their yard to use their garden hose to wash his car, as it was there just spread 'invitingly' across the front yard from the morning's watering.
He wasn't waiting for a bus and idly checking to see if he could go on the net while he waited. He was there because he knew he could do whatever it was he needed to do on an internet connection not his own. He had probably wardrove it to begin with, it certainly wasn't a coincidental connection.
It vanished quickly because the program did respond and close, just a little late is all. But at any rate, I guess I must appologize on behalf of all mankind that software development has not reached the stage where your computer can read your mind to know exactly what you were trying to do. Sorry about that.
It shows you those dialogs for programs that have not responded to being told politely to shut down. This indicates they were still busy doing something, and you're being given the opportunity to catch your brain that almost killed the report you forgot to save before you chose to shut down. Don't click End Now if you realize that you may not have saved something important that you had open. Otherwise, click it because something got stuck but you didn't need to preserve any data. That's a LEFT click by the way.
Nice. So when all of my fellow students are packing guns, who defends me exactly? All the stressed-out/teen-angst-ridden/misfit/jock/random- psycho students around me? Yeah sign me up for classes... in some other country. Fortunately I'm already there.
to be honest we don't want to create a brainlike computer.
And it's not only because the primary motivation is to overcome human failings with regard to decision making. We also don't want fully brainlike computers because they would want things like we want, such as freedom to choose whether they will bother to try solving your problem for you or not. They must remain tools, and if they can have our level of consciousness they would need to be kept as slaves. A tool cannot be allowed to argue about being shut down arbitrarily, or used for a given task on demand. It might even start sabotaging its output in a suicide bid. They would not be terribly useful if they were similar enough to us.
That's great, so when you're doing something that you feel really needs to be done, such as protecting your computer from the nasty botnet it is reportedly a part of, or your email will be cut off, you'll click through those prompts to get that patch in. Well maybe not you personally, but you and I are not the common masses.
Vista has the "Cancel or Allow" thingy going now. Do they need to extend it, would that really help?
"Hmm I need to run this patch like the email says, well here goes:"
[Attention, you might be about to bork your computer with this action, Cancel or Allow?]
"Umm... Well the email seems pretty insistant, I better still do it.. ALLOW"
Not that I wish to defend MS, but I'll offer a bad car analogy anyhow. GM makes no attempt to prevent me from playing a live version of GTA with my car. So if I feel like being a plague on society by such an action, I guess GM is to blame for enabling this activity, right? I mean, they know people can go crazy behind the wheel, but have they made any effort to implement sensors that can determine that I'm a flipped-out lunatic and disable the vehicle? No, they have not, this clearly is negligence on their part.
Oh but Linux and Mac are more secure right, so what's Microsoft's problem? No, they are more obscure and so not lucrative enough as botnets, not worth the bother. This exploit relies on the stupidity of the person getting the email, what is MS supposed to do about that exactly?
it's typically not a public service if you charge money for something
So the database would be okay to exist if it could live on buttons and smiles then? How about the universities run it then, for 'no profit' and jack up everybody's tuition to pay for the needed infrastructure?
They are not making money off of your work. They are making money off of ensuring that your work remains unique in that only your name will ever be able to be attributed to it. Isn't that good?
does nothing but drive to a preposterous conclusion led along by a sequence of ridiculous events.
The movie from 1962 called "The 300 Spartans" is that without the eye candy. Yeah that's right, Frank Miller didn't make this up. I take it the reviewer has not heard of Google.
I've got a similar environment where I work. But I happen to be posting to Slashdot from there right now, so it's not all that bad. Most forums are blocked however, which is maddening when a google search for a tech problem turns up very promising looking hits that are all in blocked forums. Quite a few times I've been stalled trying to find information that I would have ready at my fingertips if I'd been working from home instead.
If you have to resort to a book to figure out what WordPad or Paint is, perhaps you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place...
I've got news for you: Somewhere along the line, somebody let all of those people think it's their right to use one anyway. And it's your job to keep it working in spite of their willful ignorance. That makes a book like this quite necessary, and I hope it does well.
Slashdot Mirror
So what you're saying is that you did not manage to disprove that the OS had developed a dislike for your onboard ethernet. This is what the scripts are trying to get at a lot of the time.
Parentheses mine:
...You most likely wouldn't even know about it (because maybe you don't really watch your fuel guage too closely, I know mine catches me by surprise sometimes).
All these dumb car analogies. When someone drives your car away (and brings it back before you get up in the morning), you no longer (actually do still) have access to your car.
And your car was used in a robbery last night, yet here you are with it at work of all places the next day. You busy boy you.
Your inability to understand technology should not impede my use of it.
They did not remove the bouncer from the door because he was not there to begin with. Just the promiscuous doorman, who didn't let them know he was a total slut. Well, with your superior understanding of technology it should be a trivial matter for you to disable security and open up your connection if you choose to do so, so why don't we make it the other way around? Let's assume that, for the good of the world, wireless routers started coming with encryption enabled by default, using a unique key in flash memory that the initial user can see on a sticker on the back of the physical unit. They can't get their connection going until they actually look at the installation pamphlet to realize there are steps involving that sequence of letters and numbers on the back. They get to learn from it, and you yourself are masterful enough to go straight in and turn that off never to be plagued by it for the life of that router, so I don't see there being a problem for anyone. Well except for the ones that throw away the pamphlet and phone you. But it might be time to look at doing just that.
If your AP/website is indistinguishable from an access point/website that is meant to be public,
Then perhaps the law should require a banner of some sort from APs intended to be for common public use. This could even be the default setting if you like, no change to current practices of those that like to give it away for free. The clueless that don't realize they should turn the banner off (since they are already clueless enough to not enable WPA) aren't legally allowed to grumble when something like this happens, and everybody wins, like the wardriving crackers looking for places to safely do nefarious deeds from.
Dammit, realized just as I hit Submit, it's the UK, it's not the FBI there, but whatever, same kinda guys.
not even causing any harm.
How sure are you of that? For all we know, the kiddie porn division of the FBI is looking very closely at this house due to past activity incurred by this uninvited guest. They may not find anything on the host's computer when they come and kick the door in, but there are a lot of ways that such a situation could still go pretty bad for the owner of the router.
But this was a guy in a car parked outside the house. It's not like he was a neighbor that couldn't tell the difference between routers and didn't know any better. He had no other business to be parked there, other than to use wifi that he didn't ask permission to use. It's like he just walked into their yard to use their garden hose to wash his car, as it was there just spread 'invitingly' across the front yard from the morning's watering.
He wasn't waiting for a bus and idly checking to see if he could go on the net while he waited. He was there because he knew he could do whatever it was he needed to do on an internet connection not his own. He had probably wardrove it to begin with, it certainly wasn't a coincidental connection.
It vanished quickly because the program did respond and close, just a little late is all. But at any rate, I guess I must appologize on behalf of all mankind that software development has not reached the stage where your computer can read your mind to know exactly what you were trying to do. Sorry about that.
It shows you those dialogs for programs that have not responded to being told politely to shut down. This indicates they were still busy doing something, and you're being given the opportunity to catch your brain that almost killed the report you forgot to save before you chose to shut down. Don't click End Now if you realize that you may not have saved something important that you had open. Otherwise, click it because something got stuck but you didn't need to preserve any data. That's a LEFT click by the way.
Defenseless Victim Zones
- psycho students around me? Yeah sign me up for classes... in some other country. Fortunately I'm already there.
Nice. So when all of my fellow students are packing guns, who defends me exactly? All the stressed-out/teen-angst-ridden/misfit/jock/random
to be honest we don't want to create a brainlike computer.
And it's not only because the primary motivation is to overcome human failings with regard to decision making. We also don't want fully brainlike computers because they would want things like we want, such as freedom to choose whether they will bother to try solving your problem for you or not. They must remain tools, and if they can have our level of consciousness they would need to be kept as slaves. A tool cannot be allowed to argue about being shut down arbitrarily, or used for a given task on demand. It might even start sabotaging its output in a suicide bid. They would not be terribly useful if they were similar enough to us.
My Mac confirms such things with me,
That's great, so when you're doing something that you feel really needs to be done, such as protecting your computer from the nasty botnet it is reportedly a part of, or your email will be cut off, you'll click through those prompts to get that patch in. Well maybe not you personally, but you and I are not the common masses.
Vista has the "Cancel or Allow" thingy going now. Do they need to extend it, would that really help?
"Hmm I need to run this patch like the email says, well here goes:"
[Attention, you might be about to bork your computer with this action, Cancel or Allow?]
"Umm... Well the email seems pretty insistant, I better still do it.. ALLOW"
[Are you sure about that?]
"YES"
[Are you REALLY sure??]
"YES"
[Honest and for true?]
"YES"
Where should it stop?
Not that I wish to defend MS, but I'll offer a bad car analogy anyhow. GM makes no attempt to prevent me from playing a live version of GTA with my car. So if I feel like being a plague on society by such an action, I guess GM is to blame for enabling this activity, right? I mean, they know people can go crazy behind the wheel, but have they made any effort to implement sensors that can determine that I'm a flipped-out lunatic and disable the vehicle? No, they have not, this clearly is negligence on their part.
Oh but Linux and Mac are more secure right, so what's Microsoft's problem? No, they are more obscure and so not lucrative enough as botnets, not worth the bother. This exploit relies on the stupidity of the person getting the email, what is MS supposed to do about that exactly?
And so this is why you copied and pasted it anyhow, and took the time to post about it?
it's typically not a public service if you charge money for something
So the database would be okay to exist if it could live on buttons and smiles then? How about the universities run it then, for 'no profit' and jack up everybody's tuition to pay for the needed infrastructure?
They are not making money off of your work. They are making money off of ensuring that your work remains unique in that only your name will ever be able to be attributed to it. Isn't that good?
Of course I know it goes back to ancient history, but what's the point of mentioning that when they can't even go back within our own bloody century?
does nothing but drive to a preposterous conclusion led along by a sequence of ridiculous events.
The movie from 1962 called "The 300 Spartans" is that without the eye candy. Yeah that's right, Frank Miller didn't make this up. I take it the reviewer has not heard of Google.
I've got a similar environment where I work. But I happen to be posting to Slashdot from there right now, so it's not all that bad. Most forums are blocked however, which is maddening when a google search for a tech problem turns up very promising looking hits that are all in blocked forums. Quite a few times I've been stalled trying to find information that I would have ready at my fingertips if I'd been working from home instead.
Nah, once the -2 didn'tseeJurassicPark mod comes in this will sort itself out just fine.
Just speaking for myself, but I can't remember the last time I actually *finished* a project. ;)
Come on now, I'm pretty sure the Serpent in the Garden did not offer Adam time with the photocopier.
No, it's Crab People!
If you have to resort to a book to figure out what WordPad or Paint is, perhaps you shouldn't be using a computer in the first place...
I've got news for you: Somewhere along the line, somebody let all of those people think it's their right to use one anyway. And it's your job to keep it working in spite of their willful ignorance. That makes a book like this quite necessary, and I hope it does well.
The phone that conforms to your face! ...with 4 microphones like the others have, plus a 5th mic for those hard-to-hear conversations.