Login with username and password (forgot your password?)

Thanks to henriko for sharing a fix, and LonelyPixel for creating and sharing a build including the fix. I really still haven't even had time to fix my own copy...

@LonelyPixel - If you like, I can add the link to your build to the first post so it's easier for people to find...else it might get lost back here on page 19. I'm still getting about 9 Emails a week about that bugg...So there's a huge calling for it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22347199

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA...82931&section=1206828

http://www.cbsnews.com/83...-air-base-in-afghanistan/

http://www.foxnews.com/wo...rash-at-bagram-air-field/

It appears to be all over the news ... What am I missing?

It was on the ABC news here the other day (when it happened).

[desktop as a service]

@40hz - Yepper scares me to.

Apparently Mohoro will be a way to use the Windows desktop in a software-as-a-service way, dubbed "desktop as a service."

Behold! ...Windows DaaStardly.

Now ^that's^ an interesting idea! Players could then stop at various points to watch an xSec "commercial" to gain life/energy for continued game play.

My guess is that Pay-Pal's "Log Me In" will probably be a sight better in terms of security than the others, given the nature of Pay-Pal's business model and their already-in-use encryption and other security measures. However, the only log-me-in I've used is Facebook's. And only for site's where security isn't paramount (Goodreads, for example).

No no ... I wasn't trying to critique their ability to secure the service properly. I'm just pondering aloud the strategic wisdom in using that type of (SSO) service. Doesn't matter if it's PP, FB, or MS Live ... If the reward for breaching the target is that great - due to the ubiquitous nature of the exposure - It just strikes me as a dangerously tempting target.

I'm with Tomos, the text needs to be more eye-catching. Also maybe split it up so the second paragraph appears below the add to better "outline" the problem area..

Additionally, can we add a sound file that plays a blood curdling scream on mouseover ... Or is that going too far?

I can't help but wonder if these "Identity Solutions" don't make it easier to steal someone's identity. I mean look at the prevailing wisdom of not reusing passwords...how is this (global use identity account thing) really any different then using the same username and password for all of the shopping sites you've been to?

Frankly, it strikes me as being worse because at least with (granted incredibly foolish) reuse of passwords an ID thief is still restricted to using only the sites you've gone to. With this new "improvement" the thief can just go anywhere that accepts the service. All of the guesswork to see where your silly ass has setup a now exploitable account is totally eliminated.

[She sent us a fax]

We learned first thing next day that we wouldn't be getting the contract. She sent us a fax.

ROFLMFAO   ...But you have to admit, she is half right. Everybody in IT related fields has a FB account ... Because it is only the people that truly are in IT that know better.. 

Yeah, I want to see this too. I was never all that worried about the memory usage, but MS Sec Essentials chews through a lot of cpu for me especially when booting.

Strange, I've never noticed it ... But then again I seldom reboot.

I think over all most of these test are inherently flawed in their attempt to pinpoint specific resource usage numbers at key (idle/scanning) points. When the true measure is really more a question of how deeply does the AV insinuate itself into everything? I frequently see processes that appear to be hogging resources, but in reality they're just fighting with the (chronically over zealous) AV to get loaded into memory.

Norton may indeed be able to claim good resource usage numbers ... But I've yet to see a machine that didn't run 10 times better after it was removed...because they just fiddle with stuff to much.

It would be nice to see Raymond do a follow up comparing cpu usage.

Me too ... I tend to worry about the validity of any test that Norton doesn't fail.

There is a way to disable it in Windows, but I just can't remember how to do it....

It used to be on the view tab of folder options. Now its a Group Policy thing, or a registry edit on the home editions.

http://superuser.com/ques...ndows-vista-and-windows-7

But this is besides the point.  Leave this thread for people that want ACL disabled.  Obviously you are not one of them

That's true, I'm not. However I am a systems guy, programmer, and quite capable of effecting a solution if I feel that there is a legitimate (e.g. non malicious) need/use for it. Enjoy you thread...I'm done.

I don't think the viral problem is that bad.  Most viruses are spread through social engineering.  Only 3 in a decade were spread through Windows vulnerabilities, and then only if you weren't behind a NAT router.

I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but there were definitely (many) more than 3 exploited holes in Windows. Not to mention that drivebys (infected banner/ad servers) are and have been quite common for a while. To the point where there really aren't any "safe" sites ...Everybody gets a turn in the barrel as the saying goes.

Also, viruses spread through a land of fully ACL'd computers.

Yes, but those are the ones which have users with administrative rights, UAC turned off, and some pathetic attempt at a babysitter security suite AV program running (and failing) at full tilt. The bugg, when encountered executes in the context of the current user...with all of the rights and privileges that said user has. These scenario never end well...but they do pay well. ...We had two customers that actually called the FBI when that screen popped up, a third called me first to see if they should call the Feds.

On the other hand...Reduced permissions work perfectly, if the user doesn't have permission to break the machine...then neither does the bugg. I just doesn't get any simpler.

4 looks nice, and could be keyboard friendly if set to advance by 1 by default, and then advance by 10 of you hold shift (or some other accelerator key). Biggest issue is usually boring the user to death with the setting crawling across the screen with the +1 default increment (I'm guessing based on what annoys me ), so maybe reverse the above with a +/- 5 default movement and a pres shift + arrow for more granular +/- 1 movement.

(meaning lost in translation) Which only server to clarify why phone support is so painfully difficult these days.

IIRC the _MACOSX folder contains the file system fork content/files that Windows doesn't/can't use and Mac's assimilate back into the file system object at the other end transparently.

I dunno, I kinda disagree with the Printing thing. I print a series of the most important emails with detailed info going on especially to use as checklists and bringing with me to meetings. (See the GTD thread - the unmentioned half of my Notebook of Doom) is email threads which quite often end up stapled into a series with other items such as matching return receipt green postal slips etc.

So that one is more of a "cut down" thing for me, rather than "why on earth would you ever" from the article.

There used to be a problem here with people romping into my office with a printed Email and a question. The problem went away awhile back when I got feed up with it and decided to react "honestly" to this behavior a few times... ...Now they get forwarded with a question attached (which is typically "is this spam"..). That (I believe) is the problem group to which the article refers.

Your situation is different. But I've run across that type of need before. However to mitigate my general distain for hard copy I'll usually either paste together multiple key point emails into a single sheet. Or if the context is critical hit reply to an Email so it can be edited and add notes in a different font color so it's easy to see who said what, and then print it to a PDF and/or save the email as file in the project/client folder. The last bit is particularly handy for documenting license keys since nobody ever seems to be able to find "the box" 4 years later when their system explodes.

Okay, I'm speechless.

That's basically the equivalent of giving your computer AIDS ... Because the slightest hint of a bug will simply kill the then completely defenseless machine.

Zoiks! Thanks f0dder.

On a brighter note, that should be short work for a medium sized hammer.

Granted I could be nutz... But I don't think the controller swap trick works on a failed SSD. I seem to recall reading somewhere that the which sections are weak/failed logic was part of the storage chip itself. So the controller could still be fine while the actual data chip has written itself off (so to speak). *Shrug* ...This could be a f0dder question.

Anytime a client's drive has failed to an extent that it cannot be electronically burned, the only option is physical destruction of the drive.

The printers are the same brand and model and have the same driver.  This pool is not in a stationary setting.  I mix and match the computers and printers all of the time

That strikes me as rather odd, you should be able to just modify to ports as needed to add/subtract devices from the pool. If it's a PCL driver and a network port the driver is quite oblivious to the target. Especially if you use the (non-UPD) Vista driver so it isn't trying to do the bidirectional auto configuration chat crap all the time.

I have scoured the internet and have not found anything quite like waht I want.  I am told Mac has a built in system for this.  But I am using windows computers

PCL is PCL, reguardless of the OS. PCL gets the job to the print device and the embeded PJL handles how many times what happens next.


Just out of curiosity... Why are you (I am assuming) trying to speed up the printing of a single page job with printer pooling? It would be much simpler/cheaper to just get a single printer that prints faster.

Samual Adams Alpine Spring ale

Also +1 w/4wd when he recommends using UNC. Mapped network drives can be fussy at the best of times. And with the advent of ActiveDirectory and their new security model, Microsoft now recommends that you use UNC for accessing network shares rather than mapped drives.

That strikes me as quite odd, considering a single GP mapped drive letter to a domain DFS root makes a myriad of problems vanish instantly. Why would anyone want to go back to the administrative overhead of tending multiple (saved UNC) shortcuts...it strikes me as the worst of both worlds.

The time I called MSoft's tech support with a similar issue I was told mapped drives were considered "legacy" and were kept mostly for compatibility reasons. UNC and FQDNs were where it was going. So I assumed that was MSoft's official position rather than just the tech's opinion - but maybe it was? Have you heard otherwise?

I'd have to go with Tech's Opinion...if only from an administrative stand point. Walking a (stereotypical...) end user through \\anything is painfully time consuming. But telling them to go to (GP initiated mapped) drive X: and clicking on whatever-they-lookin-for is freaking cake...especially if you can remotely stuff any DFS link into said target before they get there..

I ain't givin' that up without a fight.

At this point I think the issue is likely being caused by a group policy setting.

Usually when you're having trouble connecting to a share it's caused by an encryption or other security setting. You'll run into that problem with Win7 connections to old Win2K servers sometimes.

Take a look at the connection specs and details on your server. If you gave an old version if Samba, the increased security Win7 looks for might be the problem.

LM/NTLM vs. NTLMv2? There was mention of that in one of the articles a ran across in a quick google (For Mapped Drive Red X), it also stated that a VB script (and I suspect a .cmd) would execute more reliably than a standard batch file would.

[I want to print more than one copy]

1)  When I have the two printers connected, and the print pooling set up and I want to print more than one copy of a document.  The print pool sends them all to printer 1, instead of distributing the documents between the printers.  If I go in a do a reprint it generally sends the reprint to the second printer.

That behavior is by design, as you are requesting 2 copies of a single print job...not 2 print jobs of 1 copy. The data is only sent to the pool (and selected target printer) with a PCL command that says make X copies. The printers don't share work with each other, they just do what they're told from the above "command" pool.