5476
Living Room / Re: Fixed my network - The Hard Way
« Last post by Stoic Joker on February 28, 2010, 01:28 PM »IceSword looks interesting - But it appears to have fallen off the planet back in 2007. Is the Project/Author still active?
Recent Posts
As for 64-bit OS's my experience is somewhat limited - to less than one week. What I can say is that I'm unable to use Visual Studio 2008 on that platform to actively develop CD as should I try to load the Main Settings dialog, Visual Studio crashes with an "out of memory" fault (and that's on a 4GiB machine). Instead I use a 2GiB 32-bit machine and that same dialog loads faultlessly (and with oodles of memory to spare). So, from my experience, running 32-bit applications on a 64-bit platform is not ideal hence my decision to release a 64-bit version of CD.That is odd, as I'm still heavily using VS 2005 on Win7 x64 on a daily basis and it's never blinked. Both T-Clock32 & x64 were developed with VS 2005 on Vista x64 (back when), using two different project files that pointed at the same source pool.-Markham (February 24, 2010, 11:20 PM)
As for 64-bit applications requiring more memory, you're probably correct however the extra amount of memory CD-64 requires (over CD-32) is negligible but CD-64 does seem considerably more responsive than CD-32 on either a 32-bit or 64-bit platform (assuming the CPUs are of equivalent speed).I keep reading this (assuming I'm missing something) wondering how you're getting CD64 to run on a 32-bit platform - That's not supposed to be possible.
(Ah, yes, Progress hobbled by lawyers & red tape) Now there's a sadly acurate analogy for a lot of what's happening these days...why would I pay someone to "reinvent the same wheel" over and over?Because that's the only way you'll ever get a better wheel with a rubber tire instead of just the same old stone disk with a hole in it.-zridling (February 21, 2010, 10:57 AM)-Stoic Joker (February 21, 2010, 01:08 PM)
Unless, of course, somebody has previously obtained a patent for a "round object which rotates on a central axis" in which case you're stuck with the old wheel until the patent holder decides to put a rubber tire on it.
-40hz (February 24, 2010, 06:12 AM)
While I can't quite put my finger on it ... There is just something about the U3 (smart?) drives that make me want to run screaming from the room.Add me to the list of folks requesting a portable version. I've been using Xteq's Xfind for doing basic string searches in server log files (4+ Gig of plain text) etc. ...But this looks way cooler.Is portable version that can be installed on U3 smart drive only an appropriate solution?-Stoic Joker (February 16, 2010, 06:53 PM)-Cashper (February 17, 2010, 02:30 PM)
I like my drives dumb, predictable, and cooperative - As apposed to trying to guess what I need and out thinking me.Desktop Icon Toy
http://www.idesksoft.com/-AndyM (February 22, 2010, 06:46 PM)
Certainly seems like the logical way to do it, but it's much easier said than done.-Stephen66515 (February 21, 2010, 01:12 PM)
why would I pay someone to "reinvent the same wheel" over and over?Because that's the only way you'll ever get a better wheel with a rubber tire instead of just the same old stone disk with a hole in it.-zridling (February 21, 2010, 10:57 AM)
it might be possible by specifying non-real FROM info, and using your real email only in the "REPLY-TO" field.Doesn't quite guarantee it, but is awfully close. Forged headers require either an open relay, or relay permissions. Neither is a stellar option. Best bet is a batch of disposable addresses.
the only danger in this case might be that it might increase the chance of your email being marked as spam.-mouser (February 20, 2010, 02:44 PM)
According to Mercury News, about 70% of AOL users also use FacebookThat pretty much explains the stupidity phenomenon to me... (Because) ...Nothing screams retard louder than an @AOL.com address.-The Article
And what's also pretty nasty is that automated SSH probes have lowered their rate a lot - enough to not get caught by stuff like fail2ban. At least the sweeps hitting my server.-f0dder (February 19, 2010, 03:43 PM)
This is actually getting quite interestingSure, I haven't had this much fun on the Internet in a while-wraith808 (February 18, 2010, 02:49 PM)
From The Patriot Post:Well... You're half right. The locality & time are standard items to track on any network, and if the phone carrier wishes to share their logs with the fuzz... Well... (sh)IT Happens.The Obama administration has argued that Americans don't enjoy a "reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to their whereabouts as revealed by their cell phones, and therefore warrant-less tapping is allowed. Not only that, but lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice say that "a customer's Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when the phone company reveals to the government its own records" showing where calls were placed or received.
Now, you know that your cell phone has a GPS tracking device in it, and you make a call anyway. If someone uses that information against you, your argument would be that the Obama Administration was correct in their argument?
Residences. Everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home. This is not just a house as it says in the Fourth Amendment, but anywhere you live, be it an apartment, a hotel or motel room, or a mobile home.
However, even things in your home might be knowingly exposed to the public and lose their Fourth Amendment protection. For example, you have no reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations or other sounds inside your home that a person outside could hear, or odors that a passerby could smell (although the Supreme Court has held that more invasive technological means of obtaining information about the inside of your home, like thermal imaging technology to detect heat sources, is a Fourth Amendment search requiring a warrant). Similarly, if you open your house to the public for a party, a political meeting, or some other public event, police officers could walk in posing as guests and look at or listen to whatever any of the other guests could, without having to get a warrant.
<- Now that's (a true story, and) the best example of lacking discretion I can think of.But Google isn't aggregating the information. Your ad analogy also leaves something out as you are intentionally submitting your information to an aggregator (the newspaper).Right, Just like the folks on Social Networking sites intentionally submit their personal info to the Social Network - Which is a Public Forum no different then the Personals Column of the Local (equally public) News Paper.-wraith808 (February 18, 2010, 02:02 PM)
I suppose something in the middle would be more to the point, i.e. I'm walking by and you're talking on your cell phone about leaving the country. Then I tell someone who robs you. Did you broadcast to me specifically? No. But it was public. So did I do anything wrong?
Sorry Joker, but your example would be more appropriate without the aggregation. This site aggregating the information makes Wraith's example closer.-steeladept (February 18, 2010, 11:45 AM)
Bad enough we're going off on a tanget, now I gota dice through which context we're in.True, but AV software can't "protect" you from a hacked legitimate site either. Drive-bys ... part of Common Sense (these days) involves reduced permissions & UAC which is a combo that even works on the 0 day stuff the AV types haven't had time to respond to yet.UAC is nice, and I depend on a combo of UAC and FireFox with adblock+noscript - obviously noscript won't help me if a legitimate whitelisted site is hacked, though. And UAC wouldn't have protected me against the NTVDM local privilege escalation if I had been on a 32bit system.-Stoic Joker (February 18, 2010, 09:35 AM)-f0dder (February 18, 2010, 09:54 AM)
Neither of us is a typical/average user and it's pointless to drag through the move countermove NTVDM exploit could be avoided by killing unused 16bit subsystem vs. Joe average has no Idea what/how/where that is/is done nonsense. ...As it's nowhere near the threads topic.OTOH an antivirus product (or rather, HIPS) depending not just on stupid static analysis but some decent kernel-mode hooksSure (layers are good), and it would even be an effective one if the AV sales drones would stop hyping it as a Magic Bullet.wcould add an extra layer of protection.
That's a bit to microcosmic for the sake of accuracy. A better analogy would be, if I were dumb enough to put an ad in the paper saying I was going on vacation, and that ad included sufficient personal information for my abode to be located. And you pointed out said ad to various people saying look at this idiot - He should get robbed for being that stupid.And you can't really expect to blame it on the person when it happens, can you?Honestly? ...Yes.-Stoic Joker (February 18, 2010, 09:57 AM)
So, to carry it a bit further, if I case your house, then let someone know when you're gone, and they happen to rob you, it's your fault. You let me know when you were leaving by driving out of your garage, so you can't blame me... right?-wraith808 (February 18, 2010, 10:02 AM)
But there are better ways to do it- the search based on username and location is the largest part of what I have a problem with. If they just posted and scrolled it off the page (which they do), I wouldn't have a problem with it as a social awareness project- but to actually allow searches?But that's really the only easy way for (Sheeple) someone to look themselves up to see if their Digital Fly is Down.-wraith808 (February 18, 2010, 07:05 AM)
And it's a lot different than a party- a party is only a few hundred people, and what are the chances that someone in your circle of friends or their circles being a crook. Now expand that to the online community- what are the chances that someone there is?(Ya know they say there is one in every crowd...) I'd say it's a 50/50 either way - But I do tend to be a bit cynical...
Then what is the chance that someone will use this in a negative way?
And you can't really expect to blame it on the person when it happens, can you?Honestly? ...Yes.
True, but AV software can't "protect" you from a hacked legitimate site either. Drive-bys ... part of Common Sense (these days) involves reduced permissions & UAC which is a combo that even works on the 0 day stuff the AV types haven't had time to respond to yet.I've been harboring much the same ill feelings toward AV companies for years. I'm an advocate for common sense, it's twice as effective, uses (wastes) no system resources, and is free.And unfortunately doesn't protect you against drive-by exploits on hacked legitimate sites :/ - the only thing I've been hit by the last 10+ years. (I still don't run any AV software, though-Stoic Joker (February 18, 2010, 07:04 AM)-f0dder (February 18, 2010, 07:06 AM)