There is a keywords field under summary (since Win2k actually). The volume will need to be NTFS, since those extra properties are stored in alternate data streams. I believe that it's indexed. I think you use the "tag:" prefix to find them.

I don't know why this reply is labeled redundant except to show a bias against stating a legitimate concerns and problems with Wikipedia. It sounds like there is a broken mod system here on /. as well. Not that this is also stating the obvious.

It could be that the post just before that one by Nwallins (1059978) on 2009.11.25 13:41 (#30228784) makes the same mention of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Be_bold. I wouldn't have marked either as redundant though because the other was first and the second one has more material.

I also wouldn't say that /.'s moderation system was too far gone or biased on this topic. This story seems to have a higher proportion of 4 and 5 rated comments than average, if anything. Most of them are critical of Wikipedia's editorial realities. FWIW, I always browse interesting threads at -1 to look for good stuff to mod up and very rarely use negative mods.

That is a good point, but as I see it, having a smaller government would mean fewer congressmen to bribe to reach a majority vote, allowing the company to expand its influence for the same budget. If you meant "small government" figuratively, you are right; a large government tends to have far more public projects to try to push through congress. However, without these, they would then focus their attack on public policy, resulting in additional lobbying against regulation and anything else detrimental to business yet necessary to ensure the rights and safety of the people.

Regardless of the literal and figurative size of the government, however, lobbyists had, have, and will continue to have more influence than entire political parties IMO.

http://mergers.galaxyzoo.org/how_to_take_part

impossible. people on facebook are too busy growing crops in FarmVille or doing epic crimes in Mafia Wars or making creepy comments on attractive friends-of-friends's photos to have time to have mere sex.

Umm in most places they are illegal*. For example in Hawaii (which is part of the 9th circuit, which is the same on as mentioned in this article.) steroids are considered a 'harmful drug' and possession of any amount is a misdemeanor.

*: Assuming you mean 'real' steroids and not those used for asthma and so forth. Also there is a huge cat-and-mouse game with law-makers and steroid-makers, law-makers ban substance X, steroid makers tweak it slightly so it does the same thing, but it has a slightly different chemical structure, so law markers ban that one, and so forth. But the law-markers bannings take a long time to do, so any one substance might be legal for a while.

That's more or less it. That of course combined with a massive ego so the guy probably believes that nobody could really disagree with him, so if it seems like a lot of people they all must be the same moron. Of course this admin didn't bother telling me I was being investigated either. The investigation was closed after two weeks with the option to reopen for lack of evidence. So I'm still partially presumed guilty.

Take a world map, throw a dart...

Unless he's black, Polish, Romani, homosexual or disabled.

Not that Stalin was any better, but Hitler most certainly didn't killed only Jews.

Yeah, I tried the linked proof of concept on the RELEASED version of Windows 7 (the site only references beta and RC versions), and it didn't work. Either it prompted, or it failed to acquire admin or high integrity rights. I notice the site hasn't been updated for build 7600 (the RTM version), even though it's been available for some time. Even if MS patched the specific thing the proof of concept was using but failed to fix the underlying problem, they still need to release an updated version to be taken seriously. The fact that pre-release versions of Windows 7 were incomplete is hardly surprising.

RootkitRevealer comes to mind. It compares filesystem and other system database binaries raw on disk to what's returned from system calls. No known rootkits are sophisticated enough to return fake filesystem structures from raw reads to match the filtering they do.

This line of argument boils down to an implication that something exists despite claims to the contrary, just because someone isn't looking for it in a certain way. There's no reason to think that certain way of looking is exhaustive or that conditions would make that thing likely to exist in the first place. How do you know that the Russian Mafia doesn't have your phones tapped without doing a daily bug sweep? Magical ninja bug detection powers, surely.

Here is a collection of references. See also Readers Write: How Microsoft got Windows NT, Everything2: The similarities between VMS and Windows NT and Windows NT and VMS: The Rest of the Story (use googlebot useragent to view full story).

DEC did sue Microsoft, but they settled for royalties.

Since Windows NT 3.1 (in 1993) it's been possible to lock a normal User down pretty tightly. Normal users can't infect the underlying system. It takes membership in the Administrator's group or certain privileges to do so.

Can you name a specific deficiency in system design that allows a normal user in any NT derived version of Windows to infect the system or other user accounts?

The reason that some games don't run properly as a normal user is because they are badly written or want to install kernel DRM/copy protection drivers. Games have always had access to the resources they would legitimately need to run.

Display drivers have always been allowed to store device associated bitmaps in video memory, and draw on them directly. However, you are right that the DWM model in Vista is better. It matches modern hardware much better than the old GDI model.

I thought the single window support was only in the server editions. I wasn't aware of the other features; those do sound quite useful.

I know anecdote wars are never very helpful, and I don't know what I have configured differently than you, but XP Wireless support has always just worked for me, at least post SP2 (when I've used it the most).

Not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. When a window in the XPDDM is redrawn (due to a WM_PAINT message being received), the request is only for the changed/newly visible section. Subsequent drawing to this area and the window area is clipped by region by GDI, which prevents anything outside the changed area inside the window from being painted on. XP and Vista/7 do have a mode where they will display the last image of an unresponsive window, greyed instead of ignoring paint commands (leaving a hall of mirrors effect). Many programs were already caching their window bitmaps privately, simply blitting to WM_PAINT request areas. For compatibility, Vista and 7 still have to send messages like WM_ERASEBKGND and WM_PAINT to applications in many cases, like having the window get focus or when moving partially off screen.

There is a little more power mgmt stuff, but I wouldn't call it "much better".

Windows NT has always supported GPU acceleration of the GUI through the display driver. The DWM just uses it differently, mostly for 3d effects and caching window contents.

What does this mean? DLLs have always been mapped COW in processes, and SXS was introduced in XP.

You can use the fancy aero and desktop composition effects in RDP6, in Vista, plus support for more device redirection. This is nice, but mainly eye candy. Not a vast improvement. There isn't much substantive that you can do with RDP 6.1 that you couldn't in 5.1. Or NT4 TSE for that matter.

Group policy, with MSI installation, net boot installation, etc. existed in their current form since Windows 2000. There have been improvements, but no vast revolutions.

XP had AMD64 support first (albeit with the WS2003 code base). The drivers are finally catching up. This is mainly the job of IHVs, not Microsoft. The drivers that Microsoft traditionally provides (most of them, really) were ready in XP64.

Yes, Vista now uses an image based install that supposed to be much faster.

2000 fully supported ACPI power modes. There have been minor refinements since then, but noting major.

SuperFetch (new in Vista) does pre-emptively fill unused memory with things that were paged out or the OS otherwise thinks you may use. To support this, the kernel now has 8 memory priorities, which help a lot in determining what should go first when memory gets tight.

XP had MCE first.

Note that per-file encryption has been supported since 2000.

There have been some redirection shims since XP at least.

Epically? It certainly takes more clicks to get into the adapter list control panel. There are automatic locations in Vista that automatically config your firewall and such, but XP works fine if you just want to connect to the network.

It's better, but there's still a lot of apps that break

XP will offer to search for drivers for unknown hardware, and include driver updates in Windows Update.

XP has prefetching and a lot less to load than Vista or "7". Why would the UI responsiveness be any better?

Windows 7 does have improvements, don't get me wrong I'll probably upgrade to it, but it's not making a major advance in every area. XP still does most of what 7 and Vista do, and using less resources. Besides, Vista was the major version change to 6.0.