Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
(changed from 2014)
Also: Using D-Link? *tsk*
The following patch will be to fix a piece of joke malware that makes the drone believe its ALWAYS within 25km of DC
(but it won't work)
by loading the IE11 engine when needed
Does this mean I may be able to exploit the new browser using vulnerabilities found in IE11 by calling the old engine via whatever method they'll use? After all, I'm guessing it doesn't use a white-list, at least by default. Maybe that will be an option, though.
And no, I didn't RTFA this time.
Ahahaha, no, I didn't RTFA.
I have used utilities to view the SMART info on drives where this BIOS option is disabled, can't recall any systems where it flat-out didn't work. I won't say that this information couldn't be blocked in some cases, but I believe that this option is for whether the BIOS checks SMART status during POST. It has made the difference between a system merrily proceeding to boot with a SMART failure versus reporting that the drive's SMART indicates failure and waiting for keyboard input to continue.
I don't know if it affects whether the OS (Windows) can/does "see" and report a SMART failure.
The bigger issue, in my opinion, is that "warnings" (such as on the important metrics as decided by BackBlaze) are rarely if ever reported.
I've used the same metrics that BackBlaze reports using as an indicator to recommend drive replacement to my clients for a long time. With the exception of "Command Timeout", which I truthfully don't remember looking at.
Anyone else have some information, experience, anecdotes about SMART in BIOS?
Internet service is taxed in the US, right? In some way? I guess I could look at my bill, but aren't there any fees such as exist with a landline?
Not that I'm saying it should/shouldn't be taxed, but...
Say there is a really popular forum (the physical kind, not internet) for people to mingle with other people and discuss/argue about anything they feel like talking about.
Let's say there is some monthly membership fee paid to the government for the use of the place, say $10/month.
Now, imagine if the government decided that it needs more money, but wants to split the cost based on how much use you get out of the place. So they decide to charge you 1 cent ($0.01 [suck-it-verizon]) for each word you hear and each word you speak.
The effect of this policy is left as a mental exercise for the reader.
Women are human beings?
Slashdot ate my [/Sarcasm] tag, if it wasn't apparent from the context.
emotional and cultural payoff may be more valuable, helping women be more productive human beings.
Women are human beings?
I am seriously appalled at that parting shot. I think choosing to pursue a career vs raising a family is a perfectly valid option. Bonus points if you can do both, but there are trade-offs for any of the choices.
encourage women to stay with their employer longer
Yeah, yeah, that's fine. "Encourage." Right up until the employer starts pressuring a woman into doing so and committing to her career before she can move ahead. For instance, unofficially giving preference to those who have done so when promoting/hiring. Might be a non-issue, as a woman could still choose to have children unless she's taken steps to remove that possibility.
I'm not sure what he could have said (with regards to his employer) that anyone at Comcast should have taken into consideration with regards to whatever his problem was. If he did, he shouldn't have. If he did, Comcast shouldn't have cared. If he did, and Comcast cared, I don't think his employer should have cared.
Long story short, there's a HELL of a lot of information we are missing. *shrug*
most ISPs are already doing it. Try entering a non-existent domain. You'll be directed to a server that has search and advertising.
Yes, but that's not a "hard redirect". By default, your internet connection relies on the DNS servers indicated in your ISP's provisioning.
You request a webserver's address, the DNS server returns a result. If that server doesn't exist (bad address or typo), the DNS should return a message to that effect. They simply modify the behavior to return their own custom search/astro-turf page. I find this behavior distasteful, but you can always change your DNS configuration to point to a better-behaved server. Google's public DNS has treated me pretty well.
But I stray from the point; with this hard-redirect, they are FORCING you, not just tricking your computer.