This is slashdot! We don't RTFA, we don't RTFS and we don't RTFH! And in the rare cases where we do read the article, the summary or the headline, we make damn sure we misunderstand it.
Hear, hear!
...what are we talking about again?
Win7 seems to have implemented it in the right way, ask when it's important, once, so it's unusual to see a prompt and so people actually read it
With Windows 7, I concur that Microsoft did do it right, but it's not that it asks any less frequently per se, it's just that certain things are automatically elevated without a UAC prompt. There were some nifty little tricks that abused that at first, because rundll32.exe was one of the auto-elevated applications.
What was really obnoxious about UAC in Vista (that lead me to turn it off) was that even running MMC, by itself, would cause a prompt. This was annoying as all hell when you were launching it to manage a remote server---an activity which UAC cannot really be employed to prevent malicious behavior, as UAC only protects local resources.
Oh noes, he said something true that I don't like. Quick, mod it down! If you just mod hard enough eventually 2+2 will equal 5.
You were modded down because you're an asshole, posting off-topic. I humbly request anyone with a spare mod point to make this troll's day:
2+2 = 5
he router's web interface allows one to open specific ports for specific IPv6 addresses. No NAT required, which is nice: I can have several servers running on the same port with no issues.
The question I put back to that statement though: Since NAT is a pseudo-firewall for IPv4, applications running on computers leverage some IP trickery (NAT traversal techniques) or dynamically map ports via UPnP to achieve connectivity. Those techniques aren't the classical "allow X past firewall" setting though, they merely give the traffic somewhere to go instead of bouncing off of the router's TCP stack.
How does one achieve the connectivity that full IPv6 *should* have (but won't because the clients won't talk to the border firewall), which is identical to the effective connectivity and security that we have via IPv4 with UPnP today?
I would really like to know, because the one and only time I got IPv6 working right on my network, I shut it right the hell down when I ran a web-based port scan
Humans need to do some personal things inside work hours just as they are needed to do work things outside of work hours. Tit for tat.
Things like reading Slashdot!
If those six are purely admins and heldesk, something ain't right. Too much bloat and inefficiencies going on.
Quite the opposite with my last job. Granted, there were four of us, but we all shared those duties to some degree depending on what we were best at handling. And it wasn't because there were too many of us to establish a proper set of tiers; rather, there were too few of us to do so.
The company did telemarketing. As a result, EVERYONE who was employed there, with the notable exception of the janitors, used a computer. So when including the programmers and CIO/CTO, we had an IT staff of about 9 people responsible for 100-500 users (depending on time of day), three locations (in two states), and as many desktops/laptops, and four or five dozen servers (though virtualization made that more manageable as time went on).
Working there gave me shingles, once.
Because they can get even more by hurting them *and* getting their golden parachutes after the havoc?
I wonder if I'm the only person who hears or reads "golden parachute" and gets a mental image of a CEO jumping from a burning plane with his company's stock ticker on the side, holding on to a dozen overstuffed briefcases full of cash like he's a modern-day DB Cooper.
Younger kids will act less mature and less professional. Get a bunch of kids in their mid-twenties together and they'll do stupid shit. Give them ten years and they'll (typically) grow out of that phase.
You're generally right about that, I think, but I admit that doing stupid shit every once in a while, much to the chagrin of those who've gotten to old to instigate the stupid shit, is part of the fun of being a professional and in your twenties.
Of course, by no means is stupid shit professional itself, but "professional behavior" and "stupid shit" can come from the same person, given different sets of circumstances. Being in the latter half of my twenties myself, I find that my tolerance for shenanigans is going down, as is my desire to incite or perform them, for what it's worth.
Is it sad that I think about my Slashdot comments in the shower?
Only if they don't make +5.... which is the majority of Slashdot comments.
those scada systems should not be directly connected to internet anyways though.
Tell that to Iran.
Bottom line: "Cutting the cord" for potentially vulnerable systems is a good philosophy in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice.
Why would my buffer be never empty? Just because you have more buffers doesn't mean you process anything slower than you have to. It just means if you can't get around to something immediately, you can catch up later.
That's exactly the problem. TCP relies on packets being dropped in order to manage connections. When buffers are instead allowed to fill up, delaying packets instead of outright dropping them, the application relying on those packets experiences extremely high latency instead of being rate-limited to fit inside of the available bandwidth.
The problem has come to pass because of how counterintuitive this really is. It's a GOOD THING to discard data you can't transfer RIGHT NOW, rather than wait around and send it later.
I suppose one of the only analogs I can think of might be the Blackbird stealth plane. Leaks like a sieve on the ground, spitting fuel all over the place, because at altitude the seals expand so much that they'd pop if it hadn't been designed to leak on the ground. Using gigantic packet buffers would be like "fixing" a Blackbird so that it didn't leak on the runway.
No more than there is, say, the best musician or athlete - everyone has strengths, weaknesses & what-not...
Say what you will, but Russinovich is is my ultimate nerd idol. Listening to that man talk about Windows, and go into such amazing detail about how it works, all the way down to the bare metal and then back up through the processor, into the kernel, back out into user mode... it's positively fascinating.
Honest to goodness, the one thing that, not only career-wise but even down on a fundamental level of sheer personal enrichment for the thing I love most, would seemingly allow a quantum leap in what I want to learn would be an apprenticeship under him and the other technical fellows at Microsoft. Just as many here would probably say the same of themselves and Torvalds, I suspect!
Now I'm getting impatient, waiting for the next iteration of Windows Internals to show up at my door. Get moving, Microsoft!
We want to create puppets that pull their own strings. - Ann Marion
