Cassandra1405241487

Could you give us a comparison of your current earnings rates (after the "curiosity click" business) and your AdSense earnings rates?

I am indeed now looking for a substitute for Naviscope, since I'm getting a little tired of the way Naviscope refuses to play nicely with multiple user accounts. However, I do want prefetching, and that Firefox extension refuses to install itself properly in Deer Park. And I also use IE6. Oh, well....

I hope that this question isn't too stupid, but what's "GFX"?

How do you know he's a he? Maybe she's a she, and you're embarrassing her terribly.

I am giving this thread such a vague name because I am planning to use it to tell people about occasional odds and ends I find out about Windows, either Windows 2000, which I mainly use, or Windows in general.Today's discovery, and the trigger for this thread:Anything running through the Windows 2000 "Scheduled Tasks" by default creates a summary (but very useful) log. It is a text file stored in %WinDir% , and can be accessed, aside from more conventional means, through "Advanced|View Log" in the Scheduled Tasks pseudo-folder.Among other things, it is useful for a very quick check on scheduled backups, since the backup setup I'm working on now uses the Windows Scheduler for its actual scheduling.

I have a Realtek onboard 'sound card'. When I installed the driver, configuration utility, and other such odds and ends, it also installed something called "AvRack", with some shortcuts. I have no idea what it is, and by running it I only get the impression that it's some kind of audio player.Could someone give me some more detail as to what it's supposed to be and do?

WPA uses a lot more overhead WEP, and therefore the transfer of 'real' information will be slower. I imagine that for the same reason WEP will be slower than totally open communication, since every connection will have to be authenticated and every packet will have to include some encryption information, but I haven't seen anything authoritative written on the subject. I also don't know if these slowdowns will be great enough to be noticeable. But they'll be there. NO, NO, NO! MAC filtering in itself only protects against accidental of very childish attempts at illicit usage. Every packet on a network using an Ethernet protocol includes the destination MAC address in the clear. That means that anyone with a packet sniffer can within a short time find out the MAC addresses of all of the active wireless cards on your system. Many wireless configuration programs allow one to alter the transmitted MAC address by hand, so that once the eavesdropper knows what MAC addresses you're using, it's no problem to impersonate them, and log onto your system as you. On the other hand, encryption might not be all that important for you. If all that you do is play games, and you have no particular reason to fear that others are exploiting your system, you might want to leave MAC filtering on, hide the SSID, change the default name and password on your router, and leave your connection unencrypted. Are you that worried about your neighbors finding out what orders you give to your swordswomen?

They are already starting to link the programs together. When one tries to log into a Google Adwords account which isn't linked, one is informed that AdWords users will soon be required to link their accounts. They give detailed (and good) instructions for deciding how to do this, depending mainly on one's security demands, but for most private users the first stage will be to link their AdWords and AdSense accounts to their GMail accounts. I gather that if one does this, there will be some kind of easy-navigation tabs, but I haven't figured out how to do it yet.When I set up a system for tracking my Google SiteMaps, using my GMail address for login, I discovered that the Google SiteMaps gadget was automatically linked to my GMail account.In other words, they're getting there.

Until now I never knew that Google was in the hardware business at all. Or what is it called when you seem to be selling a service, its associated hardware, and its firmware all at once? Take-over-the-universe-ware?

They seem suddenly, within a few days, to be getting much more aggressive in their business-to-business marketing: first the referral program for AdWords/AdSense users, and now this.What, by the way, is a Google Mini?

I haven't actually seen it, but from what I understand - ased on what I heard in the interview with Steve Gibson I cited above, when the CD either autoruns or when you try to run it using the normal Windows software, it gives you a EULA screen, and if you hit OK, it installs the rootkit and whatever other software it feels like installing.

Funny. If I had wanted to say something like that, I probably would have said something like 'Sorry, but I think that you have some real misconceptions here.' But of course, people belong to very different cultures, and not everyone has the ability to even think of even a remote possibility that 'Maybe he is right and I am wrong. Maybe I shoud think about it.' Why do I have the impression that some people talk about the history of science, and what never was, without having read extensively in either Aristotle or Newton? But then, perhaps Newton's mechanics is not science. I wish that I had already lived long enough, and had enough time, to have been able to have read absolutely all of the important works in the history of physics, so that I could say what absolutely never happened. All of this talk about the history of science reminds me of something Maimonides wrote in his commentary on Hippocrates, though I'm not sure what the connection is: ' The less a person knows about a subject, the more he is sure of himself, the more quickly he answers questions about it, and the more he in fact wants to answer; the more he knows about it, the less sure of himself he is, the less quickly he answers, and the less he wants to answer at all.' But then, Hippocrates really doesn't have much to do with the history of science, and Maimonides' commentary on him even less so.

Not everything reported by a default scan with AdAware is really spyware. For example, AdAware will report all tracking cookies, such as those from Doubleclick and other banner ad services. I ignore them. Almost all of them just track how many times you've been shown that ad, or other ads from the same site, with no personally identifiable information. Others track the site which sent you to their site, the referer. It just doesn't bother me if the companies have this kind of information. It wouldn't bother me even if it was associated with a personal identifier, and it certainly doesn't bother me the way it is now, without personal identifiers. AdAware also reports certain gadgets from Alexa (part of Amazon.com) as being spyware. Many people install some of these Alexa gadgets as part of a browser search system for automatically finding related sites, or as part of a toolbar for finding statistics on one's own site. There used to be a good download manager called DLExpert which had a component identified as spyware. It was a perfectly harmless component which was also used in some spyware. I could go on and on. As with everything else, AdAware can be used the mindless way, where one just assumes that since anti-spyware software identified something as bad one should delete it, or the intelligent way, where one takes the information provided by the software, thinks about it, studies it, and decides how to react.

I don't see why you would buy either Norton antivirus or Norton Internet Security. The problems with system resources and uninstalling mentioned on this thread are both well known, and appear in every edition of Norton IS. They changes which most Norton security programs make in one's system are too basic, and unnecessary. I have Norton Internet Security on my kids' machine, and I can only say that the behavior of the firewall drives us all crazy. I have an old free version of Zone Alarm on my own machines (IMHO, the newer editions aren't as good), and it's a lot better. The only reason I put Norton on my kids' machine is that Norton makes it easy to set up separate user profiles with different settings. If you don't need that function, don't buy Norton. Use free resources like AVG for anti-virus and an old Zone Alarm for a firewall.

Why is it a security threat? I was under the impression that cookies can be read only by the site which placed them in the first place. Why should they be more of a threat if they are cached (in RAM, I guess you mean) than if they are on your hard disk?

First of all, what kind of music do you mean? Some sites specialize only in a certain genre. I am subscribed to https://54health.com/ for popular oldies, and was subscribed to http://www.hugedomains.com/domain_profile.cfm?d=periodrecording&e=com for "early music" for a while. Both of them are inexpensive, and accept non-US subscribers, which many of the biggies won't.

There's a very good (IMHO) article on the subject by the famed Steve Gibson at https://www.grc.com/SecurityNow.htm . It's available in various textual and audio formats.

I still think that it would be helpful if everyone who writes in this thread makes it clear whether he is talking about an FTP client or FTP server. Otherwise, it forces us to go hunt for the information, which the author of the post already has.

I'm not sure how one can find an operating system to be perfectly secure, unless one has a staff making systematic and dedicated attempts to compromise it, as they do in some government and industrial laboratories. What about future threats which noone has thought of yet? What about threats for which Microsoft has not provided a solution yet, such as rootkits? How many people here have even tested their Windows 2000 systems for rootkits?

I'm not sure that this is true. For 2500 years it was assumed that the methodology of science would be based on common sense, and that science would be based on cocepts which were intuitively meaningful. Now, we are presented with concepts which have no everyday meaning, and no parallel in our logic: the superposition of states, action at a distance, etc. Why should we call this by the same name as what has always been called science? Why should we assume that it has the same importance for us? I have the feeling that you are assuming that just because science has traditionally given importance to the concepts of measurement and objective reproducibility, then anything which give importance to the concepts of measurement and objective reproducibility should be called by the same name. I see no logical necessity for such an assumption, and have not yet seen any evidence for it. No, not everyone can follow the procedure; that's just the point. It could be that there's nothing inherent in the procedure which prevents any human being from following it, but the people who use these procedures, and who talk publicly about science, know very well that most people cannot follow the procedures because they don't know enough mathematics, and may not be intelligent enough. They expect the vast majority of the population, the people whose resources are going to be used for this research and whose lives are going to be influenced by decisions based on this research, to accept the structure on pure faith. In fact, it is very rare that even people in the same field go through the derivations line by line. One assumes, i.e, takes on faith, that if a serious journal published the results that somebody else, perhaps the reviewers for the journal, did go through it line by line. This is true even of the most accepted, traditional, and obvious scientific results. Have you personally ever done experiments to evaluate the concept of spontaneous generation, or the existence of phlogiston, or do you assume that they are nonsense because you have always been told by someone else that someone else did the experiments, and told by someone else the history of the mistake. By the way, that comment of mine was not intended to be taken literally in any case; it was meant to be sarcastic, and a yet another dig at the honesty of the science salesmen. Imagine an appropriate smiley after it.

Please give the URL of a serious academic or professional resource which says that they have something which is close to what a normal person would call a computer. If I'm not mistaken, what they've got is something which is not even quite a proof of principle, and which handles only one or two particles. In any case, with all due respect, I'm not sure that the 'truth' of quantum physics was the question here; if I'm not mistaken, the question was the cultural significance of quantum physics. Is it what we have traditionally called science, or is it better compared to the wild syllogism-grinding of the collapsing Scholastic system in the Fourteenth Century C.E.?

No. Either WinXP has to be installed after all other current versions of Windows - I don't know about Vista - or, as magiccode9 suggests, you will have to repair the boot environment. In fact, for some reason, when I once tried to do what you seem to be suggesting, not only couldn't I enter WinXP from the main boot menu, for some reason I couldn't enter Win2K. However, I'm pretty sure that it's not the order in which they are placed on the disk which creates the problem, but the order in which they are installed. I seem to remember that I have had working systems with WinXP on the first partition and Win2000 on the second.

Does GoogleTalk allow you to talk to real telephones yet?

These maps are one of the latest fields for competition among the big cheeses of the computing world, and they may have some use in certain professions, but personally, I've never once used them, and have never seen the need to.Software to give you clear instructions for driving from one place to another is a different story.

No harm done. I think that I've got everything set up the way I want it now. I also moved my Internet Explorer cookies. (Similar procedure: Yet another registry key under HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Shell Folders , and then moving the old cookies manually.) It turns out though that certain high technology and high security sites, though, really do demand that certain software be in a certain position relative to the cookie folder. After moving everything, I had to reinstall the MSN Investor Portfolio gadget, though it only took a few seconds, since the installation files were on my machine, and I had to log in manually again to my bank (once, I assume).