|
|
|
*HOT* Tech News And Downloads, I Would Read This Thread And Post Any Good Info
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2006 @ 06:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Spanish judge rules downloading music is legal
A Spanish state's prosecutor's office along with two music distribution associations accused a 48-year-old man of downloading music and offering them on CD via e-mail and chat room requests and aimed to have a two year sentence put against him. However, as there was no proof that this person made a profit from selling CDs and that the Spanish permits the downloading of music for personal use, the northern city of Santander Judge dismissed the case.
This ruling has made a major hit at the Spanish music industry, since it effectively allows Internet users in Spain to freely download and share music without being punished. As a result, the Spanish rerecording industry federation Promusicae plans on appealing the Judge's decision. Spain is also in the process of drafting new legislation to remove consumer's right to private copying.
Unfortunately, it is unclear at this time how much the new drafted legislation will affect Spanish consumers, as a certain level of private copying needs to be allowed in order to allow consumers to transfer CDs to their MP3 player, purchased downloads to CD and so on. Then again, even though consumers in the UK don't think twice of transferring music from CD to their iPod, Creative or other MP3 player, apparently this is actually against the law there.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
Member
|
3. November 2006 @ 08:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
At least there's one just judge...
Chuck
"Men are slower to recognize blessings than misfortunes." Titus Livius (59BC-17AD)
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2006 @ 09:04 |
Link to this message
|
Mother of all gaming machines emerges in UK
Quad core, water-cooling, Geforce 8800 GTX SLI and all. Only £5400
By Fuad Abazovic: Friday 03 November 2006, 12:19
UK FIRM, VADIM Computers decided to make the mother of all gaming machines.
The firm put plugged two Geforce 8800 GTX cards, water-cooled, into an Asus P5N32-SLI Premium WiFi-AP (1066 FSB Conroe) board, powered with Intel Core 2 Quad QX6700 Extreme retail (4x2.66GHz 1066FSB 8Mb) and Patriot DDR2-1066 2x1024MB ELK series dual-channel kit memory.
The firm also bunged in an Asus Ageia PhysX Accelerator. Plus, the machine comes with two 150Gb Raptor 10000 16mb E-SATA disks as system drivers and a 750Gb Barracuda 7200.10 16mb Cache SATA II NCQ drive for storage.
You will also get a CDRW DVD Combo 52x32x52x16, Black Optical Drive and Pioneer 111DBK DVDRW Black. The sound card naturally comes from Creative labs 7.1 X-FI Extreme Music and it is all installed on Windows XP 64-bit.
Before we forget the machine is packed in Lian-Li V2100B Plus Black CASE with complex custom laser cut window and water-cooling - the LiquoCool Antarctic TX Extreme - enough to cool the CPU, chipset and both 8800 GTX cards. If you think about it, two cards together have an astonishing 1.5GB of VGA memory. The Enermax Galaxy Modular 1000W PSU should be enough to power it.
As for the price, it costs £4622.23 (ex VAT) or roughly £5400+ with the tax. Don't forget that you also need a display mouse and keyboard for it. So it will get even more expensive.
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35523
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
3. November 2006 @ 10:37 |
Link to this message
|
RIAA, Santangelo court doc farce
p2pnet.net News:- The Associated Press is fielding Jim Fitzgerald's Record Companies Sue Defendant's Kids.
And as p2pnet posted yesterday, "Having made New York mother Patti Santangelo's life quite literally a living hell, Warner Music, EMI, Sony BMG and Vivendi Universal have now turned their attentions to two of her children, Michelle and Robert, going so far as to blackmail Robert's best friend into making statements against him."
The AP wire article is also running in The New York Times and The Washington Post. And do a news search on Santangelo and it's everywhere online as well: US Today, CBS and Fox news, The San Francisco Chronicle, BusinessWeek.
Everyone has it ---
---- everyone, that is, except the Santangelo family and their lawyer, Jordan Glass.
Because the RIAA (Recording (Industry Association of America), run by EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), with Warner Music as the sole US company, chose to use the mainstream media to launch their suit by releasing a suppose court document without bothering to file it with a court.
Claims made in this kind of document, "are by no means evidence," we said yesterday. "In fact, they're often little more than one step above the extortionate frighteners lawyers routinely mail and email to their clients' victims as part of the softening up process."
We were wrong. It's one step lower. In fact, it could be construed that the 'filing' by media release was designed specifically to bolster a farce the Big Four Organized Music cartel has been running since 2003 - that people who share music online with each other are "criminals" and "thieves" and that the multi-billion-dollar labels are being "devastated" by it.
Not long after p2pnet started up, and when the RIAA sue 'em all marketing campaign was just getting under way, we posted a story about Lorraine Sullivan, a New York student who was among the first people to be subpoenaed for file sharing.
"She learned she was expected to turn up in court from a reporter and it took the RIAA a further seven days before she heard from them officially," she told us, saying she settled out of court for $2,500.
In the last two weeks we've heard from two other women - why are they always women? - both of whom are mothers and both of whom learned they were on the RIAA sue 'em all hit list when media reps phoned them for stories. Nor are they alone. Far from it. In fact, it now seems to be standard intimidation practice for Warner, et al, to tell the media about certain suits without troubling to let their victims know.
When I spoke to Jordan Glass last night, he was wondering when he was going to be officially informed about the suit.
He was still in the dark when I talked to him again this morning.
Theoretically, the process should work like this:
1. The plaintiff drafts a summons and complaint (or summons with notice).
2. The plaintiff buys an index number by bringing it to the court and filing with the clerk of the court (and paying a fee).
3. The plaintiff then serves the defendant with a copy of the papers (this can happeny any time up to 120 days after the index number has been obtained).
4. The defendant has an opportunity to answer (usually 20 or 30 days), including filing counterclaims (against the plaintiff) and third-party claims (against others who might have liability either to the plaintiff or the defendant as it relates to the same matter).
But incredible though it may seem, apparently, there's no law to stop plaintiffs from doing what the RIAA did ---- that's to say release information intended for a court case to the press before the defendants have seen it.
Is the supposed court document the RIAA leaked to the media no more than blatant flim-flam - a way to once again manipulate mainstream reporters to act as Big Four threat bearers to intimidate defendants before they've been anywhere near a court?
And does it also mean that, having served its purpose to publicly harrass and humiliate the defendants in the on- and offline print and electronic media, it need never be submitted to a court?
Will it ever be indexed? And if it is, will the Santangelos and their lawyer, Jordan Glass, have to wait 120 days to find out?
Meanwhile, as far as I was able able to discover by 11:23 am Pacific, the RIAA still hadn't acquired an index number. Nor had Glass received the document.
Stay tuned.
http://p2pnet.net/story/10312?PHPSESSID=...3335854d17f23a7
|
Member
|
3. November 2006 @ 12:36 |
Link to this message
|
|
What's with this blue background that keeps coming up on all threads? Kind of hard to read. I've seen this before but it went away after a while.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. November 2006 @ 05:33 |
Link to this message
|
YE LEARN SOME THING NEW EVERY DAY,RIGHT
How to gag your enemies using the DMCA
Games people play
By Drew Cullen in San Francisco → More by this author
Published Saturday 4th November 2006 01:00 GMT
Get The Register's new weekly newsletter for senior IT managers delivered to your inbox, click here.
The Register received our first DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) take-down notice in September.
We had in good faith published a photograph supplied to us by the subject of an otherwise uncontroversial article. A few days later, one very annoyed photographer emailed us claiming copyright for the picture and demanded its removal, or a fee.
We asked the article's author to check his claims. We established that the angry emailer was indeed the copyright owner and duly removed the photograph.
But we were not quick enough for him. In the meantime, he had fired off a DMCA take-down notice to our webhost in the US. The company in turn sent us a letter telling us to remove the photograph - which we had already deleted - and set us a deadline of a few hours to confirm in writing that we had done so.
Otherwise it would "suspend network access to the server hosting the website". The deadline was 2AM GMT, not a time when our techies in Edinburgh are usually at work. A suspension would have affected all our servers - including those hosted in the UK, as well as the US.
LINK TO THE TOTAL ARTICLE
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/04/...ogus_dmca_case/
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. November 2006 @ 05:50 |
Link to this message
|
Big labels are f*cked, and DRM is dead -
Peter Jenner
Clash, Pink Floyd manager lifts the lid
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >
By Andrew Orlowski → More by this author
Published Friday 3rd November 2006 17:04 GMT
Get The Register's new weekly newsletter for senior IT managers delivered to your inbox, click here.
Interview Few people know the music industry better than Peter Jenner. Pink Floyd's first manager, who subsequently managed Syd Barrett's solo career, Jenner has also looked after T.Rex, The Clash, Ian Dury, Disposable Heroes and Billy Bragg - who he manages today. He's also secretary general of the International Music Managers Forum.
And he doesn't pull his punches.
The major four music labels today are "f@@ked", he says. Digital music pricing has been a scam where the consumer pays for manufacturing, distribution, and does all the work - and still has to pay more. Labels should outsource everything except finance and licensing.
But he's also optimistic that for almost everyone else - indie labels, musicians, songwriters and budding entrepreneurs - as well as network providers - the future's going to be pretty bright. The Big Four know that the DRM era is nearly over - and within two or three years, he predicts, "most countries" in the world will have a blanket licensing regime where we exchange music freely, for a couple of quid a month.
In the future, he also suggests, artists, co-ops and managers will raise their own investment on behalf of artists - and pick and choose their marketing teams.
Jenner is organising a conference in London on November 15 to discuss these issues. Billed as an "Urgent Blue Sky Debate", for once a music event may live up to its billing. Earlier this year, France almost voted to legalise P2P and bring in a blanket license - the necessary stepping stone to the future.
While Jenner elaborated on these in a report for MusicTank recently - it's only available to the public for a fee. So we were delighted when he dropped by Vulture Central yesterday to lift the lid on the business. Strong language follows.
You said that at In The City, the big label executives have lost their faith in DRM - they don't believe in it any more.
They don't. Not anymore.
And that was done by Sony BMG - what the f@@k was that [rootkit DRM] about? The other was iTunes - and they've seen how kids don't like it. The unitary payment doesn't suit the technology, it doesn't suit how they're actually using downloads - which is to explore and move around. You don't want to pay a dollar for each track when you want to explore music.
And they're pretty crappy services, too. eMusic works, but when the others time-bomb the songs it's more annoying than the per-machine restriction. Because it's suddenly robbing you of something you had.
Oh yes.
And three years later you go, "Oh, shit!" - You basically have to pay twice for it.
Yes, that's outrageous. You've got to provide stuff that people can keep, and they don't mind paying you $3 a month for.
So how long can the big labels keep up this charade?
Earlier I was talking about the ground moving underneath the industry. At In The City people are beginning to realise they have to do something. So I think in two or three years blanket licenses will be with us in most countries.
And France nearly voted for it this year.
Yes, it got shot down - but the people who shot it down really shot themselves in the foot. They tried to get away from being too unpopular by saying "it's like a parking fine" - and the court said no - if it's an infringement of copyright, it's an infringement of copyright, and there's a huge fine.
So of course they can't enforce the law - it's completely unenforceable.
With the DRM, I think they've realised it just isn't working. People don't like the CDs, they find their way around it; they don't like the DRM, they don't use the DRM services; they resent - as you say - having subscriptions wiped.
THIS IS A LONG AND A DAM GOOD READ
LINK TO THE ARTICLE
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/03/peter_jenner/
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. November 2006 @ 05:51
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. November 2006 @ 06:42 |
Link to this message
|
CPU-Z
License Type: Free
Price: Free
Date Added: Nov 2006
Operating Systems: Windows XP
File Size: 400KB
Author: www.CPUID.com
This freebie gathers information on some of the main devices of your system.
Not sure of your motherboard's brand? Try this program. It's easy to install and setup.
DOWNLOAD HERE
http://pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,64...escription.html
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. November 2006 @ 13:12 |
Link to this message
|
i know we are past halloween..but its a good read...
Ghost Photos: A Close Look at the Paranormal
By Benjamin Radford
Special to LiveScience
One thing that ghosts , Bigfoot , and UFOs have in common is a lack of hard evidence for their existence. Many people report seeing these phenomena, though sightings are essentially stories, not proof.
According to many "ghost experts," just about anyone can find evidence of ghosts using a device found in nearly every home: a camera. Ghost stories and sightings are fine, but what can we make of images claimed to be actual photographs of dead spirits?
Last year an exhibition of spirit photography was held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City. Several of the pictures on display were created by Boston photographer William H. Mumler, who first claimed to have captured ghosts on film. Mumler produced many "spirit photographs" in the latter half of the 1800s, depicting faint, ghostly images in otherwise normal portraits. This caused a sensation and convinced many people with his seemingly excellent proof of ghosts.
Yet there was more to Mumler's photographic proof of life after death than met the eye; he was exposed as a hoaxer when some of the "ghosts" he had photographed were seen very much alive, living and working in Boston. In the process of his work, Mumler had simply stumbled across a crude method of double exposure, and hatched a plan to make a fortune with his fakes.
Thus, ghost photography began as an unseemly blend of photographic error and outright hoax.
Ghost photo categories
The clear images of ghosts and dead souls depicted by Mumler are long gone. Despite dramatically improved optical equipment and cameras over the past century, most "ghost photos" fall into two categories: 1) hazy, indistinct shapes that can be interpreted as a human form; and 2) "mysterious" glowing white blobs called orbs.
Both can be easily (and accidentally) created by photographic error, and the latter are by far the most common. Books, television shows, and Web sites about ghosts often include photographs of orbs that investigators (or just ordinary people) find scary, amazing, or simply puzzling. Orb photos are essentially Rorschach cards, though the forms are usually white and round instead of black and blobby. The interpretations of both, however, reveal much about how the viewer sees the world.
Orbs may take a variety of forms. There is not one blanket cause for all orbs; many things can create the phenomena, including insects and dust close to the camera lens.
In a series of experiments, I was able to create orb photos under a wide range of circumstances. Orbs can be found in the most un-spooky of settings, and are actually fairly common in daily, amateur photography. They are usually only noticed when a person is actively looking for them as evidence of ghosts. For example, this photo is one of several images I snapped at a New Year's wedding reception that later revealed odd glowing orbs. Proof of spectral party crashers, or a simple photographic trick of light?
The easiest way to create an orb image is to take a flash photograph outdoors on a rainy night. The flash will reflect off the individual droplets and appear as white, floating orbs (the effect is most pronounced in a light rain, though even a little moisture in the air can create mysterious orbs). As researcher Joe Nickell notes in his book Camera Clues , unnoticed shiny surfaces are also common sources of orbs. (As well, flashes reflecting camera straps can produce other ghostly photo effects.)
During one investigation I conducted several years ago at Fort George ("Canada's most haunted place," in Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario), I examined a large, wooden soldiers' barracks where ghosts and orbs had been reported. I took several flash photographs of the area, and I noticed that the building (essentially a barn-like structure) was quite dusty. As a television crew interviewed some ghost hunters, I noticed one orb, photographed it, and wondered what it might be ( image).
It hovered about chest-high and did not move at all, suggesting that it was not an insect nor a dust particle; instead it seemed supernaturally suspended in the air. It was several feet away from the nearest post, wall, or other visible means of support. The phenomenon was very strange.
I showed the image to one of the ghost hunters, who seemed pleased that I had captured what was obviously a ghost orb.
Upon further investigation...
Not content to simply declare my orb a sure sign of the supernatural, a fellow investigator and I searched even harder for a solution.
Sure enough, closer investigation revealed that the orb was in fact a tiny piece of dust or lint that clung to the remnants of a spider web ( image). It was a very unusual place for a web, and had I not traced the long, nearly-invisible line to its arachnid anchor, I would have rejected a web as an explanation. But it was a very long strand and just far enough away from the walkway that all but the tallest passersby would not walk through it. The dust mote was very difficult to see, and only apparent when a dark color appeared behind it for contrast, or when caught in a flash photograph.
Had an amateur ghost-hunter spent a few minutes taking flash photos of that room at night, the dust would likely have appeared as an orb--and its true cause almost certainly overlooked as an explanation.
Orbs seem otherworldly because they are almost always invisible to the naked eye and go unnoticed until the photo is examined, later revealing the presence of a ghostly, unnatural, glowing object, sometimes appearing over or around an unsuspecting person. To those unaware of scientific and optical explanations, it is no wonder that orbs spook people (as Mumler's photos did 120 years ago). Most ghost investigators will admit that at least some orb photos are of ordinary phenomena. Still, they insist, there must be some orbs that defy rational explanation. None have yet been found. Of course it's possible that ghosts and spirits do exist and can be photographed. But if so, where's the proof? And why do images of ghosts look exactly like images of photographic errors?
Ghost enthusiasts are satisfied with hazy images and orbs, but this will never convince skeptics and scientists. So what would be good photographic proof of ghosts?
An authentic photograph of anyone born before the invention of photography would be a good start: Benjamin Franklin, William Shakespeare, or any of thousands of other people for whom we have a good record of their likeness but no photograph. Just one such photo would be more convincing than a thousand glowing blobs. Unfortunately, all the ghost photos offered so far are indistinguishable from intentional fakes and optical mistakes. Maybe next year.
Benjamin Radford is an investigator with the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and author or co-author of three books .
Full Frightening Coverage
* What Halloween is Really About
* Top 5 Haunted Places in America
* The Shady Science of Ghost Hunting
* Halloween's Top 10 Scary Creatures
* Higher Education Fuels Stronger Belief in Ghosts
* Vampires a Mathematical Impossibility, Scientist Says
* Candy Fears are Mere Halloween Phantoms
* Halloween Too Scary for Some Kids
* In Search of the Real Dracula
* Pumpkin Shortage?
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/061030_ghost_photos.html
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 4. November 2006 @ 13:16
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
5. November 2006 @ 17:08 |
Link to this message
|
U-BROADCAST..........TV-Tuner software. U-Broadcast is a webcam viewer, TV-tuner viewer, video capturer, live-stream server application.....(free).....GO THERE!
http://www.uticasoft.com/
Image Browser Arctic operates on Windows
95/98/ME/XP/64/NT4/2000
If you are running an early version of Windows 95, you should download and install Microsoft Internet Explorer 4+ for best performance.
Overview
Image Browser Arctic is a multi-functional graphic viewer for Windows.
*View images quickly and comfortably
*Create self-deploying slide shows using hundreds of different transition effects
*Secure/lock your images using 128-bit encryption
*Manage your own Favorites Archive
*Built-in icon extractor
*Batch conversion, resize images
*Multiple viewing modes - Full screen, thumbnail, normal view, etc
*Easy to work with
*no ads, no spyware. 100% freeware*
Did you know?: Uticasoft Image Browser Arctic was the first image viewer world-wide to support stand-alone slide shows.
IBA Tools / Functions
Here is a list of the most commonly used functions in Image Browser Arctic.
Thumbnail support
View multiple images at the same time via the Thumbnail tab.
DirectImage
As you browse through Windows Explorer, DirectImage will automatically detect any supported images types and display them to you in thumb-nail format. Double clicking the thumbnail will allow you to resize the image.
Slide Show
Create your own memorable slides using the Slide Show feature. You can create a slide that changes in accordance to a timer (which you can set) or by you simply mouse-clicking and going to the next slide. Once you are done creating your slide show, you can create a self-deploying file and send your slide show to your friends or family without the need of Image Browser Arctic being installed on their system.
Web page loader
You can load a web page and display only the images that are on the page that you specify. This can come in handy if what you care about is just the images on the page or if you are a web master and want to verify that your image links are working properly.
Scan hard drive for images
Are images hiding on you? With the Scan function, you can scan and detect images in a specified folder even if the file extension is not a valid image type. For example, if you rename MyPicture.JPG to MyPicture.TXT, Windows no longer assumes it's a JPG file, right? Using the scan, MyPicture.TXT will be detected as an image because it contains image data that is viewable.
Icon Extractor
This function allows you to find, display and save icons that are hidden in DLL and EXE files.
Favorites Archive
Have certain images that you look at very frequently? Add them to the Favorites Archive! That way, you don't have to navigate through sub folders to find the image you want. Just look for it in your Favorites!
Bookmarks
In the same way that you can manage your favorite images, you can also add your favorite folders to your bookmarks. This is just one of the ways you can view images quicker!
Organizer
Are your images scattered around your hard drive? You can use the Organizer function to move or copy files from one folder to another using a source/destination type interface.
Encryption / Decryption
Protect your images and files using 128-bit encryption. This type of security exceeds password protection.
Viewing mode: Original Ratio
If you are viewing an image with a high resolution, use Original Ratio to view the image without stretching the image in anyway. Scroll through the image with no loss in quality.
Viewing mode: Stretch Mode
If you want to resize the image, use this function. Take note that stretching smaller images can cause the image to look awkward because they contain fewer pixels. This function works best with larger images.
Viewing mode: Full Screen
The Full Screen mode will cover your whole screen and display the image that you specify. If the image is larger than your screen resolution, the image will automatically resize to fit your screen. If you'd prefer it not to resize, use Original Ratio mode.
Converting images
You can convert images to BMP JPG JP2 ICO TIF TGA PCX PNG GIF or Grayscale. When saving as a JPG file, you have the option to set the compression rate of the file. For example, you can compress a 2MB BMP file to a 60 KB JPG with this function, as an example. Depending on the image, the image quality usually results to an adequate level.
Viewing List
All the images you want to look at can be added to your viewing list which you can view in order. You can save your viewing list for future use as well.
Easy clipboard handling
Copy and paste images from one application to another. You can easily copy your favorite image to the clipboard and paste it in your Word documents.
TWAIN support
You can easily scan images from your scanner.
Built-in help file
If there is anything you don't fully understand, hit F1. A complete help system is available to you.
Copy Muppy operates on Windows 95/98/ME/XP/NT4/2000
Copy Muppy is a backup utility which has list management support. Simply specify which folders you want to work with, then start copying. Backup your contents safely and reliably. This program offers straight-forward design and full control through various options. Command and switch support is also available for automatic scheduled backups.
SFX Compiler operates on Windows 95/98/ME/XP/64/NT4/2000
SFX Compiler is a freeware program which enables you to add multiple files into one self-extracting file. This can be useful for distribution. If you are a software developer and need to send your program to your users, you can easily compile all your required files into one archive with a .Exe extension. Non-software developers can benefit from this program too.
get all the downloads here
http://www.uticasoft.com/
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 03:48 |
Link to this message
|
FREE,PhotoRec,data recovery software
Do you need to recover some pics erroneously deleted from your digital camera flash memory? This tool is for you.
PhotoRec is file data recovery software designed to recover lost files including video, documents and archives from Hard Disks and CDRom and lost pictures (Photo Recovery) from digital camera memory. PhotoRec ignores the filesystem and goes after the underlying data, so it'll work even if your media's filesystem is severely damaged or formatted. PhotoRec is safe to use, it will never attempt to write to the drive or memory support you are about to recover lost data from.
What makes interesting this tool is that it's able to retrieve data also from damaged CD/DVD discs. Obviously, not all damaged discs are recoverable, and also the drive used have its importance, because some drives have better error correction capabilities ;)
Another interesting feature is that this tool is portable, i.e. it doesn't need to be installed and can run from any folder and also from a USB memory stick.
Whoever is interested can find more information here.
Source: PhotoRec
PhotoRec is file data recovery software designed to recover lost files including video, documents and archives from Hard Disks and CDRom and lost pictures (Photo Recovery) from digital camera memory. PhotoRec ignores the filesystem and goes after the underlying data, so it'll work even if your media's filesystem is severely damaged or formatted. PhotoRec is safe to use, it will never attempt to write to the drive or memory support you are about to recover lost data from.
PhotoRec is free, this open source multi-platform application is distributed under GNU Public License. PhotoRec is a companion program to TestDisk, an app for recovering lost partitions on a wide variety of filesystems and making non-bootable disks bootable again. You can download them from this link.
Operating systems
PhotoRec runs under
* DOS/Win9x
* Windows NT 4/2000/XP/2003
* Linux
* FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD
* Sun Solaris
* Mac OS X
and can be compiled on almost every Unix system.
Filesystems
Photorec ignores the filesystem, this way it works even if the filesystem is severely damaged.
It can recover lost files at least from
* FAT,
* NTFS,
* EXT2/EXT3 filesystem
* HFS+
ReiserFS includes some special optimizations centered around tails, a name for files and end portions of files that are smaller than a filesystem block. In order to increase performance, ReiserFS is able to store files inside the b*tree leaf nodes themselves, rather than storing the data somewhere else on the disk and pointing to it. Unfortunately, PhotoRec isn't able to deal with this, it's why it doesn't work well with ReiserFS.
Media
PhotoRec works with HardDisks, Cdrom, Compact Flash, Memory Stick, SecureDigital, SmartMedia, Microdrive, MMC, USB Memory Drives...
PhotoRec has been successfully tested with the following Digital Camera
* Canon EOS300D, 10D
* HP PhotoSmart 620, 850, 935
* Nikon CoolPix 775, 950, 5700
* Olympus C350N, C860L, Mju 400 Digital, Stylus 300
* Sony DSC-P9
* Praktica DCZ-3.4
* Casio Exilim EX-Z 750
Known file format
PhotoRec searches known file header and because there is no data fragmentation (usually), it can recover the whole file. Photorec recognises numerous file format including ZIP, Office, PDF, HTML, JPEG and various graphics file formats. The whole list of file formats recovered by PhotoRec contains more than 80 file extensions.
http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/PhotoRec
DOWNLOAD LINK
http://www.cgsecurity.org/wiki/TestDisk_Download
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 04:30 |
Link to this message
|
RIAA: filing cases by the media
p2pnet.net News:- The Big Four Organized Music cartel routinely treats the people its owners rely wholly upon, the people who buy their product, with utter contempt, almost loathing.
"Consumers owe us a living," say Warner Music, Vivendi Universal, EMI and Sony BMG, in effect, also declaring, "Every man, woman and child, is a potential criminal and thief who'll rob us blind unless they're forcibly prevented from doing so."
Teams of lawyers around the world working through various Big Four 'trade' units such as the RIAA have all manner of sly tricks ready to manipulate mainstream reporters into running stories which present the record labels as hard-pressed, honest, law-abiding companies: as victims instead of perpetrators.
P2pnet highlighted one of the tricks: 'filing' supposed court documents through the media without going anywhere near a court. The idea is to, "publicly harrass and humiliate the defendants in the on- and offline print and electronic, media" we said.
Says Ars Technica:
According to RIAA filings, Michelle Santangelo, 20, has admitted to illegal downloading at the age of 16. Robert Santangelo, 16, was implicated by his best friend, who said that the two traded copyrighted songs online. An RIAA spokesperson said that "it is unfortunate that this case has reached this stage. [...] It is abundantly clear, through their own words and additional evidence, that Michelle and Robert Santangelo, Jr. illegally downloaded hundreds and hundreds of songs."
Unfortunate? It's exactly what the RIAA was working for.
But there hadn't been a filing when the Ars Technica item was written, and there still hadn't been at the time of our post today, as far as we could discover.
It seems incredible that this kind of underhand tactic is permissible, even in the US. But could the same technique be used in Canada, where the Big Four are lobbying unrelentingly to have Canadian copyright laws changed?
We asked Dr Michael Geist, Canada research chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa.
"Sure it could happen in Canada," he said. "Plaintiffs are often similarly aggressive in litigation matters and use the media as a key part of their strategy."
But might it be a petard upon which the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) and others of its ilk, such as the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America), could be hoist?
Although there may not be a law prohibiting the release of this information, "there are laws on defamation, libel and slander," says one comment to the story. "Until you file the motion with the court, the accusation is not public record."
But, "it's quite the opposite" says another. "The language isn't protected UNTIL it's filed with the court."
It continues:
Interestingly, at the moment, it may very well be libelous. Once they file it with the court, that protects the language of the *filed* document, but I think it does not protect the publicly-released document retroactively.
Hmmm . . . I wonder if that's another cause of action against the RIAA, for ALL of the defendants who have found out about their suits in the press? Of course, truth is an ABSOLUTE DEFENSE, so if any defendant settles, or is proven to have done that of which the RIAA has accused them, then no action would be available. The analysis is more complicated than this, so I'll have to consider it further.
In the meantime, since the RIAA monitors this site closely, let's not give them too much.
Stay tuned.
http://p2pnet.net/story/10321?PHPSESSID=...ddd849b095ea230
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 05:21 |
Link to this message
|
IPPR calls to legalise personal copying in UK
At the moment, anyone in the UK who transfers music they purchased to their MP3 player, such as from CDs to an iPod may not realise that they are infringing copyright law and could be prosecuted under the current law. As a result, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) is aiming to decriminalise consumers in Britain by requesting a change in the law to allow the private right to copy, since the IPPR argues that personal copying has little impact on copyright holders. Over half of consumers in the UK break copyright law as a result of some form of personal copying and thus it is nonsense having such a law that everyone breaks.
At present, the UK government is reviewing intellectual property laws and the IPPR is aiming to have an influence with its report "Public Innovation: Intellectual property in a digital age." As music is becoming more widespread as intangible assets, where music is distributed as downloads and often protected with Digital Rights Management (DRM), the report also looks at this area, since DRM affects the ability to preserve this type of content as well as affects its accessibility. As a result, the report asks to allow the British Library to have access to digital content free of DRM and be able to make more than one copy of it. Finally the report also aims to get the government to reject the UK Music Industry's attempt to extend the copyright term for recordings longer than the current 50 years.
It will be interesting to see if changes to the copyright law would have any effect. For example, even though it is currently illegal to privately transfer music from one device to another, chances are that no one has ever been prosecuted for private home copying. Then again, if the music industry did try to sue one for private copying, such as transferring their personal CD collection to an iPod, this would potentially give the UK music industry a real bad image compared to their current lawsuit campaign against file sharers.
Thanks to GristyMcFisty for letting us know about this news. More detailed info can be read at the BBC News source here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6095612.stm
http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/IPPR-calls-...ying-in-UK.html
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. November 2006 @ 05:22
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 06:29 |
Link to this message
|
GOOD MORNING TO YE ALL..
I IS HAVING A LITTLE BREAKFAST
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
6. November 2006 @ 06:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
that is little!! hate to see what a medium or big breakfast looks like.
|
Junior Member
|
6. November 2006 @ 06:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think that's breakfast, lunch and dinner all in one. But it sure looks good.
"RIAA, what a bunch of turkeys." |
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 07:12 |
Link to this message
|
ddp on his way to breakfast..
also now ye will know how ddp checks the threads so fast..
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 07:26 |
Link to this message
|
RIAA sues multiple sclerosis Mum
Rae Jay Schwartz
p2pnet.net News:- Rae Jay Schwartz is a mother in Queen's, New York, who's been seriously disabled by multiple sclerosis, a chronic, crippling disease of the central nervous system.
It's also known as MS, and there's no known cure but according to EMI, Vivendi Universal, Sony BMG and Warner Music, the members of the Big Four Organized music cartel, Rae Jay is another of the thousands of American mothers who are illicit p2p file sharers distributing copyrighted music online and contributing to the "devastation" the multi-billion-dollar labels claims the practice is visiting upon them.
She vehemently denies the allegation, telling p2pnet that not only has she never shared a file in her life, until the Big Four came along, she didn't even know what the phrase meant.
Her name is, however, on an ISP agreement form. And she does have a young daughter who's undoubtedly the real target of the attack by the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIdoubleA, as the Big Four US enforcement unit is infamously known.
Because it's now SOP for the RIAA to first terrorize the parents of children its lawyers later accuse of uploading and downloading music, as happened with 12-year-old Briana LaHara and Brittany Chan, 13, just two of the RAA's child victims.
And it's happening today with Michelle and Robert Santangelo whose mother, Patti, was initially accused of being a "massive distributor" of copyrighted music.
Robert was 12 and Michelle, 16, when this was supposed to have taken place.
To boost their claims without actually having to prove anything, the RIAA is also using the mainstream media to publicly harrass and humiliate the Santangeo family via a 'court document' which, although it still hadn't been indexed at the time of writing, or seen by the Santangelos or their lawyer, Jordan Glass, was last week freely distributed to the media.
In the Schwartz case, "The plaintiffs have engaged in a conspiracy to defraud the Courts of the United States," says their lawyer, Ray Beckerman.
They're doing it, he states, by:
Bringing lawsuits against people, "who are not known to have infringed copyrights";
Making, "false and unsupported allegations that the defendants have infringed copyrights";
Utilizing a corporation known as Settlement Support Center LLC, "to make extortionate threats of criminal action and of defaming defendants' names and credit":
Conducting ex parte 'John Doe' lawsuits, "which they have no intention of pursuing, but in which they interact with Judges, Magistrates, and other officials on a daily basis, without notice or opportunity to be heard being offered to defendants"; and,
Bringing the 'John Doe' lawsuits in jurisdictions far removed from the homes of the 'John Does' so they have, "no meaningful opportunity to be heard or to retain counsel of their own choosing; by sending out press releases for the purpose of humiliating, embarrassing, and extorting; and by other unconscionable conduct".
The Big Four claim files shared equal sales lost, something they've never come even close to demonstrating.
With file sharing, 'sharing' is the operative word. No money changes hands and no one is deprived of someting they once owned. And yet EMI, Vivendi Universal, Sony BMG and Warner Music accuse the Schwartzes, the Chans, the Santangelos, the LaHaras and al their other innocent victims of being "criminals" and "thieves".
Recently, in the first ruling of its kind in Europe, Spanish judge Paz Aldecoa threw out a case against an unnamed 48-year-old man who offered and downloaded digital versions of music on the internet. The man was also said to have sent music CDs to people but, "Under Spanish law, a person who downloaded music for personal use couldn't be punished or branded a criminal," said Guatrdian Unlimited, adding:
"That would imply criminalising socially admitted and widely practised behaviour where the aim is not to gain wealth illegally but to obtain private copies," Aldecoa said in her judgment.
Under Spanish law, a person who downloaded music for personal use couldn't be punished or branded a criminal, says the story, going on:
"That would imply criminalising socially admitted and widely practised behaviour where the aim is not to gain wealth illegally but to obtain private copies," Aldecoa said in her judgment.
Meanwhile, "the bizarre sue 'em all marketing campaign isn't working and every day, more and more people are turning away in disgust, continuing to use the p2p networks and independent music sites for their music downloads," p2pnet posted.
"And ironically, the existence of the sites is continually publicized and emphasized by the very lawsuits meant to destroy them."
Stay tuned.
Also See:
Briana LaHara - Big Music mobile p2p attack, November 3, 2005
Brittany Chan - RIAA fails in Chan case, March 22, 2006
happening today - RIAA goes after Santangelo kids, November 2, 2006
harrass and humiliate - RIAA: filing cases by the media, November 5, 2006
first ruling - Music downoads legal in Spain, November 3, 2006
p2pnet posted - Big Music's survival guide, November 2, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
(Monday 6th November 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/10328?PHPSESSID=4f914f20ce0dedc4987466
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 10:12 |
Link to this message
|
HEADS UP ON THIS POST,I SURE WOULD READ
0-day bug shatters Windows
Mother, it's happening again
By John Leyden → More by this author
Published Monday 6th November 2006 14:30 GMT
Get The Register's new weekly newsletter for senior IT managers delivered to your inbox, click here.
Security researchers have identified an unpatched vulnerability in Windows. The flaw - which affects all supported versions of Windows bar Windows 2003 - resides in a security bug in Microsoft XML Core Services, specifically an unspecified security bug in the XMLHTTP 4.0 ActiveX Control.
The flaw creates a means for hackers to inject malware onto the PCs of surfers running IE who visit a website hosting malicious code that attempts to harness the security bug. Security notification firm Secunia says that the vulnerability is being actively exploited by hackers.
Microsoft has posted an advisory conceding the problem and suggesting possible workarounds, which basically involve disabling the affected ActiveX control, ahead of the arrival of a patch
Microsoft Security Advisory (927892)
Vulnerability in Microsoft XML Core Services Could Allow Remote Code Execution
Published: November 3, 2006
Microsoft is investigating public reports of a vulnerability in the XMLHTTP 4.0 ActiveX Control, part of Microsoft XML Core Services 4.0 on Windows. We are aware of limited attacks that are attempting to use the reported vulnerability.
Customers who are running Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 in their default configurations, with the Enhanced Security Configuration turned on, are not affected. Customers would need to visit an attacker?s Web site to be at risk. We will continue to investigate these public reports.
Upon completion of this investigation, Microsoft will take the appropriate action to help protect our customers. A security update will be released through our monthly release process or an out-of-cycle security update will be provided, depending on customer needs.
Customers are encouraged to keep their anti-virus software up to date.
Microsoft encourages users to exercise caution when they open e-mail and links in e-mail from untrusted sources. For more information about Safe Browsing, visit the Trustworthy Computing Web site.
We continue to encourage customers to follow our Protect Your PC guidance of enabling a firewall, applying software updates and installing antivirus software. Customers can learn more about these steps at the Protect Your PC Web site.
Customers who believe they have been attacked should contact their local FBI office or post their complaint on the Internet Fraud Complaint Center Web site. Customers outside the U.S. should contact the national law enforcement agency in their country.
Customers who believe they may have been affected by this issue can also contact Product Support Services. You can contact Product Support Services in the United States and Canada at no charge using the PC Safety line (1 866-PCSAFETY). Customers outside of the United States and Canada can locate the number for no-charge virus support by visiting the Microsoft Help and Support Web site.
Mitigating Factors:
?
In a Web-based attack scenario, an attacker would have to host a Web site that contains a Web page that is used to exploit this vulnerability. An attacker would have no way to force users to visit a malicious Web site. Instead, an attacker would have to persuade them to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link that takes them to the attacker's Web site.
?
An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the logged on user. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than users who operate with administrative user rights.
?
The Restricted sites zone helps reduce attacks that could try to exploit this vulnerability by preventing Active Scripting from being used when reading HTML e-mail messages. However, if a user clicks a link in an e-mail message, they could still be vulnerable to this issue through the Web-based attack scenario.
By default, Outlook Express 6, Outlook 2002, and Outlook 2003 open HTML e-mail messages in the Restricted sites zone. Additionally, Outlook 2000 opens HTML e-mail messages in the Restricted sites zone if the Outlook E-mail Security Update has been installed. Outlook Express 5.5 Service Pack 2 opens HTML e-mail messages in the Restricted sites zone if Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-018 has been installed.
?
By default, Internet Explorer on Windows Server 2003 runs in a restricted mode that is known as Enhanced Security Configuration. This mode mitigates this vulnerability because ActiveX and Active Scripting are disabled by default.
General Information
Overview
Purpose of Advisory: To provide customers with initial notification of the publicly disclosed vulnerability. For more information see the ?Suggested Actions? section of the security advisory for more information.
Advisory Status: Issue Confirmed, Security Update Planned
Recommendation: Review the suggested actions and configure as appropriate
References Identification
Microsoft Knowledge Base Article
927892
This advisory discusses the following software.
Related Software
Microsoft XML Core Services 4.0 when installed on Windows 2000 Service Pack 4
Microsoft XML Core Services 4.0 when installed on Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
Microsoft XML Core Services 4.0 when installed on Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1
Top of sectionTop of section
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the scope of the advisory?
Microsoft is aware of a new, publicly disclosed, vulnerability report affecting the XMLHTTP 4.0 ActiveX Control, which is part of Microsoft XML Core Services 4.0. This vulnerability affects the software that is listed in the ?Overview? section.
Is this a security vulnerability that requires Microsoft to issue a security update?
We are currently investigating the issue to determine the appropriate course of action for customers. We will include the fix for this issue in an upcoming security bulletin.
What is Microsoft XML Core Services (MSXML)?
Microsoft XML Core Services (MSXML) allows customers who use JScript, Visual Basic Scripting Edition (VBScript), and Microsoft Visual Studio 6.0 to build XML-based applications that provide interoperability with other applications that adhere to the XML 1.0 standard. For more information regarding MSXML, see the MSDN Web site.
What might an attacker use this function to do?
An attacker could host a specially crafted Web site that is designed to exploit this vulnerability through Internet Explorer and then persuade a user to view the Web site. This can also include Web sites that accept user-provided content or advertisements, Web sites that host user-provided content or advertisements, and compromised Web sites. These Web sites could contain specially crafted content that could exploit this vulnerability. In all cases, however, an attacker would have no way to force users to visit these Web sites. Instead, an attacker would have to persuade users to visit the Web site, typically by getting them to click a link in an e-mail message or in an Instant Messenger request that takes users to the attacker's Web site. It could also be possible to display specially crafted Web content by using banner advertisements or by using other methods to deliver Web content to affected systems.
Top of sectionTop of section
Suggested Actions
MORE INFO HERE
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/advisory/927892.mspx
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. November 2006 @ 10:13
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 10:17 |
Link to this message
|
|
work around to the above
Configure Internet Explorer to prompt before running Active Scripting or disable Active Scripting in the Internet and Local intranet security zone.
You can help protect against this vulnerability by changing your settings to prompt before running Active Scripting or to disable Active Scripting in the Internet and Local intranet security zone. To do this, follow these steps:
1.
In Internet Explorer, click Internet Options on the Tools menu.
2.
Click the Security tab.
3.
Click Internet, and then click Custom Level.
4.
Under Settings, in the Scripting section, under Active Scripting, click Promptor Disable, and then click OK.
5.
Click Local intranet, and then click Custom Level.
6.
Under Settings, in the Scripting section, under Active Scripting, click Promptor Disable, and then click OK.
7.
Click OK two times to return to Internet Explorer.
Note Disabling Active Scripting in the Internet and Local intranet security zones may cause some Web sites to work incorrectly. If you have difficulty using a Web site after you change this setting, and you are sure the site is safe to use, you can add that site to your list of trusted sites. This will allow the site to work correctly.
Note After you set Internet Explorer to require a prompt before it runs ActiveX controls and/or Active Scripting in the Internet zone and in the Local intranet zone, you can add sites that you trust to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone. This will allow you to continue to use trusted Web sites exactly as you do today, while helping to protect you from this attack on untrusted sites. We recommend that you add only sites that you trust to the Trusted sites zone.
To do this, follow these steps:
1.
In Internet Explorer, click Tools, click Internet Options, and then click the Security tab.
2.
In the Select a Web content zone to specify its current security settings box, click Trusted Sites, and then click Sites.
3.
If you want to add sites that do not require an encrypted channel, click to clear the Require server verification (https:) for all sites in this zone check box.
4.
In the Add this Web site to the zone box, type the URL of a site that you trust, and then click Add.
5.
Repeat these steps for each site that you want to add to the zone.
6.
Click OK two times to accept the changes and return to Internet Explorer.
Note Add any sites that you trust not to take malicious action on your computer. Two in particular that you may want to add are "*.windowsupdate.microsoft.com" and ?*.update.microsoft.com? (without the quotation marks). These are the sites that will host the update, and it requires an ActiveX Control to install the update.
Impact of Workaround: There are side effects to prompting before running Active Scripting. Many Web sites that are on the Internet or on an intranet use Active Scripting to provide additional functionality. For example, an online e-commerce site or banking site may use Active Scripting to provide menus, ordering forms, or even account statements. Prompting before running Active Scripting is a global setting that affects all Internet and intranet sites. You will be prompted frequently when you enable this workaround. For each prompt, if you feel you trust the site that you are visiting, click Yes to run Active Scripting. If you do not want to be prompted for all these sites, use the steps outlined in "Add sites that you trust to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone?.
Top of sectionTop of section
Configure Internet Explorer to prompt before running ActiveX Controls or disable ActiveX Controls in the Internet and Local intranet security zone.
You can help protect against this vulnerability by changing your Internet Explorer settings to prompt before running ActiveX controls. To do this, follow these steps:
1.
In Internet Explorer, click Internet Options on the Tools menu.
2.
Click the Security tab.
3.
Click Internet, and then click Custom Level.
4.
Under Settings, in the ActiveX controls and plug-ins section, under Run ActiveX controls and plug-ins, click Prompt or Disable, and then click OK.
5.
Click Local intranet, and then click Custom Level.
6.
Under Settings, in the ActiveX controls and plug-ins section, under Run ActiveX controls and plug-ins, click Prompt or Disable, and then click OK.
7.
Click OK two times to return to Internet Explorer.
Note After you set Internet Explorer to require a prompt before it runs ActiveX controls and/or Active Scripting in the Internet zone and in the Local intranet zone, you can add sites that you trust to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone. This will allow you to continue to use trusted Web sites exactly as you do today, while helping to protect you from this attack on untrusted sites. We recommend that you add only sites that you trust to the Trusted sites zone.
To do this, follow these steps:
1.
In Internet Explorer, click Tools, click Internet Options, and then click the Security tab.
2.
In the Select a Web content zone to specify its current security settings box, click Trusted Sites, and then click Sites.
3.
If you want to add sites that do not require an encrypted channel, click to clear the Require server verification (https:) for all sites in this zone check box.
4.
In the Add this Web site to the zone box, type the URL of a site that you trust, and then click Add.
5.
Repeat these steps for each site that you want to add to the zone.
6.
Click OK two times to accept the changes and return to Internet Explorer.
Note Add any sites that you trust not to take malicious action on your computer. Two in particular that you may want to add are "*.windowsupdate.microsoft.com" and ?*.update.microsoft.com? (without the quotation marks). These are the sites that will host the update, and it requires an ActiveX Control to install the update.
Impact of Workaround: There are side effects to prompting before running ActiveX controls. Many Web sites that are on the Internet or on an intranet use ActiveX to provide additional functionality. For example, an online e-commerce site or banking site may use ActiveX controls to provide menus, ordering forms, or even account statements. Prompting before running ActiveX controls is a global setting that affects all Internet and intranet sites. You will be prompted frequently when you enable this workaround. For each prompt, if you feel you trust the site that you are visiting, click Yes to run ActiveX controls. If you do not want to be prompted for all these sites, use the steps outlined in "Add sites that you trust to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone?.
Top of sectionTop of section
Set Internet and Local intranet security zone settings to ?High? to prompt before running ActiveX Controls and Active Scripting in these zones.
You can help protect against this vulnerability by changing your settings for the Internet security zone to prompt before running ActiveX controls. You can do this by setting your browser security to High.
To raise the browsing security level in Microsoft Internet Explorer, follow these steps:
1.
On the Internet Explorer Tools menu, click Internet Options.
2.
In the Internet Options dialog box, click the Security tab, and then click the Internet icon.
3.
Under Security level for this zone, move the slider to High. This sets the security level for all Web sites you visit to High.
Note If no slider is visible, click Default Level, and then move the slider to High.
Note Setting the level to High may cause some Web sites to work incorrectly. If you have difficulty using a Web site after you change this setting, and you are sure the site is safe to use, you can add that site to your list of trusted sites. This will allow the site to work correctly even with the security setting set to High.
Note After you set Internet Explorer to require a prompt before it runs ActiveX controls and/or Active Scripting in the Internet zone and in the Local intranet zone, you can add sites that you trust to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone. This will allow you to continue to use trusted Web sites exactly as you do today, while helping to protect you from this attack on untrusted sites. We recommend that you add only sites that you trust to the Trusted sites zone.
To do this, follow these steps:
1.
In Internet Explorer, click Tools, click Internet Options, and then click the Security tab.
2.
In the Select a Web content zone to specify its current security settings box, click Trusted Sites, and then click Sites.
3.
If you want to add sites that do not require an encrypted channel, click to clear the Require server verification (https:) for all sites in this zone check box.
4.
In the Add this Web site to the zone box, type the URL of a site that you trust, and then click Add.
5.
Repeat these steps for each site that you want to add to the zone.
6.
Click OK two times to accept the changes and return to Internet Explorer.
Note Add any sites that you trust not to take malicious action on your computer. Two in particular that you may want to add are "*.windowsupdate.microsoft.com" and ?*.update.microsoft.com? (without the quotation marks). These are the sites that will host the update, and it requires an ActiveX Control to install the update.
Impact of Workaround: There are side effects to prompting before running ActiveX Controls and Active Scripting. Many Web sites that are on the Internet or on an intranet use ActiveX or Active Scripting to provide additional functionality. For example, an online e-commerce site or banking site may use ActiveX Controls to provide menus, ordering forms, or even account statements. Prompting before running ActiveX Controls or Active Scripting is a global setting that affects all Internet and intranet sites. You will be prompted frequently when you enable this workaround. For each prompt, if you feel you trust the site that you are visiting, click Yes to run ActiveX Controls or Active Scripting. If you do not want to be prompted for all these sites, use the steps outlined in "Add sites that you trust to the Internet Explorer Trusted sites zone?.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 11:30 |
Link to this message
|
quote
UFO Video that peaked my Interest!
Those of you that have listened to my Podcast know about the two UFO sightings that I have had, that based upon my interpretation where the real deal. Every once in a while a UFO headline or video catches my eye. Thought some of you may enjoy this one that has surfaced on YouTube. The audio is really bad but listen pretty close to the commentary and let me know what you think. [YouTube]
http://www.geeknewscentral.com/archives/006555.html
link
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...duration%3Along
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 6. November 2006 @ 11:30
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
6. November 2006 @ 11:59 |
Link to this message
|
How to Fix a Stuck Pixel on an LCD Monitor
If your LCD screen has a stuck or dead pixel , it's usually malfunctioning because the liquid in the liquid crystal display (TFT LCD) has not covered the whole screen. This can often be fixed.
Steps
1. Try a software solution (links at the bottom of the page). This method rapidly turns on and off pixels in an attempt to re-energise stuck pixels. If this fails, complete the following steps.
2. Turn off your computer's monitor.
3. Get yourself a damp cloth, so that you don't scratch your screen.
4. Apply pressure to the area where the stuck pixel is. Do not put pressure anywhere else, as this may make more stuck pixels.
5. While applying pressure, turn on your computer and screen.
6. Remove pressure and the stuck pixel should be gone. This works as the liquid in the liquid crystal has not spread into each little pixel. This liquid is used with the backlight on your monitor, allowing different amounts of light through, which creates the different colours.
Tips
* Many people report success with this technique but these instructions won't work in every case.
* These instructions will fix "stuck" pixels, not "dead" ones. Dead pixels appear black while stuck pixels can be one constant color like red, blue or green.
* An alternative, but similar technique involves gently massaging the stuck pixel on your screen. Another method involves playing a video (available for download in external links below) which changes colors 30 times per second.
* If these instructions don't work, you can hopefully get the monitor fixed through your manufacturer. Follow the link at the bottom of the page to the Tom's Hardware article on how many pixels it takes for your specific manufacturer to replace the whole monitor. If your monitor falls under the specifications of replacement, get in contact with the manufacturer to set up replacement plans.
* Gently tapping the area can also work in some cases.
Warnings
* Do not attempt to open the monitor as it will void the warranty and the manufacturer will not replace it.
* Make sure you don't get any electrical equipment wet or it may break.
* Some people claim that this can cause more pixels to become stuck, although this has not been proven. This claim is more prevalent with the color-changing video than with the pushing method.
Related wikiHows
* How to Clean a Laptop Screen With Household Products
* How to Clean a Plasma TV Screen
* How to Mount a Plasma TV on a Wall
* How to Exercise While Sitting at Your Computer
* How to Degauss a Computer Monitor
* How to Fix a Scratch on an LCD Screen
External Links
* JScreenFix - A web-based Java Applet that randomly turns on and off each pixel at upto 60 times a second to fix stuck pixels.
* Digg.com - Over 100 comments on the above article from Digg users. Note that it worked for many people but not all.
* TomsHardware.com - Article on how many dead pixels a monitor must have for your specific manufacturer to replace it.
* JeffPatch.com blog Post about the Sony Color Flashing Video which can also fix stuck pixels.
* DPT This program can help you find out how many stuck pixels you have on your lcd.
* UDPixel 2.1 - A free windows application which help you to locate and fix 1 or more stuck pixels.
http://www.wikihow.com/Fix-a-Stuck-Pixel-on-an-LCD-Monitor
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. November 2006 @ 05:17 |
Link to this message
|
FREE,FIND MY :'(CREDIT CARD INFO ..........
Find My Credit Card software is intended to show you private info on your own machine, which you may not know of, and erase redundant information posing hazard to your security .....(free).....GO THERE!
http://www.smartpctools.com/secure_credit_card/index1.html
Find My Credit Card software is intended to show you private info, which you may not know of, and erase redundant information posing hazard to your security.
Perhaps, you have no idea that your computer may contain your private information which you have long forgotten about. These may include your credit card information, login names, passwords as well as cookie files tracking your Web surfing habits. The Find My Credit Card software finds all personal information and suggests its unrestorable erasure. Please bear in mind that no antispyware will save you from information theft. You need to be aware of what and where sensitive information is stored on your computer and purge it on a regular basis thus making information theft useless.
Find My Credit Card supports Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Netscape web browsers.
Always keep on the safe side!
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
7. November 2006 @ 10:13 |
Link to this message
|
P2p file sharing and the law.
p2pnet.net News:- The University of St Thomas is in St Paul, Minnesota and its school online newspaper, the Bulletin, has a feature called Tech Tuesday from Information Resources and Technologies.
Today's post shows just how hard the Big Four Organized Music cartel is working to get even more US teaching institutions signed up as unpaid product marketing and copyright enforcement divisions.
Actually, 'unpaid' is incorrect because, of course, fees and taxpayer money provide the wherewithall.
Meanwhile, "Since Sept. 1, 2006, the University of St. Thomas has been contacted nearly 100 times by the Recording Industry Association of America and others representing copyright holders regarding the illegal offering of music, software or other kinds of programming via a peer-to-peer network application, such as Napster or Gnutella," says the post.
In point of fact, you guys over at Information Resources and Technologies, way back, the Big Four, Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG, greased Napster into Penn State - the first school to become one with Hollywood and the labels - precisely because it's not illegal.
Rather, Napster now a rock-solid corporate citizen unsuccessfully touting over-priced, cookie-cutter Big Four product. And Gnutella is a file sharing network.
Anyway, "These 91 cases compare to less than a dozen in the entire spring semester of 2006," says the Bulletin. "In each of these cases, the notice from the RIAA informs the university that the sharing activity is both illegal and unauthorized by the copyright owner; further, the notice asks the university to disable access to the infringing recording."
The post goes on:
Once the notice is received, staff members in IRT immediately act to disable network access by the computer that is hosting the illegal activity. This "notice and take down" process is designed to provide some protection for copyright owners, and is a process with which most universities readily comply.
Federal copyright law prohibits the unauthorized copying of intellectual property (books and recordings). Hosting illegal copies of songs, TV shows, movies or software on your computer and making these resources available to others via a sharing network constitutes the illegal copying of the material.
There are two perspectives on this issue ? the music industry refers to the sharing of songs and movies as "theft," which is perhaps a harsher term for what it is ? the infringement of the rights of the copyright owner. At the same time, users of peer-to-peer networks like to say that they are "sharing" not "stealing" ? although, again, it is different than sharing your toys, which everyone agrees is a good thing. In the case of online sharing, you keep your "toy" while your friend gets another copy of your toy ? it is being reproduced by the user rather than purchased from the creator.
While there is an ongoing debate on copyright in the United States, the fact remains that it is illegal to share copyrighted material via the network. In addition, this activity places a high demand on the bandwidth assigned to the UST network and contributes, at least in part, to slowness in computing performance systemwide.
The University of St. Thomas takes compliance with the law seriously. Even when there is a gap between technology and the statutes of the state and nation, it is responsible, right and ethical to respect the law.
(Thanks, Frankie)
Also See:
Bulletin -Peer-to-peer file sharing and the law, November 7, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
(Tuesday 7th November 2006)
http://p2pnet.net/story/10346?PHPSESSID=...b36614ca963ef70
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Senior Member
|
7. November 2006 @ 10:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
ireland, Have i ever told you i love you? LMFAO! your awesome.. :)
|
|
