| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
File Integrity: Windows Still Fails at the Most Basic Task | |
|
||
| Time: 15:11 EST/20:11 GMT | News Source: PC World | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
It goes without saying that an operating system has to provide access to files: open, close, read, write, etc. It should also go without saying that an operating sytem provides file integrity.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 223 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:52:14 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (206.169.247.2) at 3/22/2009 6:09:25 PM |
| How are folks like this allowed to write computer articles? |
| #2 By 12071 (203.210.68.145) at 3/22/2009 7:24:53 PM |
| hahaha this guy's funny... he's about as smart as the last US president. |
| #3 By 92283 (70.67.3.196) at 3/23/2009 10:07:08 AM |
| #2 Obama makes W. look like a Rhodes scholar. |
| #4 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 3/23/2009 11:07:55 AM |
|
#3: I knew that if I waited long enough you would say something funny.
It was worth the wait! |
| #5 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 3/23/2009 11:14:00 AM |
|
#3, No kidding...
Populist movements are DANGEROUS. History is littered with examples of how much damage they create and with a US President consumed of his own celebrity, I fear we ALL (globally) are in for a very bad time. We have a constitution and a leader who thinks it is fundamentally flawed, precisely, because it is so hard to change. Well... news bulletin... it was designed that way for a reason. The last US President (W), will prove to have been a lot smarter than a great many people have thus far concluded. He got the basics right... protect and defend the constitution - all else does not matter nearly as much. Despite his great oratory skills (as if practicing reading from a teleprompter doesn't help with that), President Obama isn't just naive, he's foolish and can't get past how much fun it is to explore the resources available to US Presidents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcVopcMPfSs |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/23/2009 11:51:16 AM |
| #5: I'm going to enjoy rubbing Obama in your face for the next 4 years. The US lost their way for 8 years under Bush, but die-hards like you just can't accept that and you refuse to acknowledge the reality in front of your eyes. The Republicans are going to be in the political wilderness for along time, and rightfully so as they have also strayed far from their roots of classic conservatism. "Protect and defend the Constitution"... what a joke. Didn't he say that the Constitution was just a piece of paper? Both him and Cheney should be arrested for war crimes. |
| #7 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 3/23/2009 12:19:39 PM |
|
"I'm going to enjoy rubbing Obama in your face for the next 4 years."
Obama is a moron. You support morons. We already knew that. We plan to rub that in your face for what will be a disastrously long nightmare of 4 years. Obama has done more to rehabilitate W. in 2 months than I would have believed possible. |
| #8 By 2332 (71.174.130.10) at 3/23/2009 1:02:39 PM |
|
Ahh... W apologists coming out of the wood work. Give it a rest, people.
Shall I dredge up all the comments made on these forums right before we invaded Iraq? I'm pretty sure you guys don't want that, since it shows how wrong you all were before. |
| #9 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 3/23/2009 1:44:23 PM |
|
I'm glad W. deposed the biggest mass murder dictator Sadaam Hussein. I'm glad Iraq is multi-religious democracy. I have nothing to apologize for.
Obama is now seen as such a moronic chicksh*t that Russia is planning to base nuclear equipped bombers in Cuba and Venezuela. http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/03/15/a-new-cuban-missile-crisis-russia-eyes-bomber-bases-in-latin-america/ Even the NY Times thinks he's an idiot. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20325.html |
| #10 By 15406 (99.240.65.32) at 3/23/2009 3:17:24 PM |
| #9: You don't give a rat's ass about Iraq and never did. Just empty words to support your boy Bush. And perhaps, if you engage your brain, the Russian bomber thing is maybe a response to the US's plans for the missile shield on Russia's doorstep? As for the Times, everyone's an expert, especially when they're not the ones who have to make the decision and stand by it, but they all have perfect 20/20 vision with their crystal balls. |
| #11 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 3/23/2009 4:01:16 PM |
|
Latch, I cared/care about Iraq. I spent a lot of time there. In April of 1990, I wrote desperately about avoiding a war there and how to transform Iraq. A lot of people care about Iraq and regret deeply our own mistakes there and what might have been done differently - going back many decades to 1923 when Kuwait was created. I recall vividly the direct general orders to "limit the carnage" and saw men risk their own lives to spare the lives of their declared enemies. There was and always is a clear understanding of how fundamentally wrong war is.
This notion that there was ever any "bad" intent has to stop. No matter who sat in the Whitehouse, or seats of government around the world, I never met one that had any measure of bad intent. They all do the best they can and most of it is bad and only marginally better than is used to be - it is why it has take our species so long to make progress. |
| #12 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 3/23/2009 4:02:06 PM |
|
#10 "You don't give a rat's ass about Iraq and never did"
Your are the one who doesn't care about Iraq. The loony left only cares about countries if they hate Israel enough. Thats what really pisses you off about Iraq. They may not be out to exterminate Jews anymore. The Russian "bomber thing" is about testing whether their (and yours) candidate will roll over and let them ram bombers up the USA's .... you know what. |
| #13 By 16797 (70.48.177.100) at 3/23/2009 4:21:12 PM |
|
#12 So, what did Bush do to stop Russia from sending its troops into Georgia? Or was that too about testing Obama? :)
|
| #14 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 3/23/2009 5:23:27 PM |
|
The missile defense system is not about Russia at all, but about shielding Europe from medium range missiles from central Asia. It is to do exactly what our own deterrent in the EU did in the cold war (only in a different way) by obviating the threat to Europe, leaving nuclear states threatening Europe, with only one choice: having to deal with the US nuclear arsenal and its ability to strike them back.
In simple terms, it intentionally exposes the US in the same ways Europeans are exposed and provides them with the assurance and deterrent afforded by the US Strategic nuclear umbrella. It represents the US's continued commitment to NATO, which now includes the eastern nations the missile shield is designed to protect. |
| #15 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 3/23/2009 5:56:46 PM |
|
#13 Didn't Obama show his cowardice during that crisis by waffling while McCain took a firm stand?
Putin must have laughed himself sick when Obama was elected. |
| #16 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 3/23/2009 6:48:39 PM |
|
and today....
Gheitner and Obama lay out their plan…. which is…<wait for it….> Bush and Paulson’s plan from six months ago! Wanna bet that Gheitner called Paulson and asked him to forward him an updated copy? So the opportunity to re-negotiate contracts goes up in smoke – BUT…. so far, Obama and Gheitner have been so bad that Bush-Paulson seem Good? So in reality, tax payers are subsidizing private investments from private equity investors that the Congress has vilified in response to a populist revolt that the administration and that same Congress fomented in the first place…? And tonight, on yet another prime time show, Obama will once again tell us it's not his fault - despite his inability to either add, or read the law - it's the congressional budget office's numbers all must follow, not his own rosier projections. Bush may have been "El Diablo" but sheesh, at least he wasn't an idiot! |
| #17 By 16797 (65.93.31.35) at 3/23/2009 6:49:18 PM |
|
#15 I asked about Bush, he was president then. What was his position? Oh yeah, he looked into Putin's eyes.. haha. Please.. (You think Putin was worried about McCain? LOL)
Beside.. Was Saddam that much of a threat to US.. more than those Wall st. thieves? I mean, just look at them: "Give us more money or we'll bring the whole system down." How is that not terrorism? How is that not a threat to national security? So, what did Bush do? Nothing, he gave them money last fall without *any* control really. That's how tough Bush is. Yeah, no kidding. At least Obama is fighting them, unlike Bush. Perhaps Obama should send marines to Wall st. |
| #18 By 16797 (65.93.31.35) at 3/23/2009 7:23:41 PM |
|
#16 "Gheitner and Obama lay out their plan…. which is…<wait for it….> Bush and Paulson’s plan from six months ago! "
Is that why everyone is asking for Geithner to be removed? |
| #19 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 3/23/2009 9:30:36 PM |
|
#18, Gheitner's doing the best he can and this plan has a shot - a small one, but it is going to have to be attended by some wild growth, or two years from now things will become even worse - much worse. Point is, they should have skipped the social spending and dumped every bit of it into the financial markets. They should have coordinated in Nov and simply done it. They didn't and like it or not every one of us is going to pay for that mistake.
|
| #20 By 143 (96.28.64.244) at 3/24/2009 1:42:08 AM |
| (W) Will be charged as a war criminal by the UN. |
| #21 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 3/24/2009 7:56:45 AM |
|
#20, I have a new measurement for the speed of light for you: the time it takes for men like me to bulldoze the UN into the Hudson, following any move to file any charge as ridiculous as that.
Pull some crap like that and the planet would find out real quick just how tight our control of the seas and air and space above them is. We can park Aegis class boats end to end and just about reach across the Atlantic. There's certain things around debate that we'll tolerate, but when it comes to openly attacking one of our Presidents, we lose our ever loving minds. I'd be the first to stand up for President Obama in the exact same way. Presidents, all of them, have one primary responsibility: Protect and Defend - the nation, its people and their constitution. W, despite all his faults, did exactly that. |
| #22 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/24/2009 9:13:22 AM |
| #21: Preemptive strikes against a belligerent but weak state is considered defending the nation? How do black prisons make the US safer? How does torture make the US safer? How does extraordinary rendition make the US safer? How does destroying another state to take out one man make the US safer? It seems to me that you think the US should have a free pass to do whatever it wants, while the rest of us should toe the US line. You have a problem with the UN because it doesn't just rubber-stamp approval for whatever the US does. You will happily use the UN when it suits your purpose, but then you'll cast it aside when it inconveniently gets in the way of your latest scheme. This isn't Planet America, you know. The rest of us live here too. Your constant cheerleading for Bush and the Republican party is sickening. The rest of us are glad he's gone and the GOP are out of power. |
| #23 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at 3/24/2009 9:44:14 AM |
|
#22, You are out of your ever loving mind. We wacthed 3,000 of our countrymen incinerated in living color blocks away from the UN campus "WE" fund and host. Every major intelligence organization on the planet reported that Sadaam was a madman and had the potential to deliver WMD to the same kind of radical theocrats that attacked us. So we were to sit back and wait for a tragedy that had the potential to destroy even more? You're insane if you think that the UN, who has authorized the use of force only twice (Korea and Iraq in Gulf War I), has the right to dictate what nations do to protect themselves.
You think for a moment that what the US has done by way of capturing and handling terrorists is new? Bush worked to form a legal framework around that action - in the open. You think Canada has not facilitated the same for nearly a century? You're mistaken. You think none of that went on before Bush, or by others? Don't be naive. Bush sought to bring order to all of it - to for the first time, place controls on what nations did in this kind of war. He did the exact opposite of what you opine. |
| #24 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 3/24/2009 10:25:35 AM |
|
#23: We wacthed 3,000 of our countrymen incinerated in living color blocks away from the UN campus "WE" fund and host.
So? What does that have to do with Iraq? Meanwhile, the world watched hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die during the invasion and the subsequent chaos and civil war (parkkker calls it a multi-religious democracy, strangely enough) that came after. Every major intelligence organization on the planet reported that Sadaam was a madman and had the potential to deliver WMD to the same kind of radical theocrats that attacked us. Well, no, they didn't. Both the US and UK intelligence services said Saddam was not a threat and didn't have anything close to a nuke, but that wasn't good enough for Bush. This is old news yet you still fail to acknowledge it because otherwise it makes Bush look like he cooked up the war - which he did. So we were to sit back and wait for a tragedy that had the potential to destroy even more? Yes, until there is a credible and imminent threat. It wasn't there. Bush worked to form a legal framework around that action - in the open. Hahahahaha, "legal framework". Bush made it up as he went along. Where exactly in this grand legal framework were the mandates for holding people indefinitely without any due process? Secret prisons? Torture? He even spied on US citizens which was against the law, and then passed an amendment to make it all legal after-the-fact, which was against the Constitution. {i]You think Canada has not facilitated the same for nearly a century? You're mistaken. You have no idea what you're talking about and are just making shit up to back your position. Do not for a second attempt to soil Canada by implying that Canada was complicit with Bush's flagrant disregard for the rule of law and human rights. You think none of that went on before Bush, or by others? Don't be naive. Bush sought to bring order to all of it - to for the first time, place controls on what nations did in this kind of war. He did the exact opposite of what you opine. Again, more BS. You're trying to minimize what Bush did by portraying it as the status quo. I believe you are very wrong (otherwise the US is no better than Cold War Russia), but even if you were right, that by no means excuses what he did. |
| #25 By 37 (192.251.125.85) at 3/24/2009 11:22:27 AM |
|
"#3 By NotParkerToo (442 Posts) at 3/23/2009 10:07:08 AM
#2 Obama makes W. look like a Rhodes scholar. " That really is THE funnierest, and most stoopidest thing I have EVER read on the internet. You just can't make that stuff up people. Oh, and Obama > GWB....no question |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 223 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:52:14 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
