Setting NTFS ACLs on lots of machines...

This is what I did:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;825751

cscript.exe xcacls.vbs "DirectoryName" /F /T /I COPY /G "DOMAIN\user":M /SERVER COMPUTER /L c:\LOG.txt

Replacing DirectoryName, DOMAIN\user, and COMPUTER with the appropriate information.  Change the LOG.txt location as well.

 

You will have to pay me a very, very, very large sum of money if you EVER expect me to use a new piece of Promise hardware again.  I will never, ever buy, recommend, suggest, or even MENTION their products to anyone.  (I will spend that money on a new machine with Adaptec drive controllers in it.)

Promise Technology Inc (www.promise.com) has simply disappointed me for the last time.

All the countless hours of wasted time, headaches, frustration...

When they tell you that only ONE of their cards will work in a computer, they mean it.  Ridiculous.  I had a Fast Trak TX2000 and a FastTrak S150.  This problem manifested itself as a SCSI HDD problem.  Somehow, having both of those cards caused my onboard SCSI Adaptec controller to fail.  Fine - its not their fault for my wasted hours! =)

So I put TWO Adaptec 1210SA cards in a server and boot.  No problems! They even TALK to each other and I can configure BOTH from within ONE BIOS interface.  Tightness.

Its the end of the proof.  Promise is simply delivering sketchy hardware with sketchy drivers.  Downtime.  Strange BIOS behaviour.  Random BSOD, hard crashes - and its not just THIS card.  I've had it in LOTS of machines.  Rip the card out, and EVERYTHING starts working.  Replace the card, same problem.  Its not isolated to specific products, or specific configurations.  Their cards simply cause strange things.

Don't waste your time.  Buy the more expensive Adaptec stuff - there's a reason for the price difference.  You'll thank me.

Update:
I have noticed that the Nov 16 2004 drivers listed on Adaptec's site causes random hangs at system startup, just before the Windows logo comes up.

The June 15th 2005 drivers are stable and are fine, as far as I can tell.  Anyone else notice strange crashes?

 

http://www.hexillion.com/docs/mailadmin_faq.htm

There's the answer.  This component has been scanning several SMTP servers, triggering security alerts.

I will setup some filters and start blocking IPs soon.

 

http://singlenesia.com/eris/selfres

This is Not the Title of This Essay
Rescued from The Cabal of the One True Marshmallow  
 

This is Not the Title of This Essay
A Playful Look at Attempts to Solve the Problems of Paradox and Self-Reference

Tim Maly-Tutorial 1
Section VI, Paper 2
April 14, 1997
Tutor: L. Bruce-Robertson

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This a self-referential sentence

Thit sentence is not self-referential because 'thit' is not a word.
-Douglas Hofstadter

This sentence has cabbage six words.
-David Moser

This gubblick contains many nonsklarkish English flutzpahs, but the overall pluggandisp can be glorked from context.
-David Moser

Does this sentence remind you of Agatha Christie?
-Ann Trail

If the meanings of 'true' and 'false' were switched, then this sentence wouldn't be false.
-Pete Maclean

You have of course, just begun the sentence that you have just finished reading.
-Peter Brigham

If you think this sentence is confusing, then change one pig.
-Uilliam Bricken Jr.

Although this sentence begins with the word 'because', it is false.
-Douglas Hofstadter

The world will little note nor long remember what we say here.
-Abraham Lincoln

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of themselves, even a prophet of their own said, the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true...
-Saint Paul, Titus 1:12-13

To every w-consistent recursive class k of formulae there correspond recursive class signs r, such that neither uGenr nor Neg(uGenr) belongs to FLG (k) (where u is the free variable of r)
-Kurt Gödel, "On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This essay is full of mistakes. Idea after idea and sentence after sentence is simply wrong. This sentence, for example, is false. Worse yet, this not even complete sentence! A long time ago (so the legend goes) a Cretan prophet by the name of Epimenides declared that "All Cretans are liars." This paradoxical statement has come to be known as the Epimenides paradox or the Liar paradox This Adam (or atom) of paradoxes has been reformulated into countless variants, yielding such gems as "I am lying," and "this sentence is false." It has been split, ("The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence is false.") boxed, translated and quoted in the Bible. In short, one would assume that the Liar Paradox had been beaten to death. In 1931, a German mathematician named Kurt Gödel breathed new life into the Liar paradox in a paper poetically entitled "On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I": Gödel's work demonstrated that paradox forms an implicit part of every axiomatic system of logical reasoning. In this essay, I will be examining the problems which self reference and paradox pose to systems of reasoning especially formalized mathematical and logical reasoning. These two areas, in their quest for objective truth become very interesting in the light of Gödel's revelations. In the end, it may turn out that their quests for a formalized objective truth may have been in vain. In addition, I will sometimes be referring to myself (with good reason).

Before we proceed, it is vital that we understand why self-reference is such an important topic. We must ask, "why write this essay at all?" Of course, in asking that question, I have answered it. Self-reference is one of the most powerful aspects of human thought and language. On the one hand, it is very useful, allowing me to refer to the subject of this essay (self-reference and Gödel) and even myself. How could I survive if I could not complain that "My arm has been cut off and I'm going to die"? On the other hand, as we have already seen, self-reference also allows us to construct such sentences as "I am lying", or "ignore these words". Perhaps most troubling would be constructs like the following one, which proposes

Let us make a new convention: that anything when enclosed in triple quotes- for example '''No, I have decided to change my mind; when the triple quotes close, just skip directly to the period and ignore everything up to it''' -is not even to be read (much less paid attention to or obeyed).
To a logician or a mathematician who is attempting to construct a system which is clear and precise, the possibility of such a statement is most distressing. In order for a system to be truly reflective of reality, conventional math wisdom goes, it must be able to accurately represent all truths while side stepping paradox. Over the years, various mathematicians have attempted to create a system free from paradox and they have gone about it in a variety of ways. It will perhaps be helpful to look at this development.

A good paradox for beginning our discussion of mathematics is Grelling's paradox. If one wished, one could divide all of the English adjectives into two categories: autological and heterological. An autological adjective is one which is self-descriptive; "pentasyllabic", "awkwardfulness", "short". A heterological adjective is not self-descriptive; "edible", "hungry", "monosyllabic", "long". Now, the question we must ask ourselves is: "Is 'heterological' heterological?"

This idea is analogous to some problems with the theory of sets first developed by Georg Cantor in the 1880's. In the 1900's, the mathematician Gottlob Frege attempted to secure the foundations of number theory in logic, using set theory. His project was to clearly define the natural numbers, ensuring that our understanding of them was free from contradiction and paradox. His attempt was doomed to failure because of a paradox implicit in set theory. A set can be either a member of itself, or not. Most sets are not members of themselves: the set of cabbages is not a cabbage, the set of Luke Skywalker is not Luke Skywalker. On the other hand, some sets do contain themselves: the set of all sets, the set of things which are not paintings. Now, we can easily imagine a set S: the set of all sets which are not self-containing. Recalling Grelling's paradox, we now ask "is S a member of this set?" This is called Russell's paradox as it was discovered by Bertrand Russell, spelling the downfall of Frege's system.

Once Russell had discovered this problem, he examined mathematical reasoning and concluded that the paradoxes came from self-reference. In order to eliminate paradox, Russell thought, it is necessary to eliminate all forms of self-reference. This task proves rather difficult due to the fact that self-reference is not always contained in one step statements. In addition to banning "This statement is false" Russell also had to deal with two or more step paradoxes such as the one already witnessed ("The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence is false."). In order to realise this goal, Russell had to figure out how to ban both direct and indirect self-reference. Ultimately, Russell, like Frege wanted to create a system powerful enough to be able to prove all truths about the natural numbers, without falling into the inconsistency of paradox. He was looking for a system which was complete and consistent.

The result of this search was a four volume work, the Principia Mathmatica, published between 1910 and 1913 by Russell and Alfred North Whitehead. Their goal was to create a system of logical and mathematical reasoning which was impervious to paradox. They introduced into mathematics a strict system of hierarchical types where a set of one type was only allowed to refer to sets of lower types. The lowest order could only contain "objects" and no sets. The next type could contain only objects and the lowest order of sets. Thus no set could contain itself. Set S would be forbidden. In theory, this also dealt with the two step Liar paradox in that neither (or each) sentence is of a higher type than the other, so it must be meaningless (ie; together they cannot be formulated within the hierarchical system). However, there are still many intuitive problems with this system.

As I mentioned before, self-reference is an important part of daily life. Under Russell's system, I could not refer to this essay as I am now doing, I would need a higher order essay, a meta-essay if you will. Worse, I could never refer to myself at all! In fact, the theory of types, if applied to language is a violation of itself. How can one argue that the Liar paradox is meaningless? To what level of type does the word 'meaningless' belong? The Principia Mathematica, in its zeal to eliminate paradox, does away with several useful concepts which are important parts of human reasoning. With no recourse to references of self, we are left with no way of expressing anything about ourselves. Ironically, even these drastic sacrifices for the sake of avoiding paradox fail.

Just when Russell and Whitehead thought that they had created a fortress against the evils of self-reference, Kurt Gödel found a chink in the wall. In his 1931 paper ":On Formally Undecidable Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems I" he makes the following proposition (number VI)

"To every w-consistent recursive class k of formulae there correspond recursive class signs r, such that neither uGenr nor Neg(uGenr) belongs to FLG (k) (where u is the free variable of r)"

"Actually, it was in German, and perhaps you feel that it might as well be in German anyway. So here is a paraphrase in more normal English:

All consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions. This is the pearl."

Gödel's theorem is proven by reversing Russell and Whitehead's work. Where Russell and Whitehead showed that numbers could be mapped isomorphically onto logical statements, Gödel showed that logical statements could be mapped isomorphically onto numbers. A way of understanding how this mapping is possible might be to consider the analogy of feedback loops created with electric guitars.

When the string of an electric guitar is plucked, the vibrations induce an electrical current which causes a magnet to induce vibrations in a speaker. The speaker in turn causes vibrations in the air which can cause the string to resonate, causing more electrical signal, causing more sound, causing more resonance and so on. The vibrations are mapped on to an electrical current which is mapped on to vibrations.

Instead of creating a feedback loop, Gödel's theorem creates a paradox (like a guitar which, when played through a particular amplifier, produces a sound whose vibrations actually destroy the guitar and the amplifier). More specifically, Gödel used his mapping system to create a mathematical statement G which means "I cannot be proven in system X." (where X is the system in which G is written). This statement destroys any hope of completeness in system X. Because G is a true statement, it is unprovable, therefore, system X is incomplete; it is not powerful enough to capture all truths.

"It sounds a bit like a science fiction robot called 'ROBOT R-15' droning (of course in a telegraphic monotone):

ROBOT R-15 UNFORTUNATELY UNABLE TO COMPLETE TASK T-12 -VERY SORRY

Now, what happens if TASK T-12 happens, by some crazy coincidence, to not be the assembly of some strange cosmic device but merely the act of uttering the preceding telegraphic monotone?"

In other words, in order for the robot to perform the task, it has to be blatantly self-contradictory. A self-contradictory robot (or formal system) is pretty much useless. Therefore it must be unable to perform the task (prove the unprovable) and thus incomplete. Paradox! Gödel goes on to prove that this must always be true of any system of reasoning, no matter how powerful.

The only question left to us is whether math can recover from this terrible blow. Unfortunately for school children everywhere, it can. The eternal presence of paradox is no more of a problem for math than it is for English. One can still find and use all sorts useful expressions, or truths. However, the fact that we cannot create a formal system which can capture all of mathematical truth casts serious doubt on the objectiveness of such truth. It may well be that in math there are multiple truths, some of which are contradictory (an instance of this can be found in the difference between euclidean and non-euclidean geometry (or any other undecidable proposition)). "Thus, somewhat counter intuitively, it turns out that mathematical reasoning has no fixed and eternal boundaries either."

Ever since Epimenides, declared that "All Cretans are liars," the problem of paradox has been at times deep and troubling one, at times annoying and at times very enlightening. By its nature, it leads us to the fundamental problem of knowledge, namely, "is it possible to formally codify the Universe in such a way that our system of coding will be both complete and consistent?" Strangely enough, the answer is no.

Bibliography
Hofstadter,Douglas Godel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid,
New York: Basic Books, 1979.

Hofstadter, Douglas Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern,
New York: Basic Books, 1985.

Leiber, Justin Paradoxes,
London: Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd., 1993.

Martin, Robert M. There Are Two Errors in the the Title of this Book,
Peterborough: broadview press, 1992.

Martin, Robert L., ed. The Paradox of the Liar,
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970.

 

Managing Windows XP with SP2 machines on a Windows 2003 Server is annoying without some tools.

I went to open some ports for administrative purposes to some LANs I manage.  Realised what a pain it was to get all the tools, so here they are:

First, you need to grab the Administrative Templates (ADMs)

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=92759D4B-7112-4B6C-AD4A-BBF3802A5C9B&displaylang=en

Then, update the GPO console... 

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=0A6D4C24-8CBD-4B35-9272-DD3CBFC81887&displaylang=en

Then get the little fix so that it handles long strings properly in the new ADM files...

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=842933

Much better. =)

 

I see a fundamental untightness at times in a lot of things, especially IT.

There are so many software products that are "hack jobs" - disjoint, broken, buggy, poorly designed (or not at all).

And yet, in an attempt to "make business processes more efficient", we all buy these software packages.  We open them up, and begin to learn the interface.  We buy new electronics, and somehow believe that its necessary to read manuals.

Why is that?

Why is so little thought put into designing things?  Why do we focus on "engineering" and "writing code" - so much so, that we forget to do basic things?  Like check to make sure what we've just "made" is actually useful to those who want to use it?

Windows XP takes forever to hibernate.  It takes forever to go to standby.  I get up and want to leave, and my laptop wastes my time.  I sit down, and I have to wait for it to "power up".  Macs are slightly better at this... But the point is - why is this feature present in our computers if it doesn't work 100% of the time? Buggy drivers? There's plenty of finger pointing, but the fact remains - more is not better.  IT has become a huge joke - lots of money spent... lots of headaches... for what?  Technology NEVER seems to work when its needed to! (Note: inability to hibernate = drivers or BIOS! Update drivers, and flash your BIOS.  And make sure Microsoft Outlook, Microsoft Word, and any offline files are closed.)

My laptop is still extremely constrictive.  As a student, I can't take notes on it like I can with a piece of paper - and paper is still more effective than a laptop at times.  How useful are Tablet PCs on the road?

My dad can't program the brand new VCR he purchased.  Why is it that corporations have not designed their products with their primary age category in mind? Why does the interface look like it was designed in the 80s?

Web collaboration.  Portals and content management systems are starting to mature.  The web is starting to be seen as a part of the business process.  We shouldn't have to go out of our way to "put something on the web."  It should automatically hook into the daily things we do.  Why do people still send stuff to their webmasters to "get it put on the web"?  If the web is as popular as it is, why are there no tools that let people do what they want to do, when and how they want to do it?

Few companies consistently deliver on their dreams to integrate technology into our lives.  They promise big things - big paradigm shifts, big changes, big improvements.  And yet, it usually takes lots of revisions to get something right.

Bugs shouldn't even be on the radar.  Security and privacy are issues that need to be addressed, just as bugs should be - but they are NOT supposed to dominate the entire software building process.  The paradigm, the design... the interface, the usability - that's the focus.  And in the coming years, I think that will be the case.

We're growing past the stage of "let's fix bugs".  People shouldn't have to change their lives or their business practices because of technology.  Technology should change to adapt to specific requirements.

And it is a big concern. A clean interface saves hundreds of thousands of hours of worktime that is usually wasted.

I frequently open programs to evaluate this "tightness".  I download applications to examine this usability.  And I've noticed a single common thing: As someone who is technically inclined, I'm able to pick up smartly, properly, tightly, and efficiently designed interfaces instantly.  I can pick up certain pieces of electronic equipment (Nokia cell phones, for example) and instantly access over 95% of the features with less than 5 minutes of "playtime".

I appreciate the IBM Thinkpad's design.  4 screws to remove the keyboard.  Compare that to over 20 with an Apple Powerbook.  1 screw for the harddrive.  Over 20 for the Apple Powerbook.

Why should I spend hours putting all my contacts into my new Palm?  I'm better off walking around with a piece of paper.  Why do I need a cell phone with a colour screen?  Does it improve my battery life or improve reception or the quality of my conversation? Why should I pay Rogers $20/mo for a data access plan to get on "the internet" that is heavily datacapped?

Until cell phones develop the ability to be aware of its surroundings and NOT interrupt my life at inconvenient times... until it integrates into my life automatically, out of the box, until it synchronizes itself with my contact list in Exchange... until its battery life is so long that I can forget about it... I'm not interested.

 

Here's a nice one...

I get an email with an alert - ISA Server alert: An unknown SMTP command was used.

PQODTNQUOU2OW1NVQKK3RDPTEDONTGXFE2BPE+YW7AM41MUFDOLLZYOK5FZZTUBY1LWHQQ0KSM
X8

And I also got one with:

"THIS IS

Some kind of new buffer overflow attempt?  Its all truncated, so I wonder...

Here it is again:

R6HKBJFHBQTMRDKMBPBJNC6Q1A9FKG58PV/LXYS7UCWYOQU6MF04RQX5JHA85LA+WRCTQUUVUO

IG

Cause:

http://blog.justinho.com/Weird+SMTP+Commands.aspx

Stupid scanning components.  Do the packet capture for the traffic and just blacklist the IP range.  =)

 

 

Head office has an IP/domain based subscription to a web-based business-critical information resource.  ISA 2004 is running with VPN enabled.

Branch offices will setup ISA 2004 VPN tunnels to the head office, and have not only LOCAL LAN traffic fired through the tunnel, but also certain internet traffic.

I'm working at the branch office doing deployments, and I need access to the Terminal Servers at head office for configuration purposes.  The infrastructure here is completely separate - I'm using the VPN tunnel basically to route 1 way Terminal Server traffic (branch to head office) and so that I have access to our web subscription only.

The setup is rather unusual, but given the number of "guides" already available... =)  I thought I'd document my one slightly more obscure case.  You can easily adopt this to turn it into a 2 way link: Change the routing method as necessary (route vs NAT) and setup a VPN site to site at head office as well.

Here's what I did...

Head Office:

a) Enable regular Client VPN access.  We don't need head office firing anything down to the branch office, except for branch-office initiated connections.  You can change these rules quite easily... but we just need to add one access rule.  Ensure VPN Quarantining is disabled, or exclude the user you added at the branch office to initiated the connections, and allow all VPN Clients access to "Everywhere".

b) Jump into Configuration, Networks, then Network Rules.  Find the "Internet Access" rule and add VPN Clients to the source networks category.  Ensure that they also have access to the local network.  No further VPN sites setup is necessary here, since we don't need a true 2 way link.

c) Create a user and give it dialin privledges.  Test this client's connectivity by leaving "Use Default Gateway on Remote Network" checked in TCP/IP properties, and dialing manually on a computer.  Visit some IP checking site like www.justinho.com and confirm that its "Your IP is..." is consistent with something originating from head office.  If it isn't check the monitoring on head office looking for denied connections.  Or post a comment here and I'll see what I can do.

Branch office:

a) Setup new VPN Remote Site connection: Give it a name, use PPTP (for simplicity - you can use others if you wish...), choose a NLB connection owner (Enterprise only), give it the remote VPN server IP, give it the necessary login credentials - LOCAL SITE definitely needs to be able to initiate connections, and add a basic range for the remote LAN for now.  Finish up.  Apply the settings.

b) Setup network rules: Go into Configuration, Network.  You should see the new network that you defined earlier showing up in the list here.  Jump over to the Network Rules tab, and find or create a new rule.  Relation: NAT, from source: Internal to: Destination VPN Network.

c) Restart the ISA Server.  Restarting services will NOT do.  (Yes, you REALLY do need to do this to get it to work!)

d) Perform DNS lookups via nslookup for all sites that need to be routed.  Enter these IPs into the Remote Network's IP range.  Apply the settings.

e) Reboot if necessary.  If you get a message like "An address has not yet been associated with the network endpoint" confirm that the VPN connection is auto dialing as necessary.  If you're using a router/hardlinked connection to the internet, set up dialup preferences and set it as a dialup connection, but do NOT set it as the default gateway.  Confirm the VPN connection again - it should be autodialling.  A reboot seriously does wonders.  Don't sit there banging your head against the wall like I did =)

 

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/FX011526591033.aspx#Live%20Communications%20Server%202005%20Planning%20Guide

Here's some nice reading on LCS 2005 and the new Office Communicator software...

 

How To Harden the TCP/IP Stack Against Denial of Service Attacks in Windows Server 2003
Article ID : 324270
Last Review : July 15, 2004
Revision : 9.1
This article was previously published under Q324270
For a Microsoft Windows 2000 version of this article, see 315669.

The default TCP/IP stack configuration is tuned to handle standard intranet traffic. If you connect a computer directly to the Internet, Microsoft recommends that you harden the TCP/IP stack against denial of service attacks.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;324270

I've attached (below) a REG file that I made that has all the default hardening parameters I would apply for Windows 2000/XP/2003.

 

JH-Harden2k.reg (7.69 KB)JH-Harden2k.reg (7.69 KB)
 

SP1 is coming!

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=16ac3ec7-1fb6-4bda-b579-b1486d753950&DisplayLang=en

 

Every day, we're faced with difficult decisions about our lives.  We worry about everything! (or at least, I do)  Simple things, like, what to eat for lunch, to 'should I do...'.  Long story short - we're limited by our finite vision and limited understanding of the world around us.

So as Christians, how do we make wise and good decisions?  More importantly, how do we know what God wants in our lives?

James writes that we should, through faith, demonstrate our knowledge to the world around us.

The word "Rabbi" means "great one".  As a preacher, a rabbi shared his wisdom with the world.  We can spread the Word by our good deeds, humbly serving others.

But the sad reality is, we're rarely like that.  As Christians, we strive to do these things, but often, we're bitter and envious.  We're selfish.

 

We should turn to God for help.  Because if He's wise enough to make the world we see, surely He has answers to our problems!

Our wisdom is rooted in this world - Earthly wisdom.  Its based entirely on the things around us, the things we can touch, feel, smell, taste, or see.

But there's a sense of heavenly wisdom that we often forget about. When Abraham and Lot picked their respective ways, what did Lot base his decision on? The lushness and beauty of the land.  How often do we go through our lives picking the "beautiful" choices?

What is humility?  What is selfish wisdom?

If we claim to know God, and claim him our personal saviour, then we must act accordingly.  What use is it just to study the Word, talk about the Word, but not LIVE the Word? Its not enough to "have conversations" about our faith - nor is it enough to read the Bible each day.  We must apply the things we learn.  Even Demons know about God and acknowledge His existance!

What happens when we don't acknowledge Him?  What happens if we don't live the Word?  Verse 16 mentions a "disorder" and "evil".  Wisdom from heaven is pure, holy, and sanctified.  Its set apart from all things on this earth.  As Christians, His spirit regenerates and lives within us.

Does all of this happen automatically?

Matthew 7:24 illustrates a good point.  We must have our houses (and thus our lives, and all we do and believe in) built on a solid foundation.  Everyone looks and hears! Knowing God doesn't make you great! How do your actions glorify God?

The most dangerous thing today is Religion without Jesus. What use is it to believe, know, and discuss our religion?  What use is it to compartmentalize our lives in such a way? We must LIVE that out!  Can you bow before your Father and Creator, proclaiming His majesty and SUBMIT your life to Him?  Can you humble yourself in that way?

Luke 12:13 tells the story of the Rich Fool.  All he's concerned about is "I" and "Me" and "My". He may be wise in worldly wisdom - for he chooses to store his wealth.  But he also thinks, "If my soul delight in these things, then I have lived life to the fullest!"

What use are stored grains?  His actions are NOT rich towards God.  Do not ONLY delight in the things of this world, for there is far more in store for you in Heaven!  You do not own the fruits of your land. We are merely stewards of this Earth, and thus, we must do everything in our power to look after and take care of it. Do not be anxious over abundance of your land, for God granted you such abundance.  Do not "store it away" as though it is the only thing you have - He will always provide for you.  We must be responsible stewards for what we have received.  The rich fool lost his joy of being contempt.  When we release the source of the gifts, we will praise Jesus!  That's the joy in living - praising God!

Matthew 25 tells the story of the brides, who don't share their oil with the others.  Their goal in life is to be ready when the bridesgroom comes.  Blessed are the ones who prepare and are ready for that day, for they went and bought more oil so their lamps would be lit.  Remember - we can't borrow oil from others. We can't ride on the good graces of someone else, into Heaven!

Bottom line: We are wise if we are children of God. Proverbs 2:1-5.  Seek God!  Remember, God is the ONLY source of wisdom.  The wisdom of the wisest man is foolish!  If you think you lack wisdom, pray and ask for wisdom!  (James 5:1-3).  "Lord, show me your heart!".  Meditate on the Word of God.  Read, think, and most importantly, CHANGE.  The application of the knowledge of God is essential!

 

What 64-bit Windows XP Means to You

Though 64-bit processors for PCs and other devices have been available for over two years now, whatever urges might arise to migrate to those new platforms have been stymied by a whole bunch of factors. Intel's had to work through at least four generations of 64-bit CPUs (Itanium, Itanium 2, Xeon, and Nocona) to figure things out, and while AMD's Athlon 64 and Opteron chips have been something of a hit with PC users, wholesale abandonment of 32-bit hardware in favor of 64-bit alternatives is not yet a done deal.

The answer to the inevitable "Why?" that these revelations may provoke could be phrased in Clintonesque cant as: "It's the software, stupid"—or rather, the lack of native 64-bit software that can take full advantage of what 64-bit hardware can do. Today, most people who buy 64-bit PCs can realize modest performance advantages by emulating 32-bit processing in a 64-bit world, but they really can't exploit the huge memory spaces, faster data transfers, richer instruction sets, and other features that 64-bit architectures can provide.

For Windows PC users, that's about to change. Not only are more application developers starting the laborious process of migrating their code bases to 64-bit versions (and making the necessary internal changes to take advantage of what 64-bit processors and architectures can do), Microsoft itself is now getting into 64-bit gear. Microsoft already has a Web page up for an upcoming new version of Windows XP—namely, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition—where anybody who's interested and has access to the right software can download pre-release trial software already (called Release Candidate 1, or RC1.) In fact, Microsoft plans the production release of this software in mid-2005, three or four months after this story is being written.

What are curious or interested potential users of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition likely to find under its hood? Here's a short list of features and functions, with notes about how they relate to hardware currently available or under development:

	Huge memory spaces: 64-bit operating systems have a theoretical upper bound on memory size of 16 exabytes. However, RC1 supports 32GB of RAM, and plans for the final release version are for 128GB. (Most 64-bit systems currently available or on the drawing board won't support more than 8GB of physical memory, except for servers. This is still 4 to 5 times more than 32-bit desktops can handle, however.)
	Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) functionality: RC1 matches what's in Windows XP SP2, including the Security Center, Windows Firewall, Automatic Updates, and a security-enhanced version of IE 6.0 with Pop-up Blocker, active content monitor, and so forth. There are two versions of IE provided: 32- and 64-bit. That's because 32-bit IE plug-ins such as the Google Toolbar, Adobe Reader, or the Flash player won't work with the 64-bit version—at least not yet, anyway.
	The 32-bit version of Windows Media Player 10: This is included with RC1, as are 32-bit versions of many native Windows tools and utilities.

It's almost as interesting to list what's not included in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition RC1 as to state what's new and different. It looks like Microsoft is finally flushing some last vestiges of legacy applicati ons, tools, and services from the older and less visited regions of its code space:

The Windows on Windows (WOW) and Windows Virtual Machine (VM) subsystems that support 16-bit DOS and Windows applications are gone, gone, gone. It will no longer be possible to run 16-bit applications in this environment.

Older, infrequently used network protocols like NetBEUI, AppleTalk, and original NetWare protocols SPX and IPX have all been excised.

Many 32-bit programs still use 16-bit installer programs to load themselves into Windows, so many programs that install without a hitch on 32-bit Windows XP simply won't install on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition. Surprisingly, this even includes some Microsoft programs—both supported software like Photo Story 3 and unsupported software like Windows XP PowerToys. Once over the install hurdle, most 32-bit applications work reasonably well, but occasional glitches do occur.

32-bit device drivers won't install into the current RC1 version of x64. The install package includes lots of 64-bit drivers, but inevitably some devices still lack the necessary 64-bit drivers to make them work in this environment.

You can't upgrade from Windows XP Professional to x64; it's necessary to perform what's called a clean install. Alas, this means backing up all data, settings, and so forth; wiping the drives; installing x64 on a bare machine; and then reinstalling all applications. Ouch!

In the short run, 64-bit Windows is likely to appeal only to leading-edge/bleeding edge kinds of computer users, such as developers who will be building or revising applications for the 64-bit world. (Let's hope this also includes others who'll be creating 64-bit drivers for all the hardware that people are likely to want to use on such machines.) This initial cadre of early adopters also includes graphics professionals who can realize immediate benefits from improved graphics and visualization capabilities that 64-bit environments deliver. Graphics designers, animators, game builders, and 3-D modeling and video professionals are likely to flock to this platform (or to the 64-bit Macintosh G5 platform, also due out later this year). Likewise, anybody who uses math-intensive or engineering applications that crunch lots of numbers are also likely to find support for faster processing of bigger numbers appealing.

However, it won't be until common applications go 64-bit and hardware architectures expand to accommodate bigger memory spaces that common, garden-variety users will start to find compelling reasons to move into this world. Because even 8GB of RAM in 2GB increments (which currently retail for over $1,000 bucks a pop) will almost certainly cost more than a high-end system, memory prices may serve as a serious constraint on "moving up" for the next year or two.

But with Microsoft moving aggressively into 64-bit territory and application and device driver developers flocking close behind, there's probably a 64-bit desktop somewhere in your future. And for all I know, that future might not even be too terribly distant.


The preceding commentary is provided solely by the author and does not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of CramSession.

Find this article at:
http://cramsession.com/articles/get-article.asp

 

http://www2.parc.com/istl/members/jbreiden/glyphsaw/

This looks cool.  More on this later.

 

I'm beginning to suspect a BIOS problem.

The system refuses to boot off the CDROM for a fresh install of Windows.

"Attempting CD Boot..." and then...

"CDBOOT: Couldn't find NTLDR"

No matter what is plugged in.  Time to reset the BIOS and run a RAM test.

 

My perimeter IIS SMTP running GFI's ME and MSEC stopped processing mail again today.

No reason this time.  Not a full HDD.  TCP port 25 continues to accept mail.  It's not queued up or "badmail" - it just stops routing mail to the internal server.

Restarting the box fixes the problem.

 

So I rip the IBM Ultrastar out.

Shove an old 10.2 GB IDE drive in.

"CDBOOT: COULDN'T FIND NTLDR"

?!?!

There is nothing wrong with this CD!  Stupid CDROM drive going nuts?