Search Results

Search found 1275 results on 51 pages for 'surge protection'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 16/51 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

  • How would you want to see software intellectual property protected?

    - by glenatron
    Reading answers to this question - and many other discussions of software patents - it seems that most of us as programmers feel that software patents are a bad idea. At the same time we are in the group most likely to lose out if our work is copied or stolen. So what level of Intellectual Property Protection does code and software need? Is copyright sufficient? Are patents necessary? As software is neither a physical object nor simple text, should we be thinking of a third path that falls somewhere between the two? Do we need any protection at all? If you had the facility to set up the law for this, what would you choose?

    Read the article

  • How to protect own software from copying [closed]

    - by Zzz
    Possible Duplicate: How do you prevent the piracy of your software? Is possible to protect some file from copying if you are administrator of machine? I heard some story about some behavior: one software developer sells his software in some way. He is installing it on every client's computer and this software does not work on other computers or cannot be copied physically. How to implement the first and second protection. Is it effectively protection if software costs about $100 for all copies across client's company?

    Read the article

  • Les langages de programmation exceptés du droit d'auteur, la Cour Européenne les inclut avec les fonctionnalités dans un cadre restrictif

    Les langages de programmation exceptés des droits d'auteur La Cour Européenne les inclut avec les fonctionnalités dans un cadre restrictif du copyright Les fonctionnalités d'un programme informatique et les langages de programmation de manière générale, ne peuvent être protégés par des droits d'auteur, a estimé l'avocat général de la Cour de Justice européenne. Yves Bot a rendu public son avis sur l'affaire qui oppose SAS à World Programming, délimitant la portée de la protection juridique en UE suite à une demande de clarification de la part de la justice britannique. Il assimile les fonctionnalités à des idées dont la protection reviendrait « à offrir la possib...

    Read the article

  • Le W3C valide une spécification sur la confidentialité des internautes proposée par Microsoft, la normalisation du standard commence

    Le W3C valide une nouvelle spécification proposée par Microsoft Pour lutter contre le traçage des internautes Un nouveau standard Web, fondé sur la fonctionnalité « Tracking protection » d'Internet Explorer 9 pour aider les utilisateurs à mieux contrôler le traçage de leur activité en ligne, avait été proposée par Microsoft au W3C. Elle vient d'être validée. Dans un billet, Microsoft affirme que l'organisme de normalisation responsable de la définition des standards du Web a récemment porté son attention sur la protection de la vie privée en ligne et a trouvé sa proposition « opportune et en phase avec ses propres objectifs et priorités ». Pour Dean Hachamovitch, vic...

    Read the article

  • Exclude a sub directory in a protected directory

    - by user1351358
    I need to exclude protection on one of the folder inside a protected directory with .htaccess I put .htaccess in here: /home/mysite/public_html/new/administrator/.htaccess The directory need to be exclude from protection: /home/mysite/public_html/new/administrator/components/com_phocagallery/ My .htaccess file : AuthUserFile "/home/mysite/.htpasswds/public_html/new/administrator/passwd" AuthType Basic AuthName "admin" require valid-user SetEnvIf Request_URI "(/components/com_phocagallery/)$" allow Order allow,deny Allow from env=allow Satisfy any I tried but not working on my purpose. I suspect my path to the excluded directory may have some mistakes. Please advise me. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Announcing StorageTek VSM 6

    - by uwes
    On 23rd of October Oracle announced the 6th generation StorageTek Virtual Storage Manager system (StorageTek VSM 6). StorageTek VSM 6 provides customers simple, flexible and mainframe class reliability all while reducing a customer’s total cost of ownership: Simple – Efficiently manages data and storage resources according to customer-defined rules, while streamlining overall tape operations Flexible – Engineered with flexibility in mind, can be deployed to meet each enterprise’s unique business requirements  Reliable – Reduces a customer’s exposure by providing superior data protection, end-to-end high availability architecture and closed loop data integrity checking Low Total Cost of Ownership and Investment Protection – Low asset acquisition cost, high-density data center footprint and physical tape energy efficiency keeps customers storage spending within budget For More Information Go To: Oracle.com Tape PageOracle Technology Network Tape Page

    Read the article

  • Office365 SPF record has too many lookups

    - by Sammitch
    For some utterly ridiculous administrative reasons we've got a split domain with one mailbox on Office365 which requires us to add include:outlook.com to our SPF record. The problem with this is that that rule alone requires nine DNS lookups of the maximum of 10. Seriously, it's horrible. Just look at it: v=spf1 include:spf-a.outlook.com include:spf-b.outlook.com ip4:157.55.9.128/25 include:spfa.bigfish.com include:spfb.bigfish.com include:spfc.bigfish.com include:spf-a.hotmail.com include:_spf-ssg-b.microsoft.com include:_spf-ssg-c.microsoft.com ~all Given that we have our own large-ish mail system we need to have rules for a, mx, include:_spf1.mydomain.com, and include:_spf2.mydomain.com which puts us at 13 DNS lookups which causes PERMERRORs with strict SPF validators, and completely unreliable/unpredictable validation with non-strict/badly implemented validators. Is it possible to somehow eliminate 3 of those include: rules from the bloated outlook.com record, but still cover the servers used by O365? Edit: Commentors have mentioned that we should simply use the shorter spf.protection.outlook.com record. While that is news to me, and it is shorter, it's only one record shorter: spf.protection.outlook.com include:spf-a.outlook.com include:spf-b.outlook.com include:spf-c.outlook.com include:spf.messaging.microsoft.com include:spfa.frontbridge.com include:spfb.frontbridge.com include:spfc.frontbridge.com Edit² I suppose we can technically pare this down to: v=spf1 a mx include:_spf1.mydomain.com include:_spf2.mydomain.com include:spf-a.outlook.com include:spf-b.outlook.com include:spf-c.outlook.com include:spfa.frontbridge.com include:spfb.frontbridge.com include:spfc.frontbridge.com ~all but the potential issues I see with this are: We need to keep abreast of any changes to the parent spf.protection.outlook.com and spf.messaging.microsoft.com records. If anything is changed or [god forbid] added we would have to manually update ours to reflect that. With our actual domain name the record's length is 260 chars, which would require 2 strings for the TXT record, and I honestly don't trust that all of the DNS clients and SPF resolvers out there will properly accept a TXT record longer than 255 bytes.

    Read the article

  • problem in allocating kernel memory by malloc(),

    - by basu sagar
    Is there any protection provided by kernel? Because when we tried to allocate memory using an malloc(), the kernel allowed to allocated around 124 MB of memory, and when we try to write into it, the kernel crashed. If there was protection of kernel memory area, this wouldn't have happened, I guess.

    Read the article

  • problem in allocating kernal memory by malloc(),

    - by basu sagar
    Is there any protection provided by kernel? Because when we tried to allocate memory using an malloc(), the kernel allowed to allocated around 124 MB of memory, and when we try to write into it, the kernel crashed. If there was protection of kernel memory area, this wouldn't have happened, i guess

    Read the article

  • How can UNIX access control create compromise problems ?

    - by Berkay
    My system administrators advice me to be careful when setting access control to files and directories. He gave me an example and i got confused, here it is: a file with protection mode 644 (octal) contained in a directory with protection mode 730. so it means: File:101 100 100 (owner, group,other: r-x r-- r--) Directory:111 011 000 (owner, group,other: rwx -wx ---) How can file be compromised in this case ?

    Read the article

  • Basic principles of computer encryption?

    - by Andrew
    I can see how a cipher can be developed using substitutions and keys, and how those two things can become more and more complex, thus offering some protection from decryption through brute-force approaches. But specifically I'm wondering: what other major concepts beyond substitution and key are involved? is the protection/secrecy of the key a greater vulnerability than the strength of the encryption? why does encryption still hold up when the key is 'public' ? are performance considerations a major obstacle to the development of more secure encryption?

    Read the article

  • How to get data from http protected URL

    - by Ole Jak
    so I have a Track system with some kind of protection. So to get some data from any URL you have to pass protection like this http://188.134.14.27/projects/cloudobserver/login and then (in browser) you can see some pages http://188.134.14.27/projects/cloudobserver/wiki/CloudObserverCMSSetup (if you havent passed login youll get no content) so how to login and get data from page using flash/actionscript (btw I am triing to create an rss reader)?

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe get (accessor method)

    - by sonofdelphi
    I'm currently using the following code for thread-safe access of a variable. int gnVariable; void getVariableValue(int *pnValue) { acquireLock(); //Acquires the protection mechanism *pnValue = gnVariable; releaseLock(); //Releasing the protection mechanism } I would like to change my API signature to a more user-friendly int getVariableValue(void); How should I rewrite the function - such that the users of the API don't have to bother about the locking/unlocking details?

    Read the article

  • Toshiba Qosmio: Battery Stuck at 60%, does not Charges, PC can't power up, can't remain on with out

    - by Fellknight
    Just like the tittle says, now let me try to give some more detail about the symptoms; The battery is stuck at 60 percent (68% at the moment of this writing).When hovering over the battery icon in Windows 7 Home Premium x64 it reads:"68% available (plugged in, charging)", there's no x or any sing the OS is displaying any error. No matter how much time left connected to the AC adapter the battery doesn't charge, it seems however it continues to discharge at its normal rate when disconnected from the laptop (about 1% each 2 weeks). Now this last symptom is the one i find most strange it "seems" the laptop somehow isn't recognizing the battery because even with the remaining charge of 60%(ish) the laptop wont power up or remain on if disconnected from its AC adapter(if it's on and is unplugged it will immediately turn off). Meaning that even with the battery attached correctly in its right place is as if running the laptop with no battery at all. Toshiba's Utilities haven't detected anything strange (or anything for that matter) with the battery or the hardware. The laptop when in use is connected 90% of the time to a Belkin surge protector (like my 1TB EHD). The protector is working correctly (green light on) and the 1TB HD too, thus a power surge having damaged it's very unlikely. Thnx in advance

    Read the article

  • Long Gigabit Ethernet Run

    - by Timothy R. Butler
    I am trying to get an Gig-E network between two buildings that are approximately 260 ft. away. While some TRENDnet switches failed to be able to connect to each other over Cat 6 at that distance, two Netgear 5-port Gig-E switches do so just fine. However, it still fails after I put in place APC PNET1GB ethernet surge protectors at each end before the line connects to the respective switches. So I find myself wondering if I simply need to find a better surge protector that doesn't degrade the signal as much (if so, what kind would you recommend?) or if I should give up on copper and use fiber between the buildings. If I opt to go the latter route, I could really use some pointers. It looks like LC connectors are the most common, but I keep running into some others as well. A media converter on each end seems like the simplest solution, but perhaps a Gig-E switch with an SFP port would make more sense? Given a very limited budget, sticking with my existing copper seems best, but if it is bound to be a headache, a 100 meter fiber cable is something I think I can swing cost wise.

    Read the article

  • SSD not detected on boot up running windows 7, with installed blank hdd

    - by Matt. G
    I have recently built a PC for a friend, after the original system build, which included a 60GB primary SSD and a secondary 1TB HDD. I kept getting blue screens of death and kernel power errors, after investigation it was revealed that a faulty power cable and insufficient thermal paste provided with the included heat sink was the cause. This resolved the problem but after 3 months I received a phone call saying that the PC was not starting at the point of loading the operating system, with an NTLDR error. I had an idea of the cause, and after the user removed the HDD the computer started up with no issues, then I asked him to power off and reattach the HDD, and this completely resolved the issue; beforehand even restarting would not fix it. He does not have a surge protector and I thought that maybe some registry corruption had occurred due to a power surge, this might be a stupid answer though. Any ideas to what occurred with the machine would be most appreciated. No other issues have been found since the initial fault. The PC uses Windows 7 Home Premium installed on the SSD.

    Read the article

  • Replacing ASP.NET Forms Authentication with WIF Session Authentication (for the better)

    - by Your DisplayName here!
    ASP.NET Forms Authentication and WIF Session Authentication (which has *nothing* to do with ASP.NET sessions) are very similar. Both inspect incoming requests for a special cookie that contains identity information, if that cookie is present it gets validated and if that is successful, the identity information is made available to the application via HttpContext.User/Thread.CurrentPrincipal. The main difference between the two is the identity to cookie serialization engine that sits below. Whereas ForsmAuth can only store the name of the user and an additional UserData string. It is limited to a single cookie and hardcoded to protection via the machine key. WIF session authentication in turn has these additional features: Can serialize a complete ClaimsPrincipal (including claims) to the cookie(s). Has a cookie overflow mechanism when data gets too big. In total it can create up to 8 cookies (á 4 KB) per domain (not that I would recommend round tripping that much data). Supports server side caching (which is an extensible mechanism). Has an extensible mechanism for protection (DPAPI by default, RSA as an option for web farms, and machine key based protection is coming in .NET 4.5) So in other words – session authentication is the superior technology, and if done cleverly enough you can replace FormsAuth without any changes to your application code. The only features missing is the redirect mechanism to a login page and an easy to use API to set authentication cookies. But that’s easy to add ;) FormsSessionAuthenticationModule This module is a sub class of the standard WIF session module, adding the following features: Handling EndRequest to do the redirect on 401s to the login page configured for FormsAuth. Reads the FormsAuth cookie name, cookie domain, timeout and require SSL settings to configure the module accordingly. Implements sliding expiration if configured for FormsAuth. It also uses the same algorithm as FormsAuth to calculate when the cookie needs renewal. Implements caching of the principal on the server side (aka session mode) if configured in an AppSetting. Supports claims transformation via a ClaimsAuthenticationManager. As you can see, the whole module is designed to easily replace the FormsAuth mechanism. Simply set the authentication mode to None and register the module. In the spirit of the FormsAuthentication class, there is also now a SessionAuthentication class with the same methods and signatures (e.g. SetAuthCookie and SignOut). The rest of your application code should not be affected. In addition the session module looks for a HttpContext item called “NoRedirect”. If that exists, the redirect to the login page will *not* happen, instead the 401 is passed back to the client. Very useful if you are implementing services or web APIs where you want the actual status code to be preserved. A corresponding UnauthorizedResult is provided that gives you easy access to the context item. The download contains a sample app, the module and an inspector for session cookies and tokens. Let’s hope that in .NET 4.5 such a module comes out of the box. HTH

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >