| << | May 2008 | >> | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
As soon as I saw this new tip at the How-To Geek, I knew I had to come post about it. This is a particular issue that I've been annoyed by for as long as I remember using Windows. The issue is simple. You have a huge folder with many files, and you want to copy a collection of files to another folder. So, you hold down your CTRL key and start clicking away.
All is fine and good until you accidentally drag your cursor in any direction while clicking a file, which Windows takes as a request to automatically copy every single file and folder you've just selected. The end result is that you need to go clean up what it copied, or if you are lucky, a CTRL + Z (Undo) function might work.
While the How-To Geek doesn't have a direct fix, they do have a work-around. The reason the files copy is because you've moved your cursor four pixels, which is seriously nothing. They show you how to perform a small registry hack to increase that number. Even bumping up to 15 should rid the problem from ever occurring. Even better would be an option right inside Windows to disable that "helpful" feature though.
Have you EVER wanted to copy an array of files inside the same folder you are working in? I can't think of a single occasion that I have. It seems that helpful feature isn't very helpful at all.
![]() |
If you are running Windows XP, you can use Microsoft's free Tweak UI utility to configure the drag setting easily. What we'll do is tell Windows not to assume that we're dragging until we've move more than 4 pixels, which should eliminate this problem, but still make drag and drop work fine for regular operations.
Source: How-To Geek
Who needs a television when all the drama can be found online? That's what the Microsoft/Yahoo! debacle has been since it began, and it's sure not losing its lustre quite yet. Over the weekend, Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft, withdrew the bid to acquire Yahoo!, and I doubt many would disagree that their offer was generous at $31 a share, or a 61% premium.
But now, Yahoo! looks nothing but red in the face. Chances are good that they were not planning on Microsoft dropping out, especially with the companies adamant 'we're not going anywhere' attitude. But, it happened, and now Yahoo! is feeling sick to the stomach. After all, they could have been bought for well over $40B, but now they are just sitting pretty, unsure of what's next.
Like a heart-broken teenager, Yahoo!'s CEO Jerry Yang and company have now stated that they'd be up for more negotiation with Microsoft, and that they'd be willing to go lower than the $37 per share that they demanded. AKA: We wanted more money, but didn't expect you to jump ship so fast. All I know is that this drama contains the perfect blend of ingredients for either a hit emo song or new series on the CW.
![]() |
Yahoo is getting blasted by its largest shareholder, Capital Research Global Investors, one of the most respected investment institutions on Wall Street. Gordon Crawford, a portfolio manager with the firm remarked in the WSJ article, "I'm extremely disappointed in Jerry Yang, I think he overplayed a weak hand. And I'm even more disappointed in the independent directors who were not responsive to the needs of independent shareholders."
Source: DailyTech
Is it just me, or are game companies actually getting more clueless as the days pass? It has to be the case, because I am seeing it with my own eyes. Remember the massive uproar when BioShock shipped with SecuROM? Or how about when the company announced that the sequel would include even more hardcore copy protection?
According to Shacknews, two companies who still haven't found that clue are Electronic Arts and BioWare, as both Spore and Mass Effect PC will feature SecuROM as well. But it's better! Depending on what the developer sets, the game will require an Internet connection to verify with their servers in order to re-validate your serial key. You know, in case it somehow got leaked onto warez networks or torrent sites.
I am not sure how I can put this in a professional manner, so I won't. Whoever decided on this is a complete idiot. Someone whose pupils are shaped like dollar signs. Someone who has apparently never bought a PC game themselves.
Did SecuROM help prevent BioShock from being pirated? Hardly. In fact, it was released to torrent networks before the game's actual street date. The exact same situation occurred with Crysis. Despite its check at the game start-up for a legal CD, crackers still did their thing. Who benefits? The pirates. That's who. Who's inconvenienced? The legal consumer. That's who.
One might be quick to say "who cares?", but it's the fact that companies continue to make things difficult on the legal consumer that's frustrating, when it's clear no ground is being gained in ridding piracy. Am I annoyed that I have to keep my Crysis disc near our benchmarking rigs all the time? Yes, sure. But even that beats this forthcoming method of doing things.
What about those who don't have Internet? What happens if someone's Internet goes down when they want to play? What happens if EA's or BioWare's authentication servers go down? What happens ten years down the road when those authentication servers no longer exist?
You save yourself the hassle and go download the pirated version of the game, that's what. After all, that's the easiest way to enjoy your legally bought games nowadays.
![]() |
"After the first activation, SecuROM requires that [Mass Effect PC] re-check with the server within ten days (in case the CD Key has become public/warez'd and gets banned)," said French in a post on the BioWare forums. If customers do not come online after ten days, the game will cease to function. "After 10 days a re-check is required before the game can run," added French.
Source: Shacknews
Ever wonder why the Xbox 360 replacement hard drives costs so much? There's no doubt you have if you've ever picked one up, since the 20GB model retails for around $90, while the 120GB is twice that. Well, would you believe that it's because they cost that much to make? Nah, didn't think so.
As it turns out, companies like to make money, and where they know the consumer is trapped, they jack the price high, since they know it will sell. Patrick Klepek from MTV contacted iSuppli, the company that tears into the pricing of gadgets, to see what the scoop was. As it turns out, the entire hard drive and package costs around $100 to Microsoft, but most of it is due to the retail packaging, drive enclosure and pre-bundled software (which, as far as I know, is free straight from Xbox Live).
Profit to Microsoft on their $180 drive is around $80... not bad for doing virtually nothing. The sad thing is that mobile drives, like the one used for the Xbox are cheap, so of the $100 that Microsoft pays for the drive and enclosure, less than half is likely for the drive itself. It also hurts to check out sites like NewEgg, who sell 320GB mobile drives for much less than what Microsoft charges for the Xbox 120GB drive.
![]() |
iSuppli representative Krishna Chander expects the hard drive came from electronics manufacturers Toshiba or Seagate . When the hard drive ships to retail, it comes pre-loaded with starter software (i.e. Xbox Live Arcade trials) and "specific Gaming Instructions and some levels of the OS," said Chander.
Source: MTV Multiplayer
Last Wednesday, Microsoft pulled both SP1 for Vista and SP3 for XP due to a conflict that arose between one of their own products (how that wasn't caught in testing is anyone's guess). For those who were on the verge of freaking out, calm down, as they've thrown both service packs up and you are able to download them via normal methods.
Sadly though, the fix is not actually a fix, but a workaround. The good thing is that it will affect virtually no one, however, except those in small businesses. If for some reason you are in a situation where you have the Dynamics Retail Management System installed, a filter will block the download, so you are safe either way.
As mentioned before, there will be nothing new for home users other than bug fixes, but network administrators should be pleased with the addition of MMC 3.0 support, MSXML6, IPsec filter creation and also network access protection (NAP).
For those who prefer not to use Windows Update, you can either download an ISO or full executable.
![]() |
The software maker on Tuesday said it is releasing XP Service Pack 3 for Web downloads, and resuming automatic updates to Vista Service Pack 1, after developing a filter that will prevent machines running Dynamics RMS from getting either update. The filter is not a fix for the incompatibility, though Microsoft said it is working on that as well.
Source: Beyond Binary