Josh Wieder

You've done everything right with your MSSQL database restore. All of your versions match. All connections to the database have been killed. Your BAK file is valid, you have adequate permissions to both it and the proposed MDF and LDF file paths. And yet, when you attempt to restore using MSSQL 2005 or 2008, the task fails with the following: The file or filegroup X cannot be selected for this operation. RESTORE DATABASE is terminating abnormally. (Microsoft SQL Server, Error: 3219) Often the most infuriating problems are the one's with the easiest solution. To fix this, simply perform "Restore Database" instead of "Restore Files".

Working on a server yesterday, I noticed the following error in Event Viewer: " The time provider NtpClient is configured to acquire time from one or more time sources, however none of the sources are currently accessible. No attempt to contact a source will be made for 15 minutes. NtpClient has no source of accurate time. For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://support.microsoft.com. " You might experience errors like the following, as well: "Time Provider NtpClient: No valid response has been received from manually configured peer  IPAddressoftheNTPServer  after 8 attempts to contact it. This peer will be discarded as a time source and NtpClient will attempt to discover a new peer with this DNS name. For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://support.microsoft.com." or "The time provider NtpClient cannot reach or is currently receiving invalid time data from  NTP_server_IP_Address . For more information, se

It bills itself with Get updates from thought leaders - right on your homepage . Let's leave aside disturbing questions like Why do I need or want someone to lead my thoughts?  and just illustrate the content. It includes deep ruminations on things like "Web 2.0", "How a Healthier Lifestyle Will Reduce the Deficit", "Responsible Social Media" and "5 Cocktail Recipes to Start Your Friday Night". These are the thoughts we are being lead to. Finally, I present to you examples of Thought Leaders, as expressed by LinkedIn: "The State of California requires me to notify you that I am a registered sex offender" "Jeff if you keep making that face one day its just going to.... oh." Author of such notables as "Dumpster Diving for Interview Clothing" and "A Single Lady's Guide to Caring for One Dozen Cats or More" Sure, Don's Forehead has been used as a reflective surface by NASA, bu

A few million of the emails below are making the rounds. The phishing emails attempt to be from NACHA, an ACH trade organization, and tell readers that a recent direct deposit was declined and to just DOWNLOAD THIS SOFTWARE to CLAIM YOUR FREE CASH NOW!!!11! NACHA itself is aware of the tomfoolery: The From: and Reply To: headers are both forged in this email. Because of this, I suspect that jamnaytac.com, who is included in the Reply To: but now the From: is going to be receiving some grief / spam complaints that have nothing to do with them. So who is responsible for this? Below I have included the email headers for this spam message. This one is mildly interesting because it makes some shallow attempts at being deceptive to a lazy reader. When reading headers, what we are interested in mostly are the Received: lines. Almost every other item (mouth breathers: note the almost) can be forged. Received: lines can be forged to, but only by adding lines that should not be

Wouldn't be interesting to know what percentage of total global TCP/IP traffic is being produced by human users and consumers, and what percentage is being used for spam, spiders, bots and all of the other automated software that clogs the airways? I don't care about throughput or bandwidth as much as I do the number of connections. Looking at throughput I would think that humans use way more than bots do - humans stream, send monstrous attachments on their emails, and decades later still have yet to achieve global competency in the dark, mysterious art of file compression. Bots fake clicks and hits and unique visits. I wonder how the human to bot ratio has changed over time as more and more people are able to afford and become interested in adopting the use of TCP/IP. Are there more people to bots? More bots to people? Are the bots growing faster than people? With these questions I won't even hazard an a priori, but it seems like a great experiment. What do you think? Do

This IP camera with microphone , the Safety Vision SVC2200, is being installed on buses in San Francisco, California; Eugene, Oregon; Traverse City, Michigan; Columbus, Ohio; Baltimore Maryland; Hartford, Connecticut; and Athens, Georgia. The microphones are sensitive enough to record conversations audibly. This leads one to wonder what such technology could possibly be used for. Cameras can be used for evidence in cases of violent crime. Recordings are not nearly as important in establishing proof of violence as they are in assisting with more subversive forms of surveillance. No doubt this information is headed in a roundabout way to your local DHS "Fusion Center", where it will be shuffled, cataloged and shuffled again. The IP cameras are listed as supporting the following protocols: IPv4/v6, TCP/IP, UDP, RTP, RTSP, HTTP, HTTPS, ICMP, FTP, SMTP, DHCP, PPPoE, UPnP, IGMP, SNMP, QoS & ONVIF, although one wonders in what capacity they 'support' QoS ... a few of t

For your enjoyment, feline in flagrante.