jaclaz

I thought that was SPECTRE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECTRE "Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion" jaclaz

What we, highly specialized technicians, call "sweeping the dirt under the rug".

Only for the record, it wasn't stolen, and it doesn't mean letter. Telegramma means telegramma, NOT lettera. Telegram is an English word alright, and means, like in Italian, a message (a letter if you like, but usually telegrams were way shorter than a letter or would have costed an arm and a leg) sent through the telegraph: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/telegram#English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telegraphy#Telegram_services of course the root is the same of telegraph, from Greek tele (distant) and graph-ma (letter/written message from graphein to write). Telegraph is the method technology, telegram is the message delivered through that technology. Of course the English don't use it, replacing it with wire or cable. Curiously enough, the Russian word for it - besides cyrillic transliteration - is телеграмма more similar to the Italian, or to the French télégramme.

For a francophone, you have a good example in Maurice Leblanc re-known character: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsène_Lupin Arsenio in italian.

Maybe it depends on transliteration, I can find quite a few people with that name on wikipedia, so probably not that much rare: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arseny It derives from Arsenius (Latin, arsenikos in Greek): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenius that actually derives from arsenikos, which is the same root from which the chemical element and the poison are commonly named but that means mainly "male" or "virile": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic#History and the whole stuff comes from Persia via Syria ...

First they came for Dixel's Instagram account ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...

Just in case: https://neal.fun/password-game/ jaclaz

When I posted here, I could not find a way to send the message, so I posted its contents, later, after having pruned the second instance of the 4.3 word, it was finally accepted. So the user will likely reply, the risk is that he will accidentally use the by now famous 4.3 word and get a 403 forbidden when replying. Since Karla posted here, this thread is visible to all members and they can post on it (i.e. it is not read-only). jaclaz

I received a PM by a fellow member and - for whatever reason - I cannot reply to it, nor I can start a new conversation/ send a new message. In both cases I got code 403 forbidden. In the remote case the user (Bacho) happens to read this (there is nothing personal in the message, he was asking about an issue he has with booting an XP installation booting only from a USB stick and failing when the USB stick is removed), the reply would have been: After the usual zillion tests, it is not the known BOOT.INI issue alone, it is the link to the other thread in the form of a preview that triggers the behaviour, the text only link allows it BUT this worked on this post (the 4.3 word is present alright), but not on the PM, where I had to remove all occurrences . jaclaz

Well, even if your program is nice and all, it will take time to get it known. You could try submitting a link to it at tinyapps: https://tinyapps.org/faq.html your thingy seems like just the right kind of tool for there. jaclaz

There are four usual ways these fake drives are made, once said that if a "bulk", "no name", 32 GB SD card can be found for (say) 5 bucks, when you buy for the same or double price a 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 TB media you are actually getting at the most the same capacity of 32 GB: 1) simplest, the media has a capacity of 32 GB but the MBR or GPT and the filesystem (volume) on it have been manually modified to appear larger 2) more complex, the controller has been programmed for more or larger chips than those actually available 3) even more complex, the controller has been programmed with mapping the same extents to different addresses, the space simply "wraps around" (multiple times) 4) an even more subtle way of version #3 exists, when the wrap around is not of the whole disk, but is after the normal placement of the filesystem structures #1 can be detected by a simple CHKDSK, or simply writing to it enough data #2 can be as well detected by checking the filesystem with CHKDSK or writing to it enough data #3 is trickier to detect and usually needs a dedicated program, like H2testw, when writing to it enough data, the filesystem structures are overwritten and the volume becomes raw/not accessible anymore. #4 is really tricky, only using tools like H2testw or writing to the disk special (numbered/identifiable) data patterns they can be detected, otherwise the data in excess will be written just fine (without errors) as the same area is overwritten but the filesystem structures are updated correctly. On a typical NTFS filesystem, if you have the first 10 GB or so (for exFAT even less) set correctly and the rest wrapping around the device will seemingly behave fine, new data will overwrite earlier data without triggering errors. jaclaz

@tekkaman JFYI, the advantages of aligning (one way or the other) is (largely) bul*****. If "everything" is aligned (NTFS is inherently aligned, FAT 16/32 are usually not) then there some (slight) advantages, actually only noticeable on slow bus or slow devices (such as USB 2.0 devices) on a relatively fast bus (like SATA 3) they are negligible (for traditional rotating hard disks, which also tend to have largish caches) while it is a very good idea to align to multiple of the sector AND of the memory page for SSD's. Check: http://reboot.pro/index.php?showtopic=9897&p=85960 https://msfn.org/board/topic/154633-partition-boundary-alignment-in-4096-byte-physical-sector-drives/ jaclaz

Only to (hopefully) clear the matter. The 2.2 Tb original limit depends on the 32-bit size of the MBR partition table that sets at 2^32-1=4,294,967,295 the max number of sectors accessible.[1] If the disk exposes 512 bytes/sector the limit is then 2.2 Tb. If the disk exposes 4Kb/sector size (so-called "Native 4k" disks) the limit is 8 times that much. What a number of USB external enclosures (the controllers in them) do is to expose on the USB connection the disk as if it was a Native 4k one, i.e. it makes the XP believe that the disk has 4 kb/sector, thus allowing to use "normal" 512 bytes/sector disks of much larger sizes than 2.2. Tb. The chosen method of alignment (to the cylinder up to XP, to the Mb on Vista and later) is unrelated. jaclaz [1] only for the record, at the time I devised a partitioning schema with two (or more) partitions that allowed to use MBR disks up to (almost) 4.4 Tb, but (a few) actual tests led to the conclusion that while the schema did work on later OS (7 at least) it did not work on XP due to some other limitation (still 32 bit related) in system files.

Or more likely a cmos battery that you did not see (or took for a capacitor, an inductor or some other electronic component) as it is of the soldered type, *like*: https://www.ebay.it/itm/184402003049 jaclaz

Exctrlst: https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/ask-the-performance-team/two-minute-drill-disabled-performance-counters-and-exctrlst-exe/ba-p/374538 https://www.softpedia.com/get/System/System-Info/Extensible-Counter-List.shtml jaclaz