Slashdot Mirror
Spyware Fights Back
sparcv9 writes "According to the latest issue of Spyware Weekly, the Radlight media player not only searches your hard drive for Adaware, but will uninstall it if found. How do they attempt to legitimize this? By including a clause in their EULA that reads: 'You are not allowed to use any third party program (e.g Ad-aware) to uninstall application bundled with RadLight. Such programs will be removed. If you want to uninstall them, you may do so via Add/Remove in Windows' Control Panel.' Yes, that's right. Not only do they say you are not allowed to use Adaware to remove their bundled apps, but they will forcibly remove Adaware for you to make sure you don't!" There's also a Newsbytes story.
nooooooooo
my first, first post hmmmm, i suppose i should go to work, rather than trying to post first
--fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
Fuck that, fp's are a much more productive use of your time.
YEE HAW!
My complaint about George W Bush Over the past few weeks, I've learned to look past George W Bush's clueless, twisted inclinations. I've learned to look past some of the sappy things Bush has said. I've even learned to look past his attempts to promote a culture of dependency and failure. But I cannot stay silent about Bush's incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. Let's get down to brass tacks: The more pressing news is that most of us are now painfully aware of Bush's improvident claims. Of that I am certain, because I am aware that many people may object to the severity of my language. But is there no cause for severity? Naturally, I maintain that there is, because we must provide an antidote to contemporary manifestations of biased totalitarianism. As mentioned above, however, that is not enough. It is necessary to do more. It is necessary to investigate Bush's prurient principles, ideals, and objectives. But I digress. It's not uncommon for Bush to speak with authority on subjects he clearly knows nothing about. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and, in many cases, it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it indisputably expresses how I want to thank Bush for his ruses. They give me an excellent opportunity to illustrate just how bloodthirsty Bush can be. He wants us to believe that we can solve all of our problems by giving him lots of money. We might as well toss that money down a well, because we'll never see it again. What we will see, however, is that Bush thinks we want him to use scapegoating as a foil to draw anger away from more accurate targets. Excuse me, but maybe there are few certainties in life. I have counted only three: death, taxes, and Bush doing some irresponsible thing every few weeks. Bush has, on a number of occasions, expressed a desire to prosecute, sentence, and label people as frightful geeks without the benefit of any evidence whatsoever. On all of these occasions, I submitted to the advice of my friends, who assured me that he coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his philippics sound like they're actually important. In fact, his treatises are filled to the brim with words that have yet to appear in any accepted dictionary. It requires surprisingly little imagination to envision a future in which he is free to solve all our problems by talking them to death. What are the lessons for us in this? First, it's that grotesque crybabies demand the advantages other people have earned without the disadvantages, like having to earn them. And second, he says he's going to offer hatred with an intellectual gloss sooner or later. Is he out of his negligent mind? The answer is fairly obvious when you consider that what we're involved in with him is not a game. It's the most serious possible business, and every serious person -- every person with any shred of a sense of responsibility - must concern himself with it. Let's just ignore Bush and see what he does. Those of you who thought that he was finally going to leave us alone are in for a big surprise, because he recently announced his plans to quote me out of context. There is a problem here. A very large, uncouth, fork-tongued problem. Bush's crusades represent a backward step of hundreds of years, a backward step into a chasm with no bottom save the endless darkness of death. There are some simple truths in this world. First, inconsiderate worrywarts, motivated by either barbarism or a desire to lead a pugnacious life, are eager to help Bush contravene decency. Second, his deeds run on pure irony. And finally, he ignores a breathtaking number of facts, most notably: Fact: His warnings are sheer idiocy. Fact: It is not my goal to distract people from serious analysis of the situation, but the opposite. Fact: He has made some imprecise statements and statements that ought to have had all sorts of qualifications and reservations attached to them. In addition, he presents himself as a disinterested classicist lamenting the infusion of politically motivated methods of pedagogy and analysis into higher education. Bush is eloquent in his denunciation of modern scholarship, claiming it favors puerile recidivists. And here we have the ultimate irony, because by refusing to act, by refusing to break the neck of Bush's policy of opportunism once and for all, we are giving Bush the power to make our country spiritually blind. Although this has been overlooked or ignored by the established scientific community, Bush's pronouncements are not pedantic treatises expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of factionalism. If the past is any indication of the future, Bush will once again attempt to consign most of us to the role of his servants or slaves. I have a dream that my children will be able to live in a world filled with open spaces and beautiful wilderness -- not in a dark, vainglorious world run by what I call dissolute finks. Bush frequently avers his support of democracy and his love of freedom. But one need only look at what Bush is doing -- as opposed to what he is saying -- to understand his true aims. I don't know what his problem is, but I overheard one of Bush's functionaries say, Bush never engages in grungy, flagitious, or daft politics. This quotation demonstrates the power of language, as it epitomizes the us/them dichotomy within hegemonic discourse. As for me, I prefer to use language to empower the oppressed to control their own lives. Conventional wisdom states that this letter is written with the hope that readers will think for a minute about the situation at hand. Now, that's a strong conclusion to draw just from the evidence I've presented in this letter. So let me corroborate it by saying that it is more than a purely historical question to ask, How did Bush's reign of terror start? or even the more urgent question, How might it end?. No, we must ask, Is it really Bush's impression that the purpose of life is self-gratification? There aren't enough hours in the day to fully answer that question, but consider this: Bush's lackeys all look like Bush, think like Bush, act like Bush, and threaten, degrade, poison, bulldoze, and kill this world of ours, just like Bush does. And all this in the name of -- let me see if I can get their propaganda straight -- brotherhood and service. Ha! Bush wants to change this country's moral infrastructure. You know what groups have historically wanted to do the same thing? Fascists and Nazis. We can say that this view dangerously underestimates the snivelling quality of areerism, and he can claim the opposite, and it won't make one bit of difference. I could accuse him of using the most yellow-bellied prevaricators I've ever seen to get his way, but I wouldn't stoop to that level. When I first heard about Bush's sermons, I didn't know whether to laugh, because Bush's pleas are so horny, or cry, because Bush is trying to brainwash us. He wants us to believe that it's paltry to make this world a better place in which to live; that's boring; that's not cool. You know what I think of that, don't you? I think that we must reach out to people with the message that the crux of the issue is that Bush is a bad role model for children. We must alert people of that. We must educate them. We must inspire them. And we must encourage them to set the record straight. The real question here is not, Why can't he value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse?. The real question is rather, What exactly is the principle that rationalizes his power-drunk, obstinate ventures? No, don't guess; this isn't audience participation day. I'll just tell you. But before I do, you should note that I wonder if he really believes the things he says. He knows they're not true, doesn't he? I'll tell you what I think the answer is. I can't prove it, but if I'm correct, events soon will prove me right. I think that he is a mythmaker, an illusion builder, or to put it less politely, a trickster. Excuse me; that's not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that many people are incredulous when I tell them that Bush intends to bask in the unenlightened shine of corporatism. How could Bush be so destructive?, they ask me. It doesn't seem possible. Well, it is truly possible, and now I'll explain exactly how Bush plans to do it. But first, you need to realize that this is kind of a touchy subject to some people. And that's why I'm writing this letter; this is my manifesto, if you will, on how to stop the Huns at the gate. There's no way I can do that alone, and there's no way I can do it without first stating that it's unfortunate that he has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. I'm sure you get my point here. What's more, Bush claims that things have never been better. That claim is preposterous and, to use Bush's own language, overtly recalcitrant. No history can justify it. How on earth these Huns can think of themselves as anything but dotty spivs is beyond me. I would like to put forth the possibility that just because he and his missaries don't like being labelled as morally crippled pothouse drunks or brain-damaged hackers doesn't mean the shoe doesn't fit. Yes, Virginia, Bush contends that he can walk on water. Sounds rather hypocritical, doesn't it? Well, that's Bush for you. Others have stated it much more eloquently than I, but his anecdotes always follow the same pattern. He puts the desired twist on the actual facts, ignores inconvenient facts, and invents as many new facts as necessary to convince us that he holds a universal license that allows him to take away our sense of community and leave us morally adrift. Bush's epithets cannot stand on their own merit. That's why they're dependent on elaborate artifices and explanatory stories to convince us that obscurantism is the key to world peace. To borrow the immortal words of a certain, well-known authority figure, Bush's comrades amount to nothing more than dour libertines riding on the back of a social fungus attacking the body politic. I challenge Bush to point out any text in this letter that proposes that we should abandon the institutionalized and revered concept of democracy. It isn't there. There's neither a hint nor a suggestion of such a thing. The only way out of George W Bush's rat maze is to make some changes here. It's that simple.
Bastard! I just rented it for tonight!
Oh well, I just found out yesterday that the guy in The Crying Game is really a chick!
Would that be in the regular sense of being dead, or in the career path sense?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
what is a "programme?"