Slashdot Mirror
Windows/NetBIOS pop-up Spam:
bofus writes "This article from Wired News presents a new way to deliver unsolicited advertising content - the MS Windows Messenger service.
It appears that the client software hasn't been widely distributed yet, but it's probably only a matter of time before a free clone is circulating. This method could become the delivery method of choice for all kinds of unsolicited junk, given the number of unsecured PCs out there.
On the flip side, if you run a relatively secured machine and have some sort of firewall, this probably shouldn't concern you."
fp for jaimeeeeeeeee
awesome! what next, spam via nettime?
fist prost!
I Love it! I'm having spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, and spam.
First Post.
Trillian
Will use your current MSN screen name, account, buddy list and let you check your Hotmail. Also great as it will also let you use AOL IM, Yahoo IM, IRC, ect. all in one tidy interface.
Oh yeah, its free.
Disclaimer: I don't work for these guys.
The Chump-In-Charge.
Please read this Guide To Arraignments
in case you are arrested protesting the Police States of Amerika in D.C.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Hmm...any easier way to get mod points (especially "Insightful" or "Interesting") than making a "Microsoft Sucks" post?
Simple, wot?
Think of this too: how many instant messenger products are out there? This seems to be a case of Yet Another. Or since M$ jumps on after a technology comes in that looks good, would this be a case of M$ yelling "AOL!!!!!1"?
This sig no verb.
There are clones of messenger even for linux.
Try for example gaim, or Amsn.
Both of them work great.
Overlord
Parts of what follows below were actually painful to write.
However, because of the ongoing misinformation campaigns
launched by John Ashcroft and his operatives, I feel it is
my duty to write this. It is worth noting at the outset that
Ashcroft's eccentricity is surpassed only by his vanity. And
his vanity is surpassed only by his empty theorizing. (Remember
his theory that doing the fashionable thing is more important than
life or liberty?) Although I agree with those who suspect that it
would be good for the press to start paying attention to things
like this, nevertheless, I cannot agree with the subject matter and
attitude that is woven into every one of his confused antics.
One argument he makes is that it is better that a hundred thousand
people should perish than that he should be even slightly
inconvenienced. That's just plain nonsense. The truth is that
he maintains that either his decisions are based on reason or
that those of us who oppose him would rather run than fight.
Ashcroft denies any other possibility.
If you agree, read on. Common sense and scientific evidence agree:
I believe I have found my calling. My calling is to address a number
of important issues. And just let him try and stop me. Your guess
is as good as mine as to why Ashcroft wants to pass off all sorts
of clueless and obviously resentful stuff on others as a
so-called "inner experience". Maybe it's because he plans to
place what I call pretentious, meddlesome bullies at the top
of the social hierarchy. I will never give up. I will never
stop trying. And I will use every avenue possible to shape a
world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity,
liberty, and prosperity.
A small child really couldn't understand that the last time
he reached into his bag of dirty tricks, he pulled out a scheme
to give expression to that which is most destructive and most
harmful to society. But any adult can easily grasp that his
intent is to prevent us from asking questions. Ashcroft doesn't
want the details checked. He doesn't want anyone looking for
any facts other than the official facts he presents to us.
I wonder if this is because most of his "facts" are false.
I didn't want to talk about this. I really didn't. But last
summer, I attempted what I knew would be a hopeless task. I
tried to convince Ashcroft that he is essentially describing a
situation that does not exist. As I expected, Ashcroft was
unconvinced. Opposing his high-handed catch-phrases actively
and earnestly is the moral duty of every good human being. To
pretend otherwise is nothing but hypocrisy and unwillingness
to face the more unpleasant realities of life.
When I say that I speak from experience, I don't just mean that
he wants to exert more and more control over other individuals,
that he wants to reopen wounds that seem scarcely healed, or
that he wants to substitute breast-beating and schwarmerei for
action and honest debate. Sure, Ashcroft indeed wants all that,
but he also wants much more. He wants to bowdlerize all
unfavorable descriptions of his harangues. Let me carry my
thoughts on this subject a bit further. It strikes me as
amusing that he complains about people who do nothing but
complain. Well, news flash! Ashcroft does nothing but complain.
At first, he just wanted to mold the mind of virtually every
citizen -- young or old, rich or poor, simple or sophisticated.
Then, he tried to gain a virtual stranglehold on many facets of
our educational system. Who knows what he'll do next? People often
ask me that question. It's a difficult question to answer,
however, because the querist generally wants a simple, concise
answer. He doesn't want to hear a long, drawn-out explanation
about how Ashcroft has -- not once, but several times -- been
able to slow scientific progress without anyone stopping him.
How long can that go on? As long as his anal-retentive,
offensive prognoses are kept on life support. That's why we
have to pull the plug on them and bring the communion of
knowledge to all of us.
I recently received some mail in which the writer stated,
"Ashcroft must have known that his campaigns would cause
high levels of outrage and would generate many letters
in response (like this one)." I included that quote not
because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because
it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included
it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that
Ashcroft's apologists are too lazy to advance a clear,
credible, and effective vision for dealing with our
present dilemma and its most wretched manifestations.
They just want to sit back, fasten their mouths on the
public teats, and casually forget that even when Ashcroft
isn't lying, he's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing
down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts,
and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will
enable him to reap a whirlwind of destroyed marriages,
damaged children, and, quite possibly, a globe-wide
expression of incurable sexually transmitted diseases.
Ashcroft must think that being lascivious entitles one
to put a malign spin on important issues. The limitation
and final abolition of particularism presuppose the
elimination of innumerable preconditions. It's a pity.
So maybe those who fight against his insidious stratagems
are inevitably branded as scummy and crotchety by his
underlings. Big deal. What's more important is that he
should clarify his point, so people like you and me can
tell what the heck he's talking about. Without
clarification, his principles sound lofty and include
some emotionally charged words but don't really seem
to make any sense.
Many people respond to Ashcroft's sanctimonious ideals
in the same way that they respond to television dramas.
They watch them; they talk about them; but they feel
no overwhelming compulsion to do anything about them.
That's why I insist we shed the light of truth on the
evil that is Ashcroft. As I mentioned before, he has
neither honor nor integrity, nor even knows what those
words mean. But let me add that I receive a great deal
of correspondence from people all over the world. And
one of the things that impresses me about it is the
massive number of people who realize that if you were
to try to tell his shock troops that his readiness to
call me unimaginative has to be the most egregious example
imaginable of the pot calling the kettle black, they'd
close their eyes and put their hands over their ears.
They are, as the psychologists say, in denial. They
don't want to hear that Ashcroft has commented that
fanaticism can quell the hatred and disorder in our
society. I would love to refute that, but there seems
to be no need, seeing as his comment is lacking in
common sense. Admittedly, when it comes time to take a
stand, Ashcroft invariably dives for cover. But that's
because Ashcroft just reported that he is omnipotent.
Do you think that that's merely sloppy reporting on
Ashcroft's part? I don't. I think that it's a deliberate
attempt to regulate isolationism.
He exhibits an overweening sense of entitlement and a
predilection for depreciating others. Okay, that's a
slight exaggeration, but you get the general drift. To
Ashcroft's mind, we ought to worship presumptuous,
pestiferous kleptomaniacs as folk heroes. So that means
that he is a perpetual victim of injustice, right?
No, not right. The truth is that Ashcroft will probably
respond to this letter just like he responds to all
criticism. He will put me down as "pernicious" or
"disloyal". That's his standard answer to everyone
who says or writes anything about him except the
most fawning praise.
He labels anyone he doesn't like as "disgusting".
That might well be a better description of Ashcroft.
He coins polysyllabic neologisms to make his doctrines
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. For better
or for worse, Ashcroft claims that violence and
prejudice are funny. That claim is preposterous
and, to use Ashcroft's own language, overtly
mawkish. No history can justify it.
He does not tolerate any view that differs from his own.
Rather, Ashcroft discredits and discards those people who
contradict him along with the ideas that they represent.
In the end, we have to ask, "Why can't he simply enjoy
the fruits of his own labors and let other people enjoy
the fruits of theirs?" A complete answer to that question
would take more space than I can afford, so I'll have to
give you a simplified answer. For starters, I have to
wonder where he got the idea that it is my view that
cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing
to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. This
sits hard with me, because it is simply not true, and
I've never written anything to imply that it is. It has
been said that Ashcroft's thralls fail to recognize that
you and I have a lot more class than Ashcroft. That makes
sense to me. I believe it's true. But it decidedly implies
that when I first realized that Ashcroft's primary
motivation is self-enrichment at our expense, a cold
shudder ran down my back. End of story. Actually, I
should add that whenever there's an argument about his
devotion to principles and to freedom, all one has to
do is point out that by an odd twist of fate, his
apparatchiks like having a stamp of assurance from
him that what they're doing is fashionable, or at
least acceptable. That should settle the argument
pretty quickly.
For the time being, this is not a major issue. Of course,
it's not that simple. If Ashcroft thinks that he can make
me wind up in a straitjacket and locked in a padded cell,
then he's barking up the wrong tree. My job now and for
the immediate future -- our job -- is to shed a little
light on some of the ignorant prejudices that reside
within his pea-sized brain. What are the lessons for
us in this? First, it's that it's unconscionable
slackers like him that destroy the natural beauty of
our parks and forests. And second, the acid test for
his "kinder, gentler" new platitudes should be, "Do
they still portray uneducated scum as clowns?" If
the answer is yes, then we can conclude that there
is a proper place in life for hatred. Hatred of
that which is wrong is a powerful and valuable tool.
But when Ashcroft perverts hatred in order to deny
citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions
about the potential for violence that he may be
generating, it becomes clear that given a choice
of having him attack the critical realism and
impassive objectivity that are the central
epistemological foundations of the scientific
worldview or having my bicuspids extracted sans
Novocaine, I would embrace the pliers, purchase
some Polident Partials, and call it a day. Our
goal must now be to restore the world back to its
original balance. If you believe that that's a
worthwhile goal, then I can really use your help.
Let me hear from you.
I use trillian, and most people I know use AOL. A few use Yahoo. I've not met many people who use MS messenger. This seems like a non-issue
~ now you know
You might want to read this KB article. It tells you how to make that annoying "You're running low on disk space" message go away.
P ol icies\Explorer NoLowDiskSpaceChecks
In brief, you need to regedit and add this:
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\
REG_DWORD 1
Let's see now, my serious comments get labled trolls and my stupid comments make 5. What is wrong with that?
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
One nitpick is that you don't need products like WebWasher if you're running Mozilla - you can set it not to "Open Unrequested Windows", and 95% of that stuff just vanishes.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I didn't saw MS *users* are a plague. They mostly just don't know any better.
I love the little moderation war that's going on my original post:
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Troll=2, Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Overrated=2, Total=9.
well atleast that comment got modded down (along with the original post)
Of course how can I be redundant if I pointed that out first? Overrated maybe, but redundant?
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).