So, in your personal world, God exists. He's a real bastard, who has decided that several times that something is fucked, and lets start again. He fucked the plantlife, fucked the dinosaurs, he wiped out the race of man, about 4900 years ago, according to CS theories (well it was less than 6000 years ago).
I've asked for a bible with a timeline on it. Never gotten one. But some people in the bible live quite a long time, and then there are gaps in time. It really is the worlds greatest work of fiction. Great observations, lousy interpretations.
Re:By Design? since MSN Mess hotmail access disabl
on
Hotmail Cracked Badly
·
· Score: 1
When trying to view a Hotmail inbox of MSN Messenger you get this:
Forbidden You don't have permission to access/cgi-bin/start on this server.
It's either something on Hotmail's end or something that will require an update for Messenger and how it connects to Hotmail.
By Design? since MSN Mess hotmail access disabled
on
Hotmail Cracked Badly
·
· Score: 1
From a ZDNet Message:
MSN Messenger Service disabled?
Since Microsoft has 'fixed' the security hole earlier this morning, my MSN Messenger service will no longer all me to directly login to my Hotmail Inbox. That's the only reason I even use the shitty service...
MS can't make up it's mind when it posted this. Press page say Jul 28th, Article says Aug 6, but I never saw it until Aug 15th. Must have gone to a lawyer.
Microsoft Continues to Work Toward Consumer Interoperability, Despite AOL Allegations About MSN Messenger
REDMOND, Wash. - Aug. 6, 1999 - On July 22, Microsoft® launched MSN Messenger Service, the free Internet messaging service that enables people to communicate with the greatest number of Internet users and offers the tightest integration with popular Microsoft communications tools. One of the exciting features of MSN Messenger Service is the ability to exchange messages with both other MSN Messenger users and with people using AOL Instant Messenger (AIM).
In several recent news reports, America Online has made a number of false or misleading claims about MSN Messenger Service. These comments have been made against the backdrop of AOL's failure to respond to consumer demand for interoperability between messaging systems. PressPass asked Yusuf Mehdi, director of marketing for Microsoft MSN, to comment.
Q: What is Microsoft's overall stance on instant messaging and how does it differ from AOL?
A: Communications continues to be the cornerstone of the Internet, and instant messaging is becoming a more prevalent way for people to communicate. With MSN Messenger we are offering a rich and easy solution for people to instant message. In addition we have delivered a breakthrough feature that lets consumers exchange instant messages not only with their MSN contacts but their AIM contacts as well. It is our view that instant messaging should quickly evolve to enable any individual to instant message with anyone else irrespective of their client software or messaging system. In the same way that different telephone handsets and systems interoperate, we're delivering the functionality to enable people to instant message with each other.
Q: What is the current state of Microsoft's relationship with AOL on the subject of Instant Messaging?
A: We are very interested in having AOL work with Microsoft and other industry leaders that have gotten behind a proposed industry standard for messaging. For the last two years, many companies have worked with the IETF on the Instant Messaging Presence Protocol as a standard way to help the industry move forward on interoperability. We are disappointed that AOL has chosen not to join the standards process thus far. We are also disappointed that in the interim AOL is choosing to deny consumers the choice of MSN Messenger interoperability.
Q: Does Microsoft's new MSN Messenger Service strip out AOL's privacy and security controls, as AOL claims?
A: Absolutely not. Privacy was a top priority in developing MSN Messenger Service, and Messenger provides strong privacy features that enable users to maintain total control of their personal information. MSN Messenger Service in no way compromises the privacy or security of people who use it to communicate with other MSN Messenger users or with their AIM contacts. Specifically:
MSN Messenger follows the privacy guidelines of notice, consent and control - explaining what interoperability with AIM enables, asking if you'd like to have the interoperability, and giving you complete control over what interoperability features you'd like to enable.
If an AIM user chooses to use MSN Messenger Service to communicate with their AIM contacts, they are prompted to enter the AIM screen name and password to log in to the AIM service. This is exactly the same procedure someone would go through if they were using the AIM client or any other software to login to the AIM service (e.g., Lotus' Sametime Connect client).
MSN Messenger Service also offers people the option to store their Messenger and AIM login names and passwords on their computer to make it easier for them to sign in. This is similar to having the browser remember a password for a web site so you don't have to remember it yourself. Again, this is exactly the same option that AIM and other 3rd party clients offer. None of the AOL user information is transmitted to any server at Microsoft - it is sent directly to the AIM servers for login only.
Q: Is it true that Microsoft invaded AOL's network without authorization?
A: No. MSN Messenger gives people using the AIM service a choice of which client software they want to use to send instant messages to other AIM contacts. A person who chooses to use MSN Messenger uses his or her authorized AIM account, just as they would with the AIM client. All of the login, authentication and messaging activity for AIM contacts still occurs on the AOL servers, exactly as it would if someone were using the AIM client. MSN Messenger simply provides one integrated interface that allows people to send messages to both MSN Messenger users and AIM users.
Q: AOL claims Microsoft has subverted and/or disabled the AOL Instant Messenger software.
A: Not true. People are completely free to choose which instant messaging service they'd like to use as the default - that is, which service starts up and logs in automatically when Windows starts. If someone chooses to make MSN Messenger the default, it will be started when Windows starts and will log people into the MSN Messenger Service, and, if they have chosen, the AIM service as well. The MSN Messenger setup wizard is very clear in explaining what it means to set MSN Messenger as the default, and gives people the option to check or uncheck this box. This doesn't mean that the AIM software is disabled. People can certainly still use this client, and it is easy for someone who wants to make AIM the default service again to do so.
Q: Is it true that MSN Messenger drains AOL network and system resources?
A: Of course not. People who have chosen to use MSN Messenger to talk to their AIM contacts already have an authorized AIM account, one that they already use to send messages to their AIM contacts. This doesn't change when people start using MSN Messenger. The same AIM account is still used to communicate with AIM contacts; the only difference is the client software that the person has chosen. There is no additional load on the AOL servers.
Q: Why is lobbying for an instant messaging standard so important?
A: It has always been Microsoft's goal that people should be able to talk freely on the Internet, no matter whose software they are using. Microsoft has supported establishing an open standard with the IETF since November 1997, when Microsoft and the rest of the industry proposed the RVP protocol (now called IMPP - instant messaging and presence protocol) to the IETF. AOL was approached at that time to join with Microsoft, the other companies and the IETF, but they declined. To date AOL has not had any active participation with the rest of the industry in meeting consumer demand for interoperability.
Microsoft has been a leader in working with standards bodies and supporting industry standards for interoperability. Internet Explorer is a great example, because it was the first browser to support CSS, HTML 4.0, DHTML, etc. AOL has no track record in the area of industry standards.
Q: Why did Microsoft choose to move forward with interoperability in lieu of an approved instant messaging standard?
A: Again we strongly believe that the long term and best solution is for the industry to standardize on IMPP. We are committed and will support IMPP as soon as the IETF ratifies it as the standard. In the interim, we have delivered a simple and straightforward solution that provides consumers with interoperability among instant messaging clients. People are responding with overwhelmingly positive feedback on MSN Messenger and we will continue to do our best to meet consumer demand for interoperability.
Q: What about AOL's claim that it asked Microsoft to "make peace" in the letter sent on July 23, 1999?
A: It's simply untrue. AOL sent a letter informing Microsoft that they would block people who chose to use MSN Messenger to communicate with their AIM contacts, and proposed a "business arrangement." This is in no way in the best interests of our mutual customers or a solution to the broader issue of solving the industry need to have a standard for interoperability on messaging.
Q: Does Microsoft have any response to AOL's newly announced deal with EarthLink and MindSpring.
A: This announcement is unrelated to the core issues we have been discussing regarding enabling interoperability for consumers. Frankly it feels a bit like a diversion on AOL's part. They seem to be doing everything they can to NOT enable interoperability for consumers, which is disappointing.
Q: Will Microsoft offer free Internet access to its customers; and, if so, is it a direct shot at AOL?
A: Our focus with MSN Internet Access is to make it easy, fast, and attractive for everyone to get online. We have recently come out with some very compelling offers for consumers that marry a great promotion, such as the Staples $400 instant cash rebate in return for 3 years of MSN Internet Access, along with great technology such as the automatic account creation. In our efforts to help make getting on the Internet as attractive as possible we are considering all manners of technology and promotion. We have no new strategy to announce here from the great promotions that we are already conducting at retail stores today.
PPC was up during a period when Win went down several times. The stats are about equal.
PPC comment for 8/5 18:58 CST: Averaging 437.46 packets per second(tcpdump)
Windows: Perfmon info from 8/5/99 4:00pm Datagrams Received/sec Avg: 326 Fragments Received/secAvg: 104 Total Fragment Reassembly Errors1574000 in the last 3 hours Connections/sec Avg: 100 % Processor Time Avg: 20 Memory use steady at about 113264K
The main problem with religion is it for listeners. Other people do the interpretation for you. When conforted with a problem, change the subject, ignore the problem with your theories,and point out the problems with others.
Someone could teach you how to calculate the age of the rock, given the results. But can you do biblical math?
The 6000 year number was done many centuries ago, and has never been revised. 4004 BC, (9am?) No scholarly discussion. The first person, ArchBishop Usher, to do this, was just right. All his guesses about the gaps in time were right. Not likeley.
Challenge you to go backwards (or forewards) in the bible, and post a timeline. Convice yourself that you can do it.
Now, convince yourself that all the assumptions about radiocativity and it's hazards are wrong. Physics is wrong, chemistry is wrong, except when it suits your needs. Then like CS folks, you can come up with how dating which releys on radiocative decay rates can be wrong. Then, don't worry about the radiocative nuclear power plant, 10,000 years is really 10 years in CS time.
The rock it is in is 2.7 Billion. Its a 99% chance that the sample is that age, and they did a couple of ages, and they can out the same, within error (this is the second time they did it).
It a excellent chance that these chemicals are also lipids. Not 100.00% but 99.999 or something like that.
But when we talk like that, we get accused of talking an obscure scientific dialect. Damn if we do, damn if we don't.
And of course, there is no other better theory, presented. CS just points out the problems, not the solution. Dog is not the answer to everything, otherwist the McCoys would have never has 7 kids.
The main problem with religion is it for listeners. Other people do the interpretation for you. The 6000 year number was done many centuries ago, and has never been revised. 4004 BC, (9am?) No scholarly discussion, the first person to do this, was just right. Not likeley.
Challenge you to go backwards (or forewards) in the bible, and post a timeline. Convice yourself that you can do it.
Now, convince yourself that all the assumptions about radiocativity and it's hazards are wrong. Physics is wrong, chemistry is wrong, except when it suits your needs. Then like CS folks, you can come up with how dating which releys on radiocative decay rates can be wrong. Then, don't worry about the radiocative nuclear power plant, 10,000 years is really 10 years in CS time.
Prove god exists. I mean without GOD, creation science is nothing.
GOD DOES NOT EXIST. Prove me wrong.
Problems with GOD: God is all knowing and all powerful. If god is all knowing and all powerful, then why was flood required? I mean he really screwed up.
The scientists job is to find know the holes in the theory, and to look for evidence that might disprove the theory. If you keep on finding evidence that supports it, then your job is not finished. You can provide overwhelming evidence that it might be correct.
More importantly, you can provide overwhelming evidence that it might be wrong. In which case, you need to come up with a better theory that can be tested.
Now, to prove faith, you do things like drink tainted jello.
May go through the appellate courts, but all those unvested programmers are not going to be happy if MS loses, and the stock price drops.
In addtion, the Fed Gov could stop purchasing MS products, or make it extreamly difficult and time consuming (why do yo need this, how come, is there a different solution, we will get back to after we get through with the 6 month backlog).
And if this comes out at the same time as Win 00, and win 00 has problems, then short MS stock.
Slashdot Mirror
So, in your personal world, God exists. He's a real bastard, who has decided that several times that something is fucked, and lets start again. He fucked the plantlife, fucked the dinosaurs, he wiped out the race of man, about 4900 years ago, according to CS theories (well it was less than 6000 years ago).
I've asked for a bible with a timeline on it. Never gotten one. But some people in the bible live quite a long time, and then there are gaps in time. It really is the worlds greatest work of fiction. Great observations, lousy interpretations.
When trying to view a Hotmail inbox of MSN Messenger you get this:
/cgi-bin/start on this server.
Forbidden You don't have permission to access
It's either something on Hotmail's end or something that will require an update for Messenger and how
it connects to Hotmail.
From a ZDNet Message:
MSN Messenger Service disabled?
Since Microsoft has 'fixed' the security hole earlier this morning, my MSN Messenger service will no longer all me to directly login to my Hotmail Inbox. That's the only reason I even use the shitty service...
Coincidence? I think not.
Any MSN Mess users confirm this?
At present, every time you change the network configuration, you REBOOT. Big [bleep] pain if you have a PC laptop.
If your machines are configured to dynamic addresses, then you don't need to reboot.
Intrusion discussed in press on tuesday, supposedly confirmed on monday.
/.
Posted to web site on Sunday, after posting to
Just what every company needs, a customer that buys a new system every 25 years.
Guess they can write him off from buying anything new. Wonder if he got a printer with the deal.
There is the MSN messenger centralized hotmail system, and there is the MSN decentralized Exchange protocol.
Do we get both, or just one? How about hotmail?
Do we get the server backend?
Keeping the pressure on MS until it completely puts its code where its marketing is, is still needed. You scream open, you had better mean open.
Microsoft Continues to Work Toward Consumer Interoperability, Despite AOL Allegations About MSN Messenger
REDMOND, Wash. - Aug. 6, 1999 - On July 22, Microsoft® launched MSN Messenger Service, the free Internet messaging service that enables people to communicate with the greatest number of Internet users and offers the tightest integration with popular Microsoft communications tools. One of the exciting features of MSN Messenger Service is the ability to exchange messages with both other MSN Messenger users and with people using AOL Instant Messenger (AIM).
In several recent news reports, America Online has made a number of false or misleading claims about MSN Messenger Service. These comments have been made against the backdrop of AOL's failure to respond to consumer demand for interoperability between messaging systems. PressPass asked Yusuf Mehdi, director of marketing for Microsoft MSN, to comment.
Q: What is Microsoft's overall stance on instant messaging and how does it differ from AOL?
A: Communications continues to be the cornerstone of the Internet, and instant messaging is becoming a more prevalent way for people to communicate. With MSN Messenger we are offering a rich and easy solution for people to instant message. In addition we have delivered a breakthrough feature that lets consumers exchange instant messages not only with their MSN contacts but their AIM contacts as well. It is our view that instant messaging should quickly evolve to enable any individual to instant message with anyone else irrespective of their client software or messaging system. In the same way that different telephone handsets and systems interoperate, we're delivering the functionality to enable people to instant message with each other.
Q: What is the current state of Microsoft's relationship with AOL on the subject of Instant Messaging?
A: We are very interested in having AOL work with Microsoft and other industry leaders that have gotten behind a proposed industry standard for messaging. For the last two years, many companies have worked with the IETF on the Instant Messaging Presence Protocol as a standard way to help the industry move forward on interoperability. We are disappointed that AOL has chosen not to join the standards process thus far. We are also disappointed that in the interim AOL is choosing to deny consumers the choice of MSN Messenger interoperability.
Q: Does Microsoft's new MSN Messenger Service strip out AOL's privacy and security controls, as AOL claims?
A: Absolutely not. Privacy was a top priority in developing MSN Messenger Service, and Messenger provides strong privacy features that enable users to maintain total control of their personal information. MSN Messenger Service in no way compromises the privacy or security of people who use it to communicate with other MSN Messenger users or with their AIM contacts. Specifically:
Q: Is it true that Microsoft invaded AOL's network without authorization?
A: No. MSN Messenger gives people using the AIM service a choice of which client software they want to use to send instant messages to other AIM contacts. A person who chooses to use MSN Messenger uses his or her authorized AIM account, just as they would with the AIM client. All of the login, authentication and messaging activity for AIM contacts still occurs on the AOL servers, exactly as it would if someone were using the AIM client. MSN Messenger simply provides one integrated interface that allows people to send messages to both MSN Messenger users and AIM users.
Q: AOL claims Microsoft has subverted and/or disabled the AOL Instant Messenger software.
A: Not true. People are completely free to choose which instant messaging service they'd like to use as the default - that is, which service starts up and logs in automatically when Windows starts. If someone chooses to make MSN Messenger the default, it will be started when Windows starts and will log people into the MSN Messenger Service, and, if they have chosen, the AIM service as well. The MSN Messenger setup wizard is very clear in explaining what it means to set MSN Messenger as the default, and gives people the option to check or uncheck this box. This doesn't mean that the AIM software is disabled. People can certainly still use this client, and it is easy for someone who wants to make AIM the default service again to do so.
Q: Is it true that MSN Messenger drains AOL network and system resources?
A: Of course not. People who have chosen to use MSN Messenger to talk to their AIM contacts already have an authorized AIM account, one that they already use to send messages to their AIM contacts. This doesn't change when people start using MSN Messenger. The same AIM account is still used to communicate with AIM contacts; the only difference is the client software that the person has chosen. There is no additional load on the AOL servers.
Q: Why is lobbying for an instant messaging standard so important?
A: It has always been Microsoft's goal that people should be able to talk freely on the Internet, no matter whose software they are using. Microsoft has supported establishing an open standard with the IETF since November 1997, when Microsoft and the rest of the industry proposed the RVP protocol (now called IMPP - instant messaging and presence protocol) to the IETF. AOL was approached at that time to join with Microsoft, the other companies and the IETF, but they declined. To date AOL has not had any active participation with the rest of the industry in meeting consumer demand for interoperability.
Microsoft has been a leader in working with standards bodies and supporting industry standards for interoperability. Internet Explorer is a great example, because it was the first browser to support CSS, HTML 4.0, DHTML, etc. AOL has no track record in the area of industry standards.
Q: Why did Microsoft choose to move forward with interoperability in lieu of an approved instant messaging standard?
A: Again we strongly believe that the long term and best solution is for the industry to standardize on IMPP. We are committed and will support IMPP as soon as the IETF ratifies it as the standard. In the interim, we have delivered a simple and straightforward solution that provides consumers with interoperability among instant messaging clients. People are responding with overwhelmingly positive feedback on MSN Messenger and we will continue to do our best to meet consumer demand for interoperability.
Q: What about AOL's claim that it asked Microsoft to "make peace" in the letter sent on July 23, 1999?
A: It's simply untrue. AOL sent a letter informing Microsoft that they would block people who chose to use MSN Messenger to communicate with their AIM contacts, and proposed a "business arrangement." This is in no way in the best interests of our mutual customers or a solution to the broader issue of solving the industry need to have a standard for interoperability on messaging.
Q: Does Microsoft have any response to AOL's newly announced deal with EarthLink and MindSpring.
A: This announcement is unrelated to the core issues we have been discussing regarding enabling interoperability for consumers. Frankly it feels a bit like a diversion on AOL's part. They seem to be doing everything they can to NOT enable interoperability for consumers, which is disappointing.
Q: Will Microsoft offer free Internet access to its customers; and, if so, is it a direct shot at AOL?
A: Our focus with MSN Internet Access is to make it easy, fast, and attractive for everyone to get online. We have recently come out with some very compelling offers for consumers that marry a great promotion, such as the Staples $400 instant cash rebate in return for 3 years of MSN Internet Access, along with great technology such as the automatic account creation. In our efforts to help make getting on the Internet as attractive as possible we are considering all manners of technology and promotion. We have no new strategy to announce here from the great promotions that we are already conducting at retail stores today.
There are things called urban legends. Remember telephone, well this is the internet.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
PPC was up during a period when Win went down several times. The stats are about equal.
PPC comment for 8/5
18:58 CST: Averaging 437.46 packets per second(tcpdump)
Windows:
Perfmon info from 8/5/99 4:00pm
Datagrams Received/sec Avg: 326
Fragments Received/secAvg: 104
Total Fragment Reassembly Errors1574000 in the last 3 hours
Connections/sec Avg: 100
% Processor Time Avg: 20
Memory use steady at about 113264K
YOURSELF.
The main problem with religion is it for listeners. Other people do the interpretation for you. When conforted with a problem, change the subject, ignore the problem with your theories,and point out the problems with others.
Someone could teach you how to calculate the age of the rock, given the results. But can you do biblical math?
The 6000 year number was done many centuries ago, and has never been revised. 4004 BC, (9am?) No scholarly discussion. The first person, ArchBishop Usher, to do this, was just right. All his guesses about the gaps in time were right. Not likeley.
Challenge you to go backwards (or forewards) in the bible, and post a timeline. Convice yourself that you can do it.
Now, convince yourself that all the assumptions about radiocativity and it's hazards are wrong. Physics is wrong, chemistry is wrong, except when it suits your needs. Then like CS folks, you can come up with how dating which releys on radiocative decay rates can be wrong. Then, don't worry about the radiocative nuclear power plant, 10,000 years is really 10 years in CS time.
The rock it is in is 2.7 Billion. Its a 99% chance that the sample is that age, and they did a couple of ages, and they can out the same, within error (this is the second time they did it).
It a excellent chance that these chemicals are also lipids. Not 100.00% but 99.999 or something like that.
But when we talk like that, we get accused of talking an obscure scientific dialect. Damn if we do, damn if we don't.
And of course, there is no other better theory, presented. CS just points out the problems, not the solution. Dog is not the answer to everything, otherwist the McCoys would have never has 7 kids.
The main problem with religion is it for listeners. Other people do the interpretation for you. The 6000 year number was done many centuries ago, and has never been revised. 4004 BC, (9am?) No scholarly discussion, the first person to do this, was just right. Not likeley.
Challenge you to go backwards (or forewards) in the bible, and post a timeline. Convice yourself that you can do it.
Now, convince yourself that all the assumptions about radiocativity and it's hazards are wrong. Physics is wrong, chemistry is wrong, except when it suits your needs. Then like CS folks, you can come up with how dating which releys on radiocative decay rates can be wrong. Then, don't worry about the radiocative nuclear power plant, 10,000 years is really 10 years in CS time.
Perfmon info from 8/6/99 12:50pm
Datagrams Received/sec Avg: 4518
% Processor Time Avg: 30-47
8/11/99 Events
21:30 - There is so much traffic to the site that it is going to be difficult to get connections.
Frames/sec 6,000
Bytes/sec 400,000
Datagrams Received/sec 2312
Datagrams Sent/sec 3146
% Processor Time 99
Hey, lets take a different tack.
Prove god exists. I mean without GOD, creation science is nothing.
GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
Prove me wrong.
Problems with GOD:
God is all knowing and all powerful.
If god is all knowing and all powerful, then why was flood required? I mean he really screwed up.
There are lots of origins myths, but on the christans think that theirs should be taught as creation science (CS).
Write the books to teach origin theories of many religons and CULTURES, and I will agree with it.
Problem is Creation science is CHRISTAIN SCIENCE.
One attack succeeded in hanging the box, but the guru's were off a linux world.
and then the ISP turned on the firewall.
I agree. You cannot prove evolution.
The scientists job is to find know the holes in the theory, and to look for evidence that might disprove the theory. If you keep on finding evidence that supports it, then your job is not finished. You can provide overwhelming evidence that it might be correct.
More importantly, you can provide overwhelming evidence that it might be wrong. In which case, you need to come up with a better theory that can be tested.
Now, to prove faith, you do things like drink tainted jello.
Oh please, let crakers test win 00 with frontpage extensions.
Or open up the sms port.
Or perhaps allow the spammers to test the default install of exchange.
At least keep it up.
It was just up an hour ago.
/.
Ok who know how to crash the computer and isn't sharing with
May go through the appellate courts, but all those unvested programmers are not going to be happy if MS loses, and the stock price drops.
In addtion, the Fed Gov could stop purchasing MS products, or make it extreamly difficult and time consuming (why do yo need this, how come, is there a different solution, we will get back to after we get through with the 6 month backlog).
And if this comes out at the same time as Win 00, and win 00 has problems, then short MS stock.
to directly log in as root.
Humm, some approval jocky screwed up.
I swore the status page mentioned 20% load at one point. Why would one need a bigger machine?
So did all that tweaking to fend off attacks increase the processor usage?
Funny very funny. Should be a brit traffic engineer.
Really embarass MS. Get a slashdot forum up and running on the server.
If not secure enough, then just do what should be done, host the commnents on a separate machine, ie slashdot.