Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday warned about a serious flaw in almost every version of its popular Windows software that could allow hackers to seize control of a person's computer when victims read e-mails or visit Web sites.
This is getting so routine these days that MS should just bolierplate the warning with a spot for the date.
Seriously, I use a browser that provides for a client side preference that disallows window spawning unless in response to a mouse click or even not at all.
So basically because you're (meaning the browsing populace in general, not slashdotters) all using crummy yet market-dominating applications for browsing the web, these clowns feel that they have some sort of legal basis for bitching about some third-party app that denies them an ad impression?
I went to their site, all I got was some lame-ass portal-styled content in my browser window. Should I have gotten something more?
Really, I'm very keen on experiencing this wild concept of the World Wide Web which seems to populated by content that I do not request and seems to revolve around advertising and nto information.
IF.cmg
So when does the Mahir Cagri/Osama Bin Laden parod
on
Bert Is Evil
·
· Score: 1
Playing ping-pong, playing the accordian, in a Speedo.
I'm saying that we establish a presence in the area that gives the Taliban (and their ilk) sober pause.
Really sober pause.
Pause enough to reflect on their philosophy and realize that the rest of the world is either ready to step into the 21st century, or too scared to stay in the 19th, and that they had better check their collective 600-member head and figure out what to do.
Sadly, I doubt that the U.S. is going to be patient enough for that, and likewise I doubt the Taliban will be open enough to reach that decision.
I haven't even bothered to read all of the typical/. responses, even though I noticed that the top Score:5 more or less shores up what I'm about to say.
NEWS FLASH:
This isn't the Crimean War. This isn't WWI, nor WWII. This certainly isn't even Vietnam. For those of you who were asleep about 10 years ago, the Gulf War wasn't Vietnam, either. And finally, this isn't the Soviet occupation of the late 70's and early 80's, either.
I suppose that on the very crust of this issue, one could claim that this will be very very different because none of those conflicts involved destroying lower Manhattan.
Dig a little deeper, and you'll find that aside from the United States' sheer fury, the coming conflict between America and those nations that "harbor" terrorism will be akin to bringing a pea-shooter to a gunfight. At least during the Gulf War, Iraq saw fit to bring a knife, whole lot of good that did them.
America is poised right now with its military deployment to the region, nay -- THEATER, and is basically going one step beyond the "you're with us or against us" rhetoric, and in the next few days will be telling the Taliban (as they are the almost singular dissenting political voice internationally) to basically "Freeze! We've got you covered."
This will most surely change into, "One false move...", as I'm paraphrasing crime dramas here. I say this because I don't expect the Taliban to concede to the United States' wishes.
And then, when we move in, we'll be telling Afghanistan (or the reigning powers there) to "make a hole, and make it wide". For those of you who don't know what this means, it's a military euphemism for getting out of the way.
I doubt that the United States, if engaged in land warfare in Afghanistan, will befall the same fate as Victorian England or the Soviet Union. Why?
Because we're not interested in holding, annexing, or occupying Afghanistan. We're only interested in destroying whatever terrorist networks that might remain there, and secondarily interested in making sure that the Taliban (if and only IF they actively support terrorism against the western, if not modern and civilized world) can't support these terrorist camps.
If you haven't noticed yet, terrorism has now become the new feudalism, with new warlords like bin Laden able to operate without geo-political borders.
With that, I suggest those who believe that a victorious war against an enemy without borders is folly read up on the military philosophy of General George S. Patton -- to wit, "Now, I've heard a lot about 'holding on to territory'. The only thing we're going to hold on to is the enemy. We're going to hold him by the nose, and kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him, and go through him like crap through a goose."
Jingoism, to be sure. But there's a kernel of truth underneath it all. We do, in this day and age, have the power to DISCRIMINATELY wage war, anywhere on the globe.
I'd prefer the coming conflict to be resolved politically and economically, but I seriously doubt it. In fact, I'm more or less of the mind that for whatever fucked up reason, it can't be solved in any other way.
So while the future looks dim, please let's all look at the future instead of the past.
This is as pretty much all can agree, a new kind of war, let's not try to compare it to past kinds of war.
I have a fairly high-level Diablo II character, a level 70 barbarian who has completed all quests to include the newly-added Act 5 quests from the expansion pack, all in Hell difficulty.
He's already got some real kick-ass gear, chief among those a war club capable of basically insta-gibbing Andariel on normal difficulty and a set of ancient plate providing 700+ in defense.
Now, I've had some folks lambast my character due to the fact that he uses this big old hammer without the use of a shield, but I figure that's okay: It's within his character to get hit a bunch by the boogerheads, and I accept that outcome during a normal gaming session.
Now, with the expansion pack, I see on Diabloii.net that there is this new item set that seems for all intents and purposes to be genetically designed for my character: big honkin' hammer, plate, belt, boots, gauntlets, and helmet -- all way more better than what he's currently packing.
Now that he's passed all the trials before him, I see no better way for him as a character to wile away the days than to search for that complete item set.
However, in all honesty, it would me/him YEARS to collect them.
I myself would pay a premium for the complete set from some other D2 player, but certainly not in triple-digits. I would do so because the D2 character I run in question is ready to ascend to NPC status, I have no interest whatsoever in playing him other than to have him help out other folks finish the necessary quests.
Maybe I might be interested in getting him to clvl 99, but not nearly as much as I'd like to see him get that set.
I'm ready to retire him to being a secondary character to someone else's adventure, I'd just like to get him 100% complete in the process.
If the game itself would only drop *one* of those items, I'd forego the monetary route, but in all sad honesty, it's not gonna happen.
The ONE thing Trek must do in order to regain what it once was is to remember this simple directive, if in fact it is the PRIME directive for writing for Star Trek:
Aliens either look completely human and act absolutely alien, or they look completely alien and act in a humane manner.
This is what Kirk meant by saying "We're all human." and what Spock played right into by taking that as an insult.
It's either that or take advantage of doing a prequel so that they can absolutely destroy everything that Trek is and in turn re-define it for truly the next generation.
Thanks! To think I've errantly been thinking of that piece wrongly all this time. Of course, actually getting a return on wrong information entered by myself kinda says something, too....
IF.cmg
It's the 'theme music' to Ken Burns' Civil War series well-known to PBS fans. I have searched on and off for years via the web and more recently on Napster, and get nothing.
Google once gave me a link to a painting of the same name, not quite what I had in mind.
So there.
IF.cmg
Then we have the issue that the husband wants to break into his wife's Amazon account to change the subscription. Does the husband ask his wife what her password and credit card are? No, he expects Amazon to just hand over this information to someone else, namely him.
As I have said elsewhere in this discussion, I DID NOT seek any information from my wife's account, I simply wanted them to cease sending me unwanted e-mail. I could have at any point grabbed her wallet and found the credit card I know she uses most, and got into her account that way. I can see no reason that you or other detractors to this situation can interpret my respecting her privacy any other way.
Bottom Line: Complaintant (myself) called a customer service organization to stop e-mailing me. I didn't expect the rep on the phone to be able to take any action but to point me to whatever tool or address needed to alleviate my situation. In turn what I got was firm verbal authority that not only COULDN'T they do anything, but WOULDN'T do as well.
I don't see this problem as solvable, really. The problem was not to do with her Amazon account, but with my e-mail account. If you feel this to be otherwise, I'm sure Amazon is hiring.
To all of you recommending I not give out my e-mail to those I don't know too well....In case you didn't bother to read the body of the story, I gave my e-mail to MY WIFE. We have carnal relations and everything, I've even seen my son pop out of...well, you know. At least I hope you know.
As to the use of filters: Yes, I'm aware of that route. However, that's not the point. I don't even want that crap taking up space on my ISP's server.
To those responding to the privacy issue of Amazon somehow compromisiong their credit card number database by providing me with someone else's account password (even if it was my wife's): Oh, get a fscking clue. I wasn't asking for her password. I was asking Amazon to stop sending my e-mail account what I considered to be unsolicited e-mail. That's as easy as it should have been. For any/. reader to even suggest a defense of what has transpired easily translates into a future career at Amazon's marketing department. And on the one side note to the person suggesting I stop bitching and just ferret through my wife's wallet, this goes in order - just consider what you're suggesting. You deserve a job at Micros~1.
All in all, a pretty good spate of responses, things considered.
Just remember, given the situation: Anyone you've sent e-mail to might have as well ordered something from Amazon using YOUR e-mail, and even with a confirmation mail, I doubt seriously that you'd be able to remove yourself from their spam list wihtout knowing what was ordered and the last five digits of the credit card used to place the order.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Corp. on Wednesday warned about a serious flaw in almost every version of its popular Windows software that could allow hackers to seize control of a person's computer when victims read e-mails or visit Web sites.
This is getting so routine these days that MS should just bolierplate the warning with a spot for the date.
Seriously, I use a browser that provides for a client side preference that disallows window spawning unless in response to a mouse click or even not at all.
So basically because you're (meaning the browsing populace in general, not slashdotters) all using crummy yet market-dominating applications for browsing the web, these clowns feel that they have some sort of legal basis for bitching about some third-party app that denies them an ad impression?
I went to their site, all I got was some lame-ass portal-styled content in my browser window. Should I have gotten something more?
Really, I'm very keen on experiencing this wild concept of the World Wide Web which seems to populated by content that I do not request and seems to revolve around advertising and nto information.
IF.cmg
Playing ping-pong, playing the accordian, in a Speedo.
"I kill you all!!!"
IF.cmg
I'm not saying that we invade Afghanistan.
I'm saying that we establish a presence in the area that gives the Taliban (and their ilk) sober pause.
Really sober pause.
Pause enough to reflect on their philosophy and realize that the rest of the world is either ready to step into the 21st century, or too scared to stay in the 19th, and that they had better check their collective 600-member head and figure out what to do.
Sadly, I doubt that the U.S. is going to be patient enough for that, and likewise I doubt the Taliban will be open enough to reach that decision.
IF.cmg
I haven't even bothered to read all of the typical /. responses, even though I noticed that the top Score:5 more or less shores up what I'm about to say.
NEWS FLASH:
This isn't the Crimean War. This isn't WWI, nor WWII. This certainly isn't even Vietnam. For those of you who were asleep about 10 years ago, the Gulf War wasn't Vietnam, either. And finally, this isn't the Soviet occupation of the late 70's and early 80's, either.
I suppose that on the very crust of this issue, one could claim that this will be very very different because none of those conflicts involved destroying lower Manhattan.
Dig a little deeper, and you'll find that aside from the United States' sheer fury, the coming conflict between America and those nations that "harbor" terrorism will be akin to bringing a pea-shooter to a gunfight. At least during the Gulf War, Iraq saw fit to bring a knife, whole lot of good that did them.
America is poised right now with its military deployment to the region, nay -- THEATER, and is basically going one step beyond the "you're with us or against us" rhetoric, and in the next few days will be telling the Taliban (as they are the almost singular dissenting political voice internationally) to basically "Freeze! We've got you covered."
This will most surely change into, "One false move...", as I'm paraphrasing crime dramas here. I say this because I don't expect the Taliban to concede to the United States' wishes.
And then, when we move in, we'll be telling Afghanistan (or the reigning powers there) to "make a hole, and make it wide". For those of you who don't know what this means, it's a military euphemism for getting out of the way.
I doubt that the United States, if engaged in land warfare in Afghanistan, will befall the same fate as Victorian England or the Soviet Union. Why?
Because we're not interested in holding, annexing, or occupying Afghanistan. We're only interested in destroying whatever terrorist networks that might remain there, and secondarily interested in making sure that the Taliban (if and only IF they actively support terrorism against the western, if not modern and civilized world) can't support these terrorist camps.
If you haven't noticed yet, terrorism has now become the new feudalism, with new warlords like bin Laden able to operate without geo-political borders.
With that, I suggest those who believe that a victorious war against an enemy without borders is folly read up on the military philosophy of General George S. Patton -- to wit, "Now, I've heard a lot about 'holding on to territory'. The only thing we're going to hold on to is the enemy. We're going to hold him by the nose, and kick him in the ass. We're going to kick the hell out of him, and go through him like crap through a goose."
Jingoism, to be sure. But there's a kernel of truth underneath it all. We do, in this day and age, have the power to DISCRIMINATELY wage war, anywhere on the globe.
I'd prefer the coming conflict to be resolved politically and economically, but I seriously doubt it. In fact, I'm more or less of the mind that for whatever fucked up reason, it can't be solved in any other way.
So while the future looks dim, please let's all look at the future instead of the past.
This is as pretty much all can agree, a new kind of war, let's not try to compare it to past kinds of war.
IF.cmg
I have a fairly high-level Diablo II character, a level 70 barbarian who has completed all quests to include the newly-added Act 5 quests from the expansion pack, all in Hell difficulty.
He's already got some real kick-ass gear, chief among those a war club capable of basically insta-gibbing Andariel on normal difficulty and a set of ancient plate providing 700+ in defense.
Now, I've had some folks lambast my character due to the fact that he uses this big old hammer without the use of a shield, but I figure that's okay: It's within his character to get hit a bunch by the boogerheads, and I accept that outcome during a normal gaming session.
Now, with the expansion pack, I see on Diabloii.net that there is this new item set that seems for all intents and purposes to be genetically designed for my character: big honkin' hammer, plate, belt, boots, gauntlets, and helmet -- all way more better than what he's currently packing.
Now that he's passed all the trials before him, I see no better way for him as a character to wile away the days than to search for that complete item set.
However, in all honesty, it would me/him YEARS to collect them.
I myself would pay a premium for the complete set from some other D2 player, but certainly not in triple-digits. I would do so because the D2 character I run in question is ready to ascend to NPC status, I have no interest whatsoever in playing him other than to have him help out other folks finish the necessary quests.
Maybe I might be interested in getting him to clvl 99, but not nearly as much as I'd like to see him get that set.
I'm ready to retire him to being a secondary character to someone else's adventure, I'd just like to get him 100% complete in the process.
If the game itself would only drop *one* of those items, I'd forego the monetary route, but in all sad honesty, it's not gonna happen.
Does this make sense?
IF.cmg
Casting, timeline, premise, story arc.
Just forget all of that.
The ONE thing Trek must do in order to regain what it once was is to remember this simple directive, if in fact it is the PRIME directive for writing for Star Trek:
Aliens either look completely human and act absolutely alien, or they look completely alien and act in a humane manner.
This is what Kirk meant by saying "We're all human." and what Spock played right into by taking that as an insult.
It's either that or take advantage of doing a prequel so that they can absolutely destroy everything that Trek is and in turn re-define it for truly the next generation.
IF.cmg
Thanks! To think I've errantly been thinking of that piece wrongly all this time. Of course, actually getting a return on wrong information entered by myself kinda says something, too.... IF.cmg
It's the 'theme music' to Ken Burns' Civil War series well-known to PBS fans. I have searched on and off for years via the web and more recently on Napster, and get nothing. Google once gave me a link to a painting of the same name, not quite what I had in mind. So there. IF.cmg
As I have said elsewhere in this discussion, I DID NOT seek any information from my wife's account, I simply wanted them to cease sending me unwanted e-mail. I could have at any point grabbed her wallet and found the credit card I know she uses most, and got into her account that way. I can see no reason that you or other detractors to this situation can interpret my respecting her privacy any other way.
Bottom Line: Complaintant (myself) called a customer service organization to stop e-mailing me. I didn't expect the rep on the phone to be able to take any action but to point me to whatever tool or address needed to alleviate my situation. In turn what I got was firm verbal authority that not only COULDN'T they do anything, but WOULDN'T do as well.
I don't see this problem as solvable, really. The problem was not to do with her Amazon account, but with my e-mail account. If you feel this to be otherwise, I'm sure Amazon is hiring.
IF.cmgNow....on to the legion of responders...
To all of you recommending I not give out my e-mail to those I don't know too well....In case you didn't bother to read the body of the story, I gave my e-mail to MY WIFE. We have carnal relations and everything, I've even seen my son pop out of...well, you know. At least I hope you know.
As to the use of filters: Yes, I'm aware of that route. However, that's not the point. I don't even want that crap taking up space on my ISP's server.
To those responding to the privacy issue of Amazon somehow compromisiong their credit card number database by providing me with someone else's account password (even if it was my wife's): Oh, get a fscking clue. I wasn't asking for her password. I was asking Amazon to stop sending my e-mail account what I considered to be unsolicited e-mail. That's as easy as it should have been. For any /. reader to even suggest a defense of what has transpired easily translates into a future career at Amazon's marketing department. And on the one side note to the person suggesting I stop bitching and just ferret through my wife's wallet, this goes in order - just consider what you're suggesting. You deserve a job at Micros~1.
All in all, a pretty good spate of responses, things considered.
Just remember, given the situation: Anyone you've sent e-mail to might have as well ordered something from Amazon using YOUR e-mail, and even with a confirmation mail, I doubt seriously that you'd be able to remove yourself from their spam list wihtout knowing what was ordered and the last five digits of the credit card used to place the order.
IF.cmg/Kanghyr Caggee/