Over the last 10 years, I used webcrawler > altavista > dogpile and metacrawler > hotbot & other inktomi-based engines > google
Having run a website most of that time, it always puzzled me why people would usually come in thru yahoo. Before 2000 it was something like 80 %. Sure I had a listing, but half the links in their static directory were dead or mutated since the original listing in Yahoo. The same problems plague dmoz, etc. Who would use that.
Google's on the way out -- it's become a monoculture and therefore marketers focus on it. It's already useless for searching on pop culture things like actors or singers, or movies. The first 10,000 hits, (after the imdb page that google manually bumps to the top) are for dvd's cd's or posters, all affiliates, all alike, all selling the same exact disc or poster. At some point, there will officially be more stores than customers. Other search engines like alltheweb.com are better on those spam ridden searches.
Isn't that a sign that it might be time to move away from '98 then?
..and Bill Gates sucks in several more $100 bills as ppl upgrade to xp as a result of your comment...
seriously, I have several games that only run in dos, that are not made any more. Among these would be the Williams arcade games. And what about fallout, etc. that will run under 9x but not 2000 on.
Once they have their hands on this setup, it'll take them all of 15 minutes to find something like totalrecorder that can save to.mp3 anything that comes thru their sound card.
DRM will not be an issue, until they finally succeed in banning mp3 devices.
They don't have to actually pop one off over there - one phoned-in nuke threat could cause delays or cancellations costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
Given Microsoft's record, it is only a matter of time before security hoels are discovered and horrified gamerz everywhere around the globe find their xboxes 0wn3d
Microsoft should count itself lucky that the console is not dominant. They should not become complacent in that regard in case they do begin to make it.
Just one example: USian truck drivers can enter Mexico without any trouble since day one of NAFTA, Mexican truck drivers are being blocked from entering the US because of lobbying from the teamsters union.
Don't be so disingenuous. If you lived near the border and had to share the road with those unmaintained, smoking, oil-dripping, rolling-environmental-disasters, you'd probably revise that opinion. Anyway, I thought the Teamsters were all Democrats -- what do you have against them?
It won't be a problem AFTER they fix their trucks. As it is, we are being far more accomodating accepting their unsmogged, uninspected passenger cars hauling ass up and down our local roads. The cops won't ticket Mexican plates and so they drive like bats out of hell.
If you insist on removing IE, download IEradicator (IE required). It runs on 98 and before, and it can be made to work on XP/2000 despite the warning.
But I do not recommend removing IE, because you may have to purchase/locate networking components that IE already does for free, and for convenience in keeping Windows patched.
1) Windows Update only runs on IE. If you remove IE, you have to update windows manually. With Critical Security Updates coming in at an average of once a week, this could become tiresome. Windows can be set to download and install patches automatically.
2) The javascript utility Windows uses to detect network settings is tied into IE. When you have trouble connecting Windows to a network, it comes up automatically in IE, and you are given the option of having it detect your proxies, etc and try to reconnect. Especially useful if you have a DSL/Cable connection that likes to pull the rug out from under you at random intervals with DHCP changes.
From the review of Mozilla/Firefox: CONS: Default installation doesn't include many functions; you have to download additional features via the Extensions Manager. Will not load ActiveX and VBScript; this prevents certain kinds of attacks, but also disables the normal functions of some sites.
Those are PROs if I ever saw one. Drive-by software installs and buggy Active-X is the reason I spend ten hours a month cleaning up computers of friends and family. WHo subseqently receive Mozilla and are forbidden to run IE except for Windows Update forevermore, on pain of no more free computer work.
One time I got in and started the motor before realizing I was in someone else's car. It was a 1972 240Z. Those were common as hell once. Of course, there are probably fewer key combinations with physical locks.
When needing to do a re-install, since you cannot reinstall SP3 once you've upgraded to SP4, you have to do a new install, then get the critical security updates, and then reinstall apps, or buy an SP4 disc so you can install over the upgraded SP3 install.
I'll try your method, but I think Windows Setup reads the disc title, instead of checking to see which files you have around, before kicking you out of Setup for not having SP4.
Yep it's SP3. I don't feel like buying another copy of 2000. There are 63 by actual count, a couple weeks ago. There have been two new critical updates since then.
What is strange is when doing this, you finally get down to only 2 or 3 left, which must be installed separately, after the reboot, there are five more. Which tells me some critical security updates must receive their own later security updates. For instance, this latest one is only a partial solution by msft's own admission.
This is with Windows Update via IE. Possibly by manually installing the security updates, the actual count will be less.
Explain then the FUD from these guys, and why they ignore, in terms of everyday use, why only Windows/IE users can get r00ted by simply browsing a website, and OSX users can't. How come when I re-install Win2K SP# it takes 63 security updates over nine reboots before I can even consider plugging in directly to the net.
This article is so beyond common sense and everyday experience, I cannot see how it can possibly hold up to examination.
What is made in the United States anymore? Nothing. Except intellectual property (the type to block competition, rather than coming up with innovative ideas) and lawyers. Unless you live in China, do you, or anyone you know, make anything for a living. Half the people around here (Calif.) get their livings by re-re-financing their houses, which actually go up in value $1,000 a day. The rest push around paper and IM each other in offices all day in "service" livelihoods. And they all think this "productivity" will continue forever.
A most impressive castigation! I recommend you hit the stage as a Shakespearean actor (and hopefully leave/. while you're at it, if you cannot comment on topic).
As an analogy, most airline travelers are "clean," too. But unfortunately, some people were not brought up quite right by their mommas. They would try to seize control and aim it at the nearest building if they got the chance.
It may not seem fair to make everybody go thru a security checkpoint, just because of the actions of a few -- but you can bet your sweet ass it is necessary.
As an aside, I would wager that the percentage of your messages that are actually read by the recipient goes up, after this protocol is put into place. Because for the simple fact that your legit messages will no longer be lost in the noise of illegitimate ones.
....or they could just be sending mail to every single possible combination of letters+numbers,-_. It's not like logins, where there is a three second delay to slow it down. Break it up into segments, and it would take no time.
The mathematics of the situation would make that improbable. He would need to generate and send
8,186,051,427,373,440,000,000,000 spams (assuming screen names of 6 to 16 characters in length, letters and numbers only) to hit all possible combinations that way.
This for each spam message. Far likelier that he is getting addresses from an inside source.
I wonder if this guy will also send out his wedding invites via email. That printout must look real classy in the 'ol wedding album -- not to mention it is difficult for the recipient to stick a check in the stamped return envelope (as etiquette requires) when he's too cheap to send one!
On scond thought, it might be possible for someone to spam a fake wedding with a Paypal gift button and registry links, so his idea is worse than I thought..
I think his point was, you have to actively turn it on.
Ppl on this site probably all know how to do this. But your avg. windows users? They don't even know the built in firewall exists, and that's why they keep getting nailed.
Also, what if you are using 98/me/NT/2000? All in all the best solution is to install behind a hardware firewall.
Thank you for illustrating my point with such precision. I suggest people in each locality pronounce it as they read it, for the sake of simplicity & layman understanding -- you insist they must educate themselves to your level and become expert linguists.
But while your nose-in-the-air approach proves your intellectual superiority over them, it is also snobbish and counterproductive to the dissemination of scientific knowledge to the masses.
I think, instead of trying to exactly and respectfully pronounce names correctly in their original language, that each country, or language group, pronounce it phonetically in their own language.
All this overcorrectness could possibly give rise to errors, such as a member of the general public thinking there are two comets, after hearing about "Viltzwei" on the radio and reading about "Wild 2" in the papers.
Slashdot Mirror
Extraordinary popular delusions
Over the last 10 years, I used webcrawler > altavista > dogpile and metacrawler > hotbot & other inktomi-based engines > google
Having run a website most of that time, it always puzzled me why people would usually come in thru yahoo. Before 2000 it was something like 80 %. Sure I had a listing, but half the links in their static directory were dead or mutated since the original listing in Yahoo. The same problems plague dmoz, etc. Who would use that.
Google's on the way out -- it's become a monoculture and therefore marketers focus on it. It's already useless for searching on pop culture things like actors or singers, or movies. The first 10,000 hits, (after the imdb page that google manually bumps to the top) are for dvd's cd's or posters, all affiliates, all alike, all selling the same exact disc or poster. At some point, there will officially be more stores than customers. Other search engines like alltheweb.com are better on those spam ridden searches.
Once they have their hands on this setup, it'll take them all of 15 minutes to find something like totalrecorder that can save to .mp3 anything that comes thru their sound card.
DRM will not be an issue, until they finally succeed in banning mp3 devices.
They don't have to actually pop one off over there - one phoned-in nuke threat could cause delays or cancellations costing hundreds of millions of dollars.
May God protect you from ever finding out. But if you have to know, somethingawful.com regularly ridicules them on the front page.
Given Microsoft's record, it is only a matter of time before security hoels are discovered and horrified gamerz everywhere around the globe find their xboxes 0wn3d
Microsoft should count itself lucky that the console is not dominant. They should not become complacent in that regard in case they do begin to make it.
Don't be so disingenuous. If you lived near the border and had to share the road with those unmaintained, smoking, oil-dripping, rolling-environmental-disasters, you'd probably revise that opinion. Anyway, I thought the Teamsters were all Democrats -- what do you have against them?
It won't be a problem AFTER they fix their trucks. As it is, we are being far more accomodating accepting their unsmogged, uninspected passenger cars hauling ass up and down our local roads. The cops won't ticket Mexican plates and so they drive like bats out of hell.
But I do not recommend removing IE, because you may have to purchase/locate networking components that IE already does for free, and for convenience in keeping Windows patched.
1) Windows Update only runs on IE. If you remove IE, you have to update windows manually. With Critical Security Updates coming in at an average of once a week, this could become tiresome. Windows can be set to download and install patches automatically.
2) The javascript utility Windows uses to detect network settings is tied into IE. When you have trouble connecting Windows to a network, it comes up automatically in IE, and you are given the option of having it detect your proxies, etc and try to reconnect. Especially useful if you have a DSL/Cable connection that likes to pull the rug out from under you at random intervals with DHCP changes.
CONS: Default installation doesn't include many functions; you have to download additional features via the Extensions Manager. Will not load ActiveX and VBScript; this prevents certain kinds of attacks, but also disables the normal functions of some sites.
Those are PROs if I ever saw one. Drive-by software installs and buggy Active-X is the reason I spend ten hours a month cleaning up computers of friends and family. WHo subseqently receive Mozilla and are forbidden to run IE except for Windows Update forevermore, on pain of no more free computer work.
Unlikely he can pass security clearance anymore.
One time I got in and started the motor before realizing I was in someone else's car. It was a 1972 240Z. Those were common as hell once. Of course, there are probably fewer key combinations with physical locks.
When needing to do a re-install, since you cannot reinstall SP3 once you've upgraded to SP4, you have to do a new install, then get the critical security updates, and then reinstall apps, or buy an SP4 disc so you can install over the upgraded SP3 install.
I'll try your method, but I think Windows Setup reads the disc title, instead of checking to see which files you have around, before kicking you out of Setup for not having SP4.
He also must cough up $16m in a separate civil case.
I think we're getting there. I can't wait till Al Ralsky goes down.
Yep it's SP3. I don't feel like buying another copy of 2000. There are 63 by actual count, a couple weeks ago. There have been two new critical updates since then.
What is strange is when doing this, you finally get down to only 2 or 3 left, which must be installed separately, after the reboot, there are five more. Which tells me some critical security updates must receive their own later security updates. For instance, this latest one is only a partial solution by msft's own admission.
This is with Windows Update via IE. Possibly by manually installing the security updates, the actual count will be less.
Explain then the FUD from these guys, and why they ignore, in terms of everyday use, why only Windows/IE users can get r00ted by simply browsing a website, and OSX users can't. How come when I re-install Win2K SP# it takes 63 security updates over nine reboots before I can even consider plugging in directly to the net.
This article is so beyond common sense and everyday experience, I cannot see how it can possibly hold up to examination.
What is made in the United States anymore? Nothing. Except intellectual property (the type to block competition, rather than coming up with innovative ideas) and lawyers. Unless you live in China, do you, or anyone you know, make anything for a living. Half the people around here (Calif.) get their livings by re-re-financing their houses, which actually go up in value $1,000 a day. The rest push around paper and IM each other in offices all day in "service" livelihoods.
And they all think this "productivity" will continue forever.
A most impressive castigation! I recommend you hit the stage as a Shakespearean actor (and hopefully leave /. while you're at it, if you cannot comment on topic).
It may not seem fair to make everybody go thru a security checkpoint, just because of the actions of a few -- but you can bet your sweet ass it is necessary.
As an aside, I would wager that the percentage of your messages that are actually read by the recipient goes up, after this protocol is put into place. Because for the simple fact that your legit messages will no longer be lost in the noise of illegitimate ones.
The mathematics of the situation would make that improbable. He would need to generate and send 8,186,051,427,373,440,000,000,000 spams (assuming screen names of 6 to 16 characters in length, letters and numbers only) to hit all possible combinations that way.
This for each spam message. Far likelier that he is getting addresses from an inside source.
Then, as long as you don't spam, you have nothing to worry about either from your ISP, host or recipients.
Not to mention it looks far more professional than trying to shoot 200 mails thru your AOL acount.
I wonder if this guy will also send out his wedding invites via email. That printout must look real classy in the 'ol wedding album -- not to mention it is difficult for the recipient to stick a check in the stamped return envelope (as etiquette requires) when he's too cheap to send one!
On scond thought, it might be possible for someone to spam a fake wedding with a Paypal gift button and registry links, so his idea is worse than I thought..
Ppl on this site probably all know how to do this. But your avg. windows users? They don't even know the built in firewall exists, and that's why they keep getting nailed.
Also, what if you are using 98/me/NT/2000? All in all the best solution is to install behind a hardware firewall.
Thank you for illustrating my point with such precision. I suggest people in each locality pronounce it as they read it, for the sake of simplicity & layman understanding -- you insist they must educate themselves to your level and become expert linguists.
But while your nose-in-the-air approach proves your intellectual superiority over them, it is also snobbish and counterproductive to the dissemination of scientific knowledge to the masses.
I think, instead of trying to exactly and respectfully pronounce names correctly in their original language, that each country, or language group, pronounce it phonetically in their own language.
All this overcorrectness could possibly give rise to errors, such as a member of the general public thinking there are two comets, after hearing about "Viltzwei" on the radio and reading about "Wild 2" in the papers.