... but I rotate hard drives. I buy a new HD every year/year and a half. I rotate the data through there, usually with some redundancy. I don't really advise this to anybody else. I put the really really uber important stuff on CD/DVD, and I have a firewire drive I turn on once a month and do a backup to.
I'm not advocating that people put all their data on HDs and that's it, but I woulud mention that it's always good to prioritize what's really important. Being a packrat isn't advised.
"If possible, get big bulky degrading stuff like VHS tapes onto SVCD or DVD. "
You have a point. Something to consider, though, is that the video has to be compressed to fit on DVD or SVCD. In a lot of cases, that's perfectly okay. However, higher quality is sometimes needed. I'd recommend just using plain old digital tapes. Heck, if somebody'd make a little vacuum box for them, seems like that'd be the easiest way to deal with the archival issue.
MiniDV is easier to handle and more durable than DVDs, but you're right that the media itself can degrade. (I'm using durable in the sense that the tapes are droppable.)
"The point of the game, if one chooses not to do the missions, is to kill everyone in sight via the most awesomest"
No, that is not true. Good job letting the media warp your mind.
Want to talk about warping your mind? Play Crazy Taxi for a bit. You can't run over anybody. They all magically get out of the way quickly. Imagine having that idea implanted in your mind. "I don't have to worry about striking that pedestrian, he'll move."
"How about if I said that no company which has storage demands beyond a 'consumer' level (i.e. they need something more hefty and significant than buddy at home, downloading MP3s) would use this drive?"
Works for me.
Thank you for reconsidering. Nice to see that here.:)
"There's not a company that would waste their time on a drive like this."
That's a ridiculous statement, simply for the number of people and companies involved. Not everybody needs 10,000 RPM and an 8 meg cache, certainly if it drives the price up higher.
" The reason why is very simple: They have more time to play. Once you have a spouse/family/career/mortgage the amount of time you can spend honing your skills at various games is drastically reduced."
I thought the same thing when I read that. Us busy types like the simple 'hop in and hop out' arcade style games. It's hard to play a game when your two yead old nephew is running around the house wanting you to play with him.
Eh, I thought the point of it was to store massive amounts of data, not to win a race. Eventually, when prices settle down, it'll be both fast and large. But at the moment, they're trying to go big. Who cares about performance at this early phase?
"Yeah, because instantly respawning as a free man is a serious consequence.."
You lose all your missions and have to restart the mission. I'm sorry to say, but this game wouldn't be fun if death meant the game uninstalled itself.
"Or is the consequence being provided the chance to kill a bunch of cops instead of just random pedestrians?"
That's not the goal of the game, it works against it. If you're going to argue with me, at least read what I said.
"I see where the similarity is now. My bad."
I don't see how. From your point of view, all you can see is your anus.
"It seems as if the mass media assume all computer games incorporate extreme levels of gratuitous violence."
I wish they had delved a little deeper into the violence issue here. They don't just assume all games incorporate adult themes, they also intentionally portray the game in a distorted fashion to make it look like the game company is trying to warp children's values. My favorite is the "see? You can beat up a granny!" example. Every single time they'll show the granny get beat up and killed. Or the prostitute, that's another one that can come up. They can show her getting killed and her money stolen, but they never ever ever show the cops coming after you when you do it. If you guessed I'm talking about GTA, you'd be right.
All of the GTA games have their share of violence, but they also depict consequences for what you do. If you attract the cops' attention, they hunt you down, and it makes the game a lot harder to win. It's difficult to make a delivery when cops are throwing spike strips into the road. The result? When you become experienced in this game, you avoid hitting pedestrians like the plague.
I really despise the media for their knee-jerk reactions towards games like GTA. The worst part is that people follow their view and avoid the game over it, the whole time thinking they are informed on the topic.
Man I wish the media had a system of checks and balances.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
"I do however believe that the next version will be more secure."
I believe this too. I don't think Bill Gates wants another Blaster on his hands. I have $1 right now that says the delay was partly inspired by that event.
"I don't believe it will be perfectly secure, but I do believe Microsoft might have learned something from the flaws in this round."
Well, to be fair, no OS is perfectly secure. Worse, people get a kick out of annoying Windows users. There will be creative ways to be obnoxious with Longhorn, and Microsoft simply will not be able to address all of them.
And, of course, Slashdot'll be all over them telling them how bad they are etc etc, they won't stop and think about what Microsoft's goal is here. They'd like to have freedom of computing (eh, just to be clear, I don't mean in a DRM sense. I mean in a feature/flexibility) and security, if they can pull it off. They don't feel that computers should only be the tool of the geek. Unfortunately, for every feature you add, a new vulnerability becomes available. Not every feature has a totally secure fix, either. Frankly, removing the feature isn't always the solution. Auto responders come to mind. I can set up an auto responder to say "I cant get to your mail right now", but somebody else can come along and say "I'm not this guy, I'm really that guy" and the response goes to somebody else. So what's the solution? There is none. Remove the feature, and a lot of people who need it are stranded. Add the feature, and there's a risk. At that point, the best you can do is try to make email unspoofable. That's not an easy solution either. You give up flexibility for security.
Microsoft's lack of security has been a headache for lots of people. Their flexible UI has been a blessing for lots of people. Somewhere, there's a happy medium. MS is trying to find that. They should get more credit for it, they're being far more ambitious than the OSS Community is, and they're learning the mistakes for you guys.
" I meant nothing personal by my post, please don't take it so (just as your "lack of tact" compaint doesn't deeply hurt me)."
I reread what you said and what I said and I think I figured out what happened here. When you said I was being selfish, I jumped to the conclusion that you were backing up David's comment about 'my mommy not teaching me how to share'. From what I gather here, my assumption was in error. Sorry man. You can understand I'm a little frusrtrated, right?
However, I object to my actions being labeled as selfish. The problem here is spam. When spam is so out of control that you lose important messages, then email becomes worthless. Part of the problem here is that people still recieve spam, thus the value of it is there. Deal with spam, deal with 'joe-jobs'. Now, I could turn off the auto responder (not that anybody'd notice.) and treat the symptom, but the spam problem is still there, and the guy who gets joe-jobbed doesn't know his email identity has been stolen. Or, I could do my part to devalue spam by setting up a white-list.
Now, the problem with a white list is that people sometimes change email addresses. They need a way to contact me to get back on it, and they need a way to know their original mail bounced. So besides an auto responder, how do I go about this? I'm not asking this to argue, I'm seriously asking here. Give me a useful solution, and I'll consider (like seriously consider) using it in place of the auto-responder.
"All I'm saying is that if 1000 other people are doing what you're doing, that can be trouble, and there's no way for you to know about the other 999."
You have a fair point, but you're fighting the battle on the wrong end. By the time my machine sends somebody an email, the guy's address has already been abused. The damage potential for that is far worse than getting a flooded inbox. If he didn't recieve those messages, he'd be none the wiser. If he did get one or two, he wouldn't act. If he got a flooded inbox, you'd bet he'd take new steps to find out why it happened and what to do about it. It may cause him/his ISP a headache for a day, but so would the growing trend of using other people's email. The problem will not get solved until it's really a problem.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how sparing that guy an e-mail from me is more important to solving the problem than being 1 person that cannot recieve spam.
"It has potential to facilitate a Joe Job, and there's no practical method of monitoring to make sure it DOESN'T"
You're right. However, I have a problem to solve here, so give me a better solution. I need to be able to notify people not on my whitelist that they need to ask to be on it. Solve that, and your 'joe job' problem on my end goes away. If you don't have a solution, then what am I supposed to do? Be another inbox that legitimizes spam revenue? I don't think so. Label that as selfish if you like, but the solution to your problem is far more fundamental than my turning off an auto-responder. The fact that email can be spoofed at all is the problem.
Now, with all that said, I have not ignored you or David. Seriously. I put a little more thought into the problem and came up with an update both of you might appreciate. Somebody else in this thread pointed me at an Outlook bayenesian (sp?) spam filter. I haven't tried it yet, but what I'm going to do is see if I can apply the spam filter before the auto responder. If that happens, a bunch of auto responses go bye bye. As long as whoever emailing me doesn't trip the filter, then mostly legitimate emails would go through.
I realize you're probably thinking I'm a thick-headed moron right now. That's fine, doesn't bother me. But please, whatever you do, don't feel like I didn't listen. I did listen. Hopefully what I said above proves that. It's just a disagreement, not a butting of heads.
Cheers.
Re:Keep putting it off. Please !
on
Longhorn in 2006
·
· Score: 1
"The way things are going, the next version of Microsoft's OS will have many more security holes"
The way what is going? They're taking more time than usual to work on this OS and you think it'll have more security holes? What? Do you think they're busy installing them?
"but I have to agree with davidu (not that I expect you to care, nanogator)."
It's not that I don't care, it's that I'm not being given any credit here. I'm being treated like I'm going to use my machine to bug other people, nobody's ever given thought that I've considered any of it.
" trust that you ARE monitoring your own client and will shut it off if you start sending more than "4000" emails per [some magical threshold],"
Dude, you notice when Outlook starts acting up. It's not some magic number, it's "shit, it's sluggish". It doesn't need to reach anywhere near 4,000 for that.
"It _is_ selfish, and it's very bad netiquette."
Um, no on both counts.
1.) You're dealing with the symptom, not the problem.
2.) The 'bad netiquette' on my part has not hurt anybody, and I'm actively making sure it doesn't. If a harsh lesson is learned, then I'll probably sing a different tune. Until then, you all need to understand that I'm dealing with the bad netiquette of spam, rather effectively I might add. You guys are calling me selfish when you are bugging me about your own agenda.
One more thing, you both need to learn a lesson in tact. You guys both preach being a good 'netizen', but come at me saying I'm selfish or treat me like I'm some malicious moron. I tell ya, I get no respect."
If you want anybody to listen to you, you have to approach them more respectfully. Simple as that. Don't come by saying "you're selfish!" or "oh great, you're contributing to the problem now!" Come by saying "There's an unfortunate problem that could arise here..." You don't have to be an asshole about it.
Both of you could learn a lesson in tact. I am a reasonable guy, but I'm not going to give anybody attention who talks down to me.
It has happened to me. Happened with the Sobig virus. It wasn't a big deal either. Yeah, I got flooded with email. I wasn't mad at the people with responders (actually it was nice knowing I was spoofed), I was annoyed at the idiot worm writer. It was easy enough to filter them out anyway. You see, with my setup, though that happened, the important mail still got through.
"I guess there are still a lot of selfish people out there..."
Oh fuck off. You have no business calling anybody selfish when it's you who wants me to do it your way. I spent a lot of time making sure it doesn't cause any harm. And, if it does, then I'll take it down. You see, this isn't server side here, this is client side. If I got 4,000 emails flooding my machine, I'd turn off the rules wizard. Give me some credit, will ya?
I'm sorry you got burned. Really, I am. However it's happened to me too, and I don't see the problem as being auto-responders. As I said before, you don't need auto responders for your mailbox to fill up like that.
If you don't like it, then tough shit. Work on solving the problem, not the symptom. Shutting me down will do NOTHING to prevent you from getting 'joe-jobbed' again.
I dunno about that. I mean I think you have a point, but it's not consistent with my own limited experience. I've shown a few people Opera and most of them have gottan rather addicted to it, mainly because they like the tabbed browsing. It made it easier to deal with popups etc.
We're talking like 5 or 6 people here, so I don't intend to say this in order to prove you wrong. Just saying I think people would care about it if they were exposed to it.
"Please understand that what you are doing is being a poor netizen and not appropriate."
That is the fault of the person who spoofed the address, not mine. They don't need me to use automated responses to get 10,000 mails, all they need is for people to respond with "don't spam me!". The problem is there whether or not people use automated responders. The victim is in trouble anyway.
"Please reconsider your actions."
I reconsidered, and no, I will not stop. If the other guy was using the system I developed, he wouldn't recieve my automated messages.
"I can't see how the doubtless biased view of/. can make it any worse - in fact,/.ers rather seem to underestimate the problem at the moment. "
You're talking about an IE vulnerability, I'm talking Microsoft stories in general. My usual example is a story titled "Microsoft throws Sony out of CeBit". Great title, eh? Well, what really happened was Sony broke the rules of the show with their PS2 display. MS complained about it, afterall if they broke the rules they'd be busted. Sony got all huffy, packed up their PS2s, and left the show. Microsoft didn't throw anybody out. The management of the trade show didn't even ask them to leave. Sony was just being bratty.
If you want to narrow the scope to IE vulnerabilities, that's fine. (Though it's not like the "MS apologists" come out of the woodwork for those stories) In general, Microsoft stories always get beat to death here.
" It is truley a different movie when seen on the big big screen. The action scenes are emersive and you really feel like part of the movie."
I wanted to take a potshot at Matrix Reloaded here, but something occured to me. Did they edit the movie's length for IMAX? I sorta vaguely recall reading something about the movie being made shorter for IMAX. 1.) Is this true? 2.) Did it help the pacing of the movie?
That movie was entirely too long for my tastes, but if they had edited it down to say 45 minutes, I probably would have enjoyed it. Did that happen here? If so, I might see the third one in IMAX.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm.. couldja let me know ya at least read what I said? I think you'd find at least the last bit of interest.
... but I rotate hard drives. I buy a new HD every year/year and a half. I rotate the data through there, usually with some redundancy. I don't really advise this to anybody else. I put the really really uber important stuff on CD/DVD, and I have a firewire drive I turn on once a month and do a backup to.
I'm not advocating that people put all their data on HDs and that's it, but I woulud mention that it's always good to prioritize what's really important. Being a packrat isn't advised.
"If possible, get big bulky degrading stuff like VHS tapes onto SVCD or DVD. "
You have a point. Something to consider, though, is that the video has to be compressed to fit on DVD or SVCD. In a lot of cases, that's perfectly okay. However, higher quality is sometimes needed. I'd recommend just using plain old digital tapes. Heck, if somebody'd make a little vacuum box for them, seems like that'd be the easiest way to deal with the archival issue.
MiniDV is easier to handle and more durable than DVDs, but you're right that the media itself can degrade. (I'm using durable in the sense that the tapes are droppable.)
"The point of the game, if one chooses not to do the missions, is to kill everyone in sight via the most awesomest"
No, that is not true. Good job letting the media warp your mind.
Want to talk about warping your mind? Play Crazy Taxi for a bit. You can't run over anybody. They all magically get out of the way quickly. Imagine having that idea implanted in your mind. "I don't have to worry about striking that pedestrian, he'll move."
"How about if I said that no company which has storage demands beyond a 'consumer' level (i.e. they need something more hefty and significant than buddy at home, downloading MP3s) would use this drive?"
:)
Works for me.
Thank you for reconsidering. Nice to see that here.
"There's not a company that would waste their time on a drive like this."
That's a ridiculous statement, simply for the number of people and companies involved. Not everybody needs 10,000 RPM and an 8 meg cache, certainly if it drives the price up higher.
PHB: "Oh right, thanks"
And the obligatory FedEx follup:
"There is a reason Apple's sticking to mice with one button."
They're promoting RSI?
" The reason why is very simple: They have more time to play. Once you have a spouse/family/career/mortgage the amount of time you can spend honing your skills at various games is drastically reduced."
I thought the same thing when I read that. Us busy types like the simple 'hop in and hop out' arcade style games. It's hard to play a game when your two yead old nephew is running around the house wanting you to play with him.
Eh, I thought the point of it was to store massive amounts of data, not to win a race. Eventually, when prices settle down, it'll be both fast and large. But at the moment, they're trying to go big. Who cares about performance at this early phase?
"Yeah, because instantly respawning as a free man is a serious consequence.."
You lose all your missions and have to restart the mission. I'm sorry to say, but this game wouldn't be fun if death meant the game uninstalled itself.
"Or is the consequence being provided the chance to kill a bunch of cops instead of just random pedestrians?"
That's not the goal of the game, it works against it. If you're going to argue with me, at least read what I said.
"I see where the similarity is now. My bad."
I don't see how. From your point of view, all you can see is your anus.
...would have to face in a Windows office is the constant '3-button mouse' jokes.
"It seems as if the mass media assume all computer games incorporate extreme levels of gratuitous violence."
I wish they had delved a little deeper into the violence issue here. They don't just assume all games incorporate adult themes, they also intentionally portray the game in a distorted fashion to make it look like the game company is trying to warp children's values. My favorite is the "see? You can beat up a granny!" example. Every single time they'll show the granny get beat up and killed. Or the prostitute, that's another one that can come up. They can show her getting killed and her money stolen, but they never ever ever show the cops coming after you when you do it. If you guessed I'm talking about GTA, you'd be right.
All of the GTA games have their share of violence, but they also depict consequences for what you do. If you attract the cops' attention, they hunt you down, and it makes the game a lot harder to win. It's difficult to make a delivery when cops are throwing spike strips into the road. The result? When you become experienced in this game, you avoid hitting pedestrians like the plague.
I really despise the media for their knee-jerk reactions towards games like GTA. The worst part is that people follow their view and avoid the game over it, the whole time thinking they are informed on the topic.
Man I wish the media had a system of checks and balances.
"I do however believe that the next version will be more secure."
I believe this too. I don't think Bill Gates wants another Blaster on his hands. I have $1 right now that says the delay was partly inspired by that event.
"I don't believe it will be perfectly secure, but I do believe Microsoft might have learned
something from the flaws in this round."
Well, to be fair, no OS is perfectly secure. Worse, people get a kick out of annoying Windows users. There will be creative ways to be obnoxious with Longhorn, and Microsoft simply will not be able to address all of them.
And, of course, Slashdot'll be all over them telling them how bad they are etc etc, they won't stop and think about what Microsoft's goal is here. They'd like to have freedom of computing (eh, just to be clear, I don't mean in a DRM sense. I mean in a feature/flexibility) and security, if they can pull it off. They don't feel that computers should only be the tool of the geek. Unfortunately, for every feature you add, a new vulnerability becomes available. Not every feature has a totally secure fix, either. Frankly, removing the feature isn't always the solution. Auto responders come to mind. I can set up an auto responder to say "I cant get to your mail right now", but somebody else can come along and say "I'm not this guy, I'm really that guy" and the response goes to somebody else. So what's the solution? There is none. Remove the feature, and a lot of people who need it are stranded. Add the feature, and there's a risk. At that point, the best you can do is try to make email unspoofable. That's not an easy solution either. You give up flexibility for security.
Microsoft's lack of security has been a headache for lots of people. Their flexible UI has been a blessing for lots of people. Somewhere, there's a happy medium. MS is trying to find that. They should get more credit for it, they're being far more ambitious than the OSS Community is, and they're learning the mistakes for you guys.
" I meant nothing personal by my post, please don't take it so (just as your "lack of tact" compaint doesn't deeply hurt me)."
I reread what you said and what I said and I think I figured out what happened here. When you said I was being selfish, I jumped to the conclusion that you were backing up David's comment about 'my mommy not teaching me how to share'. From what I gather here, my assumption was in error. Sorry man. You can understand I'm a little frusrtrated, right?
However, I object to my actions being labeled as selfish. The problem here is spam. When spam is so out of control that you lose important messages, then email becomes worthless. Part of the problem here is that people still recieve spam, thus the value of it is there. Deal with spam, deal with 'joe-jobs'. Now, I could turn off the auto responder (not that anybody'd notice.) and treat the symptom, but the spam problem is still there, and the guy who gets joe-jobbed doesn't know his email identity has been stolen. Or, I could do my part to devalue spam by setting up a white-list.
Now, the problem with a white list is that people sometimes change email addresses. They need a way to contact me to get back on it, and they need a way to know their original mail bounced. So besides an auto responder, how do I go about this? I'm not asking this to argue, I'm seriously asking here. Give me a useful solution, and I'll consider (like seriously consider) using it in place of the auto-responder.
"All I'm saying is that if 1000 other people are doing what you're doing, that can be trouble, and there's no way for you to know about the other 999."
You have a fair point, but you're fighting the battle on the wrong end. By the time my machine sends somebody an email, the guy's address has already been abused. The damage potential for that is far worse than getting a flooded inbox. If he didn't recieve those messages, he'd be none the wiser. If he did get one or two, he wouldn't act. If he got a flooded inbox, you'd bet he'd take new steps to find out why it happened and what to do about it. It may cause him/his ISP a headache for a day, but so would the growing trend of using other people's email. The problem will not get solved until it's really a problem.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how sparing that guy an e-mail from me is more important to solving the problem than being 1 person that cannot recieve spam.
"It has potential to facilitate a Joe Job, and there's no practical method of monitoring to make sure it DOESN'T"
You're right. However, I have a problem to solve here, so give me a better solution. I need to be able to notify people not on my whitelist that they need to ask to be on it. Solve that, and your 'joe job' problem on my end goes away. If you don't have a solution, then what am I supposed to do? Be another inbox that legitimizes spam revenue? I don't think so. Label that as selfish if you like, but the solution to your problem is far more fundamental than my turning off an auto-responder. The fact that email can be spoofed at all is the problem.
Now, with all that said, I have not ignored you or David. Seriously. I put a little more thought into the problem and came up with an update both of you might appreciate. Somebody else in this thread pointed me at an Outlook bayenesian (sp?) spam filter. I haven't tried it yet, but what I'm going to do is see if I can apply the spam filter before the auto responder. If that happens, a bunch of auto responses go bye bye. As long as whoever emailing me doesn't trip the filter, then mostly legitimate emails would go through.
I realize you're probably thinking I'm a thick-headed moron right now. That's fine, doesn't bother me. But please, whatever you do, don't feel like I didn't listen. I did listen. Hopefully what I said above proves that. It's just a disagreement, not a butting of heads.
Cheers.
"The way things are going, the next version of Microsoft's OS will have many more security holes"
The way what is going? They're taking more time than usual to work on this OS and you think it'll have more security holes? What? Do you think they're busy installing them?
"but I have to agree with davidu (not that I expect you to care, nanogator)."
It's not that I don't care, it's that I'm not being given any credit here. I'm being treated like I'm going to use my machine to bug other people, nobody's ever given thought that I've considered any of it.
" trust that you ARE monitoring your own client and will shut it off if you start sending more than "4000" emails per [some magical threshold],"
Dude, you notice when Outlook starts acting up. It's not some magic number, it's "shit, it's sluggish". It doesn't need to reach anywhere near 4,000 for that.
"It _is_ selfish, and it's very bad netiquette."
Um, no on both counts.
1.) You're dealing with the symptom, not the problem.
2.) The 'bad netiquette' on my part has not hurt anybody, and I'm actively making sure it doesn't. If a harsh lesson is learned, then I'll probably sing a different tune. Until then, you all need to understand that I'm dealing with the bad netiquette of spam, rather effectively I might add. You guys are calling me selfish when you are bugging me about your own agenda.
One more thing, you both need to learn a lesson in tact. You guys both preach being a good 'netizen', but come at me saying I'm selfish or treat me like I'm some malicious moron. I tell ya, I get no respect."
If you want anybody to listen to you, you have to approach them more respectfully. Simple as that. Don't come by saying "you're selfish!" or "oh great, you're contributing to the problem now!" Come by saying "There's an unfortunate problem that could arise here..." You don't have to be an asshole about it.
Both of you could learn a lesson in tact. I am a reasonable guy, but I'm not going to give anybody attention who talks down to me.
"Although I hope it never happens to you,"
It has happened to me. Happened with the Sobig virus. It wasn't a big deal either. Yeah, I got flooded with email. I wasn't mad at the people with responders (actually it was nice knowing I was spoofed), I was annoyed at the idiot worm writer. It was easy enough to filter them out anyway. You see, with my setup, though that happened, the important mail still got through.
"I guess there are still a lot of selfish people out there..."
Oh fuck off. You have no business calling anybody selfish when it's you who wants me to do it your way. I spent a lot of time making sure it doesn't cause any harm. And, if it does, then I'll take it down. You see, this isn't server side here, this is client side. If I got 4,000 emails flooding my machine, I'd turn off the rules wizard. Give me some credit, will ya?
I'm sorry you got burned. Really, I am. However it's happened to me too, and I don't see the problem as being auto-responders. As I said before, you don't need auto responders for your mailbox to fill up like that.
If you don't like it, then tough shit. Work on solving the problem, not the symptom. Shutting me down will do NOTHING to prevent you from getting 'joe-jobbed' again.
Get your priorities straight.
I thought ridicule was the recourse of the weak minded.
So what's with the one-line response. Don't have a rebuttal? Trying to quit while you're ahead? Good day to you then.
I dunno about that. I mean I think you have a point, but it's not consistent with my own limited experience. I've shown a few people Opera and most of them have gottan rather addicted to it, mainly because they like the tabbed browsing. It made it easier to deal with popups etc.
We're talking like 5 or 6 people here, so I don't intend to say this in order to prove you wrong. Just saying I think people would care about it if they were exposed to it.
I think you are exactly on the right track. It wouldn't hurt if Mozilla came up with fun features that IE doesn't support.
"Please understand that what you are doing is being a poor netizen and not appropriate."
That is the fault of the person who spoofed the address, not mine. They don't need me to use automated responses to get 10,000 mails, all they need is for people to respond with "don't spam me!". The problem is there whether or not people use automated responders. The victim is in trouble anyway.
"Please reconsider your actions."
I reconsidered, and no, I will not stop. If the other guy was using the system I developed, he wouldn't recieve my automated messages.
Sorry.
"I can't see how the doubtless biased view of /. can make it any worse - in fact, /.ers rather seem to underestimate the problem at the moment. "
You're talking about an IE vulnerability, I'm talking Microsoft stories in general. My usual example is a story titled "Microsoft throws Sony out of CeBit". Great title, eh? Well, what really happened was Sony broke the rules of the show with their PS2 display. MS complained about it, afterall if they broke the rules they'd be busted. Sony got all huffy, packed up their PS2s, and left the show. Microsoft didn't throw anybody out. The management of the trade show didn't even ask them to leave. Sony was just being bratty.
If you want to narrow the scope to IE vulnerabilities, that's fine. (Though it's not like the "MS apologists" come out of the woodwork for those stories) In general, Microsoft stories always get beat to death here.
" It is truley a different movie when seen on the big big screen. The action scenes are emersive and you really feel like part of the movie."
I wanted to take a potshot at Matrix Reloaded here, but something occured to me. Did they edit the movie's length for IMAX? I sorta vaguely recall reading something about the movie being made shorter for IMAX. 1.) Is this true? 2.) Did it help the pacing of the movie?
That movie was entirely too long for my tastes, but if they had edited it down to say 45 minutes, I probably would have enjoyed it. Did that happen here? If so, I might see the third one in IMAX.
"As much as I would like to be against big ass theatres"
What's this with white men not likin big booties?