I scanned a user's computer using MS AntiSpyware. It found 17000+ "infected" reg keys. However, only about 12000 were actually scanned (or so it said in the same report window) so it must be very good.:-P
It did well though since all the "cute" toolbars etc etc were removed.
Learn some basic economics man. The credit card companies charge as much as they can.
While this is true, competition affects how much a given company can charge if they want any business.
Since all creditors (I guess) are vulnerable to this type of crime, all creditors have more expenses. This affects the minimum operating cost and effectively caps how low (on interests, fees etc) a given creditor can go (to get new customers etc).
In the end this obviously affects the price the customer has to pay.
The difference with Google (and all other legal sites, as far as I know) is that if asked, they will remove an illegal or infringing link.
I'd rather say the difference lies in the intent. Google really caches a LOT, including credentials on broken webservers. Take a look at the Google Hacking Database for instance: http://johnny.ihackstuff.com/index.php?module=prod reviews
It make little sense IMHO to go after sites/search engines/whatever that blindly caches and indexes stuff, while it make a lot of sense to go after sites that deliberately uses loopholes to help software piracy.
I couldn't agree more! I find the attention to details extraordinary and all the hurt egos around here just makes it even more hilarious.:-)
The comment to the original story I remember being closest to questioning the project is that the pictures were of so good quality. Now a lot of people seem to suddenly "see" all the signs of it being a hoax.;-)
I admit willingly I fell for it. I thought is was a cool project but not nearly as cool as the hoax it turned out to be.
One of those "Gee, I wish _I_ thought of doing that!" (TM) moments.
I for one welcome our new fake internet controlled christmas lights sites overlord.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh come on. If they wanted to do that they could just hire someone to write the software to do it (if it's not already there)
Someone please get Gordon Freeman on the phone
...is considered Informative? Wow.
That would be a cube computer.
Easy: They already know they are doing something they shouldn't when they browse certain types of pages.
I scanned a user's computer using MS AntiSpyware. It found 17000+ "infected" reg keys. However, only about 12000 were actually scanned (or so it said in the same report window) so it must be very good. :-P
It did well though since all the "cute" toolbars etc etc were removed.
You mean similar to this?
http://www.adom.de/adom/gallery/adom.jpg
I wonder how much the moon would have to pay then?
Games will be played by moving the phone up, down, right or left, instead of pressing buttons.
:-P
Sounds great, but how can you focus on the screen at the same time?
Could be fun to play Marble Madness this way though.
Learn some basic economics man. The credit card companies charge as much as they can.
While this is true, competition affects how much a given company can charge if they want any business.
Since all creditors (I guess) are vulnerable to this type of crime, all creditors have more expenses. This affects the minimum operating cost and effectively caps how low (on interests, fees etc) a given creditor can go (to get new customers etc).
In the end this obviously affects the price the customer has to pay.
The difference with Google (and all other legal sites, as far as I know) is that if asked, they will remove an illegal or infringing link.
d reviews
I'd rather say the difference lies in the intent. Google really caches a LOT, including credentials on broken webservers. Take a look at the Google Hacking Database for instance: http://johnny.ihackstuff.com/index.php?module=pro
It make little sense IMHO to go after sites/search engines/whatever that blindly caches and indexes stuff, while it make a lot of sense to go after sites that deliberately uses loopholes to help software piracy.
From article:
:-P
> Dec. 24, 2005: I received an e-mail from
Now, how did you know that?
I couldn't agree more! I find the attention to details extraordinary and all the hurt egos around here just makes it even more hilarious. :-)
The comment to the original story I remember being closest to questioning the project is that the pictures were of so good quality. Now a lot of people seem to suddenly "see" all the signs of it being a hoax. ;-)
I admit willingly I fell for it. I thought is was a cool project but not nearly as cool as the hoax it turned out to be.
One of those "Gee, I wish _I_ thought of doing that!" (TM) moments.
I for one welcome our new fake internet controlled christmas lights sites overlord. :-)