We had an even more amusing one. Some company (Domain Names LLC or something equally stupid) registered a random domain name and changed the WHOIS details to match a domain we legitimately owned. Once that was done, they then fired off an invoice to us requesting payment for that domain. Needless to say, they got nothing.
I look back on Doom the Movie (TM) with fond memories... Did you also feel tempted to stand up and yell "Quick Saving!" every couple of minutes during the FPS scene?
Wow, now if only they'd close Mac OS X to stupid arrogant assholes - you'd be out an operating system!
You're talking a load of crap. "PC users are cheap and would steal OS X until the cows come home" is the biggest load of bullshit I ever heard. I have in my house 4 PCs all running perfectly legitimate purchased copies of Windows. And that's more expensive than OS X. How is that "cheap?"
That would apply, if the base prices on the Apple front page for the base systems were actually cheap. They aren't. Where I am, you're paying $1500 for a Mac Mini. Anything better will set you back over $2000 (a Mac Pro will set you back FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS).
No, stuff Apple until they fix that I say. And someone needs to remind them that the Exchange Rate changed. They still price as if we're $1 = $0.60 USD.
Heh. Windows 95 was even more crafty. The disks were formatted in DMF (1.77MB) so copying files wouldn't work, and the disk copy utility almost never did too.
The drive is quite capable of writing to "Read Only" disks. Case in point, old Windows 95 floppies. Whether they were tagged Read Only or not, the setup program would write the name you entered as the registered owner into the disks so that it would appear during all consecutive installs.
Absolutely, and it helps a bit that you didn't even feel the need to be insulting about it. However, with that said, if on the off chance something does go wrong, can people get support without patronisation and condescension? Let's assume that the user is trying genuinely to get help, and that they are able to provide any requested info. Does this really happen?
And do you realise that it's attitudes like yours that are hindering Linux adoption. Noone wants to use an OS whose only support method is perceived to be a pack of arrogant pricks with a superiority complex. If you read his comment in context you'd realise that he was arguing that it's a complete load of crap that updating one part of the system does not require a complete OS reinstall, when updating one component requires the equivalent of recompiling all of Windows XP.
At work I totally blew up the security one of our tech guys work, using Internet Explorer's Help Menu. Click Help > About > System Info > Open > Right Click > Explore. If that's disabled, then it's off to View > Privacy Policy > Tell me about cookies > Tools > Internet Options > (Temporary Internet Files) Settings > View Files. Even if all the icons are gone, get Task Manager open, click Help > About > End User License Agreement (would you believe it opens NOTEPAD?!?) And to top it all off, MS Word is officially the biggest vulnerability in that type of security (can you get to the VB Editor in that? "Shell cmd.exe" is the one line that demolishes all security).
You mean Verisign. And the answer is really simple. Network Solutions is a wholly owned subsidiary of Verisign, and Verisign is the root DNS authority for the.com,.net and other gTLD domains. They don't need a registration, they have the DNS zone files for com.
So, it looks like we can rule out Memory technology (or they'd be going for Hitachi as well, and Samsung) as the target. Although, I don't recall Corsair and PQI making anything else.
Why should it? If you're making a profit based on a technology someone else poured millions on R&D into, why should you be able to use that technology without contributing back to the company that paid millions to invent it? Instead we have Open Source companies (not all of them, but a few of them) which deliberately attempt to undermine Microsoft, and using a licensing agreement that explicitly prevents Microsoft from using the improvements to their own work (GPL).
Now, this only applies to technologies Microsoft actually invented by the way. This is not an argument saying they should get free money.
No, this is a good thing. Though it would be better if it protected end users explicitly too.
Yes, except for one issue - the root servers do not contain the contents of any of the TLDs, even the gTLDs which Verisign is contracted to administer. For example, follow this lookup below:
Searching for www.msn.com A record at k.root-servers.net [193.0.14.129]: Got referral to b.gtld-servers.net. (zone: com.) [took 113 ms] Searching for www.msn.com A record at b.gtld-servers.net. [192.33.14.30]: Got referral to ns3.msft.net. (zone: msn.com.) [took 190 ms]
Now, here's the Whois for gtld-servers.net:
Registrant: VERISIGN INC.
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166
US
Domain Name: GTLD-SERVERS.NET
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: NOC, VeriSign
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166
US
703-948-4300 fax: 703-948-0717
As you can see, every request for the big gTLDs needs to go to a Verisign DNS server at some point.
I also block it at home too, along with Bebo and Myspace. Not because of perverts or anything though, just that bandwidth is too expensive for me to allow people to chew up gigs of it in a month browsing it. At work we block it for obvious reasons.
Wow. Since when has 1.6% entailed a controlling stake? Microsoft doesn't "own" Facebook in any sense of the term. They merely hold a 1.6% stake. Enough to get dividends if it profits, and maybe have one vote out of a hundred at meetings.
Why would it? I don't recall you having to take nude images of a person to sell beer online, so obviously the answer is no. Unless, like so many others, you got the whole thing completely wrong. Go RTFA.
I know it's tempting to try and force the ideals of your religion on anyone who'll listen (and if Christian, even the people who wont) but you need to be aware that it is the individual's decision what ideals they want to follow, provided they walk within the bounds of the law. If a person chooses to watch this type of material, that's their call. Not yours. Not your holy books. And might I add, you religious folks need to stop trying to get the ideals of your holy book codified as law - ironic that they preach that "god gave us free will to make our own choices" and then object when someone exercises that free will.
Slashdot Mirror
We had an even more amusing one. Some company (Domain Names LLC or something equally stupid) registered a random domain name and changed the WHOIS details to match a domain we legitimately owned. Once that was done, they then fired off an invoice to us requesting payment for that domain. Needless to say, they got nothing.
Wow, now if only they'd close Mac OS X to stupid arrogant assholes - you'd be out an operating system!
You're talking a load of crap. "PC users are cheap and would steal OS X until the cows come home" is the biggest load of bullshit I ever heard. I have in my house 4 PCs all running perfectly legitimate purchased copies of Windows. And that's more expensive than OS X. How is that "cheap?"
That would apply, if the base prices on the Apple front page for the base systems were actually cheap. They aren't. Where I am, you're paying $1500 for a Mac Mini. Anything better will set you back over $2000 (a Mac Pro will set you back FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS).
No, stuff Apple until they fix that I say. And someone needs to remind them that the Exchange Rate changed. They still price as if we're $1 = $0.60 USD.
Heh. Windows 95 was even more crafty. The disks were formatted in DMF (1.77MB) so copying files wouldn't work, and the disk copy utility almost never did too.
The drive is quite capable of writing to "Read Only" disks. Case in point, old Windows 95 floppies. Whether they were tagged Read Only or not, the setup program would write the name you entered as the registered owner into the disks so that it would appear during all consecutive installs.
Absolutely, and it helps a bit that you didn't even feel the need to be insulting about it. However, with that said, if on the off chance something does go wrong, can people get support without patronisation and condescension? Let's assume that the user is trying genuinely to get help, and that they are able to provide any requested info. Does this really happen?
And do you realise that it's attitudes like yours that are hindering Linux adoption. Noone wants to use an OS whose only support method is perceived to be a pack of arrogant pricks with a superiority complex. If you read his comment in context you'd realise that he was arguing that it's a complete load of crap that updating one part of the system does not require a complete OS reinstall, when updating one component requires the equivalent of recompiling all of Windows XP.
At work I totally blew up the security one of our tech guys work, using Internet Explorer's Help Menu. Click Help > About > System Info > Open > Right Click > Explore. If that's disabled, then it's off to View > Privacy Policy > Tell me about cookies > Tools > Internet Options > (Temporary Internet Files) Settings > View Files. Even if all the icons are gone, get Task Manager open, click Help > About > End User License Agreement (would you believe it opens NOTEPAD?!?) And to top it all off, MS Word is officially the biggest vulnerability in that type of security (can you get to the VB Editor in that? "Shell cmd.exe" is the one line that demolishes all security).
I just read through it, and no such clause exists. This is pure FUD.
He is the grandparent. I'd suggest reading before insulting next time.
They waste cash all the time:
See: Blizzard Entertainment, Inc vs. BnetD Project
You mean Verisign. And the answer is really simple. Network Solutions is a wholly owned subsidiary of Verisign, and Verisign is the root DNS authority for the .com, .net and other gTLD domains. They don't need a registration, they have the DNS zone files for com.
Yes and no. Sony doesn't make the cards. In fact, I'm pretty sure they contract... wait for it... Sandisk.
So, it looks like we can rule out Memory technology (or they'd be going for Hitachi as well, and Samsung) as the target. Although, I don't recall Corsair and PQI making anything else.
Why should it? If you're making a profit based on a technology someone else poured millions on R&D into, why should you be able to use that technology without contributing back to the company that paid millions to invent it? Instead we have Open Source companies (not all of them, but a few of them) which deliberately attempt to undermine Microsoft, and using a licensing agreement that explicitly prevents Microsoft from using the improvements to their own work (GPL).
Now, this only applies to technologies Microsoft actually invented by the way. This is not an argument saying they should get free money.
No, this is a good thing. Though it would be better if it protected end users explicitly too.
Yes, except for one issue - the root servers do not contain the contents of any of the TLDs, even the gTLDs which Verisign is contracted to administer. For example, follow this lookup below:
Searching for www.msn.com A record at k.root-servers.net [193.0.14.129]: Got referral to b.gtld-servers.net. (zone: com.) [took 113 ms]
Searching for www.msn.com A record at b.gtld-servers.net. [192.33.14.30]: Got referral to ns3.msft.net. (zone: msn.com.) [took 190 ms]
Now, here's the Whois for gtld-servers.net:
Registrant:
VERISIGN INC.
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166
US
Domain Name: GTLD-SERVERS.NET
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
NOC, VeriSign
21345 Ridgetop Circle
Dulles, VA 20166
US
703-948-4300 fax: 703-948-0717
As you can see, every request for the big gTLDs needs to go to a Verisign DNS server at some point.
I also block it at home too, along with Bebo and Myspace. Not because of perverts or anything though, just that bandwidth is too expensive for me to allow people to chew up gigs of it in a month browsing it. At work we block it for obvious reasons.
Wow. Since when has 1.6% entailed a controlling stake? Microsoft doesn't "own" Facebook in any sense of the term. They merely hold a 1.6% stake. Enough to get dividends if it profits, and maybe have one vote out of a hundred at meetings.
Troll? Demons you moderators are idiots. That's not a troll, and Troll is NOT a synonym for "I disagree, and wish to prevent your opinion from being seen". At LEAST use Off-Topic like you technically should have there if anything.
No, because this is absolutely nothing to do with this. Apparently, you not only didn't RTFA, you didn't even RTFC (read the fucking comments).
Reading comprehension ftl.
Why would it? I don't recall you having to take nude images of a person to sell beer online, so obviously the answer is no. Unless, like so many others, you got the whole thing completely wrong. Go RTFA.
Nah. Remote Desktop or VNC to a "headless" PC does the trick. Oh wait, did I say that out loud?
(Holy crap things about porn get moderated up fast)
Oh dear. We have ourselves a religious nut here.
I know it's tempting to try and force the ideals of your religion on anyone who'll listen (and if Christian, even the people who wont) but you need to be aware that it is the individual's decision what ideals they want to follow, provided they walk within the bounds of the law. If a person chooses to watch this type of material, that's their call. Not yours. Not your holy books. And might I add, you religious folks need to stop trying to get the ideals of your holy book codified as law - ironic that they preach that "god gave us free will to make our own choices" and then object when someone exercises that free will.
Woah, going way off topic here.