G
glee
~BD~ said:
Oh geez, trolling AGAIN?!
Oh geez, trolling AGAIN?!
L
Lou Knee
~BD~ said:Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:35:22 -0500 *0235* !!!!!!!! ----------------------------------^^^^^
*
Just wondering when you guru's sleep!
You've forgotten how to read TIMESTAMPs....
...and use apostrophes.
F
FromTheRafters
Y a w n!
Maybe, maybe not. Do *you* believe that Aumha is a *trustworthy* place?
Yes.
I agree 100%
You are *so....oo* pedantic!
Your word (safe), I just want to be clear. You are more likely to
consider a URL with a name (http://something.com) to be safer than one
with a number (http://xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) even though it is only the name
one that can mislead (it requires a 'lookup' which may have been
poisoned).
....and yesterday too, it's not a new development.
Offline at the moment, but I may check that out later.
[...]
I do keep an open mind, else I would have taken PABear's advice long
ago instead of coming here to get away from his warnings about you.
That doesn't mean that I will join you in your obsession.
G
glee
~BD~ said:
If you are referring to the Microsoft newsgroups, they were like all
newsgroups, part of Usenet, and subject to the same "abuse" as any group
on Usenet. Microsoft no longer has any newsgroups....the group you are
posting in now is no longer connected to Microsoft in any way....as you
should now.
If by Microsoft Communities you mean their current web forums, which are
the only "communities" they use now, they are not part of Usenet, and
your comment is not relevant.
It's my signature and the link is about a group I belong to, which is
why it's in my signature. In the old thread you link below, I explained
the link....yet you just go on and on, trolling about the same things
now. Exactly what is your problem? Why would I remove my link about a
long-standing group of community helpers to which I belong ...that I put
in my signature because I am proud to be a member of that group... and
change it to a link on the Microsoft site advertising THEIR security
products and links to their software? My signature is about my
affiliations, not about what YOU think it should be.
I already put up with your trolling for days in more than one thread,
including thew one you linked below, where you continually pestered me
in an attempt to get me to intervene with and question my associates at
Jim Eshelman's forums over your having been banned at those forums some
time ago..... just as you have been banned at other computer help
forums, because of your trolling and other behavior.
A
Aardvark
A
Aardvark
I trust *you*!
Did you click it?
Yeah- Happy Birthday Thomas Alva.
T
Tester
glee said:
One doesn't need backups to know that outdated drivers have been in use
all the time. One does need some common sense which you lack very
desperately.
Incidentally, selling your daughter to finance your drug habits is not
going to make any credible among the people in the know. Pimps and
prostitutes may make you their leader but not here so go and suck some eggs!
F
FromTheRafters
No, I've never even visited as far as I can remember.
Online interactions with several of the MVPs that you have stated are
members there. I don't particularly *like* some of them, but I don't
let my personal feelings interfere with my ability to trust.
Funny, that.
The thing is, with a number, the browser will cause your computer to
communicate with the computer at that numerical address. With a name,
you depend upon the DNS system (or some other lookup such as the
"hosts" file) to give you a number. So, you tell me - which is more
straightforward?
)Yes, but malware hiding from average users is as old as the hills.
It is the reason for antivirus scanners - the average user hasn't got a
hope in finding a real virus without one. Even most above average users
wouldn't be able to.
Malware has become more commercially motivated, and "viruses" have
become less prevalent as a means of compromise.
T
Tester
glee said:
It takes one troll to know another!!!!
M
MyNews
Tester
He that trust in his own heart is a fool:
but whoso walk wisely,
he shall be delivered.
He that trust in his own heart is a fool:
but whoso walk wisely,
he shall be delivered.
M
MyNews
Ok you can have the perverted jobs BullwinkleBullwinkle said:
And BD your Fire!
Bullwinkle be sweet and hide your words under his tongue;
And do not Conning nor Evil, But be good in your ways!
F
FromTheRafters
I'm not going there, but as long as there are no *infections* I am sure
that I could.
[...]Funny, that.
The thing is, with a number, the browser will cause your computer to
communicate with the computer at that numerical address. With a name,
you depend upon the DNS system (or some other lookup such as the
"hosts" file) to give you a number. So, you tell me - which is more
straightforward?
So, in a way 'numbers' *must* be best - but one has absolutely no idea
where one may end up - like clicking on a basic TinyURL!
Yes, but they don't lie. They don't make you think that you know where
you're going, and instead send you to a spoof site via 'hosts' or
another poisoned lookup.
[...]
A
Aardvark
Shot in the dark?
A
Aardvark
And google.co.uk is at 74.125.230.115.
FYI
HTH
HAND
F
FromTheRafters
How can I know what procedure that they recommend if I don't go there
to read it and you don't mention particulars?
What I meant by that was infection as a startup method for a malware
infestation. I can't tell, just by looking, if a program is internally
infected.
[...]
He probably 'ping'ed them.
Maybe they're dynamic addresses?
F
FromTheRafters
So close, and yet so far away.
)