I
Imhotep
TeVan said:I can't find any either...
Oh well, false alarm.
Cheers
I think it is better to figure out what is different between your config and
the OP before saying "false alarm" don't you?
Imhotep
I think it is better to figure out what is different between your config and
the OP before saying "false alarm" don't you?
Imhotep
T
TeVan
I'm not overly concerned. My systems are for work and learning. They are workstations/labs. I don't game, I don't surf, I don't chat, I don't do a lot of things. I do not install the latest crap to come down the pike, Win 98 cured me of that. I pay attention to every dialog/button/'whatnot', I consider them an irrevocable binding contract. With my limited experience, I've been able to neuter a viable threat within a very few seconds of it's inception. I respect those who use alternative OS/browser/whatever; because many of them have far more experience than I, and I'm not a huge fan of M$ or Billy Bob either. I try to remain open to new information. For me, it's all about knowledge and information. It's a learning experience. So, I apologize for being sarcastic and flippant in my original post.
Cheers
Cheers
G
Guest
New to forum. I use IE and have no problems because I run a program called
GuardwallIE on my machines. It used to be shareware, but now is free. You
will have to search for it because the company is no longer. Here is the key
to activate it: wnqfnc-ieymn-4mfb4u4-2hfc8ym this key came from the company
just before it deceased. Give it a try. It blocks scripts, ads, banners web
bugs, you name it. Have used it for years and have NEVER been infected. I
teach internet security to all of my clients, and I give them this program
for their machines and tell them to use it. Those that do not end up getting
something somewhere. This program works and works well. Too bad they ceased
to exist.
GuardwallIE on my machines. It used to be shareware, but now is free. You
will have to search for it because the company is no longer. Here is the key
to activate it: wnqfnc-ieymn-4mfb4u4-2hfc8ym this key came from the company
just before it deceased. Give it a try. It blocks scripts, ads, banners web
bugs, you name it. Have used it for years and have NEVER been infected. I
teach internet security to all of my clients, and I give them this program
for their machines and tell them to use it. Those that do not end up getting
something somewhere. This program works and works well. Too bad they ceased
to exist.
A
Alun Jones
[Some trimmed newsgroups added in - and Imhotep, if you've been around for
as long as you imply, you'll know that it's considered rude to trim in the
follow-up header without warning, so that responses to your diatribe get
directed out to podunk.]
Rumour has it that Elvis Presley is alive and well, and does proof-reading
of all of your posts.
Personally, I don't put stock in idle rumour.
Sure, if the user is made aware of it prior to installation, yes.
Adware is not evil simply because it's advertisement-funded software.
When adware shifts to being malware, it's because the presence of adverts is
hidden from the installer, or because the adware covertly sends personal
information to its "home base" without the informed consent of the user.
Adware's a frickin' great idea - supply software to people for free, and use
the same model for funding that television and radio use. It means that
your users are acknowledging that they'll be interrupted by adverts every so
often, but they've allowed that irritation, in exchange for the right to run
the software without shelling out the green stuff.
It's unfortunate that too many "adware" companies pushed things over to the
dark side, so that now adware is synonymous with spyware and malware.
And if adware isn't OK (I'm going to guess that you think that it's not OK)
for you, all you have to do is pay full price and get the non-advert-funded
version. Like the difference between your local NBC, CBS, ABC, etc
affiliate (where the advertisers are the customers, and the viewers are the
product being sold) and HBO or Showtime, where the viewers are the
customers, and the only adverts are promos for upcoming shows.
"Common now" - see, that's why I don't believe in rumours. Elvis had a much
better command of the English language than to allow that in.
No, you are not supposed to idly trust anyone.
You are supposed to read the policy, and you are supposed to verify, to the
best of your ability, whether that policy is adhered to. Or, if you don't
want to go that far, you are supposed to exchange your unknowing trust for
the extra time and effort it takes to be eternally vigilant. So, there you
go - you have those two choices. Three choices, if you coun't "don't trust,
and therefore don't use". I think you fall into that camp, so I'm somewhat
surprised to find you continually posting in an area where you seem to have
no interest or experience.
A very dead old man once said "Trust, but verify". Software requires that
you either trust it's authors, or don't use it. Software allows you to do
some limited verification, based on your experience, your skill, and your
desire to spend your time verifying.
If you can't verify, and you don't trust, then don't use.
Alun.
~~~~
[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
as long as you imply, you'll know that it's considered rude to trim in the
follow-up header without warning, so that responses to your diatribe get
directed out to podunk.]
Rumour has it that Elvis Presley is alive and well, and does proof-reading
of all of your posts.
Personally, I don't put stock in idle rumour.
Sure, if the user is made aware of it prior to installation, yes.
Adware is not evil simply because it's advertisement-funded software.
When adware shifts to being malware, it's because the presence of adverts is
hidden from the installer, or because the adware covertly sends personal
information to its "home base" without the informed consent of the user.
Adware's a frickin' great idea - supply software to people for free, and use
the same model for funding that television and radio use. It means that
your users are acknowledging that they'll be interrupted by adverts every so
often, but they've allowed that irritation, in exchange for the right to run
the software without shelling out the green stuff.
It's unfortunate that too many "adware" companies pushed things over to the
dark side, so that now adware is synonymous with spyware and malware.
And if adware isn't OK (I'm going to guess that you think that it's not OK)
for you, all you have to do is pay full price and get the non-advert-funded
version. Like the difference between your local NBC, CBS, ABC, etc
affiliate (where the advertisers are the customers, and the viewers are the
product being sold) and HBO or Showtime, where the viewers are the
customers, and the only adverts are promos for upcoming shows.
"Common now" - see, that's why I don't believe in rumours. Elvis had a much
better command of the English language than to allow that in.
No, you are not supposed to idly trust anyone.
You are supposed to read the policy, and you are supposed to verify, to the
best of your ability, whether that policy is adhered to. Or, if you don't
want to go that far, you are supposed to exchange your unknowing trust for
the extra time and effort it takes to be eternally vigilant. So, there you
go - you have those two choices. Three choices, if you coun't "don't trust,
and therefore don't use". I think you fall into that camp, so I'm somewhat
surprised to find you continually posting in an area where you seem to have
no interest or experience.
A very dead old man once said "Trust, but verify". Software requires that
you either trust it's authors, or don't use it. Software allows you to do
some limited verification, based on your experience, your skill, and your
desire to spend your time verifying.
If you can't verify, and you don't trust, then don't use.
Alun.
~~~~
[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
P
Phil Weldon
'Alun Jones' wrote, in part:
| And if adware isn't OK (I'm going to guess that you think that it's not
OK)
| for you, all you have to do is pay full price and get the
non-advert-funded
| version. Like the difference between your local NBC, CBS, ABC, etc
| affiliate (where the advertisers are the customers, and the viewers are
the
| product being sold) and HBO or Showtime, where the viewers are the
| customers, and the only adverts are promos for upcoming shows.
_____
Re HBO, et al. - ever heard of product placement?
How about "The Twenty" in a certain cinema chain?
Check the tides before building your sandcastles B^)
Phil Weldon
| [Some trimmed newsgroups added in - and Imhotep, if you've been around for
| as long as you imply, you'll know that it's considered rude to trim in the
| follow-up header without warning, so that responses to your diatribe get
| directed out to podunk.]
|
| Imhotep wrote:
| > Charlie Tame wrote:
| >
| >> If MS wanted to infect your machine why not simply build a back door
into
| >> the operating system?
| >
| > Rumor has it they already have....
|
| Rumour has it that Elvis Presley is alive and well, and does proof-reading
| of all of your posts.
|
| Personally, I don't put stock in idle rumour.
|
| >> If you get ICQ, Yahoo instant messenger or numerous other "Free" things
| >> you will find they are paid for by ads, just like your TV. This applies
| >> to the little picture ads included in their interfaces as well as web
| >> pages shown on startup that you have set preferences to see. "Someone"
| >> has to pay the
| >> people who operate these things, don't they? If not you directly then
| >> expect advertising.
| >
| > Are you actually saying this is OK????
|
| Sure, if the user is made aware of it prior to installation, yes.
|
| Adware is not evil simply because it's advertisement-funded software.
|
| When adware shifts to being malware, it's because the presence of adverts
is
| hidden from the installer, or because the adware covertly sends personal
| information to its "home base" without the informed consent of the user.
|
| Adware's a frickin' great idea - supply software to people for free, and
use
| the same model for funding that television and radio use. It means that
| your users are acknowledging that they'll be interrupted by adverts every
so
| often, but they've allowed that irritation, in exchange for the right to
run
| the software without shelling out the green stuff.
|
| It's unfortunate that too many "adware" companies pushed things over to
the
| dark side, so that now adware is synonymous with spyware and malware.
|
| And if adware isn't OK (I'm going to guess that you think that it's not
OK)
| for you, all you have to do is pay full price and get the
non-advert-funded
| version. Like the difference between your local NBC, CBS, ABC, etc
| affiliate (where the advertisers are the customers, and the viewers are
the
| product being sold) and HBO or Showtime, where the viewers are the
| customers, and the only adverts are promos for upcoming shows.
|
| >> Being a privacy conscious person you did of course READ the privacy
| >> policy before signing up, right?
| >
| > Ok, blame the user. Common now. This is Microsoft, we are *supposed* to
| > trust them are we not????
|
| "Common now" - see, that's why I don't believe in rumours. Elvis had a
much
| better command of the English language than to allow that in.
|
| No, you are not supposed to idly trust anyone.
|
| You are supposed to read the policy, and you are supposed to verify, to
the
| best of your ability, whether that policy is adhered to. Or, if you don't
| want to go that far, you are supposed to exchange your unknowing trust for
| the extra time and effort it takes to be eternally vigilant. So, there
you
| go - you have those two choices. Three choices, if you coun't "don't
trust,
| and therefore don't use". I think you fall into that camp, so I'm
somewhat
| surprised to find you continually posting in an area where you seem to
have
| no interest or experience.
|
| A very dead old man once said "Trust, but verify". Software requires that
| you either trust it's authors, or don't use it. Software allows you to do
| some limited verification, based on your experience, your skill, and your
| desire to spend your time verifying.
|
| If you can't verify, and you don't trust, then don't use.
|
| Alun.
| ~~~~
| [Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
| --
| Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email
| 23921 57th Ave SE | (e-mail address removed).
| Washington WA 98072-8661 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers.
| Fax/Voice +1(425)807-1787 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.
|
|
| And if adware isn't OK (I'm going to guess that you think that it's not
OK)
| for you, all you have to do is pay full price and get the
non-advert-funded
| version. Like the difference between your local NBC, CBS, ABC, etc
| affiliate (where the advertisers are the customers, and the viewers are
the
| product being sold) and HBO or Showtime, where the viewers are the
| customers, and the only adverts are promos for upcoming shows.
_____
Re HBO, et al. - ever heard of product placement?
How about "The Twenty" in a certain cinema chain?
Check the tides before building your sandcastles B^)
Phil Weldon
| [Some trimmed newsgroups added in - and Imhotep, if you've been around for
| as long as you imply, you'll know that it's considered rude to trim in the
| follow-up header without warning, so that responses to your diatribe get
| directed out to podunk.]
|
| Imhotep wrote:
| > Charlie Tame wrote:
| >
| >> If MS wanted to infect your machine why not simply build a back door
into
| >> the operating system?
| >
| > Rumor has it they already have....
|
| Rumour has it that Elvis Presley is alive and well, and does proof-reading
| of all of your posts.
|
| Personally, I don't put stock in idle rumour.
|
| >> If you get ICQ, Yahoo instant messenger or numerous other "Free" things
| >> you will find they are paid for by ads, just like your TV. This applies
| >> to the little picture ads included in their interfaces as well as web
| >> pages shown on startup that you have set preferences to see. "Someone"
| >> has to pay the
| >> people who operate these things, don't they? If not you directly then
| >> expect advertising.
| >
| > Are you actually saying this is OK????
|
| Sure, if the user is made aware of it prior to installation, yes.
|
| Adware is not evil simply because it's advertisement-funded software.
|
| When adware shifts to being malware, it's because the presence of adverts
is
| hidden from the installer, or because the adware covertly sends personal
| information to its "home base" without the informed consent of the user.
|
| Adware's a frickin' great idea - supply software to people for free, and
use
| the same model for funding that television and radio use. It means that
| your users are acknowledging that they'll be interrupted by adverts every
so
| often, but they've allowed that irritation, in exchange for the right to
run
| the software without shelling out the green stuff.
|
| It's unfortunate that too many "adware" companies pushed things over to
the
| dark side, so that now adware is synonymous with spyware and malware.
|
| And if adware isn't OK (I'm going to guess that you think that it's not
OK)
| for you, all you have to do is pay full price and get the
non-advert-funded
| version. Like the difference between your local NBC, CBS, ABC, etc
| affiliate (where the advertisers are the customers, and the viewers are
the
| product being sold) and HBO or Showtime, where the viewers are the
| customers, and the only adverts are promos for upcoming shows.
|
| >> Being a privacy conscious person you did of course READ the privacy
| >> policy before signing up, right?
| >
| > Ok, blame the user. Common now. This is Microsoft, we are *supposed* to
| > trust them are we not????
|
| "Common now" - see, that's why I don't believe in rumours. Elvis had a
much
| better command of the English language than to allow that in.
|
| No, you are not supposed to idly trust anyone.
|
| You are supposed to read the policy, and you are supposed to verify, to
the
| best of your ability, whether that policy is adhered to. Or, if you don't
| want to go that far, you are supposed to exchange your unknowing trust for
| the extra time and effort it takes to be eternally vigilant. So, there
you
| go - you have those two choices. Three choices, if you coun't "don't
trust,
| and therefore don't use". I think you fall into that camp, so I'm
somewhat
| surprised to find you continually posting in an area where you seem to
have
| no interest or experience.
|
| A very dead old man once said "Trust, but verify". Software requires that
| you either trust it's authors, or don't use it. Software allows you to do
| some limited verification, based on your experience, your skill, and your
| desire to spend your time verifying.
|
| If you can't verify, and you don't trust, then don't use.
|
| Alun.
| ~~~~
| [Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
| --
| Texas Imperial Software | Find us at http://www.wftpd.com or email
| 23921 57th Ave SE | (e-mail address removed).
| Washington WA 98072-8661 | WFTPD, WFTPD Pro are Windows FTP servers.
| Fax/Voice +1(425)807-1787 | Try our NEW client software, WFTPD Explorer.
|
|
A
Alun Jones
Imhotep said:
There are benefits to being an MVP (I used to be one). You get a little
gift, you get an MSDN or TechNet subscription, and you get the ability to
spend time one-on-one with Microsoft staffers in your specialist area. It's
a reward for helping people out (and you don't have to be a suck-up to
Microsoft - just not uniformly anti-Microsoft), and its retrospective -
awarded for the previous year's help. You can't study to be an MVP, and
what worked last year to get you awarded might not work next year.
There have been a few deficits to being an MVP - because the MVP status
implies that you spend a lot of time answering other people's questions, or
helping them use software, for free, it's not unknown for employers to be
concerned that you aren't "giving your all to the company". Mind you,
you're probably better off not working for an employee who views it as their
right to drain you completely
Alun.
~~~~
[Please don't email posters, if a Usenet response is appropriate.]
R
Richard Urban
I hope you all enjoyed your ride on the troll train! (-:
--
Regards,
Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
--
Regards,
Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!