Thread Jester Ping
A low to medium volume pinglist dedicated for all the thread jesters out there--you know who you are...8^)
FReepmail rzeznikj at stout or MikefromOhio to be added or removed from the pinglist...
Posted on 05/25/2006 7:28:29 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing
Quit talking about your childhood and find some way to crash me. If you think you can, since you said anonymizer didn't help prevent that.
Thread Jester Ping
A low to medium volume pinglist dedicated for all the thread jesters out there--you know who you are...8^)
FReepmail rzeznikj at stout or MikefromOhio to be added or removed from the pinglist...
The point is that using Anonymizer isn't a complete cure-all. As I've said, it's at best a slit bandaid, and more like using a piece of ripped saran wrap in bed.
You have no clue how it works, do you?
It's a commercial proxy service. They whitewash the IP your DNS gave you. If you still go to a malicious site, you're still vulnerable.
Of course you do sound an awful lot like the guy who'd write The Register and demand they turn off the Internet...
More occult signs to go with your blasphemous tagline.
I said I'm protected behind it, and you can't find a single way to take me down yet. Either take me down, or admit you can't do it.
Obviously you're the one who doesn't have a clue to how it works. Give us a site or admit you don't know of any way to infect my system.
I'm not going to take you down. I'll let your Windows box and your blind obedient faith in Windows security handle that.
Not to mention that I don't do black-hat hacking--which not only is morally wrong and childish, but illegal as well.
I find your attempted solicitation of an illegal activity to be out of line on this forum.
Well, he does sound and act like that guy from Tuttle...8^)
So like I knew all along, you couldn't back up your words that anonymizer doesn't provide protection. You never can backup your words, being the delusional thoughts of a kid majoring in political science who wants to argue with an expert in computer science. Oh but he can post tarrot cards all day long LOL.
LOL
and then I see he goes on a rant about not backing his words or something LOL
Oh really--if that's true, then I must be God...
I can heal the sick and make the blind see! I must be Bruce Almighty!!! /sarc
Forgot to ping to 52...8^)
Apple didn't deliberately block them from running OS 9; they just didn't write drivers for OS 9 that would allow it to work on the new hardware. True, it inconvenienced some number of users, but Apple has always been aggressive about deprecating obsolete technology and it generally works out well in the end. The iMac led the way in getting rid of floppy drives, for example.
More blasphemy. You actually seem to enjoy it.
The fact is that just as it's impossible that I'm God, so it's impossible for you to be an expert in computer science--unless we count Bubba'z Skool of Cumputr Siens...
This is true...
^^^^^^^^^Apple didn't deliberately block them from running OS 9; they just didn't write drivers for OS 9 that would allow it to work on the new hardware.^^^^^^^^^^^^^
"New hardware"? I said G4, not G5. Most of the hardware within the towers was the same, according to the mac user in my family.(if it wasn't for his ranting, I wouldn't know about this issue)
Besides, this was done at the BIOS level, not the driver level.
^^^^^^^^^^^^True, it inconvenienced some number of users, but Apple has always been aggressive about deprecating obsolete technology and it generally works out well in the end.^^^^^^^^^^
Towards increasing their marketshare for example?
It'll be like when they came out with Win32, there was a thunk16.dll that mapped 16-bit programms to run on the 32-bit system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.