Being a geek you used logic to try to understand the joke thus fucking it up.
That, and they've never heard of artistic licence, nor willing suspension of disbelief. Probably shouldn't bother trying to write fiction. It'd read like a manpage, or worse.
For all intensive purpose
"For all intents and purposes
He's a Mac dude.
Ah. The light dawns (or something/sumfin).
Don't you twits have *anything* better to do? This is what you do for entertainment?
131,072 feet would of been cooler...
131,072 feet would've been cooler
See contraction, of "would" plus "have". I realize we'll (we plus will) lose this battle, and I can live with it. Newspeak rulez!
I'm with the parent. I've read the Wikipedia page, and your link to his
FWIW, I'm with him on what I've read about his views on obscenity and nudity. How nakedness can be percieved as disorderly conduct escapes me. Sure, lots of people are fat slobs so I don't want to see them naked, but how's it obscene? Not understanding the hate here.
I'm an anti-Microsoft bigot (bite me), and I wouldn't hold even that against him. He took their money!
W.T.F?
Am I wrong for thinking this means you just need a string of totally random numbers from 0-9? (or even a-Z, 0-9)
Or "totally random numbers from 0-9? (or even a-Z, 0-9)" plus punctuation chars, plus not made up of words which could be found in any dictionary, plus not made from anything that could be gleaned from your online activities or through social engineering.
I think I'll stick with ssh, post interfacing with a real human face to face.
If you flag an account after 10 wrong guesses, start requiring a CAPTCHA after the first one
Didn't we see a story a while ago purporting CAPTCHA had been cracked? I didn't bother with it myself (don't much care). It's only useful for web based logins, yes? I'm not suggesting those don't matter; just they don't matter much to me.
... and ban ip addresses when you detect massive multiple account attempts
A few years ago, someone reported that has changed the attackers from "batter on the door until it breaks" into slow trickle instead; lots and lots of attacking hosts on separate IPs, each one making only one or two attempts, then moving on to the next on the list.
Wow, you *are* ignoring the sendmail and bind exploits - many of them were due to lax security rather than being coding bugs.
I'll give you that. I should have called them design or implementation deficiencies, not coding bugs. The Internet began as a really "in-house" sort of thing. They didn't anticipate that their collaborators would go out of their way to abuse what was then a shared and mostly trusted resource. The Morris Worm was pretty much a kid's white hat hacking that (oopsie) got out of control, and SMTP wasn't designed to prevent it. The Green Card Lawyers taught us how robust those systems were - jerks in the system could get anything they wanted to go through and there was little in the way of defence built into the system to stop them. Telnet, ftp, rsh all transmitted passwords en clair. "Oh, was that wrong?" Arpanet was designed to ensure communication wouldn't be disrupted. After all, they weren't expecting the Soviets to have access to any of it.
And you also seem to ignore the thriving antivirus markets that existed for the Atari, Amiga and other non-MS platforms - I wonder how MS was responsible for those!
I never had any of those, so never really cared about them. Then MS showed up so ripe for exploitation, it was a magnet for abuse. How did it work, you could name malicious.exe to malicious.exe.jpg and it would walk right past any defences (which were non-existent)? Meanwhile, MS decided users didn't need to care about file extensions (even while the OS did care), so they were hidden from the user by default. Great.
I can't believe anyone defends MS for the crap they've pulled. You should be livid about their multi-decade abuses, not to mention having had to pay them and other MS ecosystem crap purveyors for the privilege.
Is your selective memory ignoring all the sendmail and bind exploits that did the rounds in the 80s and 90s?
No, those were bugs, or things the software wasn't designed to worry about. What produced the malware and spam market? MS' laxity in *everything* system security related, maybe?
Are you ignoring how little MS bothered to secure itself, insisted that's not its problem, could be handled with bolted on (for a price) software supplied by third party suppliers, and it wasn't MS' problem that Win* wasn't able to protect itself?
Latest I heard was *the best* AV software supplied by third party suppliers was *at best* capable of stopping 80% of malware.
Good job. Ass holes!
I remember that. Just before the Winmodem wars started. Why's my machine always crashing every time I connect to the net?!?
"Get a real (external) modem, doofus!"
Damn, that was tedious! I wondered if it would ever end.
Yup, and with good reason. Did you even read what I wrote?
The CD problem you refer to is not a fault of the operating system, but rather the drive and the motherboard bios.
Bull. Shit. This goes back to win for workgroups. Copy a file to the floppy drive, takes over the whole damned CPU. They've never known, *had any clue*, as to how to build an OS. They only know how to cash checks from morons (accountants, doctors, lawyers; the stupidest computer users on the planet).
MS has always been a joke. A toy OS for "toy computers."
They've never had a clue what they were doing, other than making money off ignorance.
Well played.
I'm sure the Linux distro makers (which often are commercial entities) gladly take your free labor, and laugh at their way to bank.
They're not grabbing my scrotum as they laugh their way to the bank. Oh, you wanted security from malware and viruses and crackers? There are many Microsoft Partners who'd be happy to supply you with solutions
Bite me! Microsoft's ineptitude created that pathetic market!
Assholes.
"When the going gets tough, the tough get empirical." -- Jon Carroll
