Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:So goes a once-talented filmmaker (Score 1) 325

by herksc (#36897304) Attached to: Lucas Loses Star Wars Stormtrooper Copyright Case
Perhaps I'm missing something, but Clint Eastwood directed his first film in 1971, and probably did his best with Letters from Iwo Jima in 2006. The Coen Brothers did Blood Simple and raising Arizona in the 80s, and then No Country for Old Men in 2007. Surely some of this is up for debate?

Comment: Re:Good for them (Score 1) 176

by herksc (#31693990) Attached to: Yale Delays Move To Gmail

1: Why can't I simply move from composing an email to the many labels without being warned about losing my work? Yahoo figured this out and so should Gmail.

You can and it does. Not sure why this is not working for you. It brings up a pop-up that says: "Your message has not been sent, do you want to discard? OK/Cancel". You can also click "save" at any point to put it in your drafts folder.

2: The interface is still wanting big time. Heck this is 2010!

This is subjective. Much better than any other web interface in my opinion. As others have said, you can use IMAP if you like. Also, the education edition which Yale would get can use an Outlook MAPI plugin (very fast!)

3: Though Gmail's search is fast, filtering is still so basic. YahooMail's filter is good. Google can surely do better. When I search for an email from someone, I would like the opportunity to filter further "on the fly"...in real time...say by attachment type if any, subject and so on. Currently the filter functionality does not cut it!

Again, this is a subjective interface preference. I would prefer it wait until I click "search" again.

4: Sorting by sender, subject, time of arrival etc is non existent! This is on a service that prides itself on users never having to delete email! For those with tens of thousands of email, Gmail is mediocre!

Try the "show search options" link. All the features you mention are included. No need to know complicated codes. I'll grant you that searching by exact hour or minute is more difficult (requires manually structuring your query), but that is a small issue easily solved by education.

Comment: Re:I'm a professional Malware removal guy. Literal (Score 1) 319

by herksc (#31585164) Attached to: Malware Delivered By Yahoo, Fox, Google Ads
FYI: If you can kill the malware process and then delete it, you can manually re-associate EXEs to run as applications in the File Types menu. Just did this for a machine on my network last week. Of course I also ran Malware Bytes...

I just dealt with a truly nasty version yesterday though that not only sets itself up as the handler for EXE files, but also closes the task manager immediately when you try to open it. In order to remove it I had to boot the machine using a Linux live CD, and then remove the offending files.

Comment: Re:Market Research using Google... (Score 5, Insightful) 329

by herksc (#30703098) Attached to: Google Faces Deluge of Nexus One Complaints
Try it in quotes:

144,000 for "i hate t-mobile"
468,000 for "i hate verizon"
444,000 for "i hate at&t"
286,000 for "i hate sprint"

Searching 'I hate t-mobile' on google (no quotes) comes up with results that include "i", "hate", "t", and "mobile" separately. Your research method is highly flawed.

Comment: Re:So (Score 1) 284

by herksc (#30606330) Attached to: Google Nexus Rumored To Cost $530 Or $180 w/Plan
Actually, looks like its still better to pay the $530 up front. As far as I can tell, you can get t-mobile 500 plus unlimited text and web for $60 on the Even More Plus (no contract). To get the same on Even More (contract) is $40, plus $10 for unlimited text, plus $30 for unlimited web, equaling $80 total. That's a difference of $20 per month x 24 to $480 total.

Comment: Re:the real threat will be government intervention (Score 3, Informative) 388

by herksc (#30325632) Attached to: The Noisy and Prolonged Death of Journalism

I watch U.S. public television myself, and I like a lot of the programming, but I would still support eliminating it because I don't think it's a good use of public money.

Do you realize you are talking about .013% of the federal budget? This means that if you paid $10,000 in federal taxes last year, that $1.30 went to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. That's $400 million in total federal tax funding vs. 5.6 billion that the UK government gives to the BBC.

Comment: Re:is it constitunitional? (Score 1) 263

by herksc (#29473009) Attached to: New "JUSTICE" Act Could Roll Back Telecom Immunity
Technically, it was unconstitutional to pass the immunity law. Article one section nine states, "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Wikipedia actually gives a good definition of ex post facto: "is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law".

IANAL, but it seems that changes to the consequences for either better or worse is unconstitutional. The president can pardon, but a law passed to give immunity? There is probably lot's of legal precedent here that I am not aware of.

Also, the EFF claims it was unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers.

Comment: Re:These people are delusional. (Score 1) 926

by herksc (#29217877) Attached to: FSF Attacks Windows 7's "Sins" In New Campaign
Negative advertising can work if people share your ideals (everyone agrees about "the children" in some way). I think the point being made may be that the FSF should spend more energy helping people to understand all the benefits of a free software movement, and less energy doing this. I don't entirely disagree with you, but I don't think this campaign will "win" any new people to their "side".

Comment: Re:Protected!? (Score 1) 241

by herksc (#29043725) Attached to: Man Jailed After Using LimeWire For ID Theft
Insightful and informative, thank you.

I hadn't thought of the fact the computers they mentioned might be the banking websites themselves.
After re-reading TFA, it seems that he got online login credentials that were in documents on the victims computers, then logged into those accounts.
Definitely definable as accessing a "protected computer" by the definition you provided.

If you have a citation for the info you provided, please provide that also, thanks.

Comment: Re:Protected!? (Score 2, Informative) 241

by herksc (#29041097) Attached to: Man Jailed After Using LimeWire For ID Theft
Some corrections:

This law actually states it is a crime when "Knowingly accessing a computer without authorization in order to obtain national security data". So even if the computer is not protected, it is a crime if you access it knowingly without authorization to to retrieve national security information. That part's not so bad.

It does state though that "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value" is a crime. So using a computer to commit fraud is worse than stealing the information another way? I don't get it.

Sorry for the inaccuracies in the first post.

Comment: Re:Protected!? (Score 2, Insightful) 241

by herksc (#29040951) Attached to: Man Jailed After Using LimeWire For ID Theft
Agreed.
This is from the The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act that states it is a criminal offense when: "Knowingly accessing a protected computer with the intent to defraud and there by obtaining anything of value."

Poorly written law if you ask me. What if the computer is protected but some of the files are not? How do you define a "protected" computer anyway? What if it is locked in a safe, but connected to the internet with no safeguards? By definition of this law, if I retrieve national security information that someone posts on a /. comment, then I break this law, because the computer that hosts /. is "protected" in a co-lo.

Of course in this case, they had him on the Wire Fraud and Aggravated Identity Theft also.

The good thing about this law is that it does not state it is a crime to "Knowingly access a protected computer with no intent to do harm".

Comment: Re:Written Before Christianity Was PAGANIZED (Score 1) 568

by herksc (#28612045) Attached to: British Library Puts Oldest Surviving Bible Online
Any decent bible has a marking and a footnote which states that earlier known manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20

If you are saying that the Codex Sinaiticus along with older portions of other manuscripts have no mention of the resurrection, then I call foul. Are you a historian?

I say the key to success of Constantine's venture was acceptance of Christians coupled with the power and influence he already had.

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Working...