John: Nope, it is not there now. It was on the application page. Good deal! The page still doesn't validate, but at least it doesn't fuss at us anymore!
Doug Riddle --- john beamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As in Cajun Clickers Computer Club @yahoogroups.com? whoooboy. > You just > fed me to the wolves, dude! <:-D BTW, in response to another post > I read > here, I visited clickers.org to look for an IE-only warning. > Didn't see > it. Used Mozilla 1.0. Am I missing something? > > -- > -j > > John Beamon > > On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, John Hebert wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2002 14:50:55 -0700 (PDT) > > From: John Hebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: RE: [brlug-general] IE un-Security > > > > Wow. Too good to keep here in [email protected], so I > > forwarding this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], where > > politically incorrect rant is encouraged. > > > > John Hebert > > > > --- john beamon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I want to take this one step farther. There is a > > > sales mentality that > > > computers CAN be bought, plugged in, and on the web > > > in 10 minutes. > > > Therefore, they SHOULD be bought, plugged in, and on > > > the web in 10 > > > minutes. I find this inherently incorrect and > > > bordering on arrogant. > > > > > > We do not require computer users to know two cents > > > worth about their > > > machines or their safe use. We require waiting > > > periods, licensing, > > > training, and legal registration for the purchase or > > > even use of guns, > > > cars, motorcycles, heavy equipment, arc welders, > > > etc, but nothing for > > > computers. Even now, computers and "security tools" > > > like GPG and basic > > > encryption are being criminalized as tools of > > > terrorists, when the truth > > > is closer to "terrorists are safer, more > > > knowledgeable users of basic > > > computer functions than most Windows users". > > > Frankly, I applaud their > > > steps taken toward privacy and discretion and smart > > > computer use; when was > > > the last time the US government cracked a terrorist > > > network or fed it a > > > virus in a Word document? MS commoditized and > > > simplified the entry-level > > > OS and released it into the wild. It is generally > > > speaking insecure, > > > buggy, and exploitable. Common users are generally > > > naive about its > > > workings and its safe and controlled use in public > > > (networked). By > > > engineering remote control software into XP, MS has > > > shown that they > > > continue to prefer and promote a naive user base and > > > centralized boo-boo > > > management. > > > > > > I disagree strenuously, on grounds economic, social, > > > political, and > > > functional. I believe that users with increased > > > clue would trade messages > > > and data in portable formats, not shiny ones, so > > > that they can be reached > > > from any commoditized machine in any library, home, > > > or educational > > > institution. Anything from an industrial dumb > > > terminal to a library PC to > > > a college Mac should be able to read email and > > > browse the web with at > > > least some functionality. I believe that more > > > clueful users would rather > > > keep their private info private than let MS into > > > their machine or let > > > their cd player (Media Player) report their > > > listening habits back to a > > > vendor. I believe that users would feel safer about > > > themselves and the > > > world at large if they had the basic intellectual > > > tools to avoid every > > > virus-infected email attachment that gets sent them. > > > Understand, please, > > > that the vast, VAST majority of viral traffic is > > > instigated by curiousity, > > > not by brute force. More people open unkown email > > > attachments, after the > > > years of Melissa and Nimda and HappyWorm, than are > > > infected by > > > sophisticated autoexecuting binaries in their > > > unopened mail spools. Those > > > sophisticated worms ARE a problem, but they are the > > > Ebola virus in a world > > > where millions die for not washing their hands > > > before they eat. > > > > > > The native faculty of Windows to execute any virus > > > that comes down the > > > pike from what SHOULD -- by all measures functional > > > and reasonable -- be a > > > text-only environment is a problem. An out-of-box > > > problem. It was > > > mentioned earlier that a new user on an out-of-box > > > machine is not > > > necessarily "insecure", and I disagree to the very > > > last iota. XP comes > > > preinstalled with the ability to turn on your PC's > > > mic, call home to > > > Microsoft, and allow internet access to your > > > filesystem, all without your > > > permission or even knowledge. Don't leave home WITH > > > it. I am running one > > > XP box right now, months after it has been > > > proctologized and patched into > > > delirium. I'm still behind a firewall, and I still > > > read all my mail in > > > either PINE or Mozilla, in plain text, > > > thank-you-very-much. > > > > > > I'm not an OS bigot; I've got four copies of Windows > > > installed in my > > > house, three of them dual-booted with Linux. I am, > > > however, placing the > > > blame for this "security" problem where it belongs, > > > the official practice > > > of turning loose self-aware "appliances" that run > > > programs out of text > > > documents and expose raw network sockets to every > > > process on the box. > > > Users who want mail and web should get a non-root > > > account on a box that > > > runs Mozilla or Opera or Netscape. I believe > > > Windows would be a better > > > place if it allowed an Administrator privilege set > > > for doing system > > > maintenance, but not as a desktop login. Login as > > > Joe, try to run a > > > system-critical process, and get an su-style popup > > > that requests an > > > Administrative password. It serves the purposes of > > > awareness and > > > prevention and makes people realize there's more to > > > driving a car than > > > turning on the radio. > > > > > > -- > > > -j > > > > > > John Beamon > > > > > > On 3 Jul 2002, mat branyon wrote: > > > > > > > Date: 03 Jul 2002 12:26:51 +0000 > > > > From: mat branyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Reply-To: [email protected] > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: RE: [brlug-general] IE un-Security > > > > > > > > just bc someone is ignorant of certain matters > > > does not mean that they > > > > should be sheltered. if they want to use email > > > and chat, and do all the > > > > other fun things that the net has to offer, they > > > need to realize that > > > > security is a big issue, and they need to take > > > care of it. just bc i > > > > dont know how to work on cars doesnt mean i > > > shouldnt have an alarm > > > > system or change the oil myself. im not saying > > > they should be able to > > > > resolder sockets back on their motherboard, but > > > they should know the > > > > basic maintanence skills to keep thier computer > > > running. > > > > > > > > on the other hand, if they could all do that... > > > there would be a lot > > > > fewer jobs for computer techs (like me). > > > > > > > > the moral of the story is... people need to learn > > > to think on thier own, > > > > even if it might cost me a decent job... :( i > > > would much rather a world > > > > less full of ignorance > > > > > > > > --mat > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
