Just so you know - someone has read your note. But - I'm not sure if anyone
understands what you want to learn. From the sound of things, you need to
do a lot of reading to learn the basics. Sorry I couldn't help you.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:08:12 -0700, PeterDu wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have an array including 2000 records in database,
>
> but when fetch all of them, why just get 1500 records?
>
> Does that depend on my computer?
Well, at least you hi-jacked a thread that did not pertain to PHP and
put it back On
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 23:58 +0100, Björn Bartels wrote:
> *rofl*
>
> damn... i love this list... so much for on- ehmmm off-list posts :p ...
It's not just a list... it's a community :)
Cheers,
Rob.
--
http://www.interjinn.com
Application and Templating Framework for PHP
--
PHP General Mailin
*rofl*
damn... i love this list... so much for on- ehmmm off-list posts :p ...
Am 10.01.2009 um 22:24 schrieb Nathan Rixham:
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:21, Nathan Rixham
wrote:
are you three flirting?
Are you jealous?
*throws snowball too* "shut p"
yeah...
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:21, Nathan Rixham wrote:
are you three flirting?
Are you jealous?
*throws snowball too* "shut p"
when in rome..
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 21:21 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 16:14 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:06, Robert Cummings
> >> wrote:
> >>> Snowball hits sandcastle... promptly melts... washes sandcastle away.
> >>>
> >>> *thro
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:21, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>
> are you three flirting?
Are you jealous?
--
daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to print - email me to find out!
--
PHP Gene
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 16:14 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:06, Robert Cummings wrote:
Snowball hits sandcastle... promptly melts... washes sandcastle away.
*throws another snowball at you*
I've got LOTS more where they came from.
*danbrown cast
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 16:14 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:06, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > Snowball hits sandcastle... promptly melts... washes sandcastle away.
> >
> > *throws another snowball at you*
> >
> > I've got LOTS more where they came from.
>
>
> *danbrown c
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 16:06, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> Snowball hits sandcastle... promptly melts... washes sandcastle away.
>
> *throws another snowball at you*
>
> I've got LOTS more where they came from.
*danbrown casts Spell of Awe and attains Level 63 Wizard.
*danbrown turns you into a f
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 16:00 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 03:16:34AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 03:10 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 01:57:09AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 05:20
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 03:16:34AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 03:10 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 01:57:09AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 05:20 +0200, Paul Scott wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 18:15 -0500,
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 03:10 -0500, Paul M Foster wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 01:57:09AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 05:20 +0200, Paul Scott wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 18:15 -0500, Phpster wrote:
> > > > -12C in Toronto
> > > >
> > >
> > > Meh! 30C - 35C i
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 02:59 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 01:57, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > Grumble, grumble... did I mention freshwater falls from the sky and
> > forms vertical piles outside my home?
>
> You have a camera for a reason, Rob. Snap a few shots and w
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 01:57:09AM -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 05:20 +0200, Paul Scott wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 18:15 -0500, Phpster wrote:
> > > -12C in Toronto
> > >
> >
> > Meh! 30C - 35C in Cape Town, South Africa almost every day for the last
> > month. It ha
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 01:57, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> Grumble, grumble... did I mention freshwater falls from the sky and
> forms vertical piles outside my home?
You have a camera for a reason, Rob. Snap a few shots and we'll
help pick out the next Interjinn logo. ;-P
--
daniel.br...
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 05:20 +0200, Paul Scott wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 18:15 -0500, Phpster wrote:
> > -12C in Toronto
> >
>
> Meh! 30C - 35C in Cape Town, South Africa almost every day for the last
> month. It has been a scorcher this year!
Grumble, grumble... did I mention freshwater fal
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 18:15 -0500, Phpster wrote:
> -12C in Toronto
>
Meh! 30C - 35C in Cape Town, South Africa almost every day for the last
month. It has been a scorcher this year!
-- Paul
All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer
http://www.uwc.ac.za/portal/public/portal_serv
-12C in Toronto
Greets from sunny Ontario
Bastien
Sent from my iPod
On Jan 9, 2009, at 5:19 PM, Simon J Welsh wrote:
On 10/01/2009, at 10:21 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 16:16, Robert Cummings
wrote:
We're at -13C right now without windchill and this is in Ottawa
On 10/01/2009, at 10:21 AM, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 16:16, Robert Cummings
wrote:
We're at -13C right now without windchill and this is in Ottawa
which is
a lot further south than I've lived in the past (Timmins, Sudbury).
Yeah, no offense, my friend, but you can
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 16:16, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> We're at -13C right now without windchill and this is in Ottawa which is
> a lot further south than I've lived in the past (Timmins, Sudbury).
Yeah, no offense, my friend, but you can keep it. We're a balmy
22F (-5C) right now in Scran
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 15:47 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 15:31, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > I lived in Scotland for many years... Scottish winters pale in
> > comparison to northern Canadian winters, and these in turn pale in
> > comparison to Siberian winters.
>
> Y
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 15:31, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> I lived in Scotland for many years... Scottish winters pale in
> comparison to northern Canadian winters, and these in turn pale in
> comparison to Siberian winters.
Yeah, and from the sounds of it, Rob, you guys are about to have a
hel
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 18:09 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:43, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> >> actually i ran it in a debugger, in an ide, in a virtual machine :p
> >
> > in Siberia.
> >
>
> scotland in winter; same thing really
I lived in Sc
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:43, Nathan Rixham wrote:
actually i ran it in a debugger, in an ide, in a virtual machine :p
in Siberia.
scotland in winter; same thing really
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:43, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>
> actually i ran it in a debugger, in an ide, in a virtual machine :p
in Siberia.
--
daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotpig.net/
Unadvertised dedicated server deals, too low to
Andrew Ballard wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Daniel Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:34, Andrew Ballard wrote:
Now... you'd have really freaked out if that had actually worked! LOL
Hey, good point, Andrew.
Nate, you do know that was only pseudo-code, right? Don't run
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:34, Andrew Ballard wrote:
>>
>> Now... you'd have really freaked out if that had actually worked! LOL
>
>Hey, good point, Andrew.
>
>Nate, you do know that was only pseudo-code, right? Don't run
> that in p
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:34, Andrew Ballard wrote:
>
> Now... you'd have really freaked out if that had actually worked! LOL
Hey, good point, Andrew.
Nate, you do know that was only pseudo-code, right? Don't run
that in production!
--
daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net
h
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:08, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>
> turns out the official word from php itself is that this list doesn't exist
> *oh nos*
>
> Warning: unlink(php-general@lists.php.net) [ href='function.unlink'>function.unlink]: No such file or directory
>
> (or did i run it twice by accident
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:56, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> a few years ago when I first met my rach (we met online), we'd have
>>> random
>>> conversations stretching several pages on various forums and social si
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:56, Nathan Rixham wrote:
a few years ago when I first met my rach (we met online), we'd have random
conversations stretching several pages on various forums and social site
profiles we had - i'd find it massively amusing to then go in and delete
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:40, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> Lol, I didn't realize it was off-list or I would have posted it back so
> that others could throw in their opinions or speak their mind if they
> disagreed.
Indeed. I think, especially with the "regulars" that have been
here for years,
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:56, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>
> a few years ago when I first met my rach (we met online), we'd have random
> conversations stretching several pages on various forums and social site
> profiles we had - i'd find it massively amusing to then go in and delete all
> of my replie
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:17, Nathan Rixham wrote:
tedd wrote:
At 7:18 PM + 1/8/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card
connected to the internet it's insecure.
It doesn't even have to be connected to the Interne
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:17, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> tedd wrote:
>>
>> At 7:18 PM + 1/8/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>>
>>> if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card
>>> connected to the internet it's insecure.
>>
>> It doesn't even have to be connected to the Interne
tedd wrote:
At 7:18 PM + 1/8/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card
connected to the internet it's insecure.
It doesn't even have to be connected to the Internet to be insecure.
Cheers,
tedd
hence the mention of a keyboard :p
-
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 07:29 -0800, Mattias Thorslund wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
> >> You're right, Mattias. Not only should every one of those folks
> >> be ashamed of themselves for being involved in that thread - they are
> >> also going to hell for it.
> >>
> >> By comparison, sending
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 9:54 AM, tedd wrote:
> At 7:18 PM + 1/8/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>>
>> if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card
>> connected to the internet it's insecure.
>
> It doesn't even have to be connected to the Internet to be insecure.
>
> Cheers,
At 7:18 PM + 1/8/09, Nathan Rixham wrote:
if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network
card connected to the internet it's insecure.
It doesn't even have to be connected to the Internet to be insecure.
Cheers,
tedd
--
---
http://sperling.com http://ancientstones
At 1:03 PM -0600 1/8/09, Skip Evans wrote:
Incidentally, I think building their OS on FreeBSD was about the
smartest thing the Apple/Mac people ever did.
Skip
There are bright people at Apple, like Jobs -- exceptional individual.
Compare Job's presentations to Gates' and you have examples of
At 1:39 PM -0500 1/8/09, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
> It's always a safe bet to move towards the center of the herd.
Bah, sheeple! I like to stay away from the herd.
Cheers,
Rob.
I'm sure the feeling is mutual.
A better mouthwash perhaps. :-)
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 12:59 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 19:21, Mattias Thorslund
> > wrote:
> >> I thought this was the PHP list, not the OS vs. OS list?
> >>
> >> Is this type of discussion now considered OK here? I recall people getting
> >> flam
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Mattias Thorslund wrote:
> I thought this was the PHP list, not the OS vs. OS list?
>
> Is this type of discussion now considered OK here? I recall people getting
> flamed for borderline off-topic posts even, just a few years ago.
>
> Mattias
:(
--
PHP General Ma
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 19:21, Mattias Thorslund wrote:
I thought this was the PHP list, not the OS vs. OS list?
Is this type of discussion now considered OK here? I recall people getting
flamed for borderline off-topic posts even, just a few years ago.
You're right, M
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 19:21, Mattias Thorslund wrote:
> I thought this was the PHP list, not the OS vs. OS list?
>
> Is this type of discussion now considered OK here? I recall people getting
> flamed for borderline off-topic posts even, just a few years ago.
You're right, Mattias. Not only
On Jan 9, 2009, at 2:06 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 16:21 -0800, Mattias Thorslund wrote:
I thought this was the PHP list, not the OS vs. OS list?
Is this type of discussion now considered OK here? I recall people
getting flamed for borderline off-topic posts even, just a
On Jan 9, 2009, at 1:55 AM, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 22:38 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Skip Evans wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
yup.. all OS's are equally insecure; each OS is as insecure as the
next; no
one OS is more insecure than any other
Wrong, and there is experi
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 16:21 -0800, Mattias Thorslund wrote:
> I thought this was the PHP list, not the OS vs. OS list?
>
> Is this type of discussion now considered OK here? I recall people
> getting flamed for borderline off-topic posts even, just a few years ago.
This is PHP general... we talk
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 23:28 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Skip Evans wrote:
> > Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> >>> think about it for a minute; an OS can either be secure (0
> >>> vulnerabilities) or insecure (1 or more vulnerabilities); as all OS's
> >>> have 1 or more vulnerabilities they are all equ
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 22:38 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Skip Evans wrote:
> > Nathan Rixham wrote:
> >>>
> >> yup.. all OS's are equally insecure; each OS is as insecure as the
> >> next; no
> >> one OS is more insecure than any other
> >>
> >
> > Wrong, and there is experimental data to prove i
I thought this was the PHP list, not the OS vs. OS list?
Is this type of discussion now considered OK here? I recall people
getting flamed for borderline off-topic posts even, just a few years ago.
Mattias
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.ph
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 18:07, Nathan Rixham wrote:
>
> Linux Kernel 2.6.x
> 161 Secunia advisories
> 286 Vulnerabilities
> Unpatched: 6% (10 of 161 Secunia advisories)
> http://secunia.com/advisories/product/2719/
>
> Vista:
> 51 Secunia advisories
> 80 Vulnerabilities
> Unpatched: 12% (6 of 51 Se
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 15:01, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:10 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
>> Linux is just as susceptible to
>> viruses, worms, and other malware
> I'd beg to differ. While it may be susceptible, I think it is far less
> so, just because of the security it has f
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:44, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> I haven't made any claims. I've merely stated beliefs/opinion. You made
> claims, thus the onus is on you to provide proof of said claims.
While I really wish you wouldn't talk about my onus in public like
that, I am of the opinion that
Nathan Rixham wrote:
Or, for another analogy, you're saying that because all cars can
either be sitting still or moving then they are all equally fast.
no, more like your car has a window missing, another car has no locks,
and mine has no door; which is the most insecure?
The one parked
Skip Evans wrote:
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
think about it for a minute; an OS can either be secure (0
vulnerabilities) or insecure (1 or more vulnerabilities); as all OS's
have 1 or more vulnerabilities they are all equally insecure; because
they are all insecure.
What you are saying, in rea
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 22:38 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Skip Evans wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
yup.. all OS's are equally insecure; each OS is as insecure as the
next; no
one OS is more insecure than any other
Wrong, and there is experimental data to prove it. Read the
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
think about it for a minute; an OS can either be secure (0
vulnerabilities) or insecure (1 or more vulnerabilities); as all OS's
have 1 or more vulnerabilities they are all equally insecure; because
they are all insecure.
What you are saying, in real world terms, not
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 22:38 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Skip Evans wrote:
> > Nathan Rixham wrote:
> >>>
> >> yup.. all OS's are equally insecure; each OS is as insecure as the
> >> next; no
> >> one OS is more insecure than any other
> >>
> >
> > Wrong, and there is experimental data to prove i
Skip Evans wrote:
Nathan Rixham wrote:
yup.. all OS's are equally insecure; each OS is as insecure as the
next; no
one OS is more insecure than any other
Wrong, and there is experimental data to prove it. Read the first URL
I posted that documents the creation of Linux viruses and the
ex
Ashley Sheridan wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 16:40 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:46 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:18 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings w
2009/1/8 Robert Cummings
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:46 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> > Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:18 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> > >
> > >> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings
> wrote:
> > >>>
> > He d
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 16:40 -0500, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:46 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> > Robert Cummings wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:18 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> > >
> > >> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert C
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:46 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:18 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> >
> >> Daniel Brown wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> He didn't say it had no insec
Nathan Rixham wrote:
if it's a computer thats on, with an os, a keyboard and a network card
connected to the internet it's insecure.
Well of course. That's like saying if it's alive it's dying.
But the question was are *nix systems more secure than Windows, and I
think even Daniel agrees that
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:10 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> Linux is just as susceptible to
> viruses, worms, and other malware
I'd beg to differ. While it may be susceptible, I think it is far less
so, just because of the security it has from the off. And also, the type
of people who tend to use Lin
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:18 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings wrote:
He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources t
c...@l-i-e.com wrote:
Fact is if you want to be secure just disconnect you're machine from
the internet, remove cd/dvd/floppy drives and unplug the keyboard.
You forgot to cut the internal USB cables.
:-)
when I was younger my friend got a virus on his mothers computer; his
mother promptly
You could also fill all empty space in the case with a polyurethane
sealing compound for added security, and then bury it in the back yard.
Dang, I could make big bucks as a security consultant!
I'm adding this to my resume!
Skip
c...@l-i-e.com wrote:
Fact is if you want to be secure just di
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings wrote:
He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
validity of your statement.
Counter: please provide factual sources that it
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:18 +, Nathan Rixham wrote:
> Daniel Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >> He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
> >> it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
> >> validit
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 19:12 +, c...@l-i-e.com wrote:
> > Fact is if you want to be secure just disconnect you're machine from
> > the internet, remove cd/dvd/floppy drives and unplug the keyboard.
>
> You forgot to cut the internal USB cables.
And never, EVER forget to don your tinfoil hat an
> Fact is if you want to be secure just disconnect you're machine from
> the internet, remove cd/dvd/floppy drives and unplug the keyboard.
You forgot to cut the internal USB cables.
:-)
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.ph
Hey,
Well, I find the points that *nix by default restricts users to their
own executables and Windows allows anyone to run any program (has this
changed with Vista? I don't follow MS too closely) to be a major reason
by default, as installed, *nix systems are more secure.
I would also bet t
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:43 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:41, Robert Cummings wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:31 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> >> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:24, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resource
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:41, Robert Cummings wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:31 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:24, Robert Cummings wrote:
>> >
>> > "Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resources where I can
>> > verify this statement.
>>
>> http://marc.i
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:39 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
> > it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
> > validity of your statement.
>
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:31 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:24, Robert Cummings wrote:
> >
> > "Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resources where I can
> > verify this statement.
>
> http://marc.info/?t=10016019247&r=1&w=2
--
http://www.interji
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:34, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> He didn't say it had no insecurities... he said it's hard to believe
> it's "JUST AS insecure". Please provide factual sources to indicate the
> validity of your statement.
Counter: please provide factual sources that it's not, whilst
k
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 13:13 -0500, tedd wrote:
> At 10:10 AM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
> >
> > When a vast majority is controlled by a like-minded minority,
> >evolution and advancement will suffer.
>
> Ya think.
>
> I've been saying that for over 20 years.
>
> The problem is that th
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 12:54 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:38, Skip Evans wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I certainly wish there were more like you!
> >
> > If only that woman who lives down the block would give me the opportunity to
> > make her say that... *sigh*.
>
> Coincid
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 12:10 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:31, Skip Evans wrote:
> >
> > From my reading I get the impression that the above statement, "Linux is
> > just as susceptible to viruses, worms, and other malware", is inaccurate.
>
> Unfortunately, Skip, it's
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:21, tedd wrote:
>
> Of what is there to know?
> For what seems all, nothing;
> But the un-rung bell yearns to rung;
> If only to hear its tone;
> The tone of being understood.
>
> tedd-1967
So you don't just write in ones and zeroes after all. ;-P
I like it.
-
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:24, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> "Just as susceptible"?? Please refer me to some resources where I can
> verify this statement.
http://marc.info/?t=10016019247&r=1&w=2
--
daniel.br...@parasane.net || danbr...@php.net
http://www.parasane.net/ || http://www.pilotp
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 13:02, tedd wrote:
>
> Don't rely on your level of perception to determine IF software (they) have
> reached a level of cognition or not. It could be they simply have nothing to
> say to us or their level cognition is so foreign to us that we can't detect
> it.
I antici
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 10:10 -0500, Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 09:38, Allan Arguelles wrote:
> > I guess its these examples that remind us that we still need to look out
> > for ourselves. I got used to the idea that theres so little chance that
> > I'd be a target, as a linux use
At 12:54 PM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
That aside, best of luck. If loss is the most painful thing a
heart can endure, the yearning for opportunity is a very close second.
There you go again, making me all teary-eyed and stuff.
Of what is there to know?
For what seems all, nothing;
At 10:10 AM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
When a vast majority is controlled by a like-minded minority,
evolution and advancement will suffer.
Ya think.
I've been saying that for over 20 years.
The problem is that the majority, when in doubt, will follow the majority.
It's always a
At 12:10 PM -0500 1/8/09, Daniel Brown wrote:
Someday there will be a mathematical anomaly, I'm sure,
that will eventually lead to a level of cognition, but we're not there yet.
Don't rely on your level of perception to determine IF software
(they) have reached a level of cognition or not. It
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 12:38, Skip Evans wrote:
>
> But do you not think the permissions issues with who can run what on *nix
> versus XP makes it more secure?
For that and similar reasons, I compromise with the statement
that, by design, *NIX "has the potential" to be more secure, but my
ear
Daniel Brown wrote:
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:31, Skip Evans wrote:
From my reading I get the impression that the above statement, "Linux is
just as susceptible to viruses, worms, and other malware", is inaccurate.
Unfortunately, Skip, it's 100% accurate. No operating system is
completel
Hey Daniel,
It seems that most of your points of disagreement stem from the
potential for poor system administration by homo sapiens (and other
primates who might have access to a console), but I still think that
from a pure design and implementation perspective, *nix systems are more
secure
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 10:31, Skip Evans wrote:
>
> From my reading I get the impression that the above statement, "Linux is
> just as susceptible to viruses, worms, and other malware", is inaccurate.
Unfortunately, Skip, it's 100% accurate. No operating system is
completely secure, especial
Daniel Brown wrote:
In any case, as Nate R. mentioned, Linux is just as susceptible to
viruses, worms, and other malware. My belief is that it's not so much
an attack on an Evil Empire[TM] of software, but that, if BeOS or RISC
were the single-most popular operating systems in the world, Win
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 09:38, Allan Arguelles wrote:
> I guess its these examples that remind us that we still need to look out
> for ourselves. I got used to the idea that theres so little chance that
> I'd be a target, as a linux user, I've become less aware of these things.
Considering one
I guess its these examples that remind us that we still need to look out
for ourselves. I got used to the idea that theres so little chance that
I'd be a target, as a linux user, I've become less aware of these things.
Daniel Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:53, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 04:53, Robert Cummings wrote:
>
> In fact, since the only text in the message other than the stripped
> attachment is "Please read the document." I am led to strongly suspect
> that it was a virus. Additionally, the addition of a supposed anti-virus
> check is usually added
Carlos Medina wrote:
Allan Arguelles schrieb:
Yeah, I was reluctant to open the attachment, but then again I'm on
gentoo :)
I've forgotten about these "threats" eversince I switched over, didn't
even notice the bounced email(to the sender) as an indication.
-Allan
Robert Cummings wrote:
On
Allan Arguelles schrieb:
Yeah, I was reluctant to open the attachment, but then again I'm on
gentoo :)
I've forgotten about these "threats" eversince I switched over, didn't
even notice the bounced email(to the sender) as an indication.
-Allan
Robert Cummings wrote:
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 17:
1 - 100 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
