child trailer

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:52:25 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

writes:

[snip]

Come to think of it, what should we call someone who finds a flaw in
a program that he dislikes and then deliberately booby-traps his
posts just to irritate other users and waste their time?

That is, how does David differ from a virus writer? True, he's
trivial, but the attitude is strikingly similar, isn't it?

No, a virus writer is doing something damaging to other people's
computers. David's exploitation of one of OE's many flaws does not
carry the same malicious intent. Whether it is appropriate or not is
a discussion I don't care to get into.

Dear Tim,

Hmmm . . . I think that your damage-distinction is promising
at first, but then there are plenty of well-meant programs
that damage computers through simple bugs.

And there are plenty of viruses that don't actually do much,
apart from displaying silly messages, producing email, and
wasting time.

Wouldn't "malice" be a fair description of David's intent?
He's deliberately adding a booby-trap to his posts to goof
up a popular program that he dislikes, but doesn't use--and
then boasting about it in reply to the nice people who
naturally thought that he was unware that his posts weren't
working.

Carl Fogel

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:20:43 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

wrote:

Where else can we find perfection married to such modesty?

A JB wheelset?

A ZK political rant?

A Jim Smith medical opinion?

A Jim Beam metallurgical missive?

A BP Houghton drool-cup?

A Bill Baka fairy tale?

OK, I'm done...

BS


I think you skipped "Bill Sornson sarcasm"...



Pat

Email address works as is.

Patrick Lamb wrote:
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 18:20:43 GMT, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

wrote:

Where else can we find perfection married to such modesty?

A JB wheelset?

A ZK political rant?

A Jim Smith medical opinion?

A Jim Beam metallurgical missive?

A BP Houghton drool-cup?

A Bill Baka fairy tale?

OK, I'm done...

BS


I think you skipped "Bill Sornson sarcasm"...

The correct Usenet word is "sarcams", but nice try.

8-)

"Bill Sornson" writes:

wrote:

Where else can we find perfection married to such modesty?

A JB wheelset?

A ZK political rant?

A Jim Smith medical opinion?

A Jim Beam metallurgical missive?

A BP Houghton drool-cup?

A Bill Baka fairy tale?

OK, I'm done...


Someone got a tainted piece of hippo.

dynohubbill wrote:

What we did to address this was to place a small cushion behind the
child's back so that there was space between the helmet and back of the
seat. It would be better if this cushion were made integral with the
seat as potentially the loose cushion could slide out from behind their
back and then the harness would be loose.
Anyone at Burley or Trek listening?

The newer Burley D'lite's supposedly have addressed this problem, but
the cushion works good on the older ones.

I normally just didn't have the child wear a helmet in the trailer. It's
illegal, but I didn't see the need for it. The helmet fanatics may claim
that a helmet is necessary even in a trailer, but with a trailer that
has a harness ,and is difficult to turn over, I don’t see the need. I
remember my sister-in-law using my trailer and her turning it on it’s
side. Her kid was strapped in and was just sitting there sideways, held
in by the harness, not crying.

Steve
http://bicyclelighting.com

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:52:25 -0600, Tim McNamara
wrote:

There is no way to say this without sounding snide, and I hope that I
do not actually mean to be snide when I say: that's why I use an
operating system other than Windows, have never owned a Windows
computer and never will. Windows is not an operating system, it is a
security risk.

While I'm a user of Window XP, I'm certainly not a Microsoft
apologist; but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks
like a duck...

As a former developer of operating systems, to me Windows XP displays
all the symptoms. :-)


jeverett3ATearthlinkDOTnet http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

There is no way to say this without sounding snide, and I hope that
I
do not actually mean to be snide when I say: that's why I use an
operating system other than Windows, have never owned a Windows
computer and never will. Windows is not an operating system, it is
a
security risk.

While I'm a user of Window XP, I'm certainly not a Microsoft
apologist; but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks
like a duck...

As a former developer of operating systems, to me Windows XP displays
all the symptoms. :-)


Also, whatever OS Tim is using is also a security risk. Just not one
currently targeted en masse by h@xor5.

writes:

There is no way to say this without sounding snide, and I hope
that
I
do not actually mean to be snide when I say: that's why I use an
operating system other than Windows, have never owned a Windows
computer and never will. Windows is not an operating system, it
is a security risk.

While I'm a user of Window XP, I'm certainly not a Microsoft
apologist; but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and
quacks like a duck...

As a former developer of operating systems, to me Windows XP
displays all the symptoms. :-)

Also, whatever OS Tim is using is also a security risk. Just not
one currently targeted en masse by h@xor5.

Not the wide open hopeless mess that Redmond's finest have foisted off
on an unsuspecting public, with major security flaws in every
application as well as the OS itself. Some of the applications have
security flaws that are problematic even when their software is run in
a non-Windows OS! The lame claim that Microsoft's market share is the
reason it's targeted is bull****- it's targeted because it's easy.

My OS is not targeted mainly because it's far more secure and the
warez kiddies aren't smart enough to figure it out (and the serious
people have better things to do). There's an installed user base in
the tens of millions.

BTW there have been several thousand attempts made on my computer over
the past four years that it's been serving Web pages. My firewall and
NIDS track it all and thus far have provided complete security.
However, putting it behind another router, which was done to share my
Internet connection with my home LAN, seems to have stopped most of
the attempts in their tracks as they are on closed ports that are not
forwarded. The only attempts that get through now are on port 80, of
course, as it's the only open port on the computer and the only NAT
forwarded port through the router.


Of course, this is always a moving target, and today's secure OS may
be ripped wide open tomorrow.