Post by thanatoidPost by 98 GuyWhy don't you tell me why? Because there's no garantee
that a google search will supply me with your reason why
you think this is a bad habit.
Again, genius, learn to post and quote properly. I did NOT say
the above, those are YOUR words. Learn to <snip>, too. Sheesh.
After how many years reading and posting to usenet, and you haven't
learned that a double-quote (as indicated by two or more ">" characters)
is an indication that the text in question is a quote from someone else
(usually the person you're having a conversation with). ?
In other words, the presence of a single ">" indicates your material
that I'm quoting, and a double ">" is my material posted previously.
That can be expanded: The presence of an odd number of ">" (1, 3, 5) is
probably your material, and an even number of ">" (2, 4, etc) is
probably mine.
Post by thanatoidPost by 98 GuyThis lack of conviction on your part completely undermines
your argument. Everyone else reading this realizes this.
You are assuming someone reads your trash,
Oh, you and I both know they are. And they know that the trash is
coming from you.
Post by thanatoidand that I care what people think of me.
I didn't say you did. That's for you to say.
I can just imagine what people think of you.
Post by thanatoidFew of the remaining few read your posts
There are far more who read these posts in silence, without posting
here, than you know.
Post by thanatoidand I could not care less what anyone thinks of me.
Because they think very little of you, because of how little you
contribute here, and the way that you contribute.
Post by thanatoidPost by 98 Guy"trust me, I'm saying it's so, but I'm too obstinate to say why"
No come-back for that line eh?
Post by thanatoidPost by 98 GuyThere's a difference between what you think, and what you
know.
Hmmm. The /knowledge/ may not be /correct/, but what one thinks
is usually closely related to what one knows.
And if the knowledge is not correct? What does that say about what you
think?
You claim to have knowledge about something, yet you will not state that
knowledge in your own words. Only to make a vaugue comment that this
knowledge can be found on google. And you do not even post a google
search URL, or even to give a precise search query that should be given
to Google to illustrate or reveal the source of your knowledge.
Post by thanatoidPost by 98 GuyMy browser (old, but still very functional in this day and
age - Firefox 2.0.0.20) will remember my username /
password, and in conjuction with the "remember me each time
I log in" setting on most web-forums, it means I'm
automatically logged in without having to type anything in
the minute I bring up the forum.
1.
It is not good to store your passwords in your browser, since
they are easily gotten at by malware.
If your computer becomes infected by something that can take control of
your system and investigate every file on it, then you've got much more
to worry about than whether or not your browser has been set to remember
user-name / password info for various web-sites.
In this regard, note the following:
- I would suppose that most hackers will not care about or make
effective use of user-name/password info for the vast majority of
websites that DO NOT contain visible user information such as real name,
address, or credit-card info. Many e-commerce websites do not show the
full credit-card number once you've entered it into your profile, so
anyone that manages to get into your on-line account would not be able
to get that info.
- If you limit your brower's ability to automatically log you in to
web-forums where you don't have any personal information stored in your
profile, then there is nothing that a hacker can do or gain if he gets
access to that account.
Post by thanatoid2.
It is not good to let sites store your pw since
Think carefully about that statement.
Any site where you can (or must) register a user-name/handle in
conjunction with a password will by necessity have to store your
username and password in order for the login facility for that site to
function.
Post by thanatoidWhile you did not explicitly say so, it is possible you use
the same u/pw on various sites which just compounds the problem.
Even if you don't, it's still a bad idea to let any machine
"remember you".
Again, there's a logical flaw in your argument.
Every computer that asks you for a username/password (even your own
physical computer) must store a local copy of that username/password (or
a hash of the password). Because if it doesn't, then please explain how
the login process works without such local storage.
And a website doesn't have to store your actual password. It's more
common that they store a hash of the password, and hashes can't easily
be reverse-engineered to reveal the actual password that could be used
on another website.
There is also a flaw in the basic premis that someone with the user-name
"Joe User" on the web-forum "computers.com" is the same "Joe User" on
the website "cars.com". Which means if the user data-base for
computers.com was hacked, that the password for "Joe User" on
computers.com wouldn't necessarily be the same as on the website
cars.com.
Post by thanatoid3.
Using FF2 is not a good idea since that version, unless a
shitload of tweaks and addons is applied, is not considered
much more secure than IE.
I'm not even aware of any tweaks or add-ons for the last version of FF2
designed specifically to cover any
so-called security vulnerabilities. I've never sought out or looked for
any such add-ons, and I've never experienced any successful malware
intrusion or exploitation on my win-98 systems while browsing some very
nasty websites using FF2.0.0.20.
IE6 (and it's various deeply-entrenched system files) had many
vulnerabilities that are really only experienced or workable on NT-based
computers. Analysis has shown time and time again that the patches and
fixes released by microsoft for IE6 up until July 2006 were for
vulnerabilities that did not exist in conjuction with windows 9x/me.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that IE6 was a good browser for
win-98. Early on it was just as good as any other browser at rendering
web-content, but it quickly became horrible in that regard and by 2005
anyone with half a brain should have been running firefox instead of IE6
on their win-9x machine based soley on the firefox's superior
web-compabitility and functionality.
You, like MEB, can falsely raise the spectre of win-98/FF2 vulnerability
or expoitability, but the truth is that that combination is highly
invulnerable to web exploitation.
Post by thanatoidI realize FF3 will not run on 98 (perhaps it does with KernelEx
Yes it does, as does Opera 11.01 (which I also use for a handful of
websites where some java or flash stuff doesn't work under FF2.0.0.20).
And yes, both require KernelEx.
Post by thanatoidbut I don't bother with that
As one would expect who keeps his head buried in the sane.
Post by thanatoidbut you might consider spending some time on learning how
to use Opera (up to 10 runs on 98, perhaps even one or two
later versions).
What's to learn?
Post by thanatoidNow leave me alone.
Here, let me help you pile this sand a little higher over your head...