Re: OT Warning the bin laden suicide link is a virus

In article <[email protected]>, Craig
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I downloaded it and checked it

Seriously, WHY?

In article <[email protected]>, Tom Veatch
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Intresting sidenote is that the only restriction on Canadian citizens was
> that we couldn't let them read anything about firearm
> technology. We simulated bird strikes on aircraft windshields by firing dead
> chickens at the test articles. We couldn't allow
> Canadians to have access to any reports that would give away our "Chicken
> Cannon" technology.

Well, that would have helped us in rapid deployment of our "Prairie
Chicken" cannon, so I can understand the concern...

djb

On 24 Jul 2004 07:00:20 -0700, scarfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> There's another one saying Arnold Schwarzeneggar committed suicide.
> Same virus, probably. Don't post links to it, and don't click on
> anything that says it's a 'zip' or 'exe' file. A picture isn't going to
> be either of these.

Some news/mail tools (Outlook Express for one) will only display
the _first_ extension in a filename, so you could have a file called:
family.jpg .exe which would be executable,
but OE would only display it as "family.jpg". It won't show the extra
spaces and the _real_ extension, the one your system looks at when
deciding if it is an executable file.

Scan that stuff & keep your windows update up to date. Or, buy a Mac
and laugh at all of it.

Dave "Bet you can guess which approach I use" Hinz

On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 23:50:00 -0400, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>>
>> Scan that stuff & keep your windows update up to date. Or, buy a Mac
>> and laugh at all of it.
>
> Windows isn't the issue. IE, OE, and their ilk Are.
> Use alternative software (Opera, Gravity, Eudora, Open
> Office, etc.) and laugh at all of it.

Well, that'll fix most of it, but the ports that MS leaves open by
default are still there, even if the applications aren't. Many of the
more recent exploits go after open ports, even if there isn't an MS app
behind that port. A firewall, of course, is one way to fix that. But
yes, most malware is written for the MS products built into windows.

On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:46:53 +0000 (UTC), Henry E Schaffer <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>Well, that'll fix most of it, but the ports that MS leaves open by
>>default are still there, even if the applications aren't.
>
> AFAIK there are also some basic "features" (flaws) built into the the
> Windows architecture which help destroy security. This is apparently
> what the "cross domain exploits" use - the ability to have outside
> software cause itself to be executed.

Yup.

> Fact: Since the Windows OS is *so* popular, it has captured the
> attention of the malware writers/perpetrators. Therefore it makes the
> other OS's seem more secure than they would be with the same amount of
> attack.

Well, I don't see it that way. To attack a system you need motivation,
_and_ opportunity. There has to be a weakness to attack, not just a
desire to do so.

> Opinion: Even if the other OS's (Mac OS, Linux, Unix) were subjected to
> the same amount of attack, they wouldn't be nearly as susceptable.

OK, we are on the same page after all. Because of the inherent differences
between Windows and, well, every other OS on the market today,
Windows is an easy target. The fundamental problem is that Windows
treats every user as an administrator, letting user processes interfere
with the OS's internals. No other OS gives the users that level of
trust, and it's that lack of distinction between "user" and "system"
that makes fixing Windows security an uphill (and unwinnable?) battle.

Until they do a total rewrite, isolating the system from actions of the
users, it'll never be better. Of course, this will break legacy apps,
so there's going to be pain & gnashing of teeth either way. There's
an easy solution, though...

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:12:58 GMT, Howard <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Scan that stuff & keep your windows update up to date. Or, buy a Mac
>>and laugh at all of it.
>
> Or run Linux.

Yup, that too. Also not impressed by the virus & worm of the week,
for pretty much the same reasons.

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>Scan that stuff & keep your windows update up to date. Or, buy a Mac
>and laugh at all of it.

Or run Linux.

---
Howard Lee Harkness
General insurance information: http://www.HLHins.com
Insurance for H1-Bs: http://www.H1Bins.com
Healthcare for the uninsurable: http://www.AFFHC.com

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:06:23 -0700, Craig <[email protected]>
wrote:

>One of my favorites was a cousin-in-law who was constantly sending me
>religious and right wing crap warning about all sorts of things. I had
>already suggested that forwarding all that bogus BS was good way to set
>up folks with habit to open things they should not open. - Then she sent
>me a thing warning about all the people who died in relation to Clinton.
>- I forget at the moment the name of the self executing virus that it
>contained - one of them things that OE likes to execute when one just
>opens to read the email. - Okay? I had myself well enough protected from
>such crap and sent her a bit of more firm telling her what-for and that
>she probably did manage to infect a number of folks she sent it to. - I
>guess she just took offense that I was trying to interfere with her
>religious mission. I would like to think that she might have passed on
>what I sent her to tell the folks she had sent the thing to of how to
>disinfect what she caused. I doubt it though. We are not on speaking
>terms anymore though.



wow... you're related to her too?

OK WHO FARTED?!

<grin>

"Tom Veatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:45:36 -0700, Craig <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > ?? - Maybe I ought to unsubscribe from this group. I don't think I got
> >a lot to offer that would be on topic.
> > LOL - but I could have told some person to sharpen his plane as well as
> >anyone else suggested. But maybe there is wood that it is particular
> >difficult to plane end grain - ?? - balsa? Never tried to plane end of
> >balsa. But now I wonder where my planes might be. - Got some neat ones
> >that are older than me. ;-)
> > Whatever - have a nice day. ;-)
>
>
> Thinking back over my posting history, most of my ramblings probably don't
have much to do with shaping wood. A big reason for that
> is that most on-topic posts have several replys by the time I see them.
And most of those that don't already have a reply are about
> something that I either know nothing about or is a question for which I
have no answer. And, since I see little reason to post "me
> too" replys in the one case, or "Gee, I don't know. Maybe somebody else
will give you an answer." in the other case, I remain silent
> in that thread.
>
> What gets me is the ambivalence about OT posts. Some folks seem to feel,
or speak as if they feel, this environment is essentially a
> formal meeting of a chartered organization with by-laws, an agenda, rules
of order, etc. and off-agenda business is frowned-on, to
> say the least.
>
> However, it seems to me that this group is more like a bunch of people
with a common interest getting together at the local diner
> for a cup of coffee. How many times have you had an informal cup of coffee
with a group of friends and been able, or even wanted,
> to keep the conversation to a single topic, no matter how loosely that
topic is defined.
>
> The conversation ebbs and flows, backs and veers, gee's and haw's in
whatever direction fancy takes it. Others pick it up and
> redirect it with a little different spin. It's just like the conversation
around the table at the diner. How many of the coffee
> drinkers would order a second cup and continue to hang out if they had to
restrain their conversation strictly to the common
> interest that brought them together. Does that group of truckers over
there talk about nothing but matters of interstate commerce?
> I'm sure a lot of their conversation does involve road conditions,
traffic, law enforcement, and other matters directly bearing on
> the business at hand. That, after all, is what brought them together. But,
I'll bet that's not the only subject discussed.
>
> And I think that is a healthy sign - both for the newsgroup, and for the
coffee klatch at the local diner.
>
>
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

>
> Scan that stuff & keep your windows update up to date. Or, buy a Mac
> and laugh at all of it.

Windows isn't the issue. IE, OE, and their ilk Are.

Use alternative software (Opera, Gravity, Eudora, Open
Office, etc.) and laugh at all of it.


--
Mark

The truth as I perceive it to be.
Your perception may be different.

Triple Z is spam control.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Dave Balderstone wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Craig
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I downloaded it and checked it
> >
> >
> > Seriously, WHY?
>
>
> Because I could.
> It was before other folks had done the same thing and posted what virus
> it was.
> I am a testy sort.
> etc.
>
>
Sounds like my 3 year old nephew, who just HAD to touch the stove even
after he was told it was hot.

Sorry Craig - but "because I could" is just plain silly when you don't
know who is sending file attachments.
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

In article <[email protected]>,
Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 23:50:00 -0400, Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>> ...
>> Windows isn't the issue. IE, OE, and their ilk Are.
>> Use alternative software (Opera, Gravity, Eudora, Open
>> Office, etc.) and laugh at all of it.
>
>Well, that'll fix most of it, but the ports that MS leaves open by
>default are still there, even if the applications aren't. Many of the
>more recent exploits go after open ports, even if there isn't an MS app
>behind that port. A firewall, of course, is one way to fix that. But
>yes, most malware is written for the MS products built into windows.

AFAIK there are also some basic "features" (flaws) built into the the
Windows architecture which help destroy security. This is apparently
what the "cross domain exploits" use - the ability to have outside
software cause itself to be executed. Some of this uses the .dll files
associated with IE - and so it may not make any difference if you are
using another browser. While this may be associated with IE, it appears
to go deeper into the actual OS.

I'll go a bit further - mixing fact and opinion.

Fact: Since the Windows OS is *so* popular, it has captured the
attention of the malware writers/perpetrators. Therefore it makes the
other OS's seem more secure than they would be with the same amount of
attack.

Opinion: Even if the other OS's (Mac OS, Linux, Unix) were subjected to
the same amount of attack, they wouldn't be nearly as susceptable.
--
--henry schaffer
hes _AT_ ncsu _DOT_ edu

Mark wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>>Scan that stuff & keep your windows update up to date. Or, buy a Mac
>>and laugh at all of it.
>
>
> Windows isn't the issue. IE, OE, and their ilk Are.
>
> Use alternative software (Opera, Gravity, Eudora, Open
> Office, etc.) and laugh at all of it.
>
>

Actually - that thing had a downloadable .zip. If someone DL'ed it and
unzipped and executed the .exe it would make no difference what browser.
I downloaded it and checked it with Norton and nothing. So I even
unzipped it. Then Panda was the first online virus check site I ran onto
and that removed the .zip and the .exe and a bunch of virus and EICAR
that I had stored in some email.
So I dumped Norton and got the year free of Panda.
LOL - before I installed Panda I had dowloaded another copy of that
Osama thing. Thought I would copy it to my collection. I didn't even set
Panda to do a scan but it found and deleted the thing the day after I'd
installed Panda anyway. - Oh well. - If I need a new and up to date
virus to test AV I guess a free online email is good to get such.
www.teamsatan.com is a free online email that does not scan emails.
Another virus comes to that account every day or two.

--
We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
might try to disrupt the democratic process.

Dave Hinz wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Jul 2004 19:46:53 +0000 (UTC), Henry E Schaffer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Well, that'll fix most of it, but the ports that MS leaves open by
>>>default are still there, even if the applications aren't.
>>
>> AFAIK there are also some basic "features" (flaws) built into the the
>>Windows architecture which help destroy security. This is apparently
>>what the "cross domain exploits" use - the ability to have outside
>>software cause itself to be executed.
>
>
> Yup.
>
>
>>Fact: Since the Windows OS is *so* popular, it has captured the
>>attention of the malware writers/perpetrators. Therefore it makes the
>>other OS's seem more secure than they would be with the same amount of
>>attack.
>
>
> Well, I don't see it that way. To attack a system you need motivation,
> _and_ opportunity. There has to be a weakness to attack, not just a
> desire to do so.
>
>
>>Opinion: Even if the other OS's (Mac OS, Linux, Unix) were subjected to
>>the same amount of attack, they wouldn't be nearly as susceptable.
>
>
> OK, we are on the same page after all. Because of the inherent differences
> between Windows and, well, every other OS on the market today,
> Windows is an easy target. The fundamental problem is that Windows
> treats every user as an administrator, letting user processes interfere
> with the OS's internals. No other OS gives the users that level of
> trust, and it's that lack of distinction between "user" and "system"
> that makes fixing Windows security an uphill (and unwinnable?) battle.
>
> Until they do a total rewrite, isolating the system from actions of the
> users, it'll never be better. Of course, this will break legacy apps,
> so there's going to be pain & gnashing of teeth either way. There's
> an easy solution, though...
>

Much of it is that Windows is the way most used so that is the way most
popular target of the malware people.
I have a collection of a dozen or so virus and variants that all came
to email when I was using OE. Only time I ever got infected was back
when Happy 99 was new and I was new to computer.
LOL - I even got into a bit of a row with an "expert" over that one. He
claimed that only way to delete one file of Happy99 was to do it in DOS.
- Since I had not known that one could not do that I had done it a
number of times - (I thought it interesting since I was new to stuff so
I executed the thing a few times for sport).
XP has its 'administrator'. I don't see use in it though. I wold
probably take a few tried to even remember what my password might be if
I did want to sign on as administrator.
I would think that if Linux manages to become greatly popular there
will be malicious folks who would think they could do worthwhile enough
damage to feed and ego and would gleefully set to writing malware for that.

--
We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
might try to disrupt the democratic process.

Dave Balderstone wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Craig
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> I downloaded it and checked it
>
>
> Seriously, WHY?


Because I could.
It was before other folks had done the same thing and posted what virus
it was.
I am a testy sort.
etc.

--
We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
might try to disrupt the democratic process.

Rick Chamberlain wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
>>Dave Balderstone wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Craig
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I downloaded it and checked it
>>>
>>>
>>>Seriously, WHY?
>>
>>
>> Because I could.
>> It was before other folks had done the same thing and posted what virus
>>it was.
>> I am a testy sort.
>> etc.
>>
>>
>
> Sounds like my 3 year old nephew, who just HAD to touch the stove even
> after he was told it was hot.

Sounds like you are more into being a smart ass than into learning
anything.



>
> Sorry Craig - but "because I could" is just plain silly when you don't
> know who is sending file attachments.

Why do you center on only one of the reasons I mentioned?
It was not a file attachment - it was a .zip download.
While I know a bit of what I can safely do I can see that you are one
who had best follow 'safe hex' to the letter and have fits warning other
folks to not do what frightens you.
Attachments? - Not a good idea to click to execute an executable
attachment even if you do know who is sending it. They might not have
known they sent it. If I get such an attachment from someone I just save
it to a 'quarantine' folder and look it over with AV and then ask the
person if they did send it on purpose - most often I tell them to not
send executable attachments - or, depending on what I think of their
computer knowledge, I might tell them they should not send attachments
at all.
LOL - I have wound up pissing off some folks about that such that they
don't even email me anymore. ;-)
One of my favorites was a cousin-in-law who was constantly sending me
religious and right wing crap warning about all sorts of things. I had
already suggested that forwarding all that bogus BS was good way to set
up folks with habit to open things they should not open. - Then she sent
me a thing warning about all the people who died in relation to Clinton.
- I forget at the moment the name of the self executing virus that it
contained - one of them things that OE likes to execute when one just
opens to read the email. - Okay? I had myself well enough protected from
such crap and sent her a bit of more firm telling her what-for and that
she probably did manage to infect a number of folks she sent it to. - I
guess she just took offense that I was trying to interfere with her
religious mission. I would like to think that she might have passed on
what I sent her to tell the folks she had sent the thing to of how to
disinfect what she caused. I doubt it though. We are not on speaking
terms anymore though.
Them Midwest relatives don't much take my advice. One of my aunts just
spent $140.00 to get her computer de-virused and repaired. - She could
have come out $$ ahead by mailing me the whole computer and postage to
return the thing.

Anyway - when a new thing comes along I am one to test my AV against
it. There have been some things I transfer over to my 'testy' extra
computer to meddle with.
Downloading a .zip cannot hurt you. Then one can look into it to see
what is there. It is safer than snake handling if one knows what he is
about and knows his limitations.
Bottom line for me is that I found that Norton had not offered update
in two days to deal with the thing and since I was generally not all
that happy with Norton anyway it I got me a different AV to try out.

The AV is not my first line of defense against virus but I like to have
something that keeps up anyway.

--
We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
might try to disrupt the democratic process.

[email protected] wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:06:23 -0700, Craig <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>One of my favorites was a cousin-in-law who was constantly sending me
>>religious and right wing crap warning about all sorts of things. I had
>>already suggested that forwarding all that bogus BS was good way to set
>>up folks with habit to open things they should not open. - Then she sent
>>me a thing warning about all the people who died in relation to Clinton.
>>- I forget at the moment the name of the self executing virus that it
>>contained - one of them things that OE likes to execute when one just
>>opens to read the email. - Okay? I had myself well enough protected from
>>such crap and sent her a bit of more firm telling her what-for and that
>>she probably did manage to infect a number of folks she sent it to. - I
>>guess she just took offense that I was trying to interfere with her
>>religious mission. I would like to think that she might have passed on
>>what I sent her to tell the folks she had sent the thing to of how to
>>disinfect what she caused. I doubt it though. We are not on speaking
>>terms anymore though.
>
>
>
>
> wow... you're related to her too?

Yea - seems so. She comes in many incarnations.
You are no longer on speaking terms either? ;-)
www.snopes.com is their enemy - as most of them political and religious
*amazing facts and warnings* have entry or will have soon enough.

Anyway - forward this to everyone you know. If you break the chain God
will kill a kitten.

--
We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
might try to disrupt the democratic process.

Tom Veatch wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:06:23 -0700, Craig <[email protected]>
> wrote: <snip>
>>We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
>>might try to disrupt the democratic process.
>
> Craig, your sig line plus the overall theme of this thread reminds me of a
> time about four years ago when some malware was released into the wild
> which had the effect of bringing Exchange Server to its knees. Our
> corporate email system was Exchange Server, and our IT department decided
> there was some small chance that our network could become infected.
>
> Should the worst happen, it could cause our email system to become
> unusable. An unusable email system was unthinkable. To prevent the
> occurrence of the unthinkable, the system administrators shut down
> exchange server until effective AV measures could be developed. Natually,
> that made our email system unusable. Who needs a virus? A good virus
> warning can have the same effect..
>
> That was the same network administration from whom I requested assistance
> in setting up security procedures so that we could be in compliance with
> technology export restrictions. (We had some foreign national employees
> that could not read the reports that they themselves wrote without
> violating those export restrictions. I guess we were supposed to make them
> wear blindfolds while they wrote the reports.) The security administrator
> emailed me wanting to know why I thought the network security
> administration should be involved with restricting access to information
> on the company intranet .
>
> I retired shortly thereafter.
>
> Just today I received an email from a former subordinate who told me that
> now, three years after my initial request, procedures have been
> implemented to identify and restrict the access of Foreign National
> employees. IT must have finally finished the requisite rounds of meetings
> and searches for 3rd party software.
>
> Intresting sidenote is that the only restriction on Canadian citizens was
> that we couldn't let them read anything about firearm
> technology. We simulated bird strikes on aircraft windshields by firing
> dead chickens at the test articles. We couldn't allow Canadians to have
> access to any reports that would give away our "Chicken Cannon"
> technology.

Geez, British Aerospace and Dowty both have their own perfectly satisfactory
chicken cannons so why would the Canadians want to know about American
chicken cannons. Now the turkey cannon on the other hand . . .

> Gee, I love retirement!!!!
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

> Craig <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Much of it is that Windows is the way most used so that is the way most
>>popular target of the malware people.
>
>
> 'Much', OK.
>
> But it remains the case that 'features' were designed into windows that
> were obvious security problems from the moment of inception. Not so
> with other OSs or software.
>

I've seen folks to differ with that. - I dunno. It was some Linux folks
some time back discussing the topic. Some had opinion that one major
reason that there was not a lot of Linux malware to go about was that it
was not as much fun to attack what would not cause as much widespread
mischief. - I don't recall a lot of what they was going on about - it
was some years ago. Some opinions was that the malware writers do it for
ego and ego is fed by large visible results.

LOL - I don't need malware to mess me up with Linux. I manage that
pretty well on my own. ;-| I had it installed once and messed it up.
Tried to reinstall but it is kind of tricky to install after XP is in. -
I only made halfhearted try to follow some instructions though. I was
needing the HD space for other stuff.

But bottom line is that I don't know much about it. Just some have
claimed that other OS could well be more or less as vulnerable.

--
We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
might try to disrupt the democratic process.

Tom Veatch wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:06:23 -0700, Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
>>might try to disrupt the democratic process.
>
>
> Craig, your sig line plus the overall theme of this thread reminds me of a time about four years ago when some malware was released
> into the wild which had the effect of bringing Exchange Server to its knees. Our corporate email system was Exchange Server, and our
> IT department decided there was some small chance that our network could become infected.
>
> Should the worst happen, it could cause our email system to become unusable. An unusable email system was unthinkable. To prevent
> the occurrence of the unthinkable, the system administrators shut down exchange server until effective AV measures could be
> developed. Natually, that made our email system unusable. Who needs a virus? A good virus warning can have the same effect..
>
> That was the same network administration from whom I requested assistance in setting up security procedures so that we could be in
> compliance with technology export restrictions. (We had some foreign national employees that could not read the reports that they
> themselves wrote without violating those export restrictions. I guess we were supposed to make them wear blindfolds while they wrote
> the reports.) The security administrator emailed me wanting to know why I thought the network security administration should be
> involved with restricting access to information on the company intranet .
>
> I retired shortly thereafter.
>
> Just today I received an email from a former subordinate who told me that now, three years after my initial request, procedures
> have been implemented to identify and restrict the access of Foreign National employees. IT must have finally finished the requisite
> rounds of meetings and searches for 3rd party software.
>
> Intresting sidenote is that the only restriction on Canadian citizens was that we couldn't let them read anything about firearm
> technology. We simulated bird strikes on aircraft windshields by firing dead chickens at the test articles. We couldn't allow
> Canadians to have access to any reports that would give away our "Chicken Cannon" technology.
>
> Gee, I love retirement!!!!
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA

Yea - I particularly liked that remark when I saw it. I changed the
wording from who said it - so I don't attribute it. I thought it well
stated a thing that I have often found absurd about some folks who would
save a thing for emergency or some such. There would never ever be
emergency enough to use the saved thing though.

I recall something about that shooting chickens or geese at something.
Some animal rights folks were going ballistic, as some of them folks is
wont to do. Maybe animals have right to not have their corpses
desecrated? - I dunno.
I am certainly one to oppose causing some critter to suffer and figure
that women could as well experiment with their cosmetics on their own
faces rather than to burn some critters eyes out to see how much it
takes to do harm - or whatever that is about.
Ha! - Seen where some of them animal rights folk spray paint some rich
b**** fur coat. - What does that accomplish but the rich b**** goes and
buys a new fur coat?

Oh well, - absurd stuff - gotta love it.

?? - Maybe I ought to unsubscribe from this group. I don't think I got
a lot to offer that would be on topic.
LOL - but I could have told some person to sharpen his plane as well as
anyone else suggested. But maybe there is wood that it is particular
difficult to plane end grain - ?? - balsa? Never tried to plane end of
balsa. But now I wonder where my planes might be. - Got some neat ones
that are older than me. ;-)
Whatever - have a nice day. ;-)

--
We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
might try to disrupt the democratic process.

Tom Veatch wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 05:52:31 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Geez, British Aerospace and Dowty both have their own perfectly satisfactory
>>chicken cannons so why would the Canadians want to know about American
>>chicken cannons. Now the turkey cannon on the other hand . . .
>>
>
>
> Now, John, remember we are referring to governmental regulations. Don't go trying to bring logic and reason into the discussion.
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA

Seen one @#$%^& government you seen them all - just some are worse.

--
We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
might try to disrupt the democratic process.

Tom Veatch wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:45:36 -0700, Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> ?? - Maybe I ought to unsubscribe from this group. I don't think I got
>>a lot to offer that would be on topic.
>> LOL - but I could have told some person to sharpen his plane as well as
>>anyone else suggested. But maybe there is wood that it is particular
>>difficult to plane end grain - ?? - balsa? Never tried to plane end of
>>balsa. But now I wonder where my planes might be. - Got some neat ones
>>that are older than me. ;-)
>> Whatever - have a nice day. ;-)
>
>
>
> Thinking back over my posting history, most of my ramblings probably don't have much to do with shaping wood. A big reason for that
> is that most on-topic posts have several replys by the time I see them. And most of those that don't already have a reply are about
> something that I either know nothing about or is a question for which I have no answer. And, since I see little reason to post "me
> too" replys in the one case, or "Gee, I don't know. Maybe somebody else will give you an answer." in the other case, I remain silent
> in that thread.
>
> What gets me is the ambivalence about OT posts. Some folks seem to feel, or speak as if they feel, this environment is essentially a
> formal meeting of a chartered organization with by-laws, an agenda, rules of order, etc. and off-agenda business is frowned-on, to
> say the least.
>
> However, it seems to me that this group is more like a bunch of people with a common interest getting together at the local diner
> for a cup of coffee. How many times have you had an informal cup of coffee with a group of friends and been able, or even wanted,
> to keep the conversation to a single topic, no matter how loosely that topic is defined.
>
> The conversation ebbs and flows, backs and veers, gee's and haw's in whatever direction fancy takes it. Others pick it up and
> redirect it with a little different spin. It's just like the conversation around the table at the diner. How many of the coffee
> drinkers would order a second cup and continue to hang out if they had to restrain their conversation strictly to the common
> interest that brought them together. Does that group of truckers over there talk about nothing but matters of interstate commerce?
> I'm sure a lot of their conversation does involve road conditions, traffic, law enforcement, and other matters directly bearing on
> the business at hand. That, after all, is what brought them together. But, I'll bet that's not the only subject discussed.
>
> And I think that is a healthy sign - both for the newsgroup, and for the coffee klatch at the local diner.
>
>
>
> Tom Veatch
> Wichita, KS USA

LOL - I guess that one public forum is as good as another to talk on
topic or not.
A place I frequent most is a private server that only had four groups.
- 199.0.155.22 (= news.securecomp.org I think it the name of it. Been
using the number for so long I forget for sure.) - One group for more or
less technical stuff and one for more or less 'let your hair down' jokes
and generally light stuff and one for politics and get-in-your-face stuff.
I dunno what the fourth group is really about. There is not a lot of
posting to it and I rarely even look at it.
Feel free to check it out - and especially in "The Table" don't even
feel need to lurk before jumping right in to tell someone what an
asshole you might think they are.
Is funny that folks, for the most part, manage to keep the greater
amount of personal insult to the one group - TheTable. Is funny that I
don't feel such urge to invite some of the more uppity assholes in that
group to step out to the parking lot as I do toward some of the smart
asses in this or some Usenet group in general.
Most of what carpentry is to me is to either be building a building or
to be sticking some boards together for some work table or some such. -
Woodworking, to me, is maybe making handles for knife or some such as I
might think of an accessory to some metalwork I might do.

Had to stop and recall why I even posted to this place to begin with. -
Yea! My novel seeming experience with that Handyman Club of America.
Google had indicated this was place where a few folks had some to-do
with them and I wondered if anyone had any similar to the silliness they
have treated me.
Some assholes felt some need to get all uppity personal about it. -
Then I saw that thread about the virus and posted some of my
observations about that and some assholes felt need to get arrogant
personal about that.
Hell, I just got some couple firewood sized pieces of black walnut that
has about two inch of black in the core and I figure to saw it to some
size that might fit in baking bag to do a "quick cure" in a microwave. -
Maybe some local asshole would come up with something about that to
claim a personality flaw - ?? - '-)
LOL - It is a pretty nice tree but it dropped a limb recently. I have
wondered if the mistletoe is so thick that it might do it in eventually
- well, the shit is so thick it looks near to a leafed out tree in the
winter. - Bugger is over three foot diameter at the base and I have had
fantasy about what a lot of neat lumber it would make - but then I am
just shy of sixty and by time one could to 'natural' cure on that size
of thing my carcass would likely be reduced beyond stinking even.

So - carpentry, to me, is pretty much sticking wood together for some
use or other and I pretty much know what I am about with that. Gimme a
hammer and a square and a saw and I could build a building well enough I
suppose.
Woodworking is something of a jewelry sort of approach. I might make a
miniature chess board from piano keys or I might make little Osage table
from some hedgeapple that I rescued from someones stack of firewood.
Maybe someone knows some "quick cure" better than what I have meddled
around to accomplish in a microwave. - About as likely that some asshole
would want to argue about it. - Seems every group might have that
resident sort whether or not the smart ass has any expertise in relation
to the topic at hand.
Fanciest finishing I get into is to sand some wood and then well wet it
with some water I have filtered through wood ashes. Then dry it and sand
the beard and wet it again and sand ... etc until wetting it does not
raise beard anymore. - Then varnish it with a rag wetted with spar
varnish and linseed oil (about 25/75% or whatever quick pour of one into
the other might strike me as close enough at the moment)

Maybe I should lurk and see what folks is generally about in this
group. I have only read a few things that caught my eye - and that has
been OT for the group pretty much so far. There is the thread I started
about the Handy'...Club ... and this one about that virus thing.
What especially caught my attention about the virus thing was that it
was so soon after some spam/troll that had been being xposted to
multitudes of groups just recent. - Something about that struck me as
having more nuisance potential than the "hipcrime", NewsAgent, sporge
attacks that was making some groups near to unreadable some time back.
I forget the name of the asshole who got bitchy at me about downloading
some virus for study. I wonder if he is a local boy of general renown
and respect because he knows his woodwork even if he is a stupid ass
about other things.

Oh well, I could go on and on. I am a person with way more free time to
waste than anyone really ought to have. - There is other places and
Republicans who need to be irritated though. In spit of some assholes
who accused that I came to troll I do my trolling in other forums than
this sort. - LOL - Seemed to me that the accuser is a groups resident
troll. ;-)


--
We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
might try to disrupt the democratic process.

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 23:45:36 -0700, Craig <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>

>
> ?? - Maybe I ought to unsubscribe from this group. I don't think I got
>a lot to offer that would be on topic.
> LOL - but I could have told some person to sharpen his plane as well as
>anyone else suggested. But maybe there is wood that it is particular
>difficult to plane end grain - ?? - balsa? Never tried to plane end of
>balsa. But now I wonder where my planes might be. - Got some neat ones
>that are older than me. ;-)
> Whatever - have a nice day. ;-)


Thinking back over my posting history, most of my ramblings probably don't have much to do with shaping wood. A big reason for that
is that most on-topic posts have several replys by the time I see them. And most of those that don't already have a reply are about
something that I either know nothing about or is a question for which I have no answer. And, since I see little reason to post "me
too" replys in the one case, or "Gee, I don't know. Maybe somebody else will give you an answer." in the other case, I remain silent
in that thread.

What gets me is the ambivalence about OT posts. Some folks seem to feel, or speak as if they feel, this environment is essentially a
formal meeting of a chartered organization with by-laws, an agenda, rules of order, etc. and off-agenda business is frowned-on, to
say the least.

However, it seems to me that this group is more like a bunch of people with a common interest getting together at the local diner
for a cup of coffee. How many times have you had an informal cup of coffee with a group of friends and been able, or even wanted,
to keep the conversation to a single topic, no matter how loosely that topic is defined.

The conversation ebbs and flows, backs and veers, gee's and haw's in whatever direction fancy takes it. Others pick it up and
redirect it with a little different spin. It's just like the conversation around the table at the diner. How many of the coffee
drinkers would order a second cup and continue to hang out if they had to restrain their conversation strictly to the common
interest that brought them together. Does that group of truckers over there talk about nothing but matters of interstate commerce?
I'm sure a lot of their conversation does involve road conditions, traffic, law enforcement, and other matters directly bearing on
the business at hand. That, after all, is what brought them together. But, I'll bet that's not the only subject discussed.

And I think that is a healthy sign - both for the newsgroup, and for the coffee klatch at the local diner.



Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

Craig <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Much of it is that Windows is the way most used so that is the way most
> popular target of the malware people.

'Much', OK.

But it remains the case that 'features' were designed into windows that
were obvious security problems from the moment of inception. Not so
with other OSs or software.

--

FF

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:06:23 -0700, Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip>
>We might have to disrupt the democratic process because the terrorists
>might try to disrupt the democratic process.

Craig, your sig line plus the overall theme of this thread reminds me of a time about four years ago when some malware was released
into the wild which had the effect of bringing Exchange Server to its knees. Our corporate email system was Exchange Server, and our
IT department decided there was some small chance that our network could become infected.

Should the worst happen, it could cause our email system to become unusable. An unusable email system was unthinkable. To prevent
the occurrence of the unthinkable, the system administrators shut down exchange server until effective AV measures could be
developed. Natually, that made our email system unusable. Who needs a virus? A good virus warning can have the same effect..

That was the same network administration from whom I requested assistance in setting up security procedures so that we could be in
compliance with technology export restrictions. (We had some foreign national employees that could not read the reports that they
themselves wrote without violating those export restrictions. I guess we were supposed to make them wear blindfolds while they wrote
the reports.) The security administrator emailed me wanting to know why I thought the network security administration should be
involved with restricting access to information on the company intranet .

I retired shortly thereafter.

Just today I received an email from a former subordinate who told me that now, three years after my initial request, procedures
have been implemented to identify and restrict the access of Foreign National employees. IT must have finally finished the requisite
rounds of meetings and searches for 3rd party software.

Intresting sidenote is that the only restriction on Canadian citizens was that we couldn't let them read anything about firearm
technology. We simulated bird strikes on aircraft windshields by firing dead chickens at the test articles. We couldn't allow
Canadians to have access to any reports that would give away our "Chicken Cannon" technology.

Gee, I love retirement!!!!

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 05:52:31 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Geez, British Aerospace and Dowty both have their own perfectly satisfactory
>chicken cannons so why would the Canadians want to know about American
>chicken cannons. Now the turkey cannon on the other hand . . .
>

Now, John, remember we are referring to governmental regulations. Don't go trying to bring logic and reason into the discussion.

Tom Veatch
Wichita, KS USA