Trace ANY cellular phone.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:16:49 -0600, George Kerby
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On 2/26/07 1:07 PM, in article [email protected],
>"Tinman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Wow, your copy-and-paste skills are impressive. Maybe someday you can
>> move up to--ready for this?--an "original thought." Yea it's a tough
>> concept for you at the moment, but stick with it.
>>
>> I like long shots, so I'm rooting for ya'!
>>
>You and your fudge-packing buddy, Birdbrain -err... "Hawk", have my

Ah, the "gay" card. A sure sign of the functionally illiterate.
Certainly not an original thought. (Hey, I took a risk on the long shot
thing.)


>permission to have the final word in this thread,

That's gotta hurt. Sorry to back you into a corner like that.


>
>I'll be working on my Mac checking my Apple shares whilst you two will be
>crying over your crashing PeeCees and M$ financial worries.

I haven't seen anyone crying. Paranoid delusions? Projecting?

Was amused by your use of this though:
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913

Too funny. Cry about MS and then turn right around and use their
products. Hypocrite.


--
Mike | Most people don't realize that large pieces
| of coral, painted brown and attached to the
| skull by common wood screws, can make a child
| look like a deer.

---

› See More: Trace ANY cellular phone.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 12:10:41 -0800, Kurt <[email protected]>
wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Tinman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Was amused by your use of this though:
>> User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913
>>
>> Too funny. Cry about MS and then turn right around and use their
>> products. Hypocrite.
>
>He uses Office. I use it too,

Wow, so do I. What big happy family.


> but only because I need to work with PC
>folk who don't (and can't) use any other office suite.

Straw-man argument. Office formats have nothing to do with Usenet, and
there are plenty of alternatives, even for the Mac. And since you didn't
use Entourage to post your reply you already knew that.

I won't get into the "and can't" comment.



--
Mike | Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons
| of destruction, we should be thinking about getting
| more use out of the ones we already have.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 16:43:24 -0800, Kurt <[email protected]>
wrote:

>In article <C2084F08.1A5BB%[email protected]>,
> George Kerby <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 2/25/07 11:56 PM, in article
>> [email protected], "John Richards"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > "james g. keegan jr." <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <[email protected]>,
>> >> M-M <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>> Why is it Windows users say Macs get viruses but Mac users say they
>> >>> don't??
>> >>
>> >> windows users, apparently, feel inferior and that want mac users to
>> >> come down to their level.
>> >>
>> >> i use both a mac powerbook and a powerful vista notebook. they are
>> >> both functional. the windows machine needs aggressive anti-viris,
>> >> worm, etc. protection. the mac does not.
>> >
>> > Which is a testament to the Mac's lack of popularity...
>> > Why would virus writers waste time on the 5% who have a Mac,
>> > when they can get a much bigger result by targeting the 90%
>> > who have a PC.
>> Besides, it would require REAL work to bust into the Mac OS.
>>
>> Windoze is like whacking a piñata - without a mask...
>>
>Exactly. LOL


It must really suck to be in the infinitesimal minority when it comes
to computers. Your envy is apparently unbearable.

>
> He has none.
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups

DARN! shouldn't have "gotten out more." Went out to dinner with friends
and now I've posted too late. Oh well, welcome back.

Drum--

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:02:31 -0500, -= Hawk =-
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 19:52:21 -0600, George Kerby
><[email protected]> scribbled:
>
>>
>>On 2/26/07 6:41 PM, in article
>>[email protected], "Kurt"
>>>
>>> I'd love to wean my corporate clients off Office, I'm sure your
>>> suggestions for alternatives would be very persuasive.
>>
>>He has none.
>
>Didn't you storm off in a huff?

He was merely awaiting another person's reply so he could weasel himself
back into the thread--even at the expense of throwing out an
intellectually vapid one-liner that even a 4-year-old who can *****
"Google" would be embarrassed of. Par for the course.


--
Mike | Another study I've devised involves asking
| a woman to open a jar of pickles.

As I understand it, on Mon, 26 Feb 2007 10:24:49 -0000,
[email protected] (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

>>Talk about prank! The fallacy that Macs are immune from viruses and
>>exploits is so much bull-hocky. Macs (and OS-X) are absolutely no more
>>impervious to these attacks than are PCs; it is simply that almost all the
>>exploits are against the PC, which account for 96% of all computers sold.
>
>Macs are certainly NOT immune. However, there are a number of
>features of Windows that certainly don't help the situation. One
>of them is being able to double-click on executable code that came
>from an outside source (email, web site, USENET) and RUN it without
>even having to save it as a disk file. Another is Windows hiding
>file extensions so you can't tell the difference between a piece
>of malware and an image.

You have the option to not have the extensions hidden.

>
>Also, Windows usually gets set up (fixed in Vista, I think) with all
>users having administrative privileges.

Every copy of XP I've used hasn't done this. There is the
option to set it up like this during installation, but only a moron
would grant *everyone* admin privileges.

>That's not a good thing for
>viruses being able to write on and infect system files (at least on
>systems with more than one user, other users get infected when the first
>one does. That's less likely if users can't write on each other's files.)
>
>
>>If Macs were 97% of the computers sold, it would be Macs being attacked and
>>PC users saying "get a PC". I love the look on the face of a Mac owner that
>>has brought his/her machine in for a problem, and we tell them it was
>>infected...they actually believe that their machines are "impervious". This
>>false sense of security is laugable, and dangerous.

Security through obscurity is no security.

--
Kent

Aspire to inspire before you expire.

-= Hawk =- wrote:
> Beta tape's ancient history too, so's 3/4" and 1" but they're still in
> use in places... gods I hated the 1" machine....

Which one? There were so many to choose from...!

--
The US Post Office should just raise postage rates by two dollars an ounce
with the promise that they won't raise rates for at least a week. They'll
never go for it; they couldn't possibly wait a whole week.

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:56:15 -0500, Drumstick <[email protected]> wrote:
: In article <[email protected]>,
: [email protected] says...
: > Sorry, Drum. I've been reading the occasional virus threat story for
: > years now. Still never been a real one.
: > BTW - how many Windows viruses are there now?
: >
: >
: Couple of things to consider folks:
: 1. The past is no guarantee of the future.
: 2. There was a time (and I'm old enough to remember it) when PCs didn't
: get viri either.

If you insist on getting cute with Latin words, you should at least do it in
the right case. The accusative plural of "virus" (assuming it's a
2nd-declension masculine noun) is "viros".

But since this use of "get" is idiomatic in English, you may be safer using
ablative instead (as in "infected by means of a virus"). That would be
"viris".

: 3. Humility is an honorable trait....keeps you out of trouble.
: <smile>
:
: As for the Mac's track record, no argument as I have never owned one.
: Worked on one at work once (IIe no less!) and it was a nightmare! Two
: versions of Basic, flaky hardware and SLOW as smoke even then.... See, I
: told you I was old enough.
:
: May you always be free of viri....but if it's true, I'm betting it won't
: last.

The genitive plural would be "virorum". But the more Latin-sounding "free from
viruses" would again use ablative (e.g., "liber a viris").

Since you're old enough to remember the good old days, you may have taken
Latin in high school too. ;^)

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 08:38:21 -0700, RWEmerson
<[email protected]> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:56:15 -0500, Drumstick <[email protected]> wrote:
: > : In article <[email protected]>,
: > : [email protected] says...
: > : > Sorry, Drum. I've been reading the occasional virus threat story for
: > : > years now. Still never been a real one.
: > : > BTW - how many Windows viruses are there now?
: > : >
: > : >
: > : Couple of things to consider folks:
: > : 1. The past is no guarantee of the future.
: > : 2. There was a time (and I'm old enough to remember it) when PCs didn't
: > : get viri either.
: >
: > If you insist on getting cute with Latin words, you should at least do it in
: > the right case. The accusative plural of "virus" (assuming it's a
: > 2nd-declension masculine noun) is "viros".
: >
: > But since this use of "get" is idiomatic in English, you may be safer using
: > ablative instead (as in "infected by means of a virus"). That would be
: > "viris".
: >
: > : 3. Humility is an honorable trait....keeps you out of trouble.
: > : <smile>
: > :
: > : As for the Mac's track record, no argument as I have never owned one.
: > : Worked on one at work once (IIe no less!) and it was a nightmare! Two
: > : versions of Basic, flaky hardware and SLOW as smoke even then.... See, I
: > : told you I was old enough.
: > :
: > : May you always be free of viri....but if it's true, I'm betting it won't
: > : last.
:
: The word virus has no classically attested plural form in Latin. In antiquity
: the word had not yet acquired its current meaning. It denoted something like
: toxicity; venom; a poisonous, deleterious, or unpleasant agent or principle;
: or poison in the abstract or general sense[2]. Since virus in antiquity denoted
: something noncountable, it was a mass noun. Mass nouns, such as air, valor, and
: helpfulness in English, pluralize only under special circumstances, hence the
: nonexistence of plural forms.[3]
:
: Further, it is unclear how a plural might have been formed under Latin grammar
: if the word had acquired a meaning requiring a plural form. In Latin virus is
: generally regarded to be a neuter of the second declension, but neuter second
: declension nouns ending in -us (rather than -um) are so rare that there are no
: recorded plurals.

Well, that would be because neuter nouns ending in -us are almost(?) all
3rd-declension. The one that springs to mind most readily in this context is
"genus" (pl. genera). By whom is virus "generally regarded to be a neuter of
the second declension"? By your own reasoning (with which I guess I don't
quarrel), that seems highly unlikely.

: Possibilities include vira (by analogy with 2nd declension neuters in -um
: such as bellum)

and because the nominative and accusative plural of all neuter nouns ends in
"a".

: and virus with a long u (by analogy with 4th declension masculine such as
: status, although as a neuter noun the plural of virus in the 4th declension
: would be virua). However, none of these is attested[4].
:
: The form virii would not have been a correct plural, since the ending -ii
: only occurs in the plural of words ending in -ius.

Often shortened to (long) -i. But in any case, I never suggested a -ii plural
for virus.

: For instance, take radius, plural radii: the root is radi-, with the singular
: ending -us and the plural -i. Thus the plural virii is that of the nonexistent
: word virius. The form viri might also be incorrect in Latin. The ending -i is
: normally used for masculine nouns, not neuter ones such as virus, although
: there are exceptions such as humus -"soil" which is feminine and vulgus
: -"crowd" which is neuter; moreover, viri (albeit with a short i in the first
: syllable) is the plural of vir, and means "men."
:
: > The genitive plural would be "virorum". But the more Latin-sounding "free from
: > viruses" would again use ablative (e.g., "liber a viris").
: >
: > Since you're old enough to remember the good old days, you may have taken
: > Latin in high school too. ;^)