[DrCaleb]

C.M. Burns wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

C.M. Burns wrote:

If you just came here to argue then you want room 4, down the hall on your right.

I told you once already.

No you didn't!

Will this be the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?

[RUEZ]

stratos wrote:

RUEZ wrote:

So Burns, you think you are the first person to question this sig? It's been around for many years. There really is no problem here. But if you're worried then turn of the sigs in your preferences.

To simple of a solution for most. Glad to see someone figured out the solution to the worries about the sig. line.

Actually it wasn't my idea. Trevor suggested it to the OP when he brought this up in the first place.

[Blue_Nose]

C.M. Burns wrote:

What I'm wondering is why you're being such a dick about it?

Maybe because you posted this:

Quote:

Finally, when a CKA user decides to use a sig from danasoft or sloganizer, he or she is essentially making a decision about YOUR privacy.

and it's absolute bullshit. I'm no more responsible for the internet sites you freely visit on your own computer than you're responsible for ensuring I don't get hit by a truck while I'm crossing the road.

ALso, there's the fact that you singled out those two websites, when in reality such "concerns" apply to almost anything one can find on any website. Leading people to believe they're even marginally safer by avoiding two particular websites is ludicrous.

[C.M. Burns]

DrCaleb wrote:

C.M. Burns wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

I told you once already.

No you didn't!

Will this be the 5 minute argument, or the full half hour?

Apparently I'm paying for the full hour

[DrCaleb]

lily wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

Blue_Nose wrote:

Not particularly worries about it, but for the sake of curiosity, does anyone know if blocking images from danasoft (via adblock plus) is enough to block the script?

For good measure, I blacklisted it in NoScript. It got my information incorrect anyhow, as it seems to use at least some of the browsers' advertised information.

It also picked up the address and location of the proxy I use, not my real IP.

But right clicking on it, and selecting 'Block Images from Danasoft.com' made it go away in Firefox. (NoScript blocks 'web bugs', but not by default!!)

That's what a good proxy is supposed to do.

I didn't know you had a .sig, nor Blue Nose. Because I block all third party graphics, as well as scripts. I don't even load the 'catchfly.net', 'googlesyndication.com' or 'google-analytics.com' scripts on this page. (Don't know where the catchfly thing is even coming from - NoScript ROCKS!)

It's a bitch when it comes to some photos, jokes, etc. But that is the price I pay if I want to remain at least somewhat Anonymous. And safe from Viruses.

Edit: Cachefly.net. Hmmmm. Let me do some sleuthing. . .

[stratos]

C.M. IF your so worried about your safety on the net then I would suggest you stay the heck off the computer. One sure way NOT to have someone find anything about you Via the net is the same as being sure you never get V.D. ABSTINENCE

[C.M. Burns]

Blue_Nose wrote:

C.M. Burns wrote:

What I'm wondering is why you're being such a dick about it?

Maybe because you posted this:

Quote:

Finally, when a CKA user decides to use a sig from danasoft or sloganizer, he or she is essentially making a decision about YOUR privacy.

and it's absolute bullshit. I'm no more responsible for the internet sites you freely visit on your own computer than you're responsible for ensuring I don't get hit by a truck while I'm crossing the road.

ALso, there's the fact that you singled out those two websites, when in reality such "concerns" apply to almost anything one can find on any website. Leading people to believe they're even marginally safer by avoiding two particular websites is ludicrous.

You're entitled to your opinion.

However, I did not single these two out. That's your attempt at spin. danasoft was just the exemplar.

What I said is this:

C.M. Burns wrote:

I'd like to ask any user who has such a sig to remove it now and that everyone refrain from using such sigs in the future.

Thanks

[stratos]

RUEZ wrote:

stratos wrote:

RUEZ wrote:

So Burns, you think you are the first person to question this sig? It's been around for many years. There really is no problem here. But if you're worried then turn of the sigs in your preferences.

To simple of a solution for most. Glad to see someone figured out the solution to the worries about the sig. line.

Actually it wasn't my idea. Trevor suggested it to the OP when he brought this up in the first place.

Cool, and good on Trev. for giving a logical solution.

[DrCaleb]

stratos wrote:

C.M. IF your so worried about your safety on the net then I would suggest you stay the heck off the computer. One sure way NOT to have someone find anything about you Via the net is the same as being sure you never get V.D. ABSTINENCE

Before the Web, there was Gopher. That was a time on the 'net when you didn't have to worry about anything except running across some wild ideas. Usually wild ideas and things you had never stopped to consider.

Now, seeing that someone has a crush on me can set me back weeks of my time.

I think the point Monty is trying to get across is; it's tough enough to avoid the VD and the jumping crabs, without people being unaware that they have it and are giving it to others.

Places like Doubleclick worry me. Not because of what they know about me, but because of what I don't know that they know. And that I can never change about what they know. I didn't ask them to keep a running tally on my life, and frankly I wish they would just stop.

[ziggy]

Reminds me of bonzi buddy

[lily]

DrCaleb wrote:

stratos wrote:

C.M. IF your so worried about your safety on the net then I would suggest you stay the heck off the computer. One sure way NOT to have someone find anything about you Via the net is the same as being sure you never get V.D. ABSTINENCE

Before the Web, there was Gopher. That was a time on the 'net when you didn't have to worry about anything except running across some wild ideas. Usually wild ideas and things you had never stopped to consider.

Now, seeing that someone has a crush on me can set me back weeks of my time.

I think the point Monty is trying to get across is; it's tough enough to avoid the VD and the jumping crabs, without people being unaware that they have it and are giving it to others.

Places like Doubleclick worry me. Not because of what they know about me, but because of what I don't know that they know. And that I can never change about what they know. I didn't ask them to keep a running tally on my life, and frankly I wish they would just stop.

Do you use store loyalty cards from Safeway and Shoppers, etc? Do you collect airmiles and the like? Do you fill out questionaires and enter draws?

I'm not asking you to confirm or deny.... I'm just making a point that our info is out there, and people are far too willing to give it out.

[Tricks]

Haha what a fucking crybaby. Guys you aren't taking this serious are you? He's a 9/11 foiler, he thinks everyone is out to get him. Ignore the stupid troll.

[DrCaleb]

ziggy wrote:

Reminds me of bonzi buddy

Bingo! That's where Doubleclick and the like started.

[stratos]

TRICKS been a long time sense I seen ya, hope all is good. Nice new pic but I miss the sniper.

[stratos]

Lets see I have a friend who's a former hacker. He has unquestioned access to my computer anytime he wants. Do you feel safe? I do.