dbminter

Cheeky!

It should be interesting to see how/if Sci-Fi edits the show. I am particularly looking forward to Dalek, where I believe someone said goddamn. Sci-Fi skirts the issue on Battlestar Galactica by using the term gods damn.

As long as we're being politically incorrect here reminds me of a sketch I came up with off the top of my head the other week. Man goes to see his Japanese urologist about his prostate: "You have a plobrem with youl plostate. It is glowing." "It's glowing? What, I swallowed some barium or something?" "No, no, no. Glowing. It is getting biggel." "Biggle? The British comic strip character?" "No! Biggel! Youl plostate is glowing! Getting biggel!"

Wha? Wherediditgo?

He's been busy lately with his cornography collection.

Commercials for the Sci-Fi Channel reruns of the first season of the new Who have started. So, the network is giving the show some exposure, which is always good news. Starts in just about 3 weeks. So, when does the 2nd Season start?

In my best Brooklyn accent: "Hey, why don't you Feldhanh my Shaunti, eh?! EH?!"

The software might have been told by Windows that I selected the X close button for the entire ImgBurn window, but, I only pressed OK in the Successfully Completed window. Then, took my hands off the mouse and was trying to get up to go do something else only to be surprised by the opened Cancel window. I only noticed it as I got up and saw it had opened as I was standing there, staring quizzically at it.

Well, after meeting with him, he hit me about the head with a whiskey bottle, stole my wallet, and made me swear to secrecy about it! OH, NO!

The funny thing is the last two. The last one requires a user name and password! The other one is just outright rude: FORBIDDEN! But, maybe, gasheating online IS forbidden?

I've put this in Support because it's not a bug that I know of. I've not been able to reproduce it, but, I am posting what happened so that if anyone else encounters it, they can reply. Because, you never know. Strange behavior after a burn. When I clicked OK to the Operation Completed Successfully box, a dialog immediately opened up asking if I really wanted to Cancel. I selected No because I didn't and the box just closed. I've not had it return since that one time, so, my guess is it was just a one time fluke of some kind. The kind I am famous for in these forums.

Of course, King Bush II says he had no idea of this whole deal until after it was started. Two problems here: 1.) he is speaking true, and it shows that the man who claims it is his holy cause to keep America safe from terrorists doesn't even know a goddamn thing that is going on in his own administration 2.) worse, he is lying about it and doesn't give a damn about what really happens as long as some money goes somewhere.

And, finally, a real reason for the wine. Gives new meaning to the concept of eating of the body of your master.

Ah, yes... when Cash starting pouring out the cup of wine over the NIN cover, I knew he had lost his mind.

bill; I've worked hard to lose as much of my mind as I have at this point. Thank you. Now, it's all been worth it.

For I beheld the corny beast! And, now, you too, can behold images of the corny beast! BEHOLD! http://www.deviantart.com/view/6332659/ (If a blank image shows up, use Zoom Out. Yes, the man's name IS Dickman. )

Actually, I believe it's easy in England. Aren't all birds women because it's a slang term? BTW, on a serious note, supposedly, you can tell the sexes by things like colors, markings, physical size, calls, and shapes.

It seems like an idiotic way of doing it, though. Imagine what their letter of recommendation FROM this person would be like?

Yeah, I noticed that. Basically, you'd need to be at the keyboard to execute it as listed, but, my thinking was if it could be exploited thusly: the payload is designed to represent itself as a system update. It flags sethc.exe to be updated, initiates a call for restart, then, on restart, but, before Windows loads, the update of sethc.exe occurs with a copy of cmd.exe Then, a cmd instance is initiated minimized on start of Windows, with piped code sent to the prompt to add a new user or users. It would then be added at the current signed in level, which would be System according to what I read.

I'm more worried about the copying of the CMD.EXE to SETHC.EXE Even if you remove Accesibility Tools in Add/Remove, SETHC.EXE should remain because it is needed for Desktop Themes, I think.

This information is about a year old, so, is it still valid? Because a lot of what it says makes sense. http://forum.s-t-d.org/viewtopic.php?id=2116

BEHOLD! The face of the beast! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IBM_536...ont.triddle.jpg Well, one of its many faces. I worked with two of these things, the System/36 and the AS-400. The System 36 was like 700 pounds and had belt driven hard drives! The funny thing was the AS-400, meant to replace the System/36, turned out to be more difficult to use because the old code had to be rewritten for the new system, instead of just copied over.

Try and wrap your brain around this one, because, it makes no sense, and, that's what the businesses and the judges want. Is it legal to copy a DVD you purchased and own, for your own backup purposes and use? For one copy, yes, US law makes that legally expressed. But, guess what? Anything that has to break CSS to do it IS illegal because it gets around a digital protection method, and this is covered as illegal because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So, the copies are legal, but, USING the tools to make the copies aren't! Thus, you can have 10,000 pirated DVD's made by someone else, but, what's illegal is certain applications made them. BUT how can you tell? The copies aren't illegal, making the copies is not illegal, but, using the tools that make the copies of CSS protected discs (Or any future protections.) are illegal. Now, here's the funny part... it is therefore, according to this legal wrangling, apparently possible to do this: use a tool to make a copy of a protected disc you own, so that the copy has no protection on it, then copy the non-protected CSS disc again with a program that will not copy protected discs, such as Nero Burning ROM, just make a 1:1 copy, and burn that copy. Then, totally remove the decryption tool from your PC. Because the copies in this case aren't illegal, because the copying in this case is not illegal, only using the decrypting tool is illegal, they can't prove you used anything that gets around the DMCA. What this means in the end is a total goddamn mess! No one knows a thing about what is legal and what isn't. Because creating a decryption tool is not illegal. Possessing a decryption tool is not illegal. Merely using it is. But, you have to use to get around the protection on discs you own. The real challenge is going to be someday if someone could be used with "proof" of use of a decryption tool on a copy with the use of Implementation ID's and the like. The problem there is a person could just clam up and say they have no idea what an application might add to any such fields. Or that they have no idea of anything! In the end, there is no real legal or illegal definition of what you can do with what you own. Thus, the studios are using the ambiguity as a strong arm to push around the public and convince judges to agree with them by the mere word of the law to get around the intent of the law. All to control the selling scheme of where, how, and when people can buy DVD's. Because, as Jack Valenti openly said once, if people want a backup copy, just buy a 2nd damn DVD. And that's what the studios want, a license to steal via double dipping.

What? Banging on his door?

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM