Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
DNS PROXY
83 views
Skip to first unread message
Bear
Apr 5, 2012, 7:48:39 AM4/5/12
to
Norton ConnectSafe which combines Google’s and Norton’s content-
filtering such as pornography, crime, gambling, and so forth within
Norton’s DNS servers which block websites known to contain malware. This
gives you an additional layer of security without adding additional
burden to your system resources. It is also faster and has more valid
results than your ISP’s DNS service. Look up how to change your DNS
settings for your particular operating system or simply follow the
instructions contained on ConnectSafe.
https://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/dnsForHome.do
The easy-to-set-up service has three levels of filtering:
This base-level filtering blocks malware, phishing sites, scam sites,
and Web proxies. For this level, set your DNS entries to 192.153.192.40
and 198.153.194.40.
Medium filtering adds pornography blocking. Set your DNS to
198.153.192.50 and 198.153.194.50.
This stringent filtering blocks a host of sites that Norton ConnectSafe
deems not family-friendly, filtering for mature content and other
family-unfriendly content. To choose this filtering, use 198.153.192.60
and 198.153.194.60.
To change your DNS in Win7 go to the Control Panel > Network and
Internet > Network and Sharing Center > Change Adapter Settings > right
click Local Area Connection - choose properties and choose IPv4 protocol
and double click it to enter your DNS data.
You can configure your router much the same way which protects all
machines connected through the router without having to configure each
machine.
Norton ConnectSafe does not provide custom white/black listings. And
with just filtering by category, there's no guarantee that all
objectionable sites or content will be blocked. Also, using the
strongest filtering setting might block sites you want to visit or that
aren't objectionable to you. Before committing to ConnectSafe, test that
the filtering isn't too restrictive.
An alternative to ConnectSafe is Dyn's Internet Guide, which also uses
site categorization. Internet Guide's filtering options are more
flexible than Norton's as it offers predefined filter lists, category
selection, and custom site white/black listings if you create a free
account with them where you can make these definitions.
You can use Dyn’s DNS settings 216.146.35.35 and 216.146.36.36 without
creating an account which uses the site categorization and pre-defined
filter lists, but you cannot create custom white/black listings without
an account.
http://dyn.com/support/internet-guide-setup/
Dyn’s DEFENSE PLAN
A Defense Plan is a tailored configuration which allows customers to add
content restrictions to their networks. A single Defense Plan can be
used for multiple networks, and users can swap Defense Plans at will to
allow or disallow particular types of content. Defense Plans have three
ways to filter content:
Defense Strategy: Similar to movie and television rating systems,
Defense Strategies are pre-defined lists of filters which block content
by level. Defense Strategies block content within their level and below;
for example, choosing PG-13 would also block R and NC-17 sites. By
default, only malware and phishing sites are blocked: the categories
Phishing, Conficker Worm, and Spyware are selected for your protection.
Blocked Categories: For a more fine-tuned approach than Defense
Strategies, Blocked Categories prevent users from accessing specific
types of content in addition to the current Defense Strategy. By
default, only Phishing, Spyware and Conficker Worm are blocked.
Tailored Filtering: This section is used to specifically whitelist
(always allow) or blacklist (always block) individual domain names.
Tailored Filtering settings override the Defense Strategy and Blocked
Category pages, allowing visitors to access sites that may be otherwise
disabled, and vice-versa.
--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
mail
filtering such as pornography, crime, gambling, and so forth within
Norton’s DNS servers which block websites known to contain malware. This
gives you an additional layer of security without adding additional
burden to your system resources. It is also faster and has more valid
results than your ISP’s DNS service. Look up how to change your DNS
settings for your particular operating system or simply follow the
instructions contained on ConnectSafe.
https://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/dnsForHome.do
The easy-to-set-up service has three levels of filtering:
This base-level filtering blocks malware, phishing sites, scam sites,
and Web proxies. For this level, set your DNS entries to 192.153.192.40
and 198.153.194.40.
Medium filtering adds pornography blocking. Set your DNS to
198.153.192.50 and 198.153.194.50.
This stringent filtering blocks a host of sites that Norton ConnectSafe
deems not family-friendly, filtering for mature content and other
family-unfriendly content. To choose this filtering, use 198.153.192.60
and 198.153.194.60.
To change your DNS in Win7 go to the Control Panel > Network and
Internet > Network and Sharing Center > Change Adapter Settings > right
click Local Area Connection - choose properties and choose IPv4 protocol
and double click it to enter your DNS data.
You can configure your router much the same way which protects all
machines connected through the router without having to configure each
machine.
Norton ConnectSafe does not provide custom white/black listings. And
with just filtering by category, there's no guarantee that all
objectionable sites or content will be blocked. Also, using the
strongest filtering setting might block sites you want to visit or that
aren't objectionable to you. Before committing to ConnectSafe, test that
the filtering isn't too restrictive.
An alternative to ConnectSafe is Dyn's Internet Guide, which also uses
site categorization. Internet Guide's filtering options are more
flexible than Norton's as it offers predefined filter lists, category
selection, and custom site white/black listings if you create a free
account with them where you can make these definitions.
You can use Dyn’s DNS settings 216.146.35.35 and 216.146.36.36 without
creating an account which uses the site categorization and pre-defined
filter lists, but you cannot create custom white/black listings without
an account.
http://dyn.com/support/internet-guide-setup/
Dyn’s DEFENSE PLAN
A Defense Plan is a tailored configuration which allows customers to add
content restrictions to their networks. A single Defense Plan can be
used for multiple networks, and users can swap Defense Plans at will to
allow or disallow particular types of content. Defense Plans have three
ways to filter content:
Defense Strategy: Similar to movie and television rating systems,
Defense Strategies are pre-defined lists of filters which block content
by level. Defense Strategies block content within their level and below;
for example, choosing PG-13 would also block R and NC-17 sites. By
default, only malware and phishing sites are blocked: the categories
Phishing, Conficker Worm, and Spyware are selected for your protection.
Blocked Categories: For a more fine-tuned approach than Defense
Strategies, Blocked Categories prevent users from accessing specific
types of content in addition to the current Defense Strategy. By
default, only Phishing, Spyware and Conficker Worm are blocked.
Tailored Filtering: This section is used to specifically whitelist
(always allow) or blacklist (always block) individual domain names.
Tailored Filtering settings override the Defense Strategy and Blocked
Category pages, allowing visitors to access sites that may be otherwise
disabled, and vice-versa.
--
Bear
http://bearware.info
The real Bear's header path is:
news.sunsite.dk!dotsrc.org!filter.dotsrc.org!news.dotsrc.org!not-for-
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 5, 2012, 8:23:17 AM4/5/12
to
On 05 Apr 2012 11:48:39 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
<snip> was that a c/p or your own work?
>It is also faster
How can you possibly make that statement. It's unquantifiable.
If your ISP has a decent DNS server set up, it's likely to be closer to you than their
server, and therefore likely to send a reply to your query faster.
>and has more valid results than your ISP’s DNS service.
That is also unquantifiable. There's no reason your ISP's server can't do the same job is
there?
Rhetorical question Butthole. You're a fucking idiot. I don't expect a sensible reply.
After all you reposted this bullshit in the first place.
--
p-0^0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass Sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker
<snip> was that a c/p or your own work?
>It is also faster
How can you possibly make that statement. It's unquantifiable.
If your ISP has a decent DNS server set up, it's likely to be closer to you than their
server, and therefore likely to send a reply to your query faster.
>and has more valid results than your ISP’s DNS service.
there?
Rhetorical question Butthole. You're a fucking idiot. I don't expect a sensible reply.
After all you reposted this bullshit in the first place.
--
p-0^0-h the cat
Internet Terrorist, Mass Sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker
Bear
Apr 5, 2012, 8:58:38 AM4/5/12
to
p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
news:953rn7l61vni5l3jq...@4ax.com:
> On 05 Apr 2012 11:48:39 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
> <snip> was that a c/p or your own work?
>
>>It is also faster
>
> How can you possibly make that statement. It's unquantifiable.
>
> If your ISP has a decent DNS server set up, it's likely to be closer
> to you than their server, and therefore likely to send a reply to your
> query faster.
>
>>and has more valid results than your ISP’s DNS service.
>
> That is also unquantifiable. There's no reason your ISP's server can't
> do the same job is there?
>
> Rhetorical question Butthole. You're a fucking idiot. I don't expect a
> sensible reply. After all you reposted this bullshit in the first
> place.
>
Poor Pooh...just made a fool of hisself again. Cox's DNS does not
include category filtering. I'll bet your ISP doesn't either. Prove your
words.
news:953rn7l61vni5l3jq...@4ax.com:
> On 05 Apr 2012 11:48:39 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
> <snip> was that a c/p or your own work?
>
>>It is also faster
>
> How can you possibly make that statement. It's unquantifiable.
>
> If your ISP has a decent DNS server set up, it's likely to be closer
> to you than their server, and therefore likely to send a reply to your
> query faster.
>
>>and has more valid results than your ISP’s DNS service.
>
> That is also unquantifiable. There's no reason your ISP's server can't
> do the same job is there?
>
> Rhetorical question Butthole. You're a fucking idiot. I don't expect a
> sensible reply. After all you reposted this bullshit in the first
> place.
>
include category filtering. I'll bet your ISP doesn't either. Prove your
words.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 5, 2012, 9:15:35 AM4/5/12
to
On 05 Apr 2012 12:58:38 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>news:953rn7l61vni5l3jq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 11:48:39 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip> was that a c/p or your own work?
>>
>>>It is also faster
>>
>> How can you possibly make that statement. It's unquantifiable.
>>
>> If your ISP has a decent DNS server set up, it's likely to be closer
>> to you than their server, and therefore likely to send a reply to your
>> query faster.
>>
>>>and has more valid results than your ISP’s DNS service.
>>
>> That is also unquantifiable. There's no reason your ISP's server can't
>> do the same job is there?
>>
>> Rhetorical question Butthole. You're a fucking idiot. I don't expect a
>> sensible reply. After all you reposted this bullshit in the first
>> place.
>>
>
>Poor Pooh...just made a fool of hisself again. Cox's DNS does not
>include category filtering. I'll bet your ISP doesn't either. Prove your
>words.
The speed of return of a DNS query depends upon
>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>news:953rn7l61vni5l3jq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 11:48:39 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip> was that a c/p or your own work?
>>
>>>It is also faster
>>
>> How can you possibly make that statement. It's unquantifiable.
>>
>> If your ISP has a decent DNS server set up, it's likely to be closer
>> to you than their server, and therefore likely to send a reply to your
>> query faster.
>>
>>>and has more valid results than your ISP’s DNS service.
>>
>> That is also unquantifiable. There's no reason your ISP's server can't
>> do the same job is there?
>>
>> Rhetorical question Butthole. You're a fucking idiot. I don't expect a
>> sensible reply. After all you reposted this bullshit in the first
>> place.
>>
>
>Poor Pooh...just made a fool of hisself again. Cox's DNS does not
>include category filtering. I'll bet your ISP doesn't either. Prove your
>words.
Speed of network between client and server
Load on the server at the time of query
Whether the server has the record cached
What are Norton doing that's can make it faster than a local server with a cached record
under low load?
Explain how it gives more valid results?
At the end of the day, the more caching, and the longer records are kept in cache the less
valid records will be overall.
I can set up a server with no caching. How can you get more valid than that?
What are Norton doing that's so different?
I found no mention of faster, or more valid on Norton's site btw. Perhaps you can cite a
reference.
I didn't mention category filtering either. Learn to read.
Bear
Apr 5, 2012, 9:18:44 AM4/5/12
to
p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
> What are Norton doing that's so different?
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 5, 2012, 9:41:36 AM4/5/12
to
On 05 Apr 2012 13:18:44 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>
>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>
>You ask them...do your own research.
What a wanker. You asked me to prove my words. I just did. You just wrote a heap of shit
>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>
>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>
>You ask them...do your own research.
or c/p. Which is it Bear?
Bear
Apr 5, 2012, 9:45:50 AM4/5/12
to
p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
news:868rn7li6vd64nakh...@4ax.com:
> On 05 Apr 2012 13:18:44 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>
>>You ask them...do your own research.
>
> What a wanker. You asked me to prove my words. I just did. You just
> wrote a heap of shit or c/p. Which is it Bear?
>
a troll among other bad and nasty things. :)
Message has been deleted
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 5, 2012, 9:54:51 AM4/5/12
to
On 05 Apr 2012 13:45:50 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>news:868rn7li6vd64nakh...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 13:18:44 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>>>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>
>>>You ask them...do your own research.
>>
>> What a wanker. You asked me to prove my words. I just did. You just
>> wrote a heap of shit or c/p. Which is it Bear?
>>
>
>You didn't prove anything but the fact that everyone already knows you are
>a troll among other bad and nasty things. :)
Perhaps you don't understand how things work. You asked me to prove my words. I offered up
>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>news:868rn7li6vd64nakh...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 13:18:44 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>>>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>
>>>You ask them...do your own research.
>>
>> What a wanker. You asked me to prove my words. I just did. You just
>> wrote a heap of shit or c/p. Which is it Bear?
>>
>
>You didn't prove anything but the fact that everyone already knows you are
>a troll among other bad and nasty things. :)
empirical evidence to support my claim. That places me in pull position for those wise
enough to value scientific method over Bear Bottom's Bearshit.
In order for you to overtake me you need to offer up empirical statements that falsify my
position.
Good luck.
Bear
Apr 5, 2012, 10:03:13 AM4/5/12
to
p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
news:2k8rn7lcricv7d7rq...@4ax.com:
> On 05 Apr 2012 13:45:50 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>news:868rn7li6vd64nakh...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 05 Apr 2012 13:18:44 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>>news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>>
>>>>You ask them...do your own research.
>>>
>>> What a wanker. You asked me to prove my words. I just did. You just
>>> wrote a heap of shit or c/p. Which is it Bear?
>>>
>>
>>You didn't prove anything but the fact that everyone already knows you
>>are a troll among other bad and nasty things. :)
>
> Perhaps you don't understand how things work. You asked me to prove my
> words. I offered up empirical evidence to support my claim. That
> places me in pull position for those wise enough to value scientific
> method over Bear Bottom's Bearshit.
>
> In order for you to overtake me you need to offer up empirical
> statements that falsify my position.
>
I don't need to do anything of the sort.
> In order for you to overtake me you need to offer up empirical
> statements that falsify my position.
>
These DNS services are very nice and highly recommended. Nough said :)
Back in the bin ya go :)
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 5, 2012, 11:20:11 AM4/5/12
to
On 05 Apr 2012 14:03:13 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>news:2k8rn7lcricv7d7rq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 13:45:50 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>>>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:868rn7li6vd64nakh...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 05 Apr 2012 13:18:44 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>>>
>>>>>You ask them...do your own research.
>>>>
>>>> What a wanker. You asked me to prove my words. I just did. You just
>>>> wrote a heap of shit or c/p. Which is it Bear?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You didn't prove anything but the fact that everyone already knows you
>>>are a troll among other bad and nasty things. :)
>>
>> Perhaps you don't understand how things work. You asked me to prove my
>> words. I offered up empirical evidence to support my claim. That
>> places me in pull position for those wise enough to value scientific
>> method over Bear Bottom's Bearshit.
>
>You offered nothing more than an opinion.
You're an idiot. That's an opinion. The fact that electrical impulses take longer to
>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>news:2k8rn7lcricv7d7rq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 13:45:50 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>>>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>news:868rn7li6vd64nakh...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 05 Apr 2012 13:18:44 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>>>
>>>>>You ask them...do your own research.
>>>>
>>>> What a wanker. You asked me to prove my words. I just did. You just
>>>> wrote a heap of shit or c/p. Which is it Bear?
>>>>
>>>
>>>You didn't prove anything but the fact that everyone already knows you
>>>are a troll among other bad and nasty things. :)
>>
>> Perhaps you don't understand how things work. You asked me to prove my
>> words. I offered up empirical evidence to support my claim. That
>> places me in pull position for those wise enough to value scientific
>> method over Bear Bottom's Bearshit.
>
>You offered nothing more than an opinion.
travel over a longer vs a shorter distance is a measurable fact. Your failure to falsify
/any/ of my statements is also a fact. Ergo, you lose, again.
>> In order for you to overtake me you need to offer up empirical
>> statements that falsify my position.
>>
>I don't need to do anything of the sort.
>
>These DNS services are very nice and highly recommended. Nough said :)
more valid.
>Back in the bin ya go :)
Dustin
Apr 5, 2012, 11:51:00 AM4/5/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02C548EB15DCbe...@130.225.254.104:
> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
> news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>
>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>
> You ask them...do your own research.
>
You posted this nonsense. You tried to defend it. So...
--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts
news:XnsA02C548EB15DCbe...@130.225.254.104:
> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
> news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>
>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>
> You ask them...do your own research.
>
--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts
Dustin
Apr 5, 2012, 11:55:07 AM4/5/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02C5C192B829be...@130.225.254.104:
> You offered nothing more than an opinion.
You evidently don't understand the differences (ever so slight) between
opinion and fact. Fact is, a dns server closer to you (like oh, your ISP)
is going to be able to respond to your query faster. It's simple really.
The further away the target, the longer it takes the electric current to
get there.
> I don't need to do anything of the sort.
As long as you accept your position is a puff piece and falls short of
scientific methodology, you need not do anything.
> These DNS services are very nice and highly recommended. Nough said :)
They aren't going to be faster than your ISPs, despite your assinine
claim. They wouldn't be faster than a smaller DNS server sitting beside
you in the same room, either.
> Back in the bin ya go :)
Who do you think you impress here?
news:XnsA02C5C192B829be...@130.225.254.104:
> You offered nothing more than an opinion.
opinion and fact. Fact is, a dns server closer to you (like oh, your ISP)
is going to be able to respond to your query faster. It's simple really.
The further away the target, the longer it takes the electric current to
get there.
> I don't need to do anything of the sort.
scientific methodology, you need not do anything.
> These DNS services are very nice and highly recommended. Nough said :)
claim. They wouldn't be faster than a smaller DNS server sitting beside
you in the same room, either.
> Back in the bin ya go :)
David H. Lipman
Apr 5, 2012, 11:59:50 AM4/5/12
to
From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C548EB15DCbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>> news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>
>> You ask them...do your own research.
>>
> You posted this nonsense. You tried to defend it. So...
>
And here is the way to quantify it...
http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C548EB15DCbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>> news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>
>> You ask them...do your own research.
>>
> You posted this nonsense. You tried to defend it. So...
>
http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
--
Dave
Multi-AV Scanning Tool - http://multi-av.thespykiller.co.uk
http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
Bear
Apr 5, 2012, 12:51:46 PM4/5/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02C795627272HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C5C192B829be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> You offered nothing more than an opinion.
>
> You evidently don't understand the differences (ever so slight)
> between opinion and fact. Fact is, a dns server closer to you (like
> oh, your ISP) is going to be able to respond to your query faster.
> It's simple really. The further away the target, the longer it takes
> the electric current to get there.
Rather simplistic as much more is at play. I'll tell you just as I told
Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find out.
people than you. Try to prove it to them.
aren't much different...and fit the troll definition to a tee.
news:XnsA02C795627272HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C5C192B829be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> You offered nothing more than an opinion.
>
> You evidently don't understand the differences (ever so slight)
> between opinion and fact. Fact is, a dns server closer to you (like
> oh, your ISP) is going to be able to respond to your query faster.
> It's simple really. The further away the target, the longer it takes
> the electric current to get there.
Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find out.
>
>> I don't need to do anything of the sort.
>
>
> As long as you accept your position is a puff piece and falls short of
> scientific methodology, you need not do anything.
>
>> These DNS services are very nice and highly recommended. Nough said
>> :)
>
> They aren't going to be faster than your ISPs, despite your assinine
> claim. They wouldn't be faster than a smaller DNS server sitting
> beside you in the same room, either.
Those are not my claims, yet they are the claims of more knowledgeable
>> I don't need to do anything of the sort.
>
>
> As long as you accept your position is a puff piece and falls short of
> scientific methodology, you need not do anything.
>
>> These DNS services are very nice and highly recommended. Nough said
>> :)
>
> They aren't going to be faster than your ISPs, despite your assinine
> claim. They wouldn't be faster than a smaller DNS server sitting
> beside you in the same room, either.
people than you. Try to prove it to them.
>
>> Back in the bin ya go :)
>
> Who do you think you impress here?
There is no one here to impress, and certainly not you. You and Pooh
>> Back in the bin ya go :)
>
> Who do you think you impress here?
aren't much different...and fit the troll definition to a tee.
Bear
Apr 5, 2012, 12:55:02 PM4/5/12
to
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:RcudnQzNqNryXODS...@giganews.com:
> From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02C548EB15DCbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>
>>> You ask them...do your own research.
>>>
>> You posted this nonsense. You tried to defend it. So...
>>
>
> And here is the way to quantify it...
>
> http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
>
>
>
I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster than
Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
news:RcudnQzNqNryXODS...@giganews.com:
> From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02C548EB15DCbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>
>>> You ask them...do your own research.
>>>
>> You posted this nonsense. You tried to defend it. So...
>>
>
> And here is the way to quantify it...
>
> http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
>
>
>
Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
David H. Lipman
Apr 5, 2012, 1:15:47 PM4/5/12
to
From: "Bear" <bearbo...@gmai.com>
> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
> news:RcudnQzNqNryXODS...@giganews.com:
>
>> From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA02C548EB15DCbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>>
>>>> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>>
>>>> You ask them...do your own research.
>>>>
>>> You posted this nonsense. You tried to defend it. So...
>>>
>> And here is the way to quantify it...
>>
>> http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
>>
> I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster than
> Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>
Prove it.
> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
> news:RcudnQzNqNryXODS...@giganews.com:
>
>> From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
>>
>>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA02C548EB15DCbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>>
>>>> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>>
>>>> You ask them...do your own research.
>>>>
>>> You posted this nonsense. You tried to defend it. So...
>>>
>> And here is the way to quantify it...
>>
>> http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
>>
> I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster than
> Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 5, 2012, 1:22:56 PM4/5/12
to
On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster than
>Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
and this proves you so wrong
>I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster than
>Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on that, that's because I'm
a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my ISP's primary comes second.
That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless amateur that you are.
Quaalude
Apr 5, 2012, 1:58:50 PM4/5/12
to
On Thu, 05 Apr 2012 15:55:07 GMT, Dustin wrote:
> You evidently don't understand the differences (ever so slight) between
> opinion and fact. Fact is, a dns server closer to you (like oh, your ISP)
> is going to be able to respond to your query faster. It's simple really.
> The further away the target, the longer it takes the electric current to
> get there.
Our companion Mr Bottoms may be a seemingly personable soul but we
> You evidently don't understand the differences (ever so slight) between
> opinion and fact. Fact is, a dns server closer to you (like oh, your ISP)
> is going to be able to respond to your query faster. It's simple really.
> The further away the target, the longer it takes the electric current to
> get there.
must take care not to let this obscure the fact that he is far too
dense to realize he has long ago been out of his depth in this
exchange.
I think you could be wasting your time because Mr Bottoms lacks the
basic personal equipment needed to comprehend these concepts.
In other words, he has no brains.
David H. Lipman
Apr 5, 2012, 2:06:17 PM4/5/12
to
From: "p-0^0-h the cat" <super...@justpurrfect.invalid>
> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>> I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster than
>> Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>
> and this proves you so wrong
>
> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>
> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on that,
> that's because I'm
> a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my ISP's primary comes second.
>
> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless amateur
> that you are.
>
;-)
> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>> I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster than
>> Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>
> and this proves you so wrong
>
> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>
> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on that,
> that's because I'm
> a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my ISP's primary comes second.
>
> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless amateur
> that you are.
>
Bear
Apr 5, 2012, 2:06:20 PM4/5/12
to
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:jtudnfffWLugTuDS...@giganews.com:
> From: "Bear" <bearbo...@gmai.com>
>
>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
>> news:RcudnQzNqNryXODS...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> From: "Dustin" <bughunte...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>>> news:XnsA02C548EB15DCbe...@130.225.254.104:
>>>>
>>>>> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> news:bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What are Norton doing that's so different?
>>>>>
>>>>> You ask them...do your own research.
>>>>>
>>>> You posted this nonsense. You tried to defend it. So...
>>>>
>>> And here is the way to quantify it...
>>>
>>> http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
>>>
>> I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster
>> than Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>>
>
> Prove it.
>
>
>
Bear
Apr 5, 2012, 2:18:29 PM4/5/12
to
"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
news:05ydnR1SQ6-OQuDS...@giganews.com:
> From: "p-0^0-h the cat" <super...@justpurrfect.invalid>
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster
>>> than Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>>
>> and this proves you so wrong
>>
>> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>>
>> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on
>> that, that's because I'm
>> a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my ISP's primary comes second.
>>
>> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless
>> amateur that you are.
>>
>
> ;-)
>
>
>
Cox second
Google third
Of course the apparent difference is negligible. However, such
benchmarks are good enough for them to claim they are faster.
At any rate, it's their claim and you should take it up with them silly
boy.
The point of the post is the service provided by the use of alternate
DNS provides better protection with no additional resource usuage than
the ISP.
Gawd trolls ya are. It's fun watching you make fools of yourselves
though.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 5, 2012, 2:33:40 PM4/5/12
to
On 05 Apr 2012 18:18:29 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
>news:05ydnR1SQ6-OQuDS...@giganews.com:
>
>> From: "p-0^0-h the cat" <super...@justpurrfect.invalid>
>>
>>> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster
>>>> than Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>>>
>>> and this proves you so wrong
>>>
>>> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>>>
>>> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on
>>> that, that's because I'm
>>> a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my ISP's primary comes second.
>>>
>>> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless
>>> amateur that you are.
>>>
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>Symantec comes in first
>Cox second
>Google third
No screenshot noted.
>"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
>news:05ydnR1SQ6-OQuDS...@giganews.com:
>
>> From: "p-0^0-h the cat" <super...@justpurrfect.invalid>
>>
>>> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster
>>>> than Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>>>
>>> and this proves you so wrong
>>>
>>> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>>>
>>> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on
>>> that, that's because I'm
>>> a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my ISP's primary comes second.
>>>
>>> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless
>>> amateur that you are.
>>>
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>
>Symantec comes in first
>Cox second
>Google third
>Of course the apparent difference is negligible. However, such
>benchmarks are good enough for them to claim they are faster.
>At any rate, it's their claim and you should take it up with them silly
>boy.
>The point of the post is the service provided by the use of alternate
>DNS provides better protection with no additional resource usuage than
>the ISP.
>Gawd trolls ya are. It's fun watching you make fools of yourselves
>though.
troll and/or a forger.
It's clear who the troll is, and pretty clear that my claim that you are forging yourself
in order to smear me is a strong possibility. You were just a bit quick using the forger
angle that time Bottom, and it was hardly likely I was going to spoil a thread in which I
was giving you a much needed education.
Dustin
Apr 5, 2012, 10:53:59 PM4/5/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02C78ACC4F28be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C795627272HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02C5C192B829be...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> You offered nothing more than an opinion.
>>
>> You evidently don't understand the differences (ever so slight)
>> between opinion and fact. Fact is, a dns server closer to you (like
>> oh, your ISP) is going to be able to respond to your query faster.
>> It's simple really. The further away the target, the longer it takes
>> the electric current to get there.
>
> Rather simplistic as much more is at play. I'll tell you just as I
> told Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find
> out.
That you don't comprehend how electricity works?
> Those are not my claims, yet they are the claims of more
> knowledgeable people than you. Try to prove it to them.
I have to disagree if they really wrote that a machine thousands of
miles away from me is going to be able to lookup an IP for me faster
than a computer 25 miles or so away, or one that's withen 2 feet of my
own router. I'm sorry Bear, but that's a fact.
> There is no one here to impress, and certainly not you. You and Pooh
> aren't much different...and fit the troll definition to a tee.
I think you need to have your eyeglass prescription checked so that you
can lookup the definition of troll.
news:XnsA02C78ACC4F28be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C795627272HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02C5C192B829be...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> You offered nothing more than an opinion.
>>
>> You evidently don't understand the differences (ever so slight)
>> between opinion and fact. Fact is, a dns server closer to you (like
>> oh, your ISP) is going to be able to respond to your query faster.
>> It's simple really. The further away the target, the longer it takes
>> the electric current to get there.
>
> Rather simplistic as much more is at play. I'll tell you just as I
> told Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find
> out.
> Those are not my claims, yet they are the claims of more
> knowledgeable people than you. Try to prove it to them.
miles away from me is going to be able to lookup an IP for me faster
than a computer 25 miles or so away, or one that's withen 2 feet of my
own router. I'm sorry Bear, but that's a fact.
> There is no one here to impress, and certainly not you. You and Pooh
> aren't much different...and fit the troll definition to a tee.
can lookup the definition of troll.
Dustin
Apr 5, 2012, 10:56:02 PM4/5/12
to
Quaalude <Quaa...@hushmail.com> wrote in
news:jlkmgi$kp9$1...@dont-email.me:
Ahh.. You might very well be right. He's now declaring I'm an idiot for
laying out a simple repeatable process to see that Malwarebytes software
is a memory hog. We'll forget the fact I actually worked for the company
and so know the software at the developers level, but I digress. What
would I know compared to the great Bear.
news:jlkmgi$kp9$1...@dont-email.me:
laying out a simple repeatable process to see that Malwarebytes software
is a memory hog. We'll forget the fact I actually worked for the company
and so know the software at the developers level, but I digress. What
would I know compared to the great Bear.
Dustin
Apr 5, 2012, 10:57:06 PM4/5/12
to
p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
news:stkrn7hu3h3t5lq6r...@4ax.com:
> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>>I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster
>>than Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>
> and this proves you so wrong
>
> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>
> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on
> that, that's because I'm a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my
> ISP's primary comes second.
>
> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless
> amateur that you are.
>
Dustin
Apr 5, 2012, 10:59:40 PM4/5/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02C8761260F5be...@130.225.254.104:
> Symantec comes in first
> Cox second
> Google third
>
> Of course the apparent difference is negligible. However, such
> benchmarks are good enough for them to claim they are faster.
Are you really this dense dude? A local DNS server is NEVER going to be
slower than one that is some distance away. It's much quicker for your
computers to query another machine on the LAN than it is to query
norton or google.
Btw, I use charter, there DNS server is faster (as I expected). My
local DNS server is mad faster (again, as I expected).
> At any rate, it's their claim and you should take it up with them
> silly boy.
They aren't the idiots here posting it and trying to actually defend
it. Electricity, idiot, electricity.
> The point of the post is the service provided by the use of alternate
> DNS provides better protection with no additional resource usuage
> than the ISP.
No additional resource usage than the ISP? What are you saying?
> Gawd trolls ya are. It's fun watching you make fools of yourselves
> though.
Bear... your stupidity never ceases to amaze me.
news:XnsA02C8761260F5be...@130.225.254.104:
> Symantec comes in first
> Cox second
> Google third
>
> Of course the apparent difference is negligible. However, such
> benchmarks are good enough for them to claim they are faster.
slower than one that is some distance away. It's much quicker for your
computers to query another machine on the LAN than it is to query
norton or google.
Btw, I use charter, there DNS server is faster (as I expected). My
local DNS server is mad faster (again, as I expected).
> At any rate, it's their claim and you should take it up with them
> silly boy.
it. Electricity, idiot, electricity.
> The point of the post is the service provided by the use of alternate
> DNS provides better protection with no additional resource usuage
> than the ISP.
> Gawd trolls ya are. It's fun watching you make fools of yourselves
> though.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Bear
Apr 6, 2012, 11:30:15 AM4/6/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02CE9076B8B5HHI2948AJD832@no:
difference for electricity between 25 miles and 2 feet?
news:XnsA02CE9076B8B5HHI2948AJD832@no:
>> Rather simplistic as much more is at play. I'll tell you just as I
>> told Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find
>> out.
>
> That you don't comprehend how electricity works?
Ha. I am a certified electrician.
>> told Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find
>> out.
>
> That you don't comprehend how electricity works?
>
>> Those are not my claims, yet they are the claims of more
>> knowledgeable people than you. Try to prove it to them.
>
> I have to disagree if they really wrote that a machine thousands of
> miles away from me is going to be able to lookup an IP for me faster
> than a computer 25 miles or so away, or one that's withen 2 feet of my
> own router. I'm sorry Bear, but that's a fact.
You are still hung up on one facet. Besides, do you know the speed
>> Those are not my claims, yet they are the claims of more
>> knowledgeable people than you. Try to prove it to them.
>
> I have to disagree if they really wrote that a machine thousands of
> miles away from me is going to be able to lookup an IP for me faster
> than a computer 25 miles or so away, or one that's withen 2 feet of my
> own router. I'm sorry Bear, but that's a fact.
difference for electricity between 25 miles and 2 feet?
>
>> There is no one here to impress, and certainly not you. You and Pooh
>> aren't much different...and fit the troll definition to a tee.
>
> I think you need to have your eyeglass prescription checked so that
you
> can lookup the definition of troll.
>
Little green fat ugly men...suppose it could be woman too.
>> There is no one here to impress, and certainly not you. You and Pooh
>> aren't much different...and fit the troll definition to a tee.
>
> I think you need to have your eyeglass prescription checked so that
you
> can lookup the definition of troll.
>
Bear
Apr 6, 2012, 11:36:52 AM4/6/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02CE960524EFHHI2948AJD832@no:
> What would I know compared to the great Bear.
>
Well we don't know yet. You haven't said anything significant. You just
stomp around touting why you are the "expert" and no one else knows
anything. I say prove it...but you haven't provided anything significant to
do so....and I don't mean prove it with credentials...prove it with
information ... like a great program, or what are the best tools to use,
etc. You know, the main topics of these groups.
What are your security tools?
What new great programs have you found?
What are the tools and programs you recommend in various categories?
You know...stuff that people are actually interested in.
news:XnsA02CE960524EFHHI2948AJD832@no:
> What would I know compared to the great Bear.
>
stomp around touting why you are the "expert" and no one else knows
anything. I say prove it...but you haven't provided anything significant to
do so....and I don't mean prove it with credentials...prove it with
information ... like a great program, or what are the best tools to use,
etc. You know, the main topics of these groups.
What are your security tools?
What new great programs have you found?
What are the tools and programs you recommend in various categories?
You know...stuff that people are actually interested in.
Bear
Apr 6, 2012, 11:38:54 AM4/6/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02CE98F1190CHHI2948AJD832@no:
> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
> news:stkrn7hu3h3t5lq6r...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster
>>>than Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>>
>> and this proves you so wrong
>>
>> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>>
>> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on
>> that, that's because I'm a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my
>> ISP's primary comes second.
>>
>> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless
>> amateur that you are.
>>
>
> Way cool man. :)
>
>
So his local ISP servers provide DNS filtering/warning? What is his ISP?
news:XnsA02CE98F1190CHHI2948AJD832@no:
> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
> news:stkrn7hu3h3t5lq6r...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster
>>>than Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>>
>> and this proves you so wrong
>>
>> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>>
>> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on
>> that, that's because I'm a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my
>> ISP's primary comes second.
>>
>> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless
>> amateur that you are.
>>
>
> Way cool man. :)
>
>
Bear
Apr 6, 2012, 11:45:36 AM4/6/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02CE9FE93ABAHHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C8761260F5be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Symantec comes in first
>> Cox second
>> Google third
>>
>> Of course the apparent difference is negligible. However, such
>> benchmarks are good enough for them to claim they are faster.
>
> Are you really this dense dude? A local DNS server is NEVER going to
> be slower than one that is some distance away. It's much quicker for
> your computers to query another machine on the LAN than it is to query
> norton or google.
The point of the post is DNS filtering/warnings. Those providing the
service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as significant. So
your ISP provides better DNS service features than Google or Norton?
Norton ConnectSafe provides. It provides an additional layer of security
without using additional system resources. Pity I had to clear that up
for you.
Are you saying Charter provides such a service and it is better than
Norton's?
news:XnsA02CE9FE93ABAHHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02C8761260F5be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Symantec comes in first
>> Cox second
>> Google third
>>
>> Of course the apparent difference is negligible. However, such
>> benchmarks are good enough for them to claim they are faster.
>
> Are you really this dense dude? A local DNS server is NEVER going to
> be slower than one that is some distance away. It's much quicker for
> your computers to query another machine on the LAN than it is to query
> norton or google.
service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as significant. So
your ISP provides better DNS service features than Google or Norton?
>
> Btw, I use charter, there DNS server is faster (as I expected). My
> local DNS server is mad faster (again, as I expected).
By how many seconds as compared with Symantec?
> Btw, I use charter, there DNS server is faster (as I expected). My
> local DNS server is mad faster (again, as I expected).
>
>> At any rate, it's their claim and you should take it up with them
>> silly boy.
>
> They aren't the idiots here posting it and trying to actually defend
> it. Electricity, idiot, electricity.
>
>> The point of the post is the service provided by the use of alternate
>> DNS provides better protection with no additional resource usuage
>> than the ISP.
>
> No additional resource usage than the ISP? What are you saying?
You are the dense one eh. I'm convinced now you do not understand what
>> At any rate, it's their claim and you should take it up with them
>> silly boy.
>
> They aren't the idiots here posting it and trying to actually defend
> it. Electricity, idiot, electricity.
>
>> The point of the post is the service provided by the use of alternate
>> DNS provides better protection with no additional resource usuage
>> than the ISP.
>
> No additional resource usage than the ISP? What are you saying?
Norton ConnectSafe provides. It provides an additional layer of security
without using additional system resources. Pity I had to clear that up
for you.
Are you saying Charter provides such a service and it is better than
Norton's?
Dustin
Apr 6, 2012, 11:50:16 AM4/6/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02D6ADA5F0D2be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02CE9076B8B5HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02C78ACC4F28be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>>>
>>> Rather simplistic as much more is at play. I'll tell you just as I
>>> told Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find
>>> out.
>>
>> That you don't comprehend how electricity works?
>
> Ha. I am a certified electrician.
Okay. That being said, why did you post this nonsense about distant
systems being faster than ones physically closer to you? As (what exactly
is a certified electrician? I'm familiar with licensed electrician...) an
electrician of some sort... You know better.
Out of curiosity, what electrical license did you last or presently hold?
> You are still hung up on one facet. Besides, do you know the speed
> difference for electricity between 25 miles and 2 feet?
Depends on the voltage and current as you well know. I'd have to use much
higher voltage and amperage for DC current to make a 25mile run on it's
own. It's why the power lines are AC. Not enough, it won't be present at
the end of the 25 mile run. In a vacuum, it travels at the speed of light.
In real life, it's restricted by the various materials it's being
conducted thru.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
It's not much of a difference in relative terms Bear, but the local LAN is
always going to be able to outrun anything WAN based for the simple
reason, it's a hell of alot less distance to travel. We're talking about
very short impulses here, very low voltage, no amperage.. It has to be
boosted and all sorts of shit to get to your machine from here (as an
example). although it's happening really fast, it's NOT happening
instantly.
> Little green fat ugly men...suppose it could be woman too.
I'm not fat nor ugly. :) Not green either. LOL!
news:XnsA02D6ADA5F0D2be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02CE9076B8B5HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02C78ACC4F28be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>>>
>>> Rather simplistic as much more is at play. I'll tell you just as I
>>> told Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find
>>> out.
>>
>> That you don't comprehend how electricity works?
>
> Ha. I am a certified electrician.
systems being faster than ones physically closer to you? As (what exactly
is a certified electrician? I'm familiar with licensed electrician...) an
electrician of some sort... You know better.
Out of curiosity, what electrical license did you last or presently hold?
> You are still hung up on one facet. Besides, do you know the speed
> difference for electricity between 25 miles and 2 feet?
higher voltage and amperage for DC current to make a 25mile run on it's
own. It's why the power lines are AC. Not enough, it won't be present at
the end of the 25 mile run. In a vacuum, it travels at the speed of light.
In real life, it's restricted by the various materials it's being
conducted thru.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
It's not much of a difference in relative terms Bear, but the local LAN is
always going to be able to outrun anything WAN based for the simple
reason, it's a hell of alot less distance to travel. We're talking about
very short impulses here, very low voltage, no amperage.. It has to be
boosted and all sorts of shit to get to your machine from here (as an
example). although it's happening really fast, it's NOT happening
instantly.
> Little green fat ugly men...suppose it could be woman too.
Dustin
Apr 6, 2012, 12:10:25 PM4/6/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02D6BF9286FAbe...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02CE960524EFHHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> What would I know compared to the great Bear.
>>
>
> Well we don't know yet. You haven't said anything significant. You
> just stomp around touting why you are the "expert" and no one else
> knows anything. I say prove it...but you haven't provided anything
> significant to do so....and I don't mean prove it with
> credentials...prove it with information ... like a great program, or
> what are the best tools to use, etc. You know, the main topics of
> these groups.
I know I've asked you before, I'll ask again tho. Can you provide even
one MID where I have this "I'm the only expert" here attitude? Just
one, and I'll eat crow. I know many of the posters to this newsgroup
and consider the majority of them power users if not techies like
myself.
I don't really consider you to be in either category, but that doesn't
imply I consider myself to be the only expert here either. I'm not.
> What are your security tools?
For which aspect of security Bear? I use IP policies and crypto behind
a hardware firewall. If I'm wanting to test unknown code without trying
to disassemble it first (Just to study what it does), I prefer
sandboxie due to the kickass support of it's author. I even paid for a
registered copy and I don't bitch about the new registration/activation
nonsense. It's still worth having to me. Friendly support for 3rd party
tools.
> What new great programs have you found?
I can't take any credit for textfixer.com. I didn't write it, and
you've already mentioned it. :) I too make use of some of the text
features offered on the site because I just don't feel like writing my
own little app to fix some old .nfo files I have. Hundreds of them it
seems are in the old style that doesn't go over well via the web.
I did find an interesting program originally mentioned on
technibble.com, but it's for advanced users. You could very well mess
your system up. In this case, I know you won't hurt anything; you have
a sound backup procedure.
http://www.carifred.com/uvk/
Ultra Virus Killer, also known as UVK, is a free and portable
application designed to help users detect and remove malware. UVK acts
as a swiss army knife of malware removal as it contains similar
functionality to a range of computer technician software use such as
Process Explorer, Autoruns, Unlocker, Windows Repair and more.
The strength of this application is not just its ability to help you
remove the offending malware, but repair the damaged Windows install
afterwards. For example, the application allows you to create scripts
that will reset the hosts file and DNS, Reset IE, Reset Group Policy,
Fix .exe extensions and much more.
This one is probably useful to many people:
http://majorgeeks.com/dMaintenance_d7431.html
dMaintenance is a free portable tool that can be configured to automate
maintenance tasks. It can run directly on a pc without installation and
can also be pushed out on networks via group policy. DMaintenance can
be set to run automatically via Windows Task Scheduler as well.
The first time that dMaintenance is executed it will greet you with a
configuration screen. Simply ticking the boxes next to each task will
set the program. The program has numerous tasks that can be set to
execute, such as deleting history files, cookies, Temp files, correct
time settings, clean up internet explorer, defrag, and more. A
technician can also configure the program to run third party tools such
as cCleaner and Sysinternals applications (must be present on the
machine).
You can set if you want a report log and how you want it displayed.
dMaintenance can be configured to send you an email with a results log
if you wish. Once initial configuration is completed the next time you
run the executable it will executed all the configured tasks so the
tech does not need to run each one individually. Again, for a true
hands off experience, this can be accomplished through task scheduler
as well.
> What are the tools and programs you recommend in various categories?
I'm a fan of avast for residential clients. It's light on resources and
easy for older persons to use. They seem to enjoy it talking when it
does the updates. :) - Antivirus
Malwarebytes (non resident is fine, but it's very inexpensive and worth
paying for, imho).
I like macrium reflect as well. It's part of a backup procedure various
clients are using. I still prefer ghost for the older systems which are
okay with running my modified bartPE disc. -Backup
I created a short list of techie tools for a friend of mine the other
day.. I'll post the software section for you: 4- Most of the
diagnostics software is free for commercial and non commercial use
alike. (a) Memtest86+ is a free memory testing/burn in tool. Boot the
CD and watch. (b) ERUNT is a free windows NT based registry backup
utility. It's always a good idea to snapshot the systems current
registry before making any changes! (c) CrystalDiskInfo - a very
thorough HD diagnostic tool. (d) TestDisk, Recuva - Free data
recovery
tools (e) HotCPUTesterPro - not free software, Checks MB and cpu tho!
(f) Passware kit-not free software for accessing quickbooks, quicken
files. (g) Spinrite -Commercial software helps recover data in some
cases on failing drives. (h) Newest Firefox/Chrome installers (Always
give the user an option) (i) The Sysinternals package.-Free set of
utilities to troubleshoot software issues. (j) Norton removal
utilities- saves time removing damaged Norton installations.
(k) UnknownDeviceIdentifier.- This can assist in locating drivers for
hardware. (l) Directx 9c redistributables. In the event you need to
reinstall directx. (m) Dial-a-fix. Corrects many script/activeX/windows
installer issues. (n) KeyFinder v151 -Gets software install keys for
some packages. OS too. (o) Double driver v4.10 This allows you to
backup/restore the drivers on the system!. (p) Password reset bootable
cds (free!). Unlock an NT system. (q) WinPE discs.
(r) EaseUS partition master software.
Software for suspected malware issues:
(a) TDSSKiller, Gmer, RootRepeal
(b) Trend micro sysclean package
(c) Kaspersky rescue disc
(d) Malwarebytes
(e) Multi_AV
It's not a complete list or anything. Most of it's all well known and
has a proven track record.
> You know...stuff that people are actually interested in.
Bear,
I haven't seen any supporting posts for this thread... Maybe you should
take your own advice for a change.
news:XnsA02D6BF9286FAbe...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02CE960524EFHHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> What would I know compared to the great Bear.
>>
>
> Well we don't know yet. You haven't said anything significant. You
> just stomp around touting why you are the "expert" and no one else
> knows anything. I say prove it...but you haven't provided anything
> significant to do so....and I don't mean prove it with
> credentials...prove it with information ... like a great program, or
> what are the best tools to use, etc. You know, the main topics of
> these groups.
one MID where I have this "I'm the only expert" here attitude? Just
one, and I'll eat crow. I know many of the posters to this newsgroup
and consider the majority of them power users if not techies like
myself.
I don't really consider you to be in either category, but that doesn't
imply I consider myself to be the only expert here either. I'm not.
> What are your security tools?
a hardware firewall. If I'm wanting to test unknown code without trying
to disassemble it first (Just to study what it does), I prefer
sandboxie due to the kickass support of it's author. I even paid for a
registered copy and I don't bitch about the new registration/activation
nonsense. It's still worth having to me. Friendly support for 3rd party
tools.
> What new great programs have you found?
you've already mentioned it. :) I too make use of some of the text
features offered on the site because I just don't feel like writing my
own little app to fix some old .nfo files I have. Hundreds of them it
seems are in the old style that doesn't go over well via the web.
I did find an interesting program originally mentioned on
technibble.com, but it's for advanced users. You could very well mess
your system up. In this case, I know you won't hurt anything; you have
a sound backup procedure.
http://www.carifred.com/uvk/
Ultra Virus Killer, also known as UVK, is a free and portable
application designed to help users detect and remove malware. UVK acts
as a swiss army knife of malware removal as it contains similar
functionality to a range of computer technician software use such as
Process Explorer, Autoruns, Unlocker, Windows Repair and more.
The strength of this application is not just its ability to help you
remove the offending malware, but repair the damaged Windows install
afterwards. For example, the application allows you to create scripts
that will reset the hosts file and DNS, Reset IE, Reset Group Policy,
Fix .exe extensions and much more.
This one is probably useful to many people:
http://majorgeeks.com/dMaintenance_d7431.html
dMaintenance is a free portable tool that can be configured to automate
maintenance tasks. It can run directly on a pc without installation and
can also be pushed out on networks via group policy. DMaintenance can
be set to run automatically via Windows Task Scheduler as well.
The first time that dMaintenance is executed it will greet you with a
configuration screen. Simply ticking the boxes next to each task will
set the program. The program has numerous tasks that can be set to
execute, such as deleting history files, cookies, Temp files, correct
time settings, clean up internet explorer, defrag, and more. A
technician can also configure the program to run third party tools such
as cCleaner and Sysinternals applications (must be present on the
machine).
You can set if you want a report log and how you want it displayed.
dMaintenance can be configured to send you an email with a results log
if you wish. Once initial configuration is completed the next time you
run the executable it will executed all the configured tasks so the
tech does not need to run each one individually. Again, for a true
hands off experience, this can be accomplished through task scheduler
as well.
> What are the tools and programs you recommend in various categories?
easy for older persons to use. They seem to enjoy it talking when it
does the updates. :) - Antivirus
Malwarebytes (non resident is fine, but it's very inexpensive and worth
paying for, imho).
I like macrium reflect as well. It's part of a backup procedure various
clients are using. I still prefer ghost for the older systems which are
okay with running my modified bartPE disc. -Backup
I created a short list of techie tools for a friend of mine the other
day.. I'll post the software section for you: 4- Most of the
diagnostics software is free for commercial and non commercial use
alike. (a) Memtest86+ is a free memory testing/burn in tool. Boot the
CD and watch. (b) ERUNT is a free windows NT based registry backup
utility. It's always a good idea to snapshot the systems current
registry before making any changes! (c) CrystalDiskInfo - a very
thorough HD diagnostic tool. (d) TestDisk, Recuva - Free data
recovery
tools (e) HotCPUTesterPro - not free software, Checks MB and cpu tho!
(f) Passware kit-not free software for accessing quickbooks, quicken
files. (g) Spinrite -Commercial software helps recover data in some
cases on failing drives. (h) Newest Firefox/Chrome installers (Always
give the user an option) (i) The Sysinternals package.-Free set of
utilities to troubleshoot software issues. (j) Norton removal
utilities- saves time removing damaged Norton installations.
(k) UnknownDeviceIdentifier.- This can assist in locating drivers for
hardware. (l) Directx 9c redistributables. In the event you need to
reinstall directx. (m) Dial-a-fix. Corrects many script/activeX/windows
installer issues. (n) KeyFinder v151 -Gets software install keys for
some packages. OS too. (o) Double driver v4.10 This allows you to
backup/restore the drivers on the system!. (p) Password reset bootable
cds (free!). Unlock an NT system. (q) WinPE discs.
(r) EaseUS partition master software.
Software for suspected malware issues:
(a) TDSSKiller, Gmer, RootRepeal
(b) Trend micro sysclean package
(c) Kaspersky rescue disc
(d) Malwarebytes
(e) Multi_AV
It's not a complete list or anything. Most of it's all well known and
has a proven track record.
> You know...stuff that people are actually interested in.
I haven't seen any supporting posts for this thread... Maybe you should
take your own advice for a change.
Message has been deleted
Dustin
Apr 6, 2012, 1:39:07 PM4/6/12
to
Bear <removebearb...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02DB3B2DDBA2be...@130.225.254.104:
> Nice text wall, son. LOL...the stomper stomps again. Gawd you are
> like a child. I've been heavily involved in computers since we humans
> started using them, in both commercial and private life.
>
> I would say that there isn't much that you know that I need to know.
Isn't it amazing when you get spanked and spanked good, the ehm, other
Bear responds in your defense?
NNTP-Posting-Host: $$_dwcidinkg7m53.news.x-privat.org
:)
technibble.com is a very useful site, Bear. no text wall, direct answers
to your questions. :)
news:XnsA02DB3B2DDBA2be...@130.225.254.104:
> Nice text wall, son. LOL...the stomper stomps again. Gawd you are
> like a child. I've been heavily involved in computers since we humans
> started using them, in both commercial and private life.
>
> I would say that there isn't much that you know that I need to know.
Isn't it amazing when you get spanked and spanked good, the ehm, other
Bear responds in your defense?
NNTP-Posting-Host: $$_dwcidinkg7m53.news.x-privat.org
:)
technibble.com is a very useful site, Bear. no text wall, direct answers
to your questions. :)
Dustin
Apr 6, 2012, 1:41:35 PM4/6/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02D6D7441A72be...@130.225.254.104:
> The point of the post is DNS filtering/warnings. Those providing the
> service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as significant.
why try to defend the claim?
> your ISP provides better DNS service features than Google or Norton?
Comparable, I'd say.
> By how many seconds as compared with Symantec?
roughly 40-60ms or so. Not much. :)
> You are the dense one eh. I'm convinced now you do not understand
> what Norton ConnectSafe provides. It provides an additional layer of
> security without using additional system resources. Pity I had to
> clear that up for you.
I didn't understand your gibberish, no. You didn't clarify what you meant.
> Are you saying Charter provides such a service and it is better than
> Norton's?
Charter uses f-secure. f-secure has a better detection/disinfection record
than Norton. ;p
news:XnsA02D6D7441A72be...@130.225.254.104:
> The point of the post is DNS filtering/warnings. Those providing the
> service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as significant.
> your ISP provides better DNS service features than Google or Norton?
> By how many seconds as compared with Symantec?
> You are the dense one eh. I'm convinced now you do not understand
> what Norton ConnectSafe provides. It provides an additional layer of
> security without using additional system resources. Pity I had to
> clear that up for you.
> Are you saying Charter provides such a service and it is better than
> Norton's?
than Norton. ;p
Dustin
Apr 6, 2012, 1:42:52 PM4/6/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02D6C51B1C76be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02CE98F1190CHHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>> news:stkrn7hu3h3t5lq6r...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster
>>>>than Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>>>
>>> and this proves you so wrong
>>>
>>> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>>>
>>> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on
>>> that, that's because I'm a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my
>>> ISP's primary comes second.
>>>
>>> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless
>>> amateur that you are.
>>>
>>
>> Way cool man. :)
>>
>>
>
> So his local ISP servers provide DNS filtering/warning? What is his
> ISP?
As you well know, that wasn't the claim being disputed or questioned.
You claimed they're faster and called us Dilberts as a result. Spanked
again, you have been.
news:XnsA02D6C51B1C76be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02CE98F1190CHHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>> news:stkrn7hu3h3t5lq6r...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 05 Apr 2012 16:55:02 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I've already benchmarked it. Both Google DNS and Norton are faster
>>>>than Cox. Seems you three are Dilberts :)
>>>
>>> and this proves you so wrong
>>>
>>> http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120405-52o-105kb.jpg
>>>
>>> My local nameserver thrashes the lot cached, or uncached [suck on
>>> that, that's because I'm a pro who knows wtf he's doing], and my
>>> ISP's primary comes second.
>>>
>>> That's proof dumb arse. Piss off, go dream, gobby fucking clueless
>>> amateur that you are.
>>>
>>
>> Way cool man. :)
>>
>>
>
> So his local ISP servers provide DNS filtering/warning? What is his
> ISP?
You claimed they're faster and called us Dilberts as a result. Spanked
again, you have been.
Bear
Apr 6, 2012, 2:21:56 PM4/6/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02D78814FA27HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02D6ADA5F0D2be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02CE9076B8B5HHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA02C78ACC4F28be...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Rather simplistic as much more is at play. I'll tell you just as I
>>>> told Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find
>>>> out.
>>>
>>> That you don't comprehend how electricity works?
>>
>> Ha. I am a certified electrician.
>
> Okay. That being said, why did you post this nonsense about distant
> systems being faster than ones physically closer to you? As (what
> exactly is a certified electrician? I'm familiar with licensed
> electrician...) an electrician of some sort... You know better.
I posted the features they claimed, though the speed thing is a side
claim to what the post was about which is DNS filtering or bad actor
warnings. The discussion was steered off course by you and Pooh for
trolling purpose.
information.
many factors that effect the speed of service. You single that argument
out as your only recourse to attempt to prop up your trolling.
Norton ConnectSafe is a good service. That is what the post is about.
You talk about everything but that. Trolling.
> Reference:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
>
>
> It's not much of a difference in relative terms Bear, but the local
> LAN is always going to be able to outrun anything WAN based for the
> simple reason, it's a hell of alot less distance to travel. We're
> talking about very short impulses here, very low voltage, no
> amperage.. It has to be boosted and all sorts of shit to get to your
> machine from here (as an example). although it's happening really
> fast, it's NOT happening instantly.
>
>> Little green fat ugly men...suppose it could be woman too.
>
> I'm not fat nor ugly. :) Not green either. LOL!
>
Well damn, maybe I pegged you wrong.
news:XnsA02D78814FA27HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02D6ADA5F0D2be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02CE9076B8B5HHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA02C78ACC4F28be...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Rather simplistic as much more is at play. I'll tell you just as I
>>>> told Pooh...Check with Norton and Google. Let us know what you find
>>>> out.
>>>
>>> That you don't comprehend how electricity works?
>>
>> Ha. I am a certified electrician.
>
> Okay. That being said, why did you post this nonsense about distant
> systems being faster than ones physically closer to you? As (what
> exactly is a certified electrician? I'm familiar with licensed
> electrician...) an electrician of some sort... You know better.
claim to what the post was about which is DNS filtering or bad actor
warnings. The discussion was steered off course by you and Pooh for
trolling purpose.
>
> Out of curiosity, what electrical license did you last or presently
> hold?
Curiosity killed the cat. Where you are concerned, that is private
> Out of curiosity, what electrical license did you last or presently
> hold?
information.
>
>> You are still hung up on one facet. Besides, do you know the speed
>> difference for electricity between 25 miles and 2 feet?
>
> Depends on the voltage and current as you well know. I'd have to use
> much higher voltage and amperage for DC current to make a 25mile run
> on it's own. It's why the power lines are AC. Not enough, it won't be
> present at the end of the 25 mile run. In a vacuum, it travels at the
> speed of light. In real life, it's restricted by the various materials
> it's being conducted thru.
>
Dustin, that is not the point...how fast electricity travels. There are
>> You are still hung up on one facet. Besides, do you know the speed
>> difference for electricity between 25 miles and 2 feet?
>
> Depends on the voltage and current as you well know. I'd have to use
> much higher voltage and amperage for DC current to make a 25mile run
> on it's own. It's why the power lines are AC. Not enough, it won't be
> present at the end of the 25 mile run. In a vacuum, it travels at the
> speed of light. In real life, it's restricted by the various materials
> it's being conducted thru.
>
many factors that effect the speed of service. You single that argument
out as your only recourse to attempt to prop up your trolling.
Norton ConnectSafe is a good service. That is what the post is about.
You talk about everything but that. Trolling.
> Reference:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
>
>
> It's not much of a difference in relative terms Bear, but the local
> LAN is always going to be able to outrun anything WAN based for the
> simple reason, it's a hell of alot less distance to travel. We're
> talking about very short impulses here, very low voltage, no
> amperage.. It has to be boosted and all sorts of shit to get to your
> machine from here (as an example). although it's happening really
> fast, it's NOT happening instantly.
>
>> Little green fat ugly men...suppose it could be woman too.
>
> I'm not fat nor ugly. :) Not green either. LOL!
>
Bear
Apr 6, 2012, 2:23:29 PM4/6/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02D8B988C99BHHI2948AJD832@no:
>> So his local ISP servers provide DNS filtering/warning? What is his
>> ISP?
>
> As you well know, that wasn't the claim being disputed or questioned.
> You claimed they're faster and called us Dilberts as a result. Spanked
> again, you have been.
I posted about Norton ConnectSafe. You and Pooh trolled the conversation
away from the main point. It is a trolls MO.
news:XnsA02D8B988C99BHHI2948AJD832@no:
>> So his local ISP servers provide DNS filtering/warning? What is his
>> ISP?
>
> As you well know, that wasn't the claim being disputed or questioned.
> You claimed they're faster and called us Dilberts as a result. Spanked
> again, you have been.
away from the main point. It is a trolls MO.
Bear
Apr 6, 2012, 2:32:03 PM4/6/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02D8B6037439HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02D6D7441A72be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> The point of the post is DNS filtering/warnings. Those providing the
>> service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as significant.
>
> why try to defend the claim?
I'm not. I don't think there is a noticible enough speed difference to
make it an issue. You and Pooh are using it as a tactic to troll.
attempts to prove it?
attempts to highjack the thread away from the main point of the
post...oh and how insignifantly wrong you are. There, that shouldn't
hurt so much.
>
>> You are the dense one eh. I'm convinced now you do not understand
>> what Norton ConnectSafe provides. It provides an additional layer of
>> security without using additional system resources. Pity I had to
>> clear that up for you.
>
> I didn't understand your gibberish, no. You didn't clarify what you
> meant.
Liar. It's in the original post "This
gives you an additional layer of security without adding additional
burden to your system resources."
Is English your first language? That quoted sentence is gibberish to
you. Dustin, you are the one steering the discussion into the gutter.
It's what you do. If you didn't do that so much, I would likely not be
spanking you. :)
news:XnsA02D8B6037439HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02D6D7441A72be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> The point of the post is DNS filtering/warnings. Those providing the
>> service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as significant.
>
> why try to defend the claim?
make it an issue. You and Pooh are using it as a tactic to troll.
>
>> your ISP provides better DNS service features than Google or Norton?
>
> Comparable, I'd say.
I doubt that very much. Can you prove it or provide information that
>> your ISP provides better DNS service features than Google or Norton?
>
> Comparable, I'd say.
attempts to prove it?
>
>> By how many seconds as compared with Symantec?
>
> roughly 40-60ms or so. Not much. :)
LOL ... so do you now see yours and Poohs arguments are trollish
>> By how many seconds as compared with Symantec?
>
> roughly 40-60ms or so. Not much. :)
attempts to highjack the thread away from the main point of the
post...oh and how insignifantly wrong you are. There, that shouldn't
hurt so much.
>
>> You are the dense one eh. I'm convinced now you do not understand
>> what Norton ConnectSafe provides. It provides an additional layer of
>> security without using additional system resources. Pity I had to
>> clear that up for you.
>
> I didn't understand your gibberish, no. You didn't clarify what you
> meant.
gives you an additional layer of security without adding additional
burden to your system resources."
Is English your first language? That quoted sentence is gibberish to
you. Dustin, you are the one steering the discussion into the gutter.
It's what you do. If you didn't do that so much, I would likely not be
spanking you. :)
>
>> Are you saying Charter provides such a service and it is better than
>> Norton's?
>
> Charter uses f-secure. f-secure has a better detection/disinfection
> record than Norton. ;p
>
>
That is a dodge. Charter censors the Internet with DNS filtering?
>> Are you saying Charter provides such a service and it is better than
>> Norton's?
>
> Charter uses f-secure. f-secure has a better detection/disinfection
> record than Norton. ;p
>
>
Dustin
Apr 6, 2012, 4:41:27 PM4/6/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02D89ACF49ABbe...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02D8B6037439HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02D6D7441A72be...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> The point of the post is DNS filtering/warnings. Those providing the
>>> service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as significant.
>>
>> why try to defend the claim?
>
> I'm not. I don't think there is a noticible enough speed difference to
> make it an issue. You and Pooh are using it as a tactic to troll.
No, We aren't. Neither of us disagrees with the filtering abilities. We
disagreed with the absurd claim that it was faster than a local ISP or
local LAN's DNS servers would be. Instead of accepting that and moving on,
you've decided to try and defend it. Now that you realize, it's impossible
to defend as it's not logical, you wish to call us trolls.
The speed gain/loss isn't much, but that really isn't the point.
> I doubt that very much. Can you prove it or provide information that
> attempts to prove it?
Prove what exactly? I'm sure you can find the features/offerings on
charters website. I can't be arsed to look. I don't use any of them.
>>
>>> By how many seconds as compared with Symantec?
>>
>> roughly 40-60ms or so. Not much. :)
>
> LOL ... so do you now see yours and Poohs arguments are trollish
> attempts to highjack the thread away from the main point of the
> post...oh and how insignifantly wrong you are. There, that shouldn't
> hurt so much.
I haven't attempted to hijack any threads, Bear. As the ISP is 40-60ms
faster at responding to DNS queries, I'm unsure how you reach the
conclusion that I'm wrong or that it would in some fashion... hurt?
> Is English your first language? That quoted sentence is gibberish to
> you. Dustin, you are the one steering the discussion into the gutter.
What discussion? I see you repasting something you didn't write, and
calling us Dilberts when we question the material.
> It's what you do. If you didn't do that so much, I would likely not be
> spanking you. :)
If that thought somehow brightens your day, more power to you.
>> Charter uses f-secure. f-secure has a better detection/disinfection
>> record than Norton. ;p
>>
>>
> That is a dodge. Charter censors the Internet with DNS filtering?
They can if I want them too. It's upto me to do that, tho.
As I said, it's comparable to what you repasted. Nothing better/worse
implied.
news:XnsA02D89ACF49ABbe...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02D8B6037439HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02D6D7441A72be...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> The point of the post is DNS filtering/warnings. Those providing the
>>> service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as significant.
>>
>> why try to defend the claim?
>
> I'm not. I don't think there is a noticible enough speed difference to
> make it an issue. You and Pooh are using it as a tactic to troll.
disagreed with the absurd claim that it was faster than a local ISP or
local LAN's DNS servers would be. Instead of accepting that and moving on,
you've decided to try and defend it. Now that you realize, it's impossible
to defend as it's not logical, you wish to call us trolls.
The speed gain/loss isn't much, but that really isn't the point.
> I doubt that very much. Can you prove it or provide information that
> attempts to prove it?
charters website. I can't be arsed to look. I don't use any of them.
>>
>>> By how many seconds as compared with Symantec?
>>
>> roughly 40-60ms or so. Not much. :)
>
> LOL ... so do you now see yours and Poohs arguments are trollish
> attempts to highjack the thread away from the main point of the
> post...oh and how insignifantly wrong you are. There, that shouldn't
> hurt so much.
faster at responding to DNS queries, I'm unsure how you reach the
conclusion that I'm wrong or that it would in some fashion... hurt?
> Is English your first language? That quoted sentence is gibberish to
> you. Dustin, you are the one steering the discussion into the gutter.
calling us Dilberts when we question the material.
> It's what you do. If you didn't do that so much, I would likely not be
> spanking you. :)
>> Charter uses f-secure. f-secure has a better detection/disinfection
>> record than Norton. ;p
>>
>>
> That is a dodge. Charter censors the Internet with DNS filtering?
As I said, it's comparable to what you repasted. Nothing better/worse
implied.
Bear
Apr 6, 2012, 5:32:35 PM4/6/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02DA9DFAAA9DHHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02D89ACF49ABbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02D8B6037439HHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA02D6D7441A72be...@130.225.254.104:
>>>
>>>> The point of the post is DNS filtering/warnings. Those providing
>>>> the service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as
>>>> significant.
>>>
>>> why try to defend the claim?
>>
>> I'm not. I don't think there is a noticible enough speed difference
>> to make it an issue. You and Pooh are using it as a tactic to troll.
>
> No, We aren't. Neither of us disagrees with the filtering abilities.
> We disagreed with the absurd claim that it was faster than a local ISP
> or local LAN's DNS servers would be. Instead of accepting that and
> moving on, you've decided to try and defend it. Now that you realize,
> it's impossible to defend as it's not logical, you wish to call us
> trolls.
Well you trolled it into my 'claim' which it is not. It is their claim.
There is data they can use to show that their servers are faster than
some ISP's servers...not due to electricity, but due to server/node
management and some other factors that also aren't due to electricity
speed of light or other Einstein theories.
I've said there are other factors involved...and never said anything
about electricity...that was your's and Pooh's troll...and troll it is.
>
>> Is English your first language? That quoted sentence is gibberish to
>> you. Dustin, you are the one steering the discussion into the gutter.
>
> What discussion? I see you repasting something you didn't write, and
> calling us Dilberts when we question the material.
No, you made it personal to me...and now you unpersonalize it. Nice
evasion...noted however anyway. Also noted is your creative snip that
exposed your gibbierish troll. That is dishonest by the way!
>
>> It's what you do. If you didn't do that so much, I would likely not
>> be spanking you. :)
>
> If that thought somehow brightens your day, more power to you.
Well you seem to like the word spanking...so I used it.
is comparable to Googles or Norton's.
Anyway...if this is the type of participation you would like in the
future then continue with your caustic interaction with me. I would
prefer a more civil approach...but I can hang if I need to.
news:XnsA02DA9DFAAA9DHHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02D89ACF49ABbe...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA02D8B6037439HHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>> news:XnsA02D6D7441A72be...@130.225.254.104:
>>>
>>>> The point of the post is DNS filtering/warnings. Those providing
>>>> the service include speed as a feature. I don't see that as
>>>> significant.
>>>
>>> why try to defend the claim?
>>
>> I'm not. I don't think there is a noticible enough speed difference
>> to make it an issue. You and Pooh are using it as a tactic to troll.
>
> No, We aren't. Neither of us disagrees with the filtering abilities.
> We disagreed with the absurd claim that it was faster than a local ISP
> or local LAN's DNS servers would be. Instead of accepting that and
> moving on, you've decided to try and defend it. Now that you realize,
> it's impossible to defend as it's not logical, you wish to call us
> trolls.
There is data they can use to show that their servers are faster than
some ISP's servers...not due to electricity, but due to server/node
management and some other factors that also aren't due to electricity
speed of light or other Einstein theories.
>
> The speed gain/loss isn't much, but that really isn't the point.
>
>> I doubt that very much. Can you prove it or provide information that
>> attempts to prove it?
>
> Prove what exactly? I'm sure you can find the features/offerings on
> charters website. I can't be arsed to look. I don't use any of them.
Then you can't/won't back up your claim.
> The speed gain/loss isn't much, but that really isn't the point.
>
>> I doubt that very much. Can you prove it or provide information that
>> attempts to prove it?
>
> Prove what exactly? I'm sure you can find the features/offerings on
> charters website. I can't be arsed to look. I don't use any of them.
>
>>>
>>>> By how many seconds as compared with Symantec?
>>>
>>> roughly 40-60ms or so. Not much. :)
>>
>> LOL ... so do you now see yours and Poohs arguments are trollish
>> attempts to highjack the thread away from the main point of the
>> post...oh and how insignifantly wrong you are. There, that shouldn't
>> hurt so much.
>
> I haven't attempted to hijack any threads, Bear. As the ISP is 40-60ms
> faster at responding to DNS queries, I'm unsure how you reach the
> conclusion that I'm wrong or that it would in some fashion... hurt?
It's insignificant Dustin...yet you are arguing away about electricity.
>>>
>>>> By how many seconds as compared with Symantec?
>>>
>>> roughly 40-60ms or so. Not much. :)
>>
>> LOL ... so do you now see yours and Poohs arguments are trollish
>> attempts to highjack the thread away from the main point of the
>> post...oh and how insignifantly wrong you are. There, that shouldn't
>> hurt so much.
>
> I haven't attempted to hijack any threads, Bear. As the ISP is 40-60ms
> faster at responding to DNS queries, I'm unsure how you reach the
> conclusion that I'm wrong or that it would in some fashion... hurt?
I've said there are other factors involved...and never said anything
about electricity...that was your's and Pooh's troll...and troll it is.
>
>> Is English your first language? That quoted sentence is gibberish to
>> you. Dustin, you are the one steering the discussion into the gutter.
>
> What discussion? I see you repasting something you didn't write, and
> calling us Dilberts when we question the material.
evasion...noted however anyway. Also noted is your creative snip that
exposed your gibbierish troll. That is dishonest by the way!
>
>> It's what you do. If you didn't do that so much, I would likely not
>> be spanking you. :)
>
> If that thought somehow brightens your day, more power to you.
>
>>> Charter uses f-secure. f-secure has a better detection/disinfection
>>> record than Norton. ;p
>>>
>>>
>> That is a dodge. Charter censors the Internet with DNS filtering?
>
> They can if I want them too. It's upto me to do that, tho.
> As I said, it's comparable to what you repasted. Nothing better/worse
> implied.
>
I'd like to see evidence that Charter offers DNS filtering and that it
>>> Charter uses f-secure. f-secure has a better detection/disinfection
>>> record than Norton. ;p
>>>
>>>
>> That is a dodge. Charter censors the Internet with DNS filtering?
>
> They can if I want them too. It's upto me to do that, tho.
> As I said, it's comparable to what you repasted. Nothing better/worse
> implied.
>
is comparable to Googles or Norton's.
Anyway...if this is the type of participation you would like in the
future then continue with your caustic interaction with me. I would
prefer a more civil approach...but I can hang if I need to.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 6, 2012, 8:43:06 PM4/6/12
to
On 06 Apr 2012 18:23:29 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:XnsA02D8B988C99BHHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>>> So his local ISP servers provide DNS filtering/warning? What is his
>>> ISP?
>>
>> As you well know, that wasn't the claim being disputed or questioned.
>> You claimed they're faster and called us Dilberts as a result. Spanked
>> again, you have been.
>
>I posted about Norton ConnectSafe. You and Pooh trolled the conversation
>away from the main point. It is a trolls MO.
No, I pointed out the superior speed and validity of records claims were erroneous. I was
>Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:XnsA02D8B988C99BHHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>>> So his local ISP servers provide DNS filtering/warning? What is his
>>> ISP?
>>
>> As you well know, that wasn't the claim being disputed or questioned.
>> You claimed they're faster and called us Dilberts as a result. Spanked
>> again, you have been.
>
>I posted about Norton ConnectSafe. You and Pooh trolled the conversation
>away from the main point. It is a trolls MO.
right. I proved it both through logical argument, and experimental results. That's the
nature of scientific method. A process that has delivered the modern world with all it's
benefits, including computer's that can even be used by fucking idiots like you.
Message has been deleted
Bear
Apr 8, 2012, 6:35:54 AM4/8/12
to
Bear <removebearb...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02F708F5A39Dbe...@130.225.254.104:
> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
> news:543vn75og13rnlp6g...@4ax.com:
> doesn't need scientific methods to work.
>
Poor poor Pooh. PPP. So jealous.
news:XnsA02F708F5A39Dbe...@130.225.254.104:
> p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
>
>> On 06 Apr 2012 18:23:29 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:XnsA02D8B988C99BHHI2948AJD832@no:
>>>
>>>>> So his local ISP servers provide DNS filtering/warning? What is
>>>>> his ISP?
>>>>
>>>> As you well know, that wasn't the claim being disputed or
>>>> questioned. You claimed they're faster and called us Dilberts as a
>>>> result. Spanked again, you have been.
>>>
>>>I posted about Norton ConnectSafe. You and Pooh trolled the
>>>conversation away from the main point. It is a trolls MO.
>>
>> No, I pointed out the superior speed and validity of records claims
>> were erroneous. I was right. I proved it both through logical
>> argument, and experimental results. That's the nature of scientific
>> method. A process that has delivered the modern world with all it's
>> benefits, including computer's that can even be used by fucking
>> idiots like you.
>
> Norton ConnectSafe has nothing to do with the speed of light. It
>> On 06 Apr 2012 18:23:29 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:XnsA02D8B988C99BHHI2948AJD832@no:
>>>
>>>>> So his local ISP servers provide DNS filtering/warning? What is
>>>>> his ISP?
>>>>
>>>> As you well know, that wasn't the claim being disputed or
>>>> questioned. You claimed they're faster and called us Dilberts as a
>>>> result. Spanked again, you have been.
>>>
>>>I posted about Norton ConnectSafe. You and Pooh trolled the
>>>conversation away from the main point. It is a trolls MO.
>>
>> No, I pointed out the superior speed and validity of records claims
>> were erroneous. I was right. I proved it both through logical
>> argument, and experimental results. That's the nature of scientific
>> method. A process that has delivered the modern world with all it's
>> benefits, including computer's that can even be used by fucking
>> idiots like you.
>
> doesn't need scientific methods to work.
>
Poor poor Pooh. PPP. So jealous.
Message has been deleted
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 8, 2012, 7:24:59 AM4/8/12
to
I've just soooo wanted to be a stupid illiterate cunt all my life.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 8, 2012, 7:41:15 AM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:01:08 +0000 (UTC), Bear wrote:
>PPP! LOL. I like it. What will Pooh say to that?
New tactic Bottom? You appear to be forging yourself in order to smear me and divert
attention away from your stupidity, but in addition you are now using the 'forged' Bear to
act as your sockpuppet. Are you getting desperate numb nuts?
It's a pity your technical skills don't match those you have used over the past several
years to systematically bring this group to its knees. You made just one big mistake. You
took me on.
Any news on you providing experimental proof or logical argument to support your
proposition that Norton ConnectSafe is 'faster and has more valid results than your ISP’s
DNS service'?
>PPP! LOL. I like it. What will Pooh say to that?
New tactic Bottom? You appear to be forging yourself in order to smear me and divert
attention away from your stupidity, but in addition you are now using the 'forged' Bear to
act as your sockpuppet. Are you getting desperate numb nuts?
It's a pity your technical skills don't match those you have used over the past several
years to systematically bring this group to its knees. You made just one big mistake. You
took me on.
Any news on you providing experimental proof or logical argument to support your
proposition that Norton ConnectSafe is 'faster and has more valid results than your ISP’s
DNS service'?
Bear
Apr 8, 2012, 10:47:30 AM4/8/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02C4548E5DD8be...@130.225.254.104:
> Norton ConnectSafe
Damn, Cox's servers are closer than Symantec's to my location yet the
DNSBenchmark shows Symantec's DNS servers to be faster. In fact, it is
fastest of the performance of 4,849 resolvers.
http://bearware.info/screenshots/DNSBenchmark000.png
Must be something going on other than the speed of electricity. :)
Ya just can't always listen to the so called (self-claimed) "Experts." Ya
need to do your own research.
So yes, Symantec can genuinely claim to be faster (Norton ConnectSafe) and
I can forward that claim in a post with legitimacy.
news:XnsA02C4548E5DD8be...@130.225.254.104:
> Norton ConnectSafe
Damn, Cox's servers are closer than Symantec's to my location yet the
DNSBenchmark shows Symantec's DNS servers to be faster. In fact, it is
fastest of the performance of 4,849 resolvers.
http://bearware.info/screenshots/DNSBenchmark000.png
Must be something going on other than the speed of electricity. :)
Ya just can't always listen to the so called (self-claimed) "Experts." Ya
need to do your own research.
So yes, Symantec can genuinely claim to be faster (Norton ConnectSafe) and
I can forward that claim in a post with legitimacy.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 8, 2012, 11:09:32 AM4/8/12
to
On 08 Apr 2012 14:47:30 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>news:XnsA02C4548E5DD8be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Norton ConnectSafe
>
>Damn, Cox's servers are closer than Symantec's to my location yet the
>DNSBenchmark shows Symantec's DNS servers to be faster. In fact, it is
>fastest of the performance of 4,849 resolvers.
>
>http://bearware.info/screenshots/DNSBenchmark000.png
>
>Must be something going on other than the speed of electricity. :)
>
>Ya just can't always listen to the so called (self-claimed) "Experts." Ya
>need to do your own research.
You're an idiot. You didn't even run the benchmark. There's no graph. They are even
>Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>news:XnsA02C4548E5DD8be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Norton ConnectSafe
>
>Damn, Cox's servers are closer than Symantec's to my location yet the
>DNSBenchmark shows Symantec's DNS servers to be faster. In fact, it is
>fastest of the performance of 4,849 resolvers.
>
>http://bearware.info/screenshots/DNSBenchmark000.png
>
>Must be something going on other than the speed of electricity. :)
>
>Ya just can't always listen to the so called (self-claimed) "Experts." Ya
>need to do your own research.
grouped by provider. Do you seriously believe that is ever going to happen IRL.
Where are Google's and the OpenDNS server's? It's pretty unlikely that at least one isn't
up there if you are using the default list. Clueless.
>So yes, Symantec can genuinely claim to be faster (Norton ConnectSafe) and
>I can forward that claim in a post with legitimacy.
--
Dustin
Apr 8, 2012, 12:51:45 PM4/8/12
to
p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid> wrote in
news:ph93o7l2ugkghfg12...@4ax.com:
> On 08 Apr 2012 14:47:30 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>
>>Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>>news:XnsA02C4548E5DD8be...@130.225.254.104:
>>
>>> Norton ConnectSafe
>>
>>Damn, Cox's servers are closer than Symantec's to my location yet the
>>DNSBenchmark shows Symantec's DNS servers to be faster. In fact, it
>>is fastest of the performance of 4,849 resolvers.
>>
>>http://bearware.info/screenshots/DNSBenchmark000.png
>>
>>Must be something going on other than the speed of electricity. :)
>>
>>Ya just can't always listen to the so called (self-claimed)
>>"Experts." Ya need to do your own research.
>
> You're an idiot. You didn't even run the benchmark. There's no graph.
> They are even grouped by provider. Do you seriously believe that is
> ever going to happen IRL. Where are Google's and the OpenDNS
> server's? It's pretty unlikely that at least one isn't up there if
> you are using the default list. Clueless.
far, google is on the top followed by cox. Symantec is near the bottom.
When you complete the benchmark, the tool tells you it's using a generic
list of 72 servers. If I allow it to build a custom list, it can find me
even faster DNS servers based on location, ISP, etc. IE: Symantec is NOT
the fastest.
Here's my jpg: I did run the benchmark.
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/dnsbenchmark.jpg
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 8, 2012, 1:11:32 PM4/8/12
to
see my local DNS server still comes top.
http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120408-902-214kb.jpg
My DNS server is running on an embedded system on the same switch as my workstation. It's
running a fault tolerant configuration. Which is one reason it kicks arse. There are no
UDP losses or timeouts.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 8, 2012, 1:27:51 PM4/8/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 18:11:32 +0100, p-0^0-h the cat <super...@justpurrfect.invalid>
wrote:
>There are no
>UDP losses or timeouts.
Actually that's not accurate. The losses and timeouts don't result in noticeable delays
because it is fulfilled by another simultaneous query.
wrote:
>There are no
>UDP losses or timeouts.
because it is fulfilled by another simultaneous query.
Bear
Apr 8, 2012, 2:23:44 PM4/8/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02F82EDE7A01HHI2948AJD832@no:
Dustin, the posted link to my image /is/ after the custom list
run...took 40 minutes.
Symantec /was/ the fastest as the list indicates. Cox is way down the
list as is Google.
Are you ready to admit you were wrong?
news:XnsA02F82EDE7A01HHI2948AJD832@no:
run...took 40 minutes.
Symantec /was/ the fastest as the list indicates. Cox is way down the
list as is Google.
Are you ready to admit you were wrong?
Dustin
Apr 8, 2012, 5:17:52 PM4/8/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02F884379FFDbe...@130.225.254.104:
Why no blue bar? No graph... :) You uhh, didn't run the benchmark.
Trying to pass off a fake test now Bear?
custom list? I didn't even bother. I just ran the defaults. I made no
effort to customize the list for servers faster specifically for my
local.
> Symantec /was/ the fastest as the list indicates. Cox is way down the
> list as is Google.
Not when I did my test, as you can clearly see.
> Are you ready to admit you were wrong?
I wasn't tho. I ran the benchmark, google came out on top (for where I'm
located). As i've tried to explain to you before, it's electricity and
routing. You can't claim symantec/google whatever is always going to be
the fastest. It will vary.
news:XnsA02F884379FFDbe...@130.225.254.104:
Trying to pass off a fake test now Bear?
custom list? I didn't even bother. I just ran the defaults. I made no
effort to customize the list for servers faster specifically for my
local.
> Symantec /was/ the fastest as the list indicates. Cox is way down the
> list as is Google.
> Are you ready to admit you were wrong?
located). As i've tried to explain to you before, it's electricity and
routing. You can't claim symantec/google whatever is always going to be
the fastest. It will vary.
Bear
Apr 8, 2012, 6:50:40 PM4/8/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02FB00D188AAHHI2948AJD832@no:
Liar. You said nothing about routing...I was the one who did and you
kept on about electricity. You didn't run the custom list so your tests
are flawed. Such is not the work of an expert.
Your response and reaction to being proved wrong and unwillingness to
acknowledge it, infact resort to lying, shows me the type quality of
character I am dealing with here. I had some hope, but alas to no avail.
Carry on Dustin.
PPP. Pooh was wrong too as he so often is, led you down the primrose
path and your eagerness to troll me exposed you for who you are...a
stomp around wanna be dominant expert who everyone bows down to and has
to ask your approval. I can think for myself thank you.
news:XnsA02FB00D188AAHHI2948AJD832@no:
kept on about electricity. You didn't run the custom list so your tests
are flawed. Such is not the work of an expert.
Your response and reaction to being proved wrong and unwillingness to
acknowledge it, infact resort to lying, shows me the type quality of
character I am dealing with here. I had some hope, but alas to no avail.
Carry on Dustin.
PPP. Pooh was wrong too as he so often is, led you down the primrose
path and your eagerness to troll me exposed you for who you are...a
stomp around wanna be dominant expert who everyone bows down to and has
to ask your approval. I can think for myself thank you.
Craig
Apr 8, 2012, 6:50:42 PM4/8/12
to
censorship data).
http://code.google.com/p/namebench/
--
-Craig
http://pricelesswarehome.org/
Dustin
Apr 8, 2012, 7:05:29 PM4/8/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02FB5857B12be...@130.225.254.104:
> Liar. You said nothing about routing...I was the one who did and you
> kept on about electricity. You didn't run the custom list so your
> tests are flawed. Such is not the work of an expert.
I provided MID's already which prove I did mention routing and have been
for sometime now during this stupid thread. I didn't run the custom list
because it's designed to find DNS servers fastest to respond for MY
location. In other words, it would skew the results, Bear.
I ran the default test. I have a blue bar and a graph showing the
results. Your sample has neither, You did NOT run the damn test.
> Your response and reaction to being proved wrong and unwillingness to
> acknowledge it, infact resort to lying, shows me the type quality of
> character I am dealing with here. I had some hope, but alas to no
> avail.
I have no problems acknowledging when I'm wrong. I'm not perfect.I make
grammatical errors often. I have not however resorted to lying or any
other underhanded nonsense (such as loading a custom list and not
running the test). I also haven't tried to put words in your mouth or
unduly credit you for things you didn't initially mention. I mentioned
routing before you bothered.
> Carry on Dustin.
I will thanks.
> PPP. Pooh was wrong too as he so often is, led you down the primrose
> path and your eagerness to troll me exposed you for who you are...a
> stomp around wanna be dominant expert who everyone bows down to and
> has to ask your approval. I can think for myself thank you.
Dude, We both ran the silly dnsbenchmark program. Symantec was NOT the
fastest for our networks. Neither of us were wrong concerning that.
Neither of us made the assinine claim that Symantec would be faster than
our ISP and a local DNS server. You tried to claim otherwise and just
today posted a png "confirming" your results, but the png doesn't show
the test ever being run. WTF bear?
Eagerness to troll you? I don't think constructive critism is trolling
by any stretch of the definition. You've exposed your own shortcomings
and inferiority complex, but you've done no harm to me in the process.
news:XnsA02FB5857B12be...@130.225.254.104:
> Liar. You said nothing about routing...I was the one who did and you
> kept on about electricity. You didn't run the custom list so your
> tests are flawed. Such is not the work of an expert.
for sometime now during this stupid thread. I didn't run the custom list
because it's designed to find DNS servers fastest to respond for MY
location. In other words, it would skew the results, Bear.
I ran the default test. I have a blue bar and a graph showing the
results. Your sample has neither, You did NOT run the damn test.
> Your response and reaction to being proved wrong and unwillingness to
> acknowledge it, infact resort to lying, shows me the type quality of
> character I am dealing with here. I had some hope, but alas to no
> avail.
grammatical errors often. I have not however resorted to lying or any
other underhanded nonsense (such as loading a custom list and not
running the test). I also haven't tried to put words in your mouth or
unduly credit you for things you didn't initially mention. I mentioned
routing before you bothered.
> Carry on Dustin.
I will thanks.
> PPP. Pooh was wrong too as he so often is, led you down the primrose
> path and your eagerness to troll me exposed you for who you are...a
> stomp around wanna be dominant expert who everyone bows down to and
> has to ask your approval. I can think for myself thank you.
fastest for our networks. Neither of us were wrong concerning that.
Neither of us made the assinine claim that Symantec would be faster than
our ISP and a local DNS server. You tried to claim otherwise and just
today posted a png "confirming" your results, but the png doesn't show
the test ever being run. WTF bear?
Eagerness to troll you? I don't think constructive critism is trolling
by any stretch of the definition. You've exposed your own shortcomings
and inferiority complex, but you've done no harm to me in the process.
Bear
Apr 8, 2012, 7:34:38 PM4/8/12
to
Craig <netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in
news:jlt4o3$a6v$1...@dont-email.me:
It's not as thorough as DNS Benchmark...I just ran it and it ignored Cox
and Google. On it's test the two fastest was OpenDNS and Symantec with
about .12 seconds difference...OpenDNS being the fastest. Quite a
difference between it and DNS Benchmark. Which one would you think is
more thorough?
news:jlt4o3$a6v$1...@dont-email.me:
and Google. On it's test the two fastest was OpenDNS and Symantec with
about .12 seconds difference...OpenDNS being the fastest. Quite a
difference between it and DNS Benchmark. Which one would you think is
more thorough?
Bear
Apr 8, 2012, 7:47:56 PM4/8/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02FBCF9C2F36be...@130.225.254.104:
> It's not as thorough as DNS Benchmark...I just ran it and it ignored Cox
> and Google. On it's test the two fastest was OpenDNS and Symantec with
> about .12 seconds difference...OpenDNS being the fastest. Quite a
> difference between it and DNS Benchmark. Which one would you think is
> more thorough?
NameBench queried about 250 sites (default) I suppose I could run 5000 and
get closer to the same results that DNSBenchmark returned. At this point
I'm not interested as we are talking about less than .2 seconds. That is
however enough for someone to claim they are faster...silly though.
news:XnsA02FBCF9C2F36be...@130.225.254.104:
> It's not as thorough as DNS Benchmark...I just ran it and it ignored Cox
> and Google. On it's test the two fastest was OpenDNS and Symantec with
> about .12 seconds difference...OpenDNS being the fastest. Quite a
> difference between it and DNS Benchmark. Which one would you think is
> more thorough?
get closer to the same results that DNSBenchmark returned. At this point
I'm not interested as we are talking about less than .2 seconds. That is
however enough for someone to claim they are faster...silly though.
Bear
Apr 8, 2012, 7:52:25 PM4/8/12
to
AppData>Local>Temp folders and doesn't have an uninstall option nor does
it show up in the Control Panel uninstall list.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 8, 2012, 8:06:20 PM4/8/12
to
On 08 Apr 2012 23:47:56 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>news:XnsA02FBCF9C2F36be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> It's not as thorough as DNS Benchmark...I just ran it and it ignored Cox
>> and Google. On it's test the two fastest was OpenDNS and Symantec with
>> about .12 seconds difference...OpenDNS being the fastest. Quite a
>> difference between it and DNS Benchmark. Which one would you think is
>> more thorough?
>
>NameBench queried about 250 sites (default) I suppose I could run 5000 and
>get closer to the same results that DNSBenchmark returned. At this point
>I'm not interested as we are talking about less than .2 seconds. That is
>however enough for someone to claim they are faster...silly though.
Are you under the illusion that anyone thinks you have a clue about how DNS resolving
>Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>news:XnsA02FBCF9C2F36be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> It's not as thorough as DNS Benchmark...I just ran it and it ignored Cox
>> and Google. On it's test the two fastest was OpenDNS and Symantec with
>> about .12 seconds difference...OpenDNS being the fastest. Quite a
>> difference between it and DNS Benchmark. Which one would you think is
>> more thorough?
>
>NameBench queried about 250 sites (default) I suppose I could run 5000 and
>get closer to the same results that DNSBenchmark returned. At this point
>I'm not interested as we are talking about less than .2 seconds. That is
>however enough for someone to claim they are faster...silly though.
works?
Bear
Apr 8, 2012, 9:53:32 PM4/8/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02FC24B73AC6HHI2948AJD832@no:
Well fuck. You /are/ right. I didn't run the test and my png was the
result of the process of developing the custom list which at that time I
thought was the test...a bit weird. Seeing your response made me go run
the test and Cox came out on top and Semantec was about .12 seconds
behind.
So I apologize to you for being a dick and I admit I was wrong. Damn.
I'll post this in the other forum. You know I hate it. :)
news:XnsA02FC24B73AC6HHI2948AJD832@no:
result of the process of developing the custom list which at that time I
thought was the test...a bit weird. Seeing your response made me go run
the test and Cox came out on top and Semantec was about .12 seconds
behind.
So I apologize to you for being a dick and I admit I was wrong. Damn.
I'll post this in the other forum. You know I hate it. :)
Message has been deleted
Dustin
Apr 8, 2012, 11:52:19 PM4/8/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
> So I apologize to you for being a dick and I admit I was wrong. Damn.
Thanks Bear. I also apologize for being snarky with you.
news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
> So I apologize to you for being a dick and I admit I was wrong. Damn.
Bear
Apr 9, 2012, 5:49:34 AM4/9/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02FF2ED551E8HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> So I apologize to you for being a dick and I admit I was wrong. Damn.
>
> Thanks Bear. I also apologize for being snarky with you.
>
>
>
Well,we were all wrong with various aspects up to the final test which I
was wrong about. I've also run it again and get different results. At any
rate, the time significance is not that significant.
news:XnsA02FF2ED551E8HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> So I apologize to you for being a dick and I admit I was wrong. Damn.
>
> Thanks Bear. I also apologize for being snarky with you.
>
>
>
was wrong about. I've also run it again and get different results. At any
rate, the time significance is not that significant.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 9, 2012, 6:01:34 AM4/9/12
to
On 09 Apr 2012 09:49:34 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>Well,we were all wrong with various aspects up to the final test which I
>was wrong about.
Cite where I was wrong wanker.
>Well,we were all wrong with various aspects up to the final test which I
>was wrong about.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 9, 2012, 9:55:40 AM4/9/12
to
On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 15:50:42 -0700, Craig <netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote:
>fwiw, namebench is another dns tester with added functionality (e.g.
>censorship data).
>
>http://code.google.com/p/namebench/
http://www.jstubbings.f2s.com/screenshots/20120409-eq8-66kb.jpg
>fwiw, namebench is another dns tester with added functionality (e.g.
>censorship data).
>
>http://code.google.com/p/namebench/
My home grown is looking good.
Bear
Apr 9, 2012, 5:38:19 PM4/9/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
> Well fuck. You /are/ right. I didn't run the test and my png was the
> result of the process of developing the custom list which at that time
> I thought was the test..
Well dang...I thought for sure Dustin would apologise for being wrong in
the other areas of the discussion.
I apologized only for the blue line thingy. That's the only part of the
discussion I messed up. When you run the custom list, it says it will
check about 5000 DNS servers and list the fastest 50. When it posted the
results, which go into an ini file, it also listed the speed. Symantec
was there with the fastest speed...at the top of the list as you saw
from my screenshot link. I assumed those were the fastest and the list
did list speeds indicating the fastest first. Apparently that is a
faulty assumption though that's weird to me. Anyway I've run it a few
times since and each time I get a different result, likely because of
factors like time of day and server loads etc.
However, the entire discussion was about the speed of electricity being
the dominant force and the closest server would be the fastest. This is
wrong and what I argued against...and yes, Dustin and Pooh were
wrong...but they will not admit it. The other factors at play perform a
major role in determining which is faster which is almost a ridiculous
discussion as the time differences are less than a quarter second in
most cases.
At any rate, that whole discussion is a side track, because the main
point is about filtering which Norton does about the best of the lot as
far as I can tell...better than Google because it uses both it's own and
Googles data. Better than OpenDNS because both Norton and Google have
access to much more data to glean from.
news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
> Well fuck. You /are/ right. I didn't run the test and my png was the
> result of the process of developing the custom list which at that time
> I thought was the test..
the other areas of the discussion.
I apologized only for the blue line thingy. That's the only part of the
discussion I messed up. When you run the custom list, it says it will
check about 5000 DNS servers and list the fastest 50. When it posted the
results, which go into an ini file, it also listed the speed. Symantec
was there with the fastest speed...at the top of the list as you saw
from my screenshot link. I assumed those were the fastest and the list
did list speeds indicating the fastest first. Apparently that is a
faulty assumption though that's weird to me. Anyway I've run it a few
times since and each time I get a different result, likely because of
factors like time of day and server loads etc.
However, the entire discussion was about the speed of electricity being
the dominant force and the closest server would be the fastest. This is
wrong and what I argued against...and yes, Dustin and Pooh were
wrong...but they will not admit it. The other factors at play perform a
major role in determining which is faster which is almost a ridiculous
discussion as the time differences are less than a quarter second in
most cases.
At any rate, that whole discussion is a side track, because the main
point is about filtering which Norton does about the best of the lot as
far as I can tell...better than Google because it uses both it's own and
Googles data. Better than OpenDNS because both Norton and Google have
access to much more data to glean from.
p-0^0-h the cat
Apr 9, 2012, 6:33:00 PM4/9/12
to
On 09 Apr 2012 21:38:19 GMT, Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote:
>Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Well fuck. You /are/ right. I didn't run the test and my png was the
>> result of the process of developing the custom list which at that time
>> I thought was the test..
>
>Well dang...I thought for sure Dustin would apologise for being wrong in
>the other areas of the discussion.
>
>I apologized only for the blue line thingy. That's the only part of the
>discussion I messed up. When you run the custom list, it says it will
>check about 5000 DNS servers and list the fastest 50. When it posted the
>results, which go into an ini file, it also listed the speed. Symantec
>was there with the fastest speed...at the top of the list as you saw
>from my screenshot link. I assumed those were the fastest and the list
>did list speeds indicating the fastest first. Apparently that is a
>faulty assumption though that's weird to me. Anyway I've run it a few
>times since and each time I get a different result, likely because of
>factors like time of day
'Time of day'????? <rolls eyes>
>Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
>news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Well fuck. You /are/ right. I didn't run the test and my png was the
>> result of the process of developing the custom list which at that time
>> I thought was the test..
>
>Well dang...I thought for sure Dustin would apologise for being wrong in
>the other areas of the discussion.
>
>I apologized only for the blue line thingy. That's the only part of the
>discussion I messed up. When you run the custom list, it says it will
>check about 5000 DNS servers and list the fastest 50. When it posted the
>results, which go into an ini file, it also listed the speed. Symantec
>was there with the fastest speed...at the top of the list as you saw
>from my screenshot link. I assumed those were the fastest and the list
>did list speeds indicating the fastest first. Apparently that is a
>faulty assumption though that's weird to me. Anyway I've run it a few
>times since and each time I get a different result, likely because of
>factors like time of day
>and server loads etc.
>
>However, the entire discussion was about the speed of electricity being
>the dominant force
I wrote this
"If your ISP has a decent DNS server set up, it's likely to be closer to you than their
server, and therefore likely to send a reply to your query faster."
Message-ID: <953rn7l61vni5l3jq...@4ax.com>
You asked me to prove my theory, with the usual insults. I wrote this.
"The speed of return of a DNS query depends upon
Speed of network between client and server
Load on the server at the time of query
Whether the server has the record cached
What are Norton doing that's can make it faster than a local server with a cached record
under low load?
Explain how it gives more valid results?
At the end of the day, the more caching, and the longer records are kept in cache the less
valid records will be overall.
I can set up a server with no caching. How can you get more valid than that?
What are Norton doing that's so different?
I found no mention of faster, or more valid on Norton's site btw. Perhaps you can cite a
reference.
I didn't mention category filtering either. Learn to read."
Message-ID: <bv5rn7lqn85qoe3n3...@4ax.com>
>and the closest server would be the fastest.
>This is
>wrong and what I argued against...and yes, Dustin and Pooh were
>wrong...
determining fact through experimentation [empirical evidence], and opinion.
You wrote in reply to my above proof I provided which you asked for "You offered nothing
more than an opinion"
I wrote "You're an idiot. That's an opinion. The fact that electrical impulses take longer
to travel over a longer vs a shorter distance is a measurable fact."
I had already stated the parameters which determine the time it takes to get a response to
a DNS query. I wasn't suggesting electricity was a significant factor, although it is a
factor, albeit small, in parameter 1 "Speed of network between client and server" I was
demonstrating that my proof was tangible. Not opinion as you trolled but measurable, and
demonstrable.
Learn to read thicko.
Then you had a tantrum and killfiled me.
It was Dustin who took up the electricity angle in relation to DNS speed. I assumed to
narrow the argument to a single factor. Whatever the reason, he is still correct, however
slight the effect, electricity has a finite speed and therefore takes longer to travel
over a longer vs a shorter distance.
Trying reading what is on the page without filtering it via your enormous ego. It's
overloading your limited processor.
Prove me wrong Butthole. Show me the Money.
>but they will not admit it. The other factors at play perform a
>major role in determining which is faster which is almost a ridiculous
>discussion as the time differences are less than a quarter second in
>most cases.
and why I challenged it.
>At any rate, that whole discussion is a side track, because the main
>point is about filtering which Norton does about the best of the lot as
>far as I can tell...
it yet. I've tried a couple of these services and the false positives were so fucking
annoying I gave up.
>better than Google because it uses both it's own and
>Googles data. Better than OpenDNS because both Norton and Google have
>access to much more data to glean from.
--
qccc.m...@gmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 7:54:20 PM4/9/12
to
snip histrionics
Remarkable.
I don't believe that I've ever read anyone, anywhere, display such perseverance and dedication to making a total & utter fool of themselves. Your country must be seriously disappointed that Making A Fool of Yourself isn't an Olympic event.
alvey
Remarkable.
I don't believe that I've ever read anyone, anywhere, display such perseverance and dedication to making a total & utter fool of themselves. Your country must be seriously disappointed that Making A Fool of Yourself isn't an Olympic event.
alvey
Dustin
Apr 9, 2012, 8:19:32 PM4/9/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA030A941054F8be...@130.225.254.104:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Well fuck. You /are/ right. I didn't run the test and my png was the
>> result of the process of developing the custom list which at that
>> time I thought was the test..
>
> Well dang...I thought for sure Dustin would apologise for being wrong
> in the other areas of the discussion.
I apologized for my harsh attitude towards you. I wasn't wrong in any
other areas of the conversation tho...
> I apologized only for the blue line thingy. That's the only part of
> the discussion I messed up. When you run the custom list, it says it
I see....
> will check about 5000 DNS servers and list the fastest 50. When it
> posted the results, which go into an ini file, it also listed the
> speed. Symantec was there with the fastest speed...at the top of the
> list as you saw from my screenshot link. I assumed those were the
> fastest and the list did list speeds indicating the fastest first.
> Apparently that is a faulty assumption though that's weird to me.
> Anyway I've run it a few times since and each time I get a different
> result, likely because of factors like time of day and server loads
> etc.
Which was (along with electricity) explained already. Yet, you continued
to berate and claim symantec was the fastest based on your flawed
testing methodology.
> However, the entire discussion was about the speed of electricity
> being the dominant force and the closest server would be the fastest.
The discussion was about your claim of symantec being the fastest.
Somehow, magically able to outrun servers much much closer all the time.
I'm paraphrasing here slightly, but that was what you were expressing in
not so many words. It was side tracked into a partial discussion
concerning electricity with your attempt to, er, "educate" me on
electrical basics. While I hold no valid electrical license as of yet,
I'm not a newbie with residential/commercial wiring as an apprentice to
a licensed electrician who's been licensed since he was 18 years old. He
spent time in the navy as their "communications" person. I can't discuss
anything else concerning his military time as it would be a breach of
trust.
> This is wrong and what I argued against...and yes, Dustin and Pooh
> were wrong...but they will not admit it. The other factors at play
> perform a major role in determining which is faster which is almost a
> ridiculous discussion as the time differences are less than a quarter
> second in most cases.
Bear,
Pooh and myself both run our own local DNS servers. We are well aware of
how the perform and what their specific purpose is on our networks and
the internet. You tried to tell us otherwise with regard to botched
testing results that you misinterpreted. I mentioned packet switching
etc after your snarky comment asking if I knew how fast electricity was.
I then detailed my knowledge of electricity and asked for your license
grade. You again responded in a snarky fashion and likely don't hold one
beyond journeymans. Even the Air force follows NEC rules.
> At any rate, that whole discussion is a side track, because the main
> point is about filtering which Norton does about the best of the lot
> as far as I can tell...better than Google because it uses both it's
The whole discussion was side tracked the moment you claimed and refused
to acknowledge that you were off base concerning the superior speed
claimed by someone writing a puff piece. Rather than accept you were
wrong, you tried (and failed) to demonstrate superiority over those of
us who've spent time working on/building networks while you were running
drugs into the country.
> own and Googles data. Better than OpenDNS because both Norton and
> Google have access to much more data to glean from.
These are simply personal opinions of yours. As is the case in many
posts with you.
news:XnsA030A941054F8be...@130.225.254.104:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA02FD4862AD34be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Well fuck. You /are/ right. I didn't run the test and my png was the
>> result of the process of developing the custom list which at that
>> time I thought was the test..
>
> Well dang...I thought for sure Dustin would apologise for being wrong
> in the other areas of the discussion.
other areas of the conversation tho...
> I apologized only for the blue line thingy. That's the only part of
> the discussion I messed up. When you run the custom list, it says it
> will check about 5000 DNS servers and list the fastest 50. When it
> posted the results, which go into an ini file, it also listed the
> speed. Symantec was there with the fastest speed...at the top of the
> list as you saw from my screenshot link. I assumed those were the
> fastest and the list did list speeds indicating the fastest first.
> Apparently that is a faulty assumption though that's weird to me.
> Anyway I've run it a few times since and each time I get a different
> result, likely because of factors like time of day and server loads
> etc.
to berate and claim symantec was the fastest based on your flawed
testing methodology.
> However, the entire discussion was about the speed of electricity
> being the dominant force and the closest server would be the fastest.
Somehow, magically able to outrun servers much much closer all the time.
I'm paraphrasing here slightly, but that was what you were expressing in
not so many words. It was side tracked into a partial discussion
concerning electricity with your attempt to, er, "educate" me on
electrical basics. While I hold no valid electrical license as of yet,
I'm not a newbie with residential/commercial wiring as an apprentice to
a licensed electrician who's been licensed since he was 18 years old. He
spent time in the navy as their "communications" person. I can't discuss
anything else concerning his military time as it would be a breach of
trust.
> This is wrong and what I argued against...and yes, Dustin and Pooh
> were wrong...but they will not admit it. The other factors at play
> perform a major role in determining which is faster which is almost a
> ridiculous discussion as the time differences are less than a quarter
> second in most cases.
Pooh and myself both run our own local DNS servers. We are well aware of
how the perform and what their specific purpose is on our networks and
the internet. You tried to tell us otherwise with regard to botched
testing results that you misinterpreted. I mentioned packet switching
etc after your snarky comment asking if I knew how fast electricity was.
I then detailed my knowledge of electricity and asked for your license
grade. You again responded in a snarky fashion and likely don't hold one
beyond journeymans. Even the Air force follows NEC rules.
> At any rate, that whole discussion is a side track, because the main
> point is about filtering which Norton does about the best of the lot
> as far as I can tell...better than Google because it uses both it's
to acknowledge that you were off base concerning the superior speed
claimed by someone writing a puff piece. Rather than accept you were
wrong, you tried (and failed) to demonstrate superiority over those of
us who've spent time working on/building networks while you were running
drugs into the country.
> own and Googles data. Better than OpenDNS because both Norton and
> Google have access to much more data to glean from.
posts with you.
Dustin
Apr 9, 2012, 8:21:51 PM4/9/12
to
qccc.m...@gmail.com wrote in
news:5419311.0.1334015660440.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbtd9:
It would be extremely helpful if you quoted from the person to which you
are replying.
news:5419311.0.1334015660440.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@pbtd9:
are replying.
Bear
Apr 9, 2012, 9:11:11 PM4/9/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA030CEEFA3C63HHI2948AJD832@no:
> The discussion was about your claim of symantec being the fastest.
> Somehow, magically able to outrun servers much much closer all the
> time. I'm paraphrasing here slightly, but that was what you were
> expressing in not so many words. It was side tracked into a partial
> discussion concerning electricity with your attempt to, er, "educate"
> me on electrical basics. While I hold no valid electrical license as
> of yet, I'm not a newbie with residential/commercial wiring as an
> apprentice to a licensed electrician who's been licensed since he was
> 18 years old. He spent time in the navy as their "communications"
> person. I can't discuss anything else concerning his military time as
> it would be a breach of trust.
Not at all...as has been discussed. I didn't claim symantec was the
fastest...I posted their claims as has already been pointed out but you
refuse to acknowledge it.
The speed thing was picked up on by you and Pooh. You and he are the
ones who brought up the electricity thing. I discounted that argument as
there are other factors at play.
That is the fact of it Dustin. I didn't bring up the argument about
electricity, you and Pooh did.
I wasn't trying to educate you about anything...that is your own ego
getting in the way. I made the post. You and Pooh brought up the
electricity argument. I discounted it. That is the fact.
It is also correct, that other factors play a role beyond which server
is closer...which was your argument...and a wrong one. If electricity
was the only factor, then you would have been correct to argue that
basis...but it isn't and it was I who pointed that out.
That was the entire argument. The blue line issue was a side issue and
was a simple oversight on my part, which I was wrong about...and when I
realized it, I immediately acknowledged it and apologized. It had no
bearing on the argument at hand.
That /are/ the facts of this matter.
You and Pooh: electricity and the nearest server determines which is
faster. Wrong.
Me. Other factors play a more important role and not just which server
is closer.
You and Pooh, but mostly you carried on and on about such a pedantic
issue and made it personal...and you were the one who was wrong, then
tried to crawfish out of it. That is the facts Dustin...though I doubt
you are man enough to admit it.
news:XnsA030CEEFA3C63HHI2948AJD832@no:
> The discussion was about your claim of symantec being the fastest.
> Somehow, magically able to outrun servers much much closer all the
> time. I'm paraphrasing here slightly, but that was what you were
> expressing in not so many words. It was side tracked into a partial
> discussion concerning electricity with your attempt to, er, "educate"
> me on electrical basics. While I hold no valid electrical license as
> of yet, I'm not a newbie with residential/commercial wiring as an
> apprentice to a licensed electrician who's been licensed since he was
> 18 years old. He spent time in the navy as their "communications"
> person. I can't discuss anything else concerning his military time as
> it would be a breach of trust.
fastest...I posted their claims as has already been pointed out but you
refuse to acknowledge it.
The speed thing was picked up on by you and Pooh. You and he are the
ones who brought up the electricity thing. I discounted that argument as
there are other factors at play.
That is the fact of it Dustin. I didn't bring up the argument about
electricity, you and Pooh did.
I wasn't trying to educate you about anything...that is your own ego
getting in the way. I made the post. You and Pooh brought up the
electricity argument. I discounted it. That is the fact.
It is also correct, that other factors play a role beyond which server
is closer...which was your argument...and a wrong one. If electricity
was the only factor, then you would have been correct to argue that
basis...but it isn't and it was I who pointed that out.
That was the entire argument. The blue line issue was a side issue and
was a simple oversight on my part, which I was wrong about...and when I
realized it, I immediately acknowledged it and apologized. It had no
bearing on the argument at hand.
That /are/ the facts of this matter.
You and Pooh: electricity and the nearest server determines which is
faster. Wrong.
Me. Other factors play a more important role and not just which server
is closer.
You and Pooh, but mostly you carried on and on about such a pedantic
issue and made it personal...and you were the one who was wrong, then
tried to crawfish out of it. That is the facts Dustin...though I doubt
you are man enough to admit it.
Bear
Apr 9, 2012, 9:17:42 PM4/9/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA030CEEFA3C63HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Pooh and myself both run our own local DNS servers. We are well aware of
> how the perform and what their specific purpose is on our networks and
> the internet. You tried to tell us otherwise with regard to botched
> testing results that you misinterpreted. I mentioned packet switching
> etc after your snarky comment asking if I knew how fast electricity was.
You are trying to gain high ground again. Dustin, you are not a honest
person with integrity. The testing had little to do with the argument, and
the error I made had nothing to do with it.
You and Pooh said speed of electricity and the closer server would
determine the fastest server. I said no, there are other factors at play.
Who is right, I am. It's as simple as that.
You then tried to say near the end of the discussion that you said other
factors was at play...you only said so after I did because you recognized
you were wrong and those factors must be included. That is why I call you
dishonest. Now you are trying to make a simple error I admitted to making
with DNS Benchmark part of the issue, which it is not, The issue was and
still is speed of electricity and the nearest server does not determine the
fastest server.
news:XnsA030CEEFA3C63HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Pooh and myself both run our own local DNS servers. We are well aware of
> how the perform and what their specific purpose is on our networks and
> the internet. You tried to tell us otherwise with regard to botched
> testing results that you misinterpreted. I mentioned packet switching
> etc after your snarky comment asking if I knew how fast electricity was.
person with integrity. The testing had little to do with the argument, and
the error I made had nothing to do with it.
You and Pooh said speed of electricity and the closer server would
determine the fastest server. I said no, there are other factors at play.
Who is right, I am. It's as simple as that.
You then tried to say near the end of the discussion that you said other
factors was at play...you only said so after I did because you recognized
you were wrong and those factors must be included. That is why I call you
dishonest. Now you are trying to make a simple error I admitted to making
with DNS Benchmark part of the issue, which it is not, The issue was and
still is speed of electricity and the nearest server does not determine the
fastest server.
Dustin
Apr 10, 2012, 12:09:32 AM4/10/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA030CD5857F4Fbe...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA030CEEFA3C63HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> The discussion was about your claim of symantec being the fastest.
>> Somehow, magically able to outrun servers much much closer all the
>> time. I'm paraphrasing here slightly, but that was what you were
>> expressing in not so many words. It was side tracked into a partial
>> discussion concerning electricity with your attempt to, er,
>> "educate" me on electrical basics. While I hold no valid electrical
>> license as of yet, I'm not a newbie with residential/commercial
>> wiring as an apprentice to a licensed electrician who's been
>> licensed since he was 18 years old. He spent time in the navy as
>> their "communications" person. I can't discuss anything else
>> concerning his military time as it would be a breach of trust.
>
> Not at all...as has been discussed. I didn't claim symantec was the
> fastest...I posted their claims as has already been pointed out but
> you refuse to acknowledge it.
Actually Bear,
this is becoming very redundant and boring. You posted their claims,
Pooh and myself disputed them. You proceeded to run an initial test and
call us Dilberts after displaying your results. It went south from there
relatively quickly. As your apology has.
> The speed thing was picked up on by you and Pooh. You and he are the
> ones who brought up the electricity thing. I discounted that argument
> as there are other factors at play.
You discounted nothing. When asked about your knowledge concerning the
subject of electricity, you decided to back down. No surprise. You just
never know who you'll run into on the net Bear. Can't bullshit everybody
ya see. Some of us do know the topics we discuss very well. You don't.
but, I digress.
> That is the fact of it Dustin. I didn't bring up the argument about
> electricity, you and Pooh did.
I provided electricity as ONE specific reason the tests and your support
of symantec being the fastest as not possible on a routine basis. You
proceeded to post a screen capture demonstrating that in your particular
case, network configuration and physical location, using a custom list
that you didn't actually run the benchmark on (the software isn't
difficult to figure out, I really don't see how you missed that with
your supposed expertise) disproves Poohs and my claims of it not
always/ever being faster than one closer.
At that point you challenged my knowledge on electrical fundamentals.
Upon discovering that I'm far from an idiot in that field you've decided
to try and belittle me with some unknown superior air force training.
You won't divuldge your certification/license as we both know it's not
master electrician by any means and was most likely the standard
journeymans license.
> I wasn't trying to educate you about anything...that is your own ego
> getting in the way. I made the post. You and Pooh brought up the
> electricity argument. I discounted it. That is the fact.
Again, you can't discount the electrical facts Bear. It's how this all
works when you get right down to it. Digital electronics don't work or
talk without using electrical signals, no matter how faint they may be.
Your ego is continuing to dig a hole for you and extend this thread well
beyond the point of it's original purpose. Essentially, a PR puff piece
making unfounded claims.
> It is also correct, that other factors play a role beyond which
> server is closer...which was your argument...and a wrong one. If
> electricity was the only factor, then you would have been correct to
> argue that basis...but it isn't and it was I who pointed that out.
It was not my entire argument, and certainly not a wrong one in any
event. I understand (a) how to use the simple program and (b) what the
results mean. You didn't point out anything, you tried to teach me a
lesson on electricity and got bitch slapped back into reality.
I'll ask again, what license/certification did you achieve as an
electrician? Telling me the air force trained you doesn't mean anything,
Bear.
> That was the entire argument. The blue line issue was a side issue
> and was a simple oversight on my part, which I was wrong about...and
> when I realized it, I immediately acknowledged it and apologized. It
> had no bearing on the argument at hand.
Bear, it had a critical bearing on the argument at hand as you learned
from running the program multiple times. You tried to defend the
articles claim of symantec being faster. You provided a snapshot as
evidence and insulted Pooh and myself in the process. As a side note,
you even resorted to calling me a cunt instead of remaining civil. I
suppose being educated by someone younger than you could piss a person
off. Face it, you barked up the wrong tree and got served. You lost your
cool dude. You lose.
> You and Pooh: electricity and the nearest server determines which is
> faster. Wrong.
I'd suggest you learn how the internet works. I'd be happy to provide
you the basic urls I provided BD the other day in alt.2600. I didn't
realize you and he were about the same as far as IT knowledge goes. You
might know a bit more about html than he does. I haven't checked your
site that closely to see if it's coded by hand or uses 3rd party
software....
> Me. Other factors play a more important role and not just which
> server is closer.
Which factors bear? List them all, in order of importance.
> You and Pooh, but mostly you carried on and on about such a pedantic
> issue and made it personal...and you were the one who was wrong, then
> tried to crawfish out of it. That is the facts Dustin...though I
> doubt you are man enough to admit it.
made it personal? I didn't call you a cunt Bear. That is a fact.
news:XnsA030CD5857F4Fbe...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA030CEEFA3C63HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> The discussion was about your claim of symantec being the fastest.
>> Somehow, magically able to outrun servers much much closer all the
>> time. I'm paraphrasing here slightly, but that was what you were
>> expressing in not so many words. It was side tracked into a partial
>> discussion concerning electricity with your attempt to, er,
>> "educate" me on electrical basics. While I hold no valid electrical
>> license as of yet, I'm not a newbie with residential/commercial
>> wiring as an apprentice to a licensed electrician who's been
>> licensed since he was 18 years old. He spent time in the navy as
>> their "communications" person. I can't discuss anything else
>> concerning his military time as it would be a breach of trust.
>
> Not at all...as has been discussed. I didn't claim symantec was the
> fastest...I posted their claims as has already been pointed out but
> you refuse to acknowledge it.
this is becoming very redundant and boring. You posted their claims,
Pooh and myself disputed them. You proceeded to run an initial test and
call us Dilberts after displaying your results. It went south from there
relatively quickly. As your apology has.
> The speed thing was picked up on by you and Pooh. You and he are the
> ones who brought up the electricity thing. I discounted that argument
> as there are other factors at play.
subject of electricity, you decided to back down. No surprise. You just
never know who you'll run into on the net Bear. Can't bullshit everybody
ya see. Some of us do know the topics we discuss very well. You don't.
but, I digress.
> That is the fact of it Dustin. I didn't bring up the argument about
> electricity, you and Pooh did.
of symantec being the fastest as not possible on a routine basis. You
proceeded to post a screen capture demonstrating that in your particular
case, network configuration and physical location, using a custom list
that you didn't actually run the benchmark on (the software isn't
difficult to figure out, I really don't see how you missed that with
your supposed expertise) disproves Poohs and my claims of it not
always/ever being faster than one closer.
At that point you challenged my knowledge on electrical fundamentals.
Upon discovering that I'm far from an idiot in that field you've decided
to try and belittle me with some unknown superior air force training.
You won't divuldge your certification/license as we both know it's not
master electrician by any means and was most likely the standard
journeymans license.
> I wasn't trying to educate you about anything...that is your own ego
> getting in the way. I made the post. You and Pooh brought up the
> electricity argument. I discounted it. That is the fact.
works when you get right down to it. Digital electronics don't work or
talk without using electrical signals, no matter how faint they may be.
Your ego is continuing to dig a hole for you and extend this thread well
beyond the point of it's original purpose. Essentially, a PR puff piece
making unfounded claims.
> It is also correct, that other factors play a role beyond which
> server is closer...which was your argument...and a wrong one. If
> electricity was the only factor, then you would have been correct to
> argue that basis...but it isn't and it was I who pointed that out.
event. I understand (a) how to use the simple program and (b) what the
results mean. You didn't point out anything, you tried to teach me a
lesson on electricity and got bitch slapped back into reality.
I'll ask again, what license/certification did you achieve as an
electrician? Telling me the air force trained you doesn't mean anything,
Bear.
> That was the entire argument. The blue line issue was a side issue
> and was a simple oversight on my part, which I was wrong about...and
> when I realized it, I immediately acknowledged it and apologized. It
> had no bearing on the argument at hand.
from running the program multiple times. You tried to defend the
articles claim of symantec being faster. You provided a snapshot as
evidence and insulted Pooh and myself in the process. As a side note,
you even resorted to calling me a cunt instead of remaining civil. I
suppose being educated by someone younger than you could piss a person
off. Face it, you barked up the wrong tree and got served. You lost your
cool dude. You lose.
> You and Pooh: electricity and the nearest server determines which is
> faster. Wrong.
you the basic urls I provided BD the other day in alt.2600. I didn't
realize you and he were about the same as far as IT knowledge goes. You
might know a bit more about html than he does. I haven't checked your
site that closely to see if it's coded by hand or uses 3rd party
software....
> Me. Other factors play a more important role and not just which
> server is closer.
> You and Pooh, but mostly you carried on and on about such a pedantic
> issue and made it personal...and you were the one who was wrong, then
> tried to crawfish out of it. That is the facts Dustin...though I
> doubt you are man enough to admit it.
Dustin
Apr 10, 2012, 12:12:23 AM4/10/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA030CE734C100be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA030CEEFA3C63HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Pooh and myself both run our own local DNS servers. We are well
>> aware of how the perform and what their specific purpose is on our
>> networks and the internet. You tried to tell us otherwise with
>> regard to botched testing results that you misinterpreted. I
>> mentioned packet switching etc after your snarky comment asking if I
>> knew how fast electricity was.
>
> You are trying to gain high ground again. Dustin, you are not a
> honest person with integrity. The testing had little to do with the
> argument, and the error I made had nothing to do with it.
High ground? I don't understand your comment. You may claim I'm
dishonest all you like, as you've already resorted to calling me a cunt
in response to a pointed question, I don't consider your determination
of my credibility important.
The error you made was two fold. One, you supported a claim in an
article which isn't true. You incorrectly used a program and posted a
snapshot revealing the fact you didn't use it properly as proof AND
insulted the both of us. That was unnecessary.
> You and Pooh said speed of electricity and the closer server would
> determine the fastest server. I said no, there are other factors at
> play. Who is right, I am. It's as simple as that.
You said symantec was faster, period. You even tried to provide
evidence. it only demonstrated your inability to use a simple program,
tho.
news:XnsA030CE734C100be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA030CEEFA3C63HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> Pooh and myself both run our own local DNS servers. We are well
>> aware of how the perform and what their specific purpose is on our
>> networks and the internet. You tried to tell us otherwise with
>> regard to botched testing results that you misinterpreted. I
>> mentioned packet switching etc after your snarky comment asking if I
>> knew how fast electricity was.
>
> You are trying to gain high ground again. Dustin, you are not a
> honest person with integrity. The testing had little to do with the
> argument, and the error I made had nothing to do with it.
dishonest all you like, as you've already resorted to calling me a cunt
in response to a pointed question, I don't consider your determination
of my credibility important.
The error you made was two fold. One, you supported a claim in an
article which isn't true. You incorrectly used a program and posted a
snapshot revealing the fact you didn't use it properly as proof AND
insulted the both of us. That was unnecessary.
> You and Pooh said speed of electricity and the closer server would
> determine the fastest server. I said no, there are other factors at
> play. Who is right, I am. It's as simple as that.
evidence. it only demonstrated your inability to use a simple program,
tho.
Bear
Apr 10, 2012, 5:51:25 AM4/10/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA0311CA99202HHI2948AJD832@no:
> made it personal? I didn't call you a cunt Bear. That is a fact.
more bullshit from the bullshit artist. You are a liar cunt and coward.
news:XnsA0311CA99202HHI2948AJD832@no:
> made it personal? I didn't call you a cunt Bear. That is a fact.
Dustin
Apr 10, 2012, 8:47:38 AM4/10/12
to
Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
news:XnsA0313167CD956be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA0311CA99202HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> made it personal? I didn't call you a cunt Bear. That is a fact.
>
> more bullshit from the bullshit artist. You are a liar cunt and coward.
Are you denying you called me a cunt? How do you figure I'm a coward,
Billy? I post with my real name and have no problem with the technical
discussions. Oh, I know how to use simple software too. Like, oh say,
DNSBenchmark.
news:XnsA0313167CD956be...@130.225.254.104:
> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA0311CA99202HHI2948AJD832@no:
>
>> made it personal? I didn't call you a cunt Bear. That is a fact.
>
> more bullshit from the bullshit artist. You are a liar cunt and coward.
Billy? I post with my real name and have no problem with the technical
discussions. Oh, I know how to use simple software too. Like, oh say,
DNSBenchmark.
Bear
Apr 10, 2012, 3:07:05 PM4/10/12
to
Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA031599F78623HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA0313167CD956be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA0311CA99202HHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> made it personal? I didn't call you a cunt Bear. That is a fact.
>>
>> more bullshit from the bullshit artist. You are a liar cunt and coward.
>
> Are you denying you called me a cunt? How do you figure I'm a coward,
> Billy? I post with my real name and have no problem with the technical
> discussions. Oh, I know how to use simple software too. Like, oh say,
> DNSBenchmark.
Billy's been dealing with some bad news here at home. Stop goading him and
let him recover his normal composure. That's the decent thing to do.
Jax
--
Bear
http://bearware.info
news:XnsA031599F78623HHI2948AJD832@no:
> Bear <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in
> news:XnsA0313167CD956be...@130.225.254.104:
>
>> Dustin <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:XnsA0311CA99202HHI2948AJD832@no:
>>
>>> made it personal? I didn't call you a cunt Bear. That is a fact.
>>
>> more bullshit from the bullshit artist. You are a liar cunt and coward.
>
> Are you denying you called me a cunt? How do you figure I'm a coward,
> Billy? I post with my real name and have no problem with the technical
> discussions. Oh, I know how to use simple software too. Like, oh say,
> DNSBenchmark.
let him recover his normal composure. That's the decent thing to do.
Jax
--
Bear
http://bearware.info
Message has been deleted
0 new messages