W98

["NachtWacht"]

No more W98 ?

--
____________________
>> NIGHTWATCHER <<
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

["NachtWacht"]

"NachtWacht" <remb...@van.ryn> schreef in bericht news:j3hjr7$lsl$1...@news.albasani.net...
> No more W98 ?

Nothing.

--
____________________
>> NIGHTWATCHER <<
��������������������

[Nobody > (Revisited)]

On 8/29/2011 8:04 PM, "NachtWacht" wrote:
> "NachtWacht"<remb...@van.ryn> schreef in bericht news:j3hjr7$lsl$1...@news.albasani.net...
>> No more W98 ?
>
> Nothing.
>

It's still out there, got a 98SE OEM pack last week for free.

Once in a long while, this newsgroup will suddenly pop up with a small
flurry of posts, but most of the 98 stuff is now found on forums.

Still have 2 98SE machines, runs fine.

--
"Shit this is it, all the pieces do fit.
We're like that crazy old man jumping
out of the alleyway with a baseball bat,
saying, "Remember me motherfucker?"
Jim “Dandy” Mangrum

[98 Guy]

\"NachtWacht\" wrote:

> No more W98 ?

It's still my primary OS on my home and office computer(s).

I suggest you have a look in microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
instead of this group (alt.comp.os.windows-98se). You'll find a little
more activity there than you see here.

["NachtWacht"]

Nobody > (Revisited) <useneth...@aol.com> schreef in bericht news:uY_6q.3835$qy6....@newsfe07.iad...

> On 8/29/2011 8:04 PM, "NachtWacht" wrote:
> > "NachtWacht"<remb...@van.ryn> schreef in bericht news:j3hjr7$lsl$1...@news.albasani.net...
> >> No more W98 ?
> >
> > Nothing.
> >
>
> It's still out there, got a 98SE OEM pack last week for free.
>
> Once in a long while, this newsgroup will suddenly pop up with a small
> flurry of posts, but most of the 98 stuff is now found on forums.
>
> Still have 2 98SE machines, runs fine.

I know. I have a W95 pc, but my thought is to install it with W98,
it's much more better.

--
Wie alles begrijpt, die alles vergeeft...
____________________
>> NIGHTWATCHER <<
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

["NachtWacht"]

98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> schreef in bericht news:4E600003...@Guy.com...

Thanks, I'll take a look.

[98 Guy]

j...@myplace.com wrote:

> > I suggest you have a look in microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
> > instead of this group (alt.comp.os.windows-98se). You'll find a
> > little more activity there than you see here.
>

> Dont forget alt.windows98
> There is some good activity on there too.

Well, actually, no - there isin't (but I wish there was).

There's only one thread being archived (at least on the server I use -
AIOE) in alt.windows98. That thread is titled "Internet Explorer users
'have below-average IQ'" - and it's a thread I started on Aug 1.

Posts in that thread range from Aug 1 to Aug 12. No other posts in that
group (as far as I can see).

Historically, most of the stuff posted to alt.windows98 is there because
I cross-posted it from this group (m.p.w98.g_d).

[j...@myplace.com]

Yep, I'm posting from it now, and it sure is dead. Been awhile since
I was here. Guess the inevitable is coming true. Pretty soon I wont
need Win98 or Win7, or even XP. When the newsgroups die, I'm getting
rid of the computers, or at least the internet. Seems the whole net
is just turing into a huge commercial, and the few sites that are not
selling something are just one way discussions as in "read only".
Even the old yahoo groups have turned to crap (not that I really ever
found them of much value to begin). Seems the only way one can
actually interact with others these days is on filthy piece of shit,
repulsive spyware called 'facebook', and it's ugly cousins twitter and
myspace. (All of which I have blocked).

[98 Guy]

j...@myplace.com wrote:

> When the newsgroups die, I'm getting rid of the computers, or at
> least the internet.

Maybe my recollection is wrong, but I thought you were on dial-up.

If so, you're not really experiencing the internet in any meaninful or
useful way.

> Seems the whole net is just turing into a huge commercial,

Look into a hosts file.

> Seems the only way one can actually interact with others these
> days is on filthy piece of shit, repulsive spyware called 'facebook'

I've never been on facebook, and never intend to. Nor the others
(myface, tweeter, etc).

There are *plenty* of other, far less commercial web-based forums that
cater to specific interests or hobbies, and by using a hosts file you
never see any advertising.

And you can't tell me that alt.home.repair isin't entertaining or on the
decline - right?

[j...@myplace.com]

On Tue, 06 Sep 2011 11:49:03 -0400, 98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote:

>j...@myplace.com wrote:
>
>> When the newsgroups die, I'm getting rid of the computers, or at
>> least the internet.
>
>Maybe my recollection is wrong, but I thought you were on dial-up.
>
>If so, you're not really experiencing the internet in any meaninful or
>useful way.
>

Yep, dialup is all I can get, unless I spend a weeks income each month
to get satellite, which wont happen.

I can get anything on the internet you can, just slower. I often take
my laptop to wifi spots to watch youtube videos and such.

>> Seems the whole net is just turing into a huge commercial,
>
>Look into a hosts file.
>

Got one, and it's huge!!!!!
Thats part of how i block youtube crap.

>> Seems the only way one can actually interact with others these
>> days is on filthy piece of shit, repulsive spyware called 'facebook'
>
>I've never been on facebook, and never intend to. Nor the others
>(myface, tweeter, etc).

Good move on that one.....

>
>There are *plenty* of other, far less commercial web-based forums that
>cater to specific interests or hobbies, and by using a hosts file you
>never see any advertising.
>

Yea, if you want to spend hours going thru lists of them, having to
login, remember all the passwords and user names, etc.....
Usenet has all the messages compacted into one place, no need to sign
in and all that crap, nor wait for pictures to load and clutter the
desktop.

>And you can't tell me that alt.home.repair isin't entertaining or on the
>decline - right?

That's one of the few newsgroups that still continues to function, but
even that one has been taken over by politics, which has caused me to
so some serious filtering. Dont know why people cant post politics to
the political groups which seem to be the most of any topic in the
usenet lists.

[thanatoid]

j...@myplace.com wrote in
news:0edd67pao2um8m6b1...@4ax.com:

> Yea, if you want to spend hours going thru lists of them,
> having to login, remember all the passwords and user names,
> etc..... Usenet has all the messages compacted into one
> place, no need to sign in and all that crap, nor wait for
> pictures to load and clutter the desktop.

I agree with your general attitude, but look into

http://www.shortkeys.com/lite.htm

The old lite version had a limit of 25 or 30 entries, but even
15 are a great help, especially since you can use the same nicks
and passwords for various sites (yes, I know some will argue
that's a bad thing to do, but the web is so stupid, who cares).
Also, I can post the old version for you somewhere if you like.

[98 Guy]

thanatoid wrote:

> > having to login, remember all the passwords and user names,
>

> I agree with your general attitude, but look into
>

> shortkeys

Why you guys have a problem with that is beyond me.

My browser (old, but still very functional in this day and age - Firefox
2.0.0.20) will remember my username / password, and in conjuction with
the "remember me each time I log in" setting on most web-forums, it
means I'm automatically logged in without having to type anything in the
minute I bring up the forum.

I try to use a generic "12345678" for a password (for forum sites that
aren't anal about forcing you to use a secure password).

[thanatoid]

98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4E67620A...@Guy.com:

> thanatoid wrote:
>
>> > having to login, remember all the passwords and user
>> > names,
>>
>> I agree with your general attitude, but look into
>>
>> shortkeys
>
> Why you guys have a problem with that is beyond me.
>
> My browser (old, but still very functional in this day and
> age - Firefox 2.0.0.20) will remember my username /
> password, and in conjuction with the "remember me each time
> I log in" setting on most web-forums, it means I'm
> automatically logged in without having to type anything in
> the minute I bring up the forum.

Very bad habit. Google for why, since you apparently don't know.

> I try to use a generic "12345678" for a password (for forum
> sites that aren't anal about forcing you to use a secure
> password).

Brilliant.

[98 Guy]

thanatoid wrote:

> > My browser (old, but still very functional in this day and age
> > - Firefox 2.0.0.20) will remember my username / password, and in
> > conjuction with the "remember me each time I log in" setting on
> > most web-forums, it means I'm automatically logged in without
> > having to type anything in the minute I bring up the forum.
>
> Very bad habit. Google for why, since you apparently don't know.

Why don't you tell me why? Because there's no garantee that a google
search will supply me with your reason why you think this is a bad
habit.

> > I try to use a generic "12345678" for a password (for forum
> > sites that aren't anal about forcing you to use a secure
> > password).
>
> Brilliant.

Yes, I think so. But more to the point - it's ergonomic.

[j...@myplace.com]

Everytime I use an older browser these days, I keep getting
announcements to upgrade my browser. Even my simple easy to use
K-Meleon is no longer acceptable on numerous sites, such as youtube.
Some of the time they still work, often they dont work properly. No
sense going to youtube if the videos dont work. No sense going to
ebay when ebay insists that I have cookies disabled, which they are
NOT, so I cant get something like the shipping cost calculator to
work.

Regardless of what browser I use, I have NEVER allowed any of them to
"Remember my username and password". Any website can run a script to
view those entries for every site you have remembered. All my
passwords are saved in text files which are contained inside a zip
file and in a read only folder comprised of the upper characters found
in Character Map. I have to go to that folder, unzip them, then copy
and paste..... PAIN IN THE ASS...... But they are pretty secure that
way from online spys.


Speaking of passwords, I heard about a blonde who was trying to
connect to the internet for the first time. She got to the part where
it said:

Type your username: (she typed "YOUR USERNAME")
Type your password: (she typed "YOUR PASSWORD")

[thanatoid]

98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4E67EE4E...@Guy.com:

"Give me convenience or give me death" - The Dead Kennedys

[thanatoid]

j...@myplace.com wrote in
news:mt0g671lujc6hoi5a...@4ax.com:

<snip>

> Everytime I use an older browser these days, I keep getting
> announcements to upgrade my browser.

I can't remember if you are the weirdo (no offense) who REFUSES
to use the best full-featured browser out there, Opera, but
Opera does not do this. In fact, I am /pretty sure/ that most
(if not all) browsers (and many regular programs) have a setting
about "checking for/reminding about updates" where you can say
"never".

OffByOne, the best browser period, doesn't do this either.

> Even my simple easy
> to use K-Meleon is no longer acceptable on numerous sites,
> such as youtube. Some of the time they still work, often
> they dont work properly. No sense going to youtube if the
> videos dont work. No sense going to ebay when ebay insists
> that I have cookies disabled, which they are NOT, so I cant
> get something like the shipping cost calculator to work.

Opera. Opera. Opera. Opera. Opera. Opera. Opera. Opera. Opera.

> Regardless of what browser I use, I have NEVER allowed any
> of them to "Remember my username and password". Any
> website can run a script to view those entries for every
> site you have remembered. All my passwords are saved in
> text files which are contained inside a zip file and in a
> read only folder comprised of the upper characters found
> in Character Map.

Pretty paranoid! I like it :-)

[Lostgallifreyan]

thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns9F59E7FCD...@88.198.244.100:

>> Everytime I use an older browser these days, I keep getting
>> announcements to upgrade my browser.
>
> I can't remember if you are the weirdo (no offense) who REFUSES
> to use the best full-featured browser out there, Opera, but
> Opera does not do this. In fact, I am /pretty sure/ that most
> (if not all) browsers (and many regular programs) have a setting
> about "checking for/reminding about updates" where you can say
> "never".
>
> OffByOne, the best browser period, doesn't do this either.
>

Even Off By One would show those pages, unless you changed the User-Agent
string to something the website's browser police accept. Of course they'd
like to take a truncheon to you for fraud if you did this...

[Lostgallifreyan]

thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns9F59E7176...@88.198.244.100:

> "Give me convenience or give me death" - The Dead Kennedys
>

Nice. Though I tend to favour the fruit and veg...

[98 Guy]

thanatoid wrote:

> >> Very bad habit. Google for why, since you apparently don't
> >> know.
> >
> > Why don't you tell me why? Because there's no garantee
> > that a google search will supply me with your reason why
> > you think this is a bad habit.
>

> "Give me convenience or give me death" - The Dead Kennedys

So you've just proved that you're more bluster than fact.

Just like MEB used to be.

Saying that Google is answer - is no answer.

If you have absolute knowledge (not some fuzzy idea) that there are
known vulnerabilities or exploit methods that can be leveraged when you
tell a website to "remember me for next login", then either disclose
that information - or STFU.

[98 Guy]

thanatoid wrote:

> > Everytime I use an older browser these days, I keep getting
> > announcements to upgrade my browser.

I can't believe how you people are so dense that you keep hitting
yourself with a proverbial 2x4 over this.

Change your friggin User-Agent in your browser, and you won't get any
problems from websites bitching about what browser you're actually
using.

[thanatoid]

98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4E68C77F...@Guy.com:

> thanatoid wrote:
>
>> >> Very bad habit. Google for why, since you apparently
>> >> don't know.
>> >
>> > Why don't you tell me why? Because there's no garantee
>> > that a google search will supply me with your reason why
>> > you think this is a bad habit.

Assuming you know what to put in the search box, it will supply
you with tens of thousands of differently worded statements for
why it is a bad idea. I certainly wouldn't want you to go by
what *I* personally think.

>> "Give me convenience or give me death" - The Dead Kennedys
>
> So you've just proved that you're more bluster than fact.
>
> Just like MEB used to be.
>
> Saying that Google is answer - is no answer.
>
> If you have absolute knowledge (not some fuzzy idea) that
> there are known vulnerabilities or exploit methods that can
> be leveraged when you tell a website to "remember me for
> next login", then either disclose that information - or
> STFU.

Thank you for reminding me why I had you KF'd for months/years.

BTW, forget Google. If you can't figure out WHY that bad idea is
a very bad idea, you're a moron.

[thanatoid]

Lostgallifreyan <no-...@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:Xns9F5A6C3FB86...@216.196.109.145:

He wasn't talking about /pages/, he was talking about notices to
upgrade your version of your browser. At least that's how I
understood it.

OB1 /does/ occasionally show a message from the website saying
the browser doesn't do javascript (one of its great advantages),
etc., but that's different.

[thanatoid]

98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4E68C9E1...@Guy.com:

Learn to quote properly, you moron. I did not say the above. You
quoted MY quote.

[9-8 G-uy]

thanatoid wrote:

> > Why don't you tell me why? Because there's no garantee
> > that a google search will supply me with your reason why
> > you think this is a bad habit.
>
> Assuming you know what to put in the search box, it will
> supply you with tens of thousands of differently worded
> statements for why it is a bad idea.

None of which you're enough of a man to go out on a limb and state right
here, right now in your own words.

It's really sad that you don't have enough confidence to do so.

This lack of conviction on your part completely undermines your
argument. Everyone else reading this realizes this.

Until or unless you spell out exactly why it's a bad idea to set a
web-forum to "remember me", nobody reading this will have any confidence
in your

"trust me, I'm saying it's so, but I'm too obstinate to say why"

> I certainly wouldn't want you to go by what *I* personally think.

There's a difference between what you think, and what you know.

What you're saying here is that you don't have enough confidence in what
you know to put it down in writing.

> Thank you for reminding me why I had you KF'd for months/years.

Go back and stick your head in the sand. That's where you'll find your
kill-file.

> BTW, forget Google. If you can't figure out WHY that bad idea
> is a very bad idea, you're a moron.

If you have absolute knowledge (or a working hypothesis) as to why it's
bad, then why don't you have the balls to tell us?

If your argument is cogent, if your facts are undisputable, if your
information is solid - then I'll be the first one to agree.

[Lostgallifreyan]

thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns9F5A90B2...@88.198.244.100:

Odds of 100% he was talking about those pages web sites serve up to say they
don't like our browsers. He said 'announcements'. If it were the browser's
own auto-update request, he'd see repeats of ONE announcement, the same one
every time. More than one type means external, and you need to fake the User-
Agent string to stop those. Even that may not be enough for some sites if
they make elaborate detections of how their content is requested and used.

[thanatoid]

9-8 G-uy <9...@G-uy.com> wrote in
news:4E6940A7...@G-uy.com:

> thanatoid wrote:
>
>> > Why don't you tell me why? Because there's no garantee
>> > that a google search will supply me with your reason why
>> > you think this is a bad habit.

Again, genius, learn to post and quote properly. I did NOT say
the above, those are YOUR words. Learn to <snip>, too. Sheesh.

>> Assuming you know what to put in the search box, it will
>> supply you with tens of thousands of differently worded
>> statements for why it is a bad idea.
>
> None of which you're enough of a man to go out on a limb
> and state right here, right now in your own words.
>
> It's really sad that you don't have enough confidence to do
> so.
>
> This lack of conviction on your part completely undermines
> your argument. Everyone else reading this realizes this.

You are assuming someone reads your trash, and that I care what
people think of me. Few of the remaining few read your posts,
and I could not care less what anyone thinks of me.

> Until or unless you spell out exactly why it's a bad idea
> to set a web-forum to "remember me", nobody reading this
> will have any confidence in your

OMG, I'd better put a bullet in my head right now!

> "trust me, I'm saying it's so, but I'm too obstinate to
> say why"
>
>> I certainly wouldn't want you to go by what *I* personally
>> think.
>
> There's a difference between what you think, and what you
> know.

Hmmm. The /knowledge/ may not be /correct/, but what one thinks
is usually closely related to what one knows.

> What you're saying here is that you don't have enough
> confidence in what you know to put it down in writing.

You said:

> My browser (old, but still very functional in this day and
> age - Firefox 2.0.0.20) will remember my username /
> password, and in conjuction with the "remember me each time
> I log in" setting on most web-forums, it means I'm
> automatically logged in without having to type anything in
> the minute I bring up the forum.

1.
It is not good to store your passwords in your browser, since
they are easily gotten at by malware.

2.
It is not good to let sites store your pw since any site can be
hacked and the info can be used in ways you might not like, even
if it's something as innocent as someone else posting (in your
name) "I recently took an IQ test - my Usenet buddies have been
bugging me to for years. I scored 79. Should I be concerned?"

(cf. http://wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html)

While you did not explicitly say so, it is possible you use the
same u/pw on various sites which just compounds the problem.
Even if you don't, it's still a bad idea to let any machine
"remember you".

3.
Using FF2 is not a good idea since that version, unless a
shitload of tweaks and addons is applied, is not considered much
more secure than IE. I realize FF3 will not run on 98 (perhaps
it does with KernelEx, but I don't bother with that), but you
might consider spending some time on learning how to use Opera
(up to 10 runs on 98, perhaps even one or two later versions).

Now leave me alone.

[thanatoid]

thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns9F5AECF9C...@88.198.244.100:

I just checked you post, and you DO in fact use the same
password on many sites, a very original and unique one in fact,
12345678.

"No further comments, your honor."

[98 Guy]

thanatoid wrote:

> > Why don't you tell me why? Because there's no garantee
> > that a google search will supply me with your reason why
> > you think this is a bad habit.
>
> Again, genius, learn to post and quote properly. I did NOT say
> the above, those are YOUR words. Learn to <snip>, too. Sheesh.

After how many years reading and posting to usenet, and you haven't
learned that a double-quote (as indicated by two or more ">" characters)
is an indication that the text in question is a quote from someone else
(usually the person you're having a conversation with). ?

In other words, the presence of a single ">" indicates your material
that I'm quoting, and a double ">" is my material posted previously.
That can be expanded: The presence of an odd number of ">" (1, 3, 5) is
probably your material, and an even number of ">" (2, 4, etc) is
probably mine.

> > This lack of conviction on your part completely undermines
> > your argument. Everyone else reading this realizes this.
>
> You are assuming someone reads your trash,

Oh, you and I both know they are. And they know that the trash is
coming from you.

> and that I care what people think of me.

I didn't say you did. That's for you to say.

I can just imagine what people think of you.

> Few of the remaining few read your posts

There are far more who read these posts in silence, without posting
here, than you know.

> and I could not care less what anyone thinks of me.

Because they think very little of you, because of how little you
contribute here, and the way that you contribute.

> > "trust me, I'm saying it's so, but I'm too obstinate to say why"

No come-back for that line eh?

> > There's a difference between what you think, and what you
> > know.
>
> Hmmm. The /knowledge/ may not be /correct/, but what one thinks
> is usually closely related to what one knows.

And if the knowledge is not correct? What does that say about what you
think?

You claim to have knowledge about something, yet you will not state that
knowledge in your own words. Only to make a vaugue comment that this
knowledge can be found on google. And you do not even post a google
search URL, or even to give a precise search query that should be given
to Google to illustrate or reveal the source of your knowledge.

> You said:
>
> > My browser (old, but still very functional in this day and
> > age - Firefox 2.0.0.20) will remember my username /
> > password, and in conjuction with the "remember me each time
> > I log in" setting on most web-forums, it means I'm
> > automatically logged in without having to type anything in
> > the minute I bring up the forum.
>
> 1.
> It is not good to store your passwords in your browser, since
> they are easily gotten at by malware.

If your computer becomes infected by something that can take control of
your system and investigate every file on it, then you've got much more
to worry about than whether or not your browser has been set to remember
user-name / password info for various web-sites.

In this regard, note the following:

- I would suppose that most hackers will not care about or make
effective use of user-name/password info for the vast majority of
websites that DO NOT contain visible user information such as real name,
address, or credit-card info. Many e-commerce websites do not show the
full credit-card number once you've entered it into your profile, so
anyone that manages to get into your on-line account would not be able
to get that info.

- If you limit your brower's ability to automatically log you in to
web-forums where you don't have any personal information stored in your
profile, then there is nothing that a hacker can do or gain if he gets
access to that account.

> 2.
> It is not good to let sites store your pw since

Think carefully about that statement.

Any site where you can (or must) register a user-name/handle in
conjunction with a password will by necessity have to store your
username and password in order for the login facility for that site to
function.

> While you did not explicitly say so, it is possible you use
> the same u/pw on various sites which just compounds the problem.
> Even if you don't, it's still a bad idea to let any machine
> "remember you".

Again, there's a logical flaw in your argument.

Every computer that asks you for a username/password (even your own
physical computer) must store a local copy of that username/password (or
a hash of the password). Because if it doesn't, then please explain how
the login process works without such local storage.

And a website doesn't have to store your actual password. It's more
common that they store a hash of the password, and hashes can't easily
be reverse-engineered to reveal the actual password that could be used
on another website.

There is also a flaw in the basic premis that someone with the user-name
"Joe User" on the web-forum "computers.com" is the same "Joe User" on
the website "cars.com". Which means if the user data-base for
computers.com was hacked, that the password for "Joe User" on
computers.com wouldn't necessarily be the same as on the website
cars.com.

> 3.
> Using FF2 is not a good idea since that version, unless a
> shitload of tweaks and addons is applied, is not considered
> much more secure than IE.

I'm not even aware of any tweaks or add-ons for the last version of FF2
designed specifically to cover any
so-called security vulnerabilities. I've never sought out or looked for
any such add-ons, and I've never experienced any successful malware
intrusion or exploitation on my win-98 systems while browsing some very
nasty websites using FF2.0.0.20.

IE6 (and it's various deeply-entrenched system files) had many
vulnerabilities that are really only experienced or workable on NT-based
computers. Analysis has shown time and time again that the patches and
fixes released by microsoft for IE6 up until July 2006 were for
vulnerabilities that did not exist in conjuction with windows 9x/me.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that IE6 was a good browser for
win-98. Early on it was just as good as any other browser at rendering
web-content, but it quickly became horrible in that regard and by 2005
anyone with half a brain should have been running firefox instead of IE6
on their win-9x machine based soley on the firefox's superior
web-compabitility and functionality.

You, like MEB, can falsely raise the spectre of win-98/FF2 vulnerability
or expoitability, but the truth is that that combination is highly
invulnerable to web exploitation.

> I realize FF3 will not run on 98 (perhaps it does with KernelEx

Yes it does, as does Opera 11.01 (which I also use for a handful of
websites where some java or flash stuff doesn't work under FF2.0.0.20).
And yes, both require KernelEx.

> but I don't bother with that

As one would expect who keeps his head buried in the sane.

> but you might consider spending some time on learning how
> to use Opera (up to 10 runs on 98, perhaps even one or two
> later versions).

What's to learn?

> Now leave me alone.

Here, let me help you pile this sand a little higher over your head...

[98 Guy]

thanatoid wrote:

> I just checked you post, and you DO in fact use the same
> password on many sites, a very original and unique one in fact,
> 12345678.
>
> "No further comments, your honor."

And which sites would those be?

[thanatoid]

98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4E6A17AC...@Guy.com:

What is your problem? I understand you like picking arguments
with people, but how the fuck am I supposed to guess what sites
you visit? I don't know and I don't want to know. I am not a
hacker - they'll find out if they're interested.

You said you used the same password on various sites. That is
all I noticed and pointed out, since the previous point was
unclear, having been written before I re-read your original
twaddle.

[thanatoid]

98 Guy <9...@Guy.com> wrote in news:4E6A16B7...@Guy.com:

> thanatoid wrote:
>
>> > Why don't you tell me why? Because there's no garantee
>> > that a google search will supply me with your reason why
>> > you think this is a bad habit.
>>
>> Again, genius, learn to post and quote properly. I did NOT
>> say the above, those are YOUR words. Learn to <snip>, too.
>> Sheesh.
>
> After how many years reading and posting to usenet, and you
> haven't learned that a double-quote (as indicated by two or
> more ">" characters) is an indication that the text in
> question is a quote from someone else (usually the person
> you're having a conversation with). ?

I am well aware of the fact that more than one > indicates
someone else said it, but that does not excuse your sloppiness.

> In other words, the presence of a single ">" indicates your
> material that I'm quoting, and a double ">" is my material
> posted previously. That can be expanded: The presence of an
> odd number of ">" (1, 3, 5) is probably your material, and
> an even number of ">" (2, 4, etc) is probably mine.

"Probably". That does not excuse you following person a's name
with the words of person b or c.

<snip>

>> > "trust me, I'm saying it's so, but I'm too obstinate to
>> > say why"
>
> No come-back for that line eh?

Some things are not worth replying to.

>> > There's a difference between what you think, and what
>> > you know.
>>
>> Hmmm. The /knowledge/ may not be /correct/, but what one
>> thinks is usually closely related to what one knows.
>
> And if the knowledge is not correct? What does that say
> about what you think?

It means my thinking is incorrect, master of logic..

> You claim to have knowledge about something, yet you will
> not state that knowledge in your own words. Only to make a
> vaugue comment that this knowledge can be found on google.
> And you do not even post a google search URL, or even to
> give a precise search query that should be given to Google
> to illustrate or reveal the source of your knowledge.
>
>> You said:
>>
>> > My browser (old, but still very functional in this day
>> > and age - Firefox 2.0.0.20) will remember my username /
>> > password, and in conjuction with the "remember me each
>> > time I log in" setting on most web-forums, it means I'm
>> > automatically logged in without having to type anything
>> > in the minute I bring up the forum.
>>
>> 1.
>> It is not good to store your passwords in your browser,
>> since they are easily gotten at by malware.
>
> If your computer becomes infected by something that can
> take control of your system and investigate every file on
> it, then you've got much more to worry about than whether
> or not your browser has been set to remember user-name /
> password info for various web-sites.

Nice refocus.

> In this regard, note the following:

<snip>

It's your life, your money, etc.

>> 2.
>> It is not good to let sites store your pw since
>
> Think carefully about that statement.
>
> Any site where you can (or must) register a
> user-name/handle in conjunction with a password will by
> necessity have to store your username and password in order
> for the login facility for that site to function.

There is a difference between this and what you were saying and
you know that.

>> While you did not explicitly say so, it is possible you
>> use the same u/pw on various sites which just compounds
>> the problem. Even if you don't, it's still a bad idea to
>> let any machine "remember you".
>
> Again, there's a logical flaw in your argument.
>
> Every computer that asks you for a username/password (even
> your own physical computer) must store a local copy of that
> username/password (or a hash of the password). Because if
> it doesn't, then please explain how the login process works
> without such local storage.

See above.

> And a website doesn't have to store your actual password.
> It's more common that they store a hash of the password,
> and hashes can't easily be reverse-engineered to reveal the
> actual password that could be used on another website.
>
> There is also a flaw in the basic premis that someone with
> the user-name "Joe User" on the web-forum "computers.com"
> is the same "Joe User" on the website "cars.com". Which
> means if the user data-base for computers.com was hacked,
> that the password for "Joe User" on computers.com wouldn't
> necessarily be the same as on the website cars.com.

True, but even using the same pw with different user names is
not a good idea.

>> 3.
>> Using FF2 is not a good idea since that version, unless a
>> shitload of tweaks and addons is applied, is not
>> considered much more secure than IE.
>
> I'm not even aware of any tweaks or add-ons for the last
> version of FF2 designed specifically to cover any
> so-called security vulnerabilities. I've never sought out
> or looked for any such add-ons, and I've never experienced
> any successful malware intrusion or exploitation on my
> win-98 systems while browsing some very nasty websites
> using FF2.0.0.20.

Enjoy the wait.

> IE6 (and it's various deeply-entrenched system files) had
> many vulnerabilities that are really only experienced or
> workable on NT-based computers. Analysis has shown time
> and time again that the patches and fixes released by
> microsoft for IE6 up until July 2006 were for
> vulnerabilities that did not exist in conjuction with
> windows 9x/me.
>
> Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that IE6 was a good
> browser for win-98. Early on it was just as good as any
> other browser at rendering web-content, but it quickly
> became horrible in that regard and by 2005 anyone with half
> a brain should have been running firefox instead of IE6 on
> their win-9x machine based soley on the firefox's superior
> web-compabitility and functionality.
>
> You, like MEB, can falsely raise the spectre of win-98/FF2
> vulnerability or expoitability, but the truth is that that
> combination is highly invulnerable to web exploitation.

Whatever. And stop comparing me to MEB - first of all, it
indicates your regrettable tendency to lump people you disagree
with into one group, second, I can't remember what he has said
(and have no intention on relying on your statements), so it's
pointless. I am pretty sure we probably disagreed on many
things.

>> I realize FF3 will not run on 98 (perhaps it does with
>> KernelEx
>
> Yes it does, as does Opera 11.01 (which I also use for a
> handful of websites where some java or flash stuff doesn't
> work under FF2.0.0.20). And yes, both require KernelEx.
>
>> but I don't bother with that
>
> As one would expect who keeps his head buried in the sane.

You are really an idiot.

>> but you might consider spending some time on learning how
>> to use Opera (up to 10 runs on 98, perhaps even one or two
>> later versions).
>
> What's to learn?
>
>> Now leave me alone.
>
> Here, let me help you pile this sand a little higher over
> your head...

Thank you and goodbye.