Hurin

Dude. . . my sides are starting to hurt! Funny, I thought this whole "Service Pack 2" thing I've been installing on all my networks was some sort of collection of previously released security patches as well as security-oriented user interface changes. But I guess that can't be the case since, apparently, MS just sits on his hands and doesn't do anything to patch their software. Look, I'm going to say this again. . . Macintoshes have security flaws too. As does unix/linux. But nobody exploits the Macintosh flaws because there aren't that many of them out there to be exploited. If you're a punk kid looking to write a virus or worm, you're probably not going to take the time to write one that can only infect 5% of the computer population. Indeed, the types of worms we've recently seen in the last two years depend on the huge number of Windows computers out there in order to propogate itself. Those types of worms just would not work on a Mac. Not because the Mac is more secure, but because there aren't enough Macs out there, connected to the web to effectively spam the internet with the packets that the worm used to spread itself. Yes, a Mac might get infected. But the chances of it finding another Mac on its network segment that is also vulnerable are not very high. The worm would never reach "critical mass" and start to reproduce exponentially because there just aren't enough viable hosts (Macs) out there. Do you know what the average turn-around time is between a Windows flaw being discovered and the time a worm appears to exploit it? Anywhere between one week and a month. So, Microsoft is in a race against time to come up with a patch before something like MS.Blaster comes tearing through 95% of the PC population again. Do you know what the average turn-around time is between a Macintosh flaw being discovered and the time a worm appears to exploit it? Between never. . . and never. Nobody writes 'em! Which, I would wager, is why Apple can take the time to patch fifteen flaws at a time. But pointing out that Macintosh patches its operating system while MS does not (and that somehow waiting and patching fifteen flaws at once is somehow evidence of this). . . well. . . that's just sorta silly. As for video editing. . . congratulations. H

Says the guy who just posted that he drinks chocolate milk. What are you? Seven? H

I'm under the impression that Lucas officially said: "All the other crap besides the first three movies doesn't count" when he started making the new ones. So, Zahn is out the window. Could be wrong. But I'm pretty sure that the novels are now non-canon. H

From what I can tell, its like they are special editions of the special editions. If they are made from the Defninitive Collection (as the image would seem to suggest), then they are the original theatrical releases. No SE stuff. Of course, they might just be using the cover of the laserdiscs for the hell of it. . . H

Not trying to start a fight. Just pointing out the irony and wonferful timing of the latest round of security patches from all sides. Plus, they're informative! These things just come to me in various IT newsletters. . . and since this thread got started, they're jumping out at me a bit more. H

Two Security Holes Patched in Linux But wait! How can this be!?! Only Microsoft is supposed to suck so much that it has security issues! H

Google is your friend: http://www.weightlossforall.com/calories-alcohol.htm http://www.dietbites.com/CalorieIndexSpirits.html http://cocktails.about.com/library/weekly/aa070999.htm Click Google above to see more results from the search. H

I don't know. . . watching Bea Arthur close up the cantina while she sang to its patrons always made me sick in a wonderful, wonderful way. . . H

Huh!?!

Man oh man do I love timely news: Apple Patches 15 Security Flaws in OS X

I think this is just another way of saying that they used better quality plastic this time around. . . that wouldn't be as prone to yellowing. But, that's just a guess. H

Yep. . . nearly every time I've seen them selling over the last year or two, they've gone for $100-115 each. H

That's all. . . just . . .

Here's a picture of a 2nd Edition headrest.

Me too. Firefox hauled @ss on all the rigs on which I tried it. I used it for a bit and liked it very much. But now I'm running XP SP2 and I sorta like the built-in pop-up blocking. So I'm back to IE now at least for a bit. I have to stay familiar with what most of my users and clients run. H

Dude. . . you've gotta be kidding. I don't even run Antivirus or AdAware on my home computer. The only thing I have recently done (in the last 18 months) is put myself behind a router which, of course, also serves as a firewall. I've never had a problem despite being online approximately six hours per day for the last ten years and using all sorts of "risky" software over that span (ICQ, Teamspeak, IRC, etc.). Never had pop-ups (unless web browsing). Never had a browser hijack. Never had a trojan installed. Never been hit by a worm. So, I'm sorry that you have so much trouble with your machines. But I strongly doubt that your experience is typical. Indeed, between the 70 computers I manage at work, the twenty I manage privately as a consultant, and my own home experience, I can't even begin to fathom what the heck is going on in your environment that prompts so much anti-virus/adware activity. If I seem a bit peeved, sorry. As an IT professional, I get a bit tired of hearing people blame the OS and Microsoft when, in most circumstances, the malicious software has arrived on the computer because the user has done something somewhat idiotic: "Why yes, Mr. Pop-up window, I would like to add those screensavers to my computer. Thank you!" If, magically, the computing world could somehow be reversed, and Macintoshes were the 95% majority, I'd love to see how gummed up the average Mac users' computer would be when the malicious code writers out there directed all their attention towards Macs. . . H

Regarding Macs. . . they don't have as many problems with viruses and trojans because few people are going to want to write a virus/trojan/worm that will only be able to infect 5% of the computer population! No, Windows isn't perfect. But pointing to an Apple and saying it doesn't have as many problems because it's simply better is. . . well. . . a bit naive. H

No! Stop being a pathetic little girlie man ... If it offends people, then it must go, if it offends nobody, then let it stay. Example: If I had a sig that said: "Vote for clean air" I don't think anyone would be pissed off at me. So quit your girlie crying and go to the gym. You can just hear me now and remember me later. www.dont-be-a-girlieman.com Well, I know that I was kidding when I essentially said "anything that I agree with is fine". . . but I really and truly can't tell if you're also kidding here or took me too seriously. H

Well, I think WDC's post here illustrates exactly why politics in sigs shouldn't be allowed. He felt the need to respond to the political content of it, and now it takes a lot of effort on the part of argumentative people like myself to not respond to what he said (especially because it was said so "matter-of-factly"). . . and thereby begin a political debate where nothing will get solved. . . but a lot of animosity will probably be generated. Basically, if you can't post about politics, you shouldn't be able to have politics in your sig. Otherwise, sigs just become a way of posting some "bumper sticker" political belief that comes across as a recurring annoyance to everyone around here who doesn't agree with whatever trite platitude is being disseminated. And, of course, such trite little sigs are even more annoying because, while the sig is allowed, addressing it is not. Yes, as JS pointed out, there are grey areas and demarcations that might be sticky. But, I don't think a link to a blatantly political website is one of them. Banning political sigs is the more fair and consistent solution. And, the mods can take the "grey area" ones on a case-by-case basis. But I really don't see that coming off very often. H

It's really simple: If I agree with the politics espoused in a sig. . . I think it's fine and should stay. But if I disagree with it, it should be removed and the person who had it posted banned.

Dude. . . you need to chill. Nothing he said was a-hole-like. All he was doing is pointing out how odd it was that someone would think a hovertank looks like Jetfire.

Howdy, That's the "chase figure" from the first edition CMS figures. Thanks! H

And, for those of you wondering just how much built-up demand there was here on Macross World for the 1/48 VF-1S. . . here are two quotes that I hope Chibitokyo doesn't mind me sharing (can't imagine that they would): Everyone's a winner! And, to be honest, I think Chibitokyo is the real winner here. Because they continued to sell the Roy at a fair price, and anyone who receives a valk from them will be very impressed with their customer service and attention to packaging. . . I think they have made quite a few fans here (and among visitors and lurkers who might have seen this thread). To me, that's a more sound long-term business model than the gouging we've seen by others. Respected, trusted, fair sellers who pack their items well like Valkyrie Exchange (Kevin), Twin Moons (Tam), Neova, and now Chibitokyo, really do expose and hilight the less than stellar behavior and practices of stores like TISINC99. H

Dude. . . that actually chaps my hide quite a bit. I don't mind it when someone raises prices to ridiculous levels. I just don't buy it. More power to whoever does. . . And I wasn't very upset that my 1S Hikaru arrived creased, in a standard (nearly too small) box. But when someone starts acting like a used car salesman and spouts obvious falsehoods. . . that's when they lose my business forever. That will be the last thing I ever buy from TISINC99.COM. I'm just going to try to be more careful and not let things get out of stock again at dealers I trust before I'm ready to buy. . . so I won't have to go grovelling back to TISINC ever again. Best Regards, H

No. They are now out of stock. For the record, they raised the price by $20 on only their last two Roys. And those two were only made available after they initially ran out of stock. . . and the owner decided to sell the only remaining two from his personal collection. That's what I was told via email in response to my (emailed) praise for their packaging and (light) criticizm of their raised price. I'd definitely buy from these folks again. It's too bad that they haven't seemed to carry any 1/48 releases other than the first two. Though they do have quite a few 1/60s and Bandais. I'll be keeping an eye on their site from now on. . .