To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / *2896 (-20)
  Re: 2000 scans
 
(...) You're all ready to go on Jerry Springer as guest, or worse, audience, or worse yet, host. Aren't you? Jasper (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
 
(...) The democratic majority agreed. You agreed. As simple as that. Jasper (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Pastel = Profit (Was Re: 2000 Dealer catalogue Removal Request Backfire?)
 
Tom Stangl, VFAQman wrote in message <385AA831.A7538733@vfaq.com>... (...) is NOT (...) don't (...) Yes. You are 100% right. The problem is 100% with TLG. Somebody there is pretty naive I think. Crazy way to run a company - I have to use get past 2 (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.general)
 
  Re: 2000 scans
 
(...) I dunno. I've seen some pretty awful American tourists. That might not mean (...) It's all a balancing act -- the issue of "your rights end where my nose starts" writ large. Generally, it's been acknowledged that certain intellectual property (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) Gee. That's rather a cop-out, isn't it? (...) Yes, it does. (...) This is not about courtesy. At all. This is about a claim Brad made that it was _legally_ so. I am not saying it isn't impolite (though I don't agree..), I am saying it isn't (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: 2000 scans
 
<sarcasm> yes it just pleases me to no end that shows like 'Dawson's Creek', 'Friends' and 'Beverly Hills 90210' go to other countries. </sarcasm> They're bad enough in this country where we know there is no way someone lives like that, let alone (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) Interesting side-issue: what about going through the garbage in the alley? I could see it either way - people don't generally leave sensitive information in the dumpster, unless they're idiots, but legally, is acquiring, say, hardware (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: 2000 scans
 
(...) If you think about the vast number of television programmes that spew forth from America and pollute the rest of the world.. then it isn't that suprising that people have this opinion. Almost every other idiot on television is an American, (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.adventurers, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) What two? (...) Heh heh...no, that's not what I meant by "summoned up"; I was referring to snooping or URL trolling. If I summoned up an image by accident, I'd be surprised more than anything else. --Todd (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) No, you're defining webserver differently. I'm not going to bother quibbling semantics with you. (...) No. "in a place public can get to" != publically available != published. The three of them often co-incide, but do not necessarily do so. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) Wow, I've been quite reasonable AND made an excellent point today. I'm on a roll. ;) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) That's silly. Those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Brad even specifically mentioned something about "by accident or by intent". So you're telling me that if you accidentally mistype a character in a URL and end up seeing an (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) I may revisit this tomorrow after all the spirits are flushed out of my system, but on the surface this is a bogus analogy. Front window/back window. Signs pointing HERE - Look at this! No signs pointing to other areas, but stuff still there (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
On my site, I assume that ANYTHING on my site will be viewed by someone sooner or later. If I don't want it viewed, I remove it. The most I do for "security" is put index.html files in directories that I might consider sensitive. But then again, I (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
 
Christopher Weeks wrote in message <385A9C3C.C9739DE6@e...se.net>... (...) You really need to bow down to the great Larry more often. If you did, you wouldn't make so many misteaks... Frank (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
Reply-To: mattdm@mattdm.org Message-Id: <slrn85lsvu.1dq.matt...ia.bu.edu> User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX) (...) *shrug* It's snooping in stuff that they've made publicly available. Walking down the public alley behind a store because you're curious (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) Heh heh. No no, I mean when you find some directory with 755 permissions (instead of 711 permissions) and it's got no index.html file, but it's got a home.html file linked to from elsewhere, and home.html contains links to 5 images in its (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) You mean you go back and see what you should have felt guilty about, in retrospect? I think that's going a bit overboard! (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) I didn't mean it quite that literally. Correcting an obvious typo or fixing broken \'s to /'s is something I think anyone could do without feeling guilt! :) I meant things like trying to guess names of files from partial information, or if (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 
  Re: Policy clarification regarding catalogs
 
(...) I'm coming to think so too. To me, this is fundamentally why we have a URLs -- Uniform Resource Locators. The ability to identify and access resources directly is a basic design decision underlying what makes the WWW what it is. If the intent (...) (25 years ago, 18-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)


Next Page:  5 more | 10 more | 20 more

Redisplay Messages:  All | Compact

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR