Dak

try emailing abuse-at-hotmail.com, and tell them that someone has tried to guess your password. abuse-at-hotmail isnt the right email (apparently its for if you've recieved an abusive email), but i cant find the right email addy anywhere on their site. stoopid hotmail Whoever works in the abuse-at-hotmail place should be able to forward it to the right department. Make sure that your password is good and strong -- something like an 8 didjit non-sensical alphanumeric string, in case they continue to try and guess it.

I think most of the difficulty comes from the monogomy. friendships are alot easyer than relationships, and I dont really see why we cant do away with the whole 'relationship' thingy and just make do with lots of friends. seems simpler to me.

Yes, but as long as browsers continue to support active-x's websites will continue to use active-xs, which is annoying to those of us who have either turned off active-x of have FF.

afaik, a firewall wont do anything against most active-xs because it appears (to the firewall) that it is IE that is asking for internet access. The problem with active-xs is that they utilise user-desisions as a safe-guard. "do you want to install this active-x or not?". theres no software sand-box. This means that in the hands of an inexperienced user active-xs can easaly gain too much access to your system, and even with an experienced user there isnt much you can do to tell what an active-x will do other than install it, by which time its too late to find out that its malitiouse. Many anti-slywares target malitiouse active-xs (spybot being a desent free one), but ideally your anti-malware programs would never fire up. Theyre supposed to be a last line of defence. Malware shouldnt get on your computer in the first place, so having it install and then get caught by an anti-slyware program is, imo, a slightly wrong approach to the problem.

Yes. very nice indeed. mwa-ha-ha! If adobe was spyware, then it would probably have an installer set to run when you log on, meaning that the toolbar/[acr=browser helper object]BHO[/acr]/active-x/whatever would probably return also, i'd guess that its possible for malitiouse add-ons to prevent themselves from appearing in that list (maybe?). Speaking of malware, i really wish that IE7 wasnt going to support active-x, or had some form of sand-box for it, but its nice that the whole thing will apparently be more secure; also, splitting the majority of people into two groups, one using IE6 and the other IE7, will probably help prevent malware from getting onto peoples computers so easaly. Maybe -- just maybe -- it will start the end of the assosiation between IE and malware. btw, I dont suppose that anyone has the address of a spoofed site? Iv just installed the FF anti-spoofing-thingy and want to test it out.

Oh that thing. Yes, that thing is good. i like that thing. he. he. he.

Im not sure thats the reason. 5641: Why do you still have XP1 Briefly: that is soooooooooooooooooooo not true. More on topic, it seems firefox has its own anti-phishing gubbins with all the features of the IE7 version, although it doesnt seem to work that well atm afaict (im gonna download and test it). who inspired who i wonder?

You can get the install cd sent to you for free from here if your on dial-up. I think that lots of people who use their PCs for gaming dont have sp2, tho i forget the reason why.

Sort of. it's this: W = white allele, R = red allele. Y = yellow allele DOMINANCE: if R is dominant over w, then the presence of R will make the flower red, reguardless of how many R alleles are present; it is nessesary to have two w alleles in order to have a white flower. ie: ww = white flower wR = red flower RR = red flower. this would be because the base color of the flower is white, the w allele doesnt code for a pigment and the R allele codes for a red pigment. therefore, two w alleles leaves the flower white. any R alleles produce red pigment and make the flower red. INCOMPLETE DOMINANCE: if R is incompletely dominant over w, then the presence of R will express itself over w; however, two Rs express themselves twice as much as one R. ie: ww = white wR = pink RR = red This would be because the base color of the flower is white, the w allele doesnt code for a pigment and the R allele codes for a weak red pigment. therefore, two w alleles leaves the flower white. two R alleles produce red pigment and make the flower red. one R allele produses red pigment, but not enough to make the flower completely red, and it is therefore pink instead CO-DOMINANCE: If R and Y are co-dominant, then they will both express themselves over other alleles; if Y and R are present together, then they will both be expressed and their phenotypes combined. ie: ww = white Rw = red RR = red Yw = Yello YY = Yello RY = orange This would be because the base color of the flower is white, the w allele doesnt code for a pigment, the R allele codes for a red pigment, and the Y allele codes for a yellow pigment. therefore, two w alleles leaves the flower white. two R alleles/an R and a resessive w allele produce red pigment and make the flower red; two Y alleles or a Y and a resessive w allele produce yellow pigment and make the flower yellow. One R and one Y allele produce both red and yellow pigment, which combine to give an orange plant.

Sure, I dont see why not, as long as they are all aware of one-another and any kids are well looked-after.

due to the number of people who have windows 95, 98, 2k, ME, NT, 2003, XP, XP SP1. Like i said, i dont know the stats but I think the above have a larger market share than XP SP2. good choice.

By the way, there have been a few threads on this before. they're interesting reading: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8148 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1618 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=318 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2870 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2742

Its not always a choice, but sometimes it is. and, whilst there are indications that genetic mutations/experiences in upbringing etc could cause homosexuality, its more than likely that not all cases are accountable in this fashion, due to the large number of cases where no attributable mutation/experience is present.

People could chose not to give a shit about what petty-minded people think of them, and just do what feels natural.

Actually, as god is everywhere then his hand must also be everywhere. take the following equasion: h/g = d. where h = number of locations that gods hand occupies, g = number of locations that god occupies, and d = % of occourances of god that has a hand. as god is everywhere, then g = infinity. If we assume that his hand is not everywhere, then h must be a finite number. Therefore the equasion becomes: d = finite number/infinity = 0% so, in none of the infinate positions in space that the omnipresent god exists does he have a hand. however, god made us in his own image, so, reverse-engineering an image of god based upon us, god must have hands, and so the above statement cannot be true, ergo gods hand is everywhere. Whats that you say? but god doesnt exist? Well consider this: if gods hand is everywhere, as we have just proven that it is, then what is attached to it? Thats right. god is attached to gods hand. ergo quarat et demonstratum, kaniniae.

Stoopid inconvenient Hess related gubbins Curse you first law of thermodynamics; you win again

This is streatching my memory a bit, but dont acids form H2O:H+ ? What would happen if you added that to peroxide? Would it be: 2H2O:H+ + H2O2 --> 4H2O + heat? In which case a catalyst for the formation of peroxide or the h-3-o thingy might also work (?) if they exist.

I dont suppose that their is a catalyst for 2H2O --> 2H2 + O2 ? If so, could that make the system work by lowering the activation energy of the splitting of H2O and what-not?

cheers

That would work if the adult stem-cell exists. You cant use it for, eg, regenerating neurons, because adults dont have any stem-cells that can become nurons. The only way to do it is to have a toti-potent stem-cell (ie, a stem-cell that can become any cell), and the only place to get toti-potent stem-cells from is embryos.

^ from what I know, zotob is desighned to propogate throughought a network. My guess would be that it is supposed to find one un-firewalled computer, infect it, and then infect all the other computers on that network via port 445 (Win 2k uses that port for "server message block", which i assume is the 'shoving data around the LAN' that you mentioned?). Then, the entire network can shoot-out new zotobs in an attempt to find other un-firewalled PCs of other networks. Personally, the thing that I find funny is that all the zotob worms seem to have been made by different people, being unified only by their exploitation of a secrutiy hole in plug & play. The funny thing being that the different versions of the zotob worm try and erase each-other1

RE: zotob, afaict xp sp2 and 2003 are unnafected. All other windows OSs can be infected, but windows 2000 is specifically targeted by the worms. 1,2. a simple firewall blocking TCP port 445 prevents infection. IE7 is only compatable with XP SP2 and vista... Im not sure on the stats, but i think the majority of people will not be able to get IE7, so it wont become the most used browser for a while. Having said that, any security holes that can be found in the virgin, untapped IE7 will potentially allow a point-of-entry to the new, virgin, untapped windows vista OS, so the amount of people looking for exploits will be huge either way, and i severely doubt that microsoft will release an even half-secure browser on their first attempt.

And also, i'v found a wierd bug in my site that i cant figure out how to fix. In some of my links that point to anchors, sometimes they dont work on the first attept. What happens, is the link is clicked and the new page is displayed, and Firefox will jump to a point on the page that isnt the anchor. Refreshing causes the browser to jump to the correct position. Also, i've also noticed that as long as the page is in my cache, the anchor will work; but if i clean my cache out, then I'm back to the anchors not working correctly on the first attempt. The code im using is this: (link) <a href="page.htm#anchorname">Linky-poo</a> (anchor) <a name="anchorname">hello</a> Its not a problem I've ever come across whilst viewing pages on the net, and afaict my code is correct...

so its ok to bed 16 year olds, unless your a policeman?

This is a brief summary of the technology overview Iv tried to go into more detail that, for example, news-blogs generally do, but keep it succinct for all of you who dont want to read the 19 page ms release. MS IE7 beta1 is available for testing to anyone who is subscribed to MSDN (whatever that is -- microsoft developer network?) ---------- compatable with windows vista and windows xp sp2 'deep' support for RSS. visual indication that rss is available given in the toolbar, with click-and-read-or-subscribe function. parses the RSS XML into human-readable content. notifies user when RSS is updated. No idea what this RSS gubbins means: Inproved CSS support -- as the compliance to standards was central to this thread, i present the exerpt here in its entirety: alpha-channel transparent PNG support tabbed browsing, including most of the inteface settings available in FF and its tabbed browsing extention -- setting to open all links in new tabs; 'open in new tab' in link's context-menu; refresh/close individual tab or all other tabs in tab context menu; open new tab via clicking on empty bit of tab-bar etc. address bar is non-turn-offable, in order to prevend phishing of the form 'this is a link to paypal' which opens www.we'regonnastealyourmoney.com, which looks like PP and has the address bar turned-off so that you cant tell. some lots of advertising for windows anti-spyware. Scripts can only interact/read scripts and window-content from the same domain as the script originated from. prevents gathering info entered into an IE7 window by a seperate domain which is open in another window. protected mode -- when IE7 is run in this mode, it makes IE inable to modify user/system files/settings (exept temporary internet files). to prevent elevation of privelage. more-visual clues to the security of websites (https and ssl?) and info pertaining to the certificate anti-phishing filter, using blacklists, huristical analysis (no info given other than "analyzes sites users want to visit by checking those sites for characteristics common to phishing sites"), and sends url to microsoft to be checked against latest blacklist; warnings are highly visable, and IE7 auto-redirects away from confirmed phishing sites. the anti-phishing is opt-in, although its not clear wether you could opt out of the last bit but not the rest (for those of a 'microsoft is not trustworthy' disposition). One button to delete personal info, assumedly cookies, TIF, history, form autocomplete etc. Apparently also clears the start/run history (?) More secure default settings for add-ons (active-x's, [acr=Browser Helper Objects]BHO[/acr]s, toolbars etc) (huzzah!), and better controls for add-ons, including viewing all addons (including wether they are active), and the ability to enable/diable individual ones. No add-ons mode (run via short-cut): when run in this mode, disables all add-ons; desighned as a 'secure mode' for online banking etc. Toolbar search-box, which can use any search provider the user choses. 'shrink contents to fit' when printing screen. Sleeker bit-that-goes-at-the-top (menu bar, address bar, toolbar etc). stop and refresh buttons are both the same, presumably stopping the site if its loading and refreshing it if it isnt loading. small detail, yet cunning, i feel. very cunning... Who are you, and what have you done with microsoft? w3c standards compliance?: more control over IE7 settings for administrators integration into OS (again)