LuTze

The latest release date for HL2 i've seen is April

Faf's effort could make the list I reckon. http://www.siliconglen.com/usability/pants.html

http://w1.340.telia.com/~u34002171/hhd/gtmhh/gtmhh.html#Beginners'Series Pretty old and very basic, but should give you an idea to start with. http://packetstormsecurity.nl/ Is a favorite or mine, for keeping upto date with general goings-on.

It's probably more to do with the Army not wanting him wasting his time in IRC channels looking for warez

It depends on how you look at it. If you want lots of people getting into interesting, challenging discussion and flamefests, email's no good. Forums though are all too often set up to massage the ego of one dictator, and can be shut down nice and easy.

No, it isn't. It's one of Yahoo's many IP's. I was just showing you how to "go throught many and many routers and firewalls"

Excuse my ignorance, please - but could you supply a few details on this? Is it a new price plan by AT&T or something? Are you trying to kill me? I read that very nearly choked to death on my BLT. Please tell me you don't mean you changed the "Reply-To:" bit in Outlook Express once, and now consider yourself a "l337 h4x0r" with "ph33r50m3 5k1llz". Please? You mean like this? traceroute to http://www.yahoo.akadns.net (216.109.118.70), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 195.92.224.2 0.893 ms 0.537 ms 0.203 ms 2 195.92.201.9 6.966 ms 6.868 ms 7.019 ms 3 213.228.221.22 111.936 ms 112.045 ms 111.872 ms 4 216.115.98.98 314.851 ms 223.870 ms 199.880 ms 5 216.109.120.173 112.895 ms 113.021 ms 113.219 ms 6 216.109.120.154 113.657 ms 113.081 ms 216.109.120.150 113.258 ms 7 216.109.118.70 113.225 ms 113.267 ms 114.247 ms I'm so leet. I can see why.

You need Microsoft Visual Basic, or Visual Studio http://msdn.microsoft.com/vbasic/

http://www.spywareinfo.com/~merijn/cwschronicles.html

Well, i'd start with: - #include <math.h>

Don't put spaces in your variable names. Call them something like PhoneAreaCode instead, same goes for the form.

If you want a few more links: - http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/16/0034210&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=95&tid=98&tid=99

No, they have done this. The only reason you're getting timeouts at the moment is because the website these requests are redirected to is getting swamped by all the people that can't spell. They have no agreements with anyone to do this, it's just a pure abuse of the US.gov-sanctioned monopoly.

There is something wrong with your proxy/dns/IE, then. Try it at home later...

Verisign have today added "wildcard DNS" records to the .com and .net TLD's. Yesterday and since DNS has been around, if you looked up a domain that doesn't exist (For example, sceinceforums.net) you'd get a handy error message telling you the domain didn't exist. Thanks to the stupidity of verisign, this is no longer the case. Now, you get the IP address of a verisign webserver, advertising the domain registration services of Network Solutions - a Verisign company. The problem with this isn't just the obvious abuse of the monopoly handed to them by ICANN, it will break things. As an example, by mailserver rejects email if the domain used by the sender doesn't exist. Lots of mailservers do this as an anti-spam measure. Now, since all .com and .net domains exist this is measure is completely useless. I'm quite sure Verisign are going to have to back down on this, and i'm betting it'll be within 72 hours.

Disturbingly? What is disturbing about this?

Hi, GRC.com is run by a man called Steve Gibson, and once you learn a little about the man's ego you wouldn't be surprised to hear GRC actually stands for "Gibson Research Corporation". His "Shields UP!!" product is basically just a web-based, vanilla port-scanner. Note the two exclamation marks. They are important for a few reasons, number one being that it helps to instil a sense of fear in whomever is using his tool. Possibly to help sales of his own "BlackICE Defender" software firewall. After just running "Shields UP!!" on my own machine, I'm just a little surprised at what it is telling me. Some of it is inaccurate, and some just plain lies. For example, he seems to think it's dangerous my machine has an IP address: - You see? That is just stupid. Someone should explain to him how TCP/IP works. So in short, ignore Gibson and go with ZoneAlarm. That will be fine for most.

He's a Tard, as us British (well me, anyway) would say.

BAGHDAD, Iraq (Reuters) - Ex-Iraqi Information Minister, Mohammad Said al-Sahhaf has just completed a press briefing in Baghdad, announcing a change in career. al-Sahhaf, now that his duties keeping the Iraqi population informed of the real facts of the conflict are complete, has decided to go into advertising. His first commercial, to be aired on Qatar-based al-Jazeera television on April 25th, 2003 will be for "Honest Ali's Car Warehouse", in Kuwait. After completing his briefing, al-Sahhaf was taked into custody by US forces for questioning. He could be heard saying "I have you all surrounded. I have bound my hands as not to destroy you and give you a chance to surrender to my overwhelming force. Lay down your arms and walk back to Hollywood. All is good. The mighty forces of Iraq are in control." - Ends

Quite possibly. Does the ends justify the means? Almost certainly yes. Note i'm not trying to say these zones are a bad thing , they helped to protect people from Saddam. They are still of questionable legaity, at best.

They wouldn't be firing at your aircraft if they weren't inforcing an illegal no-fly zone. This is fun, it could go in circles forever

I'm defering judgement on this one to the former secretary general of the UN. Besides which, it also doesn't say invading iraq isn't permitted - could this be justification enough for the war we'll be starting on Wednesday?

OK then, some links for you. http://www.thewoottozone.f9.co.uk/unscr688.htm Key quote: - "There is a great deal of fog about this, the kind generated by the Foreign Office when its statements are challenged. There is no reference to no fly zones in Security Council resolutions, which suggests they have no basis in international law. To be sure about this, I went to Paris and asked Dr Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary-General of the UN in 1992, when the resolution was passed. 'The issue of no fly zones was not raised and therefore not debated: not a word,' he said. 'They offer no legitimacy to countries sending their aircraft to attack Iraq.' 'Does that mean they are illegal?' I asked. 'They are illegal,' he replied." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch.htm Nice explantion of operation 'Southern Watch'. It mentions resolution 688, which doesn't have anything about 'no-fly' zones in it. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect4.html Your own Government's explanation of 688, which also doesn't mention anything about 'no-fly' zones. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/18079.pdf The actual text of 688, which also makes no mention of 'no-fly' zones. You have read it, haven't you?

For a 'Hater of Ingorance' you're sure doing your best to promote it. They are created by the US and are patrolled by both the US and UK with no UN mandate, end of story.

It's difficult to see how. He has no Navy, no Air Force (that is worth speaking of) and no easy way to get troops outside his own border.