French censored answer to Google Earth.
in [Europe]
|
From: Jim Ley on 29 Jul 2006 08:56 On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:44:07 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Jim Ley writes: > >> Nope, never running untrusted code is excellent virus protection. > >Virus protection is not a reason for running only trusted code. Are we going to have to debate words again... what else is a virus but some untrusted code that does something malicious? in which case not running untrusted code is an excellent virus protection strategy. Jim.
From: barney2 on 29 Jul 2006 09:23 In article <nnlmc2hk2o9qfdprmdh9e7giurv071qb5k(a)4ax.com>, mxsmanic(a)gmail.com (Mxsmanic) wrote: > *From:* Mxsmanic <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> > *Date:* Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:39:26 +0200 > > Martin writes: > > > You aren't in the computer industry. > > Why not? By your own account, your only employment is as an English teacher and tour guide.
From: Terry Richards on 29 Jul 2006 09:27 "Jim Ley" <jim(a)jibbering.com> wrote in message news:44cb564d.94706515(a)news.individual.net... > On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:32:27 +0200, "Terry Richards" > <terryr999(a)removethis.orange.fr> wrote: > > With that result it seems clear that the claim of a great majority > isn't sustainable - Which was my point. > but that's got absolutely sod all to do with cars, > which are not computers. If you review the thread, you will see that I was using cars as examples of devices that contain one or more computers that are not PCs. I also referred to washing machines and microwaves but the number of computers in cars alone is enough to sink the original claim. > > Jim. T.
From: Jim Ley on 29 Jul 2006 09:28 On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 15:27:48 +0200, "Terry Richards" <terryr999(a)removethis.orange.fr> wrote: > >"Jim Ley" <jim(a)jibbering.com> wrote in message >news:44cb564d.94706515(a)news.individual.net... >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 14:32:27 +0200, "Terry Richards" >> <terryr999(a)removethis.orange.fr> wrote: >> >> With that result it seems clear that the claim of a great majority >> isn't sustainable - > >Which was my point. the one I was responding to was some gibberish about cars being computers. >> but that's got absolutely sod all to do with cars, >> which are not computers. > >If you review the thread, you will see that I was using cars as examples of >devices that contain one or more computers that are not PCs. but a typical car doesn't contain one or more computers, it's a car, it contains a lot of processing power, but unless you put your laptop in it - or maybe a car computer then it doesn't contain any. > I also referred >to washing machines and microwaves but the number of computers in cars alone >is enough to sink the original claim. washing machines and microwaves aren't computers either. Jim.
From: JohnT on 29 Jul 2006 09:46
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:tbbmc25875uonuopljln0loikb7lertsr8(a)4ax.com... > Martin writes: > >> It depends if you consider an embedded microprocessor as a computer. > > Everyone in the computer industry does. Since you became a penurious semi-vagrant you have had no professional connection with the computer industry, so how would you know? JohnT |