southsideirish71

QUOTE(Y2HH @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 10:06 AM) There is a demand for it, but it's an illegal demand. There are PC hacked copies of OSX out there, but obviously they aren't licensed to run on non-Mac hardware (Intel or not). I would run it, OSX is *really* nice, I may even consider buying a Mac next, simply because I could run both if I so wanted. I'm so sick of Vista it's not even funny how bad this 5+ year development OS is. Anyway, getting back on topic, it's nice that they can do both, in either case. I boot camp Vista with parallels because I have a few tools I use in the windows world including Visio. Office 2008 on the Mac has changed the amount of time I spend in my virtual machine. We have kept with XP just because of all the interop issues with Vista. The Security features in Vista and Windows 2008 are great. Its about time they had some of these, however in fixing some of the security issues they sure broke a lot of functionality/stability issues.

Having "user interaction' is hardly a hack challenge. Its a valid security concern, but these hack challenges are a joke. They are usually funded by the competing companies research association. Its like these "white papers" that come out from some of these shell research groups that are funded by either Apple or Micrsooft. I guess we should just ignore the 5 million or so Windows machines out on the internet controlled in several botnets. Each operating system has its issues, and default settings without patches they are all meat. As a person who monitors internet egress traffic and manages an NSM. I can tell you that the "user interaction" malware install is something that everybody runs into. Hackers are exploiting websites now, not to get data from it ( except for the Chinese, they do want your Intellectual Property) but to get you to install their malware. Hell the newest one is the ad's. ADs are sold by companies that act as the middle man. They dont know exactly that they are selling. But just target it to a company based on some basic criteria. A few lines of code and you can redirect anyone anywhere. Soxtalk has seen this itself. They want your PC more than the site. Why, they don't care about you or your data. They want your processing power. You know how much a 500k botnet is to a spammer. How much money a terrorist would pay for a DDoS coming from 100k comcast machines. Its easy, and its hard to trace. Botherders make money on the shear number of PCs that they control. A botnet is a beautiful thing from an architectural standpoint, but from a security standpoint scary.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 09:57 AM) To stop (fill in the blank) the government is going to promote it. They are creating a crime scene and convincing someone to commit the crime. They cannot arrest them in the websites and forums they are visiting, because those, at the present time, are legal. So they convince them to commit a crime. That's dangerous territory there. It could be argues that if the FBI was not there with that site these people may never have committed a crime. I don't believe the government should be working out ways to get people to commit crimes. This is successful if they make it so enticing that people decide to commit child pornography. These are no average Joes searching through a websites and poof Child Porn pops on their system. These are people who actively look to exploit children, and are running around on "illegal" forms and websites. All that the FBI is doing, is advertising their site on those forums. If you are on there, you are a pervert sicko that should be put away. Its not like they are hitting soxtalk.com with a banner ad. They are hitting all sorts of sicko sites with that. When one knowingly is in that forum, and in that area of the internet and knowingly clicks on a website where they expect naked kids then I hope they enjoy their time in jail. If you happen to be on some child exploitation site, and you get lured into it. Then all I have to say is good for the FBI. This entrapment crap always comes up on undercover ops, or sting operations. The person was not told to look for child porn, and no one forced them to click on the link. When did child exploitation or websites and forums that work on that become legal? Decoys have been used in police work for all sorts of crimes, why not electronic. No one entices a person to look at child pornography. You make an active choice to look at it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 10:22 AM) Cheap potential is God around here. If we had real cheap potential, we would be discussing how great Miguel Cabreras first game would be for us. Remember young good cheap prospects under control for a long time are the new currency of the MLB.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 06:57 PM) Isn't it great that there are so few actual criminals that they have to advertise to get more? There is a line that should not get crossed, when the government sets up advertisements with the sole purpose to be so good that people will click on them, they crossed that line. It would be easy to see that absent their advertisements, someone may never have ever attempted to look at porn, etc. How could you be against something that can lure a child molester. This is not like a normal person is going to stumble across this. They are hitting newsgroups and chat groups that cater to this type of traffic. This is no different than sending a decoy who acts as if they are underage to meet someone they chatted with online. Normal people are not looking a children f***ing. As someone who has spent some time in law enforcement, and who has helped police setup sting operations with these types of filth. You need every bit of help you can to nab the bad guys. I was in a class that I got invited to a few years ago that was put on by the FBI on Child predators. During the class we put up a profile of a 13 year old girl. Within a half an hour, someone visited the URL, IM'd us repeatedly, and setup a video chat. The 14 year old boy that was on the other side, was a 44 year old overweight man who was wearing garters, stockings and nothing else. He propositioned the online identity, told us how to get around our parents, and where to meet us. Well he met something alright. A quick field trip from the class took care of the freak. But please, lets worry about finding some actual criminals because you have some worry that by mysteriously clicking on a link you will be entrapped some how. They are not just sending out a mass email to the world saying click here. Its targeted.

QUOTE(bmags @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 10:56 PM) anderson in center, cabrera in ss and uribe at 2b is really strong up the middle. Except Uribe can't hit. So what is the point in putting him out there.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 05:55 PM) Good game. Without the umps' B.S., the Sox probably win, despite MB giving up 7 in the 2nd. Kudos: --Nick Masset looked great. Impressive. --Offense in general did very well. --Defense looked mostly good - though I only saw parts of the game. --Masset, Logan, Thornton... bullpen looking pretty good, other than Dotel --How about the Sox hitting the lefty hard? --And how about our hitters actually going oppo field? The loss hurts, but, if you're going to lose, that wasn't a bad way to do it. That was very impressive. Thome hitting CC was very impressive.

QUOTE(moochpuppy @ Feb 16, 2008 -> 01:14 PM) They Sox will resign Freddy Garcia mid-season and he will lead a comeback by the Sox in August and September to capure the AL Wildcard. Hey Mooch, put the sig pic up on a free server. Your 'http://www.kellenmaicher.com/images/misc/champs02.gif' pic is kicking up an auth window for everyone when they refresh the page.

QUOTE(SoxWS05 @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 09:29 AM) Joe Crede produces and instead of trading him KW re-signs him to a 4 year deal. He also trades Josh Fields for Tim Lincecum who dominates and helps the Sox make the playoffs. Joe Crede is traded in June. Crede's crew starts a new web board called Credetalk.com.

QUOTE(The Ginger Kid @ Mar 30, 2008 -> 12:02 AM) you mean you didn't like the way Juan struck out with a runner on 3rd and one out tonight? Maybe Pablo tired himself out with the 3 for 4 today. If Pablo isn't in to face the tough lefties, especially those he has success against why is he on the team.

Hopefully this is a typo by Phil Rogers. So we have a guy named Pablo who hits .400 against CC, and gets on base over .400 OBP with a .953 OPS. And we are starting Uribe who has a career .200BA against CC and a sub .600 career OPS against. Help me with this one . Thome is 0-11 lifetime against CC including 7ks. The only one with success in the lineup on Monday against CC is Swisher who hits him at .385.

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 29, 2008 -> 09:54 PM) Absolutely absurd decision. Apparently the Sox would rather have a guy who can throw three innings terribly than one inning well. And around April 7th, they will rather have a guy in the lineup that can run fast over a talented guy like Quentin. We will also start Thome on Monday who is what 0-11 with 7k's life time against CC. Some of these decisions are head scratchers.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Mar 29, 2008 -> 08:24 PM) The 5th outfielder job? Congrats Scott. Here we take 4th and 5th outfielders and make them leadoff guys and starters.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 29, 2008 -> 05:16 PM) I'm delusional, yet a good portion of your posts spout off about Greg Walker "teaching" hitters "lift and pull". I at least am consistent on my views and have not wavered. You however, it just really depends on if the player is on your good side. You take small amounts of success and use it for hope, and just ignore years of mediocrity for your guy. But when posters on here post something positive about their guy, you come in as the poster of reason to crap on them doing the same thing. And the best thing is you use the opposite reasoning for their player. X player on played good against Y teams, but has been bad forever. Forever overrules the recent success. Yet if the player is Uribe, its I have a good feeling about him and he is talented. Sure whatever.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 29, 2008 -> 04:55 PM) I'm basing it on his talent, and the fact that he has been successful in the past. I actually predicted his success well before spring training. I base nothing on this spring, but I do give him kudos for earning the job. 2004 he wasn't too shabby, and for stretches every year he was just as good as anyone at his position. My projecting Uribe for possible success is based on a lot more than what people base future stardom for Josh Fields on or Alexei Ramirez. You predict success based on a panic that the checks will stop and he will be motivated like he was in 04. 04 the only year he had success, as a role player. You know that baseball is filled with guys who look like allstars in limited action, yet get exposed over the course of a year. Uribe is one of them. He is a lazy, all or nothing guy who will hit about the same year in and year out. The fact that he had to battle into the last month just to overcome Brian Anderson in 06 for BA is horrible at best. He is Pedro Serrano who happens to play SS. But please keep up with your delusions.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 29, 2008 -> 04:45 PM) He actually took a couple of pitches. Ignore a couple of other guys whiffed as well. Use that AB as proof positve Uribe will be crappy. Yet you take 50 to 60 abs in spring training to dictate his performance over the hundreds of ABs over the past few years.

Uribe starting his annual shedding of any resemblance of a patient hitter. He will start to open up, swing for the fences and then the traditional crappy hitting begins.

Uribe speaking in his native Huteze about his favorite topics, 2nd base, and 2nd helpings. "Atta dotto no son 2nd base. Datta Prodo sona Ribs, orba janta mon "2nd helpings"" "I am here to play 2nd base, Did someone say Ribs, can I get 2nd helpings"

Welcome to the second half of your 30s. Happy Birthday.

QUOTE(CaliSoxFanViaSWside @ Mar 28, 2008 -> 10:16 PM) Carrasco give up a walk then a lineout DP , gets save, Sox win 5-4. Anyone seriously think Carrasco is in the mix for a BP slot ? Hope not, he isnt that good.

Now the magic poop wand touches MacDougal, and he gives up a run.

QUOTE(flavum @ Mar 28, 2008 -> 09:23 PM) Ramirez, RBI single. The Sox are going to have some serious decisions to make. This guy has to play. Well if you have to have speed, why not have Ramirez lead off and play 2nd. Have either Swish in CF and Quentin in LF or Anderson in CF and Swish in LF. Owens doesn't walk, is not all that patient, and basically is a track guy. I bet Alexei could steal a base.

Ramirez just threw out a runner at home from CF. How many people cut Owen's throw to the plate if he was out there.

This AAA announcing crew is better than Farmio. Can we pick one of them up, and replace Farmer. One of these guys + Stoney would be heaven.

Hall is our designated release candidate this year. I wonder if he will out hit Widger in his release season.