On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 15:26, Eric (Deacon) wrote:
...oh shit, I *SUCK*! :P
--
Eric (the Deacon remix)
Couldnt have put it better myself :)
___
To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] VAC false positive
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 15:26, Eric (Deacon) wrote:
...oh shit, I *SUCK*! :P
--
Eric (the Deacon remix)
Couldnt have put it better myself :)
___
To unsubscribe, edit
Yeah but who cares. You might be able to turn it into a sale at some
point. Anyway, when the customer buys your software he isn't going to
magically know all your copy protection methods before they start to
show up. Make it hard for them to function in every way possible and
make buying a new
On Friday 29 November 2002 17:46, SQLBoy wrote:
Yeah but who cares. You might be able to turn it into a sale at some
point. Anyway, when the customer buys your software he isn't going to
magically know all your copy protection methods before they start to
show up. Make it hard for them to
On Thursday 28 November 2002 21:57, Jeremy Brooking wrote:
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 08:46, Rene Luckow wrote:
On Thursday 28 November 2002 04:01, Jeremy Brooking wrote:
Youre the one who has loved your car analogys since day one, hence why
i put it in a form you could perhaps take a grasp
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 10:50, Rene Luckow wrote:
yes, but if you take something out a context, you have to place it somehting
comparable... the principle of the situation in an analogy has to be the
same...
According to the dictionary, no. But this is way to off topic for
discussion.
On Thursday 28 November 2002 23:09, Jeremy Brooking wrote:
On Fri, 2002-11-29 at 10:50, Rene Luckow wrote:
yes, but if you take something out a context, you have to place it
somehting comparable... the principle of the situation in an analogy has
to be the same...
According to the
Why not just find a way to stop them from installing single
user apps on all of their machines
If you know of a way, please enlighten me. That would require a
helluvalot of intelligence in the installer.
instead of making draconian EULA's.
How many EULA's do you know of that do not define
Youre driving along, the police pull you over, and take away
your car for a week, simply because of a mistake. Do you go Oh
well its for the greater good or do you kick up a stink?
If my playing an online game were necessary for my daily functionality,
putting food on the table, etc, then I
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 14:04, Eric (Deacon) wrote:
Youre driving along, the police pull you over, and take away
your car for a week, simply because of a mistake. Do you go Oh
well its for the greater good or do you kick up a stink?
If my playing an online game were necessary for my daily
:
|
| Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] VAC false positive
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:37:41AM +, Guðmundur Ö. Ingvarsson wrote:
Okay, just to get this all straight
A first time offender gets banned 24 hours right? If not that should be
acceptable
A second time offender should get a week ban.
A third time offender is permanantly banned.
This
On November 27, 2002, James Clark sent me the following:
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:37:41AM +, Gu?mundur ?. Ingvarsson wrote:
A first time offender gets banned 24 hours right? If not that should be
acceptable
A second time offender should get a week ban.
A third time offender is
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 19:27, Eric (Deacon) wrote:
User has been banned for Eric (Deacon) fan club membership
Are you kidding? They programmed reserved slots into all public HL
servers that only members can use. It's sneaky, but not having to type
retry over and over again is a great way to
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 08:56, Chip Marshall wrote:
So you suggest we permanently ban anyone who VAC detects as cheating?
Meaning that people, like myself, would no longer be able to play CS
until we either purchased a new CD for a new CD Key or stole one,
if we were cheating or if VAC had a
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 23:37, Guðmundur Ö. Ingvarsson wrote:
A first time offender gets banned 24 hours right? If not that should be
acceptable
A second time offender should get a week ban.
A third time offender is permanantly banned.
Yeah, that sounds, ok, but do my false positives count? How
How do we join this club then :-)
- Original Message -
From: Jeremy Brooking [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 8:26 PM
Subject: RE: [hlds_linux] VAC false positive
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 19:27, Eric (Deacon) wrote:
User has been banned
A policy that allows for one warning is a license to steal until caught.
- UNIX system administration handbook.
Meaning that people, like myself, would no longer be able to play CS
until we either purchased a new CD for a new CD Key or stole one,
if we were cheating or if VAC had a
On November 27, 2002, James Clark sent me the following:
A policy that allows for one warning is a license to steal until caught.
- UNIX system administration handbook.
Meaning that people, like myself, would no longer be able to play CS
until we either purchased a new CD for a new
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 11:42, James Clark wrote:
I may be biased, but I don't think that's a good idea until VAC is
100% accurate
I agree.
(which is highly improbably of ever becoming a reality.)
I don't agree.
Then im sure youd be able to name 1 piece of software that is 100%
secure
How many software products do you use that are 100% accurate and
stable, not only for you, but for thousands of users on thousands of
different machines with thousands of different configurations?
Windows 95 =) bwahahhaha
___
To unsubscribe, edit
I may be biased, but I don't think that's a good idea until VAC is
100% accurate
I agree.
(which is highly improbably of ever becoming a reality.)
I don't agree.
Then im sure youd be able to name 1 piece of software that is 100%
secure and foolproof.
The argument wasn't
I was going to say any Microsoft product, but you picked the winner :)
-Original Message-
From: James Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, 27 November 2002 10:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] VAC false positive
Windows 95. bwahahha
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 12:34, James Clark wrote:
I may be biased, but I don't think that's a good idea until VAC is
100% accurate
I agree.
(which is highly improbably of ever becoming a reality.)
I don't agree.
Then im sure youd be able to name 1 piece of software
At 12:01 PM 11/26/02 -0800, you wrote:
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 14:56:15 -0500
From: Chip Marshall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] VAC false positive
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
A policy that allows for one warning is a license to steal until caught
On Tuesday 26 November 2002 03:06 pm, Jeremy Brooking wrote:
Then im sure youd be able to name 1 piece of software that is 100%
secure and foolproof.
Oh, you cant, nevermind then.
qmail hasn't had a security patch since 1997 and there is a reward if you find
an exploit so I'm sure people have
PROTECTED]
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: Re: [hlds_linux] VAC false positive
This does bring up a somewhat interesting issue though. With 90% of
the software I use (FreeBSD, Mozilla, OpenOffice, etc), there are
clear ways of filing bug reports. You've got a problem, you fill out a
form, you get a tracking number, and you get to know when someone has
dealt with it.
Why is
28 matches
Mail list logo
