Y2HH

QUOTE(southsideirish71 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 11:46 AM) 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. Wow, someone that isn't an idiot. Sorry, but it's rare to find a person on the internet that actually knows what he/she is talking about when it comes to the Internet/PC Security. Everyone with Google or Wiki seems to be an expert these days, but you can usually tell if the actually know anything vs regurgitating something they've heard but don't actually know anything about.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 10:01 AM) It does say a lot that there was demand for Macs that run Vista but not PCs that run Mac OS? 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.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 09:40 AM) Funny, this little gem from Esquire just hit my in basket Five Reasons Why PCs Are Better Than Macs Although I'm a PC owner/user, I have to say that Mac's can run XP/Vista flawlessly, so you can have the best of both with them now...at the cost of a premium price, anyway.

Whats with this community? Why all the sudden Crede hatred and the thinking that Fields is the next coming of God?! Sorry to break it to you guys, but Crede > Fields. This is no different than the endless BA, BMAC and countless other never-beens this community latches onto like a bunch of girls fawning over Hannah Montana. Give it a rest. Oh, and for the record, I like Fields, but I think Crede is better at this stage.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 08:44 AM) I know what was in the article, but I wonder how accurate that was. Ehh, why bother for $20,000 (the first day challenge) or even $10,000 or $5,000? So on day two the choices were $10,000 + Mac $10,000 + Vista machine $10,000 + Linux machine And they decided to pick the Mac, just because it was the most valuable? Again, the difference is $10,000 or $13,000, and I don't buy they picked their target based on that. What is more plausible to me, is the randomness of people and talents at the show. To be successful, the hacker would have to have a decent knowledge of that platform. So the Mac guy walked by before the PC guy and there may not have been but a handful of Linux guys walking the show. In other words, a PC guy in all likelihood would not decide to hack the Mac and vice versa. Excellent point. Add to that the fact that the majority of *nix, especially the childlike Linux community wouldn't want to hack their beloved operating system of awesomeness. I attribute this to their general hatred, (in some ways extreme hatred to an alarming degree), toward Mac and Windows based machines/users. Of course you have your Mac idiots and PC idiots, too...but I think the majority of the casual users can really care less, they just want their PC or Mac to work without having to play with drivers or configuration files for hours on end to get it "mostly working".

QUOTE(Texsox @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 08:25 AM) The "not worth bother" is one form of protection. Back in the early 1980s, I was fishing a tournament when 5 or 6 boats were stolen from a hotel parking lot. Most of the guys had either locks to lock the boat to the hitch, or the hitch to the truck, but only a couple had both. One guy had neither. The guys with both and the guy with neither where the only ones that woke up to their boats. The only reason we could think of that the guy with neither wasn't ripped off was he had the ugliest boat in the parking lot. The prize money was $20,000, it seems you are saying that there would be a much greater incentive for $20,000 plus the Mac Book ($23,000) then just $20,000? I guess everyone has their price, but $20,000 with little competition versus a potential $23,000 with lots of competition doesn't seem much different. The article says he only received 10,000 + the Air, not 20,000. I believe the prize money dwindles as the days go on, the that's the total prize money available, which doesn't all go to the first winner. But yes, the concensus amongst the hackers at the convention said why bother with the Linux machine...it's even in the story I linked.

QUOTE(maggsmaggs @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 07:58 AM) If Masset didn't perform so well yesterday I would have believed it, but you didn't get me. Mostly, because I just saw a note of my online calendar, so I was prepared. nice article tho. haha. Also, until the players pass their physicals, I don't think GMs can talk about them. Same.

The problem with this contest was in the awards. If you hacked it, you not only got the prize money but you got the keep the device you hacked. Who really wants to hack a Linux box which probably costs 300$ when you could hack an Air which is worth closer to 3K? Exactly... The hackers even admitted that although there was code they KNEW they could exploit in Linux, much like the code the exploited on the Windows machine (3rd party which was a cross platform vulnerability), that they didn't want to invest the time to write up the necessary code to bother. Upon the start of the contest -- nobody was even trying to hack the Linux machine because everyone wanted to get the Air, probably to resell on Ebay+their prize money. Here is the snippit -- In the end, it was reported that some folks on hand had discovered bugs in the Linux OS, but many of them "didn't want to put the work into developing the exploit code that would be required to win the contest." http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/29/linux-b...-own-unscathed/

I think the failure of the OC play was that although he reached up on the slide which WOULD be interfearance, that there was no play. You shouldn't be called on interfearance on a NON play. Ever. It's no different than the batter not moving out of the way on a NON-stolen base attempt and being called on interfearance because the catcher can't throw the ball to 2nd, even though he wasn't going to throw the ball to second. Watch the replay, he wasn't even going to throw it and it's pretty clear he wasn't going to throw it. Still a stupid move by OC, but that doesn't change the fact there was no play to be interfeared with.

The game held positives aside from the obvious. It was good to see the Sox didn't just give up and die like they would have last year...that means a whole hell of a lot to me as a fan. My one complaint is OCab...not because he's not good, I'm happy to have him...it's just that calling him OCab doesn't flow. Hard to explain, but it just seems wierd when saying it out loud... We need to come up with something better than OCab. As someone else referred to him as OC or The OC, at least it flows.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 03:05 PM) After navigating this whole thread, it's becoming crystal clear to me that a lot of WHite Sox fans are just as bad (if not much worse) than most of the Cubs fans they b**** about. Amen.

QUOTE(Capn12 @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 01:41 PM) 40 HRs in that cavern of a stadium? I don't know about that part. Agreed, that's not happening. Go Sox 08!

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2008 -> 08:56 AM) Um... yeah, I really wasn't thinking Delorean. I mean, when we're talking Pods and Owens, we're more in Chevy Cavalier territory I think. Sarcasm aside, my point was that Pods has prooven something around here, while Owens hasn't. Both healthy, the defensive/speed gains from Owens do not outweigh Pods big game play. We all watched every second of the ALDS/ALCS/WS and we all know what Pods did in said situation. I would bet Owens couldn't reproduce it, or even come close, despite his "skill" being at a higher level on paper.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2008 -> 08:23 AM) Both healthy, I'll take Owens easily over Pods. Owens is already a better basestealer than Pods was, he's a better defender in the OF (with a similar noodle arm though), and it looks to me like their OBP's would be similar. Plus Owens is younger and cheaper. So if you had a Delorean equipped with a flux-capicator, you'd take version 2008 of Owens, travel back in time to 2005, and replace Pods with him, since he's so much more awesomely better? It amazes me how lacking of an attention span modern America has. Pods prooved he can come up HUGE in HUGE games, Owens has prooven a boatload of zippo so far, and you say he's better? At what? Getting injured? Pods > Owens when both are healthy, because one has prooven how good he can/will be in the biggest games of their lives...and Owens has been on a team that lost 50000 games with all of his awesome speed/defense.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Feb 29, 2008 -> 08:24 AM) Jeez people, come on. The guy just put a little diddy out there for fun, to get the troops rallied for the season. Cut him a little slack. I for one got a kick out of it. Agreed.

http://myspace.com/hermn Is mine. Has a little Sox stuff on there, too, but mostly just some online friends and people I lost contact with over the years. I made my original myspace as a joke to poke fun at the concept by using it as a "myspace" for my WoW character, as if he were a real person to poke fun at my friends (who all also played WoW). I recently revamped it to not be so silly, but I'd be damned if I'd remake a new one on facebook.

QUOTE(lvjeremylv @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 06:51 PM) Yeah, no kidding. I cannot understand how any real Sox fan can claim to "hate" Scott Podsednik. This guy came to town and our attitude completely changed, and it resulted in a World Championship. Yet he's a piece of crap now? People sure do have short memories. Well said. Pods will go down in history, in my mind, as the difference maker that took our team from station-to-station boring ball to put it all on the line in order to win. He's one of my all time favorite Sox players, and the season he arrived brought us a world championship -- which I don't recall ever seeing from one of these perennial "all-stars" that came before him.

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 10:32 PM) You know what, you guys can bring up all those points, and while I'll acknowledge the need for OBP, you simply aren't going to be able to convince me that Podsednik's work on the basepaths wasn't a very important ingredient in the 2005 team. Yes, the pitching was the biggest part, no one doubts that. Yes, pitchers throw fastballs anyway. Yes, the guy only leads off once a game. Yes, Iguchi grounded out to 2nd to get Pods over to 3rd plenty of times. Yes, he only scored 80 runs (despite missing a month). But there was a reason why we made sure he got in the all star game. Because whether the stats say it or not, he was a huge part in a lot of those wins in the first half. Just watching the games, you could see it. You could see how big a difference he made on the basepaths, you could see how big a difference it made when he got hurt and was terrible/on the DL for 1.5 months. That's what my eyes told me. I think that's what the 10th in the 1st half and 18th in the 2nd half in runs scored tells me. Whether the stats say it or not, for the 2005 team, having that guy at the front of our lineup who stole 20 some bases in a row was damn important. Well said and agreed. It was also a big reason for starting that season with a lead (scoring first) in 50-something odd games, IIRC.

QUOTE(sircaffey @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 10:53 AM) Let's just say "inexperienced". Jerry turns 27 in 19 days. He's quite old for a prospect. My mistake. Yes, the word should have been inexperienced.

QUOTE(almagest @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 10:21 AM) Jerry Owens' projected 2008 stats based on the Marcels Average (Definition here) is as follows: Year Rel. PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB K BA OBP SLG GPA 2008 0.62 395 358 49 98 14 2 5 29 23 6 30 64 .270 .330 .370 .240 GPA = Gross Production Average. .200 is lousy, .265 is average, .300 is very good. Can we live with .270/.330/.370 from our leadoff hitter? I'm not sure we could -- not in this division. If you think Jerry will produce at a higher rate than this, why? What evidence do we have that'd show he'd be any better at the Major League level? Simply because projections like this, or other "pythags" and mundane calculations are meaningless until the games are played. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe he will improve over last year, being as young as he was, with more experience under his belt. According to calculations like this, the 2005 Sox were a second or third place team that didn't win the world series.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 09:51 AM) I recall the pre 2005 Q &A with Ozzie and KW to be quite positive. There was no crying. 2004, a different story. I wasn't talking about that specific Q&A with KW, I was talking about general concensus from many Sox fans before the 05 season. If you don't remember, many of them were crying about nothing...just like now.

Yes, but at least Koch was likable. Joe "Torchard", on the other hand, was a tard.

QUOTE(SoxAce @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 12:09 AM) Good post. A friend of mine went this year. (casual fan you can say) He never heard/knew who Quentin was (just knows/follows the sox no other teams, even though he didn't know who Fields was either ) and now is proclaiming him as his favorite player after soxfest. Hellova guy from what I've heard. Swish was supposedly shy, but he is dealin with us Chicagoans afterall..heh.. n was coo too. Wish I would have went. Maybe next season. This season will have a very loose, friendly, crazy characters filled with young n old guys. Wait, you have a friend who "follows" the Sox, but doesn't know who Josh Fields is? This was the first Soxfest I've missed since 2004, I wanted to go but ended up being on-call for work all week/weekend, so there was no going out for me. From what I've read about the fest, it was pretty much what I expected, and I wasn't expecting a roast KW over the coals fest, either. I think a lot of fans are/were mad about nothing and our team is shaping up better than most of us figured it would earlier in the off season. Besides, the same fans cried in 2005 because the free agents we signed were all cast off players nobody else wanted or looked at.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Jan 28, 2008 -> 04:51 AM) I'm pretty sure everyone would be fine with Owens starting if he could put up a .360-.380 obp. That isn't happening though, ever. It could happen, even if unlikely, but to say never before the guy even has a chance is nothing more than guessing and speculation on your part. Owens had a pretty decent year for a rookie who played half a season, with 32 SB and batting over .260 -- considering our alternate options -- I'll take that and give him the benefit of the doubt unless someone else shows up in spring training and prooves otherwise.

I like our ML roster balance, at least on paper, especially if everyone just performs at their level. I've never been a big "prospect" person, because 90% of can't miss prospects, well, seem to miss. So trading a farm hand or two or ten or percieved "great prospects" has never had an effect on me, either way. I will b**** a time or two this season, I'm sure...but I will still go see the team play. Nothing like a cold winter to show us how much we appreciate a dog with fried onions and yellow mustard, a churro, and some mexican corn with a cold beer or ten while watching a game at the ol' ballpark. Even if the team loses. *drool*