cinci zoo sniper posted:

caught a trojan in librecad sourceforge installation

cinci zoo sniper posted:

gone already, thanks shaggar defender

Truga posted:

this is why I always delete the ; when editing in the psql command line

Subjunctive posted:

where by "internal memory addresses" you mean "files"?

Shaggar posted:

using webkit is the most shameful

spankmeister posted:

You still needed a modded console to play HK silvers, they didn't include the copy protection region.

duTrieux. posted:

one of these days i'm going to give enough of a poo poo to edit in giulianiilini and a cloud service logo

Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:

Hard to tell if you're just trolling now.

Lets look at the big picture here: it's highly unlikely that even one single Symantec cert will ever cause harm to anyone.

But that's not the point:

Attacking a teeny minority of PERFECTLY HONEST websites because you disagree with their CA's procedures is not about protecting users. It's about punishing Symantec but causing their customers the greatest amount of pain possible.

Zero customers need to hurt here.

If google wanted - they could make Symantec fix the problem. The argument is over issuance procedures: make them RE DO those procedures in an audited an compliant way. Problem fixed: no collateral damage caused.

It appears like someone does not want to do that though: they want to cause the maximum pain, and are disguising their vindictive attack under the fake banner of "protect users".

However: screwing over 30,000+ innocent bystanders IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT.

Look in a mirror: that's an evil bully staring back at you. You know full well this can be fixed without hurting customers, if google wanted to.

Pikavangelist posted:

iirc the one person in d&d with schizophrenia said that for them, it was a matter of "the meaning i intend for this word is similar, but not identical, to its established definition"

funny Star Wars parody posted:

tends to happen with ur posts

funny Star Wars parody posted: