Bush vs Shoe
-
@linea said:
With respect for each others opinions maybe it's time to let this thread die and just enjoy christmas.
I agree. It went sideways.
Here's one for stinkie...
-
First of all..There were 2 men standing up there...Maybe Bush wasn't the target..hum, hum.
It could have been worse. They guy could have thrown his socks...
-
Thanks for the critters 'n' Kirk pic, coffee boy. Me thinks we both should ease up on the Illy/Lavazza/Segafredo (pick your drug of choice).
-
@unknownuser said:
Thanks for the critters 'n' Kirk pic, coffee boy. Me thinks we both should ease up on the Illy/Lavazza/Segafredo (pick your drug of choice).
Peace stinkmeister...
Give this a try... I 'ass-ume' (ha-ha) you will like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kopi_Luwak -
lol!
"$120 and $600 USD per pound" for coffee made from "coffee berries which have been eaten by and passed through the digestive tract of the Asian Palm Civet".
I'll stick to regular espresso for the time being, if you don't mind.
EDIT: I'd never heard of this before! Oh man, the Monty Python boys couldn't have made this one up!
-
I'm warning you with peace and love...
-
@notareal said:
@alan fraser said:
You two do realise that by repeating the words "hot arab women" that you are reinforcing the bias of the ads on this page? And the more you mention hot arab women, the more ads containing the terms hot, or arab, or women will appear. I think it would be a good idea not to mention any of those words...hot or arab or women...any more.
Shame, the aim was a bit too much off. Next time use laser guided shoes.
@mike lucey said:
Hi NOTAREAL,
I have removed the links you showed on the Re: Bush vs Shoe topic.
SketchUcation pays for its Hosting with Adsense. Please do not post links like this again.
Thanks for your co-operation.
Mike
Huh... I never thought that posting a tip about safer web surfing practices, specially at the time when zero day IE attack is free around net, will got censored. Thanks.
Sure I understand your worries... but honestly I care more about security. If that is too much, you are free to remove my account - guaranteed that I wont bother you anymore.Merry X-mas, see your next year - hopefully.
-
Notareal, you are highly unlikely to find dangerous sites through adsense links. https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=94153
-
@remus said:
Notareal, you are highly unlikely to find dangerous sites through adsense links. https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=94153
Are you sure? Here is a simple sample how google can be used to lure to dangerous site, naturally this wont affect if user do know risk... but there are plenty of those who don't know.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10139410-83.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0Anyway, I am done with this particular topic.
-
Notareal, who is making this claim though - McAfee
A firm that sells virus software. I'd like to hear an impartial view too. -
Just do a google search with Britney Sex Video site:code.google.com (better not to click those links, although they should be sanitised now). From my professional view there is no flaw in McAfee report. Sure they do promote they business by publishing found abuses, but are they one who should be blamed of it? Grab your self enough tinfoil.
Luring surfer to site that do "social engineering attack" ie. gets user to download something nasty, is fairly easy, sex is one of most searched thing in web. But as seen browsers do have security holes, so just visit at such site can be dangerous. Also Cross-Site Request Forgery Attacks or Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) attacks are possible.
Here is some deeper reading (sorry McAffe avertlabs blog
)
http://www.avertlabs.com/research/blog/index.php/2009/01/05/inside-the-malicious-traffic-business/(could some moderator split this to a different topic, please)
-
Well, we already started to better control what appears here and planning to take measures to implement a better (and in fact more content related) ad system.
Advertisement