Pixiq

I guess they are right when they say Linux is free, not only in cost!

The top two vulnerabilities are SQL injection and Cross Site Scripting, as the Sun-Sentinel has just learned. Part of the problem is that not all of the testing tools check all of the vulnerabilities, so you have to run all of the tools (many of which cost money). Interestingly, the main sun-sentinel site seems to be unaffected.

@macK: I don’t understand your remark, are you referring to servers or clients?

The Phinsider has 3,000 members and a significant number of regular posters and commentors. It is, as far as I can see, extremely active as well as interactive! I find it incredibly informative as well as a lot of fun. I have been a member for almost a year.

Do not knock any other blogs, because I would never have found PINC, but for The Phinsider.

Most blogs are nothing more than the opinions of one person, which makes them rather boring.

PINC seems to do a good service, but I do not see much action (or even reaction) other than you defending your legal issues.

You are correct that our server at sun-sentinel2.com was hit by a malware virus. However, the attack was successfully fought off and the viruses removed. The messages you are seeing are due to virus protection softwares flagging our attacked server. The voting page was moved to a different server and has been clean since the initial attack. The voting has not been affected. Keep voting at http://SunSentinel.com/bob, and good luck to all.

I wasn’t knocking the blog. I was just trash-talking.

I respectfully pointed out that it averaged more than 100 comments a post, which none of the other blogs in the running seem to do.

I wasn’t knocking the blog. I was just trash-talking for run.

I respectfully pointed out that it averaged more than 100 comments a post, which none of the other blogs in the running seem to do.

I was referring to the client side of Linux.
A virus or trojan can certainly reside on any OS server to infect clients of a different OS.

The sad part is if the “most popular was not free”, we would see a lot less of such shenanigans.

I read all of them with interest. I commenced reading your initial brief yesterday, and I was stunned by how well written it was. Most pro se briefs contain error after error but yours was excellent.mole removal on face

Good luck. But the Pure Pilates Blog is racing to the top! Malware or no Malware!!

Karen´s last blog ..2010 Romana’s Pilates Conference

Hi,

Just a heads up–your voting links on the upper right of your page still point to the sun-sentinel2 server(bad one). You should change the links to the newer ones.

Sorry, make that the voting links on the upper-left.

or the upper left…

Yes, the Phinsider does average more than 100 comments per post. We even had one that got up to 2800 comments before Matty cut it down to over 1600. (A bunch of us were trying for the SBN record!)

ps – many of us at Phinsider are also stout fans of The U. (It IS all about The U!).

I was just saying, don’t dis another blog; (well any blog about the Jest (Jets) is quite okay to dis; you never know where your new readers will come from!

That’s great except you can’t vote for the best blog anymore, just the other categories.

Carlos, according to my last pageview, you’re NUMBER ONE MAN CONGRATULATIONS!

Of course when you run google safe browsing check on er, well, google.com it too returns a report similar to Sun-Sentinel

http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=google.com

I was pleased to see my site was clean — this despite the fact we had a security certificate error between our primary and secondary server that got us blocked by many ISPs for almost a day Monday until our IT figured out where the discrepancy was and corrected it.

Hey Carlos,

I just wanted to say hello.

I am a lawyer practicing in Upstate NY. I’m also an occasional DU lurker, and I stumbled across your thread in the General Discussion section of the site.

I surfed around this site a bit and found a link to your blog post where you uploaded the PDF copies of your brief in the prior case, the assistant state attorney’s response, and your reply brief. I read all of them with interest. I commenced reading your initial brief yesterday, and I was stunned by how well written it was. Most pro se briefs contain error after error but yours was excellent.

I then read the reply brief of the assistant state attorney, Ignacio Vazquez, and his brief contained errors that I would have expected from a pro se applicant: terrible grammar, poor/incorrect cites, and a general trend of laziness and outright plagiarism in some cases.

Is this the caliber of state attorneys you have down there? I don’t have to worry about being sued by Ignacio, because he’s a public failure, first of all, so I’ll say my true thoughts on the matter.

1) How did this guy every graduate from law school?

2) After graduating from law school, how did he pass the bar exam? Is Florida’s exam that much easier to pass than New York’s? I didn’t think so.

3) How did he get his current job as an assistant state’s attorney? Maybe family connections? I’m just stunned by how terrible his reply brief really was. I actually passed it around to colleagues today and we all had a great laugh over it at Mr. Vasquez’s expense. It looks like a brief that was written by an aspiring law student, not a practicing attorney. I especially love his perplexing use of capital letters with regard to the coined phrase “WebPages.” This guy LOOOOVES the capital letters. I’m seriously enamored with him simply because he feels the need to capitalize phrases like “Trial Court” every chance he gets.

4) Do you think the fact that the reply brief from the state attorney’s office was so shoddily written contributed to the appellate court’s decision to reverse the conviction and remand it for a new trial with a new presiding judge?

I wish you the best of luck in your present case (because I read on the DU thread that you’re also dealing with a second case at the moment).

I just need to make one correction to my above post:

I meant to refer to Mr. Vazquez as a “public figure”, not a “public failure.” Perhaps this was a Freudian slip on my part?

Regards.

Sorry, I can’t stay away-last comment for now I promise.

I love how Mr. Vazquez has the cohones to actually use a “see e.g.” citation following a claim that something is well-settled. If it’s so well-settled, Mr. Vazquez, why couldn’t you find a direct quote? Bam.

Okay, I’m done needling Mr. Vazquez and his limited intellectual capacity. For now.