APK or whoever can help me
#1
Posted 29 September 2001 - 10:29 PM
and i have another question, i have an 80 gig drive, and i split it up in 3 partions, and i was going to duel boot, and leae the 3rd partion for music/games/etc and on that one, it was going to be FAT32, and i installed win2k in NTFS, can i accesss the music and games in that file system....can anyone help me
#2
Posted 30 September 2001 - 02:05 AM
#3
Posted 01 October 2001 - 01:00 AM

Uhhh. APK. Ars Technica's message boards haven't been running for three years. You couldn't have issued us this challenge three years ago, even if you wanted to.
#4
Posted 01 October 2001 - 01:22 AM
What?
Can you not count?
You first posted at Ars Technica on 20th November, 2000.
http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic...&search.y=0
That isn't even 1 year ago.
Sent any nice e-mails recently?
I notice that your IP address (66.67.71.X) is the same as sent me this charming little e-mail:
Return-Path: <phuqu@youfaggot.com>
Delivered-To: peter@inkvine.fluff.org
Received: from mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (mailout6-1.nyroc.rr.com [24.92.226.177])
by inkvine.fluff.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C23D246825
for <peter@inkvine.fluff.org>; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 21:16:13 +0100 (BST)
Received: from win32 (syr-66-67-71-X.twcny.rr.com [66.67.71.X])
by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with SMTP id f8TKFBH14344
for <peter@inkvine.fluff.org>; Sat, 29 Sep 2001 16:15:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: phuqu@youfaggot.com
Message-ID: <1001780159@win32>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 16:15:58 -0400
Subject: Hi there butt-pumping homo
To: peter@inkvine.fluff.org
You miserable done nothing with your life little homo, you little losers are nothing in this field, and nothing in life
I hope you catch aids you ****ed up mistake of nature. That is what homos are, freaks of nature and everyone
who talks to you? From now on, realize this: It is what they think of you, you genetic error! Damaged goods that
likes dicks and is a man
Ring any bells?
#5
Posted 01 October 2001 - 01:33 AM
Not at all... I don't know what that email's about for one thing, & anyone can spoof an IP or send mail off an anonymous email server PeterB! Not TOO hard is it??
Spoofing an IP address doesn't do a blind thing to help for forging e-mail. There's the inconvenient issue of SMTP requiring a series of messages to be passed between client and server in order to send the mail; the problem with using a spoofed IP to do this is that the server will return packets not to the spoofing machine, but instead to the machine it believes it's communicating with -- namely, the one with the IP address being spoofed.
Ah, but IPMasq works quite differently. The translation is transparent to the server, which communicates only with the machine originating the message; it's up to the router at the client end to make sense of it all. Not applicable in this case.
There's the additional issue of acquiring your IP address (it's not particularly difficult, true, but that's only because I knew what I was looking for), and then a question of motive.
Which URL shows what? All I've shown is an e-mail which coincidentally originated from the same IP address as you happen to be posting from, and demonstrated that your claim of "3 years", and your revised claim of "2 years" is factually inaccurate.
#6
Posted 01 October 2001 - 01:38 AM
#7
Posted 01 October 2001 - 01:56 AM
Read my post above, why do you people from ars CONTINUALLY bother me for?
For over a year now on your site & others... why?
What?
November 2000 is your first post. Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that you posted on the first of November.
December 2000.
January 2001.
February 2001.
March 2001.
April 2001.
May 2001.
June 2001.
July 2001.
August 2001.
September 2001.
At most, 11 months. Which is not "over a year". It's not even "a year".
And you have said that you hope I die of AIDS....
I don't think anyone is upset at you. Bemused, yes, but not upset.
Libel? Where? Your software is second-rate, buggy, and of no value. That's not libel. It's informed opinion.
One doesn't have to "do better" in order to point out the flaws in your own software.
You're in for a long wait. There's nothing productive in writing GUI front-ends to perfectly good command-line tools.
Er, yes, you did, by drawing attention to your own second-rate tools in the first place.
And it won't ever be met. Because one does not have to meet your challenge to point out that hard-coded paths are bad. To point out that your UIs completely disregard the Windows UI guidelines. To point out that your programs are merely front-ends for perfectly functional (and oftentimes more capable) command-line tools.
P.S.=> I am the guy at your forums, just to let you know? Who often mentions it should stop! One of them at least... apk
Uh huh. Which guy, hmm? 'cos I'm looking at the IP addresses of the people who've posted, and I don't see yours anywhere.
#8
Posted 01 October 2001 - 02:04 AM
Do better, & then call it 2nd rate, that's all I ever said in response to your forum's members putting it down!
I know you said it. We all said "so what?". We can see the flaws with your own software. We don't need to write our own to point these flaws out. Even someone who didn't know the first thing about /writing/ software could see the obvious /mistakes/ your software contains (or at least, did the last time I used it... things like hard-coded paths in batch files).
I do not need to write anything to prove that you use hard-coded paths.
I do not need to write anything to prove that you violate the UI guidelines at every opportunity.
I do not need to write anything to prove that your software can, and does, generate runtime errors.
Where, precisely, have I libelled you?
#9
Posted 01 October 2001 - 02:31 AM
Yup, easy to put down folks work, but when faced with a challenge? You did not live up to it... did you? OR, better yet... could you?? Evidently not!
Er... no. That I haven't done something does not mean I could not. I _haven't_ jumped off a cliff. That doesn't mean that I _couldn't_. You would do well to distinguish the two.
It provides some amusement.
I merely posted to correct an outright lie that you made -- that you presented your challenge more than three years ago. That's not even close to the truth.
Do not confuse "do not want to" for "cannot".
I merely corrected an error that you made.
Yep.
Uh huh. Holding its own against TweakUI. Well golly! The program that sports one of the poorest UIs in the world and does nothing other than change perhaps a hundred registry settings. Golly gosh. Such worthy competition.
I prefer writing things that haven't been written before, and have no simple substitute.
Why would I wish to write such a thing? I only write applications that I wish to use myself. I don't wish to use any "APK Tools"-style applications.
I can put something down, with perfectly legitimate criticisms, without writing something equivalent.
I have done.
What about them?
So does AOL. Doesn't make their product worth using.
No, not over a year. A bit under 11 months ago.
I only sought to correct your error. The rest of the ranting and raving was initiated by you.
Er.... I didn't say anything about pushing you down the stairs. I said that "[APK is] fun. In a 'pushing a mongoloid down the stairs' kind of a way". I'm likening the amusement garnered from your antics to that which might be obtained from pushing retards down flights of stairs -- rather cruel.
I have nowhere libelled you.
#11
Posted 01 October 2001 - 04:24 AM
PeterB, do as you feel like... I just cannot believe you guys did as much posting about me putting me down like you have at your forums when you know I did a decent body of work out online!
On the contrary. We've seen what you have to offer -- we don't like it. We think it's technically flawed. We've explained why, giving detailed information about the bugs in the program.
It can't be that hard....
The stuff I write -- the stuff I enjoy writing, the stuff people ask me to write, the stuff people pay me to write -- wouldn't get 0/5 at ZDNet. Not because it's not well-written, not because it doesn't do what I (or someone else) wants it to do -- but simply because it's not the kind of thing that's useful to the general populace.
;(
Because it's full of people who know what they're talking about, such as the person who posts as jeh at 2cpu.com.
It was the only point I was attempting to make, until you started on about IP spoofing and your pathetic "challenge".
No. This is not true. Proving that your applications have bugs does not require me to write my own application.
I don't need to write an application to do those things better. The tools provided with Windows 2000 do the job better already.
We've backed up our words by pointing out where the bugs in your software lie.
It's hilarious to see someone go off the deep-end quite so spectacularly as yourself.
Hardly. I wouldn't trust them to gauge, for instance, how well-written a piece of software was. And I don't believe that they hold software to the same exacting standards as I do.
12 Mbytes of code to do what Windows 2000 can do natively?
Why?
Microsoft's worst utility (bar none) ranks as highly as the cream of your work. Further proof of the lack of discrimination amongst the typical 'net user.
But why would I want to? Like I said, I only write software that I want (or that someone's going to pay me to write). And I neither want nor need an application of the same ilk as your application.
AOL has many *technical* flaws that are *objectively* problematic. The worst example is their .ART graphic recompression.
It's quite a big bloody nit. You'd be pretty upset if you were only given 11 months' pay instead of 3 years' worth, wouldn't you? It's not an insignificant difference.
False. You claimed it has been more than three years, then more than two years, then more than one year since you offered your challenge. It hasn't been one of these. It has been under 11 months.
Secondly, anyone can seach "APK" at your forums? And see that you guys even to this day over a year now, are STILL hounding me... and doing worse! Stop already... you look pretty bad!
Uh huh. I think it's more likely that they'll see that you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
#12
Posted 01 October 2001 - 04:44 AM
#13
Posted 01 October 2001 - 07:06 AM
#14
Posted 01 October 2001 - 07:43 AM
#15
Posted 01 October 2001 - 08:00 AM
#16
Posted 01 October 2001 - 08:28 AM
#17
Posted 01 October 2001 - 08:33 AM
Sorry.
edit
Sweet! I figured it out. MUUWWWWAAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!
/edit
#18
Posted 01 October 2001 - 05:02 PM
AlecStaar now you start this by being up old stuff leave this old stuff rest in paces and gose for you to DrPizza.
#19
Posted 01 October 2001 - 05:17 PM

Help
This topic is locked









