TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama- ... bile=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If this is accurate or even semi-accurate, it makes it sound like he will go after semi-automatics of all kinds.....which is what was done in Australia.....

Commander wrote:If this is accurate or even semi-accurate, it makes it sound like he will go after semi-automatics of all kinds.....which is what was done in Australia.....

You should do a little check on what The Onion is before you get too upset.

This is pure satire at Obama's expense.

Well, heck....egg on my face...Fell for that one.....

austinrealtor wrote:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama- ... bile=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WARNING THAT IS A BAD LINK!!!

Luckily my Norton caught it.

ExMarlboroMan wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama- ... bile=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WARNING THAT IS A BAD LINK!!!

Luckily my Norton caught it.

No it's not. The Onion is actually a reputable and well run satirical website. Your copy of Norton is mistaken. Norton does this regularly, where they list a perfectly safe website as dangeous, forcing website owners and designers to prove that there is nothing wrong with the site. I've had to do this already once for one of my clients. Norton forces you to prove the unprovable. It's like asking you if you still beat your wife. In fact, they list any site as dangerous if they don't know anything about it. imagine if the FBI listed all citizens as armed and dangerous unless they know differently. That's what Norton does. It's a pretty much useless program.

I knew it wasn't true because he can't speak that long on one topic without a teleprompter.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ExMarlboroMan wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama- ... bile=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WARNING THAT IS A BAD LINK!!!

Luckily my Norton caught it.

No it's not. The Onion is actually a reputable and well run satirical website. Your copy of Norton is mistaken. Norton does this regularly, where they list a perfectly safe website as dangeous, forcing website owners and designers to prove that there is nothing wrong with the site. I've had to do this already once for one of my clients. Norton forces you to prove the unprovable. It's like asking you if you still beat your wife. In fact, they list any site as dangerous if they don't know anything about it. imagine if the FBI listed all citizens as armed and dangerous unless they know differently. That's what Norton does. It's a pretty much useless program.

Interestingly enough, I use Norton, visited the site, and received no warnings.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ....
No it's not. The Onion is actually a reputable and well run satirical website. Your copy of Norton is mistaken. Norton does this regularly, where they list a perfectly safe website as dangeous, forcing website owners and designers to prove that there is nothing wrong with the site. I've had to do this already once for one of my clients. Norton forces you to prove the unprovable. It's like asking you if you still beat your wife. In fact, they list any site as dangerous if they don't know anything about it. imagine if the FBI listed all citizens as armed and dangerous unless they know differently. That's what Norton does. It's a pretty much useless program.

I run into something similar at work all the time. The Air Force (maybe all DoD) uses a net nanny program from BlueCoat (IIRC). The user can choose what categories of sites to block, such as adult or religious*. The problem is that the AF has chosen to block all non-categorized sites. You can use a form at BlueCoat to ask that a site be classified (or re-classified if you think it's wrong) but it may take days.

*Yes, religious sites are blocked. Well, they were. Haven't looked in a while.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

ExMarlboroMan wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama- ... bile=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

WARNING THAT IS A BAD LINK!!!

Luckily my Norton caught it.

No it's not. The Onion is actually a reputable and well run satirical website. Your copy of Norton is mistaken. Norton does this regularly, where they list a perfectly safe website as dangeous, forcing website owners and designers to prove that there is nothing wrong with the site. I've had to do this already once for one of my clients. Norton forces you to prove the unprovable. It's like asking you if you still beat your wife. In fact, they list any site as dangerous if they don't know anything about it. imagine if the FBI listed all citizens as armed and dangerous unless they know differently. That's what Norton does. It's a pretty much useless program.

I can't copy/paste the Norton report for some reason, but here's the jist of it.

HTTP malicious java activity

Network traffic from 76.76.117.100 matches the signature of a known attack. The attack was resulted from /device/harddiskvolume2/programfiles (x86)/mozilla firefox/firefoxe.exe



If it's not a bad or malicious link then great, but I trust norton to protect my computer and it hasn't failed me...yet.

I use Norton also and do not get a notice.

The website in question that I had the bad experience with Norton was Crossfire's website, crossfire-training.com. Someone who is a member here went to look at her site and got this big warning from Norton. Well, I built the website, and I host it, and I know for a certain fact that there isn't anything wrong with it. So I go to the Norton website that tracks "bad" sites, and I have to jump through hoops to get the website de-listed, when there wasn't anything wrong with it in the first place. It took about a week or 10 days or so to get them to fix their issue, and they finally sent a message saying they had taken care of the problem. And sure enough, Crossfire-Training.com no longer trips the Norton sensors.

See that?..... They took care of the problem. So, I have to ask.... If the vaunted Norton service is so good, how come they cannot tell when a harmless website is harmless? Worse yet, if they are not reliable when the website in question is harmless, then how can you trust them to know for sure when a website is definitely harmful?

I apologize for coming off as grumpy about it, but I make my living by building and hosting websites. When Norton's software does this, it makes my life unnecessarily harder. I'm a small business. They (Symantec which owns Norton) are a giant corporation. It is difficult for a small business like mine, which has limited resources, to deal with a huge company like Norton that has massive resources — when the company with the massive resources is the one that is producing a substandard product which makes the life of the little guy more difficult.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the best way to ensure the security of your computer is to use an operating system that isn't full of holes like Windows is. But that's just me.