|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=410321022-30071999>Ton</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=410321022-30071999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=410321022-30071999>I
tried 'Find' and it couldn't find it, but maybe it doesn't search through all of
the cabinets as I have the whole Win95 CD-ROM stored on my D:
drive.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=410321022-30071999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=410321022-30071999>Regards</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=410321022-30071999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=410321022-30071999>Guy</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=410321022-30071999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<B>On Behalf Of</B> A.J.
Maas<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, July 30, 1999 11:32 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: intruders [Fw: Today's WinInfo:
July 12]<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Its in one of the CAB-files in the W95-CdRom's
"Win95"-folder.<BR>(I have got all CAB's contents listed, so I can have a look
for it if you like).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Share can only be set to enabled and unabled (eg active or not
active). This gives the utmost</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>best protection.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If however, you have shared any disk- or hardware parts, and
protected it via a Password, then</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>the software-manufacturer's quality for its known
savety-encryption power will be the answer as</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>for </FONT><FONT size=2>how much your Share's are
safe(What men can make, men can also undo).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Also, i</FONT><FONT size=2>f you have set the required
arrangements via Share, then you will not need the PoleEditor</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>program, eg unless </FONT><FONT size=2>you want to further
fine-tune any User-settings. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Note too, that your connection to the Internet is also
"accessing a network (by itself)", and as such</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>many search-engines are always actively searching
for sites that comply to "their to be searched for word",</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>as such </FONT><FONT size=2>will most likely ping search
your ISP's unique IP-number (server), as well as your own</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>PC's unique </FONT><FONT size=2>number.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>E</FONT><FONT size=2>xample:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Say that in IE5 I type "AV HardCopy", then Alta Vista
will search any sites on the entire Internet containing</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>the word HardCopy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Since one of my homepage's articles is about
HardCopy, then naturaly my homepage will be found as well</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>as many others (sites and/or homepages). This happens because
my ISP's IP-number will then be "pinged"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>searched for, as well as </FONT><FONT size=2>that many other
</FONT><FONT size=2>ISP's IP-numbers will be "pinged" searched for, </FONT><FONT
size=2>eg if not all ISP's</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>on this planet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Note than also from the above, that this doesn't make me or
Alta Vista an intruder, </FONT><FONT size=2>eg all "we" did was
perform</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>a search</FONT><FONT size=2> (action) and from such a search,
many (lots of) IP-addresses will get "pinged" searched for the
existance</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>of the word Hardcopy, </FONT><FONT size=2>and </FONT><FONT
size=2>thus this will also include (many of) your ISP (servers) and your
ISP's subscribers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>(eg their PC's as server's </FONT><FONT size=2>own unique
IP numbers).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>My own PC is not linked to my homepage (as that page is stored
on my ISP's server), and therefore will not be</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>included in the above search action. </FONT><FONT size=2>It
can also always be search-pinged, like any one else's IP-number,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>once I am on <on-line> on the Internet. This will not
</FONT><FONT size=2>harm me, my PC or my PC's contents, tho.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>(see further my previous mail).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><BR>Regards,<BR>Ton Maas<BR><A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Dismiss the
".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
Guy Tann </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
href="mailto:metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";
title=metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> woensdag 28 juli 1999 6:16</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: intruders [Fw: Today's
WinInfo: July 12]</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=780561304-28071999>Ton</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=780561304-28071999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=780561304-28071999>I
have password protected all of my drives with passwords for read-only as well
as read-write access. I'm still finding 'visitors' in my network
neighborhood. I assume they can't get at anything. When I
installed the passwords, I disconnected my PC from the network (and the
Internet) and installed all of the passwords, etc. Then hooked
everything back up.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=780561304-28071999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=780561304-28071999>I
tried to locate poledit.exe and that program isn't anywhere to be found in my
Win95 directory.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=780561304-28071999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=780561304-28071999>Regards</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=780561304-28071999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=780561304-28071999>Guy</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=780561304-28071999></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>
owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]<B>On
Behalf Of</B> A.J. Maas<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, July 13, 1999 4:12
PM<BR><B>To:</B> Metastock-List<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: intruders [Fw: Today's
WinInfo: July 12]<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>To clear some myths..........................</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>For as long as you do not "Share" any files, disks,
printers, folders or even Net-adapters, you are save from</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>anyone entering </FONT><FONT size=2>your PC.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>If you haven't done any of the file, folder, disk,
printer and netadapter </FONT><FONT size=2>sharing (also in the Control
Panel's Nethood/</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Networking and the Win95/98 Context Menu's options for
"Sharing", then no-one can intrude onto your PC</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>with you in command (and as otherwise is described in the
article below).</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>This "Sharing", apart from the Control Panel's Nethood and
the Win95/98 Context Menu's options,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>are privaleges you can also set for any of the "Users"
of your PC's Windows sessions. </FONT><FONT size=2>The program to do
so</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>is "C:\Windows\Poledit.exe".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The above is for Win95/98 only, for as WIN-NT4/2000 requires
a top secret "NTconfig.pol" file stored on server for</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>setting the "Sharing of the Network's NetHood, Server
and WKS's </FONT><FONT size=2>files, folders, printers and
disks".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Regards,<BR>Ton Maas<BR><A
href="mailto:ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Dismiss the
".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.<BR><BR><BR></FONT><FONT
size=3>___________________________________________________________________________<BR><BR>WinInfo:
Windows news and information -- Copyright (c) 1995-9 Paul Thurrott<BR>Visit
WinInfo on the Web at WUGNET: <A
href="http://www.wugnet.com/wininfo";>http://www.wugnet.com/wininfo</A><BR>___________________________________________________________________________<BR><BR>Today's
WinInfo:<BR> Microsoft challenges BackOrifice myths<BR> Microsoft
bringing USB hardware to the Macintosh<BR><BR><BR>Microsoft challenges
BackOrifice myths<BR><BR>With the release this week of Windows NT hacking tool
"BackOrifice 2000,"<BR>Microsoft has launched an informational campaign of its
own, designed to<BR>derail myths about the malicious program. According to a
report on<BR>Microsoft's Security Advisor Web site, BackOrifice 2000 is a
remote control<BR>application that must be stealthily installed so that
attackers can take<BR>over a Windows NT-based network. The program enables
remote hackers to do<BR>anything they could do were they to be logged onto the
machine locally: Run<BR>programs, delete files, and the
like.<BR><BR>"BackOrifice 2000 is a remote-access tool that was developed with
the intent<BR>of harming users," says Jason Garms, the lead product manager
for Windows NT<BR>security at Microsoft. "It is a tool that has no legitimate
purpose other<BR>than exposing users' machines to people on the Internet.
Users who are<BR>tricked into getting this thing installed on their system are
vulnerable to<BR>the attacker, who can then do anything that the victim can
do--move the<BR>mouse, open files, run programs, etc.--which is little
different from what<BR>legitimate remote-control software can do. Back
Orifice, however, is<BR>designed to be stealthy and evade detection by the
user."<BR><BR>For BackOrifice to find its way onto your system the hacker must
have<BR>physical access to the machine with a valid login or you must be
tricked<BR>into installing it; typically this is accomplished by sending users
the<BR>program as an email attachment that must be executed. To prevent
this<BR>program from taking over your system, just use common sense: Always
run an<BR>anti-virus program with up-to-date virus definitions and don't let
anyone<BR>gain unauthorized physical access to your machine. Perhaps most
importantly,<BR>don't execute email attachments from unknown
people.<BR><BR>One of the biggest myths perpetrated by the makers of
BackOrifice is that<BR>program takes advantage of security inadequacies that
are inherent in<BR>Windows and Windows NT. This is simply not true:
BackOrifice could have been<BR>written to attack *any* kind of computer
system. The hackers that wrote it<BR>simply decided to attack Windows, which
is the most popular computing<BR>platform by far. In fact, as Microsoft notes,
BackOrifice doesn't actually<BR>target Windows per se at all: It targets
users, who often don't understand<BR>security issues well enough to not
execute email attachments from unknown<BR>sources.<BR><BR>Another common myth
centers on the goal for BackOrifice: In an attempt to<BR>protect themselves
from legal problems, the creators of BackOrifice are<BR>pretending that it is
a legitimate remote control application. However, this<BR>is not the case:
BackOrifice is designed to escape detection and exceeds the<BR>needs of remote
control software. And it doesn't prompt the user when it<BR>installs on the
system.<BR><BR>"The creators [of BackOrifice] claim that this is a useful
administration<BR>tool, but it doesn't even prompt people when it installs
itself on the<BR>system. It doesn't warn them that it's getting installed.
And, once it's<BR>installed, it makes the system available to other people on
the Internet.<BR>That is a malicious act," says Garms. "I am personally
unaware of any major<BR>customers of ours who consider this to be a remote
administration tool as<BR>the folks who created it claim. Quite the contrary,
they consider it a piece<BR>of malicious code. Unfortunately, there are some
users who were duped by the<BR>press releases from the organization that
released the software, and did<BR>install it on their systems."<BR><BR>For
more information about Microsoft's response to BackOrifice 2000,
please<BR>visit the Microsoft Security Advisor Web site:<BR> <A
href="http://www.microsoft.com/security/bulletins/bo2k.asp";>http://www.microsoft.com/security/bulletins/bo2k.asp</A><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>Microsoft
bringing USB hardware to the Macintosh<BR><BR>Microsoft Corporation will
announce the availability of its first USB<BR>hardware for the Macintosh, the
IntelliMouse Explorer, a "no ball" mouse<BR>that the company will release this
fall for Windows as well. According to<BR>rumors, Microsoft will also be
porting other USB hardware to the Macintosh,<BR>including possibly all of the
company's joystick/entertainment hardware,<BR>such as the FreeStyle Pro
GamePad and the Sidewinder Precision Pro joystick.<BR><BR>Expect an official
announcement from Microsoft at MacWorld New York
next<BR>week.<BR><BR>___________________________________________________________________________<BR><BR>Visit
WinInfo on the Web at WUGNET: <A
href="http://www.wugnet.com/wininfo";>http://www.wugnet.com/wininfo</A><BR><BR>To
unsubscribe from the WinInfo list, simply send an E-mail message to<BR><A
href="mailto:listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
with the phrase "unsubscribe wininfo" (no<BR>quotes) in the body. If you are
having problems unsubscribing or any other<BR>problems with the list, please
write Keith Furman at <A
href="mailto:listadmin@xxxxxxxxxx";>listadmin@xxxxxxxxxx</A>.<BR>___________________________________________________________________________<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Fri Jul 30 21:46:36 1999
Return-Path: <majordom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Received: from listserv.equis.com (listserv.equis.com [204.246.137.2])
by purebytes.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA17199
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:33:03 -0700
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id MAA16146
for metastock-outgoing; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:10:27 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA16142
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 12:10:22 -0600
Received: from smtp02.wxs.nl (smtp02.wxs.nl [195.121.6.60])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id VAA15206
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 30 Jul 1999 21:58:29 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from escom ([195.121.180.191]) by smtp02.wxs.nl
(Netscape Messaging Server 3.61) with SMTP id AAD6FBE
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Sat, 31 Jul 1999 05:44:57 +0200
Message-ID: <001001bedb06$d734c8c0$bfb479c3@xxxxx>
From: "A.J. Maas" <anthmaas@xxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <LMBBKJCLKIJIBBJLAEIJAEGOCHAA.nkormanik@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Stochastics discrepancy????
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 1999 05:43:16 +0200
Organization: Ms-IRB
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Status:
There are formula differences:
-----------------------------------------
For starters, that "cf00039.html" page formula returns a 3-day slowing result
(=mov ave) of the 14-day %K Stochastics Oscillator, but <now> as a custom
version.
Mov( ( ( ( C - LLV( L,14 ) ) / ( HHV( H,14 ) - LLV( L,14 ) ) ) * 100 ) ,3 ,S )
This (14,3) %K slowing version can also be written as: (see MS65-man p.246)
Stoch( 14, 3 )
and can also be written as: (see MS65-man p.276)
( Sum( C - LLV( L,14 ) ,3 ) / Sum( HHV ( H,14 ) - LLV( L,14 ) ,3 ) ) * 100
The Sum-function here is explained as follows: (see MS65-man p. 246)
The formula Sum( C, 14 ) returns the sum of the preceding 14 closing prices.
A 14-period simple move ave(SMA) could be written Sum( C,14 ) / 14.
Thus:
The formula Sum( C - LLV( L,14), 3) returns the sum of the preceding 3 results
of the closing price minus the preceding 14 day lowest LOW.
The formula Sum( HHV ( H,14 ) - LLV( L,14 ) ,3) returns the sum of the preceding
3 results of the preceding 14 day highest HIGH minus the preceding 14-day
lowest LOW.
The above 1st given formula("cf00039.html") calculates a 3 SMA over the main formula's
total results only and also does so right at the end of calculating this main formula multiplied
by 100 first, where the 3td formula calculates a 3 SMA first of (eg of part 1 of the main formula),
before proceeding calculating the 3 SMA (of part 2 of the main formula) and then proceeding
with calculating the main formula (part 1 divided by part 2) and then the main formula's results
to be multiplied by 100 "only".
A first look at the above, also does not give that much of an "optical" difference here, but when
calculated by the in these formulas implemented "part's ranking and calculating preferences"
(the nested bits first, or placed in a different nesting setup) then can make all of the "real"
difference here.
I have not checked/tested it, the above, for any further results, tho.
Also, I do not know if the program does different jobs with "rounding-the-figures", eg to certain
places after/right of the comma, and then these possible differences in roundings and then
also added over the years, can make the difference as well. (eg rounding figure's differences
over the years and the difference when using built-in indicators or when using custom indicators).
Looking at your chart, the custom seems to be "faster" then the build-in, eg as though it is
one(1) day ahead at times (eg the very volatile trending times).
Regards,
Ton Maas
ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nicholas Kormanik <nkormanik@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: vrijdag 30 juli 1999 7:47
Subject: Stochastics discrepancy????
>
>
> I see a discrepancy in the charts between the following two supposedly
> identical indicators:
>
> 1) The ***built-in*** MS Win 6.5 Stochastic Oscillator (excluding the
> moving average line),
>
> say for 13-8;
>
> 2) The ***formula*** for Stochastic Oscillator provided at the Equis web
>
> site (http://www.equis.com/customer/support/formulas/cf00039.html).
>
> That formula is:
>
> Mov( ( ( ( C - LLV( L,13 ) ) /( HHV( H,13 ) - LLV( L,13 ) ) ) * 100 ) ,8
> ,S )
>
>
> Could any of you please suggest a reason why there might be this
> discrepancy?
>
> Thanks very much,
> Nicholas
>
>
>
>
>
|