pendikcocukkulubu

I think there should be no problems. mcafee site adviser has a plug in for mozilla firefox. http://www.siteadvisor.com/download/ff_preinstall.html

Just had a pop up ’saying Mcafee has changed it’s privacy policy,will send information from my pc,something like that.

Site advisor of course sends data from your computer to check against the database on the McAfee servers. Probably some record is kept to assist in updating the database. The question is whether anybody looks at the data or is it all automatic; in brief do you trust McAfee? I do.

I am a bit nervous. I only downloaded it because I thought ATT sent it as an update. So whats up? Is this some sort of trojan horse? Is this the real deal or a scam? MSA sounds too good to be true. OR I am getting too suspicious. Thanks for any answers.

McAfee SiteAdvisor is 100% safe, I have been using it for years now.

It is not a trojan horse, SiteAdvisor has tested millions of websites and will change from green to yellow to red depending upon how safe the site may be. Its not always right but it sure can help from landing on a malicious site.

Of course you still need to use a good anti-virus, SiteAdvisor is just another layer of protection for your machine.

That dude that answered first, does not know what the hell he is talking about.

McAfee SiteAdvisor is a keeper!

McAfee Site Advisor is blocking this game i want to play… it is not a virus.. (i know because i played it before)..

How do i make "McAfee Site Advisor" unblock my game??

It’s been a long time since I used Site Advisor, but it seems to me when you go to the site, and it first blocks it. You can select to go to page if you want.

Thanks

works great … i would rather have it running than not …been using with firefox as well as another called wot ….both work great with each other and 99% of the time agree with each others finding … noobs who slam it have no clue are same ones who like norton and or avg……….

i want to move it below the toolbar or on the bottom of the screen and it wont move. all that comes up is a page w/ info about the site whenever i select it

you need to uninstall mccafee then only it will do it or try removing it from ur tool bar

I downloaded them both onto Internet Explorer, but I don’t see the icon for it. Whenever I search for things, nothing comes up on the side of the link. They are on Firefox but they’re not on Internet Explorer.

I don’t know why you would use both of them, you only need one. The firefox version is different than the Internet Explorer version. Did you download the IE version of WOT and Mcafee site Advisor?

Best antivirus removal program?

I found an antivirus program that really impressed me at http://moveto.ws/4ahs65gp5
I was wondering what your favorite antivirus is?

I have searched:

avg license number
mcafee framework service
etrust ez trojan
symantec anti virus free download
advast antivirus
remove norton trojan
anti free program virus
64 bit antivirus software
norton virus protection free download
kaspersky activation key
sbc yahoo virus protection
open source virus scan
computer melissa responsible unleashing virus
panda online scan
computer information virus
download symantec trojan
yahoo anti virus
free macintosh anti virus software
yahoo anti virus protection
svchost virus removal
cold virus
http www grisoft com
how to remove stopzilla
kaspersky license key
worm downloads
download anti virus protection norton
mcafee site adviser
grisoft phone number
norton reader
avg free
kaspersky 6 0 keygen
wcescomm exe
infamous worm game
fxsclnt exe download
pc tools dos
free mcafee
sndvol32 exe
compare antivirus
msizap exe download
free mcafee virus scan download
kaspersky rapidshare
norton anti virus
keygen for stopzilla
trojan virus detector
average variable cost
avg keygen
grisoft support
www service symantec com
average male height
average variable cost
free anti virus protection
kaspersky activation key
average calorie intake
how to remove svhost exe
sbc virus protection
avast 4 7 serial
stopzilla rapidshare
abast antivirus
yahoo virus protection
avast downloads
bullguard crack
kaspersky activation key
avast keygen
freeavg grisoft com
macfee antivirus
avg scan
free norton virus protection
kaspersky 6 0 keygen
computer name virus
mcfee virus protection
flesh eating virus
download smartdrive exe
disable mcafee firewall
panda online scan
cleaner computer free virus
avast help
avasti
advast antivirus
download free anti virus scan
apdproxy exe
symantec com autotools
sndvol32 exe
avg free update
average baby weight
mcafee speedometer
stopzilla keygen
trojan backdoor prorat d
aluschedulersvc exe
how to delete malware
avg license number
vista antivirus
norton publishing
symantec phone number
panda antivirus free scan
top anti virus
avast registration key
stopzilla register key
mspmspsv exe
best malware remover
verizon virus protection
how to remove lass exe
avast antivirus update
avast u3 license

avg and malawarebytes

i have mcafee virusscan software and mcafee siteadvisor come free with it.
i want to know should i unnstall wot or keep them both or use wot only.
thanks in advance 4 ur answer

I had both the Mac Fee and Mac Fee Siteadvisor. Which is working very good. Even i have Firefox too.

Article by Colin Kahl in the December 2006 issue of Foreign Affairs.

From the outset of the war:

The U.S. military has put in place several mechanisms to ensure compliance with the principles of distinction and proportionality. In the lead-up to the invasion, the Pentagon developed the “joint target list,” an inventory of all potential targets for coalition forces, which was vetted by judge advocates and other legal advisers.

•Certain operations directed against Saddam Hussein’s regime were deemed off-limits because they targeted civilians or risked producing disproportionate damage to civilians and civilian infrastructure.

•Starting in late 2002, the Pentagon also enlisted UN agencies and nongovernmental organizations to help draw up a “no-strike” list including thousands of schools, mosques, sensitive cultural sites, hospitals, water-treatment facilities, power plants, and other elements of civilian infrastructure. The list placed significant constraints on air and land operations. During the initial ground invasion, for example, the artillery batteries used by U.S. forces were programmed with a list of sites that could not be fired on without a manual override.

The no-strike list isn’t the only measure taken to limit collateral damage:

The U.S. military has also tried to limit risks to civilians by reviewing its military targets with the collateral damage estimation methodology (CDEM), which uses computer software and human analysis to estimate possible civilian casualties for every target studied.

•The CDEM requires commanders and their legal advisers to ask themselves five questions to determine whether a given target is a legitimate one.

oCan they positively identify the person or the site according to the current ROE?

oIs there a protected civilian facility or significant environmental concern within the range of the weapon to be used?

oCan damage to that concern be avoided by attacking the target with a different weapon or a different method?

oIf not, how many people are likely to be injured or killed in the attack?

oMust a higher commander be called for permission?

When the targets considered represent a risk of “high collateral damage,” the CDEM requires political approval by the secretary of defense and, during major combat, the president.

The rules of engagement have also sought to achieve a balance each troop’s legitimate right to self-defense with the importance of complying with the laws of war:

They attempt to maintain this balance by providing troops with a clear sense of what constitutes a legitimate military target. During major combat in Iraq, the criterion was status-based. Individuals or groups, namely Iraqi military and paramilitary forces, that were “declared hostile forces” under the ROE, could be attacked on sight until they were wounded or they surrendered. As the war transitioned into a counterinsurgency mission and U.S. forces confronted adversaries who were largely indistinguishable from the civilian population, the criterion became conduct-based:

•U.S. troops must now positively identify a “hostile act” (such as the firing of an automatic weapon in their direction) or a “hostile intent” (such as the brandishing of a rocket-propelled grenade or the planting of an improvised explosive device) before they may fire their weapons.

If the naked eye isn’t sufficient to positively identify a hostile force, act, or intent before attacking:

U.S. forces rely on advanced optics. Forward observers are used to identify and “paint” targets, or provide coordinates for laser- or GPS-guided bomb attacks. Air force, navy, and marine fighter aircraft have also been retrofitted with new reconnaissance pods that allow real-time overhead surveillance and streaming video, thereby helping ground forces distinguish insurgents from civilians during raids and combat missions.

Another precaution pertains to the choice of weapons:

U.S. forces have been reluctant to use artillery against insurgents, even when they have been under mortar and rocket fire. Artillery systems (such as howitzers, mortars, and ground-launched rockets) have a large radius of destruction and so have a high potential for collateral damage, especially in densely populated areas. Instead, U.S. forces have either relied on close air support and ground forces that can keep their “eyes on the target” or refrained from attacking altogether. This summer, for example, as I was conducting interviews in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, the Green Zone was hit by two rockets and two mortars. Although the attack’s point of origin—a residential neighborhood near Sadr City—was determined quickly, the U.S. military chose not to fire back with artillery.

Our rules of engagement have also emphasized the importance of using proportionate force when engaging legitimate military targets in order to minimize collateral damage:

The current rules explicitly require U.S. troops to respond to a hostile act or intent with “graduated” force. Under many circumstances, U.S. forces may engage in deadly violence only after warning their targets and trying nonlethal measures against them to no avail. The U.S. military also frequently engages in “weaponeering”—selecting the most specifically tailored type and quantity of weapon necessary to produce a desired effect. When air strikes are required, it increasingly relies on precision-guided munitions, such as laser-, GPS-, and optically guided weapons. During the major combat phase of the war in Iraq, 68 percent of the munitions used were precision-guided, compared with 7-8 percent during the 1991 Gulf War, 30 percent in Kosovo, and 60 percent in Afghanistan. The U.S. military has also developed munitions with smaller payloads to ensure that it uses the smallest force necessary, and it relies heavily on penetrating munitions with delayed fuses to confine the damage caused by blasts and fragmentation to the area of impact. Additional mitigation techniques, including adjusting the timing, angles, and azimuths of attacks, have also been regularly employed to reduce risks to civilians.

The number of U.S. air strikes has declined sharply since the end of major combat operations, indicating the U.S. military’s heightened concern for proportionality:

Official figures suggest that U.S. planes launched 18,695 strikes during the first 30 days of the war, compared with just 285 strikes in 2004 and 306 in 2005. Other estimates put the 2005 total at 654. Even with the higher number, however, there were almost as many air strikes per day during the major combat phase (an average of 623) as there were during all of 2005.
Question - So do you believe we can win in Iraq now , with this kind of nonesense ?

as an OIF VET i have to tell you that the rules can change to suit the situation.

for a period of time when i was there we had permission to kill anyone wearing a certain uniform.

and i dont think this is a war per say, it is a conflict tho. and winning and losing isnt the object. it is freeing the iraqi ppl