Firefox uses the Windows system (since you’re obviously on Windows) to render fonts. I suggest you change your font settings under Display Properties, Appearance, Effects. I like ClearType. YMMV. If you turn on ClearType you might also want to tweak the settings with the ClearType tuner.
And IIRC it’s completely different in Win7, and I can only test it on Windows XP right now, so it’s up to you and Google in that case.
It is very common for people to create extensions, sometimes really nice useful ones, and then abandon them.
It’s usually not difficult at all to make them work, though it’s (by design) hidden well enough that you have to look for it.
While Firefox is not running:
%userprofile%\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\*\extensions\ Browse into each extension’s folder one-by-one, open install.rdf in a text editor and read the <em:name> definition near the top until you find the correct extension. Once you find it, just scroll down to the <em:maxVersion> definition, and change to suit. Save, restart Firefox.
IIRC there is also a way to tell Firefox to just ignore maxVersion and run all extensions regardless.
I just wish there was an easier way to track down and uninstall/delete the particular addon/plugin. about:plugins is only slightly helpful – it doesn’t even tell you where the.dll files are located (the plugins.dat file does, but you can’t edit it – it’s automatically generated).
And I have no idea how it even figures out where all of its plugins are located, either... apparently the [HKCU|HKLM]\Software\MozillaPlugins registry keys have something to do with it, as does the %programfiles%\Mozilla Firefox\plugins folder... and that still doesn’t seem to account for all of the plugins.
Oh, you think that the testimony of the complaining witness doesn't count as evidence? Sounds good to me. Thanks for your wallet and cash. Very nice of you to give it as a gift, particularly at Christmas time.
False analogy. She already gave him her wallet, she just claims she demanded he give it back.
Japan isn’t going to keep living in the same little world it’s been living in for the past 500 years, though. Should the entire world change to suit Japan, or should Japan change to suit the world it lives in? The answer is somewhere in the middle.
And if she wanted the picture removed, Google blurs out or removes embarrassing or offensive street view photos at request.
What did that have to do with my comment, what does this topic have to do with Americans, and who exactly was supposed to be the target of your tirade?
Yes, lets make up imaginary absurd scenarios, and then make arguments about those instead of what actually happened...
What happened was no different. Google made it easy for anyone to see her laundry.
In the event they were actually doing that I'd probably sue google for some type of harrassment. And I'd probably win.
If Google was singling you out, yeah. But if they were just giving anyone who wanted one a free ride to Japan and driving them around to see the sights, you wouldn’t be able to claim that they were harassing you when their tourists all happened to see your underwear as they drove past.
My recent trip across the ocean begs to differ with you. I assure you, everything I saw seemed to be in perfectly life-like detail while I was there. Including people’s laundry... although I can’t say I noticed any underwear.
And that does even take into account time--you can hang something out for 1 hour to dry, on an early morning, and it'll be online until you request that Google take it down and they process the request, which might take a few days.
FTFY. Hey, if you risk putting it up for 1 hour, you risk it being on the internet for a few days. Live with it, or don’t put it up in the first place.
So? What if Google was giving anyone a free plane ticket to visit her and drive past to see her underwear? What would a sensible response have been for her?
Obviously to take them down. Which Google does, with embarrassing stuff like this, if someone tells them about it and asks them to take it down.
It doesn’t “become” dangerous. It just becomes more easily available.
It’s just the same old argument.
Something is patentable? Okay. New patent doing the same thing but “with a computer”? No, not patentable. Not innovative. Not new. Just an extension of what already existed: making it easier and available to more people.
Something is a crime? Okay. New crime for the same thing but “with a computer”? No, not a new crime. Just the existing crime, done with a computer: making it easier to commit.
Something is publicly available? Okay. Making it available on the internet? Same thing. Not new. Not “becoming” dangerous. Just becoming more available.
In Japan, where streets are small and houses close, people are very used to not looking and not seeing things plainly visible from the street. It would be really rude to stare, and it isn't done.
If the fact that it’s airing up there visible for the world to see doesn’t mean that anybody should be staring at it, neither does the fact that it’s visible on Google Street View.
All of it, as otherwise they're supporting a system where trumped up charges and stacked decks are acceptable.
That’s not bad in principle, but some people live in the real world and would like to still have a life to return to afterward. That doesn’t make them guilty.
I'm genuinely confused that you think failing to deny rape and receiving punishment would be an acceptable outcome for a man that up until now has claimed his innocence.
Assange wouldn’t, I’m sure. But that’s because he’s willing to be a martyr to his cause.
The difference is that this poses as a legitimate URL-shortener so that the people whose computers are attacking the target don’t even realise they’re participating in it.
it's an interesting proof-of-concept that DDoS is no longer bound to botnets
No... it’s a proof-of-concept DDoS that is bound to a new type of botnet. This is performed without the user’s knowledge, which is the definition of a botnet: conscripting someone’s PC without their knowledge or consent.
And we already had DDoS attacks that were not bound to botnets: users voluntarily downloaded and ran the LOIC or various in-browser HTML5 pages exactly like this one, except that they were explicit in their intentions.
In other words, we already had botnets, and we already had HTML5 DDoS tools: this is only new because we never had something that combined both aspects.
In terms of Sharia, not cultural and un-Islamic practices of certain countries, it would be the other way around. Four witness are needed for adultery.
If she’s pregnant, it was obviously either rape or adultery... and how hard do you think it would be for the guy to get 4 male friends to testify that he’d never do such a thing as raping someone and/or give him an alibi against anything the woman claims?
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox uses the Windows system (since you’re obviously on Windows) to render fonts. I suggest you change your font settings under Display Properties, Appearance, Effects. I like ClearType. YMMV. If you turn on ClearType you might also want to tweak the settings with the ClearType tuner.
And IIRC it’s completely different in Win7, and I can only test it on Windows XP right now, so it’s up to you and Google in that case.
It is very common for people to create extensions, sometimes really nice useful ones, and then abandon them.
It’s usually not difficult at all to make them work, though it’s (by design) hidden well enough that you have to look for it.
While Firefox is not running:
%userprofile%\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\*\extensions\
Browse into each extension’s folder one-by-one, open install.rdf in a text editor and read the <em:name> definition near the top until you find the correct extension. Once you find it, just scroll down to the <em:maxVersion> definition, and change to suit. Save, restart Firefox.
IIRC there is also a way to tell Firefox to just ignore maxVersion and run all extensions regardless.
I just wish there was an easier way to track down and uninstall/delete the particular addon/plugin. about:plugins is only slightly helpful – it doesn’t even tell you where the .dll files are located (the plugins.dat file does, but you can’t edit it – it’s automatically generated).
And I have no idea how it even figures out where all of its plugins are located, either... apparently the [HKCU|HKLM]\Software\MozillaPlugins registry keys have something to do with it, as does the %programfiles%\Mozilla Firefox\plugins folder... and that still doesn’t seem to account for all of the plugins.
The URL bar now drops down a list of random URLs that has absolutely no relation to anything I have recently entered manually. What a load of crap.
That would be the History feature, View... By Last Visited. Or by date & site, if you prefer.
Oh, you think that the testimony of the complaining witness doesn't count as evidence? Sounds good to me. Thanks for your wallet and cash. Very nice of you to give it as a gift, particularly at Christmas time.
False analogy. She already gave him her wallet, she just claims she demanded he give it back.
Japan isn’t going to keep living in the same little world it’s been living in for the past 500 years, though. Should the entire world change to suit Japan, or should Japan change to suit the world it lives in? The answer is somewhere in the middle.
And if she wanted the picture removed, Google blurs out or removes embarrassing or offensive street view photos at request.
Yes... then we’d know it’s not actually her underwear, it’s just a stock photograph.
What did that have to do with my comment, what does this topic have to do with Americans, and who exactly was supposed to be the target of your tirade?
Yes, lets make up imaginary absurd scenarios, and then make arguments about those instead of what actually happened...
What happened was no different. Google made it easy for anyone to see her laundry.
In the event they were actually doing that I'd probably sue google for some type of harrassment. And I'd probably win.
If Google was singling you out, yeah. But if they were just giving anyone who wanted one a free ride to Japan and driving them around to see the sights, you wouldn’t be able to claim that they were harassing you when their tourists all happened to see your underwear as they drove past.
My recent trip across the ocean begs to differ with you. I assure you, everything I saw seemed to be in perfectly life-like detail while I was there. Including people’s laundry... although I can’t say I noticed any underwear.
And that does even take into account time--you can hang something out for 1 hour to dry, on an early morning, and it'll be online until you request that Google take it down and they process the request, which might take a few days.
FTFY. Hey, if you risk putting it up for 1 hour, you risk it being on the internet for a few days. Live with it, or don’t put it up in the first place.
So? What if Google was giving anyone a free plane ticket to visit her and drive past to see her underwear? What would a sensible response have been for her?
Obviously to take them down. Which Google does, with embarrassing stuff like this, if someone tells them about it and asks them to take it down.
Most people in the U.S., for example, will never have the opportunity to walk by and see it.
They could if they wanted to, which is the whole point.
It doesn’t “become” dangerous. It just becomes more easily available.
It’s just the same old argument.
Something is patentable? Okay. New patent doing the same thing but “with a computer”? No, not patentable. Not innovative. Not new. Just an extension of what already existed: making it easier and available to more people.
Something is a crime? Okay. New crime for the same thing but “with a computer”? No, not a new crime. Just the existing crime, done with a computer: making it easier to commit.
Something is publicly available? Okay. Making it available on the internet? Same thing. Not new. Not “becoming” dangerous. Just becoming more available.
it wasn't visible to "the world to see", it was visible to neighbours and people walking by
And what was preventing anyone in the world from walking/driving by and seeing it?
No... in both cases, they claimed those things more than a week later with no proof whatsoever to back up the claims.
In Japan, where streets are small and houses close, people are very used to not looking and not seeing things plainly visible from the street. It would be really rude to stare, and it isn't done.
If the fact that it’s airing up there visible for the world to see doesn’t mean that anybody should be staring at it, neither does the fact that it’s visible on Google Street View.
All of it, as otherwise they're supporting a system where trumped up charges and stacked decks are acceptable.
That’s not bad in principle, but some people live in the real world and would like to still have a life to return to afterward. That doesn’t make them guilty.
I'm genuinely confused that you think failing to deny rape and receiving punishment would be an acceptable outcome for a man that up until now has claimed his innocence.
Assange wouldn’t, I’m sure. But that’s because he’s willing to be a martyr to his cause.
Good catch. Slashdot should have posted the photo along with its credit. Shame on you, Slashdot.
And ... damn, I’ve already posted in this discussion.
There's "private". Then there's "public". But then there's "on the Internet", which is a whole different ball of wax.
Not for long. Get used to it... I don’t see the trend changing.
It’s only a proof-of-concept...
The difference is that this poses as a legitimate URL-shortener so that the people whose computers are attacking the target don’t even realise they’re participating in it.
it's an interesting proof-of-concept that DDoS is no longer bound to botnets
No... it’s a proof-of-concept DDoS that is bound to a new type of botnet. This is performed without the user’s knowledge, which is the definition of a botnet: conscripting someone’s PC without their knowledge or consent.
And we already had DDoS attacks that were not bound to botnets: users voluntarily downloaded and ran the LOIC or various in-browser HTML5 pages exactly like this one, except that they were explicit in their intentions.
In other words, we already had botnets, and we already had HTML5 DDoS tools: this is only new because we never had something that combined both aspects.
In terms of Sharia, not cultural and un-Islamic practices of certain countries, it would be the other way around. Four witness are needed for adultery.
If she’s pregnant, it was obviously either rape or adultery... and how hard do you think it would be for the guy to get 4 male friends to testify that he’d never do such a thing as raping someone and/or give him an alibi against anything the woman claims?