At night, I can focus on most things, but am unable to focus on blue LEDs or lights.
Blue LEDs bug my eyes, too (no glasses, no surgeries). My phone has a brightly lit numberpad in blue LEDs that is blurry when I look at it. Basically, bright blue and I don't get along all that well.
Actually, I think it may be ultraviolet that does it. Connecticut had the brilliant idea a while back to have construction signs illuminated with UV light at night (against green lettering). I nearly had an accident the first time I drove by one, looked at it, and was blinded.
And don't even get me started on those annoying blue headlights. Those must drive you nuts now.
You say they ignore requests to opt-out but yet encourage people to opt-out.
Good point. How about: They ignore opt out requests from a large group of people that doesn't want to receive ANYTHING like this, forcing them to all opt-out individually, just to make it more difficult to remove yourself from the list.
Acxiom is certainly not an example of a very good company. Aside from the fact that they were hacked... twice... and had all their data stolen... twice, they are also an unethical marketing company. They purposely ignore opt-out requests from people who want to get out of their lists. In short, their privacy policies suck.
Get out of all of their databases ASAP:
(877) 774-2094
optout@acxiom.com
I have a mental image of a fanatic-piloted sport plane hopping along a runway, frantically trying to get airborne despite the huge black ovoid labelled "ACME BOMB" in bright red letters, before plummeting dramatically off the side of a cliff.
Or Sideshow Bob slooooowwwwwly flying towards the Emergency Broadcast Station in the Wright Brother's plane as a pair of Harriers make chase...
"Prepare to engage enemy." Zoooooooommmmm... "Bogey's airspeed not sufficient for intercept. Suggest we get out and walk."
You do know that the open source doesn't provide any extra guarantees, right? And that, for example, the recent Mozilla security weaknesses were known about (at least in a related form) two years ago but left unfixed? Get off your damn "Open Source R0x0rz" high horse and live in the real world, FFS. Mindless rants like yours do neither the OSS world nor the computer security world any favours.
And you do know that, at the time, it was realized it was a security hole within Microsoft Windows, and the Mozilla folks had decided to avoid trying to maintain a protocol blacklist/whitelist within Mozilla. And that this same "Mozilla weakness" also bit Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger and MS Word right in the ass... proving it to be an issue with Windows, not Mozilla. And that Microsoft has FINALLY issued a patch for this that makes the Mozilla patch unnecessary now. But you knew all that.
Why shouldn't people sue if they believe RedHat dealt with them illegally? Misstating earnings -- deliberately or through error -- damages their investors.
Except in this case, it's just a matter of a change in when they're counting income from subscriptions. If you look at the restatement chart, nothing changes more than a couple cents here and there. In short, the change is a non-issue. The law firm is just being opportunistic and trying to make themselves some cash.
For those that are writing this off, let's remember that 1.0% translates into about 7.9 million users (with 785.7 million total users.) And this probably doesn't include all those users that are faking their useragent string.
Of course, other places have differing numbers. Google Zeitgeist in May 2004 has total IE usage at about 89% and Mozilla usage at about 5% (if you zoom in on the graph and count up some pixels.)
What he's say (albeit in a definite "troll" like way) is that 1% is statistically insignificant in that such a small margin is generally thought to be more likely the normal variation in sampling procedures and techniques. And, he's probably right.
That would apply to a survey, but that doesn't apply hear. These are the *actual* visitors to the websites that WebSideStory tracks. And it has held steady at 95.7% for quite a while.
E.g. who in their right mind accepts credit card orders from Romania, Russia or Indonesia when it is well known that the vast majority of those card numbers are stolen?
Don't forget Nigeria. All of my ecommerce clients are configured to return a "We do not serve this country" message when someone selects Nigeria.
Actually, YOU sound like the guy who hasn't used Firefox. Try surfing around for a while and it bloats up like a little piggie. I currently have 2 tabs open and it's using about 70M. (No big deal here, but it's a problem for some.)
Mine usually hovers around 35, even with 8 tabs open. Sure you have 0.9? There were some memory leaks in earlier versions. Or are you using the Mac version (which still has some leaks).
There may still be a slow memory leak, but I've been browsing more sporadically since installing 0.9, so no long sessions of the browser being up for 10 hours, so I wouldn't notice a slow leak.
2) Mozilla was a real resource HOG the last I checked. Bloatware. StarOffice was bloatware too - a bit more bloat than MS Office, but less features (OK no clippy/doggie = good ). I doubt OpenOffice is less bloaty than StarOffice.
You must not have tried Firefox then. A fresh launch of IE and Firefox to msn.com as their 1st page yielded memory usage of 26Mb and 22Mb respectively. Similar with other sites like Yahoo!
If you're talking about the Mozilla suite, then you really have to compare it to having IE and Outlook Express running. And even the suite has improved greatly in terms of footprint and speed.
This is silly! I know what CERT is, I visit it often (and, BTW, I have *NEVER* been infected by a virus or "adware"), but I use I.E.
For users who know what they're doing, IE is just as safe as anything else. I run my system behing a hardware firewall,which blocks all incoming connections, and I set my preferences to NEVER allow ActiveX to be installed.
Of course, that wouldn't have protected me against this latest threat!
Right, which means you are STILL vulnerable, right now, to this exploit in IE, which any website can do. So, how does that make IE just as safe as anything else?
The only way to use IE and be safe from the current vulnerability is to disable Javascript. Disabling Java and ActiveX won't help.
I agree with most of your post, but I don't agree with your opinion that Fox News is "certainly conservative" -- at best, the opinion is debatable; at worst, it's wrong.
No doubt, it is more conservative (at certain times of the day) than other networks, but that's only because they actually report the news stories that support the president's administration while all the other networks nearly always refuse to run them. But Fox News criticizes the administration and other Republican interests when events warrant it.
Of all the major networks, the viewers of Fox had a far greater proportion who believe that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq and that this was FACT and had been reported on the news. Of course, there were no WMDs found, but Fox viewers don't know that. Shouldn't that tell you something?
the mozilla spam filter does a very good job too, when it learns enough it becomes over 95% acurate. i dropped evolution for it , and never looked back
Personally, I've found the Mozilla filter ineffective. Even with Thunderbird 0.7, training data reset, freshly trained on 5000 messages, I only see around 60 to 70%. Spambayes gives me far greater than 90%. Even though Mozilla's algorithms have improved greatly, its tokenizer still needs improvement.
I'd be very happy if everyone could get their act together and reject undeliverable addresses during the SMTP transaction. Delayed bounces are responsible for most of the backscatter which pollutes my mailboxes and logs these days.
Don't forget that any cheesy-ass server that's configured to bounce after-the-fact can easily by used by anyone to perform a distributed mailbomb on any email address they like. Just send to a slew of non-existant addresses on a few of the above-mentioned servers.
I found that 0.7 is much more buggy than 0.5... at least on win32, the new mail notification in the taskbar is broken (no icon), enigmail does not work anymore, cross imap server moving of email did stop working...
At least for me a huge step backwards from 0.5:(
You need to do a completely fresh install of 0.7. Lots of stuff changed. The entire extension system is different, so you need to install the updated enigmail. Cross-IMAP server moves work fine (just did one). And the tray icon for mail notificatiions is sitting in my systray right now.
Currently staying with Netscape 7 (minus the editor and mail client) until Firefox reaches 1.0 at least... one thing I find rather annoying is the lack of a "new tab" button like NS7 has, on the left of the tabstrip. I use that a lot! In Firefox I have to right click on the tabstrip and select the menu item. Bah! Other than that and a slight differnece in initial loading times, NS7 seems to be just as good in every other aspect... at least for now.
You have two options:
1. You can right-click the toolbar, customize it and drag the new tab button onto the toolbar wherever you'd like.
2. You can install the Basics 1.0 extension which will give you the new tab button to the left of your tablist. It won't appear when there is only one tab, though.
Well, that's three Win2K! Mozilla always worked well, Firefox worked like a charm until the 0.9RC. What can I say?
Did you setup new profiles just for 0.9RC and install to a new directory? Extensions change majorly in 0.9 (to the point that all need to be updated) and running 0.9 with an old profile can cause some big problems.
Ok, let's start with page 5 of the LinuxWindowsSecurity.pdf. It states:
Responsiveness: On average, Microsoft had a fix available 25 days after a security issue was publicly disclosed.
That's from public disclosure... NOT from discovery. On page 4, we see a graph that states that the time between the discovery of the vulnerability and the disclosure of the vulnerability is a timeperiod of "theoretical vulnerability to exploit". Um, excuse me? Are you serious?
Anyone want to claim that the timeperiod that the iLookup toolbar was exploiting the latest problem in IE before the news broke about it is theoretical?
And does anybody else remember a few vulnerabilities that Microsoft sat on for months, insisting the discoverers don't mention it, before they got off their ass and patched them?
I had Firefox 0.7 and Thunderbird 0.5 (I think those are right, it was the end of Jan/start of Feb when I did it) running off a USB memory stick for a uni course at the start of the year. It worked sweetly and it was so nice getting away from IE and back to tabbed browsing in the lab. I don't recall anything tricky to setting it up at the time, except maybe the creation of the profile, but that wasn't hard.
This is true. Since, Firefox (or Mozilla) was a ZIP download and installed nothing in odd locations, you could run it from a drive. The issue was the profile, which would have to be created on each new PC, manually copy your bookmarks, etc. What 0.9 added was a commandline switch to use a specific profile with a relative path. This package makes use of this new switch. Now, all your bookmarks, history, saved passwords, etc are portable, as well as the browser itself.
For anyone who's interested, Firefox 0.9 now supports the ability to run from a USB key without any major changes AND be able to take your entire profile with you. I've repackaged the Firefox 0.9 Release Candidate as a ZIP that will create an 8.1Mb install of Firefox on your USB key, complete with a built-in profile. Full details of the changes (if you're curious, or so you can try it yourself) as well as a ZIP are available here:
Slashdot Mirror
At night, I can focus on most things, but am unable to focus on blue LEDs or lights.
Blue LEDs bug my eyes, too (no glasses, no surgeries). My phone has a brightly lit numberpad in blue LEDs that is blurry when I look at it. Basically, bright blue and I don't get along all that well.
Actually, I think it may be ultraviolet that does it. Connecticut had the brilliant idea a while back to have construction signs illuminated with UV light at night (against green lettering). I nearly had an accident the first time I drove by one, looked at it, and was blinded.
And don't even get me started on those annoying blue headlights. Those must drive you nuts now.
You say they ignore requests to opt-out but yet encourage people to opt-out.
Good point. How about: They ignore opt out requests from a large group of people that doesn't want to receive ANYTHING like this, forcing them to all opt-out individually, just to make it more difficult to remove yourself from the list.
Acxiom is certainly not an example of a very good company. Aside from the fact that they were hacked... twice... and had all their data stolen... twice, they are also an unethical marketing company. They purposely ignore opt-out requests from people who want to get out of their lists. In short, their privacy policies suck.
Get out of all of their databases ASAP:
(877) 774-2094
optout@acxiom.com
I have a mental image of a fanatic-piloted sport plane hopping along a runway, frantically trying to get airborne despite the huge black ovoid labelled "ACME BOMB" in bright red letters, before plummeting dramatically off the side of a cliff.
Or Sideshow Bob slooooowwwwwly flying towards the Emergency Broadcast Station in the Wright Brother's plane as a pair of Harriers make chase...
"Prepare to engage enemy." Zoooooooommmmm... "Bogey's airspeed not sufficient for intercept. Suggest we get out and walk."
You do know that the open source doesn't provide any extra guarantees, right? And that, for example, the recent Mozilla security weaknesses were known about (at least in a related form) two years ago but left unfixed? Get off your damn "Open Source R0x0rz" high horse and live in the real world, FFS. Mindless rants like yours do neither the OSS world nor the computer security world any favours.
And you do know that, at the time, it was realized it was a security hole within Microsoft Windows, and the Mozilla folks had decided to avoid trying to maintain a protocol blacklist/whitelist within Mozilla. And that this same "Mozilla weakness" also bit Internet Explorer, MSN Messenger and MS Word right in the ass... proving it to be an issue with Windows, not Mozilla. And that Microsoft has FINALLY issued a patch for this that makes the Mozilla patch unnecessary now. But you knew all that.
Why shouldn't people sue if they believe RedHat dealt with them illegally? Misstating earnings -- deliberately or through error -- damages their investors.
Except in this case, it's just a matter of a change in when they're counting income from subscriptions. If you look at the restatement chart, nothing changes more than a couple cents here and there. In short, the change is a non-issue. The law firm is just being opportunistic and trying to make themselves some cash.
For those that are writing this off, let's remember that 1.0% translates into about 7.9 million users (with 785.7 million total users.) And this probably doesn't include all those users that are faking their useragent string.
Of course, other places have differing numbers. Google Zeitgeist in May 2004 has total IE usage at about 89% and Mozilla usage at about 5% (if you zoom in on the graph and count up some pixels.)
What he's say (albeit in a definite "troll" like way) is that 1% is statistically insignificant in that such a small margin is generally thought to be more likely the normal variation in sampling procedures and techniques. And, he's probably right.
That would apply to a survey, but that doesn't apply hear. These are the *actual* visitors to the websites that WebSideStory tracks. And it has held steady at 95.7% for quite a while.
0.9 kept telling me to upgrade to 0.9. Now 0.9.1 keeps telling me to upgrade to 0.9.
Have you tried upgrading to 0.9?
E.g. who in their right mind accepts credit card orders from Romania, Russia or Indonesia when it is well known that the vast majority of those card numbers are stolen?
Don't forget Nigeria. All of my ecommerce clients are configured to return a "We do not serve this country" message when someone selects Nigeria.
Actually, YOU sound like the guy who hasn't used Firefox. Try surfing around for a while and it bloats up like a little piggie. I currently have 2 tabs open and it's using about 70M. (No big deal here, but it's a problem for some.)
Mine usually hovers around 35, even with 8 tabs open. Sure you have 0.9? There were some memory leaks in earlier versions. Or are you using the Mac version (which still has some leaks).
There may still be a slow memory leak, but I've been browsing more sporadically since installing 0.9, so no long sessions of the browser being up for 10 hours, so I wouldn't notice a slow leak.
2) Mozilla was a real resource HOG the last I checked. Bloatware. StarOffice was bloatware too - a bit more bloat than MS Office, but less features (OK no clippy/doggie = good ). I doubt OpenOffice is less bloaty than StarOffice.
You must not have tried Firefox then. A fresh launch of IE and Firefox to msn.com as their 1st page yielded memory usage of 26Mb and 22Mb respectively. Similar with other sites like Yahoo!
If you're talking about the Mozilla suite, then you really have to compare it to having IE and Outlook Express running. And even the suite has improved greatly in terms of footprint and speed.
This is silly! I know what CERT is, I visit it often (and, BTW, I have *NEVER* been infected by a virus or "adware"), but I use I.E.
For users who know what they're doing, IE is just as safe as anything else. I run my system behing a hardware firewall,which blocks all incoming connections, and I set my preferences to NEVER allow ActiveX to be installed.
Of course, that wouldn't have protected me against this latest threat!
Right, which means you are STILL vulnerable, right now, to this exploit in IE, which any website can do. So, how does that make IE just as safe as anything else?
The only way to use IE and be safe from the current vulnerability is to disable Javascript. Disabling Java and ActiveX won't help.
My piece, written for the non-techie masses, on why they should consider other browsers:
For the curious, here is the correct link.
I agree with most of your post, but I don't agree with your opinion that Fox News is "certainly conservative" -- at best, the opinion is debatable; at worst, it's wrong.
No doubt, it is more conservative (at certain times of the day) than other networks, but that's only because they actually report the news stories that support the president's administration while all the other networks nearly always refuse to run them. But Fox News criticizes the administration and other Republican interests when events warrant it.
Of all the major networks, the viewers of Fox had a far greater proportion who believe that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq and that this was FACT and had been reported on the news. Of course, there were no WMDs found, but Fox viewers don't know that. Shouldn't that tell you something?
the mozilla spam filter does a very good job too, when it learns enough it becomes over 95% acurate. i dropped evolution for it , and never looked back
Personally, I've found the Mozilla filter ineffective. Even with Thunderbird 0.7, training data reset, freshly trained on 5000 messages, I only see around 60 to 70%. Spambayes gives me far greater than 90%. Even though Mozilla's algorithms have improved greatly, its tokenizer still needs improvement.
I'd be very happy if everyone could get their act together and reject undeliverable addresses during the SMTP transaction. Delayed bounces are responsible for most of the backscatter which pollutes my mailboxes and logs these days.
Don't forget that any cheesy-ass server that's configured to bounce after-the-fact can easily by used by anyone to perform a distributed mailbomb on any email address they like. Just send to a slew of non-existant addresses on a few of the above-mentioned servers.
I found that 0.7 is much more buggy than 0.5 ... at least on win32, the new mail notification in the taskbar is broken (no icon), enigmail does not work anymore, cross imap server moving of email did stop working ...
:(
At least for me a huge step backwards from 0.5
You need to do a completely fresh install of 0.7. Lots of stuff changed. The entire extension system is different, so you need to install the updated enigmail. Cross-IMAP server moves work fine (just did one). And the tray icon for mail notificatiions is sitting in my systray right now.
The installation instructions should really be followed for the latest version!
I occasionally startup the suite for page editing (usually I just use vim), and I always use Thunderbird for mail.
If you like the old Mozilla page editor, head over to Nvu for its successor: nvu.com.
Currently staying with Netscape 7 (minus the editor and mail client) until Firefox reaches 1.0 at least... one thing I find rather annoying is the lack of a "new tab" button like NS7 has, on the left of the tabstrip. I use that a lot! In Firefox I have to right click on the tabstrip and select the menu item. Bah! Other than that and a slight differnece in initial loading times, NS7 seems to be just as good in every other aspect... at least for now.
You have two options:
1. You can right-click the toolbar, customize it and drag the new tab button onto the toolbar wherever you'd like.
2. You can install the Basics 1.0 extension which will give you the new tab button to the left of your tablist. It won't appear when there is only one tab, though.
Well, that's three Win2K! Mozilla always worked well, Firefox worked like a charm until the 0.9RC. What can I say?
Did you setup new profiles just for 0.9RC and install to a new directory? Extensions change majorly in 0.9 (to the point that all need to be updated) and running 0.9 with an old profile can cause some big problems.
Ok, let's start with page 5 of the LinuxWindowsSecurity.pdf. It states:
Responsiveness: On average, Microsoft had a fix available 25 days after a security issue was publicly disclosed.
That's from public disclosure... NOT from discovery. On page 4, we see a graph that states that the time between the discovery of the vulnerability and the disclosure of the vulnerability is a timeperiod of "theoretical vulnerability to exploit". Um, excuse me? Are you serious?
Anyone want to claim that the timeperiod that the iLookup toolbar was exploiting the latest problem in IE before the news broke about it is theoretical?
And does anybody else remember a few vulnerabilities that Microsoft sat on for months, insisting the discoverers don't mention it, before they got off their ass and patched them?
Responsiveness my ass!
I had Firefox 0.7 and Thunderbird 0.5 (I think those are right, it was the end of Jan/start of Feb when I did it) running off a USB memory stick for a uni course at the start of the year. It worked sweetly and it was so nice getting away from IE and back to tabbed browsing in the lab. I don't recall anything tricky to setting it up at the time, except maybe the creation of the profile, but that wasn't hard.
This is true. Since, Firefox (or Mozilla) was a ZIP download and installed nothing in odd locations, you could run it from a drive. The issue was the profile, which would have to be created on each new PC, manually copy your bookmarks, etc. What 0.9 added was a commandline switch to use a specific profile with a relative path. This package makes use of this new switch. Now, all your bookmarks, history, saved passwords, etc are portable, as well as the browser itself.
For anyone who's interested, Firefox 0.9 now supports the ability to run from a USB key without any major changes AND be able to take your entire profile with you. I've repackaged the Firefox 0.9 Release Candidate as a ZIP that will create an 8.1Mb install of Firefox on your USB key, complete with a built-in profile. Full details of the changes (if you're curious, or so you can try it yourself) as well as a ZIP are available here:
/
http://johnhaller.com/jh/mozilla/portable_firefox
Any commentary or questions on this new feature can be addresses in this thread on mozillaZine.
unless you absolutely NEED to play UT2k4 at 1600x1200 with 4xAA and 8xAF
Pfff. I can do that with a 2-year-old Radeon 9700 PRO on an Athlon 2200. UT2k4 isn't all that taxing.
Yea, but not at 45 FPS. The 9700 Pro on an Athlon 64 3400+ can only manage 16.5 FPS at that resolution & quality.