If such a thing existed, the bandwidth and such limitations would probably be in the direct part of the interface (the stuff that is wet), not in the hardware that helps it connect up to a computer.
Someone, I think it was Colbert, nailed Palin recently, they showed a pie chart with (something like) 28% of Americans thinking it would be great to have Sarah Palin run for president, and then the remaining 72% thinking it was hilarious.
You may not be using it wrong, but you seem to have poor luck, the instance of Firefox I am typing this in has 4 open windows, 20 or 30 tabs and has accumulated about 86 hours of cpu time since I launched it (September 26th), and it is still only using about 600 megabytes of private memory, after peaking at about 1.1 gigabytes (this is with FF 3.5.2 on a reasonably up to date XP; I should probably restart things soon in order to pick up recent security updates...).
My usual guess is that flash is what is causing your problems; if you haven't already, maybe try something like flashblock.
Yeah, I know, I don't really care that people were pissed off about it so I mostly focus on pointing out that they are getting the technical details wrong.
Well, if your password is something like "And if your password is made up of dictionary words, or simple combinations thereof, you're just plain fuct." you are probably okay.
It used to be possible to drag and drop an xpi to install it, but I have no idea if this works in recent versions. Remove addons.mozilla.org from the add-ons whitelist and you get most of the other half (the mechanism isn't quite disabled, but you shouldn't ever see an install popup, just a warning dropdown; the whitelist is accessed using the 'Exceptions...' button next to the 'Warn me when sites try to install add-ons' check box on the Security panel of the options dialog).
I just tried dragging and dropping an xpi, and it at least initiated the install process (but I canceled after that).
My main point was to make it clear to the first poster that any such damage that does occur is not trivially reversible, not to worry about whether or not anyone is getting frozen or not.
Why? It doesn't increase the damage that a malicious component can do, in any way (hell, a malicious component could offer the C-types support itself).
Firefox has lots of technical users, but still, the majority of Firefox users at this point are non-technical, and they don't particularly care that Microsoft installed a thing in their browser that makes stuff work.
It's an artifact of supporting system wide extension installation, rather than per user. Microsoft probably should have used per user installation of the plugin (even though.NET is arguably a system wide update). Removing the support is probably overkill, as I imagine it is useful in managed environments.
Actually, even if Firefox kept an encrypted store of what DLLs it had told the user about, there really isn't any way to prevent a malicious program from simply replicating the code used to create the store, so it would be pretty hard to always notify the user.
Google update is initiated here on my system (it looks like it is intended to facilitate installing updates to Google software while using Firefox, I would be surprised if it was doing anything nefarious):
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MozillaPlugins
I guess the DRM plugins are loaded because Firefox treats the Windows Media Player directory as a plug-in directory, by default:
Those components were installed by editing the Windows registry, not 'dropped in' as is discussed here (Firefox looks in various locations to find plug-ins and addons to load).
Slashdot Mirror
If such a thing existed, the bandwidth and such limitations would probably be in the direct part of the interface (the stuff that is wet), not in the hardware that helps it connect up to a computer.
I meant that they accurately and succinctly characterized her political prospects, not sexual intercourse.
Well, I only spent $40 on ram and yet I still have 500 megabytes free, so the 600 MB really isn't that big a deal to me.
Well, I dislike her style. Intensely.
Someone, I think it was Colbert, nailed Palin recently, they showed a pie chart with (something like) 28% of Americans thinking it would be great to have Sarah Palin run for president, and then the remaining 72% thinking it was hilarious.
You may not be using it wrong, but you seem to have poor luck, the instance of Firefox I am typing this in has 4 open windows, 20 or 30 tabs and has accumulated about 86 hours of cpu time since I launched it (September 26th), and it is still only using about 600 megabytes of private memory, after peaking at about 1.1 gigabytes (this is with FF 3.5.2 on a reasonably up to date XP; I should probably restart things soon in order to pick up recent security updates...).
My usual guess is that flash is what is causing your problems; if you haven't already, maybe try something like flashblock.
Tracfone is a subsidiary of the 4th largest mobile operator in the world.
Hilariously, it was another employee at the newspaper that deleted the first comment.
You are like some kind of god damned cartoon.
You don't have to get into a discussion of rights, the situation described is a tiresome overreaction regardless of any of that.
Precomputed against what?
Yeah, I know, I don't really care that people were pissed off about it so I mostly focus on pointing out that they are getting the technical details wrong.
Well, if your password is something like "And if your password is made up of dictionary words, or simple combinations thereof, you're just plain fuct." you are probably okay.
It used to be possible to drag and drop an xpi to install it, but I have no idea if this works in recent versions. Remove addons.mozilla.org from the add-ons whitelist and you get most of the other half (the mechanism isn't quite disabled, but you shouldn't ever see an install popup, just a warning dropdown; the whitelist is accessed using the 'Exceptions...' button next to the 'Warn me when sites try to install add-ons' check box on the Security panel of the options dialog).
I just tried dragging and dropping an xpi, and it at least initiated the install process (but I canceled after that).
Any decent privacy agreement should survive the transfer of the information, they only have to be concerned if they signed a really bad contract.
My main point was to make it clear to the first poster that any such damage that does occur is not trivially reversible, not to worry about whether or not anyone is getting frozen or not.
Do you have a pointer to more info?
Why? It doesn't increase the damage that a malicious component can do, in any way (hell, a malicious component could offer the C-types support itself).
Firefox has lots of technical users, but still, the majority of Firefox users at this point are non-technical, and they don't particularly care that Microsoft installed a thing in their browser that makes stuff work.
It's an artifact of supporting system wide extension installation, rather than per user. Microsoft probably should have used per user installation of the plugin (even though .NET is arguably a system wide update). Removing the support is probably overkill, as I imagine it is useful in managed environments.
You can make it less promiscuous:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plugin_scanning
(but a virus could just edit or blow away your settings, so it isn't a complete fix)
Actually, even if Firefox kept an encrypted store of what DLLs it had told the user about, there really isn't any way to prevent a malicious program from simply replicating the code used to create the store, so it would be pretty hard to always notify the user.
Google update is initiated here on my system (it looks like it is intended to facilitate installing updates to Google software while using Firefox, I would be surprised if it was doing anything nefarious):
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\MozillaPlugins
I guess the DRM plugins are loaded because Firefox treats the Windows Media Player directory as a plug-in directory, by default:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plugin_scanning
I don't know, people mostly criticized UAC for being ineffective, and it is at least similar in spirit.
I take it you don't care about getting accepted by addons.mozilla.org?
Those components were installed by editing the Windows registry, not 'dropped in' as is discussed here (Firefox looks in various locations to find plug-ins and addons to load).