Step Four: In the Customize Toolbar window will be two boxes full of items. Use the scroolbar to browse the contents of the right-most box and look for the button that says "BACK". Highlight the "BACK" button item.
Step Six: Press the REMOVE button between the left and right item boxes.
Your browser should now be immune to this exploit. Share and Enjoy.
I'd assume that pressing "alt-back" on the keyboard, or choosing "Back" from the menus, would still cause the same vulnerability...
I suppose I shouldn't post unless I know for sure, but I believe the current theory is that the lower gravity is caused by the fact that the earth is not a perfect sphere, nor of a consistent density.
That's part of the effect, but the effect of the earth's rotation is more important. As the Earth spins, objects on its surface have to continally accelerate inward (to the Earth's center) to avoid flying off into space. At the equator, this is a large effect, but near the poles there is very little motion (think of the edge and center of a top) so the effect is much smaller.
Gravity, of course, provides this acceleration - part of the gravitational field keeps you from flying away, and the rest (99% of it) holds you against the ground. At the poles all 100% presses you to the ground, so you feel what seems to be a stronger gravitational field.
I'm sure my address gets harvested sometimes, but I never get more than 1 or 2 spams a week, even though my address is shown in plain text. Bots which find my site always follow the link, harvest lots and lots of fake e-mail addresses, and get literally thousands of bounced messages! Most spammers' servers can't hold up against that kind of self-inflicted spam attack.
Games can engross people when they're really there to listen to presentaitons. If Sony has a bunch of games to play, its not fair to the other exhibitors trying to sell actual products.
So people decide to play PlayStation games instead of trying out other products.
If those who play Sony games plan to buy PlayStations later on, then Sony is just marketing its product to potential customers, like every other company.
If those who play Sony games do not plan to buy PlayStations, then Sony is wasting its money by coming the show. It sure isn't taking business from other companies, because Sony won't be making any sales in the first place!
The difference between the two voyages of discovery was that for the Chinese, their motive was altruistic: to discover the world and share their civilization with others. For the Europeans, their motive was greed.
You really think the Chinese emperors were such good, moral people? No, their interests were just as strongly economic, but America simply contained nothing China needed or wanted. While Spaniards and Portuguese were scouring the Americas in search of silver and gold (not by coincidence, Columbus' journey was inspired by Marco Polo's tale of imperial China), the Chinese were bullying smaller states around the Indian Ocean rim into paying tribute. America, lacking in precious minerals and fragrant herbs, simply was of no interest to the Chinese. It was of interest, though, to a growing European population that demanded space and raw materials.
We remember Columbus better than any Chinese explorer for the same reason that we remember Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone, though Elisha Gray had build one earlier (but missed Bell's patent by a few hours).
I always thought that it was interesting how the United States can allow abortion (the killing of an unborn embryo) but not embryo cloning/harvesting (the killing of an unborn embryo), especially since embryo cloning can bring some good. While I remain pro-life myself, I could never quite understand this hypocrisy.
The left wing supports abortion as a women's issue, so abortion is legal.
The right wing opposes abortion and embryo cloning as life issues. But it can't win all the battles, so while embryo cloning has been made illegal, abortion has not.
So if Microsoft sales decrease, federal tax income will decrease as well?
Yes, in the sense that taxes from Microsoft will decrease. But because every other company in the world will stop paying Microsoft for software, saving themselves bundles of money, each of those companies will pay more taxes. Overall, the tax gain from these companies will be greater than the loss from Microsoft alone.
In other words, if people stop having to pay Microsoft for their software, the economy will become more efficient. If the economy becomes more efficient, there will be more "wealth" in circulation. With more "wealth" out there, the government gets to collect more taxes. A win-win situation for everyone... outside Redmond.
France, for example, could pass laws giving the domain names of Anti-nazi violaters to the state or whatever and end thier whole case against Yahoo.com quick as can be
Wrong. Just like in the first Yahoo/France case, the court would rule that no law (American or foreign) can override constitutional guarantees - then the freedom of speech; now due process as well as speech. (Because a domain name is a kind of financial resource.)
114 degrees is not hot enough to melt most materials used for clothing. Do you think the manufacturer didn't consider liability when developing the product?
114 degrees when in contact with what? That's the question. I suspect they're talking about a person's body, not the open air.
What happens if you turn the jacket "on" when nobody's wearing it? This thing must generate lots of heat in a small amount of time. My chem lab experience make me think the jacket might start to melt or burn...
[quote] Some major FCC rules about media ownership were ruled as "arbitrary"
This is great news. There are thousands of arbitrary laws on the books that must now be repealed. Let's start with this one: in my state, you can't buy beer on Sundays before noon. What's up with that? Why not Tuesdays 2-6 p.m.?[/quote]
Because your state government can make pretty much any law they want, but the FCC (which is just an agency and not a legislature) can only carry out what Congress has told it to do, and then only through non-"arbitrary" rules.
If this really becomes a problem, we can vaporize the Himalayas with hydrogen bombs. Problem solved.
Just think of how much debris that would throw into the air. As with volcanic eruptions, it might actually increase global warming, melting more ice and changing angular momentum even more.
...why not create a small nuclear reactor and put it in an unmanned drone aircraft.
And what if it gets shot down?
The U.S. is already getting enough flak for using (harmless) depleted uranium. What if the "real stuff" got out somewhere over a crowded Asian country?
I've seen kids use a calculator to add 50 to 50.
Nah, I'd have to say that the stuff about calculators ruining people's math abilities is a bunch of hype. I mean, I don't have my TI-89 with its Computer Algebra System on me, but it doesn't take a calculator to tell me the answer to that is 200.
Are you crazy? It's 2500!
Seems to me that this only applies to the volume licenses. Any company large enough to require a volume license will almost certainly have some manner of firewall. If they have a hole large enough for MS to get in to do things like this, they have bigger problems than someone just scanning thier Windows versions.
But, because the license gives Microsoft the right to look at your computer, it is illegal to block whatever searches they choose to do.
Ah, hmmm. Right, there was no art, books or music created before there was copyright.
The first copyright law was passed in 1710 in England. The first English novel, Pamela, was published in 1740, and in the middle of the 18th century an explosion of novels, self-help books, and other mass-produced books occurred. Before 1700, the most common books were religious texts like the Bible and "The Pilgrim's Progress", not independent works of art. Shakespeare's plays were meant to be performed; he never thought of selling the manuscripts. And until recently, it was next to impossible to reproduce paintings or sculpture, so no copyright was needed for art. Is it a coincidence that creative activity for the masses did not begin until after copyright laws were enacted?
BTW, did you know that the US did not abide by international copyrights until late in the 19th century. Just like China is doing today.
Wrong. Look at Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution (1789):
"The Congress shall have the power...
...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries..."
The concept of "fair use", with its limitations, dates to 1841.
I think everyone who's posted so far is missing the point of the ruling, and for that matter, the US legal system in general.
Did anyone count the number of times the opinion used the word "reasonable"? I didn't, but I know the word was mentioned at least once, and is mentioned over and over in practically any precedent-setting case in the upper courts.
A 64x48 thumbnail is "reasonable" use because it does not have the decorative value of a 1600x1200 image. Nobody would think of using the 64x48 image as a desktop background. Anyone who likes the thumbnail will click the link for the whole picture - and submit to advertising, payments, whatever the original owner wants.
A 1599x1199 "thumbnail" is obviously unreasonable. Almost all the information is still there. The "thumbnail" is still useful for everything the original image is useful for. A site with this "thumbnail" would directly take some of the advertising/fees/other profit the original poster would otherwise get. So small thumbnails like those in the case are legal, while larger variations of the image are not.
Including the image in your page through a HTML "img" tag has the same effect (to each person involved) as keeping and using a local, exact copy of the image. Here the "reasonableness" of the law comes into play again. You're not allowed to use technological tricks (like calling remote images) to get around what is clearly illegal (like copying the image to your server). That may conform to the law as written, but it is "unreasonable" and any court in the country will rule against you in cases like this.[1]
Copyright law must balance the value of letting people to do whatever they want with information with the value of giving artists incentive to create content. If copyright holders hold too much power, people won't be able to use content in beneficial ways. If copyright law did not exist, nobody would put effort into creating new books/software/art, and many useful things would not exist. The current system (like most civil law) is designed to produce the most economically beneficient balance, which in this case is somewhere between the two extremes.
It may be that current US copyright law does not favor the economically best outcome - that the balance has swung too stongly in favor of copyright holders, to the detriment of everyone else. I happen to believe this, as apparently do most/. readers. But it is the legislature's job to fix this. The courts can only apply existing law, and here they have done a very... well, "reasonable" job of it.
[1] See cases relating to the 4th amendment for a good example.
Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't AOL choose to license the Linux AIM client under the LGPL? AOL will never make money off Linux software (VERY few companies ever have and then only by monopolizing some sort of large application), so why wouldn't AOL want to increase the penetration of whatever software it makes as much as possible?
Exactly. Israel's been continually at war for so long that anything not related to bombs in Jerusalem or the anthrax missiles from Iraq is basically ignored. So organized crime, software prostitution, and software piracy all tend to flourish.
Slashdot Mirror
Step Four: In the Customize Toolbar window will be two boxes full of items. Use the scroolbar to browse the contents of the right-most box and look for the button that says "BACK". Highlight the "BACK" button item.
Step Six: Press the REMOVE button between the left and right item boxes.
Your browser should now be immune to this exploit. Share and Enjoy.
I'd assume that pressing "alt-back" on the keyboard, or choosing "Back" from the menus, would still cause the same vulnerability...
Or am I missing something?
------: SmarterChild, i want to have sex with you
SmarterChild: With a human? Forget it!
------: what is your bra size?
SmarterChild: My bra size? I'm not sure if I want to tell you my bra size.
------: SmarterChild, please fuck me
SmarterChild: Whoa. I haven't heard language like that since the last Chris Rock special.
I suppose I shouldn't post unless I know for sure, but I believe the current theory is that the lower gravity is caused by the fact that the earth is not a perfect sphere, nor of a consistent density.
That's part of the effect, but the effect of the earth's rotation is more important. As the Earth spins, objects on its surface have to continally accelerate inward (to the Earth's center) to avoid flying off into space. At the equator, this is a large effect, but near the poles there is very little motion (think of the edge and center of a top) so the effect is much smaller.
Gravity, of course, provides this acceleration - part of the gravitational field keeps you from flying away, and the rest (99% of it) holds you against the ground. At the poles all 100% presses you to the ground, so you feel what seems to be a stronger gravitational field.
1.In the Windows Control Panel, select an option called "Add/Remove Programs." One of the options will be "b3d Projector."
What kind of geek would need a projector in bed?
I find it important that people reading my website can respond back to me.
On each of my sites I put a link to http://www.towerofbabel.com/antispam/
I'm sure my address gets harvested sometimes, but I never get more than 1 or 2 spams a week, even though my address is shown in plain text. Bots which find my site always follow the link, harvest lots and lots of fake e-mail addresses, and get literally thousands of bounced messages! Most spammers' servers can't hold up against that kind of self-inflicted spam attack.
Games can engross people when they're really there to listen to presentaitons. If Sony has a bunch of games to play, its not fair to the other exhibitors trying to sell actual products.
So people decide to play PlayStation games instead of trying out other products.
If those who play Sony games plan to buy PlayStations later on, then Sony is just marketing its product to potential customers, like every other company.
If those who play Sony games do not plan to buy PlayStations, then Sony is wasting its money by coming the show. It sure isn't taking business from other companies, because Sony won't be making any sales in the first place!
Where's the conflict?
Running programs have a small black triangle underneath them
I'm just waiting for the first joke going something like "my girlfriend has a small black triangle too"...
The difference between the two voyages of discovery was that for the Chinese, their motive was altruistic: to discover the world and share their civilization with others. For the Europeans, their motive was greed.
You really think the Chinese emperors were such good, moral people? No, their interests were just as strongly economic, but America simply contained nothing China needed or wanted. While Spaniards and Portuguese were scouring the Americas in search of silver and gold (not by coincidence, Columbus' journey was inspired by Marco Polo's tale of imperial China), the Chinese were bullying smaller states around the Indian Ocean rim into paying tribute. America, lacking in precious minerals and fragrant herbs, simply was of no interest to the Chinese. It was of interest, though, to a growing European population that demanded space and raw materials.
We remember Columbus better than any Chinese explorer for the same reason that we remember Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone, though Elisha Gray had build one earlier (but missed Bell's patent by a few hours).
I always thought that it was interesting how the United States can allow abortion (the killing of an unborn embryo) but not embryo cloning/harvesting (the killing of an unborn embryo), especially since embryo cloning can bring some good. While I remain pro-life myself, I could never quite understand this hypocrisy.
The left wing supports abortion as a women's issue, so abortion is legal.
The right wing opposes abortion and embryo cloning as life issues. But it can't win all the battles, so while embryo cloning has been made illegal, abortion has not.
So if Microsoft sales decrease, federal tax income will decrease as well?
Yes, in the sense that taxes from Microsoft will decrease. But because every other company in the world will stop paying Microsoft for software, saving themselves bundles of money, each of those companies will pay more taxes. Overall, the tax gain from these companies will be greater than the loss from Microsoft alone.
In other words, if people stop having to pay Microsoft for their software, the economy will become more efficient. If the economy becomes more efficient, there will be more "wealth" in circulation. With more "wealth" out there, the government gets to collect more taxes. A win-win situation for everyone... outside Redmond.
France, for example, could pass laws giving the domain names of Anti-nazi violaters to the state or whatever and end thier whole case against Yahoo.com quick as can be
Wrong. Just like in the first Yahoo/France case, the court would rule that no law (American or foreign) can override constitutional guarantees - then the freedom of speech; now due process as well as speech. (Because a domain name is a kind of financial resource.)
114 degrees is not hot enough to melt most materials used for clothing. Do you think the manufacturer didn't consider liability when developing the product?
114 degrees when in contact with what? That's the question. I suspect they're talking about a person's body, not the open air.
What happens if you turn the jacket "on" when nobody's wearing it? This thing must generate lots of heat in a small amount of time. My chem lab experience make me think the jacket might start to melt or burn...
[quote]
Some major FCC rules about media ownership were ruled as "arbitrary"
This is great news. There are thousands of arbitrary laws on the books that must now be repealed. Let's start with this one: in my state, you can't buy beer on Sundays before noon. What's up with that? Why not Tuesdays 2-6 p.m.?[/quote]
Because your state government can make pretty much any law they want, but the FCC (which is just an agency and not a legislature) can only carry out what Congress has told it to do, and then only through non-"arbitrary" rules.
If this really becomes a problem, we can vaporize the Himalayas with hydrogen bombs. Problem solved.
Just think of how much debris that would throw into the air. As with volcanic eruptions, it might actually increase global warming, melting more ice and changing angular momentum even more.
Highest earning celebrity is synthetic.... 2010 Anyone else thinking of Britney Spears?
...why not create a small nuclear reactor and put it in an unmanned drone aircraft.
And what if it gets shot down?
The U.S. is already getting enough flak for using (harmless) depleted uranium. What if the "real stuff" got out somewhere over a crowded Asian country?
P.S. Anyone else amazed by the fact that there is a place called Chevy Chase, Maryland?!
Actual exchange:
Chevy Chase: "You know, you're a very funny president."
Gerald Ford: "You know, you're a very funny suburb!"
I've seen kids use a calculator to add 50 to 50. Nah, I'd have to say that the stuff about calculators ruining people's math abilities is a bunch of hype. I mean, I don't have my TI-89 with its Computer Algebra System on me, but it doesn't take a calculator to tell me the answer to that is 200. Are you crazy? It's 2500!
Moshe Bar has released a new Mosix system: openMosix.
The word "bar" is Hebrew for "free"... Free as in speech, not beer, believe it or not!
Seems to me that this only applies to the volume licenses. Any company large enough to require a volume license will almost certainly have some manner of firewall. If they have a hole large enough for MS to get in to do things like this, they have bigger problems than someone just scanning thier Windows versions.
But, because the license gives Microsoft the right to look at your computer, it is illegal to block whatever searches they choose to do.
Ah, hmmm. Right, there was no art, books or music created before there was copyright.
The first copyright law was passed in 1710 in England. The first English novel, Pamela, was published in 1740, and in the middle of the 18th century an explosion of novels, self-help books, and other mass-produced books occurred. Before 1700, the most common books were religious texts like the Bible and "The Pilgrim's Progress", not independent works of art. Shakespeare's plays were meant to be performed; he never thought of selling the manuscripts. And until recently, it was next to impossible to reproduce paintings or sculpture, so no copyright was needed for art. Is it a coincidence that creative activity for the masses did not begin until after copyright laws were enacted?
BTW, did you know that the US did not abide by international copyrights until late in the 19th century. Just like China is doing today.
Wrong. Look at Article 1, Section 8 of the US constitution (1789):
"The Congress shall have the power...
...To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries..."
The concept of "fair use", with its limitations, dates to 1841.
I think everyone who's posted so far is missing the point of the ruling, and for that matter, the US legal system in general.
/. readers. But it is the legislature's job to fix this. The courts can only apply existing law, and here they have done a very... well, "reasonable" job of it.
Did anyone count the number of times the opinion used the word "reasonable"? I didn't, but I know the word was mentioned at least once, and is mentioned over and over in practically any precedent-setting case in the upper courts.
A 64x48 thumbnail is "reasonable" use because it does not have the decorative value of a 1600x1200 image. Nobody would think of using the 64x48 image as a desktop background. Anyone who likes the thumbnail will click the link for the whole picture - and submit to advertising, payments, whatever the original owner wants.
A 1599x1199 "thumbnail" is obviously unreasonable. Almost all the information is still there. The "thumbnail" is still useful for everything the original image is useful for. A site with this "thumbnail" would directly take some of the advertising/fees/other profit the original poster would otherwise get. So small thumbnails like those in the case are legal, while larger variations of the image are not.
Including the image in your page through a HTML "img" tag has the same effect (to each person involved) as keeping and using a local, exact copy of the image. Here the "reasonableness" of the law comes into play again. You're not allowed to use technological tricks (like calling remote images) to get around what is clearly illegal (like copying the image to your server). That may conform to the law as written, but it is "unreasonable" and any court in the country will rule against you in cases like this.[1]
Copyright law must balance the value of letting people to do whatever they want with information with the value of giving artists incentive to create content. If copyright holders hold too much power, people won't be able to use content in beneficial ways. If copyright law did not exist, nobody would put effort into creating new books/software/art, and many useful things would not exist. The current system (like most civil law) is designed to produce the most economically beneficient balance, which in this case is somewhere between the two extremes.
It may be that current US copyright law does not favor the economically best outcome - that the balance has swung too stongly in favor of copyright holders, to the detriment of everyone else. I happen to believe this, as apparently do most
[1] See cases relating to the 4th amendment for a good example.
Someone tell me if I'm wrong, but didn't AOL choose to license the Linux AIM client under the LGPL? AOL will never make money off Linux software (VERY few companies ever have and then only by monopolizing some sort of large application), so why wouldn't AOL want to increase the penetration of whatever software it makes as much as possible?
Exactly. Israel's been continually at war for so long that anything not related to bombs in Jerusalem or the anthrax missiles from Iraq is basically ignored. So organized crime, software prostitution, and software piracy all tend to flourish.