Or use Firefox and uncheck Accept third-party cookies in the Privacy Options.
Or use Internet Explorer and block third-party cookies.
Or use Safari and disallow third-party cookies.
I don't see any reason to switch browsers just to access a basic feature.
Back when Windows NT was being developed, I heard that device drivers had to communicate with hardware through the hardware abstraction layer (HAL), and this made Windows NT very stable. Then I heard that they decided to allow hardware drivers to connect directly to hardware because sometimes going through HAL had a performance hit. I can't find much information on the history, but these lecture notes seem to confirm that drivers can now bypass HAL. Is this why bad drivers can still crash Windows?
That's as silly as saying that people die from shootings every day, so if I pull out a rifle and shoot people at a shopping mall, it doesn't matter. People will die from being shot anyway.
If we can prevent a catastrophe, we should do it, even if similar catastrophes happen all the time.
Climate change is a real, recurring, natural phenomenon. Human induced global warming is greatly exaggerated. IPCC still won't explain the fudge factors they had to include to make their models work.
Yes, the climate changes naturally. On the other hand, most climate studies show that humans have been the cause of most of the global warming observed during the past fifty years. I'll point you to an analysis of scientific papers done by Peter Norvig as evidence. It's not just the IPCC that says global warming is occurring. As Peter Norvig says, if you have any doubt, you can do your own research.
The Arctic ice certainly is melting, but it is not causing the sea level to rise. The reason is that it's already displacing water because it's floating in the Arctic sea. It's the melting glaciers and ice sheet on land that will cause sea level to rise.
It makes no sense because you're thinking of "pollution" as one thing. Increased greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, cause warmer temperatures by preventing infrared radiation from escaping into space. Increased aerosols, such as smog and airplane contrails, cause cooler temperatures by reflecting sunlight back into space. Both can be thought of as pollution, but one causes warming and the other causes cooling. The upshot is that if even we cut back dramatically on burning fossil fuels and forests, the global temperature will continue to rise, as carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for much longer than aerosols.
If you reduce the amount of aerosol in the atmosphere dramatically, you can measure the temperature difference within days. In another post, someone mentions the days after 9/11 when there were no airplanes generating contrails in the US skies. The absence of those contrails produced a noticeable effect on the high and low temperatures.
So, it does matter if "global warming" is true, because people like Al Gore are asking us to cripple our economies to reduce CO2 emissions, which are only a problem if global warming is a problem.
Which is a question that I rarely seen discussed. If Global Warming is true, is it really a problem?
First, no one is asking us to cripple our economies. If anything, cutting back on fossil fuels will make them last longer, thus averting the crippling effect of suddenly being without enough fossil fuels to meet demand. Additionally, if we cut back on emitting CO2, we'll avoid having the problems of rising sea level, more intense tropical storms, and droughts, all of which can have adverse economic impacts. So, yes, global warming is a problem, and, no, no one is calling for measures that will cripple our economy.
The money spent on getting a drug approved is not spent on the equipment but on people. You need to pay people to make the drugs, give the drugs to volunteers, take the drugs, collect the data, analyze the data, write the reports, and so on. Without patent protection, any company could produce a generic version of the drug without having to pay the money on research, so no company would be willing to do the research. It would guarantee a huge loss.
If there were no patent law, no new drugs would be made. It costs many millions of dollars to find a new drug, prove it is safe and effective, find the proper dose, and get it approved. Without patent protection, a drug company would have no way to earn their money back. The argument is a strawman.
I don't understand the "software not written" part. Doesn't the GPL depend on the copyright? Sounds like another strawman.
How is a door opening when you press a certain part of it different from a computer letting you in after you press certain parts of the keyboard? I have learned someone's password by watching them type it in over their shoulder. Their password was not obscure enough. A good password is simply more obscure -- it will take longer to crack, but it can be cracked.
At its most basic, security by obscurity is relying on a secret to remain secure. Obscuring your password is security by obscurity. It's only a matter of time before an attacker could guess your password, so it keeps you secure for only a period of time.
Okay, so let's gloss over the fact that I was easily able to respond to your query and that should have put an end to it. Why would it be that "Microsoft has had to increase the default security settings for ActiveX and maintain blacklists of malicious controls in an attempt to mitigate this risk" unless ActiveX is insecure? Doesn't sound like a "myth" to me at all. I don't understand how you fail to see the difference between a site that happens to ask a user to download and run content (ActiveX) and a user deliberately and consciously choosing to download and install software (Firefox extensions).
You have to register your plugin with Firefox's plugin finder service. "This model prevents content specifying where a plugin should be downloaded from--the plugin finder service does." Which is different from ActiveX controls; the content specifies where the ActiveX code is.
Yes, IE requires the users consent to run ActiveX controls. That's not the same as manually downloading and installing software. You mean to say you're of the opinion that ActiveX can't possibly make IE any less secure than any other browser, because the user must consent to run ActiveX content? But yet, in contradiction to that assertion, the fact that malicious Firefox extensions exist makes Firefox less secure than other browsers? Whatever. The MS/Opera/whatever koolaid has taken effect.
You're referring to extensions. You need to manually download and install those. Any time you manually download and install software, you have potentially opened yourself up to a security vulnerability. That is different from browsing to a website and having malicious code run on your computer without you having to install a thing. That's what ActiveX allows.
Firefox Myths was written by an Opera fanboi reacting mostly to ridiculous comments from Firefox fanbois. I wouldn't pay it as much mind as a vi vs. emacs flamewar.
Huh. A wrapper that allows websites to run code on your computer that could cause it to crash. Has Microsoft thought about the possible security implications of this?
What's this about "malicious plugins" for Firefox? Which would those be?
There is a request in Bugzilla for Firefox to run Flash content in a separate process so a Flash crash won't crash the whole browser. Does any browser do this? Wouldn't it be easier for Adobe to simply fix its buggy plugins?
Slashdot Mirror
Or use Firefox and uncheck Accept third-party cookies in the Privacy Options. Or use Internet Explorer and block third-party cookies. Or use Safari and disallow third-party cookies. I don't see any reason to switch browsers just to access a basic feature.
Back when Windows NT was being developed, I heard that device drivers had to communicate with hardware through the hardware abstraction layer (HAL), and this made Windows NT very stable. Then I heard that they decided to allow hardware drivers to connect directly to hardware because sometimes going through HAL had a performance hit. I can't find much information on the history, but these lecture notes seem to confirm that drivers can now bypass HAL. Is this why bad drivers can still crash Windows?
Microsoft at least provides tools to verify that drivers work properly.
That's as silly as saying that people die from shootings every day, so if I pull out a rifle and shoot people at a shopping mall, it doesn't matter. People will die from being shot anyway.
If we can prevent a catastrophe, we should do it, even if similar catastrophes happen all the time.
Yes, the climate changes naturally. On the other hand, most climate studies show that humans have been the cause of most of the global warming observed during the past fifty years. I'll point you to an analysis of scientific papers done by Peter Norvig as evidence. It's not just the IPCC that says global warming is occurring. As Peter Norvig says, if you have any doubt, you can do your own research.
In that case, I wonder why the Arctic ice is still melting. Could it be that your statistic is part of the 43.7% that are made up on the spot?
The Arctic ice certainly is melting, but it is not causing the sea level to rise. The reason is that it's already displacing water because it's floating in the Arctic sea. It's the melting glaciers and ice sheet on land that will cause sea level to rise.
It makes no sense because you're thinking of "pollution" as one thing. Increased greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, cause warmer temperatures by preventing infrared radiation from escaping into space. Increased aerosols, such as smog and airplane contrails, cause cooler temperatures by reflecting sunlight back into space. Both can be thought of as pollution, but one causes warming and the other causes cooling. The upshot is that if even we cut back dramatically on burning fossil fuels and forests, the global temperature will continue to rise, as carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for much longer than aerosols.
If you reduce the amount of aerosol in the atmosphere dramatically, you can measure the temperature difference within days. In another post, someone mentions the days after 9/11 when there were no airplanes generating contrails in the US skies. The absence of those contrails produced a noticeable effect on the high and low temperatures.
First, no one is asking us to cripple our economies. If anything, cutting back on fossil fuels will make them last longer, thus averting the crippling effect of suddenly being without enough fossil fuels to meet demand. Additionally, if we cut back on emitting CO2, we'll avoid having the problems of rising sea level, more intense tropical storms, and droughts, all of which can have adverse economic impacts. So, yes, global warming is a problem, and, no, no one is calling for measures that will cripple our economy.
The money spent on getting a drug approved is not spent on the equipment but on people. You need to pay people to make the drugs, give the drugs to volunteers, take the drugs, collect the data, analyze the data, write the reports, and so on. Without patent protection, any company could produce a generic version of the drug without having to pay the money on research, so no company would be willing to do the research. It would guarantee a huge loss.
If there were no patent law, no new drugs would be made. It costs many millions of dollars to find a new drug, prove it is safe and effective, find the proper dose, and get it approved. Without patent protection, a drug company would have no way to earn their money back. The argument is a strawman.
I don't understand the "software not written" part. Doesn't the GPL depend on the copyright? Sounds like another strawman.
How is a door opening when you press a certain part of it different from a computer letting you in after you press certain parts of the keyboard? I have learned someone's password by watching them type it in over their shoulder. Their password was not obscure enough. A good password is simply more obscure -- it will take longer to crack, but it can be cracked.
At its most basic, security by obscurity is relying on a secret to remain secure. Obscuring your password is security by obscurity. It's only a matter of time before an attacker could guess your password, so it keeps you secure for only a period of time.
Well... that wouldn't make any sense to me.
Not to mention the extend.
Okay, so let's gloss over the fact that I was easily able to respond to your query and that should have put an end to it. Why would it be that "Microsoft has had to increase the default security settings for ActiveX and maintain blacklists of malicious controls in an attempt to mitigate this risk" unless ActiveX is insecure? Doesn't sound like a "myth" to me at all. I don't understand how you fail to see the difference between a site that happens to ask a user to download and run content (ActiveX) and a user deliberately and consciously choosing to download and install software (Firefox extensions).
You have to register your plugin with Firefox's plugin finder service. "This model prevents content specifying where a plugin should be downloaded from--the plugin finder service does." Which is different from ActiveX controls; the content specifies where the ActiveX code is.
Yes, IE requires the users consent to run ActiveX controls. That's not the same as manually downloading and installing software. You mean to say you're of the opinion that ActiveX can't possibly make IE any less secure than any other browser, because the user must consent to run ActiveX content? But yet, in contradiction to that assertion, the fact that malicious Firefox extensions exist makes Firefox less secure than other browsers? Whatever. The MS/Opera/whatever koolaid has taken effect.
You're referring to extensions. You need to manually download and install those. Any time you manually download and install software, you have potentially opened yourself up to a security vulnerability. That is different from browsing to a website and having malicious code run on your computer without you having to install a thing. That's what ActiveX allows.
Firefox Myths was written by an Opera fanboi reacting mostly to ridiculous comments from Firefox fanbois. I wouldn't pay it as much mind as a vi vs. emacs flamewar.
What standard is Mozilla extending? It sounds to me like they are supporting free and open standards.
Huh. A wrapper that allows websites to run code on your computer that could cause it to crash. Has Microsoft thought about the possible security implications of this?
What's this about "malicious plugins" for Firefox? Which would those be?
Yes
There is a request in Bugzilla for Firefox to run Flash content in a separate process so a Flash crash won't crash the whole browser. Does any browser do this? Wouldn't it be easier for Adobe to simply fix its buggy plugins?
How would Mozilla developers fix a crash in closed-source Adobe code?
Firefox 3.1 alpha 1 is a build from last week. The bug hadn't been introduced yet.