This was a Windows-specific bug caused by the underlying OS. It's not a bug in Mozilla's code.
Then how did code from Mozilla that presumably didn't change anything in the OS fix the hole?
I know it is a problem in Windows. BUT MOZILLA EXPOSED SAID KNOWN HOLE TO MALICIOUS WEBSITES.
When you're writing cross platform code, and it that works perfectly fine on other platforms, and Microsoft keeps saying it's going to fix the bug, but stumbles around like a drunken barfly instead of releasing a fix... this is Mozilla's fault?
If it's propagated by Mozilla's code (which it is), yes. In part.
Microsoft says "Yeah, we're aware of that, we're going to fix it in SP2, it should be out Real Soon Now." and Mozilla takes them at their word, since it's their OS
You're telling me that 1) Mozilla devs were relying on MS to fix the hole (something I saw no mention of on the Bugzilla page) AND that 2) the Mozilla devs believed MS saying it'll be released soon?
Yes, I agree, Mozilla is horrible, and Bill Gates is a saint. Yes.
Did I say that? I am posting from Mozilla. I dual boot with FreeBSD, on which I use Firefox. I'm not going "oh look at the almighty MS, it isn't their fault, it's Mozilla's." I'm simply not blinded (like some people apparently are *cough*) by the misconception that Mozilla devs can't make a mistake and leave a remote exploit hole it.
The bug was, inarguably, propagated by Mozilla however. Mozilla didn't take the steps necessary before now to close off the Windows bug, and thus are just as responsible for it as MS.
If it was a Windows bug that Mozilla had no way of closing off because it was rooted too deeply, then I'd be blaming MS. But this wasn't the case.
How was a remote exploit bug not a priority? Really... Unless they were spending time fixing large amounts of *other* remote exploits, I don't see how it would be possible rank other problems ahead.
Really, how many people keep the default home page? First thing I do is change it to Google. Used to use about:blank to speed loading.
One thing to be said for MS in that they do have a half-decent updating system, that runs without intervention (at least under some settings; I forget what defaults are... in any case, it at least checks for updates without intervention)
I think it'd take an awful law to construe it as is to that meaning.
In all fairness though, I was mostly kidding with my post; I think "Think Different" is definitely one of the better slogans around. Though it does always grate somewhat on the pedantic grammar rules area of my mind...
I'm not sure I'd trust a grammar check from a company that uses the motto "Think Different"...
(I checked three dictionaries to determine if using "different" as an adverb is correct usage. The American Heritage Dictionary includes it without qualification, Merriam-Webster omits in entirely, and the OED includes it with the note "Now only in uneducated use." In any case, it appears that using different as an adverb is strongly frowned upon.)
since Starbucks opens an average of 10 stores per week it doesn't look like Winter will be stopping any time soon.
This reminds me of Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged:
This was the point at which he conceived his purpose, the thing that would drive him on, and which, as far as he could see, would drive him on forever. It was this.
He would insult the universe.
That is, he would insulct everybody in it. Individually, personally, one by one, and (this was the thing he really decidid to grit his teeth over) in alphabetical order.
When people protested to him, as they sometimes had, thta the plan was not merely misguided but actually impossible because of the number of people being born and dying all the time, he would merely fix them with a steely look and say, 'A man can dream, can't he?'"
Along the same lines, Oracle, mySQL and Trolltech's QT use a licence that allows free personal use, but require purchase for business use, right?
MySQL I thought was GPL'd... so you can use it for a busness without payment. If you want to adapt it and not release your source, sure, you need to pay money.
Trolltech QT is similar. They *almost* have it right. But they I think screwed up by not offering a GPL'd version, or at the very least the 3.x non-commercial edition (not bundled with a $50 book), of QT for Windows. This screws people who want to do hobbyish cross-platform stuff for Windows but can't afford the huge licence fees.
I can't speak to Oracle.
But yes, overall, I agree that this is a good approach.
One of the biggest problems I have with the Gimp is that I find the windows completely unmanagable. It's gotten a lot better with the docking windows, but there are still usually like three or so different windows that you need to bring to the foreground after maximizing another program over them. With Photoshop, you just raise the main window and you get the toolbox and all the other windows (brush, layers, etc.) raised with it. With the Gimp, you have to hunt through the task bar to raise all of them.
Would be significantly improved more if raising the main window automatically raised the others. But I would still prefer Photoshop's MDIish approach.
The $120? I don't happen to have $120 sitting around to throw at a program, especially if I have to do the same for every program I use occasionally. No, the computer lab has worked so far just fine. When I hit a problem I want to put Mathematica to use on, I'll walk across the street. Or up to my friend's room.
I'll take a look at those programs; thanks for the links.
As for webpages, emacs is what I'd use if I wanted to edit HTML. But I don't. Dreamweaver makes good enough code that the time saved by not having to type everything myself that it's well worth it. Especially when you add in library items and stuff. (If you know a way to get similar functionality in emacs though, I'm all ears...)
It will pay for itself within a month or two at most....Unless you're not doing anything revenue generating with it. I would bet that most people who use PS for their job have legal copies. Or at least less blatently illegal copies they brought home from work or something like that.
If you're just a hobbiest who occasionally uses PS, the $700 is completely unjustifiable unless you like throwing money down the toilet. (In such situations the Gimp would probably suffice and do quite well, but depends on your need.)
Or look at a 3-D modeling program. Maya, 3D Studio, etc. They are really fun to dabble with. Make a quick animation, share it with a couple friends, etc. Worth several thousand dollars? If you're doing commercial stuff with them, hell yeah! But if it's just a hobby, definitely not. (Again, Blender would probably do, but it has a bit of a way to go...)
The Gimp has had everything I've ever wanted in a graphics program (minus, say, addon filters made for Photoshop). But, the interface, IMHO, sucks horribly. It's made a big improvement recently, but it's still poor. There was a Gimp vs. PS article on/. some time ago; I didn't read the actual article, but the blurb made it sound like the Gimp won't suffice for serious graphhOEspeople.
But a lot aren't. As much as I love the Gimp, the interface sucks in comparison to Photoshop. I have yet to see any program, free or non-free, compare to Dreamweaver. Visual Studio is the best development suite I've used. I know of no free program that does anywhere close to what Mathematica does. Or MathCAD. Or Matlab. All of these programs are ones that I use (even rely on) on occasion, but not nearly enough to justify the enormous pricetags (even for acedemic versions). I can certainly see someone pirating programs such as these. Fortunately, during the school year (when I use them the most) I'm within pretty easy reach of a computer lab with all of the above installed.
Generally I'll agree with you, but there's just soo much stuff in the books that aren't in the theatrical cut that it makes LotR different in my opinion. Having not read the books until after seeing TTT and the extended edition of Fellowship, I can say that the latter greatly helped with my understanding of the movie. I'm sure a lot was due to seeing it for the second time too, but there was so much that was explained by the cut scenes that I think it improved the movie immeasurably.
I can't find my copy of RotK so can't look at the timeline, but thta's one of the complaints I have about the movie. It didn't show time scale AT ALL. How long did I think it was between when Gandalf told Frodo about the ring and what to do about it until when he set off for Rivendell, after seeing the movie? About a week. Probably a little less. In any case, I thought it was just about immediate. Of course it was actually like three months or something. About the same thing happened in Rivendell. I thought their stay was a week or two. But no, they sent out all their scouts to look for the Nazgul and whatnot, and it was another three months.
Intermissions seem to have died though. Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Ten Commandments are all between 210 and 220 minutes which is only a bit longer than the original theatrical cut of RotK (201 minutes), which didn't have an intermission. Doctor Zhivago was even shorter. RotK is under 10 min longer than Titanic (194 min), which also didn't have an intermission. The Right Stuff is 193 minutes, and AFAIK, also had no intermission.
I don't go to the movies very much, but I don't know of any released anywhere near recent memory with an intermission. Last movie I know of that had one was Monty Python's Holy Grail, and that doesn't exactly count. I'm sure there's probably a dozen or two in there, but for the most part they seem to have gone the way of the dodo.
Do you also take issue with patriotism then? (I'm not even talking about the stupid, nausiating patriotism that shows up a lot now, but just the "I'm proud to come from the US [or whatever]" feeling)
Slashdot Mirror
This was a Windows-specific bug caused by the underlying OS. It's not a bug in Mozilla's code.
Then how did code from Mozilla that presumably didn't change anything in the OS fix the hole?
I know it is a problem in Windows. BUT MOZILLA EXPOSED SAID KNOWN HOLE TO MALICIOUS WEBSITES.
When you're writing cross platform code, and it that works perfectly fine on other platforms, and Microsoft keeps saying it's going to fix the bug, but stumbles around like a drunken barfly instead of releasing a fix... this is Mozilla's fault?
If it's propagated by Mozilla's code (which it is), yes. In part.
Microsoft says "Yeah, we're aware of that, we're going to fix it in SP2, it should be out Real Soon Now." and Mozilla takes them at their word, since it's their OS
You're telling me that 1) Mozilla devs were relying on MS to fix the hole (something I saw no mention of on the Bugzilla page) AND that 2) the Mozilla devs believed MS saying it'll be released soon?
Yes, I agree, Mozilla is horrible, and Bill Gates is a saint. Yes.
Did I say that? I am posting from Mozilla. I dual boot with FreeBSD, on which I use Firefox. I'm not going "oh look at the almighty MS, it isn't their fault, it's Mozilla's." I'm simply not blinded (like some people apparently are *cough*) by the misconception that Mozilla devs can't make a mistake and leave a remote exploit hole it.
The bug was, inarguably, propagated by Mozilla however. Mozilla didn't take the steps necessary before now to close off the Windows bug, and thus are just as responsible for it as MS.
If it was a Windows bug that Mozilla had no way of closing off because it was rooted too deeply, then I'd be blaming MS. But this wasn't the case.
How was a remote exploit bug not a priority? Really... Unless they were spending time fixing large amounts of *other* remote exploits, I don't see how it would be possible rank other problems ahead.
bugs are fixed instantly.
Hmm, this is obviously some strange usage of the word instantly that I wasn't previously aware of...
As the other posters have said, all over, the bug was opened in Sept 2002. Not far from 2 years ago.
Really, how many people keep the default home page? First thing I do is change it to Google. Used to use about:blank to speed loading.
One thing to be said for MS in that they do have a half-decent updating system, that runs without intervention (at least under some settings; I forget what defaults are... in any case, it at least checks for updates without intervention)
They left it unfixed for almost two years. The bug was opened Sept 9, 2002.
Next time there's a patch for an IE bug and someone complains about the slow patching time, are you gonna go "who's leaving it unfixed"?
Oh, good. That makes me feel a lot better knowing that they were sitting around deciding not to fix it.
It should be notated as such then ;-)
Either "Think different" or "Think 'different'"
I think it'd take an awful law to construe it as is to that meaning.
In all fairness though, I was mostly kidding with my post; I think "Think Different" is definitely one of the better slogans around. Though it does always grate somewhat on the pedantic grammar rules area of my mind...
I'm not sure I'd trust a grammar check from a company that uses the motto "Think Different"...
(I checked three dictionaries to determine if using "different" as an adverb is correct usage. The American Heritage Dictionary includes it without qualification, Merriam-Webster omits in entirely, and the OED includes it with the note "Now only in uneducated use." In any case, it appears that using different as an adverb is strongly frowned upon.)
This reminds me of Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged:
(Life, the Universe and Ev8hing)
Along the same lines, Oracle, mySQL and Trolltech's QT use a licence that allows free personal use, but require purchase for business use, right?
MySQL I thought was GPL'd... so you can use it for a busness without payment. If you want to adapt it and not release your source, sure, you need to pay money.
Trolltech QT is similar. They *almost* have it right. But they I think screwed up by not offering a GPL'd version, or at the very least the 3.x non-commercial edition (not bundled with a $50 book), of QT for Windows. This screws people who want to do hobbyish cross-platform stuff for Windows but can't afford the huge licence fees.
I can't speak to Oracle.
But yes, overall, I agree that this is a good approach.
One of the biggest problems I have with the Gimp is that I find the windows completely unmanagable. It's gotten a lot better with the docking windows, but there are still usually like three or so different windows that you need to bring to the foreground after maximizing another program over them. With Photoshop, you just raise the main window and you get the toolbox and all the other windows (brush, layers, etc.) raised with it. With the Gimp, you have to hunt through the task bar to raise all of them.
Would be significantly improved more if raising the main window automatically raised the others. But I would still prefer Photoshop's MDIish approach.
Quanta doesn't fit the bill because I don't want an HTML editor.
I'll take a look at Anjuta; thanks for the link.
The $120? I don't happen to have $120 sitting around to throw at a program, especially if I have to do the same for every program I use occasionally. No, the computer lab has worked so far just fine. When I hit a problem I want to put Mathematica to use on, I'll walk across the street. Or up to my friend's room.
I'll take a look at those programs; thanks for the links.
As for webpages, emacs is what I'd use if I wanted to edit HTML. But I don't. Dreamweaver makes good enough code that the time saved by not having to type everything myself that it's well worth it. Especially when you add in library items and stuff. (If you know a way to get similar functionality in emacs though, I'm all ears...)
It will pay for itself within a month or two at most. ...Unless you're not doing anything revenue generating with it. I would bet that most people who use PS for their job have legal copies. Or at least less blatently illegal copies they brought home from work or something like that.
If you're just a hobbiest who occasionally uses PS, the $700 is completely unjustifiable unless you like throwing money down the toilet. (In such situations the Gimp would probably suffice and do quite well, but depends on your need.)
Or look at a 3-D modeling program. Maya, 3D Studio, etc. They are really fun to dabble with. Make a quick animation, share it with a couple friends, etc. Worth several thousand dollars? If you're doing commercial stuff with them, hell yeah! But if it's just a hobby, definitely not. (Again, Blender would probably do, but it has a bit of a way to go...)
The Gimp has had everything I've ever wanted in a graphics program (minus, say, addon filters made for Photoshop). But, the interface, IMHO, sucks horribly. It's made a big improvement recently, but it's still poor. There was a Gimp vs. PS article on /. some time ago; I didn't read the actual article, but the blurb made it sound like the Gimp won't suffice for serious graphhOEspeople.
Perhaps you can offer Free suggestions to alternatives to Mathematica, Dreamweaver, and MathCAD.
This is half an honest question and half meant to say "there are a ton of programs without an OSS counterpart"
But a lot aren't. As much as I love the Gimp, the interface sucks in comparison to Photoshop. I have yet to see any program, free or non-free, compare to Dreamweaver. Visual Studio is the best development suite I've used. I know of no free program that does anywhere close to what Mathematica does. Or MathCAD. Or Matlab. All of these programs are ones that I use (even rely on) on occasion, but not nearly enough to justify the enormous pricetags (even for acedemic versions). I can certainly see someone pirating programs such as these. Fortunately, during the school year (when I use them the most) I'm within pretty easy reach of a computer lab with all of the above installed.
This guy is bound to be disappointed...
Generally I'll agree with you, but there's just soo much stuff in the books that aren't in the theatrical cut that it makes LotR different in my opinion. Having not read the books until after seeing TTT and the extended edition of Fellowship, I can say that the latter greatly helped with my understanding of the movie. I'm sure a lot was due to seeing it for the second time too, but there was so much that was explained by the cut scenes that I think it improved the movie immeasurably.
I can't find my copy of RotK so can't look at the timeline, but thta's one of the complaints I have about the movie. It didn't show time scale AT ALL. How long did I think it was between when Gandalf told Frodo about the ring and what to do about it until when he set off for Rivendell, after seeing the movie? About a week. Probably a little less. In any case, I thought it was just about immediate. Of course it was actually like three months or something. About the same thing happened in Rivendell. I thought their stay was a week or two. But no, they sent out all their scouts to look for the Nazgul and whatnot, and it was another three months.
Intermissions seem to have died though. Ben Hur, Lawrence of Arabia, and The Ten Commandments are all between 210 and 220 minutes which is only a bit longer than the original theatrical cut of RotK (201 minutes), which didn't have an intermission. Doctor Zhivago was even shorter. RotK is under 10 min longer than Titanic (194 min), which also didn't have an intermission. The Right Stuff is 193 minutes, and AFAIK, also had no intermission.
I don't go to the movies very much, but I don't know of any released anywhere near recent memory with an intermission. Last movie I know of that had one was Monty Python's Holy Grail, and that doesn't exactly count. I'm sure there's probably a dozen or two in there, but for the most part they seem to have gone the way of the dodo.
Oooo! I know! We'll put it at the climax. just as the heros are crossing the Bridge of De... oh wait, wrong movie...
Do you also take issue with patriotism then? (I'm not even talking about the stupid, nausiating patriotism that shows up a lot now, but just the "I'm proud to come from the US [or whatever]" feeling)