I used a Mighty Mouse for a while before returning it for other reasons. As I recall, I had no problem right clicking with a finger over the left button as long as I wasn't pushing too hard on it. But if you naturally push "too hard" for it to tell the difference, I can see the source of frustration.
The only thing I really liked about the Mighty Mouse was the simplistic styling and the multi-direction scrolling.
Well, perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I don't see why favicons need to be shown for the current page anyway. It makes sense for bookmarks, but it seems showing it on the current page is just asking for this kind of confusion. How about just showing a generic icon until a site is bookmarked?
Considering how much spin I've seen on articles lately from the original text, I wouldn't put too much value on the "goine to sue!" claim until it goes up on Duval's personal site or before the courts.
Yeah, it is definitely still software piracy. Mac computers are sold with a license to use Mac OS X. The retail box you can buy is an upgrade, which presupposes you already have a Mac (and thus a Mac OS license).
<p>That said, there is a way to avoid it being quote-piracy-unquote while still breaking the EULA: buy and wipe clean an old Mac. Either never use it, or install Linux on it. I doubt Apple would consider this any more kosher, but on the other hand I doubt many are doing this anyway.</p>
Our local dealer offers the AppleCare price back as an in-store credit at the end of the period if you don't use it. This makes it an even simpler choice.
Why would there be something wrong with it? Who else would you have submit a story than people who know something about it? Who would think a story interesting to others who wasn't interested in it themselves?
Actually, I think you're wrong on this point. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the post claimed Mac OS X has a graphics layer like X11's network-transparent graphics architecture. "Network-transparent" is definitely an attribute of X11's graphics architecture, and it is definitely not shared with Mac OS X (and more's the pity).
(Now, don't take this as picking a fight. I'm new to this discussion, however heated it's already gotten.)
I used one for a few weeks. At first, I had a lot of problems with left vs. right click. I eventually found out it depended on how I held it. I tried to use it as a two finger mouse, I ran into this problem. If I used it as a one or three finger mouse, I never had any problem.
In the end, the only thing I REALLY liked about it -- the scroll nub -- stopped working properly so back it went.
The squeeze buttons were incredibly lame. I bet the mighty mice wouldn't be able to do that click at all.
You're still wrong, but you're getting closer closer. A buffer overflow is a *write* past bounds. Exceeding bounds on a read is not a buffer overflow. (That is a problem, too, but not the same problem.) This is what I said in my original post (you know, the one you replied to saying I had "no idea").
A buffer overflow is when a large amount of data is put in a small buffer without safeguards, because data will be written outside of the designated buffer. Period.
There are different requirements for it to be exploitable, which is maybe what you're thinking of, but a buffer overflow itself is that simple: big data, small buffer, data overwrites stuff outside of the buffer.
Um. A buffer overflow is whenever the code attempts to store a large data element in a small buffer without adequate protection. This is what Firefox does when you attempt to start up and it hits the too-large history entry.
I haven't looked at Mozilla's parser code, so it isn't clear exactly effect the buffer overflow will have. But it is a buffer overflow by definition.
One of the biggest mistakes the company I worked for ever made was allowing someone on premises after she handed in a resignation letter. She stole a pile of source code, some hard drives right out of computers (replacing them with defective ones), formed a competing company and used inside knowledge to underbid us... and stole the signed work agreement.
There's not much we can do about source code and hard drivees, but needless to say, nobody (but nobody) has access to those agreements anymore.
Without even seeing it, I can guarantee that building was worth more than $1.5 million. Sony hasn't backed out, but it is a lower contribution. That's not demonizing, that's reality.
Slashdot Mirror
I used a Mighty Mouse for a while before returning it for other reasons. As I recall, I had no problem right clicking with a finger over the left button as long as I wasn't pushing too hard on it. But if you naturally push "too hard" for it to tell the difference, I can see the source of frustration.
The only thing I really liked about the Mighty Mouse was the simplistic styling and the multi-direction scrolling.
Sometimes you swing for the fence, sometimes you bunt to advance the baserunner to scoring position. :)
Only on the Internet could Dvorak be taken seriously. On TV, people would notice his mouth foam and his face twitching in sheer insanity.
And while their technologies may seem obvious now, they may not have been so obvious when they patented them.
Name one.
At least you were in the right range. I kept thinking nickel metal hydride.
The pink has made me long for the IT brown.
Well, perhaps an unpopular opinion, but I don't see why favicons need to be shown for the current page anyway. It makes sense for bookmarks, but it seems showing it on the current page is just asking for this kind of confusion. How about just showing a generic icon until a site is bookmarked?
Considering how much spin I've seen on articles lately from the original text, I wouldn't put too much value on the "goine to sue!" claim until it goes up on Duval's personal site or before the courts.
"All too likely"? How about "not likely at all"?
Well, it brought a smile to my face at least.
Yeah, it is definitely still software piracy. Mac computers are sold with a license to use Mac OS X. The retail box you can buy is an upgrade, which presupposes you already have a Mac (and thus a Mac OS license).
<p>That said, there is a way to avoid it being quote-piracy-unquote while still breaking the EULA: buy and wipe clean an old Mac. Either never use it, or install Linux on it. I doubt Apple would consider this any more kosher, but on the other hand I doubt many are doing this anyway.</p>
Our local dealer offers the AppleCare price back as an in-store credit at the end of the period if you don't use it. This makes it an even simpler choice.
I really like Dashboard, but I will admit to changing the activation key from the default to make it less easy to activate by mistake.
Why would there be something wrong with it? Who else would you have submit a story than people who know something about it? Who would think a story interesting to others who wasn't interested in it themselves?
This immediately made me think of a Fight Club quote.
"Which software company do you work for?"
"A major one."
Out of curiousity, just how insecure has IE on the Mac been?
The only one I ever heard of was MS02-019, which was fixed in 2002.
That is true. Good point.
I spent six months in a third world country. There are two major reasons why XP SP2 wasn't in use there:
1. The license restrictions were tighter than plain XP,
2. It required over a day to download.
Heck, the guy who came over to install my DSL told me not to install it. Naturally, I didn't listen...
Actually, I think you're wrong on this point. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the post claimed Mac OS X has a graphics layer like X11's network-transparent graphics architecture. "Network-transparent" is definitely an attribute of X11's graphics architecture, and it is definitely not shared with Mac OS X (and more's the pity).
(Now, don't take this as picking a fight. I'm new to this discussion, however heated it's already gotten.)
I used one for a few weeks. At first, I had a lot of problems with left vs. right click. I eventually found out it depended on how I held it. I tried to use it as a two finger mouse, I ran into this problem. If I used it as a one or three finger mouse, I never had any problem.
In the end, the only thing I REALLY liked about it -- the scroll nub -- stopped working properly so back it went.
The squeeze buttons were incredibly lame. I bet the mighty mice wouldn't be able to do that click at all.
You're still wrong, but you're getting closer closer. A buffer overflow is a *write* past bounds. Exceeding bounds on a read is not a buffer overflow. (That is a problem, too, but not the same problem.) This is what I said in my original post (you know, the one you replied to saying I had "no idea").
A buffer overflow is when a large amount of data is put in a small buffer without safeguards, because data will be written outside of the designated buffer. Period.
There are different requirements for it to be exploitable, which is maybe what you're thinking of, but a buffer overflow itself is that simple: big data, small buffer, data overwrites stuff outside of the buffer.
Um. A buffer overflow is whenever the code attempts to store a large data element in a small buffer without adequate protection. This is what Firefox does when you attempt to start up and it hits the too-large history entry.
I haven't looked at Mozilla's parser code, so it isn't clear exactly effect the buffer overflow will have. But it is a buffer overflow by definition.
One of the biggest mistakes the company I worked for ever made was allowing someone on premises after she handed in a resignation letter. She stole a pile of source code, some hard drives right out of computers (replacing them with defective ones), formed a competing company and used inside knowledge to underbid us... and stole the signed work agreement.
There's not much we can do about source code and hard drivees, but needless to say, nobody (but nobody) has access to those agreements anymore.
Without even seeing it, I can guarantee that building was worth more than $1.5 million. Sony hasn't backed out, but it is a lower contribution. That's not demonizing, that's reality.