I think it is copyright that is in the wrong here. I would like to see some sensibility brought onto the statute books and into the courts.
Google are in a similar situation to all the emulator folks copying roms etc from old abandonware games.
The work is out there, but the authors have long since moved onto other things.
Copyright should go into retirement when interest in the work fades. If a person or company cannot be bothered to market or monitor their documents (even if a token sale yearly ala disney) then the works SHOULD be deemed copyabandoned and companies such as google or the emulator folks should be allowed to do extra things with them.
However, if the copyright holder DOES come back with interest in the future (because of new sales etc), then the copyright resumes and google (or the 2nd company) will stop using it and abide by the authors wishes upon first notice.
If somebody exploited firefox properly (which I am certain will occur eventually), then software installation on Windows XP will be the primary target.
Sure, FF on linux might be safe, but any application running under windows with Administrator rights has the potential to take over the entire machine.
Hang on, Firefox is open source and they don't disclose all the bugs.
Isn't there some secret security mailing list where only people with clearance can get access to?
Sure, anyone can look at the source, but knowing where to look to try to help out fixing potential problems can only occur if there is openness in the discussions.
Whenever a bug is disclosed, the OSS community jumps on it and attempts to find workarounds and fixes for it (hurray! go slashbots!) this is where many eyes helps but until that point, just because it is available certainly doesn't mean most people waste their time actively searching for problems.
I disable both whilst continuing to download adverts in general, occasionally a still frame will grab my attention enough to warrant a click, but if its jumping up and down like a hyperactive rabbit on heat, then I think I'll pass.
This guy had made a website which broke Opera and firefox. No mention of IE, but we can assume that it worked there.
He is expecting FF and Opera to both change because of his incompatible site.
Simple solution, fix the site so it works generically rather than pushing for browser modifications (which is rather dumb to expect users to update to anyway).
Firefox is fully open source, and the developers adhere to the principles. You are free to fork the project and create your own custom version if the direction of firefox is not to your liking.
Community driven software does not mean add every single setting and switch offered by a single member of the community, otherwise a stone soup group bloated nightmare results (yes, I realise some projects specifically operate that way, but ff already has extensive addin support without affecting every single downloader).
Perhaps in your single case, a better solution would be to modify your own website rather than affecting the stability of the CSS rendering. Without knowing the specifics though, it would be hard to judge, like the other sibling poster stated, was the CSS attrib you wanted to modify because of an IE flaw?
I just went through to the proper homepage and read the FAQ.
One of the questions is:
Do I need to sign up with an Internet provider to use "wakamaru"?
A "wakamaru" needs a continuous broadband connection, but if you don't have your own provider, when you purchase "wakamaru" it may be possible to have Internet service included.
Why would it need a broadband connection?
Apart from anything, it connects during its charging sessions, but just what information could it need?
It has an ermmmmm integrated memory testing functionality suite built in.
However, in the real world, I do agree with you and the hole(s) should be fixed. Depending upon usage FF basic footprint can skyrocket (usually multiple large gallery pages makes this problem worse). A loss of just a few bytes per image is made much worse by pages with thousands of images.
Add to this addins created entirely out of script and it becomes sluggish on large pages.
HOWEVER, ff is 100x better than the alternative and however sluggish or much memory it uses, it still works.
I agree totally, many grey/black hats are exploring MS code for holes to exploit, and when identified they either start to be exploited, or they go into a closed backroom session to try and fix them privately (makes sense really). The only trouble with this is the time it takes to actually produce a fix. I think its improving, and MS appears to be "getting it" a lot more recently.
Open Source does not magically solve every problem, but where it shines above closed systems is when a hole is identified, it can be looked on and picked over and solved much quicker than a closed source product. However, I personally think Firefox has this wrong at present, whereby identified bug discussions can be censored. It could lead to a backlash of sorts if the fixes are buried for a long time.
Developers who use one of the banned cryptographic functions in new code will have it flagged by automated code scanning tools and will be asked to update the function to something more secure, Howard said.
C:\ > make windows.vista ERROR: Insecure code found. Please upgrade code to Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
It apparantly can't tell a .txt file from a movie.
On the "Media in other folders" page they list "log.txt" as a legitimate file to delete.
There are others (zip files inside java folders etc)
It also lists something called "music.wma" from the all users/my music folder.
If I remember rightly, thats default and installed legally on windows xp.
Then sue the hell out of them when it deletes something it shouldn't.
If you contract your file from x bytes down to a fixed size, no matter what algorithm you use, you will always have collisions.
Unless you start to give your hash keys as the same size as the original file, there is not anything that can be done about it, ever.
Yes they have.
They purposefully direct an exploited computer into sending out thousands of mails or joining in as part of a DDOS attack.
"Edit Comment"
Surely thats a bug. We can't edit comments posted.
We can post them, or create them, but we can never edit them.
Also, the order of the buttons has changed, is that to get us double checking.
I noticed the changes to the user page and thought FF had dropped my config profile (min font size) thankfully it hasn't.
You forgot to include the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button which along with your credit card details automatically either credits or debits your account.
Its like gambling, only much less evil!
For reference, go looking into fractal theory.
Self similar shapes repeat themselves in mathematics, science and nature.
Wander around a Mandelbrot set for a while or go outside and look at a fern.
Isn't gif still proprietary or licensed or something?
;)
You should use png instead
32 bit alpha transparent goodness, just like vista will have.
Its ok, just let Norton handle it.
Oh. Ermmmmm. Shit.
Somebody better get emailing the fix out.
I think we could only answer that with core samples taken by a mining team.
However after so many years of hollywood "classics" I would be concerned about considering this as a viable option.
I think it is copyright that is in the wrong here. I would like to see some sensibility brought onto the statute books and into the courts.
Google are in a similar situation to all the emulator folks copying roms etc from old abandonware games.
The work is out there, but the authors have long since moved onto other things.
Copyright should go into retirement when interest in the work fades. If a person or company cannot be bothered to market or monitor their documents (even if a token sale yearly ala disney) then the works SHOULD be deemed copyabandoned and companies such as google or the emulator folks should be allowed to do extra things with them.
However, if the copyright holder DOES come back with interest in the future (because of new sales etc), then the copyright resumes and google (or the 2nd company) will stop using it and abide by the authors wishes upon first notice.
If somebody exploited firefox properly (which I am certain will occur eventually), then software installation on Windows XP will be the primary target.
Sure, FF on linux might be safe, but any application running under windows with Administrator rights has the potential to take over the entire machine.
Hang on, Firefox is open source and they don't disclose all the bugs.
Isn't there some secret security mailing list where only people with clearance can get access to?
Sure, anyone can look at the source, but knowing where to look to try to help out fixing potential problems can only occur if there is openness in the discussions.
Whenever a bug is disclosed, the OSS community jumps on it and attempts to find workarounds and fixes for it (hurray! go slashbots!) this is where many eyes helps but until that point, just because it is available certainly doesn't mean most people waste their time actively searching for problems.
That sounds horrible.
Is it flash or java driven?
I disable both whilst continuing to download adverts in general, occasionally a still frame will grab my attention enough to warrant a click, but if its jumping up and down like a hyperactive rabbit on heat, then I think I'll pass.
You don't know it was a standard feature.
This guy had made a website which broke Opera and firefox. No mention of IE, but we can assume that it worked there.
He is expecting FF and Opera to both change because of his incompatible site.
Simple solution, fix the site so it works generically rather than pushing for browser modifications (which is rather dumb to expect users to update to anyway).
Firefox is fully open source, and the developers adhere to the principles.
You are free to fork the project and create your own custom version if the direction of firefox is not to your liking.
Community driven software does not mean add every single setting and switch offered by a single member of the community, otherwise a stone soup group bloated nightmare results (yes, I realise some projects specifically operate that way, but ff already has extensive addin support without affecting every single downloader).
Perhaps in your single case, a better solution would be to modify your own website rather than affecting the stability of the CSS rendering.
Without knowing the specifics though, it would be hard to judge, like the other sibling poster stated, was the CSS attrib you wanted to modify because of an IE flaw?
I just went through to the proper homepage and read the FAQ.
One of the questions is:
Do I need to sign up with an Internet provider to use "wakamaru"?
A "wakamaru" needs a continuous broadband connection, but if you don't have your own provider, when you purchase "wakamaru" it may be possible to have Internet service included.
Why would it need a broadband connection?
Apart from anything, it connects during its charging sessions, but just what information could it need?
I'm not concerned that it might not find its way back to its charging station, but would be worried if it misidentifies it and attempts to "plug in".
Warning: Don't ever turn your back to this robot.
Firefox doesn't have memory leaks.
It has an ermmmmm integrated memory testing functionality suite built in.
However, in the real world, I do agree with you and the hole(s) should be fixed. Depending upon usage FF basic footprint can skyrocket (usually multiple large gallery pages makes this problem worse). A loss of just a few bytes per image is made much worse by pages with thousands of images.
Add to this addins created entirely out of script and it becomes sluggish on large pages.
HOWEVER, ff is 100x better than the alternative and however sluggish or much memory it uses, it still works.
Maybe in your country it is, but not in mine.
They aren't encouraging a criminal act.
They are giving their paying fans/customers exactly what they want.
A way to play their purchased songs on their iPods.
Not one single mention of piracy or p2p.
I suppose it would be good for astronauts to get their own back on the Space toilet
(For those not in the know, it includes a upward facing camera and monitor for aiming)
I first thought of porting "Hello World!" to linux.
.net version is 17mb compressed and covers numerous files and resource images.
Then I realised that the
I agree totally, many grey/black hats are exploring MS code for holes to exploit, and when identified they either start to be exploited, or they go into a closed backroom session to try and fix them privately (makes sense really). The only trouble with this is the time it takes to actually produce a fix. I think its improving, and MS appears to be "getting it" a lot more recently.
Open Source does not magically solve every problem, but where it shines above closed systems is when a hole is identified, it can be looked on and picked over and solved much quicker than a closed source product.
However, I personally think Firefox has this wrong at present, whereby identified bug discussions can be censored. It could lead to a backlash of sorts if the fixes are buried for a long time.
Developers who use one of the banned cryptographic functions in new code will have it flagged by automated code scanning tools and will be asked to update the function to something more secure, Howard said.
C:\ > make windows.vista
ERROR: Insecure code found.
Please upgrade code to Linux.