Maybe they wish to track your Firefox browsing habits or capture your passwords similar to spyware embedded in IE. Who cares... the only reason I continued this thread was to get you to that point where you're no longer arguing that it can't be done.
And as soon as you install it, the specially built apps will start emailing me any username/password you login with or enter into a password field of the web browser. Or did you personally compare checksums of all the programs?
(Hypothetical, of course, but an interesting scenario nonetheless.)
You're not understanding what I said. What having the source code does is allow the malware author to craft their code to automatically install and run the extension without any user intervention -- basically, take the Firefox code which installs extensions and automate all of the parts that users have to do themselves. Your argument is like saying "Ah, but you get prompted if you want to delete a file in Windows Explorer", ignoring the fact that malware can delete files without user interaction.
Just watched the DarkFall video and I really hope they fix the hand movement. It looks like the hands are stuck on some kind of windmill that they have to bob up and down sequentially right in front of the guy's face. Even when the character is on the bridge and moving *sideways* the hands still bob up and down... in the front... at the same rate. Regardless of the merits of the game itself, that one quirk turns me off of this game. For an example of realistic hand movement, check out the Project Offset demo video #2. Most of the time you don't see the hands -- only the weapon -- and when the guy moves sideways (after seeing the dragon, before seeing the ogre) the weapon appears to move realistically.
the user can't install any extensions from a site other than update.mozilla.org without jumping through a few hoops first.
Let's keep in mind the context here. Vulnerabilities in the browser allow for execution of arbitrary code. That arbitrary code can install itself, auto-whitelist itself, run itself... you get the picture. It's even easier since Firefox is open source, the malware author just needs to run the same code that Firefox would have run, skipping over the user confirmation hoops so that it happens transparently to the user.
But simple web browsing is still "safer" in Firefox. Your computer might get pwn3d, but your browser won't! The "exploits" and "security flaws" everyone is talking about completely misses the layman's reason for switching, and that is because (thus far) none of these FireFox exploits turn innocent browsing into a spyware, adware, toolbar infested nightmare.
So you can install anything onto the computer (such as spyware, adware, malware, etc.) but the browser is still safe? I agree with the other poster... what a crock! Also note that it's possible to install extensions into Firefox. Just because nobody has written a spyware/adware extension for Firefox doesn't mean that Firefox is immune. In fact, one of the benefits of Firefox is the ability to extend it. Do you even *know* what you're talking about?
The use of from...to implies it's a range. So while it's possible that it's similar to saying "integers from 1 to 2", it could also be from 1 to 100 and they're glossing over the 2 to 99 part.
I like Firefox but being forced to wait days -- or longer -- for a security update is utterly pathetic. If I wanted a browser with known exploits that I can't patch I'd use IE.
You're not forced to wait days. Just download the source, find the bugs, and fix them yourself. After all, isn't the lack of source code what you meant by IE being "a browser... that I can't patch"? It's not like Microsoft doesn't release updates for IE or anything.
If you download from a mirror you should always check the MD5/SHA1 Sum to ensure that you are getting the proper files, and that they haven't been tampered with.
What always amuses me is that most mirror sites also mirror the checksum files as well.
You mean to tell me Symantec's stance on browser security reinforces the need for their solutions?
How's that? They're claiming that the browser which the vast majority of people use is *more* secure. So if you use IE, you need their products *less* than if you used Firefox.
"Present progressive (also called present continuous) tense indicates an action that is happening at the time it is written or spoken about. Present progressive is formed with am, is or are plus the present participle.
The crowd is looking up at a man standing on the ledge of a tenth story window.
Law is becoming an overcrowded profession."
So perhaps you need to revisit what you erroneously believed to be future tense.
The phrase "is now becoming" obviously suggests that DFBSD is not, as of now, the premiere BSD.
To join in on the pedantry, "is now becoming" suggests a definite transformation which is already underway. For example, if you had the phrase "Linux is now becoming the dominant server platform for web services", that doesn't suggest that perhaps in the indefinite future it's a possibility. Rather, it suggests a definitive trend which, if it continues, will make Linux the dominant platform.
You would need to add a lot of qualifiers to what you said to make it true. "If DF's basis is technically sound, and if that basis proves to result in a more mature and scalable platform, and if that platform is capable of accomodating new and unexpected shifts in technology, and if it ever becomes production ready, and if [additional qualifiers] THEN DragonFly BSD is likely to assume the role of the premiere production BSD... for me."
At the moment, it's not production, it's nowhere near the premiere, and it's not "bound to" replace any role as the roles of the different projects are different. "Bound to" means predetermined, certain, resolved... and it's rather premature to say with certainty that, even if the assumptions your statement uses were correct, the end result is inevitable.
If it sounds like a stable, final release, people will be more willing to use it, thereby finding the bugs, thereby resulting in bugfixers, which leads to more reliable software.
Sounds like what a lot of people around here criticize Microsoft for.
Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print?
LOL
Just because it's in a book it doesn't mean it's inherently more acurate.
Wikipedia has the possibility of being as authoritative as anything else. But if this trademark application is anything like other slashdot discussions linking to wiki articles, I'm guessing when the trademark commissioner read up on it, someone had already changed it to a goatse image.
Wikipedia's strength and weakness is that it can be edited by anybody. Nobel prize winners can go online and contribute. So can your local village idiot. One man's detailed explanation of nuclear physics is another's opportunity for vandalism. However, there's something to be said about bringing an in-print widely respected encyclopedia which can't be altered on the fly to someone and saying, "Here is evidence that backs up my claims", and point to the authors, references, and bibliography used.
If I explicitly request information from you and supply a mailinator address to receive that information, your email server will show up as a spam source. What a joke.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they wish to track your Firefox browsing habits or capture your passwords similar to spyware embedded in IE. Who cares... the only reason I continued this thread was to get you to that point where you're no longer arguing that it can't be done.
Just throw out your TV and do something better with your time... I'm boycotting them since 2004.
So you're that guy!
Something I've noticed about HDTV is that you almost have to look at the screen from a distance to see the most quality difference.
Having your face pressed up against the glass does make it difficult to judge quality differences.
And as soon as you install it, the specially built apps will start emailing me any username/password you login with or enter into a password field of the web browser. Or did you personally compare checksums of all the programs?
(Hypothetical, of course, but an interesting scenario nonetheless.)
You're not understanding what I said. What having the source code does is allow the malware author to craft their code to automatically install and run the extension without any user intervention -- basically, take the Firefox code which installs extensions and automate all of the parts that users have to do themselves. Your argument is like saying "Ah, but you get prompted if you want to delete a file in Windows Explorer", ignoring the fact that malware can delete files without user interaction.
Just watched the DarkFall video and I really hope they fix the hand movement. It looks like the hands are stuck on some kind of windmill that they have to bob up and down sequentially right in front of the guy's face. Even when the character is on the bridge and moving *sideways* the hands still bob up and down... in the front... at the same rate. Regardless of the merits of the game itself, that one quirk turns me off of this game. For an example of realistic hand movement, check out the Project Offset demo video #2. Most of the time you don't see the hands -- only the weapon -- and when the guy moves sideways (after seeing the dragon, before seeing the ogre) the weapon appears to move realistically.
or the right of the people peaceably to assemble ... and shit on each other!
the user can't install any extensions from a site other than update.mozilla.org without jumping through a few hoops first.
Let's keep in mind the context here. Vulnerabilities in the browser allow for execution of arbitrary code. That arbitrary code can install itself, auto-whitelist itself, run itself... you get the picture. It's even easier since Firefox is open source, the malware author just needs to run the same code that Firefox would have run, skipping over the user confirmation hoops so that it happens transparently to the user.
But simple web browsing is still "safer" in Firefox. Your computer might get pwn3d, but your browser won't! The "exploits" and "security flaws" everyone is talking about completely misses the layman's reason for switching, and that is because (thus far) none of these FireFox exploits turn innocent browsing into a spyware, adware, toolbar infested nightmare.
So you can install anything onto the computer (such as spyware, adware, malware, etc.) but the browser is still safe? I agree with the other poster... what a crock! Also note that it's possible to install extensions into Firefox. Just because nobody has written a spyware/adware extension for Firefox doesn't mean that Firefox is immune. In fact, one of the benefits of Firefox is the ability to extend it. Do you even *know* what you're talking about?
besides that, now that it is html/css, this site probably weighs in at near the size of the light version now.
Anyone have any before/after stats to share?
... slashdot does not work with Netscape 4 when I try it today.
It sucks in Mosaic 1.0 as well.
If slashdot can make money off posting dupes, why can't dupes make money off posting on slashdot? ;}
That's what happens on slashdot.ru
The use of from...to implies it's a range. So while it's possible that it's similar to saying "integers from 1 to 2", it could also be from 1 to 100 and they're glossing over the 2 to 99 part.
I like Firefox but being forced to wait days -- or longer -- for a security update is utterly pathetic. If I wanted a browser with known exploits that I can't patch I'd use IE.
You're not forced to wait days. Just download the source, find the bugs, and fix them yourself. After all, isn't the lack of source code what you meant by IE being "a browser... that I can't patch"? It's not like Microsoft doesn't release updates for IE or anything.
If you download from a mirror you should always check the MD5/SHA1 Sum to ensure that you are getting the proper files, and that they haven't been tampered with.
What always amuses me is that most mirror sites also mirror the checksum files as well.
You mean to tell me Symantec's stance on browser security reinforces the need for their solutions?
How's that? They're claiming that the browser which the vast majority of people use is *more* secure. So if you use IE, you need their products *less* than if you used Firefox.
Oh, and for some objective reference:
"Present progressive (also called present continuous) tense indicates an action that is happening at the time it is written or spoken about. Present progressive is formed with am, is or are plus the present participle.
The crowd is looking up at a man standing on the ledge of a tenth story window.
Law is becoming an overcrowded profession."
So perhaps you need to revisit what you erroneously believed to be future tense.
The phrase "is now becoming" obviously suggests that DFBSD is not, as of now, the premiere BSD.
To join in on the pedantry, "is now becoming" suggests a definite transformation which is already underway. For example, if you had the phrase "Linux is now becoming the dominant server platform for web services", that doesn't suggest that perhaps in the indefinite future it's a possibility. Rather, it suggests a definitive trend which, if it continues, will make Linux the dominant platform.
You would need to add a lot of qualifiers to what you said to make it true. "If DF's basis is technically sound, and if that basis proves to result in a more mature and scalable platform, and if that platform is capable of accomodating new and unexpected shifts in technology, and if it ever becomes production ready, and if [additional qualifiers] THEN DragonFly BSD is likely to assume the role of the premiere production BSD... for me."
At the moment, it's not production, it's nowhere near the premiere, and it's not "bound to" replace any role as the roles of the different projects are different. "Bound to" means predetermined, certain, resolved... and it's rather premature to say with certainty that, even if the assumptions your statement uses were correct, the end result is inevitable.
If it sounds like a stable, final release, people will be more willing to use it, thereby finding the bugs, thereby resulting in bugfixers, which leads to more reliable software.
Sounds like what a lot of people around here criticize Microsoft for.
So it's not an example of stealing code under the BSD license.
No, but this is such an example.
I didn't realize NASA was planning a manned mission to Uranus.
Judging from the screenshots, it looks like they're aiming to give Outlook Express a run for its money.
Because it's more authorative & acurate than anything else out there, including print?
LOL
Just because it's in a book it doesn't mean it's inherently more acurate.
Wikipedia has the possibility of being as authoritative as anything else. But if this trademark application is anything like other slashdot discussions linking to wiki articles, I'm guessing when the trademark commissioner read up on it, someone had already changed it to a goatse image.
Wikipedia's strength and weakness is that it can be edited by anybody. Nobel prize winners can go online and contribute. So can your local village idiot. One man's detailed explanation of nuclear physics is another's opportunity for vandalism. However, there's something to be said about bringing an in-print widely respected encyclopedia which can't be altered on the fly to someone and saying, "Here is evidence that backs up my claims", and point to the authors, references, and bibliography used.
Indeed! Microsoft is putting a stake through AOL!
If I explicitly request information from you and supply a mailinator address to receive that information, your email server will show up as a spam source. What a joke.