There are a lot of factors why the cinemas and the film makers are having a hard time.
First is the experience in the theater itself:
The movies used to be a reasonably affordable night out for the family. It no longer is. High ticket prices and even higher snack prices easily drive a night out for a family of 4 to $60 - $80 or more. For a movie? Less expensive matinees at least get into the realm of reasonableness.
The experience inside the theater is usually less than pleasant. The move starts 20 minutes after they say it will to bombard you with add. Many folks, all of which think they are the center of the universe, talk or text on their phones during the movie, ruining the experience. Again, matinees help since there are usually fewer people, but still.
Second is the home entertainment experience.
It's more and more common place for people to have large, flat screens in their house. It's not a cinematic experience, but it's close enough that it outweighs the aggravation of the theater.
It used to take a year or more for movies to finally hit the movie channels and then to DVD. Now they're available in a few months on the movie channels or NetFlix or other provider. Heck, you can reserve movies on NetFlix while they're still in the theater. And you KNOW that summer blockbuster (or stinker) will be readily available in time for your Holiday shopping. You wait, at most, a few months before you can see anyway.
What has evaporated is the incentive to actually see it in the theater. The experience.
Not necessarily "bad" parenting, but certainly lazy parenting. It is completely the parent's responsibility to monitor what their children are doing. Blaming Apple for your kids running up your credit card is like blaming Glock when you shoot someone. It's YOUR responsibility. I have young child who has an iPod Touch and we set up an account for him with no credit card attached to it and only we know the password. If he wants to purchase anything he has to come to us, he pays us with his allowance and we purchase it for him. This serves several purposes:
1) It allows us to monitor what he's playing/using and veto power if we don't think the content is appropriate.
2) He learns the value of money, since he's spending his own.
3) There's interaction between us regarding this device, and he asks plenty of questions.
Can Apple (or other software vendors) do a better job with parental controls, ease of use and understanding of this technology? Of course, but it'll never be perfect and every kid and family is different. It's no different than any other product - if you don't understand it, feel it's dangerous or not appropriate, don't like the company's policies or history, etc. - you don't buy the product.
This "poor me, it's not MY fault" attitude just boils my blood.
YOU bought the product. YOU allow your kid to use it. It's YOUR responsibility.
It's not an electronic babysitter. It's a device that can be used for good or evil - there needs to be guidance.
All very good questions. I'll mention right now that I am one of the software engineers on the project and my comments are my own, and do not reflect IBM.
That said, IBM sees a lot of potential in virtual worlds. Metaverse, specifically has two primary goals: 1) It's targeted for internal business use, so it must be secure. Users are all securely identified - no impersonating. We are looking at anonymity for certain situations. Being internal means we should be able to hook up to any and all web services we want to interact with and tie in many of our existing tools like bluepages, sametime, blogging, wikis, etc.
2) How do we leverage virtual world technology to enhance business? This is our big mission. What things can we do in a virtual world that are better than other tools? How about things that can only practically be done in a virtual world? Sure, we can do presentations and other "ordinary" stuff, but that can really be done better on the web - or just sent via email. Until we immerse ourselves in the world and try things out, we won't come across those traits that really make it unique. What works? What doesn't? Who's to say someone (developer or user) won't come up with that one idea that really exploits virtual world technology and really makes the medium suddenly a necessity?
You can't just sit around and wait for it to mature - you're too late by then. You have to go out there and discover. Be willing to take the risk if you believe in the future of the technology.
We see this as really the infancy of virtual worlds and, I believe, really can't imagine what we'll be able to do in them in 5 - 10 years.
Many people may not be able to see any way useful business value can be obtained through virtual worlds, but people said the same thing of the web and instant messaging. Look how critical they are now.
For a minute there, I thought Microsoft was going to sponsor the World Community Grid. Could you imagine if every new Windows PC shiped with a World Community Grid client? Imagine the power of the grid then...
1. The results from any project run on World Community Grid are required to be placed into the public domain for anyone to use.
2. I'm Not sure what you mean by this question. The research institute creates the data and World Community Grid verifies and packages it up for deployment on the grid. Results are verified by World Community Grid, packaged and sent back to the research institute for whatever post processing they need to do on the raw results. All data is sent and received via an encrypted link.
3. As answered in #1, the results are placed into the public domain, so anyone can utilize them.
4. The Windows client is closed source, licenced from United Devices. BOINC is open source.
As far as a "solution" for Sametime, most of these don't come close. Sametime meetings don't even work properly without IE on Windows, I can't imagine how they are going to get the same functionality in Linux.
This is more FUD. I use Sametime Meetings just fine with Mozilla/Firefox on Windows. It even works on Firefox on Linux (though not quite as pretty).
Sametime is not an issue for Linux users. We have several Sametime compliant solutions to choose from. The one most Linux users and many Windows users use is IBM Community Tools (http://community.ngi.ibm.com/). It provides many more features and is much more powerful than basic Sametime. Our internal version is a few steps ahead of the external version listed on the above website. I've been using it everyday for over 2 years now on my Linux system at work.
The article is clearly quite incorrect about many things, especially regarding IBM's web based tools.
Most web apps inside IBM work just fine on all browsers. There are a few that don't, primarily because they use Java Applets that require the MS JVM. There are a few sites that just have really poorly written HTML, but all in all, the IBM intranet is very friendly to all browsers. Almost all of these "broken" sites were written before IBMs directive came out or they are tools managed by a 3rd party (e.g. Amex) IBM has very strict rules regarding intranet sites. In summary, they must be XHTML compliant, work on all XHMTL compliant browsers, and pass accessibility guidelines. There is an exception process if you have valid reasons for violating these rules. Part of that exception process is a plan to fix the problem. That doesn't mean it'll be fixed immediately. Everything costs time and money and everything has a priority. I think most people don't grasp the breadth of IBM's intranet and the amount of tools that run on it.
Firefox works for me, but I still use Mozilla primarily because some of the features changed or are gone that I'm used to in Mozilla. I'm a less efficient web surfer with Firefox. e.g. try bookmarking a group of tabs. It's very simple in Mozilla, but Firefox screwed this up bad. Want to open that same group of tabs? It's a lot of extra mouse movement in Firefox (though on the plus side you can open individual bookmarks within the group that you can't do in Mozilla). These (and others) and the following bugs prevent me from using it as my primary browser:
Honestly, I really don't know what people are talking about how bloated Mozilla is over Firefox. You don't have to install anything you don't want to. Don't want Composer or Mozchat? Don't install them. Firefox is lighter weight than Mozilla simply because they removed a BUNCH of features. You can add (most) of these back in via extensions. By the time I add the dozen or so extensions I need to get back to the functionality of Mozilla, guess what? They have a very similar footprint.
Finally, to me, Firefox seems like a dumbed down version of Mozilla. Features and settings are hidden that were out in the open in Mozilla. It's like they used the Microsoft method of application development: make it look slick and pretty on the outside, fill in the features and fix the bugs on the inside later. Firefox has a lot of pluses, but it's not quite cooked yet. No offense to the developers. To be fair, Firefox has made significant improvements with each release. It'll get there, but it's not there yet.
Close. IBM donates, runs and operates all of the servers and infrastructure. However, World Community Grid licenced the United Devices client and server software (the client being slightly customized). IBM ported Rosetta to Windows (from Linux) and the United Devices API as well as "gridified" it. We also wrote all the graphics, the web site, and all the backend processing programs.
After this first project is complete, World Community Grid and United Devices will each pursue different projects. They will be separate grids.
IBM is involved in many different areas of grid computing. World Community Grid is just one area.
Fact is, "assault" rifles, and rifles in general are extremely poor home defense choices. They're akward, hard to control and use high velocity rounds which will go through most home walls (even several). You don't want to accidentally hurt others in or outside your house.
A better choice is a shotgun or pistol. Shotguns are much better for home defense. They're also a little akward though. Usually, depending on the shells, shotgun rounds won't go through walls and have the advantage of not needing to be very precise in your aiming. Most people defending their homes are going to have their adrenaline pumping, will be scared and nervous and unless you are well trained, you won't be aiming very well.
Pistols have the advantage of being much easier to handle. You want low velocity rounds that collapse so they have less penetration. But the arguement for the shotgun (no need to be precise in aiming) works against the pistol. Most people aren't the best shot when scared and nervous.
The bloat honestly depends on one very big factor: If the application provides its own JRE or not. A lot of commercial apps deliver their own JRE with the application. This causes you to launch a new JVM each time.
If, on the other hand, you are able to run the apps against your system JRE, then you won't see nearly as much bloat. But like I said, almost every commerical app that I use provides its own JRE, which does not help.
You're correct, but I think we're comparing apples and oranges here.
On the server side, startup time isn't an issue and neither is the memory consumption or vast GUI issues that Java has. It is, however, a completely different story on the client side.
There are several problems with Java that more or less make it unsuitable for client side applications.
While non-GUI Java is sufficiently fast, Java GUIs (particularly SWING) are horrendously slow. They also don't quite have the proper look and feel of a native application. Java GUIs also tend to be quite buggy. Both SWING and SWT have many problems.
Java takes up too much memory. Client machines dont' have the memory resources that servers do. Java apps take huge amounts of memory to run and cause many machines to start swapping...especially if you are running 2 or more Java apps. This kills the client performance more than anything.
Startup time is horrible. Again, this is not an issue with server side, but I don't want to wait a minute (which is perceptively a very long time) for an application to start up.
I could go on from a programming side as well, but that's off-topic on this thread.
You've got it completely wrong. As discussed at length when "Mozilla exploit" was announced, this is clearly a Windows bug and not a Mozilla bug. This bug only exists on Windows 2000 and XP. Not on any other OS (Linux, Sun, AIX, Mac, etc.) The fact that Microsoft themselves have supposedly fixed this in XP SP2 tells you that even they think it's a bug.
Mozilla doesn't do what you claim it does. It doens't just see a "shell:" URI and execute it. In fact, Mozilla doesn't know anything about the "shell:" URI, just like Mozilla doesn't know about the "xyz:" URI. When Mozilla runs across a URI it can't handle itself (e.g. http or ftp) it asks the OS if there is an application registered to handle this type of URI. The OS says, "yes, please launch this application with these parameters", and Mozilla does so. This is no different than clicking on a Real audio stream link and having it launch the Real player for you...or a PDF link when you don't have the plugin installed, but you do have Acrobat Reader.
The real bug is that the application that's launched via the "shell:" protocol is the one not properly checking its parameters. Mozilla is just doing what the OS told it to do.
This shell extension could do just as much harm when running under a root Linux account (and there are plenty of those out there!)
Linux and Mac do not have such as thing to handle the "shell" protocol, thus it's not possible for them to have this flaw. Windows (in fact just 2000 and XP) are the only OSes that are vulnerable. Why? Because Microsoft wrote a dangerous handler that's not secure. If it was secure, no one would be talking about this right now. That fact that Microsoft themselves have fixed this bug in the next XP service pack doesn't tell you it's an MS bug?
Umm, that other protocol most likely won't have the ability to natively execute arbitrary strings passed to it! Maybe you're not understanding the difference between a native operating system shell handler and a text or image protocol handler.
I certainly understand it. It appears, however, that you do not. Mozilla is not arbitrarily launching a shell process merely because someone had a "shell:..." URI. It's asking the OS if it has an application that handles this protocol. Windows says yes and tells it how to launch the program. It passes the parameters to the application (just like any other helper app or plugin) and it's this application's responsiblility to check parameters. How is this any different than, say, registering my XYZ program to handle the "xyz" protocol and the XYZ application has a flaw that is exploitable?
Mozilla itself doesn't know one handler from another, and it shouldn't care. The system says "this application handles this protocol/content", so Mozilla hands it off.
Yes, blame Microsoft. If you RTFA, you'd notice that Microsoft themselves fixed this bug in the next XP service pack (which won't be released for several more months...)
Mozilla's quickfix was to just turn the protocol off. The Mozilla developer's shouldn't be babysitting the Windows OS. It's an operating system protocol handler, just like any other registered helper app. What do you recommend happen if Flash has an exploit? Have Mozilla not load the flash plugin? No, it's a bug in Flash and we expect Macromedia to fix it. This is not any different. But in the mean time, since this shell handler is not really used, the quick fix is to simply ignore the shell protocol (i.e. don't hand it off to the OS).
The other fix is to dig into the registry and turn off the shell handler yourself.
Agreed. It's not really a bug in the browser, it's a flaw in Windows.
Windows has a bunch of protocol handlers registered. Mozilla knows how to handle a few (e.g. http, ftp, etc.). Whenever it encounters a protocol it doens't know what to do with, it sees if Windows knows how to handle it. Windows either handles it in some way or it doesn't. If it doesn't, Mozilla puts up a message saying "xyz is not a registered protocol." Mozilla has no way of knowing that anything is bad or dangerous.
The real bug is in Windows. The only real options the Mozilla developers have is to black/white list known dangerous protocols or simply don't allow protocols Mozilla itself doesn't handle. Neither are optimal. If you can't trust the OS you're on, you really limit yourself, bugs or not.
So we banish the "shell" protocol today. Who's to say Windows won't have another flaw in another protocol tomorrow?
This really isn't any different than plugins, which are in a sense, external protocol handlers. i.e. they know how to handle certain content...just like a protocol handler. What if there is an exploit in a plugin? Mozilla just starts the plugin with the listed parameters and lets it go. Are you going to blame Mozilla for allowing the plugin to run, or are you going to require that Mozilla not allow "known, dangerous plugins" to run?
don't even know if it would've been available back in the late '80s)
Yeah, it was available. I took it back in '86 when it was in Pascal. I don't remember it being that difficult though.
Of course, back then in high school I was programming on Commodore SuperPETs. Ah, I love the smell of green phosphor in the morning!
Slashdot Mirror
Second is the home entertainment experience.
What has evaporated is the incentive to actually see it in the theater. The experience.
No My Problem.
This is new? Back in 1991, they used this technique to figure out what breaks the Ex-Presidents surf.
Can Apple (or other software vendors) do a better job with parental controls, ease of use and understanding of this technology? Of course, but it'll never be perfect and every kid and family is different. It's no different than any other product - if you don't understand it, feel it's dangerous or not appropriate, don't like the company's policies or history, etc. - you don't buy the product.
This "poor me, it's not MY fault" attitude just boils my blood.
YOU bought the product. YOU allow your kid to use it. It's YOUR responsibility.
It's not an electronic babysitter. It's a device that can be used for good or evil - there needs to be guidance.
...or a swallow...but which one? An African or a European swallow?
Well this is money well spent. I mean, having to correct my clock every 100 million years was becoming just too laborious.
All very good questions. I'll mention right now that I am one of the software engineers on the project and my comments are my own, and do not reflect IBM.
That said, IBM sees a lot of potential in virtual worlds. Metaverse, specifically has two primary goals:
1) It's targeted for internal business use, so it must be secure. Users are all securely identified - no impersonating. We are looking at anonymity for certain situations. Being internal means we should be able to hook up to any and all web services we want to interact with and tie in many of our existing tools like bluepages, sametime, blogging, wikis, etc.
2) How do we leverage virtual world technology to enhance business? This is our big mission. What things can we do in a virtual world that are better than other tools? How about things that can only practically be done in a virtual world? Sure, we can do presentations and other "ordinary" stuff, but that can really be done better on the web - or just sent via email. Until we immerse ourselves in the world and try things out, we won't come across those traits that really make it unique. What works? What doesn't? Who's to say someone (developer or user) won't come up with that one idea that really exploits virtual world technology and really makes the medium suddenly a necessity?
You can't just sit around and wait for it to mature - you're too late by then. You have to go out there and discover. Be willing to take the risk if you believe in the future of the technology.
We see this as really the infancy of virtual worlds and, I believe, really can't imagine what we'll be able to do in them in 5 - 10 years.
Many people may not be able to see any way useful business value can be obtained through virtual worlds, but people said the same thing of the web and instant messaging. Look how critical they are now.
For a minute there, I thought Microsoft was going to sponsor the World Community Grid. Could you imagine if every new Windows PC shiped with a World Community Grid client? Imagine the power of the grid then...
Specifically, the first paragraph states: You can find more details in the "Request For Proposal" PDF on that page.
1. The results from any project run on World Community Grid are required to be placed into the public domain for anyone to use.
2. I'm Not sure what you mean by this question. The research institute creates the data and World Community Grid verifies and packages it up for deployment on the grid. Results are verified by World Community Grid, packaged and sent back to the research institute for whatever post processing they need to do on the raw results. All data is sent and received via an encrypted link.
3. As answered in #1, the results are placed into the public domain, so anyone can utilize them.
4. The Windows client is closed source, licenced from United Devices. BOINC is open source.
This is more FUD. I use Sametime Meetings just fine with Mozilla/Firefox on Windows. It even works on Firefox on Linux (though not quite as pretty).
Sametime is not an issue for Linux users. We have several Sametime compliant solutions to choose from. The one most Linux users and many Windows users use is IBM Community Tools (http://community.ngi.ibm.com/). It provides many more features and is much more powerful than basic Sametime. Our internal version is a few steps ahead of the external version listed on the above website. I've been using it everyday for over 2 years now on my Linux system at work.
My opinions are my own until beaten out of me.
The article is clearly quite incorrect about many things, especially regarding IBM's web based tools.
Most web apps inside IBM work just fine on all browsers. There are a few that don't, primarily because they use Java Applets that require the MS JVM. There are a few sites that just have really poorly written HTML, but all in all, the IBM intranet is very friendly to all browsers. Almost all of these "broken" sites were written before IBMs directive came out or they are tools managed by a 3rd party (e.g. Amex) IBM has very strict rules regarding intranet sites. In summary, they must be XHTML compliant, work on all XHMTL compliant browsers, and pass accessibility guidelines. There is an exception process if you have valid reasons for violating these rules. Part of that exception process is a plan to fix the problem. That doesn't mean it'll be fixed immediately. Everything costs time and money and everything has a priority. I think most people don't grasp the breadth of IBM's intranet and the amount of tools that run on it.
Firefox works for me, but I still use Mozilla primarily because some of the features changed or are gone that I'm used to in Mozilla. I'm a less efficient web surfer with Firefox. e.g. try bookmarking a group of tabs. It's very simple in Mozilla, but Firefox screwed this up bad. Want to open that same group of tabs? It's a lot of extra mouse movement in Firefox (though on the plus side you can open individual bookmarks within the group that you can't do in Mozilla). These (and others) and the following bugs prevent me from using it as my primary browser:
Honestly, I really don't know what people are talking about how bloated Mozilla is over Firefox. You don't have to install anything you don't want to. Don't want Composer or Mozchat? Don't install them. Firefox is lighter weight than Mozilla simply because they removed a BUNCH of features. You can add (most) of these back in via extensions. By the time I add the dozen or so extensions I need to get back to the functionality of Mozilla, guess what? They have a very similar footprint.
Finally, to me, Firefox seems like a dumbed down version of Mozilla. Features and settings are hidden that were out in the open in Mozilla. It's like they used the Microsoft method of application development: make it look slick and pretty on the outside, fill in the features and fix the bugs on the inside later. Firefox has a lot of pluses, but it's not quite cooked yet. No offense to the developers. To be fair, Firefox has made significant improvements with each release. It'll get there, but it's not there yet.
Close. IBM donates, runs and operates all of the servers and infrastructure. However, World Community Grid licenced the United Devices client and server software (the client being slightly customized). IBM ported Rosetta to Windows (from Linux) and the United Devices API as well as "gridified" it. We also wrote all the graphics, the web site, and all the backend processing programs.
After this first project is complete, World Community Grid and United Devices will each pursue different projects. They will be separate grids.
IBM is involved in many different areas of grid computing. World Community Grid is just one area.
Fact is, "assault" rifles, and rifles in general are extremely poor home defense choices. They're akward, hard to control and use high velocity rounds which will go through most home walls (even several). You don't want to accidentally hurt others in or outside your house.
A better choice is a shotgun or pistol. Shotguns are much better for home defense. They're also a little akward though. Usually, depending on the shells, shotgun rounds won't go through walls and have the advantage of not needing to be very precise in your aiming. Most people defending their homes are going to have their adrenaline pumping, will be scared and nervous and unless you are well trained, you won't be aiming very well.
Pistols have the advantage of being much easier to handle. You want low velocity rounds that collapse so they have less penetration. But the arguement for the shotgun (no need to be precise in aiming) works against the pistol. Most people aren't the best shot when scared and nervous.
The bloat honestly depends on one very big factor: If the application provides its own JRE or not. A lot of commercial apps deliver their own JRE with the application. This causes you to launch a new JVM each time.
If, on the other hand, you are able to run the apps against your system JRE, then you won't see nearly as much bloat. But like I said, almost every commerical app that I use provides its own JRE, which does not help.
You're correct, but I think we're comparing apples and oranges here.
On the server side, startup time isn't an issue and neither is the memory consumption or vast GUI issues that Java has. It is, however, a completely different story on the client side.
There are several problems with Java that more or less make it unsuitable for client side applications.
I could go on from a programming side as well, but that's off-topic on this thread.
To the best of my knowledge Windows NT and successors are all 32-bit (not counting the WoW 16-bit compatability stuff).
Remember, Windows NT was essentially forked from OS/2 and then "enhanced" :-)
You've got it completely wrong. As discussed at length when "Mozilla exploit" was announced, this is clearly a Windows bug and not a Mozilla bug. This bug only exists on Windows 2000 and XP. Not on any other OS (Linux, Sun, AIX, Mac, etc.) The fact that Microsoft themselves have supposedly fixed this in XP SP2 tells you that even they think it's a bug.
Mozilla doesn't do what you claim it does. It doens't just see a "shell:" URI and execute it. In fact, Mozilla doesn't know anything about the "shell:" URI, just like Mozilla doesn't know about the "xyz:" URI. When Mozilla runs across a URI it can't handle itself (e.g. http or ftp) it asks the OS if there is an application registered to handle this type of URI. The OS says, "yes, please launch this application with these parameters", and Mozilla does so. This is no different than clicking on a Real audio stream link and having it launch the Real player for you...or a PDF link when you don't have the plugin installed, but you do have Acrobat Reader.
The real bug is that the application that's launched via the "shell:" protocol is the one not properly checking its parameters. Mozilla is just doing what the OS told it to do.
Exactly. The only safe program is one that doesn't even compile :-) Like the old adage about the only secure computer is one that is unplugged.
Linux and Mac do not have such as thing to handle the "shell" protocol, thus it's not possible for them to have this flaw. Windows (in fact just 2000 and XP) are the only OSes that are vulnerable. Why? Because Microsoft wrote a dangerous handler that's not secure. If it was secure, no one would be talking about this right now. That fact that Microsoft themselves have fixed this bug in the next XP service pack doesn't tell you it's an MS bug?
I certainly understand it. It appears, however, that you do not. Mozilla is not arbitrarily launching a shell process merely because someone had a "shell:..." URI. It's asking the OS if it has an application that handles this protocol. Windows says yes and tells it how to launch the program. It passes the parameters to the application (just like any other helper app or plugin) and it's this application's responsiblility to check parameters. How is this any different than, say, registering my XYZ program to handle the "xyz" protocol and the XYZ application has a flaw that is exploitable?
Mozilla itself doesn't know one handler from another, and it shouldn't care. The system says "this application handles this protocol/content", so Mozilla hands it off.
Yes, blame Microsoft. If you RTFA, you'd notice that Microsoft themselves fixed this bug in the next XP service pack (which won't be released for several more months...)
Mozilla's quickfix was to just turn the protocol off. The Mozilla developer's shouldn't be babysitting the Windows OS. It's an operating system protocol handler, just like any other registered helper app. What do you recommend happen if Flash has an exploit? Have Mozilla not load the flash plugin? No, it's a bug in Flash and we expect Macromedia to fix it. This is not any different. But in the mean time, since this shell handler is not really used, the quick fix is to simply ignore the shell protocol (i.e. don't hand it off to the OS).
The other fix is to dig into the registry and turn off the shell handler yourself.
Agreed. It's not really a bug in the browser, it's a flaw in Windows.
Windows has a bunch of protocol handlers registered. Mozilla knows how to handle a few (e.g. http, ftp, etc.). Whenever it encounters a protocol it doens't know what to do with, it sees if Windows knows how to handle it. Windows either handles it in some way or it doesn't. If it doesn't, Mozilla puts up a message saying "xyz is not a registered protocol." Mozilla has no way of knowing that anything is bad or dangerous.
The real bug is in Windows. The only real options the Mozilla developers have is to black/white list known dangerous protocols or simply don't allow protocols Mozilla itself doesn't handle. Neither are optimal. If you can't trust the OS you're on, you really limit yourself, bugs or not.
So we banish the "shell" protocol today. Who's to say Windows won't have another flaw in another protocol tomorrow?
This really isn't any different than plugins, which are in a sense, external protocol handlers. i.e. they know how to handle certain content...just like a protocol handler. What if there is an exploit in a plugin? Mozilla just starts the plugin with the listed parameters and lets it go. Are you going to blame Mozilla for allowing the plugin to run, or are you going to require that Mozilla not allow "known, dangerous plugins" to run?