When you call in and go through the whole lost in the mail procedure, they give you a new address and a claim number to attach. This is how they track how many times you've mailed in the forms.
Oh, you mean keep copies of everything even though they tell you to send the originals? And I suppose we're supposed to send everything registered mail and require signatures, right? And then spend hours on the phone with outsourced call center a-holes that just repeat "well send it again" up until the deadline passes.
Oh wait, I did all that and still no rebate! After their latest rebate shenanigans, I'm never shopping at Best Buy and I'm never again buying something that offers a rebate. There's too many places to shop to have to put up with this nonsense.
. . . and *gets girls to come over to your table look at it*.
So in addition to the "boss key" we now need a "hot girl key" to minimize all of our useful productive work and replace it with something cute and fuzzy.
[I used Microsoft Word 2002 SP3 to run the Spelling and Grammar check. Please try it on your computer and tell me what happens. I would love to hear from WordPerfect and OpenOffice users as well.]
The OpenOffice grammar check function works exactly as advertised.
Millions of windows/.net programmers now have a new toy with linux/mono. Looks like thedailywtf.com should think about upgrading their servers to handle the increased traffic.
Ok, but this article is not about security in general. The title of his article is "The Failure of Two-Factor Authentication". Aside from that, he also goes on to state "see how two-factor authentication doesn't solve anything?". I've read many of his articles but this one doesn't offer any real words of wisdom. Two-factor authentication has a place in security but it is a small place and is useless unless it is part of a larger more well thought out scheme. Scheier makes none of these points. Instead he makes it seem like it's worthless no matter how you use it.
The comments from Schneier do not make any sense to me. A man-in-the-middle attack is an attack on the network communications protocol rather than the authentication method. And a trojan is the end result of being hacked, rather than a hacking method by itself. He even comments that the trojan simply waits for the user to log in first. So what does this have to do with authentication?
What happened to java not allowing applets to read/write to files in the first place? I'm "stupid" if I assume a java applet won't destroy my entire system just by clicking on something? Even though this is written in the java applet specifications? And what's the point in code-signing when the browser still lets the unsigned code run with increased privileges anyway? How about Mozilla noticing that the signature is invalid and not running it? I think that's written in a spec somewhere too isn't it? Some activities can not hide behind a "yes/no" button. I mean, the mozilla developers should know that they're basically giving a java application a free pass on your system so can't they do better than "run unsigned app (yes/no)?". If we continue to get swarmed with these "kill my system (yes/no)?" questions then we'll all get in trouble eventually. Personally, I don't like the fact that some BS applet wields so much power suddenly when the spec clearly states this should not happen. If the signature is invalid then the code is unsigned (and should not be run). Unsigned code can't write to files. How hard is it? Damn!
Three years for the first offense, six years for repeat offenders! Oh and if you are suspected for any reason, the ticket taker can hold you for questioning without risk of civil/criminal liability to him or the theater. Eventually, watching a movie will be just as risky as going to the airport.
The text of HR2391 says nothing about objectionable content. Taken literally, you can cut out anything you want except commercials and station announcements. So according to our senate, commercials are more important than _anything_ else. Except maybe a tornado warning or something like that.
Yes, I do have a clue. I've done extensive testing on this issue. I've added the setting and once added, the setting is retained regardless of whether the file user.js is there or not. And plugins do break, I've seen the errors with my own eyes. The error messages say I'm running a netscape plugin under IE and then the plugin fails. Just because something works on your machine does not mean it is guarenteed to work everywhere.
This doesn't "fake" anything. It changes the actual value within mozilla which is obviously used for other things. Who knows what all will break when you do this. I know for a fact that plugins will break and the "help->about" page breaks. You don't want to change this value just to trick a site because you will end up having to reinstall. And no, removing the file does not make things go back to like they were before. There is no feature to "fake" the user-agent request header within mozilla.
Slashdot Mirror
When you call in and go through the whole lost in the mail procedure, they give you a new address and a claim number to attach. This is how they track how many times you've mailed in the forms.
Oh, you mean keep copies of everything even though they tell you to send the originals? And I suppose we're supposed to send everything registered mail and require signatures, right? And then spend hours on the phone with outsourced call center a-holes that just repeat "well send it again" up until the deadline passes.
Oh wait, I did all that and still no rebate! After their latest rebate shenanigans, I'm never shopping at Best Buy and I'm never again buying something that offers a rebate. There's too many places to shop to have to put up with this nonsense.
Millions of windows/.net programmers now have a new toy with linux/mono. Looks like thedailywtf.com should think about upgrading their servers to handle the increased traffic.
Judging from the kid's expression in the picture, it looks like they navigated to some horrible site.
If you turn it upside down and shake it, does that clear the screen now?
Ok, but this article is not about security in general. The title of his article is "The Failure of Two-Factor Authentication". Aside from that, he also goes on to state "see how two-factor authentication doesn't solve anything?". I've read many of his articles but this one doesn't offer any real words of wisdom. Two-factor authentication has a place in security but it is a small place and is useless unless it is part of a larger more well thought out scheme. Scheier makes none of these points. Instead he makes it seem like it's worthless no matter how you use it.
The comments from Schneier do not make any sense to me. A man-in-the-middle attack is an attack on the network communications protocol rather than the authentication method. And a trojan is the end result of being hacked, rather than a hacking method by itself. He even comments that the trojan simply waits for the user to log in first. So what does this have to do with authentication?
What happened to java not allowing applets to read/write to files in the first place? I'm "stupid" if I assume a java applet won't destroy my entire system just by clicking on something? Even though this is written in the java applet specifications? And what's the point in code-signing when the browser still lets the unsigned code run with increased privileges anyway? How about Mozilla noticing that the signature is invalid and not running it? I think that's written in a spec somewhere too isn't it? Some activities can not hide behind a "yes/no" button. I mean, the mozilla developers should know that they're basically giving a java application a free pass on your system so can't they do better than "run unsigned app (yes/no)?". If we continue to get swarmed with these "kill my system (yes/no)?" questions then we'll all get in trouble eventually. Personally, I don't like the fact that some BS applet wields so much power suddenly when the spec clearly states this should not happen. If the signature is invalid then the code is unsigned (and should not be run). Unsigned code can't write to files. How hard is it? Damn!
Three years for the first offense, six years for repeat offenders! Oh and if you are suspected for any reason, the ticket taker can hold you for questioning without risk of civil/criminal liability to him or the theater. Eventually, watching a movie will be just as risky as going to the airport.
The text of HR2391 says nothing about objectionable content. Taken literally, you can cut out anything you want except commercials and station announcements. So according to our senate, commercials are more important than _anything_ else. Except maybe a tornado warning or something like that.
Here's a bugzilla report for the same issue: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=83376
Yes, I do have a clue. I've done extensive testing on this issue. I've added the setting and once added, the setting is retained regardless of whether the file user.js is there or not. And plugins do break, I've seen the errors with my own eyes. The error messages say I'm running a netscape plugin under IE and then the plugin fails. Just because something works on your machine does not mean it is guarenteed to work everywhere.
This doesn't "fake" anything. It changes the actual value within mozilla which is obviously used for other things. Who knows what all will break when you do this. I know for a fact that plugins will break and the "help->about" page breaks. You don't want to change this value just to trick a site because you will end up having to reinstall. And no, removing the file does not make things go back to like they were before. There is no feature to "fake" the user-agent request header within mozilla.