Does anyone have some direct evidence that the patent is invalid? The fact that it is so "obvious" now is not direct evidence. McDonald's patented the seeds they put on hamburger buns. Remember, geek != lawyer. And I'd rather have Amazon than BN.
Nope, he isn't confusing it. The fries holder is patented. McDonald's is very "developed" in the area of patents. They even patented those seeds on the hamburger buns. No, I'm not kidding.
That appears to be true, until you try setting your virus scanner to scan all files, and not just by-extension. Then, you realize that it really slows things down.
Besides file extensions, Microsoft's software also ignores other file content indicators, such as MIME types, user-specified info, etc.
It's more due to the fact that Microsoft software generally checks the file type, regardless of the extension. Try the following:
Rename a.jpeg to a.gif and then insert it into HTML via an IMG tag. Open it with Internet Explorer.
Rename a.doc to an.rtf and then open it with Winword.
The latter, by the way, has caused a lot of grief from a security point of view, because virus scanners generally come (or came) with default settings that make them scan.doc, but not.rtf files. (Just embed some macros into the.doc, and then rename it.)
Is it really necessary for the kernel to include so many additional drivers and modules that most users won't use?
YES, it is!
How did I install Windows 2000 on my Cheap-O(TM) computers with crappy parts? I just dumped the installation files onto the hard drive and ran the installer. It found all of my hardware, with no problems. It even supported my Intel webcam (courtesy of DigiMarc, thanks) although Intel said that they don't work together.
How did I install Linux on a fairly standard computer with good two-year-old hardware? Most of the Debian install was very painless, even with two floppies and the rest being pulled over FTP. But to get it to work with my 3Com NIC (3Com!) NIC, I had to manually install kernel modules.
Granted, things were somewhat different after the install process, with the expected results...
You're forgetting that ICQ uses client-side security. Just apply a simple patch, and you can see people who are invisible, add people without confirmation, and do other kinds of things. I'll leave the research up to you -- you can start here.
And how do you propose the company is slapped? Make them pay a fine of a few million dollars? Put restrictions on them?
Splitting the company will cause competition to exist again, as the MS Office, IExplorer, etc. developers will no longer have an advantage over everyone else. (Access to the WinAPI source code, and the ability to ask for new features in it.)
Personally, I'm still dreaming of an MP3 player with standard widgets, good keyboard controls, and no skins! I've started hating WinAmp the day they switched to the new playlist. The old one didn't look nearly as pretty, but was much easier to work with. Now, they've all but forgotten that people out there use different character encodings.
That's different from Winamp, where all basic layouts look the same square (boring).
Not that I'm into skins, but does anyone know whatever happened to a0? At one point, the WinAmp crew was working on a cool-looking dynamic skin thingy called a0 for WinAmp, which came as a general purpose plugin for WinAmp. Anyone know what's up?
I've seen my share of "we're porting it to Linux" press releases, claims, and announcements. Does anyone know what this generally means? What libc libraries, X libraries, KDE, Gnome, MS-Linux-Extensions, what? Is there some sort of "standard" configuration that one should have so that most of these ports will work? The latest version of RedHat at the time, perhaps?
It seems to me that one of Linux's strong points, its wide array of choices and openness, also happens to be one of its weak points at the same time. Please note, that I'm not trying to say that Linux sucks, or even anything remotely resembling that.
What I want to ask is: Does anyone have any ideas on how to get rid of the bad aspects of that quality, while preserving its good aspects?
So, basically, Rob has just spit on his earlier promises of Andover's purchasing Slashdot having no influences on Slashdot policy. Granted, few people believed it in the first place, but this just reinforced the facts.
--
Re:Making bucks off someone else's rep
on
Typosquatting
·
· Score: 2
Wouldn't the IP address correspond to the location's longitude and latitude?
--
Re:Kills frame-squatting dead.
on
Typosquatting
·
· Score: 2
I agree. I hate it when the webmaster thinks that he knows the way I should view the page. Providing a "break out of frames" link is nice, but doing it for me is ignorant.
Another thing I really hate is the opposite of this -- reframing. The site on which it bothers me the most is SecurityFocus. Who in the world thought that reframing a BugTraq post that I link to along with 7 other frames, putting into a tiny little frame and making it unreadable, is convenient? I ended up using other BugTraq archives.
Exactly. If you know what you're doing, you can set it up any way you want. If you don't know what you're doing, however, it is better to just go with the default. For a newbie, it is much better to install something than not to install it. Besides TCP services like httpd, etc., of course.
The other part is that you don't have to install any of it. Mix and match. Install what you need, throw out what you don't need. But if you're not sure what you need, it will make a reasonable choice for you.
Saying that noone will ever need more than 255 characters in a file path is like saying noone will ever need more than 640K of RAM. (Yes, I know that the quote is taken out of context, I'm just using it as an example.) I'm sure you've never dealt with non-geek people, who tend to create directories... err... "folders" with names like "My legal letters" and then create files under them called "Letter to Mr John Smith about the leak in our roof". A few more layers ("Archive for the year 1999") and you've got yourself a problem.
Carnavore would sit upstream from hushmail. Do you even know how Internet e-mail works?
If you send the email to another Hushmail user, it never leaves their servers. They themselves admit that the email is no longer secure if you send it to someone outside of Hushmail. Do you know how Hushmail works?
Slashdot Mirror
--
--
--
--
--
Besides file extensions, Microsoft's software also ignores other file content indicators, such as MIME types, user-specified info, etc.
--
- Rename a
.jpeg to a .gif and then insert it into HTML via an IMG tag. Open it with Internet Explorer.
- Rename a
.doc to an .rtf and then open it with Winword.
The latter, by the way, has caused a lot of grief from a security point of view, because virus scanners generally come (or came) with default settings that make them scan--
--
YES, it is!
How did I install Windows 2000 on my Cheap-O(TM) computers with crappy parts? I just dumped the installation files onto the hard drive and ran the installer. It found all of my hardware, with no problems. It even supported my Intel webcam (courtesy of DigiMarc, thanks) although Intel said that they don't work together.
How did I install Linux on a fairly standard computer with good two-year-old hardware? Most of the Debian install was very painless, even with two floppies and the rest being pulled over FTP. But to get it to work with my 3Com NIC (3Com!) NIC, I had to manually install kernel modules.
Granted, things were somewhat different after the install process, with the expected results...
--
Just wanted to say, OmniWeb rocks! Keep up the good work.
--
I certainly hope not! At least they better secure it if they do. Client-side security just doesn't work.
--
Either that, or just use TiK, which has logging built in. :)
--
--
Splitting the company will cause competition to exist again, as the MS Office, IExplorer, etc. developers will no longer have an advantage over everyone else. (Access to the WinAPI source code, and the ability to ask for new features in it.)
--
That's different from Winamp, where all basic layouts look the same square (boring).
Not that I'm into skins, but does anyone know whatever happened to a0? At one point, the WinAmp crew was working on a cool-looking dynamic skin thingy called a0 for WinAmp, which came as a general purpose plugin for WinAmp. Anyone know what's up?
--
--
It seems to me that one of Linux's strong points, its wide array of choices and openness, also happens to be one of its weak points at the same time. Please note, that I'm not trying to say that Linux sucks, or even anything remotely resembling that.
What I want to ask is: Does anyone have any ideas on how to get rid of the bad aspects of that quality, while preserving its good aspects?
--
--
--
Another thing I really hate is the opposite of this -- reframing. The site on which it bothers me the most is SecurityFocus. Who in the world thought that reframing a BugTraq post that I link to along with 7 other frames, putting into a tiny little frame and making it unreadable, is convenient? I ended up using other BugTraq archives.
--
<A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N668.SlashDot /B20201;sz=468x60;ord=969347632969347632 ?">
<IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N668.SlashDot/B2 0201;sz=468x60;ord=969347632969347632?" BORDER=0
WIDTH=468 HEIGHT=60 ALT="Fast. Native. XML. Click. Software AG."></A>
It seems to be somewhat random, intertwined with their own ads, but it's there. Just reload a page a few times and watch your proxy logs.
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC slashdot.org/x 60;ord=969347632969347632? crunch!9 347632617 crunch!7 632617 crunch!3 2677 crunch!3 2697 crunch!
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N668.SlashDot/B20201;sz=468
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC images2.slashdot.org/Slashdot/pc.gif?/index.pl,96
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC images.slashdot.org/pagecount.gif?/index.pl,96934
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC images.slashdot.org/banner/swag5001en.gif?9693476
D:\ijb20\junkbstr.exe: GPC images.slashdot.org/banner/swag5004en.gif?9693476
All those web bugs, too...
(Yes, I'm using NT. Shoot me.)
--
--
--
--
If you send the email to another Hushmail user, it never leaves their servers. They themselves admit that the email is no longer secure if you send it to someone outside of Hushmail. Do you know how Hushmail works?
--