No, it's like offering extra airbags for an extra charge.
I've yet to be infected with a virus, I've been using Windows since 3.x, and I just started running an A/V program for the first time a year ago due to my employer's policy.
Microsoft sells an operating system that you are free to use or not to use. They have great competition in MacOS X and Linux. Yet Microsoft has never offered A/V software and still it holds a 90+% of the desktop market.
Now they are going to offer A/V software.
While you may think it's a flaw that viruses can more easily spread on Windows, that is how their system has always operated, and still they maintain their huge leads.*
(*Personally I think MacOS X will obtain 30-50% market share, in the next 5 years, if they continue to make the right moves in hardware.)
I loaded it up and went to Fark. It...well, it didn't crash, but it hung and I had to end the process.
1. What version of Firefox? 2. Any Firefox extensions installed? 3. Did you start with a clean profile, or import an old one? 4. Did you install Firefox into a clean directory, or was it into an existing directory? 5. Are you running any network security software? 6. Is your company using a firewall/filtering device on the network?
And that is just preliminary questions regarding software/networking. Other things to check include motherboard firmware updates, memory tests, etc. Often programs will use the same areas of memory and you'll run into strange problems due to bad memory modules.
The problem is not just some firefox stability issue, since I use it all the time and it is rock solid. This implies something is different about your system that is causing the instability, or it could be a bug rendering whatever page you were on that it hung on, but if this is a continual crashing problem, I am guessing the former.
As for the memory, not five minutes ago I just had nothing open but the download window. Out of curiosity, I checked the mem usage on firefox.exe, to find that it was 69MB physical/81MB VM. That's just way, way too much, especially since it's just downloading one file.
My primary response to this is, memory is cheap and abundant nowadays. However, it likely wasn't using 69MB of memory just to download a file. Presumably you had been browsing quite a bit before hand, and things are cached in memory.
Like it or not, browsers are huge, complex programs that allow you to browse huge, complex data mines, and they require many resources. Just because IE hides its usage well doesn't mean anything.
Re:Would this ever happen without the licence fee?
on
BBC Launches APIs
·
· Score: 1
I'm so disgusted with what passes for programming on the American TV networks that I'd be more than happy to pay the British TV license fee if it'd get me all the BBC content.
Get cable. Then you'll have (a) more than the network programming, such as the quality original series' on HBO, Discovery channel, History, channel, etc., and (b) the BBC channels (in many areas).
Yeah, I'm sure the founding fathers are turning over in their graves at the idea of an American volunteering to pay a British tax, but then the founding fathers would understand if they had to watch the WB...
They might be wondering why you HAVE to watch anything.
When speaking of stability and mem usage, it's not worth the hype.
Ummm... right. Now count the memory usage of all the DLLs IE requires which are loaded into memory as part of Windows (after all, it is embedded). That 11MB does not include that. Once you factor that in, I'd wager it is much closer to the Firefox footprint.
1.0 crashed and the mem usage became as issue
And as for stability... I can't tell you the last time an official release of Firefox crashed on me. I find that most people with crashing issues have done something fucked up to their system.
CEOs are often fired when companies do very poorly, just like head coaches are often fired when teams do very poorly in a season. Does this mean the CEOs or the head coaches are the reason their company/team sucked? Ask most sports fans, and they will likely argue not. The problem is, the CEO/coach is the easiest scapegoat, regardless of where the problem actually lies. Maybe the problem is the bench sucked all year -- i.e. the employees. Maybe not. But the fact is, head coaches and CEOs sign contracts that often stipulate how long they will work, and whether the company must pay them bonuses or buyout their contract if they want to fire the person.
Without these types of contracts, for many reasons, you will not attract top CEOs that want to guarantee their income. And due to their (usually good) track record, the market allows this to happen.
the ordinary employees are denied pay rises year after year...
Boohoo. Get a different job. No one is forcing them to work for that employer. If the employer is really that bad, and it can't keep good employees because of this, they'll change. Happens all the time.
Wrong. There are two parts to this exploit. Your solution covers one half. There is still an exploit where someone can get javascript to run as part of an icon that is loaded. The mozilla.org site itself states this:
"To prevent the script injection exploit from stealing cookies or other sensitive data disable Javascript before visiting untrustworthy sites."
eah, I don't really see how this "exploit" is really an exploit at all. If you whitelist a site, that means you can already install an XPI from that site. Extensions can easily to "bad" things of one sort or another (delete bookmarks or hide all the GUI widgets or something). You have to go add a site to the whitelist, it isn't like it can add itself somehow.
RTFA. The site that runs the exploit does not have to be on the site you whitelisted. Part of the exploit is that it can pretend to be a site you whitelisted. The other part is that it can sneak in some javascript code where it shouldn't be able to (an icon url).
Contrary to the grandparent post, it is not enough that mozilla has updated their site. That mitigates only part of the problem, and only if you haven't whitelisted other sites.
What i *think* might have happen to the user in the above article is that the site used the IP address, not a cookie, to identify the user. Thus there was no cookie being misplaced but rather the site assumed google's ip belonged to the same user.
Yeah that technique works until you get, oh, two users coming from AOL. There are plenty of proxies out there like AOL's. Google's just happens to be fucked up.
There is a difference between POSSIBLE privacy issues with google knowing where people visit, and HUGE FUCKING HOLES where Google is actually serving up dynamic pages meant for one person to a different person. This shows a flawed system.
Come on, "webmasters". I knew well enough to implement any irreversible actions as a form with method=POST to prevent spiders from triggering them back in 1998.
So did these people. But this isn't a spider. This is a monkey piggy-backing on an AUTHENTICATED USER SESSION.
And I, for one, say it is time to punch that monkey.
To which I replied, "I don't use IE, I don't go places I shouldn't and I don't run suspicious programs."
And you keep all your software updated.
Most of the problems I see at work are related to our clients never updating their software. Finally with XP SP2, Microsoft is really pushing for the automatic updates, which advanced users may turn off to have more control, but which really should be the default for the mASSES.
Similarly when trey parker and matt stone made south park bigger, longer, uncut, they managed to mess with the censors enough to keep all them naughty words without getting the R rating.
Wrong. The movie was most definitely rated R. They avoided the "dreaded" NC-17.
IMDB even says this on the trivia page:
"Paramount originally asked Trey Parker and Matt Stone if they could make a PG-13 rated film. They said no and would not agree to make a movie until the studio agreed that the final product would be rated R."
That said, given the resolution with which we know the position of a given satellite, and the low resolution of the source image in this case, what advantage does using two cameras give you, vs. taking one camera and snapping two pictures in quick succession?
Because the two pictures you take of this place would not be from two different angles, which is needed for stereo imaging. In fact, given the speed of the satellite, and the 2.5m resolution, it probably would not even be able to capture the same location in the same pass with a single camera.
The two cameras allows them to have one camera take pictures (say pointed straight at the center of the earth), and the other to take a followup picture at a slightly backward angle a few seconds later. Then you have two images of the same exact spot on the globe, but from two different angles.
This ought to be cool. I wish they could get the resolution a bit better.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's like offering extra airbags for an extra charge.
I've yet to be infected with a virus, I've been using Windows since 3.x, and I just started running an A/V program for the first time a year ago due to my employer's policy.
Microsoft sells an operating system that you are free to use or not to use. They have great competition in MacOS X and Linux. Yet Microsoft has never offered A/V software and still it holds a 90+% of the desktop market.
Now they are going to offer A/V software.
While you may think it's a flaw that viruses can more easily spread on Windows, that is how their system has always operated, and still they maintain their huge leads.*
(*Personally I think MacOS X will obtain 30-50% market share, in the next 5 years, if they continue to make the right moves in hardware.)
It's taking them too long to write these cool programs?
Why would you think that someone would need to be an idiot to respond?
Because if he sent you an email he would no longer be anonymous, unless he goes to a lot of trouble?
You should pick up smoking to ease your stress levels.
I loaded it up and went to Fark. It...well, it didn't crash, but it hung and I had to end the process.
1. What version of Firefox?
2. Any Firefox extensions installed?
3. Did you start with a clean profile, or import an old one?
4. Did you install Firefox into a clean directory, or was it into an existing directory?
5. Are you running any network security software?
6. Is your company using a firewall/filtering device on the network?
And that is just preliminary questions regarding software/networking. Other things to check include motherboard firmware updates, memory tests, etc. Often programs will use the same areas of memory and you'll run into strange problems due to bad memory modules.
The problem is not just some firefox stability issue, since I use it all the time and it is rock solid. This implies something is different about your system that is causing the instability, or it could be a bug rendering whatever page you were on that it hung on, but if this is a continual crashing problem, I am guessing the former.
As for the memory, not five minutes ago I just had nothing open but the download window. Out of curiosity, I checked the mem usage on firefox.exe, to find that it was 69MB physical/81MB VM. That's just way, way too much, especially since it's just downloading one file.
My primary response to this is, memory is cheap and abundant nowadays. However, it likely wasn't using 69MB of memory just to download a file. Presumably you had been browsing quite a bit before hand, and things are cached in memory.
Like it or not, browsers are huge, complex programs that allow you to browse huge, complex data mines, and they require many resources. Just because IE hides its usage well doesn't mean anything.
I'm so disgusted with what passes for programming on the American TV networks that I'd be more than happy to pay the British TV license fee if it'd get me all the BBC content.
Get cable. Then you'll have (a) more than the network programming, such as the quality original series' on HBO, Discovery channel, History, channel, etc., and (b) the BBC channels (in many areas).
Yeah, I'm sure the founding fathers are turning over in their graves at the idea of an American volunteering to pay a British tax, but then the founding fathers would understand if they had to watch the WB...
They might be wondering why you HAVE to watch anything.
Firefox - 38meg
avengine - 22meg (antivirus)
IExplore - 11 meg
When speaking of stability and mem usage, it's not worth the hype.
Ummm... right. Now count the memory usage of all the DLLs IE requires which are loaded into memory as part of Windows (after all, it is embedded). That 11MB does not include that. Once you factor that in, I'd wager it is much closer to the Firefox footprint.
1.0 crashed and the mem usage became as issue
And as for stability... I can't tell you the last time an official release of Firefox crashed on me. I find that most people with crashing issues have done something fucked up to their system.
Just my opinion.
And people wonder why geeks don't get laid more often.
Ummm... the only people that wonder why geeks don't get laid more often are... geeks.
You are correct. The rumor is that ASOT used to post as Leo McGarry on slashdot. Here is what Leo had to say about this patent.
Yes, read the bug on mozilla.org, and you can see that the exploit can be run without actually installing anything.
CEOs are often fired when companies do very poorly, just like head coaches are often fired when teams do very poorly in a season. Does this mean the CEOs or the head coaches are the reason their company/team sucked? Ask most sports fans, and they will likely argue not. The problem is, the CEO/coach is the easiest scapegoat, regardless of where the problem actually lies. Maybe the problem is the bench sucked all year -- i.e. the employees. Maybe not. But the fact is, head coaches and CEOs sign contracts that often stipulate how long they will work, and whether the company must pay them bonuses or buyout their contract if they want to fire the person.
Without these types of contracts, for many reasons, you will not attract top CEOs that want to guarantee their income. And due to their (usually good) track record, the market allows this to happen.
the ordinary employees are denied pay rises year after year...
Boohoo. Get a different job. No one is forcing them to work for that employer. If the employer is really that bad, and it can't keep good employees because of this, they'll change. Happens all the time.
No need to disable javascript.
Wrong. There are two parts to this exploit. Your solution covers one half. There is still an exploit where someone can get javascript to run as part of an icon that is loaded. The mozilla.org site itself states this:
"To prevent the script injection exploit from stealing cookies or other sensitive data disable Javascript before visiting untrustworthy sites."
eah, I don't really see how this "exploit" is really an exploit at all. If you whitelist a site, that means you can already install an XPI from that site. Extensions can easily to "bad" things of one sort or another (delete bookmarks or hide all the GUI widgets or something). You have to go add a site to the whitelist, it isn't like it can add itself somehow.
RTFA. The site that runs the exploit does not have to be on the site you whitelisted. Part of the exploit is that it can pretend to be a site you whitelisted. The other part is that it can sneak in some javascript code where it shouldn't be able to (an icon url).
Contrary to the grandparent post, it is not enough that mozilla has updated their site. That mitigates only part of the problem, and only if you haven't whitelisted other sites.
Until 1.0.4 comes out, disable javascript.
Interestingly, there are people on Slashdot that cannot detect sarcasm.
What i *think* might have happen to the user in the above article is that the site used the IP address, not a cookie, to identify the user. Thus there was no cookie being misplaced but rather the site assumed google's ip belonged to the same user.
Yeah that technique works until you get, oh, two users coming from AOL. There are plenty of proxies out there like AOL's. Google's just happens to be fucked up.
s
'
t
n
e
r
a
p
I can see my house!
(This text added so that my fantastic comment can get through this fantastic filter.)
There is a difference between POSSIBLE privacy issues with google knowing where people visit, and HUGE FUCKING HOLES where Google is actually serving up dynamic pages meant for one person to a different person. This shows a flawed system.
Come on, "webmasters". I knew well enough to implement any irreversible actions as a form with method=POST to prevent spiders from triggering them back in 1998.
So did these people. But this isn't a spider. This is a monkey piggy-backing on an AUTHENTICATED USER SESSION.
And I, for one, say it is time to punch that monkey.
To which I replied, "I don't use IE, I don't go places I shouldn't and I don't run suspicious programs."
And you keep all your software updated.
Most of the problems I see at work are related to our clients never updating their software. Finally with XP SP2, Microsoft is really pushing for the automatic updates, which advanced users may turn off to have more control, but which really should be the default for the mASSES.
Similarly when trey parker and matt stone made south park bigger, longer, uncut, they managed to mess with the censors enough to keep all them naughty words without getting the R rating.
Wrong. The movie was most definitely rated R. They avoided the "dreaded" NC-17.
IMDB even says this on the trivia page:
"Paramount originally asked Trey Parker and Matt Stone if they could make a PG-13 rated film. They said no and would not agree to make a movie until the studio agreed that the final product would be rated R."
That said, given the resolution with which we know the position of a given satellite, and the low resolution of the source image in this case, what advantage does using two cameras give you, vs. taking one camera and snapping two pictures in quick succession?
Because the two pictures you take of this place would not be from two different angles, which is needed for stereo imaging. In fact, given the speed of the satellite, and the 2.5m resolution, it probably would not even be able to capture the same location in the same pass with a single camera.
The two cameras allows them to have one camera take pictures (say pointed straight at the center of the earth), and the other to take a followup picture at a slightly backward angle a few seconds later. Then you have two images of the same exact spot on the globe, but from two different angles.
This ought to be cool. I wish they could get the resolution a bit better.
English teachers were made at Apple*
That's where English teachers go to die.
English teachers are made elsewhere.
* Making fun of my own grammar errors is the height of Grammar Nazism.
much different
Now I understand why all those English teachers were made at Apple when they rolled out their new ad campaign a few years ago.
No, the part that annoys them is that everyone thinks Apple is doing so much more than that.
Maybe they have other reasons besides "not wanting to wear out passports"?
If you can't believe that, I have some dollar bills with Bill Clinton on them I'd like to sell you.