Somebody modded you informative, but let me make a few remarks:
So, Secunia wants to infect my machine? I thought it was a respectable security information site. Not that I should blindly trust them, but they still take precedence over an anonymous coward.
I also have tried an updated Norton AV, and it didn't say anything.
Non-Windows and/or Firefox users (and also XP SP2 users) don't really care about the JPEG exploit.
This was already filed as bug 124750, and has already been fixed. I'm using a 2004-10-19 build, and I can assure I already tested it.
As I can't link bugzilla form Slashdot... go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ and type in there the bug number. (None: it's not marked there as FIXED, but you should look at the "fixed-aviary1.0" keyword, which is what matters for Firefox 1.0)
Oh, I mean when you're logged in. Sorry for the confusion.
<title>Gmail</title><noscript>Javascri pt is disabled in your browser. Gmail requires Javascript to be enabled in order to operate.<p>To use Gmail, enable Javascript by changing your browser preferences.<p>After enabling Javascript, <a href=/gmail>try again</a>.</noscript>...
No, Gmail does not really use CSS (well, it does, but it's mainly for showing or hiding fields and screens, not to design semantic HTML). Actually, Gmail's HTML is quite freaky -- check the source for https://gmail.google.com/gmail (running on Firefox, at least), it doesn't have <html> or <head> tags.
Still its interface is really nice, because of all the javascript being used to produce smart links (for example, you can reply or forward a message without having to load a new page, and you can add as many attachments as you want at once).
True, but we already have a nice number of Firefox users with Gmail accounts, and also developers (like Asa seems to do). What would be better than fix this bug right now, before the majority of people even have the time to experience it?
Too bad it's so unstable to the point only some people see it, and at seemingly random moments.
To you all who are also having this problem: could you please report it on bug 258950? Together we can take out that "worksforme", and if anybody has a clue on what might be happening we'll hopefully guide the devs to get a fix.
I'm not linking directly because bugzilla blocks slashdot links to avoid server load: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258950
The recent viruses (including worms and trojans) on the computing world are more like "smart" parasites than killers.
They don't go as far as some biological viruses (though the ones that overuse your bandwidth are getting quite close).
Completely agreed. When I downloaded Netscape 6 I was like "Crap! It's the same thing as that unstable 4.0 browser!", and went back to IE.
Now I know it had a completely new rendering engine (which rocks btw, very solid nowadays). But it still feels like the unstable 4.0 browser.
Oh, you want another advantage? Way more customizable. I have menubar, a few toolbar buttons, location bar and search bar in the same row. Not even IE lets me save that much space (since it has no Compact Menus and has a big google toolbar instead of the compact search bar).
Slashdot Mirror
So, you mean about 20 men in black were used to make that trailer?
Why not put tomato sauce cartdriges in your printer, feed it with a mass sheet and download a .pdf pizza?
Weapons of Mankind Destruction, you mean?
How am I gonna warez it?
Not so fast, son! Anybody checked if Lynx is vulnerable to those PNG and JPEG exploits?
(btw, after you go to that website you'll see the IT color scheme isn't all that bad)
As I can't link bugzilla form Slashdot... go to http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ and type in there the bug number. (None: it's not marked there as FIXED, but you should look at the "fixed-aviary1.0" keyword, which is what matters for Firefox 1.0)
(okay, nonsense IEEE fun)
Should I expect Captcha text all over the Internet?
Well, reading Slashdot would turn into a real adventure!
No, it's somebody who doess stuff.
Maybe they could for this version replace the o's in "Gooooogle" into a DNA strip?
Still its interface is really nice, because of all the javascript being used to produce smart links (for example, you can reply or forward a message without having to load a new page, and you can add as many attachments as you want at once).
So Let it Be!
Too bad it's so unstable to the point only some people see it, and at seemingly random moments.
There's no solution for now AFAIK.
To you all who are also having this problem: could you please report it on bug 258950? Together we can take out that "worksforme", and if anybody has a clue on what might be happening we'll hopefully guide the devs to get a fix.
I'm not linking directly because bugzilla blocks slashdot links to avoid server load: http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=258950
Okay, but does it run on Linux? Oh, wait.
You just ruined my dreams of possibly being the best (theoretical) sex machine ever, you insensitive clod!
The recent viruses (including worms and trojans) on the computing world are more like "smart" parasites than killers. They don't go as far as some biological viruses (though the ones that overuse your bandwidth are getting quite close).
But it does not work without the "http://" protocol prefix.
No knowledge about the ALICE project? She's intelligent to the point she does believe she's a human!
Sounds like an open-source project developed in Python.
More like an object-oriented toilet.
Now I know it had a completely new rendering engine (which rocks btw, very solid nowadays). But it still feels like the unstable 4.0 browser.
Oh, you want another advantage? Way more customizable. I have menubar, a few toolbar buttons, location bar and search bar in the same row. Not even IE lets me save that much space (since it has no Compact Menus and has a big google toolbar instead of the compact search bar).