I used FireFox for a while, but I recently returned to using IE. The reason is that there were too many websites that displayed incorrectly or used plug-ins that weren't supported by FireFox. Also there were a lot of minor annoyances that weren't fixable with plug-ins alone.
As a tech-savvy net browser, I am able to avoid/repair any spam or malware I might pick up with IE, so displaying pages correctly and avoiding the various small bugs of FireFox was what led me back to Microsoft. I'm sure there are many people out there who think like I do, and this plug-in will certainly bring more people back to IE from FireFox. Adding tabbed browsing and security fixes to IE will be the deciding factor in slowing the migration to third-party browsers. Why compromise surfing if plug-ins like this give all the functionality of FireFox to the correct** rendering capabilities and ease of use of IE?
**I know that many web pages are indeed programmed "incorrectly" and suffer from many programming errors, which is probably the cause of Firefox's rendering issues. However, as the end user in no position to fix such problems on the web site's end, I have little alternative then to use IE's sloppy but visually correct rendering.
I don't understand why you seem to think that everyone is "sitting on our decks sipping drinks" until something comes along to force us to work. The only explanation I can come up with is that you are from a highly socialized country in Europe, where indeed many people do sit around unproductive because of their government's failed economic policies.
Here in America though, most people are productive. And while they might be producing widgets one day, if a hurricane came by and ruined their house they would no longer be able to buy those widgets. They now are worse off because they have to work to pay for the rebuiling of their house which was destroyed, instead of working to buy widgets. It is a net loss. You can childishly skew and spin the scneario all you want, but this is fact.
Well I'll assume you are just trolling but just in case you're not, I'll spell it out for you:
I have a $300,000 house which is payed off. I use my disposable income of $1000 a month to buy and assemble widgets as a hobby. So, the widget-maker makes $1000 a month from me. A hurricane comes by and destroys my house. Now I have to buy a new house and use the $1000 a month as a mortgage instead. Now the house builder is making $1000 a month from me, but the widget maker is not. Now instead of having a $300,000 house and $1000 worth of widgets every month, I have only the house. There is the visible benefit of the house maker earning more money rebuilding my house. But there is also the hidden cost of the widget maker who is now out of a job.
Actually it does. This is an example of the broken window fallacy. You think that forcing people to produce something, say eletric cars, would cause a boom for the economy, and the only side effect is that people would have less leisure time. This is not how the economy works though. What would people be producing if they didn't have to stop what they were doing in order to produce or buy an electric car? Someone who now has to spend $30,000 on a new car thanks to you could have previously used that capital to buy a new widget-making machine, which would have produced more wealth. This is similar to the reasoning that natural disasters create a boom for the economy due to the reconsctruction efforts that happen afterwards. Again, you have to look at the hidden costs.
Exactly! As a perfect example, Microsoft really helped security issues with the changes to IE in service pack 2. Things like the data execution prevention stuff, and the information bar that stops activex apps from running automatically are really helpful to those of use who actually read the warning messages and click "no way, man!". But already the unscrupulous websites have gotten around this. Just look at all the warez sites on the net that require you to install their activex or java app to download their goodies. They all have the same flash animation that directly points out how to disable the security features.
I know how to install and use Linux/Unix. I occasionally load a distro on my box at home and I often use Unix at work. I'm no expert though, I don't know much about customizing, script files, Linux-from-scratch, etc. The deepest I have ever delved was customizing the kernal a bit.
What I do know is how the average computer user behaves. I worked as a university tech support guy for 3 years. Hackers always target the largest base of vulnerable, ignorant users. That happens to be the average Windows user right now. But Windows can be made secure, simply by keeping up with the update patches to prevent infection from zombie machine attacks, and by using common sense to not open virus attachments or install malware activex or java apps.
Linux can be made more secure then Windows, but because of its complexity, the average computer user will probably be more vulnerable. E.g. running as root all the time in linux or just having a weak root password can lead to more disastrous consequences then running as admin in Windows.
My original point though was that hackers target what everyone uses. If everyone used Linux, hackers would FIND a way to exploit it.
...It's the users. Until the general population of computer users become smart enough to know not to open strange attachments or install malware from unscrupulous websites, hax0rs will always find a way around virus protection schemes.
People here always clamor about how poorly Windows is designed and how it leaves people so open to attack. The truth is, even if everyone in the world used Linux, the hackers would still write viruses to exploit the same vulnerabilities stemming from the ignorant masses.
Actually in that case if you pick up your innards and start running, causing your heart rate to increase, you will end up pumping all your blood out and quickly succumb. However, if you remain on the ground, you are more likely to go into shock which will lower your heart rate and slow bleeding, at the same time the screaming will hopefully attract help from anyone nearby that can possible rescue you.
Mothers of River City! Heed the warning before it's too late! Watch for the tell-tale sign of corruption! The moment your son leaves the house, Does he rebuckle his knickerbockers below the knee? Is there a nicotine stain on his index finger? A dime novel hidden in the corn crib? Is he starting to memorize jokes from Capt. Billy's Whiz Bang? Are certain words creeping into his conversation? Words like 'swell?" And 'so's your old man?" Well, if so my friends, Ya got trouble, Right here in River city! With a capital "T" And that rhymes with "P" And that stands for Pool. We've surely got trouble! Right here in River City! Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock and the Golden Rule! Oh, we've got trouble. We're in terrible, terrible trouble. That game with the fifteen numbered balls is a devil's tool! Oh yes we got trouble, trouble, trouble! With a "T"! Gotta rhyme it with "P"! And that stands for Pool!!!
The argument "we should ban the death penality because innocent people will die" is entirely bogus. Using your reasoning, we should have not fought Hitler in WWII because while we saved millions of Jews and others from extermination and prevented the Third Reich from conquering the world, millions of innocent lives were lost in the process.
There are always unfortunate costs in society. Waging war against a maniacal dictator will cause innocent civilians to be killed. In order to ensure the safety of the general population, sometimes innocent people will be wrongly convicted. On an extremely extremely rare occasion, an innocent person will be put to death. Yes it is unfortunate. But what is the cost of eliminating the death penalty all thogether? It is likely, as has happened in Europe, that murder will dramatically rise.
Instead of making a list of the people who would have been executed wrongly had the death penality been in effect, try making a list of all the criminals who got out of prison and killed again. Or, make a list of all the criminals that commited murder in the first place because they didn't think a prison sentance would be that bad. When the criminals have no fear of a death penalty, they are more likely to commit murder to begin with.
So in your quest to save a few individuals from wrongfully being executed, you have indirectly caused the death of thousands, even tens of thousands of others.
That's irrelevant. The reason why the death penalty should not exist is that innocent people will die.
Let's review that again: innocent people will die.
Strangely, this fundamental issue is rarely mentioned in the mainstream anti-death-penalty arguments.
The argument "we should ban the death penality because innocent people will die" is entirely bogus. Using your reasoning, we should have not fought Hitler in WWII because while we saved millions of Jews and others from extermination and prevented the Third Reich from conquering the world, millions of innocent lives were lost in the process.
There are always unfortunate costs in society. Waging war against a maniacal dictator will cause innocent civilians to be killed in the process. In order to ensure the safety of the general population, sometimes innocent people will be stuck in prison. On an extremely extremely rare occasion, an innocent person will be put to death. Yes it is unfortunate. But what is the cost of eliminating the death penalty all thogether? It is likely, as has happened in Europe, that murder will dramatically rise. So in your quest to save as few as five individuals from wrongfully being executed, you have indirectly caused the death of hundreds, even thousands of others.
Malware:= Moolah. While this may benefit you directly, it is a common economic misconception that problems cause economic benefit by providing jobs to those who fix those problems.
From Walter E. Williams:
A shopkeeper's window is broken by a vandal. A crowd forms, sympathizing with the man, but pretty soon, the people start to suggest the boy wasn't guilty of vandalism; instead, he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town. After all, fixing the broken window creates employment for the glazier, who will then buy bread and benefit the baker, who will then buy shoes and benefit the cobbler, and so forth.
Those are the seen effects of the broken window. What's unseen is what the shopkeeper would have done with the money had the vandal not broken his window. He might have employed the tailor by purchasing a suit. The broken window produced at least two unseen effects. First, it shifted unemployment from the glazier, who now has a job, to the tailor, who doesn't. Second, it reduced the shopkeeper's wealth. Explicitly, had it not been for the vandalism, the shopkeeper would have had a window and a suit; now, he has just a window.
That's a good way to make a bunch of money via frivolous lawsuit.
1. Have significant other take nude pics of you 2. Post on a bunch of different image hosting services that have enough income to make suing them worth while 3. Profit!
In all seriousness, I think it is the boyfriend who needs to be sued and possibly have criminal charges brought against. How is yahoo supposed to know that the girl actually did break up with the boyfriend, and that the whole deal wasn't a scam? It's true that yahoo should have taken down the pictures in a more timely manner, but I think the main legal target should be the boyfriend.
I think the problem is the all-inclusive and all-powerful EULA's. When joe someboy decides he wants to install the new version of weatherbug, he doesn't read the EULA when the installer asks "do you agree with everything in the licensing agreement", which can contain whatever the spyware companies need to justify the legality of their malware.
I think it should be made that EULA's are not allowed to contain anything except information about the license agreement. No specific actions or clauses such as "by installing this software you agree to let us install third party malware and divulge your personal information" are allowed.
For any agreement that does an action, such as install some third party crap, the installer has to explicity ask the user whether he agrees to install it in a plain, short, easy to read dialogue box.
Yeah, except that tritium's beta is only ~6 keV and one mole of hydrogen would occupy 22 liters at STP. Or be pressurized to over 3000 psi to be 0.1 liters.
Meltdowns and prompt-criticality have nothing to do with each other. A meltdown occurs when the heat generated in the nuclear fuel is not removed quickly enough such as during a loss of coolant accident, and so the fuel actually melts. Prompt-critical is when the reactor is critical* on only fission neutrons**.
*The term critical means that the reactor is producing as many neutrons as are being absorbed or leak out. In other words, the power level is constant. Sub-critial means more neutrons are being removed, and so power level decreases. Super-critical means more neutrons are being generated then removed so power increases.
**Normally, the reactivity of a reactor is controlled on delayed neutrons, or neutrons which are created by fission products tenths of seconds after a fission occurs. Fission neutrons are generated within microseconds of fission occuring. When a reactor is prompt-critical, it is extremely difficult to control because the time between neutron generations is very small, and so the power can almost instantly jump to very high levels before any sort of control system can respond.
Ah, I see where you are confused. You have no concept of morality, thus you think the crime of murdering an innocent person and the punishment of putting to death the murderer are morally the same.
We in (most parts) of America value life so much that the price for taking a life is your own life. By making the punishment for capital murder death, we are affirming the value of life. If the punishment for murder was only 5 years in jail, what would that say about the value of the life that person took?
The death penalty is not an act of revenge or retribution with malice. It is the price you pay for the act that you commited.
"But the fact remains, the music industry can't have it both ways. If I pay the "MP3 player/media tax", then I have no moral issue at all with downloading or sharing files. If they want to revoke the levy, then I won't download. Simple as that."
While I disagree with the rediculous ipod tax, I think your reasoning is flawed. Try applying the same logic to liability insurance for cars.
You are required by law to have liability insurance to cover another driver in case you hit them. But if you don't ever hit another car, your money is just being used to pay for other people's insurance claims. So by your reasoning, I should go out and intentionally ram other people's cars in order to get my money's worth.
I thought the movie was pretty good too. I never read the I, Robot books but I had a general idea of their theme: robots, trying to live by the three rules created to protect us from them, end up hurting us trying to follow unforseen interpretations of those rules. I thought the movie stayed true to this theme, although it wasn't apparant until the very end.
Well, I would think that the majority of the media, being strongly left-leaning and biased, would report these stories that could potentially hurt the Bush Administration at every opportunity. The fact that they do not implies that the leftist media know that these stories are not true, and that moderate America would be turned off by the reporting of such stories.
Do you have any response to that? No? Thought not.
These stories aren't really censored, they are being ignored, because they are blatantly false leftist propoganda. How this qualifies as a slashdot story is beyond me...
Slashdot Mirror
I used FireFox for a while, but I recently returned to using IE. The reason is that there were too many websites that displayed incorrectly or used plug-ins that weren't supported by FireFox. Also there were a lot of minor annoyances that weren't fixable with plug-ins alone.
As a tech-savvy net browser, I am able to avoid/repair any spam or malware I might pick up with IE, so displaying pages correctly and avoiding the various small bugs of FireFox was what led me back to Microsoft. I'm sure there are many people out there who think like I do, and this plug-in will certainly bring more people back to IE from FireFox. Adding tabbed browsing and security fixes to IE will be the deciding factor in slowing the migration to third-party browsers. Why compromise surfing if plug-ins like this give all the functionality of FireFox to the correct** rendering capabilities and ease of use of IE?
**I know that many web pages are indeed programmed "incorrectly" and suffer from many programming errors, which is probably the cause of Firefox's rendering issues. However, as the end user in no position to fix such problems on the web site's end, I have little alternative then to use IE's sloppy but visually correct rendering.
I don't understand why you seem to think that everyone is "sitting on our decks sipping drinks" until something comes along to force us to work. The only explanation I can come up with is that you are from a highly socialized country in Europe, where indeed many people do sit around unproductive because of their government's failed economic policies.
Here in America though, most people are productive. And while they might be producing widgets one day, if a hurricane came by and ruined their house they would no longer be able to buy those widgets. They now are worse off because they have to work to pay for the rebuiling of their house which was destroyed, instead of working to buy widgets. It is a net loss. You can childishly skew and spin the scneario all you want, but this is fact.
Okay I'm done feeding the troll now.
Well I'll assume you are just trolling but just in case you're not, I'll spell it out for you:
I have a $300,000 house which is payed off. I use my disposable income of $1000 a month to buy and assemble widgets as a hobby. So, the widget-maker makes $1000 a month from me. A hurricane comes by and destroys my house. Now I have to buy a new house and use the $1000 a month as a mortgage instead. Now the house builder is making $1000 a month from me, but the widget maker is not. Now instead of having a $300,000 house and $1000 worth of widgets every month, I have only the house. There is the visible benefit of the house maker earning more money rebuilding my house. But there is also the hidden cost of the widget maker who is now out of a job.
Actually it does. This is an example of the broken window fallacy. You think that forcing people to produce something, say eletric cars, would cause a boom for the economy, and the only side effect is that people would have less leisure time. This is not how the economy works though. What would people be producing if they didn't have to stop what they were doing in order to produce or buy an electric car? Someone who now has to spend $30,000 on a new car thanks to you could have previously used that capital to buy a new widget-making machine, which would have produced more wealth. This is similar to the reasoning that natural disasters create a boom for the economy due to the reconsctruction efforts that happen afterwards. Again, you have to look at the hidden costs.
Exactly! As a perfect example, Microsoft really helped security issues with the changes to IE in service pack 2. Things like the data execution prevention stuff, and the information bar that stops activex apps from running automatically are really helpful to those of use who actually read the warning messages and click "no way, man!". But already the unscrupulous websites have gotten around this. Just look at all the warez sites on the net that require you to install their activex or java app to download their goodies. They all have the same flash animation that directly points out how to disable the security features.
I know how to install and use Linux/Unix. I occasionally load a distro on my box at home and I often use Unix at work. I'm no expert though, I don't know much about customizing, script files, Linux-from-scratch, etc. The deepest I have ever delved was customizing the kernal a bit.
What I do know is how the average computer user behaves. I worked as a university tech support guy for 3 years. Hackers always target the largest base of vulnerable, ignorant users. That happens to be the average Windows user right now. But Windows can be made secure, simply by keeping up with the update patches to prevent infection from zombie machine attacks, and by using common sense to not open virus attachments or install malware activex or java apps.
Linux can be made more secure then Windows, but because of its complexity, the average computer user will probably be more vulnerable. E.g. running as root all the time in linux or just having a weak root password can lead to more disastrous consequences then running as admin in Windows.
My original point though was that hackers target what everyone uses. If everyone used Linux, hackers would FIND a way to exploit it.
...It's the users. Until the general population of computer users become smart enough to know not to open strange attachments or install malware from unscrupulous websites, hax0rs will always find a way around virus protection schemes.
People here always clamor about how poorly Windows is designed and how it leaves people so open to attack. The truth is, even if everyone in the world used Linux, the hackers would still write viruses to exploit the same vulnerabilities stemming from the ignorant masses.
Actually in that case if you pick up your innards and start running, causing your heart rate to increase, you will end up pumping all your blood out and quickly succumb. However, if you remain on the ground, you are more likely to go into shock which will lower your heart rate and slow bleeding, at the same time the screaming will hopefully attract help from anyone nearby that can possible rescue you.
No no, blame pool!
Mothers of River City!
Heed the warning before it's too late!
Watch for the tell-tale sign of corruption!
The moment your son leaves the house,
Does he rebuckle his knickerbockers below the knee?
Is there a nicotine stain on his index finger?
A dime novel hidden in the corn crib?
Is he starting to memorize jokes from Capt.
Billy's Whiz Bang?
Are certain words creeping into his conversation?
Words like 'swell?"
And 'so's your old man?"
Well, if so my friends,
Ya got trouble,
Right here in River city!
With a capital "T"
And that rhymes with "P"
And that stands for Pool.
We've surely got trouble!
Right here in River City!
Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock and the Golden Rule!
Oh, we've got trouble.
We're in terrible, terrible trouble.
That game with the fifteen numbered balls is a devil's tool!
Oh yes we got trouble, trouble, trouble!
With a "T"! Gotta rhyme it with "P"!
And that stands for Pool!!!
There are always unfortunate costs in society. Waging war against a maniacal dictator will cause innocent civilians to be killed. In order to ensure the safety of the general population, sometimes innocent people will be wrongly convicted. On an extremely extremely rare occasion, an innocent person will be put to death. Yes it is unfortunate. But what is the cost of eliminating the death penalty all thogether? It is likely, as has happened in Europe, that murder will dramatically rise.
Instead of making a list of the people who would have been executed wrongly had the death penality been in effect, try making a list of all the criminals who got out of prison and killed again. Or, make a list of all the criminals that commited murder in the first place because they didn't think a prison sentance would be that bad. When the criminals have no fear of a death penalty, they are more likely to commit murder to begin with.
So in your quest to save a few individuals from wrongfully being executed, you have indirectly caused the death of thousands, even tens of thousands of others.
The argument "we should ban the death penality because innocent people will die" is entirely bogus. Using your reasoning, we should have not fought Hitler in WWII because while we saved millions of Jews and others from extermination and prevented the Third Reich from conquering the world, millions of innocent lives were lost in the process.
There are always unfortunate costs in society. Waging war against a maniacal dictator will cause innocent civilians to be killed in the process. In order to ensure the safety of the general population, sometimes innocent people will be stuck in prison. On an extremely extremely rare occasion, an innocent person will be put to death. Yes it is unfortunate. But what is the cost of eliminating the death penalty all thogether? It is likely, as has happened in Europe, that murder will dramatically rise. So in your quest to save as few as five individuals from wrongfully being executed, you have indirectly caused the death of hundreds, even thousands of others.
I guess we will be seeing a lot more of daytime comments from Albertia now, eh? ;)
That's a good way to make a bunch of money via frivolous lawsuit.
1. Have significant other take nude pics of you
2. Post on a bunch of different image hosting services that have enough income to make suing them worth while
3. Profit!
In all seriousness, I think it is the boyfriend who needs to be sued and possibly have criminal charges brought against. How is yahoo supposed to know that the girl actually did break up with the boyfriend, and that the whole deal wasn't a scam? It's true that yahoo should have taken down the pictures in a more timely manner, but I think the main legal target should be the boyfriend.
I think the problem is the all-inclusive and all-powerful EULA's. When joe someboy decides he wants to install the new version of weatherbug, he doesn't read the EULA when the installer asks "do you agree with everything in the licensing agreement", which can contain whatever the spyware companies need to justify the legality of their malware.
I think it should be made that EULA's are not allowed to contain anything except information about the license agreement. No specific actions or clauses such as "by installing this software you agree to let us install third party malware and divulge your personal information" are allowed.
For any agreement that does an action, such as install some third party crap, the installer has to explicity ask the user whether he agrees to install it in a plain, short, easy to read dialogue box.
Yeah, except that tritium's beta is only ~6 keV and one mole of hydrogen would occupy 22 liters at STP. Or be pressurized to over 3000 psi to be 0.1 liters.
Meltdowns and prompt-criticality have nothing to do with each other. A meltdown occurs when the heat generated in the nuclear fuel is not removed quickly enough such as during a loss of coolant accident, and so the fuel actually melts. Prompt-critical is when the reactor is critical* on only fission neutrons**.
*The term critical means that the reactor is producing as many neutrons as are being absorbed or leak out. In other words, the power level is constant. Sub-critial means more neutrons are being removed, and so power level decreases. Super-critical means more neutrons are being generated then removed so power increases.
**Normally, the reactivity of a reactor is controlled on delayed neutrons, or neutrons which are created by fission products tenths of seconds after a fission occurs. Fission neutrons are generated within microseconds of fission occuring. When a reactor is prompt-critical, it is extremely difficult to control because the time between neutron generations is very small, and so the power can almost instantly jump to very high levels before any sort of control system can respond.
and btw, IAANE.
Ah, I see where you are confused. You have no concept of morality, thus you think the crime of murdering an innocent person and the punishment of putting to death the murderer are morally the same.
We in (most parts) of America value life so much that the price for taking a life is your own life. By making the punishment for capital murder death, we are affirming the value of life. If the punishment for murder was only 5 years in jail, what would that say about the value of the life that person took?
The death penalty is not an act of revenge or retribution with malice. It is the price you pay for the act that you commited.
"But the fact remains, the music industry can't have it both ways. If I pay the "MP3 player/media tax", then I have no moral issue at all with downloading or sharing files. If they want to revoke the levy, then I won't download. Simple as that."
While I disagree with the rediculous ipod tax, I think your reasoning is flawed. Try applying the same logic to liability insurance for cars.
You are required by law to have liability insurance to cover another driver in case you hit them. But if you don't ever hit another car, your money is just being used to pay for other people's insurance claims. So by your reasoning, I should go out and intentionally ram other people's cars in order to get my money's worth.
"U238 which gets hit by neutrons from cosmic rays becomes ... Plutonium."
Not really, since free neutrons decay into a proton an electron with a half life of 5 minutes.
I thought the movie was pretty good too. I never read the I, Robot books but I had a general idea of their theme: robots, trying to live by the three rules created to protect us from them, end up hurting us trying to follow unforseen interpretations of those rules. I thought the movie stayed true to this theme, although it wasn't apparant until the very end.
Well, I would think that the majority of the media, being strongly left-leaning and biased, would report these stories that could potentially hurt the Bush Administration at every opportunity. The fact that they do not implies that the leftist media know that these stories are not true, and that moderate America would be turned off by the reporting of such stories. Do you have any response to that? No? Thought not.
These stories aren't really censored, they are being ignored, because they are blatantly false leftist propoganda. How this qualifies as a slashdot story is beyond me...