He's a tax writeoff. When you get Uwe Boll to make you a movie, his local government subsidises it so much that with hollywood accounting it actually manages to result in a net profit while still selling exactly zero copies.
I've heard elsewhere in this Slashdot discussion that apparently there is a point where OO.o blatantly violates the specification - using the exact opposite value for hidden text as it's meant to. So it's almost valid.
No, not troll. The browser does not run in any form of elevated context, it runs as the user. In Vista, it runs sandboxed away from the user. This is fact, and if you don't think so you should reply as such. "-1 Troll" is not a synonym for "-1 I Disagree, and Would Like to Silence Your Anti-Groupthink"
Just a tip for you: Apache can be configured to run as a service, which gets around the whole UAC thing (it'll just start automatically and work), and if you change the permissions on the C:\Apache or C:\XAMPP folder to allow everyone (or Users) write access (not just administrators) then you should be able to write to those folders without invoking UAC too.
That doesn't even make sense. I read it twice, and both times my understanding gave up and left around the word "that". Perhaps you should concentrate more on your primary school education and less on posting to Slashdot?
How about the fact that you are flat out wrong? Not on are the contents of the zones (with the exception of local computer) controlled by the user, but the level of trust assigned to each zone are user controlled too (as in, I can pop into Internet Options and disable ActiveX for any zone, or Javascript for any zone, and so on). It's really not a heuristic at all. It's "automatically assume that all sites run at the same level unless told otherwise". That's not exactly secure either, but Firefox does the same thing! In fact, the only browser on the Windows platform that actually does run in a Sandbox is... wait for it... Internet Explorer!*
Stop modding this sort of shit insightful. It's not, it's the same FUD you all accuse Microsoft of spewing. The "fundamental design" is no less secure than Firefox. The insecurity lies in how people use it (and, of course, configure it). Noone denies that IE does not have sane defaults - far from it (allow ActiveX in the internet zone?!? Keep that to trusted sites thanks!). But the underlying design is not by its nature insecure.
Unrelated note, why does the Firefox spell checker insist that "Firefox" is not a real word?
Just one note, if you define "High Assurance" as "Humans taking multiple steps" then all Verisign certificates are High Assurance, even the non-EV version.
At a previous employer, I was part of the process to get us a Verisign cert (the "cheap" version, not EV) and they required us to fax them a Certificate of Incorporation, look us up in a trusted company directory, call us on a number they got from the phone book (they would not trust our word on the number). Hell, the only thing missing was a DNA sample from the directors.
The difference is that in Linux the browser runs as you and so can only affect your own files... (Which you have backed up?) On Windows the browser runs as an elevated user and so can affect much more... Bullshit. Except on Vista (where the browser runs with less privileges than the user), IE runs in the exact same security context as the user who ran it.
You're missing several. The definitive list from Adobe is:
* Win32 (ActiveX / NS Plug-in) / x86 * OS X / x86 * OS X / PPC * Linux / x86 * Solaris / x86 * Solaris / SPARC * Windows Mobile / ARM * HP-UX (built by HP, not Adobe)
And if I'm not mistaken there's one built for Symbian that they don't list here too.
Especially when you've earned enough money from your illegal usage of your legal monopoly that you can use it to pay off a few politicians. Fixed that for you.
Slashdot Mirror
Erm... Apache is not, in fact, GPLed. And never has been. It's licensed under the Apache License.
He's a tax writeoff. When you get Uwe Boll to make you a movie, his local government subsidises it so much that with hollywood accounting it actually manages to result in a net profit while still selling exactly zero copies.
Somehow.
Well, bad news then. It's not CG.
Legendary Pictures already has the movie rights, and Blizzard put out the press release two years ago.
Maybe ask Legendary Pictures. After all, they have the movie rights.
Don't worry, prior art exists. It sounds like you just described Windows Live Messenger (or, for that matter, any other messenger) on an HTC Touch.
I've heard elsewhere in this Slashdot discussion that apparently there is a point where OO.o blatantly violates the specification - using the exact opposite value for hidden text as it's meant to. So it's almost valid.
Technically, no. It doesn't have a full implementation of the standard (in fact, nothing has a full implementation).
It is however, quite close.
No, not troll. The browser does not run in any form of elevated context, it runs as the user. In Vista, it runs sandboxed away from the user. This is fact, and if you don't think so you should reply as such. "-1 Troll" is not a synonym for "-1 I Disagree, and Would Like to Silence Your Anti-Groupthink"
Powershell (Monad) - free download. Try it some time, it's almost as confusing to script for as BASH!
Just a tip for you: Apache can be configured to run as a service, which gets around the whole UAC thing (it'll just start automatically and work), and if you change the permissions on the C:\Apache or C:\XAMPP folder to allow everyone (or Users) write access (not just administrators) then you should be able to write to those folders without invoking UAC too.
Actually, Google charges companies $50 per person per year for their "works in progress"
See http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/admins/editions.html
The fact that people can get absolutely 100% ZERO support for free is not relevant as Microsoft has no comparable option (Linux, however, does).
That doesn't even make sense. I read it twice, and both times my understanding gave up and left around the word "that". Perhaps you should concentrate more on your primary school education and less on posting to Slashdot?
How about the fact that you are flat out wrong? Not on are the contents of the zones (with the exception of local computer) controlled by the user, but the level of trust assigned to each zone are user controlled too (as in, I can pop into Internet Options and disable ActiveX for any zone, or Javascript for any zone, and so on). It's really not a heuristic at all. It's "automatically assume that all sites run at the same level unless told otherwise". That's not exactly secure either, but Firefox does the same thing! In fact, the only browser on the Windows platform that actually does run in a Sandbox is... wait for it... Internet Explorer!*
*Vista required for sandbox functionality.
Stop modding this sort of shit insightful. It's not, it's the same FUD you all accuse Microsoft of spewing. The "fundamental design" is no less secure than Firefox. The insecurity lies in how people use it (and, of course, configure it). Noone denies that IE does not have sane defaults - far from it (allow ActiveX in the internet zone?!? Keep that to trusted sites thanks!). But the underlying design is not by its nature insecure.
Unrelated note, why does the Firefox spell checker insist that "Firefox" is not a real word?
Unless you choose the option "Check using a downloaded list of suspicious sites" rather than "Check by asking [Google] about each site I visit"
PayPal doesn't sell certificates at all, EV or otherwise. Conspiracy shot down.
Just one note, if you define "High Assurance" as "Humans taking multiple steps" then all Verisign certificates are High Assurance, even the non-EV version.
At a previous employer, I was part of the process to get us a Verisign cert (the "cheap" version, not EV) and they required us to fax them a Certificate of Incorporation, look us up in a trusted company directory, call us on a number they got from the phone book (they would not trust our word on the number). Hell, the only thing missing was a DNA sample from the directors.
IE has fully supported TLS 1.0 (I am uncertain about upgrades) since IE 5.
You're missing several. The definitive list from Adobe is:
* Win32 (ActiveX / NS Plug-in) / x86
* OS X / x86
* OS X / PPC
* Linux / x86
* Solaris / x86
* Solaris / SPARC
* Windows Mobile / ARM
* HP-UX (built by HP, not Adobe)
And if I'm not mistaken there's one built for Symbian that they don't list here too.
C# throws a NullReferenceException ("Object reference not set to an instance of an object").
Hell, even Visual Basic handles it ("object variable or with block variable not set").
You mean "volume shadow copy", and yes it does. It even adds itself as a handy "Previous Versions" tab to any documents under its domain.
Depends. Can you delete files by shooting them?
Google still runs EVERYTHING in Beta. And their reason is to avoid supporting it, not because it's actually Beta.