With 2340987239424 Linux distributions and no clearly defined direction. The 'good', 'innovative' developers are all scattered around working on their own thing. Imagine where Linux would be if they all came together an focused their attention on the same goals.
The titantic that is software arm of IBM is sinking. They will do anything to stay afloat. Pushing Linux is their best option as it keeps their mainframe market alive.
I wasn't looking for them, they jumped out at me. Judging by the replies to my posting and what I've read on IMDB it appears I'm not the only one who felt this way.
I guess the difference is there wasn't an immediate need to justify the plot by defining those unknowns. I mean, what reason did they have to trust Aslan over the White Witch? Because the Beavers told them so?
I completely agree. I haven't read the books but I feel like they didn't connect a lot of the dots.. For example:
- Why is the witch so angry? - Where did Aslan come back from? - What connection does the professor have to the wardrobe and Narnia? - How did Narnia come into the hands of the White Witch? - Where did Aslan leave to and why? - How did Aslan become king?
#1 There was one scene where all the kids were standing in front of a pictureseque mountain background. It was so clearly a green screen and a very poorly done.
#2 The animation of the beavers seemed less realistic than the other creatures. It was like having Donkey from Shrek next to Golem from LOTR.
#3 The wolves were terrible in most scenes.
#4 Proportions were off, particularly in the battle near the end. The giants looked SO out of place and fake, like a bad photoshop edit.
With that kind of doe, you'd like they could at least get the blue/green screening done properly. Quite honestly, I felt the effects in this film were very poorly done.
One more tidbit. It's interesting that on IMDB the first 20 pages of reviews are all very positive (and submitted before the offical release), yet 80% of the more recent ones (since Fridays US release) are all very poor.
Actually, you went too far. A buffer overflow, in it's most simple state, is simply exceeding the bounds of allocated buffer space. It does not always result in information being writen outside the of the buffer.
Exploitability has nothing to do with my definition.
Ok, clearly you have no idea what a buffer overflow is either... heh.
Also, just an FYI, everything below the first line on my original post was actually a paste of the original Firefox advisory.. unfortunately Slashcode stripped out most of it and it looks like me talking.
The guy who reported it called it a 'buffer overflow' and clearly had no understanding of what it actually meant.
which most users won't figure out.
this proof of concept will only prevent someone from reopening their browser after being exploited. DoS if you will. however, code execution is possible with some modifcations.
Tested with Firefox 1.5 on Windows XP SP2.
ZIPLOCK
-->
heh function ex() {
var buffer = "";
for (var i = 0; i ZIPLOCK says CLICK ME
"Microsoft and Time Warner team up against Google" - Based on the article, it could have also been worded, "Google and Time Warner team up against Microsoft".
No decisions have been made and both Microsoft and Google are looking to team up with Time Warner.
Speaking as a Canadian who's living in the US, what you get in healthcare you pay for in taxes. Additionally, salaries for higher level tech positions are much higher in the US. That's the main reason I left 10 years ago. That and Edmonton isn't exactly cosmopolitan.
Slashdot Mirror
With 2340987239424 Linux distributions and no clearly defined direction. The 'good', 'innovative' developers are all scattered around working on their own thing. Imagine where Linux would be if they all came together an focused their attention on the same goals.
The titantic that is software arm of IBM is sinking. They will do anything to stay afloat. Pushing Linux is their best option as it keeps their mainframe market alive.
I wasn't looking for them, they jumped out at me. Judging by the replies to my posting and what I've read on IMDB it appears I'm not the only one who felt this way.
I guess the difference is there wasn't an immediate need to justify the plot by defining those unknowns. I mean, what reason did they have to trust Aslan over the White Witch? Because the Beavers told them so?
Ha! Batman Begins gets my vote for best movie of 2005. :)
I was using the wrong sorting option. Thanks for pointing it out.
I'm not sure you went to the end. There are like 20 pages of reviews posted before the US release date.
s tart=1
s tart=350
Begining: (Start here and move forward)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363771/usercomments?
End: (Start here and move back)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363771/usercomments?
I completely agree. I haven't read the books but I feel like they didn't connect a lot of the dots.. For example:
- Why is the witch so angry?
- Where did Aslan come back from?
- What connection does the professor have to the wardrobe and Narnia?
- How did Narnia come into the hands of the White Witch?
- Where did Aslan leave to and why?
- How did Aslan become king?
#1 There was one scene where all the kids were standing in front of a pictureseque mountain background. It was so clearly a green screen and a very poorly done. #2 The animation of the beavers seemed less realistic than the other creatures. It was like having Donkey from Shrek next to Golem from LOTR. #3 The wolves were terrible in most scenes. #4 Proportions were off, particularly in the battle near the end. The giants looked SO out of place and fake, like a bad photoshop edit.
DOH! :)
With that kind of doe, you'd like they could at least get the blue/green screening done properly. Quite honestly, I felt the effects in this film were very poorly done.
One more tidbit. It's interesting that on IMDB the first 20 pages of reviews are all very positive (and submitted before the offical release), yet 80% of the more recent ones (since Fridays US release) are all very poor.
Actually, you went too far. A buffer overflow, in it's most simple state, is simply exceeding the bounds of allocated buffer space. It does not always result in information being writen outside the of the buffer.
Exploitability has nothing to do with my definition.
Ok, clearly you have no idea what a buffer overflow is either... heh.
Also, just an FYI, everything below the first line on my original post was actually a paste of the original Firefox advisory.. unfortunately Slashcode stripped out most of it and it looks like me talking.
The guy who reported it called it a 'buffer overflow' and clearly had no understanding of what it actually meant.
which
most users won't figure out.
this proof of concept will only prevent someone from reopening
their browser after being exploited. DoS if you will. however, code
execution is possible with some modifcations.
Tested with Firefox 1.5 on Windows XP SP2.
ZIPLOCK
-->
heh
function ex() {
var buffer = "";
for (var i = 0; i ZIPLOCK says CLICK ME
I'd like to be the first to welcome the .gov to the year 1994. Enjoy your stay.
"Microsoft and Time Warner team up against Google" - Based on the article, it could have also been worded, "Google and Time Warner team up against Microsoft". No decisions have been made and both Microsoft and Google are looking to team up with Time Warner.
if they're claiming Firefox to be a superior browser in terms of security.
Speaking as a Canadian who's living in the US, what you get in healthcare you pay for in taxes. Additionally, salaries for higher level tech positions are much higher in the US. That's the main reason I left 10 years ago. That and Edmonton isn't exactly cosmopolitan.
Agreed. Most modern phishing databases are tired to massive botnets. They never exist on a single IP long enough to work.
However, combined with content signatures, they may be a little more effective.
I also just validated it myself.
Bugtraq posting yesterday by admin@dbtech.org.
It was 0day yesterday morning.
I believe it actually causes a DoS condition in Firefox.
And another $1,000,000 on support.
See subject.