According to the article, it seems like it's the best, with the least number of "unauthorized" results. One has to wonder how they decide what is "unauthorized" and what is "authorized", though. Do they call the government and ask "Hey, will you tell me if I should look at $PRODEMOCRACY_WEBSITE?"
The requested URL was not found on this server. This means that you either:
A. Fell for our April Fool's joke, in which case ha ha, wasn't that amusing and harmless and mostly in good taste and not all psychologically damaging under various and sundry aspects of contemporary tort law, please don't sue us; or
B. Are genuinely enjoying, or least momentarily tolerating, our April Fool's joke and wanted to surf your way into its every last nook and cranny, in which case
1....ha ha, wasn't that amusing and harmless and mostly in good taste and not all psychologically damaging under various and sundry aspects of contemporary tort law, please don't sue us; and/or
2. you might want to take a trip down our April Fool's memory lane, here or here or here or here. Enjoy.
Google are reportedly making their massive computing power available to the J Craig Venter Foundation for gene sequencing to generate a gene catalogue for all the genes on the planet. Individual users will then input their own genetic sequence for a read out of their genetic predispositions analyzed against the existing database.
Evidently, what they're doing is, they have a database, and then you input your genetic information, then it tells you what it knows about you from the database (for example, your risk for heart disease, etc).
"The fix is a DLL that gets injected into all applications via the AppInit_DLLs registry key," Sotirov wrote in a message posted to security mailing lists. He said the DLL fixes the bug by patching a single byte in MSHTML.DLL when it is loaded in memory. "This change makes the 'createTextRange()' function return an error code instead of returning 0. This exactly how the problem was fixed in the latest IE7 beta from March 20," Sotirov explained.
Computer viruses can also direct the production of additional copies of themselves...
I have an even better analogy: So are instruction manuals telling you how to make instruction manuals. And I don't see anyone calling instruction manuals alive.
By buying a PC with Windows, you are paying the "Microsoft Tax" as people like to call it. So, you're basically handing MS a cheque, and then not using their product. Not sure why you'd want to do that.
Actually, the people that paid to have their spyware preinstalled on said Windows box are the ones that are paying the "Microsoft Tax". This is one of the reason why Dell systems with identical specs cost more preloaded with FreeDOS than they do with Windows XP.
Second, do you really think management came to this decision because they noticed the green start button on their screen? They did this over money. Microsoft probably wanted their business enough to charge them next to nothing and offer better support than Linux forums can offer. If they can take that savings and pass it along to their stockholders or customers then good for them. In the end, it might be costing Microsoft some money for the PR.
I'm not psychic; how would I know? Given how I've heard GoDaddy described, it certainly is possible (although its likelihood is something else, entirely). I did, however, ask "Do you think Microsoft is paying them to do this?" as one of the possibilities, so I've thought of that, too.
I think we can all agree that, at the very least, Linux SERVERS are better than Windows servers.
And, GoDaddy should at least know that much.
So, the question is, why are they doing it? Do you think Microsoft is paying them to do this? Did management's preconception that "Windows is what we use on our desktops, so it MUST be good for our servers" override any rational thought? Did they think it would trick customers who didn't know better and think, "They use Windows, just like our own computers, it must be good"?
Erm... Eheh... I seem to have thought of the wrong one... I meant the one about privacy... Which would be the 5th one... No, the 34th... No, the -12th...
Oh, you know what I meant!;)
And, no, I don't get paid for my legal brainery. Which is quite fortunate.
...the Justice Department...demands a "random sampling" of 1 million Internet addresses accessible through Google's search engine, and a random sampling of 1 million search queries submitted to Google in a one-week period.
During negotiations, the Justice Department narrowed its request to 50,000 URLs and said it would look at only 10,000. It also said it wanted 5,000 search queries and would look at 1,000.
Ware said that the reduced demand coupled with the government's "willingness to compensate Google" for up to eight days of its programmers' time had convinced him to grant the Justice Department at least some of what it had requested.
So the reduced demand somehow makes it okay to violate first-Amendment rights?
Here's a picture of one such technology you can buy today - it doesn't consume ANY energy to view the text OR pictures (ambient lighting) and it only requires energy to change the display. Its so energy-efficient it doesn't have an "OFF" switch.
Oh, c'mon, that thing requires TONS of power to change the display. I have something that can have its display changed to the next page with only a flick of the hand.
How would you feel if you knew that information existed but you're not permitted to see it. Not because the owner of the information set a price for it that you couldn't afford, not because you didn't know where it was, but simply because someone else said so.
Exactly. How would you feel if you knew that information existed but you're not permitted to find it, simply because someone decided that Google should not operate in China because it would require them to do things against their own moral views?
The recent WMF vulnerability affects every application that uses the Windows libraries for displaying images, which includes IE7. I'm guessing that's what caused it.
The problem with "Internet Explorer" is that its rendering engine, Trident, is embedded by a great many applications, so any vulnerability in Trident is also a vulnerability in those applications. The same is true of KDE/KHTML/KJS. If a vulnerability is found in, say, KHTML, it also means KMail and Amarok are vulnerable.
The vulnerability is in kjs, the Javascript interpreter of KHTML. Since KMail and amaroK don't really need a Javascript interpreter, the question is, is the code written badly enough that they're still vulnerable?
There was one thing that Outlook 2003 got right and that was the tiling of the folder, inbox and message panes vertically. Has this got it? Or does this need an extension?
I believe Thunderbird has already had this feature for a LONG time.
Opera becomes a free, as in no-cost, browser (forget about buying your way out of displaying Google ads) which means you can't pay for it but you also can't disabled advertising.
As many people have already mentioned, Opera is already a free, as in no-cost, no-ads browser.
"Authority-maddened?" They went "bonkers?" They just held him until he removed the foil so they could scan his badge. That's "bonkers" now?
Please, RTFA before you reply in such a... well, offensive manner.
From TFA:
You can't give Richard a visible RF ID strip without expecting him to protest. Richard acquired an entire roll of aluminum foil and wore his foil-shielded pass prominently. He willingly unwrapped it to go through any of the visible check-points, he simply objected to the potential that people might be reading the RF ID without his knowledge and tracking him around the grounds. This, again, is a legitimate gripe, handled with Richard's usual highly-visible, guile-less and absolutely un-subtle style of non-violent protest.
[...] I think if you delete XP from a Dell machine's configuration, they'll drop something like $33 from the total price.
According to this/. article, the opposite is true: if you have equivalent systems from Dell, one with XP and one without, the one without XP will be more expensive.
What browser/OS combo are you using? In IE or FF for Windows, alerts are displayed application modal, preventing menu access. I'm curious if another browser or OS handles them more gracefully.
If you want a Windows browser, Opera handles JavaScript pop-ups better than IE or FF.
Yeaahhhh, I just read slashdot, but it looks like I'm working. I do that for probably another hour after lunch too. I'd say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.
You see that checkbox next to "Post Anonymously"? You were supposed to click it.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the article, it seems like it's the best, with the least number of "unauthorized" results. One has to wonder how they decide what is "unauthorized" and what is "authorized", though. Do they call the government and ask "Hey, will you tell me if I should look at $PRODEMOCRACY_WEBSITE?"
You two are talking about different things. Live.com works fine in Firefox. It's Live.com Email that only works in MSIE.
I think we can all agree that, at the very least, Linux SERVERS are better than Windows servers.
And, GoDaddy should at least know that much.
So, the question is, why are they doing it? Do you think Microsoft is paying them to do this? Did management's preconception that "Windows is what we use on our desktops, so it MUST be good for our servers" override any rational thought? Did they think it would trick customers who didn't know better and think, "They use Windows, just like our own computers, it must be good"?
Any thoughts?
Erm... Eheh... I seem to have thought of the wrong one... I meant the one about privacy... Which would be the 5th one... No, the 34th... No, the -12th...
;)
Oh, you know what I meant!
And, no, I don't get paid for my legal brainery. Which is quite fortunate.
I believe that's what the grandparent post was implying with its "Oh wait..." comment.
It's called a book.
I thought so.
I believe I read in the stories about the WMF vulnerability that there were, in fact, many exploits in the wild.
In fact, looking back now, the first Slashdot story I could find about the WMF vulnerability was "Exploit Released for Unpatched Windows Flaw".
The recent WMF vulnerability affects every application that uses the Windows libraries for displaying images, which includes IE7. I'm guessing that's what caused it.
One word: Camino. According to its website, it has fairly good integration with other apps, and still uses Firefox's rendering engine.
From TFA: (Emphasis mine)