It can recover them, it just doesn't want to because there could be some horrendous Java applet or plugin or something that's instantly crashing it, so it gives you the option to not recover that one. Firefox seems to be going downhill, but I like that feature, it's pretty nifty.
That doesn't work with software patents, as many developers (like me) find them morally objectionable or wrong for some other reason, don't have the money to do it initially, or don't have the time or skills to draw up a patent application. Also, even if they did patent it, like in this case, if they release the product under any licence (not just FOSS ones) that means it's free then re they won't make a penny from royalties.
There was a story in a Linux magazine where everyone gets very annoyed when RMS says he preferred the BSD license anyway and escapes to an island somewhere. Not before revealing the GPLv4 license however, which is, of course, the BSD licence, much to the annoyance of everyone who copied his template verbatim.
Judging by the huge proportion of the blacklisted sites that are offline (and the tiny fraction that are actually phishing sites) it seems Google isn't taking this seriously enough. There is much, much more than 341 phishing sites in the world. This list should be being updated daily, they should start a way for suggesting sites or, if it exists, make it more visible.
For the only external blacklisting organisation on Firefox, and as the provider for possibly the most widely used toolbar ever, they're not taking this seriously enough. But would any security company come in with a better free blacklist?
Something doesn't necessarily have to be factually incorrect to be misleading. For instance, a company may show pictures which suggest they are comparing their product and a similar one from a competitor, but then in the small print somewhere state that the one that you think is the competitor's product is actually a substandard copy. This is factually correct, but it misleads those who are not vigilant enough.
While this title is factually accurate, 'rocket' actually suggests a whole rocket, and 'hits' reinforces the image that a whole rocket has hit part of Wyoming. A less misleading title would be something like 'Spent Russian Rocket Booster Falls Into Wyoming' or something more succinct to that effect.
But what about the fact that many US minority groups, especially Blacks, have, on average, a lower standard of education. This leads to they getting lower qualifications. Therefore, by these grounds, if you discriminate on the basis of qualifications aren't you discriminating against these minorities? Can you be accused of sexism if you require some qualification more men have than women?
I think the social networking sites should make it as hard as possible or even disallowed for things like phone numbers and addresses to be public, even if the rest of your egotistical drivel is.
Because this stuff can be easily harvested en masse - the probability of you stumbling upon an ID fraudster on your travels and accidentally divulging information to him is much smaller than him finding it nicely categorised on a social networking site.
Well, I have been considering how this is different from FOSS, and have come to the conclusion if you're looking over the source code, chances are you're doing it illegally. And therefore, try reporting bugs without being crushed visciously, and why would you want to report them anyway.
Of course, people who want exploits don't need to report them to anyone. So yeah, you're probably right, this will unleash a torrent of exploits, which I predict will never stop. It will make Windows slightly more secure, but at a constant cost. And their patching cycle...please.
You really have no clue about the free market, do you. If government acts to detriment one company, the monopoly, and benefits others, it is inherently unfree.
Hmm. But how much of the time are you actually using IE? I think if you happened to see a site saying 'viwed best with IE,' and was not trusted, with the current situation, would not do so. Or at least do it in a seperate user account.
...or related histera. It's either someone passing on a slightly 'enhanced' version of the story, or someone assuming it means they'll be bought or misnterpreting it. What do you expect?
I think it does, anyway. A nice codebase to work on for true control over 'the new platform.' They really seem to have this sorted. But I think, while they'll find it hard to convert the Firefox-type userbase over, they might be able to advertise for it in a similar way to the codebar.
Although, whether the large support they have from the geek population could be shattered if they try to oppose Firefox, particularly if they keep it closed source.
Slashdot Mirror
It can recover them, it just doesn't want to because there could be some horrendous Java applet or plugin or something that's instantly crashing it, so it gives you the option to not recover that one. Firefox seems to be going downhill, but I like that feature, it's pretty nifty.
Oh, 1.783 × 1027 kg! Thanks for clearing that one up!
It's almost like whoever wrote this bill had a clue.
It looks like you're trying to bomb a small country...
I saw StarOffice being sold at my local Staples recently. Looks like it's going that way.
That doesn't work with software patents, as many developers (like me) find them morally objectionable or wrong for some other reason, don't have the money to do it initially, or don't have the time or skills to draw up a patent application. Also, even if they did patent it, like in this case, if they release the product under any licence (not just FOSS ones) that means it's free then re they won't make a penny from royalties.
There was a story in a Linux magazine where everyone gets very annoyed when RMS says he preferred the BSD license anyway and escapes to an island somewhere. Not before revealing the GPLv4 license however, which is, of course, the BSD licence, much to the annoyance of everyone who copied his template verbatim.
Judging by the huge proportion of the blacklisted sites that are offline (and the tiny fraction that are actually phishing sites) it seems Google isn't taking this seriously enough. There is much, much more than 341 phishing sites in the world. This list should be being updated daily, they should start a way for suggesting sites or, if it exists, make it more visible.
For the only external blacklisting organisation on Firefox, and as the provider for possibly the most widely used toolbar ever, they're not taking this seriously enough. But would any security company come in with a better free blacklist?
Or define the type of scam you're trying to report. (Scroll down, it's in black, indented courier.)
Something doesn't necessarily have to be factually incorrect to be misleading. For instance, a company may show pictures which suggest they are comparing their product and a similar one from a competitor, but then in the small print somewhere state that the one that you think is the competitor's product is actually a substandard copy. This is factually correct, but it misleads those who are not vigilant enough. While this title is factually accurate, 'rocket' actually suggests a whole rocket, and 'hits' reinforces the image that a whole rocket has hit part of Wyoming. A less misleading title would be something like 'Spent Russian Rocket Booster Falls Into Wyoming' or something more succinct to that effect.
But what about the fact that many US minority groups, especially Blacks, have, on average, a lower standard of education. This leads to they getting lower qualifications. Therefore, by these grounds, if you discriminate on the basis of qualifications aren't you discriminating against these minorities? Can you be accused of sexism if you require some qualification more men have than women?
I think the social networking sites should make it as hard as possible or even disallowed for things like phone numbers and addresses to be public, even if the rest of your egotistical drivel is.
Because this stuff can be easily harvested en masse - the probability of you stumbling upon an ID fraudster on your travels and accidentally divulging information to him is much smaller than him finding it nicely categorised on a social networking site.
No, I think they should have civil rights. Unless, of course, they're gay.
The whole "next big thing" concept generally means you can't see it comming.
I hope you're joking.
Well, I have been considering how this is different from FOSS, and have come to the conclusion if you're looking over the source code, chances are you're doing it illegally. And therefore, try reporting bugs without being crushed visciously, and why would you want to report them anyway. Of course, people who want exploits don't need to report them to anyone. So yeah, you're probably right, this will unleash a torrent of exploits, which I predict will never stop. It will make Windows slightly more secure, but at a constant cost. And their patching cycle...please.
You really have no clue about the free market, do you. If government acts to detriment one company, the monopoly, and benefits others, it is inherently unfree.
Have you even HEARD of free software?
Hmm. But how much of the time are you actually using IE? I think if you happened to see a site saying 'viwed best with IE,' and was not trusted, with the current situation, would not do so. Or at least do it in a seperate user account.
Lucky, then, you can 'format' the 'C drive' in under a second.
Well, I don't know whether Wine support WMF.
It'd be nice to have a computer that I can use the patch on.. Maybe I can Wine it?
...or related histera. It's either someone passing on a slightly 'enhanced' version of the story, or someone assuming it means they'll be bought or misnterpreting it. What do you expect?
I think it does, anyway. A nice codebase to work on for true control over 'the new platform.' They really seem to have this sorted. But I think, while they'll find it hard to convert the Firefox-type userbase over, they might be able to advertise for it in a similar way to the codebar.
Although, whether the large support they have from the geek population could be shattered if they try to oppose Firefox, particularly if they keep it closed source.