They would likely block any page that showed your comment, including the main article page. That's how I interpreted their comment (they probably were thinking of Web 1.0 when they wrote it, and not the modern web of visitor-created content mixing with site content).
Actually, it is more accurate to say at some point the game has to execute code locally on the user's computer. Where the user has full control of what runs and what doesn't run. Where the user can use a disassembler to reverse engineer the game and disable the DRM.
On a console it's harder because of the locked-down nature but the hardware running the code is owned by the user and they can get access to the system one way or another and decompile the code.
Uninstall button is hidden for system-wide extensions that affect all Firefox profiles on the machine. The idea being that one user should not have the power (and may not have the permissions necessary) to remove a system-wide extension.
Early Firefoxes let users set them up but now extensions are usually installed per-user by default. Usually.
Sounds like a good idea until lots of people start bugging ITS because they need this or that software to do their jobs. ITS now has to update whitelists for who knows how many individual employees/computers whenever there is a software upgrade or a request. Is it worth it? Depends on the business size and how much software you use I suppose.
ChromeFrame only activates for pages that request it so it can't be used as you describe. You still have all of IE's security issues to worry about.
BTW Chrome uses Windows' proxy settings (commonly referred to as "IE proxy settings" since most apps ignore the Windows settings!) and other system settings when applicable.
If your corporate network doesn't allow you to install Chrome but allows random ActiveX controls, something is wrong. Of course if they don't want Chrome they're unlikely to want ChromeFrame either and will be angry if they find out you installed it.
Many users have shown they are more than happy to run random ActiveX controls inside of IE, while they are simultaneously clueless about the existence of other browsers. ChromeFrame takes advantage of the first to fix the second.
He claims he walked in with Lady Gaga CD-RWs and walked out with CD-RWs with a split archive file. No mention of encryption, archive level or otherwise. That, plus severely lacking security measures, according to him.
They can most certainly log attempts to access blocked sites even if the attempt fails due to the filters. Basically if you can block access, you can log it too. So I doubt it's a trap...
I also did some benchmarks of my own on non-Microsoft controlled sites. See the first comment on that page for results. Suffice it to say IE9 has improved since IE8 but still has a ways to go.
"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'" - Matthew 25:21 (NIV)
Slashdot Mirror
They would likely block any page that showed your comment, including the main article page. That's how I interpreted their comment (they probably were thinking of Web 1.0 when they wrote it, and not the modern web of visitor-created content mixing with site content).
ClamWin Portable from http://portableapps.com/
Browsers can be made to be standards compliant. Web pages can be made to be cross-browser compatible (since not all browsers are standards compliant).
Oh come on, April Fools Day' is the Internet at its most amusing just for stuff like this. You know it's only a temporary change.
...on ANY website?
But will it happily resign false certs given to it by phishing and malware sites?
I don't recall seeing this on Slashdot before. At least, not in my RSS feed.
So you can crunch while you crunch!
... numbers, that is.
Huh, I didn't know monkeys could type so well.
Actually, it is more accurate to say at some point the game has to execute code locally on the user's computer. Where the user has full control of what runs and what doesn't run. Where the user can use a disassembler to reverse engineer the game and disable the DRM.
On a console it's harder because of the locked-down nature but the hardware running the code is owned by the user and they can get access to the system one way or another and decompile the code.
And who would want to play your game, again...?
Uninstall button is hidden for system-wide extensions that affect all Firefox profiles on the machine. The idea being that one user should not have the power (and may not have the permissions necessary) to remove a system-wide extension.
Early Firefoxes let users set them up but now extensions are usually installed per-user by default. Usually.
Database? XML? CSV has always worked fine for me!
Apparently you are none of them, just Funny. Sorry.
I am also at [Generic Huge Corporation]. All XP here. We just got Office 2007... right after 2010 came out.
Sounds like a good idea until lots of people start bugging ITS because they need this or that software to do their jobs. ITS now has to update whitelists for who knows how many individual employees/computers whenever there is a software upgrade or a request. Is it worth it? Depends on the business size and how much software you use I suppose.
ChromeFrame only activates for pages that request it so it can't be used as you describe. You still have all of IE's security issues to worry about.
BTW Chrome uses Windows' proxy settings (commonly referred to as "IE proxy settings" since most apps ignore the Windows settings!) and other system settings when applicable.
If your corporate network doesn't allow you to install Chrome but allows random ActiveX controls, something is wrong. Of course if they don't want Chrome they're unlikely to want ChromeFrame either and will be angry if they find out you installed it.
Many users have shown they are more than happy to run random ActiveX controls inside of IE, while they are simultaneously clueless about the existence of other browsers. ChromeFrame takes advantage of the first to fix the second.
This guy spent $80 on the domain name and website after his $90 ticket...
Whoops, I suppose I should have linked to the actual article. Oh well, sorry about that.
Related: http://digg.com/comedy/Massive_Flow_Of_Bull****_Continues_To_Gush_From_BP
He claims he walked in with Lady Gaga CD-RWs and walked out with CD-RWs with a split archive file. No mention of encryption, archive level or otherwise. That, plus severely lacking security measures, according to him.
They can most certainly log attempts to access blocked sites even if the attempt fails due to the filters. Basically if you can block access, you can log it too. So I doubt it's a trap...
...that they benchmarked IE trunk against OLD versions of other browsers. They didn't even use Chrome 5.0!
In some places it's a significant difference.
I also did some benchmarks of my own on non-Microsoft controlled sites. See the first comment on that page for results. Suffice it to say IE9 has improved since IE8 but still has a ways to go.
"His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'" - Matthew 25:21 (NIV)