Actually, I believe the main problem is that nVidia's drivers suck ass. But that doesn't explain the time when window borders completely disappeared. The desktop cube and wobbly windows and whatnot were fine, they just had no borders.
I'm guessing mostly for mobile users. [if you've read TFA, you this won't be anything new] For example, imagine a calendar application - you could add an event to your calendar locally while you're offline (can't get a signal, don't have mobile internet, whatever), which I presume would be stored using DOM storage, then when you reconnect, it would synchronize with the calendar server. The other thing is that resources such as images, scripts, etc. can be marked for offline usage. I imagine if you're online, it will download a new version of the resource as usual, but if not, it will use the last version it had.
No, but you could have your account warned/suspended for abuse(shooting someone can send them flying quite far, depending on how the weapon is made). You can't kill someone, by the way - even if you trapped them in a box or whatever, they can teleport out.
(PS. If you ever go into the sandboxes in Second Life, you'll see all sorts of other types of abuse too - floating batman cubes/bananaphones which follow you around playing an annoying/catchy* loop, hundreds of stupidly high-detail models just left lying around by their long-gone creators, bendy penises which follow people around annoying them, thousands of physics objects which attempt to waste the simulator's resources, etc.)
*delete where appropriate
The difference is that for the UAC dialog the system switches to a system-owned desktop (note that I am using the word "desktop" in the sense of the Win32 programming model), which programs on your application desktop can't access. They then also can't control or read from the mouse or keyboard. Basically, the only way they could click "allow" for you is if they baddies had installed an evil driver or maybe replaced core system files which generated the prompt, in which case you've already lost.
It's similar to the way that when you press ctrl-alt-delete on Windows NT, it switches out to a different desktop (the idea being that since only the system itself can trap Ctrl-Alt-Del, you know it is definitely the system which created the desktop on which you are entering your credentials).
I guess if you didn't notice, it's possibly because you knew what you were doing at the time and just clicked allow/continue without second thought. Or maybe you just didn't install/run unsigned software, which would generally be a good idea anyway.
This is essentially allowing a trusted program (RunLegacyCPLElevated.exe) to load and execute untrusted (unsigned, etc) code in its own, trusted, context... I don't see how that can possibly be secure, or how they can say it's not a problem. The obvious choice to me is either to display a notification when a "trusted" process running with full privileges dynamically loads an untrusted DLL (then again, that might get annoying, in which case they could have implemented some sort of flag in the executable's manifest meaning "this program may link with untrusted code, if it does at some point do that, then afterwards treat it as unsigned"). N.B.: I could be talking out of my arse here.
For reference, sometimes it just asks you if you want to allow an unnamed program - that's the orange dialog with the choice "allow/deny". It's not digitally signed, or the signature isn't trusted, so there is no reason to trust who it says it's from (I'm not saying digital signatures are foolproof, but they help), so it doesn't even say what program wants to do X or who it is from. Other times, it tells you who signed the software and that you should run it if you trust the signer - that's the grey/teal one with the choice "continue/cancel".
Slashdot Mirror
I'd probably go for (+5, Strange).
But my 320 GB disk gets a 5.6... Damn you, Windows Viiiiista!
Then don't download DRM-"enabled" music. Seriously, how hard can it be?
Oh, so I just run it on my virtual machine? cool.
From the 43 selectors 32 have passed, 4 are buggy and 7 are unsupported (Passed 369 out of 578 tests) Gecko/20070622 Minefield/3.0a6pre
So export your bookmarks to HTML.
Guess the odd one out?
Err.. probably. I haven't actually read anything that says they'll share runtimes, but I think they do.
Since Firefox 3 and SeaMonkey 1.5 (and probably Thunderbird, too) will be based on XULRunner, this problem should be solved by then.
Actually, I believe the main problem is that nVidia's drivers suck ass. But that doesn't explain the time when window borders completely disappeared. The desktop cube and wobbly windows and whatnot were fine, they just had no borders.
I particularly love when beryl manages to slow down to 5 frames per second... on a GeForce 8800 GTS and a Conroe @ 3.4GHz.
You realise that would be finished in 15 seconds and then you could put it to sleep, right?
Seven percent is just the maximum amount Verisign is allowed to increase prices by every year. See http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/29/19 53214.
I've been watching them for a while, and I've still never seen one speak :(
I'm afraid we'll never know... If only there was some sort of website where you could enter a word or acronym and find out what it means ;-(
I'm guessing mostly for mobile users. [if you've read TFA, you this won't be anything new] For example, imagine a calendar application - you could add an event to your calendar locally while you're offline (can't get a signal, don't have mobile internet, whatever), which I presume would be stored using DOM storage, then when you reconnect, it would synchronize with the calendar server. The other thing is that resources such as images, scripts, etc. can be marked for offline usage. I imagine if you're online, it will download a new version of the resource as usual, but if not, it will use the last version it had.
Hallowed are our new intergalactic overlords.
No, but you could have your account warned/suspended for abuse(shooting someone can send them flying quite far, depending on how the weapon is made). You can't kill someone, by the way - even if you trapped them in a box or whatever, they can teleport out.
(PS. If you ever go into the sandboxes in Second Life, you'll see all sorts of other types of abuse too - floating batman cubes/bananaphones which follow you around playing an annoying/catchy* loop, hundreds of stupidly high-detail models just left lying around by their long-gone creators, bendy penises which follow people around annoying them, thousands of physics objects which attempt to waste the simulator's resources, etc.)
*delete where appropriate
My university also doAÉ$~ß;$ß[;ädsl1pkrp$%£":L$K"P{J^NO CARRIER
No problem, you can celebrate pi day on 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751 058209749445923078164-06-28 :-)
The difference is that for the UAC dialog the system switches to a system-owned desktop (note that I am using the word "desktop" in the sense of the Win32 programming model), which programs on your application desktop can't access. They then also can't control or read from the mouse or keyboard. Basically, the only way they could click "allow" for you is if they baddies had installed an evil driver or maybe replaced core system files which generated the prompt, in which case you've already lost.
It's similar to the way that when you press ctrl-alt-delete on Windows NT, it switches out to a different desktop (the idea being that since only the system itself can trap Ctrl-Alt-Del, you know it is definitely the system which created the desktop on which you are entering your credentials).
I guess if you didn't notice, it's possibly because you knew what you were doing at the time and just clicked allow/continue without second thought. Or maybe you just didn't install/run unsigned software, which would generally be a good idea anyway.
This is essentially allowing a trusted program (RunLegacyCPLElevated.exe) to load and execute untrusted (unsigned, etc) code in its own, trusted, context... I don't see how that can possibly be secure, or how they can say it's not a problem. The obvious choice to me is either to display a notification when a "trusted" process running with full privileges dynamically loads an untrusted DLL (then again, that might get annoying, in which case they could have implemented some sort of flag in the executable's manifest meaning "this program may link with untrusted code, if it does at some point do that, then afterwards treat it as unsigned"). N.B.: I could be talking out of my arse here.
For reference, sometimes it just asks you if you want to allow an unnamed program - that's the orange dialog with the choice "allow/deny". It's not digitally signed, or the signature isn't trusted, so there is no reason to trust who it says it's from (I'm not saying digital signatures are foolproof, but they help), so it doesn't even say what program wants to do X or who it is from. Other times, it tells you who signed the software and that you should run it if you trust the signer - that's the grey/teal one with the choice "continue/cancel".
mp3beatingcompression?
Where are all the real grammar nazis and what did you do with them?
I was thinking Day of Defeat.