McAfee Avert Labs described the assault as "one of the largest attacks to date of this kind".
The attack serves as a reminder that even trusted websites can be malicious, McAfee warned.
"Often you hear warnings about not going to untrusted sites," said Craig Schmugar, threat researcher at McAfee Avert Labs."That is good advice, but it is not enough."
McAfee Avert Labs first spotted the attack on 12 March.
I wonder who can sell us some sort of software to guide us out of this maze of evil webpages?
Are you confusing Facebook with Flickr or Picasa? Facebook runs a Java program that spends ten minutes converting my beautiful hi-res photos to postage stamps. The results are pathetic! 50meg in 2meg out.
The point of hosting photos on Facebook is not to be able to display high-res images, but to share 'good enough' photos with friends.
Facebook has no need whatsoever to keep your original photo - as you've pointed out, picasa and flickr already fill that space.
I don't keep my RAWs, TIFFs or PSDs on Facebook, I upload 800px jpegs that my friends might actually want to look at. If they want a larger version, I can direct them to my flickr or send it to them direct.
Facebook is in all likelihood little more than a fad. They're not ground breaking, nor especially innovative, they are not leaders in their field (unless, maybe, you could user protest and rebellion figures). Microsoft aren't ground-breaking or especially innovative, but they seem to have done alright.
Being successful isn't about being innovative and coming up with new products - it's about earning more revenue than your competition by (hopefully) providing a better service.
I think, for the moment, the quality of data available to marketers is much better on Facebook than on Myspace. It therefore seems Facebook is likely to continue to grow - as the amount of advertising dollars flowing in likewise grows.
Notice how many people put albums of photos on Facebook, compared to Myspace - it's a good indicator of whether they will stay with the service. What I've noticed is that people generally can't be bothered switching if it means going through all the hassle of setting up their photos again, even if they're prepared to set up their 'friend list' or whatever again.
What's so hard to understand?
People want to use the latest features in the newer versions of photoshop. I own a dslr, I use PS as a tool for all sorts of things in the office, and at home. It's a hugely flexible and powerful program, and every iteration I've used is streets better than the one before it.
GIMP is ungainly, and lacks anywhere near the same amount of functionality.
What would be really nice would be for Adobe to provide linux-friendly versions of it's Creative Suite. Why doesn't this happen? Seriously, I have no idea (the cynic in me suggests that Microsoft/Apple and Adobe have some interesting arrangements). Many graphic artist friends of mine use Macs (surprise), but I know many of their bosses would be quite happy to switch to a lower cost operating environment (not to mention hardware) if they could keep the CS3 functionality.
And if the hardwood forests are not being logged for pulp, they're being cut down to allow planting of crops. Either way, the carbon released is more than it would be if the forest was left alone.
Pulling CO2 out of the air is very easy - plant some trees (simplistic of course - restoring an ecosystem is preferable) and let mother nature do it. In exchange we get a nice area to run around in and an education about how maintaining biodiversity is important to our survival as well as being generally interesting. Pulling it out of the air to bury it in barrels or whatever seems like a slightly more difficult and less rewarding solution. It's a fix to a problem that isn't better than the current solution...
1) Actually, that's not an issue; When you shoot with an SLR, you generally shoot in RAW format, which means that you can adjust colour balance (by which I think you actually mean white balance), as well as hue, saturation, sharpness, exposure settings, etc etc. Also, you can use various different metering settings - i.e. if you have a bright background and a dark subject, you can set the camera to meter the center of the image (your subject), so that your image will not turn out as a silhouette. So in fact, you NEVER have to take multiple shots (assuming you didn't mis-focus), whereas with a point-and-shoot, you may have to take multiple exposures in order to get the camera to do what you want.
2) Dust isn't really that big a deal. It's the same as getting dust on the front of your lens on your point-and-shoot (ok, not exactly, but the concept is the same). A quick clean, and you're away again. Most people will never notice it anyway, and will never clean their sensors.
I'm guessing/hoping you made this comment tongue-in-cheek.
Less noise does not equal more blurry. Noise is the 'speckles' that you see when you shoot with a higher ISO (which allows you to take photos in lower light without using flash).
Customizable shutter speed means that you can adjust the shutter to a reasonable speed, (generally 1/lens i.e. 1/50 for a 50mm) and then work out which aperture (and consequently depth of field) and ISO ('quality/noisiness' of image) are appropriate. It means you can go for a motion blur (for a large crowd scene in a building for example) or freeze images (most used in sports shots).
As for size of camera; the camera size is limited by the size of the mirror, the sensor, the size of the various lenses which will be attached to it (which are governed by the various laws of optics). Also, when you've got a lens attached that may weigh several pounds, you need a bit of size in order to hold the thing steady. Add to that the fact that the higher-end models are generally made of a magnesium alloy, and you've got a relatively bulky and heavy machine.
dSLRs are fantastic for learning the creative aspects of photography and taking high-quality photos. You can of course get beautiful images with your point-and-shoot, but the level of control that you have is much lower.
I'm not sure I understand your 'cheese arguement', but I will say that you're the first person I've ever seen make a comparison between dairy products and cameras:)
I apologise for the left-field comment, it just struck me that the more people I talk to who don't believe in global climate change, the more I people I find who believe in God, in one form or another.
As for co-existence and acknowledgement of valid theories, that may have previously been the case for a short time, but big religion has now reverted to its traditional stance;
Pope Blasts Darwinism
Yesterday, Tuesday, September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI called evolution "unreasonable." In an address to 300,000 in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI addressed the concept of Darwinian evolution in terms that reverses the Catholic Church's over 50-year acceptance of the theory.
Pope Benedict XVI, who voiced opposition to evolutionary theory while he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, remains consistent with his previous views, which he last voiced on World Youth Day in April 2006. At that meeting, he told his young audience that "science supports a reliable, intelligent structure of matter, the design of Creation."
Some people mistake cynicism for intelligence.
Climate change IS happening. I don't even need to rely entirely on outside sources to help prove that to me. I can (and have) flown for about 2 hours, to visit Franz Josef glacier, which has retreated 1.5 kilometres in the last 60 years. This rate of retreat is orders of magnitude faster than at any other time in history. That means, in the millions and millions of years this thing has been around, the last few hundred have caused it to significantly alter its behaviour. Do you think that this is just a coincidence?
It is good to question authority. It is healthy, normal, and a trait that should be encouraged. But when the evidence is staring you in the face, and you still deny it... Then you're delusional.
I find it amazing that people who believe in something with basically no verifiable proof of existence (i.e. God) have such a tough time believing in something that is so demonstrably happening in front of them.
If ever there was proof of the power of man to delude himself, denying that we have a large and thus-far detrimental effect on climate change would be it.
I'm not sure what your wife's eyes have to do with this, but as someone who has actually had it done, I'd advise anyone thinking about LASIK to do it - provided you are a suitable candidate.
The ability to SEE is incredible - clarity is an amazing thing to gain after years of bluriness.
The fact that you don't have to worry about eye infections from contacts... The fact that you can see when it rains, and don't have to wipe your glasses every 5 seconds... The fact that you can go out at night and not worry about finding a place to keep your contacts, or that your eyes will get dry and they will come out... The fact that you can wake up in the morning and see the alarm clock... etc etc etc etc
People who say "there are too many risks involved" usually are not those who are going to be taking the risks. As long as you have stable vision, your cornea is thick enough, and you use a reputable establishment to get your procedure done, then I would say do it, regardless of cost or anything else.
"The "reinterpretation" of the laws is designed to make sure that porn performers are of legal age. Period. If you have problems with that and think they should be able to be younger than 18, or that porn sites shouldn't be able to produce records that indicate that they ARE over 18, then we probably won't see eye to eye on this. No matter how fringe or uncommon it is, anything else would allow child pornographers to operate more easily and/or go unpunished."
How easy it is to blame everything on people trying to harm our children.
This law change is not about stopping people from taking photos of children, its about making it harder for porn sites to operate. Do you honestly think that requiring a website to have age verification of models is going to stop people from abusing children and sending it through a secret network to other abusers? The reason for this law reinterpretation/change/whatever is simple - make the world more acceptable to Christian values groups.
As for the anti-nuclear; Creating radioactive waste that cannot be disposed of for thousands of years, in facilities designed to cost as little as possible while possibly not always adhering to safety standards (as all companies inherently try to minimise costs) doesn't necessarily sound like the best idea to me. Punishing other nations by refusing to enter into free-trade agreements, and backing out of your previously stated defence and security commitements because of their decision to exclude the nuclear option is at the very least churlish.
So, get down off your high horse, and do some thinking before you post next time.
Slashdot Mirror
McAfee Avert Labs described the assault as "one of the largest attacks to date of this kind".
The attack serves as a reminder that even trusted websites can be malicious, McAfee warned.
"Often you hear warnings about not going to untrusted sites," said Craig Schmugar, threat researcher at McAfee Avert Labs."That is good advice, but it is not enough."
McAfee Avert Labs first spotted the attack on 12 March.
I wonder who can sell us some sort of software to guide us out of this maze of evil webpages?
The point of hosting photos on Facebook is not to be able to display high-res images, but to share 'good enough' photos with friends.
Facebook has no need whatsoever to keep your original photo - as you've pointed out, picasa and flickr already fill that space.
I don't keep my RAWs, TIFFs or PSDs on Facebook, I upload 800px jpegs that my friends might actually want to look at. If they want a larger version, I can direct them to my flickr or send it to them direct.
Being successful isn't about being innovative and coming up with new products - it's about earning more revenue than your competition by (hopefully) providing a better service.
I think, for the moment, the quality of data available to marketers is much better on Facebook than on Myspace. It therefore seems Facebook is likely to continue to grow - as the amount of advertising dollars flowing in likewise grows.
Notice how many people put albums of photos on Facebook, compared to Myspace - it's a good indicator of whether they will stay with the service. What I've noticed is that people generally can't be bothered switching if it means going through all the hassle of setting up their photos again, even if they're prepared to set up their 'friend list' or whatever again.
What's so hard to understand? People want to use the latest features in the newer versions of photoshop. I own a dslr, I use PS as a tool for all sorts of things in the office, and at home. It's a hugely flexible and powerful program, and every iteration I've used is streets better than the one before it. GIMP is ungainly, and lacks anywhere near the same amount of functionality. What would be really nice would be for Adobe to provide linux-friendly versions of it's Creative Suite. Why doesn't this happen? Seriously, I have no idea (the cynic in me suggests that Microsoft/Apple and Adobe have some interesting arrangements). Many graphic artist friends of mine use Macs (surprise), but I know many of their bosses would be quite happy to switch to a lower cost operating environment (not to mention hardware) if they could keep the CS3 functionality.
Clearly a copy/paste error...
"I call"... BS, shenanigans, whatever.
"Ok, I'll play"...
Those are annoying!
And if the hardwood forests are not being logged for pulp, they're being cut down to allow planting of crops. Either way, the carbon released is more than it would be if the forest was left alone.
Pulling CO2 out of the air is very easy - plant some trees (simplistic of course - restoring an ecosystem is preferable) and let mother nature do it. In exchange we get a nice area to run around in and an education about how maintaining biodiversity is important to our survival as well as being generally interesting. Pulling it out of the air to bury it in barrels or whatever seems like a slightly more difficult and less rewarding solution. It's a fix to a problem that isn't better than the current solution...
Yes, but you have to make sure you isolate the continuum transfunctioner from the egress of the nucleonics based dialup defined ham radio.
Because the US suffered huge amounts of terrorist attacks before the PATRIOT act and the Homeland Security bureaucracy came into being.
I've never been attacked by lions, I guess it's because I have this lucky anti-lion rock in my backyard.
1) Actually, that's not an issue; When you shoot with an SLR, you generally shoot in RAW format, which means that you can adjust colour balance (by which I think you actually mean white balance), as well as hue, saturation, sharpness, exposure settings, etc etc. Also, you can use various different metering settings - i.e. if you have a bright background and a dark subject, you can set the camera to meter the center of the image (your subject), so that your image will not turn out as a silhouette. So in fact, you NEVER have to take multiple shots (assuming you didn't mis-focus), whereas with a point-and-shoot, you may have to take multiple exposures in order to get the camera to do what you want.
2) Dust isn't really that big a deal. It's the same as getting dust on the front of your lens on your point-and-shoot (ok, not exactly, but the concept is the same). A quick clean, and you're away again. Most people will never notice it anyway, and will never clean their sensors.
I'm guessing/hoping you made this comment tongue-in-cheek.
:)
Less noise does not equal more blurry. Noise is the 'speckles' that you see when you shoot with a higher ISO (which allows you to take photos in lower light without using flash).
Customizable shutter speed means that you can adjust the shutter to a reasonable speed, (generally 1/lens i.e. 1/50 for a 50mm) and then work out which aperture (and consequently depth of field) and ISO ('quality/noisiness' of image) are appropriate. It means you can go for a motion blur (for a large crowd scene in a building for example) or freeze images (most used in sports shots).
As for size of camera; the camera size is limited by the size of the mirror, the sensor, the size of the various lenses which will be attached to it (which are governed by the various laws of optics). Also, when you've got a lens attached that may weigh several pounds, you need a bit of size in order to hold the thing steady. Add to that the fact that the higher-end models are generally made of a magnesium alloy, and you've got a relatively bulky and heavy machine.
dSLRs are fantastic for learning the creative aspects of photography and taking high-quality photos. You can of course get beautiful images with your point-and-shoot, but the level of control that you have is much lower.
I'm not sure I understand your 'cheese arguement', but I will say that you're the first person I've ever seen make a comparison between dairy products and cameras
I apologise for the left-field comment, it just struck me that the more people I talk to who don't believe in global climate change, the more I people I find who believe in God, in one form or another. As for co-existence and acknowledgement of valid theories, that may have previously been the case for a short time, but big religion has now reverted to its traditional stance;
Pope Blasts Darwinism
Yesterday, Tuesday, September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI called evolution "unreasonable." In an address to 300,000 in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI addressed the concept of Darwinian evolution in terms that reverses the Catholic Church's over 50-year acceptance of the theory.
Pope Benedict XVI, who voiced opposition to evolutionary theory while he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, remains consistent with his previous views, which he last voiced on World Youth Day in April 2006. At that meeting, he told his young audience that "science supports a reliable, intelligent structure of matter, the design of Creation."
Galileo might have disagreed with you.
Some people mistake cynicism for intelligence. Climate change IS happening. I don't even need to rely entirely on outside sources to help prove that to me. I can (and have) flown for about 2 hours, to visit Franz Josef glacier, which has retreated 1.5 kilometres in the last 60 years. This rate of retreat is orders of magnitude faster than at any other time in history. That means, in the millions and millions of years this thing has been around, the last few hundred have caused it to significantly alter its behaviour. Do you think that this is just a coincidence? It is good to question authority. It is healthy, normal, and a trait that should be encouraged. But when the evidence is staring you in the face, and you still deny it... Then you're delusional.
I find it amazing that people who believe in something with basically no verifiable proof of existence (i.e. God) have such a tough time believing in something that is so demonstrably happening in front of them.
If ever there was proof of the power of man to delude himself, denying that we have a large and thus-far detrimental effect on climate change would be it.
In other words:
Microsoft will one day release an operating system that is compatible with the hardware that is available at the time.
Seriously, how do you get a job like his? Does he get a parking space?
Personally, I'll take a warmer planet to a cooler one.
I'm guessing you're also looking forward to the collapse of the food chain that a bit of warming could bring?
I'm not sure what your wife's eyes have to do with this, but as someone who has actually had it done, I'd advise anyone thinking about LASIK to do it - provided you are a suitable candidate.
The ability to SEE is incredible - clarity is an amazing thing to gain after years of bluriness.
The fact that you don't have to worry about eye infections from contacts...
The fact that you can see when it rains, and don't have to wipe your glasses every 5 seconds...
The fact that you can go out at night and not worry about finding a place to keep your contacts, or that your eyes will get dry and they will come out...
The fact that you can wake up in the morning and see the alarm clock...
etc etc etc etc
People who say "there are too many risks involved" usually are not those who are going to be taking the risks. As long as you have stable vision, your cornea is thick enough, and you use a reputable establishment to get your procedure done, then I would say do it, regardless of cost or anything else.
"The "reinterpretation" of the laws is designed to make sure that porn performers are of legal age. Period. If you have problems with that and think they should be able to be younger than 18, or that porn sites shouldn't be able to produce records that indicate that they ARE over 18, then we probably won't see eye to eye on this. No matter how fringe or uncommon it is, anything else would allow child pornographers to operate more easily and/or go unpunished."
How easy it is to blame everything on people trying to harm our children.
This law change is not about stopping people from taking photos of children, its about making it harder for porn sites to operate. Do you honestly think that requiring a website to have age verification of models is going to stop people from abusing children and sending it through a secret network to other abusers? The reason for this law reinterpretation/change/whatever is simple - make the world more acceptable to Christian values groups.
As for the anti-nuclear; Creating radioactive waste that cannot be disposed of for thousands of years, in facilities designed to cost as little as possible while possibly not always adhering to safety standards (as all companies inherently try to minimise costs) doesn't necessarily sound like the best idea to me. Punishing other nations by refusing to enter into free-trade agreements, and backing out of your previously stated defence and security commitements because of their decision to exclude the nuclear option is at the very least churlish.
So, get down off your high horse, and do some thinking before you post next time.