Firefox 2 changed the way the cookie preferences worked. You can only choose to allow or disallow all cookies through the options menu. To actually block just 3rd party cookies the way you could in 1.5, you have to fool around with obscure about:config settings.
No matter how few records they sold in their day, or how many of their albums are "greatest hits" compilations, it's 12 years "retired" and they just keep popping up in places like this. They had a song in Tony Hawk's American Wasteland not too long ago. Considering noone really knows any of their songs besides Weird Science (and the readers go "Oh! Them" now), the choice of songs (often fan favorites) always seems odd. As an out and proud Boingoloid to this day, it brings a tear to my eye.
I've had it out with him before over his disingenuity during the time that I played Eve. This response is typical of him actually. I learned way back when that everything he says amounts to either an empty promise or an outright lie. If you actually dare to call shenanigans about it, he'll typically jump down your throat and tell you to fuck on off.
I took him up on his advice.
But, I still love reading the/. "CCP Caught with Hand in Cookie Jar" stories because the favoritism towards big organized "bad guy" alliances was really blatant even way back before it was directly evidenced. People have thrown tons of money and years of their lives down the drain towards something they never had a chance at. And all they were really after was a chance. It's taken a lot longer than I thought it would to come out, but now CCP can never really go back again.
Even if they are right about this being orchestrated slander, CCP is a victim to the very behavior they encourage. If you make a game where people "win" by being dicks, don't be surprised when dicks play your game. And especially don't be surprised when the dicks actually act like dicks.
The general problem is that Mac users literally think they are invulnerable. Not usually because they are, but because noone really targets them.
They also make an artificial distinction between the OS and the application, when a compromise is a compromise. They make the same distinction between root and users accounts. True, a direct root may be of much more consequence overall, but a user level compromise can reveal important data as well, specifically the compromised user's. User level access can also provide a launching point for further attacks against root. The point here is that once someone is in, they are in, and that's all there is to it. How doesn't matter.
Hack a box contests with rules on how to hack them are a joke simply because a real hacker doesn't play by those or any other rules. If they will exploit IE, why wouldn't they Safari?
Maybe noone has "rooted" a Mac via a direct attack OS attack. Considering that the only part of an OS that is in any way exposed directly is its network implementation, good for them. How many attacks hit the TCP/IP stack directly anyway? (There have been some.) Most attacks are against the running services on a system. An Apache exploit under Linux that allows a root has a high probability of being exploitable on a Mac (and Windows) running Apache just the same. A Firefox bug exclusive to Windows is still a problem with Firefox, not Windows, but Windows boxes are in danger just the same. And since Mac really is FreeBSD with a Bells&Whistles(TM) UI (and a shit load of dogma) slapped on it, then an exploit in the FreeBSD codebase is probably a bug in the Mac codebase too.
When someone finally does target a virus or worm for a Mac, they probably won't just magically beam it into your box. (But if you aren't running a firewall they just might, they might even exploit the firewall itself if you are.) It will come in a cutesy email from your Aunt Clara, just the same as it does for Windows users. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it exploits a hole in the mail app itself. But if not, then some invincible Mac user will click it just the same.
Ultimately a secure system is a matter of proactive paranoia. Doing everything you can to prevent something you know still might happen. OpenBSD recently had its 2nd remote hole in its history. They didn't deny it or play it down. But the quick fix was a simple firewall statement that alot of users probably already had covered before the exploit was even found.
A "default deny" policy doesn't mean you automatically deny there is no potential for exploit.
It gets a little more sticky too when you try to relicense code like this. Outside contributors who submitted patches may have objections to the GPL code they donated being changed without their permission.
Sub-labels. Those little "independent" branches of major labels which are separated by a stack of paperwork, but ultimately come back to the umbrella ownership of the one of the Big 4.
Distribution deals. Those companies that piggyback the distribution network of the Big 4, without technically being a part of them, and pay a portion of the proceeds to them.
I am concerned with the 8400 hours math. That's 350 days of hypothetical non-stop programming per year. But when divide amongst the various markets, it could trickle down to a couple of hours a week per station, which can easily be placed in a slot where they have the least listeners.
The other thing that bugs me is the "contracts". If some scene does start to break, the record labels could just as easily ink a lucrative deal with the upstart indy bands that take off ("5 records! $20,000 up front to make the the first record!"), then bury them in a lack of promotion. ("Oh well, we can't play you now, you are major label band and don't qualify for the 'indy rock block' anymore.") Thus, in this deal, is another tool for suppressing music not endorsed by the Big 4. The cost of a sign-on bonus is trivial compared to the millions they can harvest from another manufactured pop group, and they can sue to get their "advance" back when the bands fail to make any profit and prevent them from recording for anyone else at the same time. Effectively burying the scene with the same weapons intended to break them from burying new scenes. This is a point on which I hope I a dead wrong.
The purpose of patent protection is to grant the right of a person who comes up with something great to profit from it.
Without such protections, someone would invent something and then die of starvation before seeing any kind of profit. While he is trying to produce his invention, some megacorp would take his idea and put it in mass production and beat him to his own market. The inventor would be left with jack because noone would have to pay him to produce his innovation for themselves.
Of course it would. The question would come down to proving you own it and thus have the right to use it. Then, that you only have that one licensed copy in use. Apple wouldn't like it, but the precedent would be set: you buy it, it's yours. They just wouldn't be obligated to support the way you use it.
All a judge needs to say is that MS has no business telling people what they can or can't run it on after they buy it. Be it a PC, VMWare, toaster, or shoe box.
To which point, the company should have been checking the HTTP referer to screen out such "deep" linking. It is the websites fault that people are jacking their content, they were allowing it.
Don't get too excited. EVE Online looks mind blowing, but plays like a point-and-click turd. If your idea of adventure is having some three year vet blow you up and say "lolz n00b" while, by game design, never having a chance to get back at him, then it's the game for you. Otherwise, move along. EVE Online will only leave you feeling raped and cheated after you have played and payed too long to have gotten nowhere. Devs are rude and ignore all players unless they have played since beta, and will outright lie about their not-so-subtle-but-frequent nerfings. Most new content is aimed squarely at and exclusive too the three year vets, funded by your monthly fees, and yet you will never have access to any of it.
This is EVE's game model. It took me two years of play to realize that I was being used. In the year since I quit, I haven't missed it at all.
...but for all thier bitching and moaning about this, they haven't actually done a thing in thier own defense. Further, being in the UK (as they have pointed out on many occasions now), why do they not just get a nice little.or.uk? All of this "the world is going to end" crap actually makes me think alot less or them. It's really thier own fault for ignoring the litigation, even if they had intention of complying to begin with.
It throws out some easily refutable numbers. World or Warcraft and it's 6.5+ million subscribers makes it the most profitable game of all time. It's shaking the game industry by syphoning off a huge percentile of money. The Sims never saw numbers like this in either sales (expansions) or subscriptions (the real money). Ever.
#7, Warcraft III, mentions starcraft as an impossible comparrison for success, and yet in the same line implies that SC didn't even make the list. (Didn't fully RTFA, so it may have, but #7 says it didn't.)
Mentioning these may make me seem like a Blizz fanboy, but I'm not. I just happen to know that Blizz made these games, and they all changed the face of the industry. WoW and SC both have had more impact in sales, culture, and game industry direction than the #1 pick. In fact, most of the Blizz games are still in production and sell to this day.
Facts are facts, and these numbers in this article are not in fact, facts. It's a very bad opinion piece from a very niave fanboy perspective. My brain hurts from havign looked at it.
Pay more attention next time. That is outdated news. OpenBSD made it through by picking up some major sponsors, including other F/OSS projects that use part of OpenBSD's code in thier projects.
I guess you are right. Your totally unsupported anecdotes have caused me to see the light. I will now go yank my 3D graphics card because software rendering is so much more efficient. Dedicated hardware will never outperform it.
What VMWare is doing is still trapping/faulting, only at the expense of CPU cycles before processing the instruction. Technically, this is called overhead, and hardware can (and will) make this negligable in time. The software will always have to check/replace the instruction before it can process it, and this will always add overhead to the process. Hardware will catch up to this by making the replacement more or less "in line" and thus negligable. No pre-processing overhead before sending the modified instruction to the hardware. It will either process the dangerous instruction in itself (sandboxing) or rewrite the process on the fly.
As far as more secure goes, you can't get any more secure than hardware simply refusing to process the instruction. Sorry. House of Cards vs House of Brick. However, *both* have the potential to be exploitable and insecure, so VMWare is simply FUDing there as well.
Your comparrison of C to Java is off base by miles as well. We're not talking about the optimization of compiled code, we are talking about processes running the same code through dedicated hardware or software emulation. In which case, whichever has the faster processor behind it will probably win depending on the overheads of each method.
Let me state this in much simpler terms. Software wins today, hardware will win tomorrow.
This is the cycle of new tech threatening old tech. Nothing more. And VMWare is in a dangerouse position of facing its products functionality being packaged with every major OS's default install. It's time for them to make thier money while they can, and attacking the newcomers while they are still in thier infancy and playing catchup is thier only recourse.
Additionally (addressing the TFA hybrid comment), since most of these systems using virtualization are x86 based or compatiable, a significant portion of the pocesses for both hard and soft emulation are running straight through the CPU. The only difference being these "traps" for protected operations. Once the kinks are worked out of the hardware version, the software will be history. VMWare is doing a bit of preemptive FUDing before they are forced under. "Inexpensive software cycles" in this case costs actual CPU cycles thus degreding performance overall. In the case of hardware, it's a matter of brining the chip's trap+process mechanism to par with the current CPU speeds, at wich point it will be relatively lossless and potentially faster.
"What if I like the stands he was taking, the points he was making with the laws? What if I supported the laws? My candidate is no longer eligible because he represented me?"
Yup. And in an ideal society, you would be held directly accountable for your votes by having your ability to vote revoked from that point on. If you are in favor for things that proufoundly violate other peoples rights, you really don't deserve the rights you have. Things are declared unconstitutinal because they are explicitly protected to keep opinion based (read: "of no factual relevance") and nosey legislation from trampling people who are minding thier own business. If you are one of these opinion voters, then you don't understand your constitution enough to really deserve any say in its processes.
Even things with official websites are often just pointers to a myspace page these days. This is especially common with bands.
"Offical website of . Click here now to hear them on MySpace.com"
The vanity sites irritate me more though, since you have a site, have a host, have nothign to say, but create a myspace page to do everythign you always could anyway. Ugh!
I run firefox tweaked to keep everything in memory and nothing on the disk. Memory use is about 30 megs plus about 1 to 4 megs per page viewed, depending on graphic intensity. If you are using 1.5Gb of ram, then maybe you should consider closing a few tabs and getting out more often. Hell, even closing the browser window once every 24 hours might be good for you.
Either way, you can end your FUD campaign now, your evidence is merely anecdotal and real memory usage statistics make you into a liar. Whoever modded you up should also be shot.
Slashdot Mirror
Firefox 2 changed the way the cookie preferences worked. You can only choose to allow or disallow all cookies through the options menu. To actually block just 3rd party cookies the way you could in 1.5, you have to fool around with obscure about:config settings.
h avior
Set network.cookie.cookieBehavior to "1"
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.cookie.cookieBe
Oingo Boingo will never die!
No matter how few records they sold in their day, or how many of their albums are "greatest hits" compilations, it's 12 years "retired" and they just keep popping up in places like this. They had a song in Tony Hawk's American Wasteland not too long ago. Considering noone really knows any of their songs besides Weird Science (and the readers go "Oh! Them" now), the choice of songs (often fan favorites) always seems odd. As an out and proud Boingoloid to this day, it brings a tear to my eye.
BRING BACK BOINGO!
I've had it out with him before over his disingenuity during the time that I played Eve. This response is typical of him actually. I learned way back when that everything he says amounts to either an empty promise or an outright lie. If you actually dare to call shenanigans about it, he'll typically jump down your throat and tell you to fuck on off.
/. "CCP Caught with Hand in Cookie Jar" stories because the favoritism towards big organized "bad guy" alliances was really blatant even way back before it was directly evidenced. People have thrown tons of money and years of their lives down the drain towards something they never had a chance at. And all they were really after was a chance. It's taken a lot longer than I thought it would to come out, but now CCP can never really go back again.
I took him up on his advice.
But, I still love reading the
Even if they are right about this being orchestrated slander, CCP is a victim to the very behavior they encourage. If you make a game where people "win" by being dicks, don't be surprised when dicks play your game. And especially don't be surprised when the dicks actually act like dicks.
The general problem is that Mac users literally think they are invulnerable. Not usually because they are, but because noone really targets them.
They also make an artificial distinction between the OS and the application, when a compromise is a compromise. They make the same distinction between root and users accounts. True, a direct root may be of much more consequence overall, but a user level compromise can reveal important data as well, specifically the compromised user's. User level access can also provide a launching point for further attacks against root. The point here is that once someone is in, they are in, and that's all there is to it. How doesn't matter.
Hack a box contests with rules on how to hack them are a joke simply because a real hacker doesn't play by those or any other rules. If they will exploit IE, why wouldn't they Safari?
Maybe noone has "rooted" a Mac via a direct attack OS attack. Considering that the only part of an OS that is in any way exposed directly is its network implementation, good for them. How many attacks hit the TCP/IP stack directly anyway? (There have been some.) Most attacks are against the running services on a system. An Apache exploit under Linux that allows a root has a high probability of being exploitable on a Mac (and Windows) running Apache just the same. A Firefox bug exclusive to Windows is still a problem with Firefox, not Windows, but Windows boxes are in danger just the same. And since Mac really is FreeBSD with a Bells&Whistles(TM) UI (and a shit load of dogma) slapped on it, then an exploit in the FreeBSD codebase is probably a bug in the Mac codebase too.
When someone finally does target a virus or worm for a Mac, they probably won't just magically beam it into your box. (But if you aren't running a firewall they just might, they might even exploit the firewall itself if you are.) It will come in a cutesy email from your Aunt Clara, just the same as it does for Windows users. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it exploits a hole in the mail app itself. But if not, then some invincible Mac user will click it just the same.
Ultimately a secure system is a matter of proactive paranoia. Doing everything you can to prevent something you know still might happen. OpenBSD recently had its 2nd remote hole in its history. They didn't deny it or play it down. But the quick fix was a simple firewall statement that alot of users probably already had covered before the exploit was even found.
A "default deny" policy doesn't mean you automatically deny there is no potential for exploit.
It gets a little more sticky too when you try to relicense code like this. Outside contributors who submitted patches may have objections to the GPL code they donated being changed without their permission.
Sub-labels. Those little "independent" branches of major labels which are separated by a stack of paperwork, but ultimately come back to the umbrella ownership of the one of the Big 4.
Distribution deals. Those companies that piggyback the distribution network of the Big 4, without technically being a part of them, and pay a portion of the proceeds to them.
I am concerned with the 8400 hours math. That's 350 days of hypothetical non-stop programming per year. But when divide amongst the various markets, it could trickle down to a couple of hours a week per station, which can easily be placed in a slot where they have the least listeners.
The other thing that bugs me is the "contracts". If some scene does start to break, the record labels could just as easily ink a lucrative deal with the upstart indy bands that take off ("5 records! $20,000 up front to make the the first record!"), then bury them in a lack of promotion. ("Oh well, we can't play you now, you are major label band and don't qualify for the 'indy rock block' anymore.") Thus, in this deal, is another tool for suppressing music not endorsed by the Big 4. The cost of a sign-on bonus is trivial compared to the millions they can harvest from another manufactured pop group, and they can sue to get their "advance" back when the bands fail to make any profit and prevent them from recording for anyone else at the same time. Effectively burying the scene with the same weapons intended to break them from burying new scenes. This is a point on which I hope I a dead wrong.
No they don't.
The purpose of patent protection is to grant the right of a person who comes up with something great to profit from it.
Without such protections, someone would invent something and then die of starvation before seeing any kind of profit. While he is trying to produce his invention, some megacorp would take his idea and put it in mass production and beat him to his own market. The inventor would be left with jack because noone would have to pay him to produce his innovation for themselves.
Of course it would. The question would come down to proving you own it and thus have the right to use it. Then, that you only have that one licensed copy in use. Apple wouldn't like it, but the precedent would be set: you buy it, it's yours. They just wouldn't be obligated to support the way you use it.
All a judge needs to say is that MS has no business telling people what they can or can't run it on after they buy it. Be it a PC, VMWare, toaster, or shoe box.
Yup. I was about the patch day. But, it was the removal of the Winter Veil content mentioned below. The rest still stands to be proven.
This "Not-So-Live" maintenance is the "Not-Really-Possible-To-Do-Live" 2.0.3 patch.
Last weeks maintenance went off without a hitch, so expect it become more like one day a month when bugfix patches are rolled out.
To which point, the company should have been checking the HTTP referer to screen out such "deep" linking. It is the websites fault that people are jacking their content, they were allowing it.
Don't get too excited. EVE Online looks mind blowing, but plays like a point-and-click turd. If your idea of adventure is having some three year vet blow you up and say "lolz n00b" while, by game design, never having a chance to get back at him, then it's the game for you. Otherwise, move along. EVE Online will only leave you feeling raped and cheated after you have played and payed too long to have gotten nowhere. Devs are rude and ignore all players unless they have played since beta, and will outright lie about their not-so-subtle-but-frequent nerfings. Most new content is aimed squarely at and exclusive too the three year vets, funded by your monthly fees, and yet you will never have access to any of it.
This is EVE's game model. It took me two years of play to realize that I was being used. In the year since I quit, I haven't missed it at all.
But damn those screenshots still look nice!
...but for all thier bitching and moaning about this, they haven't actually done a thing in thier own defense. Further, being in the UK (as they have pointed out on many occasions now), why do they not just get a nice little .or.uk? All of this "the world is going to end" crap actually makes me think alot less or them. It's really thier own fault for ignoring the litigation, even if they had intention of complying to begin with.
The article is trash.
It throws out some easily refutable numbers. World or Warcraft and it's 6.5+ million subscribers makes it the most profitable game of all time. It's shaking the game industry by syphoning off a huge percentile of money. The Sims never saw numbers like this in either sales (expansions) or subscriptions (the real money). Ever.
#7, Warcraft III, mentions starcraft as an impossible comparrison for success, and yet in the same line implies that SC didn't even make the list. (Didn't fully RTFA, so it may have, but #7 says it didn't.)
Mentioning these may make me seem like a Blizz fanboy, but I'm not. I just happen to know that Blizz made these games, and they all changed the face of the industry. WoW and SC both have had more impact in sales, culture, and game industry direction than the #1 pick. In fact, most of the Blizz games are still in production and sell to this day.
Facts are facts, and these numbers in this article are not in fact, facts. It's a very bad opinion piece from a very niave fanboy perspective. My brain hurts from havign looked at it.
Yes there is and easy way.
"What DRM does is make the things you buy work only when the company you bought it from says you to use it."
Pay more attention next time. That is outdated news. OpenBSD made it through by picking up some major sponsors, including other F/OSS projects that use part of OpenBSD's code in thier projects.
I guess you are right. Your totally unsupported anecdotes have caused me to see the light. I will now go yank my 3D graphics card because software rendering is so much more efficient. Dedicated hardware will never outperform it.
I'm just happy you make more sense.
What VMWare is doing is still trapping/faulting, only at the expense of CPU cycles before processing the instruction. Technically, this is called overhead, and hardware can (and will) make this negligable in time. The software will always have to check/replace the instruction before it can process it, and this will always add overhead to the process. Hardware will catch up to this by making the replacement more or less "in line" and thus negligable. No pre-processing overhead before sending the modified instruction to the hardware. It will either process the dangerous instruction in itself (sandboxing) or rewrite the process on the fly.
As far as more secure goes, you can't get any more secure than hardware simply refusing to process the instruction. Sorry. House of Cards vs House of Brick. However, *both* have the potential to be exploitable and insecure, so VMWare is simply FUDing there as well.
Your comparrison of C to Java is off base by miles as well. We're not talking about the optimization of compiled code, we are talking about processes running the same code through dedicated hardware or software emulation. In which case, whichever has the faster processor behind it will probably win depending on the overheads of each method.
Let me state this in much simpler terms. Software wins today, hardware will win tomorrow.
This is the cycle of new tech threatening old tech. Nothing more. And VMWare is in a dangerouse position of facing its products functionality being packaged with every major OS's default install. It's time for them to make thier money while they can, and attacking the newcomers while they are still in thier infancy and playing catchup is thier only recourse.
Additionally (addressing the TFA hybrid comment), since most of these systems using virtualization are x86 based or compatiable, a significant portion of the pocesses for both hard and soft emulation are running straight through the CPU. The only difference being these "traps" for protected operations. Once the kinks are worked out of the hardware version, the software will be history. VMWare is doing a bit of preemptive FUDing before they are forced under. "Inexpensive software cycles" in this case costs actual CPU cycles thus degreding performance overall. In the case of hardware, it's a matter of brining the chip's trap+process mechanism to par with the current CPU speeds, at wich point it will be relatively lossless and potentially faster.
"What if I like the stands he was taking, the points he was making with the laws? What if I supported the laws? My candidate is no longer eligible because he represented me?"
Yup. And in an ideal society, you would be held directly accountable for your votes by having your ability to vote revoked from that point on. If you are in favor for things that proufoundly violate other peoples rights, you really don't deserve the rights you have. Things are declared unconstitutinal because they are explicitly protected to keep opinion based (read: "of no factual relevance") and nosey legislation from trampling people who are minding thier own business. If you are one of these opinion voters, then you don't understand your constitution enough to really deserve any say in its processes.
Even things with official websites are often just pointers to a myspace page these days. This is especially common with bands.
"Offical website of . Click here now to hear them on MySpace.com"
The vanity sites irritate me more though, since you have a site, have a host, have nothign to say, but create a myspace page to do everythign you always could anyway. Ugh!
Two words for you there:
"Horse Shit"
I run firefox tweaked to keep everything in memory and nothing on the disk. Memory use is about 30 megs plus about 1 to 4 megs per page viewed, depending on graphic intensity. If you are using 1.5Gb of ram, then maybe you should consider closing a few tabs and getting out more often. Hell, even closing the browser window once every 24 hours might be good for you.
Either way, you can end your FUD campaign now, your evidence is merely anecdotal and real memory usage statistics make you into a liar. Whoever modded you up should also be shot.
"after almost 30 years of Windows"
1985 to present is only 21 years. We just barely past the 20 year mark, much less the 30.