Snakebite
-
Posts
147 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Snakebite
-
-
So? Once again' date=' who gives a fuck? It's not as if your life will become incomplete due to the inability to use a stupid smiley on a message board.[/quote']
Well considering this website is using smileys and you apparently pay money towards the upkeep of this website then part of your money will have to be given to microsoft to allow them to continue using smileys on this website. That is if Microsoft enforces the patent, which on previous experience they will.
I dont really give a crap about the money because it isnt coming out of my pocket but it is out of yours.
The legal implications about a company being able to patent the use of a language (albeit an online one) will throw up barriers to competition all round.
-
I don't get it. Are you arguing about something being good now' date=' because it might not be as good in the future? So if I have a Skoda, I shouldn't go buy a BMW, because it might break down in 10 years time? What is your point?[/quote']
I'm just making the point that at the moment firefox appears to be safe from all of this spyware/adware just in the same manner that internet explorer was better than netscape when it was created years ago because it was initially used by the minority.
Look at internet explorer now, thats how I see firefox becoming in a couple of years if the majority of people start using it.
As long as it is just used by the minority it will be relatively safe from the majority of hacker attacks since most hackers will only concentrate their efforts on internet explorer.
Fair enough encourage people to start using it, however as soon the majority start using it the hackers will start to attack firefox more and I dont currently think mozilla could handle patching firefox as many times as microsoft do to internet explorer every month since microsoft has a larger pool of software engineers to handle it and even then they struggle.
The fact that it's open source too means that hackers can easily examine the code to find ways past the security measures
As far as firefox is at the moment there hasnt been much hacker attacks, but out of all of them there has been at least 4 major ones already in such a short space of time since it's official release. Which is a bit worrying.
-
i lierke to smoke
and if you dont then fukr oyu!
x
Well if it's too grusome for you, it's not my problem just telling how it is.
That fact my uncle died at such a young age especially on my 18th birthday put me off of smoking completely. He didnt even manage to reach retirement age, that sucks.
I'm not telling you to stop smoking, just asking you to think about how you want to die when your older. They do say if you are not a heavy smoker and stop smoking before you hit 35 then you have a good chance of reaching retirement age and hopefully live a normal life. Though i've heard of people dying from lung cancer when they are only 30.
I want to live till i'm old and grey and hopefully be still around for my grand children.
-
I'll see you in court Billy-Boy.
The main people that Microsoft are likely to go after are ICQ, Yahoo Messenger and the programmers/webmasters of Website forums and any other software company that currently incorporates smileys into their applications.
Thats the whole point of the patent to stop other people using it unless they pay a licence fee to microsoft for it.
-
i have never recieved any; adware or spyware from using firefox' date=' a while back i got so much adware through my internet explorer that it wrecked my system and had to be wiped[/quote']
Thats because hackers are attacking the majority, as soon as firefox gains the majority over internet explorer they will attack it. The spyware/adware will be just as bad if not worse since Mozilla dont have as many software engineers as microsoft to create patches quick enough everytime it is hacked. They might manage just now because there is only a small quantity of attacks, give it a couple of years for the hackers to catch up.
-
Who cares? It's two symbols placed next to each other.
Yes it is but now you will now have to pay microsoft for the priviledge of using it as part of an application or website forum or they can legally sue you.
-
If enough people are behind overturning this patent it could possibly done by appealing to the patent offices in question, on the basis that the use of smiley's/emoctions were in general circulation before the patent was filed therefore declaring it invalid.
The patent itself it relates to the actual methods used to implent the use of smileys in a text format which can then be represented as an image like in web forums and instant messengers.
I cant see how they can patent that since smileys have been around in one form or another for years
-
No it isn't. Greasemonkey does not emulate ActiveX - it instead allows you to change the look and behaviour of web pages through DHTML. That is all.
ActiveX is a Microsoft technology used to allow you to develop components and applications that interact with the user's PC over the web. Commonly through ActiveX controls used on web sites - similar to Java applets.
ActiveX and the Greasemonkey extension have very little in common. So whoever told you they did clearly doesn't know what they are talking about.
Grease monkey does allow you to run powerful scripts does it not? Just like ActiveX does. They may do it differently but can have the same effect like accessing files on your PC without your consent, which is what happened just recently.
-
yup very true but still for the moment you cannot say it is as hackable as IE.
I'm not saying it is, but as it gets more popular with the hope of overtaking Internet Explorer, hackers will attack it more often.
As long as Firefox is used by the minority it will be safer, but how long will it stay that way.
-
yes but its a bigger piece of software compared to IE so it would obviously take longer to load up.
I think at the end of the day nothing you use online will ever be %100 safe but at the moment firefox is one of the best and safest option around. I noticed a huge reduction on the amount of spyware and shit i got on my pc after switching to mozilla compared to just using IE.
Firefox is new, when internet explorer first came on the scene it was deemed better than netscape for security and just look at it now.
It's the lull before the storm, give it a couple of years and the hackers will catchup.
-
yeah but thats why you have firewall.
I have a hardware & software firewall and I still periodically find spyware occasionally.
Point to Point software is maybe to blame like bit torrent etc, websites could still be as bad
-
Sure' date=' Firefox has had its own security issues and bugs but the developers have done a good job of patching them up quick (v1.0.6 was released only just the other day fixing the third-party extension issue). The Greasemonkey plug-in is a third party developed, optional plug-in for Firefox - it has the serious security vulnerability. Not Firefox itself.
To say Firefox is as vulnerable as Internet Explorer is a complete lie. Internet Explorer will always be fundamentally more insecure as Firefox for a whole heap of reasons (ActiveX support for a start) not to mention the fact that Microsoft actually refuses to fix some of the more serous bugs with Internet Explorer that currently exist.
Whenever I re-install Windows or install Windows on a new machine one of the first things I do is uninstall Internet Explorer from Add/Remove programs and install Firefox. Internet Explorer just isn't worth the hassle.
The fact that Microsoft are introducing tabbed browsing in Internet Explorer v7.0 and have just introduced pop-up blocking just goes to show how far Firefox is ahead of the game.[/quote']
Grease monkey is firefox's equivalent to ActiveX since firefox doesnt have the capability itself for running powerful scripts to enhance websites.
You just have to be aware that as more and more people use firefox, hackers will attack it more therefore there will be more things to fix more often so it will slow down the patching process eventually.
Do mozilla have the resources to counteract this expected flood of attacks which will happen since hackers wont just not attack you because you happen to use firefox?
-
A minute' date=' even 30 seconds is too long for IE. You need to sort out your machine as there is something wrong with it.[/quote']
It's only a AMD duron 700 it's ancient, been saving for a new one so cant be arsed doing much with this pc
-
firefox is still faster and less prone to spyware + has tabbed browsing so ill stick to that
I havent found it to be faster in effect quite the opposite. Everytime I start Firefox it takes more than a minute to open up. Internet Explorer takes less than 30 seconds.
The only reason I've found that it is less prone to spyware is that most hackers attack Internet Explorer but recent major attacks show that hackers are now turning on Firefox, so pretty soon it will just be as bad.
-
Firefox was majorly hit by hackers yet again which is the third major incident since it's release. Greasemonkey which is an addon for Firefox that provides similar capabilities as Active X does for Internet Explorer was found to have a major security flaw. Malicious websites were able to access and read files on peoples home pc's. See Press Report below.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1093&e=3&u=/pcworld/20050722/tc_pcworld/121918
Firefox was touted to be the better alternative to Internet Explorer as it was deemed to be more secure. However recent attacks including the theft of user information stored on the Spread Firefox marketing site, and a Firefox update that broke many third-party extensions have just shown that it is as vunerable as Internet Explorer.
So what should you use Internet Explorer or Firefox?
-
Microsoft has patented the use of Smiley's or custom Emoctions as they are called on MSN Messenger see Press report below:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050722/152/fnyso.html
Link to the Patent is below:
This has major implications at stopping other applications or website forums using this method of language communication. Smiley's have become part of the online community to allow people to express themselves more effectively.
What can be done to prevent Microsoft from taking over the use of this widely accepted online language?
-
taht would narrow the search' date=' because they'd only be unemplyed twats...
I think only the unemlpyed shoudl get ID cards (ducks...looks out for snakebite)[/quote']
The only good thing about that is it would make the unemployed bums actually go out and find a job if only to avoid having an ID card
-
what?
you seem to have quite a tendency to see grey as either black or white.
Remember' date=' there are lies, damn lies, and Statistics
there's better arguments than that.
Okay how about this my eldest uncle, Smoked heavily, drank heavily died of a heart attack at age 55. He was the lucky one it was quick, unlike my other uncle.
My Second eldest uncle who was 5 years younger again smoked heavily, drank heavily and his arteries to his legs became blocked and packed in because of this. He had an operation to replace them and ended up losing a toe because it went gangreen. The following year he went in to get gaul stones removed. After the operation his lungs collapsed and before they realised what was going on the new arteries that they made for him the year before collapsed under the strain and his bowel went gangreen. The doctors advised him there was nothing they could do for him. He ended up dying a slow and painful death 3 days later aged 55.. What made it worse for me was the fact that he died on my 18th Birthday, which I will never forget.
Both of my uncles died due to smoking and drinking and I know too many other people that have died before their time due to smoking and drinking.
People should drink moderately and not too excess.
Smoking should be banned completely if only to stop children from taking it up when they're old enough and ending up dying in a similar manner.
If tobacco had just been discovered today instead of years ago it would be illegal due to the danger it poses to peoples health. Since when is inhaling smoke good for you or anyone else. all it does is slowly kill you bit by bit until you die a painful death like my second eldest uncle, who after his bowel went gangreen and told he was going to die was put on a morphine drip for 3 days in an attempt to try and suppress some of the pain of him dying.
Just imagine how that feels, knowing your going to die but unable to end it quickly. Yes everyone says they could get knocked down by a bus tomorrow, but what if you dont. Do you really want to endure several painful days of dying instead? I certainly dont.
-
I think at the end of the day a total smoking ban is stupid....
I believe that people do have a right to clean air in a bar area and that non-smokers shouldnt be punished for being in a smoking enviroment...
But at the same time' date=' smoking isnt illegal and the goverment give you the right of choice to smoke after the age of 16, therefore wouldnt the easiest solution being that there should be a proper smoking area in all pubs/clubs/indoor-area of any sort that is well ventilated to prevent smoke leaking into non-smoking areas....it doesnt have to be big...just enough so when you feel the need to have a fag you just nip into the smoking area...no harm done to anyone but yourself and fellow smokers....
And also i read on a beer mat last night that 83% of people in scotland were against a total smoking ban, survey was done by the Scottish Exec....
They should listen to what the people want....smokers arent all cretins and im sure that 99% of smokers would be in favour of a small smoking area in indoor places[/quote']
Dont you mean, 83% of the Smoking population in scotland which is about 27% of the actual scottish population. Therefore meaning in reality only 22.41% of the scottish population are against a total smoking ban and the other 77.59% are for, a total ban of smoking in public places.
About 19% of the population in scotland according to the 2001 census are under 16 years of age with another 3% on top of that being under the age of 18. Another 7% are over the age of 75 half of which are in Nursing homes and dont know what day it is let alone giving theire opinions about anything. That makes up about 29% of the Scottish population who are either too young or too old to give a coherant opinion on the smoking ban.
The Bill clearly states that smoking will be banned in all fully enclosed spaces that the public have access to or work in. This also includes clubs and associations of which certain members of the public are part of. (i.e. social club etc).
I do not foresee pubs being able to have an indoor smoking area & non smoking area into the same building because they would not be able to guarantee that they can completely separate the air between the two. There is no ventilation in existence that can 100% remove the smoke from the air and anything that comes close will probably cost a pub 20 years worth of earnings, which the landlords are definitely not going to pay. The cheapest option for the pubs is to support the Ban.
Also what about the poor sod that has to serve them drinks. They would be forced to inhale an enormous amount of smoke more so than they have to now since all the smokers would be crammed into one sealed space, therefore reducing their life expectancy exponentially. It would be at least half their potential lifespan if they didnt smoke and even more if they did smoke.
-
Blah blah blah blah blah...........
Haven't heard so much shite since Tuesday. Snakebite' date=' you are a twat with a capital C. Take you naivity and poke it where the sun doesn't shine. If you really believe that the administration of the UK have anything other than their own interests at heart, your mum should administer a severe owergyan with a surform. In the words of my venerable old english teacher,
"Wyse up, min."[/quote']
What the fuck has that got to do with the Modern business practice of streamlining. All major companies worldwide (like BP, Shell etc) use this approach to save money and it works for them so why not for Government Departments.
Next time actually read the post before you comment on it, you twat
-
I've never heard of a paperless office before' date=' please tell us more.
[/quote']I never said paperless office if you had actually read it I said paperless systems. Some existing archived documentation will always be on paper since it is old information that is no longer used but kept for historical reasons.
The major oil companies and offshore contractors work increasingly more with electronic systems whereby almost everthing including incoming faxes are sent through email instead of paper copies (therefore they are using paperless systems). Manuals for equipment are put on CD instead of paper which definitely proves that companies can work with a minimal use of paper. The biggest companies like BP are striving to make all of their systems completely paperless to save costs under the CRINE initiative.
But if you had any IT knowledge you should have known that already, without me having to explain it to you
-
I'll bet you that your tax bill won't come down. Unless they're going to run this ID card system for free.
Obviously you have never heard of streamlining.
It's where you take say several different information storage systems (both paper & electronic) which all hold similar information about you and combine all of these different systems into one electronic system. Therefore instead of say 30 different people inputting the same information into each separate system (which is time consuming and wastes money) the information is inputted once therefore reducing your overheads. Also since the information can be referenced more quickly it again reduces your overheads even more.
Okay you have physically install and setup the new system but once it's up and running your overheads are reduced, therefore in the long term it saves money.
As the old saying goes 'You have to spend money to save money'
Thats the modern approach to business these days and it works. In most large companies you literally have a paperless system for doing everything which saves the company money and from an environmental point of view you use a lot less paper.
-
Yes' date=' but I'm interested by some specific points:
So civil liberties are a concern if it is the local boozer with the info, but not the government?
Again, suspicion of the police for this scheme, yet not, apparently for the ID card system. Why?
Which is pretty much the point that Ian, Frosty, myself and many others have been making. And you made it yourself.
So let me get this straight, there's reason to be worried about mistakes, abuse of information and loss of civil liberties if the information is available to the police and licensed trade, but as long as the whole government network has access then it's fine and dandy.
Is that your position?[/quote']
Your twisting it.
After events recently passed i.e. the bombings in London I'm all for ID cards and im willing to live with less civil liberites if it helps stop terrorism.
Secondly the benefits of having an ID card reduces the risk of my identity being stolen and will reduce the percentage of tax I pay, being stolen by organised crime
Thirdly everyone is entitled to change their views after reviewing the facts and events at hand.
ID cards are not about being used to ban you from the pub for being too drunk one night they are to be used for preventing terrorism & reducing crime
-
some very good points there. I neither want to have a card for the right to exsitst in britain.
Whatever happened to the right of privicy?
It ended when terrorists started blowing things up.
Under British Law you are not entirely free anyway, all British Citizens are considered to be servants of the Queen
Microsoft Patents smiley's !!!!!
in General Discussion
Posted