So M rated games were always fine, it's the European system which lumps the sex games in with the Mature games that caused the kerfuffle.
Which as an European makes sense. Why would sex be more mature than violence?
Then the terrorists have won. This is exactly what they've set out to achieve.
I must disagree. They haven't won. However, we've lost regardless.
Chrome and IE do sandboxing, I don't know whether that's enough for exploits like this.
I don't think so, because it is not a browser exploit as such. They are just delivering the URI to Steam. I wonder if the restricted account has the protocol registered as well... Well, at least it wouldn't have Steam configured and logged in.
I recommend that people run Firefox as a different user from the user account they use to log in.
Is there a reason that only Firefox users should do this? Based on the PDF, the only difference (in this case) is that some of the other browsers display the URL as well...
"Installations of Steam vulnerable to a drive by download by users of mozilla based browsers with certain games installed within steam"
Yeah, sure, whatever you say.
Browsers such as Internet Explorer, Chrome and Firefox display an alert when steam:// URLs are called; only Safari passes them on without any warning.
While I do understand your point, and partially(!) agree with you, I was answering to
"Wait, so pre-emptive wars are okay, so long as it's not the US conducting them?
which seems to make two invalid assumptions.
The only morally okay solution is, apparently, for the US to roll over and die whenever anyone asks nicely.
Personally (and I hope relevantly), I wonder what kind of results we would have ended up with the whole Iraq thing if the UN WMD inspectors had been allowed to finish their job.
I wonder if that works in the other direction? Let's say the US decides to invade Canada. The EU, shocked by this, stations fleets nearby, embargoes the US, and provides the Canadians with supplies. Would you guys claim that the US is backed into a corner and has no choice but to launch a pre-emptive war against the EU?
No, but it wouldn't be a complete surprise. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that the "inevitable military response" was rather inevitable considering that the Japan seems to have been quite militarily aggressive at that time. And no, that is not okay. I don't know (or perhaps remember) enough about the politics and communications between the US and Japan at that time, to have an educated opinion on whether or not Japan was baited to attack.
Wait, so pre-emptive wars are okay, so long as it's not the US conducting them?
Hint: He did not say it was okay, he stated that it wasn't unprovoked.
Actions speak more that words.
You can claim all you want that you would have sent in patches, but when you reject open source BECAUSE you had to actually do it, your claims can't be taken seriously.
Unless you mean to call yourself childish. Because you might as well have said that you wanted to go out to play, but because you were told to go outside, you decided you'd rather clean your room instead.
Mmmm. If I have time (and I can read this 'thread' without getting pissed off) I'll reply to others as well, but I just wanted to make it clear that while I dislike forcing people to do anything, I do consider the requirement to publish any changes made to GPL'd code reasonable. My problem with GPL is that I can't use it with non-free code at all (well, with GPLv2 it is possible, but not exactly pretty), even if I would (and do) happily share any improvements I've made to it.
To correct your analogy: In my story I try to go out and play, but my friend's aren't allowed to play with me, because my parents haven't converted to the same ideology. (I wrote religion, as it would fit the analogy better, but since I am already regretting writing anything to the comments of this article I changed it.)
Oh noes, you had to write your own code instead of taking others hardwork as your own with no intent to contribute back. What a big problem.
Fuck you.
You would not have sent any patches to the BSD project, that is why BSD is lagging so far behind. Everyone wants to take and take.
And fuck you again.
Dear moderators: Sorry about the language, but after reading such an elaborately constructed well thought out nicely worded reply I just had to try and reach the same level of eloquence.
The GPL is about the freedom of the customer not the vendor. You are already free to choose what tools you use. An end-user with closed or closable software that they depend on is not free, but dependent on the whims of the developer or the corporate strategy of the software company.
That is a very good argument for open source, but can you elaborate on how there's more freedom with GPL than with BSD (WTFPL and Apache)? While we really haven't released much as open source, the bits that are out have been licensed with Apache 2.0 (not my favourite, but I'm not complaining).
However, even if we disregard the idea of eventually publishing as an open source and just consider the core of our current project: our customer will end up with our source anyway, so I don't see how they would be dependent of our whims. Perhaps we could limit what they can do with it by licensing it as GPL, but I don't see the point.
The GPL is preventing that corporate psychopath from taking what he wants with his power and instead establishes a level playing field.
During this week I skipped using an open source component for a work project and started developing one of our own. If the project had been of supreme quality I might have created a wrapper which would have allowed us to use it in the (proprietary) project as it was GPLv2. If the component had been BSD or some other reasonable license (WTFPL is my favourite) I would have fixed the project and sent the creator the patches.
We do have plans for releasing at least some of our stuff as open source, but I don't think it will be GPL. Then again GPL would prevent some competitors from using it, but that isn't exactly my idea of free.
I like the idea of adaptable connectors. Not just where you ground a certain pin to toggle the function of another pin, but where the cable and device actively communicate to negotiate what features are available on what pins.
I like the adaptable connector idea as well. But why does the cable do the negotiating and not the connected device? More than likely the device and the phone will still have to negotiate if just to ensure that the device is in fact a working one.
I can't speak for what they advertise now, but at the time I definitely saw turn-by-turn guidance advertised for it.
I wasn't googling for current advertisements, I was reading stuff from 2007 (and checking images and screenshots). But perhaps somewhere did exist an ad with turn-by-turn. The thing is, I haven't seen that complain before and I used to play a lot with that device while it was current. (And I kept it for reading books long after its hardware (which wasn't that powerful to begin with) was outdated, because the screen was rather eye friendly.)
Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.
