Recent Posts
Picture apparently recovered from a camera in the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 may shed some light on the possible cause of the accident:
(see attachment in previous post)-IainB (March 29, 2014, 07:21 AM)
Re: Crabby -
Heh it took me a min to remember the name of that cat - "Grumpy Cat". For those who like trivia, "Her famous face is likely due to feline dwarfism."-TaoPhoenix (March 24, 2014, 03:18 PM)
I have a few more *silly* pics of her I'm saving for special occasions or threads.-crabby3 (March 25, 2014, 05:58 AM)
If I try that my camera just shuts down — it's too frightened by what it sees-cranioscopical (March 11, 2014, 10:33 AM)
Aiiyyy!! I just had my picture taken this morning. It's more horrible than anything you can imagine. All I can compare it to is if Clint Eastwood had a mustache, was deceased, allowed to rot for 2 months, and propped up in a chair. Then he'd look almost as bad as this photo.-MilesAhead (March 12, 2014, 10:32 AM)
I am imposing a $10/per post surcharge on posters for each post on this thread to pay for the codymobile.-mouser (March 05, 2014, 07:34 PM)
Re LibreOffice, App103 expressed my concern, that all the VBA code I've written won't work, or won't work well. Plus the groups I work with are all standardized on Office.-AndyM (March 03, 2014, 11:05 AM)
If you can't afford an upgrade why not go with free LibreOffice ?+1 for that, and LibreOffice generally does a fine job with the Office 2002 file formats.-Carol Haynes (March 03, 2014, 03:53 AM)-x16wda (March 03, 2014, 05:27 AM)
I'll +1 that as well.
And if Libre doesn't fit the bill, there are several other (free or inexpensive) so-called "light" wordprocessors that will work equally well for 90% of all MS Word users. Most have the classic menu (i.e. no ribbon) interface many of us prefer.-40hz (March 03, 2014, 08:37 AM)
and that will be a project I'm not looking forward to, seeing if all my VB code and any of my interface customization will still work.-AndyM (March 02, 2014, 10:50 AM)
But is any kiddie hacker old enough to remember them?-MilesAhead (March 02, 2014, 07:39 AM)
Besides, if you have no relationship with my business then what are you doing downloading my files?-Innuendo (March 02, 2014, 12:51 PM)
And as app103 had described above, I may not even be knowingly downloading a file. It might be that I just happen to stumble upon your website and download an image file hosted on your Dropbox account, thus being tricked into sharing my name and email address with you.-dr_andus (March 02, 2014, 02:01 PM)
If you want I can sent you a WinAmp v1.91 installer that actually comes from 1998...which still works fine on Windows 7 (I tried it myself).
About 600Kbyte of goodness-Shades (March 01, 2014, 01:39 PM)
Sounds like it would be fun to try.-MilesAhead (March 01, 2014, 04:05 PM)
Adware vendors buy Chrome Extensions to send ad- and malware-filled updates
One of the coolest things about Chrome is the silent, automatic updates that always ensure that users are always running the latest version. While Chrome itself is updated automatically by Google, that update process also includes Chrome's extensions, which are updated by the extension owners. This means that it's up to the user to decide if the owner of an extension is trustworthy or not, since you are basically giving them permission to push new code out to your browser whenever they feel like it.
To make matters worse, ownership of a Chrome extension can be transferred to another party, and users are never informed when an ownership change happens. Malware and adware vendors have caught wind of this and have started showing up at the doors of extension authors, looking to buy their extensions. Once the deal is done and the ownership of the extension is transferred, the new owners can issue an ad-filled update over Chrome's update service, which sends the adware out to every user of that extension.
We ought to clarify here that Google isn't explicitly responsible for such unwanted adware, but vendors are exploiting Google's extension system to create a subpar—and possibly dangerous—browsing experience. Ars has contacted Google for comment, but we haven't heard back yet. We'll update this article if we do.
Update: Google got back to us, and stated that Chrome's extension policy is due to change in June 2014. The new policy will require extensions to serve a single purpose.
A first-hand account of this, which was first spotted by OMGChrome, was given by Amit Agarwal, developer of the "Add to Feedly" extension. One morning, Agarwal got an e-mail offering "4 figures" for the sale of his Chrome extension. The extension was only about an hour's worth of work, so Agarwal agreed to the deal, the money was sent over PayPal, and he transferred ownership of the extension to another Google account. A month later, the new extension owners released their first (and so far only) update, which injected adware on all webpages and started redirecting links. Chrome's extension auto-update mechanism silently pushed out the update to all 30,000 Add to Feedly users, and the ad revenue likely started rolling in. While Agarwal had no idea what the buyer's intention was when the deal was made, he later learned that he ended up selling his users to the wolves. The buyer was not after the Chrome extension, they were just looking for an easy attack vector in the extension's user base.
