Home Page

Message boards : Number crunching : Home Page
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

AuthorMessage
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4504
Credit: 1,414,761
RAC: 0
United States
Message 819547 - Posted: 17 Oct 2008, 3:52:30 UTC - in response to Message 819537.  

I'm pretty sure our not so mysterious programmer "Dave" has his picture on this page and is above Matt in the pecking order.


"mysterious programmer Dave" is the esteemed Dr. David Anderson

But the guy causing the difficulties is named Murphy, I think.
                                                                 Joe
ID: 819547 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 31117
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 819552 - Posted: 17 Oct 2008, 4:03:59 UTC - in response to Message 819547.  

I'm pretty sure our not so mysterious programmer "Dave" has his picture on this page and is above Matt in the pecking order.


"mysterious programmer Dave" is the esteemed Dr. David Anderson

But the guy causing the difficulties is named Murphy, I think.
                                                                 Joe


I am quite sure about that.
ID: 819552 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 819553 - Posted: 17 Oct 2008, 4:04:38 UTC - in response to Message 819355.  
Last modified: 17 Oct 2008, 4:04:54 UTC

On the rare occasions that I have to code webpages (a chore to be avoided if at all possible, imho), I test the be-heck out of them on my computer before I let the rest of the planet look at them.

I do the same, but every once in a while something surprising happens, and as soon as I'm comfortable, and turn my back on things, they'll come badly unglued.

Someone else mentioned Murphy, but I believe it is O'Toole's Commentary that would apply: Murphy was an optimist.
ID: 819553 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51502
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 819555 - Posted: 17 Oct 2008, 4:12:53 UTC - in response to Message 819547.  

I'm pretty sure our not so mysterious programmer "Dave" has his picture on this page and is above Matt in the pecking order.


"mysterious programmer Dave" is the esteemed Dr. David Anderson

But the guy causing the difficulties is named Murphy, I think.
                                                                 Joe

Naw.....
I think Murphy just messes with the Seti servers......he doesn't know coding....LOL.
"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

ID: 819555 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 819827 - Posted: 17 Oct 2008, 19:44:56 UTC - in response to Message 819511.  
Last modified: 17 Oct 2008, 19:50:34 UTC


The first side (/index.php) have now ActiveX ?
For what?
What I would see, if I would approve the execution?



Hey guys, you didn't noticed it?

I'm a 'safe surfer' and if a homepage have ActiveX my browser (InternetExplorer) ask, if it can be execute or not..
'Allow running software such as ActiveX controls and plug-ins?'

And since yesterday, now nearly every side at Berkeley have an ActiveX..

So for what?
What would I see if I would accept it?


If you have your browser at 'default level' you will not notice it..
ID: 819827 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 819843 - Posted: 17 Oct 2008, 20:00:36 UTC - in response to Message 819827.  


I'm a 'safe surfer' and if a homepage have ActiveX my browser (InternetExplorer) ask, if it can be execute or not..

'Allow running software such as ActiveX controls and plug-ins?'

And since yesterday, now nearly every side at Berkeley have an ActiveX..

... or if you run a browser that does not support ActiveX at all, you're even safer.

I don't know about the very latest versions, but for a long time ActiveX controls were actually "installed" on your machine, permanently, with no uninstall links.

ActiveX controls are native Windows executables, and have too much access to the underlying OS.

SETI@Home doesn't scare me, but there are too many of us running on other platforms and other browsers do something highly windows-centric.

ID: 819843 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 819849 - Posted: 17 Oct 2008, 20:07:48 UTC - in response to Message 819827.  


The first side (/index.php) have now ActiveX ?
For what?
What I would see, if I would approve the execution?



Hey guys, you didn't noticed it?

I'm a 'safe surfer' and if a homepage have ActiveX my browser (InternetExplorer) ask, if it can be execute or not..
'Allow running software such as ActiveX controls and plug-ins?'

And since yesterday, now nearly every side at Berkeley have an ActiveX..

So for what?
What would I see if I would accept it?


If you have your browser at 'default level' you will not notice it..

Actually, I suspect this is a browser error.

I don't see anything on the home page that looks like ActiveX, but I do see this:

<scheduler>http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi</scheduler>
<link rel="boinc_scheduler" href="http://setiboinc.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/cgi">

... and this doesn't look like proper HTML -- at least the scheduler "tag" looks odd.

Firefox appears to ignore it.

Complete guess, but I'm thinking that they're trying to introduce a way for the BOINC client to find the scheduler even if the user types the wrong URL into the page.

... and I don't know if it's new or not.

I would have put it in HTML comments so that the typical browser would not parse it.

ID: 819849 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 819850 - Posted: 17 Oct 2008, 20:13:12 UTC - in response to Message 819843.  


I'm a 'safe surfer' and if a homepage have ActiveX my browser (InternetExplorer) ask, if it can be execute or not..

'Allow running software such as ActiveX controls and plug-ins?'

And since yesterday, now nearly every side at Berkeley have an ActiveX..

... or if you run a browser that does not support ActiveX at all, you're even safer.

I don't know about the very latest versions, but for a long time ActiveX controls were actually "installed" on your machine, permanently, with no uninstall links.

ActiveX controls are native Windows executables, and have too much access to the underlying OS.


ActiveX controls are still downloaded to the individual machine and ran from there, posing seriously security threats, as well as limiting your website to Internet Explorer or compatible browsers supporting ActiveX.

Newer versions of IE now allow you to manually disable individual ActiveX plugins, or disable them altogether. IE7 actually allows you to run them in "protected mode" which prevents them from gaining Administrative access to your machine when executed, which helps limit the usefulness of trojans or keyloggers.

Still, using an ActiveX deficient browser is the safest of all. That's why I use Firefox.
ID: 819850 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 66511
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 819908 - Posted: 17 Oct 2008, 22:09:05 UTC - in response to Message 819850.  


I'm a 'safe surfer' and if a homepage have ActiveX my browser (InternetExplorer) ask, if it can be execute or not..

'Allow running software such as ActiveX controls and plug-ins?'

And since yesterday, now nearly every side at Berkeley have an ActiveX..

... or if you run a browser that does not support ActiveX at all, you're even safer.

I don't know about the very latest versions, but for a long time ActiveX controls were actually "installed" on your machine, permanently, with no uninstall links.

ActiveX controls are native Windows executables, and have too much access to the underlying OS.


ActiveX controls are still downloaded to the individual machine and ran from there, posing seriously security threats, as well as limiting your website to Internet Explorer or compatible browsers supporting ActiveX.

Newer versions of IE now allow you to manually disable individual ActiveX plugins, or disable them altogether. IE7 actually allows you to run them in "protected mode" which prevents them from gaining Administrative access to your machine when executed, which helps limit the usefulness of Trojans or keyloggers.

Still, using an ActiveX deficient browser is the safest of all. That's why I use Firefox.

Same Here OzzFan, I use FF3 amap. :)
CA HSR built a foundation, is laying Track!
PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550 Loco, US's 1st HST

ID: 819908 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21533
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 819955 - Posted: 18 Oct 2008, 0:39:43 UTC - in response to Message 819850.  

... Still, using an ActiveX deficient browser is the safest of all. That's why I use Firefox.

But... but... but...

I thought you believed in all things Microsoft!?...

And I thought ActiveX and a web browser integrated into their OS to give complete control for the user experience is central to their existence!


How come you use something other than IE?

Keep searchin',
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 819955 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 819965 - Posted: 18 Oct 2008, 0:54:39 UTC - in response to Message 819955.  

... Still, using an ActiveX deficient browser is the safest of all. That's why I use Firefox.

But... but... but...

I thought you believed in all things Microsoft!?...

And I thought ActiveX and a web browser integrated into their OS to give complete control for the user experience is central to their existence!


How come you use something other than IE?

Keep searchin',
Martin


Please tell me you don't seriously think that of me. Just because I stick up for Microsoft, all of a sudden I "believe in all things Microsoft"? I do believe I've mentioned before that I don't use IE. I also use Thunderbird Email too since Outlook has too many security flaws.
ID: 819965 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 819970 - Posted: 18 Oct 2008, 1:02:43 UTC - in response to Message 819827.  
Last modified: 18 Oct 2008, 1:04:43 UTC

And since yesterday, now nearly every side at Berkeley have an ActiveX.

Arising out of the chaos and confusion, a new evil is born, and its name shall be called, ActiveX... ;)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 819970 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21533
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 820141 - Posted: 18 Oct 2008, 11:11:53 UTC - in response to Message 819965.  
Last modified: 18 Oct 2008, 11:12:48 UTC

Please tell me you don't seriously think that of me. Just because I stick up for Microsoft, all of a sudden I "believe in all things Microsoft"? I do believe I've mentioned before that I don't use IE. ...

I'm sorry but I take the view that if you generally 'stick up' for Microsoft, then you also condone and encourage a very unhealthy market place aggressiveness. Further, you also condone the continued 'support' of viruses, trojans and other such malware.

Note that ActiveX is used in Windows by a lot of other things other than just IE. You get to use parts of IE from other applications whether you want to or not. Add in also that the GUI (desktop) runs as part of the kernel (!!!) and, phew...

To my mind, it's all amazing it works as well as it does!

My view is that Microsoft has its place, but at the moment the costs and collateral damage are far too high.


OK, on that subject I can see you as a chaplain defending the rights and virtues of one of the poor unfortunates on Death Row...

Regards,
Martin

(All just my own opinion as always.)
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 820141 · Report as offensive
Profile Geek@Play
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 01
Posts: 2467
Credit: 86,146,931
RAC: 0
United States
Message 820152 - Posted: 18 Oct 2008, 12:42:03 UTC - in response to Message 820141.  

I'm sorry but I take the view that if you generally 'stick up' for Microsoft, then you also condone and encourage a very unhealthy market place aggressiveness. Further, you also condone the continued 'support' of viruses, trojans and other such malware.


Wow, that's quite a statement. To go from supporting Microsoft to condoning viruses and trojans in two sentences. Just because I use Microsoft products I support the creation of viruses and trojans and I am a BAD person? Not a well thought out assumption on your part.

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....
ID: 820152 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 21533
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 820185 - Posted: 18 Oct 2008, 14:32:08 UTC - in response to Message 820152.  

I'm sorry but I take the view that if you generally 'stick up' for Microsoft, then you also condone and encourage a very unhealthy market place aggressiveness. Further, you also condone the continued 'support' of viruses, trojans and other such malware.


Wow, that's quite a statement. To go from supporting Microsoft to condoning viruses and trojans in two sentences. Just because I use Microsoft products I support the creation of viruses and trojans and I am a BAD person? Not a well thought out assumption on your part.

That is more a leap into something that I do not say in that statement.

Many people use Microsoft. I'd guess that most people are completely unknowing of what Micorsoft is or how or what it is that they are using. That's fine in that they just merely (innocently?) pay for and use a 'product'.

When you claim to know and to defend what is actually there... That's a different aspect.


Happy crunchin',
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 820185 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3

Message boards : Number crunching : Home Page


 
©2025 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.