![]() |
![]() |
#331 | |
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
28C816 Posts |
![]() Quote:
One thing I found I had to do was make the bars relatively thin (on both axis), so you could see all of the ones behind. Also, I had the higher factored bars in front as there are often fewer of those than lower factored. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#332 |
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina
26468 Posts |
![]()
Another suggestion would be to add the bit size of the exponents at the right of the image so the meaning is more clear.
For example: for http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/0/3/0 you should write 62, 63, 64, ... at the right. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#333 |
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
7·1,423 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#334 | |
Basketry That Evening!
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88
3·29·83 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Edit: The imgur zero-day exploit yesterday was an excellent example. Last fiddled with by Dubslow on 2015-09-23 at 08:08 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#335 |
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina
5A616 Posts |
![]()
It always depends on the type of Web sites you visit. In general you will not find these problems on mathematical or other "boring" (for most people) stuff. Hackers like to attack sites that are visited by most people.
I have visited Web sites for 18 years with JavaScript enabled, and I have never had any incident. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#336 | |
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
52×7×19 Posts |
![]() Quote:
Of course there was more to it than that, like the iframe had to be able to interact with the main site, so it really only affected certain sites that were setup poorly, but still... I may have the details on that wrong, but I recall something like that affecting Facebook? Okay, I admit, I skimmed the article. But I figured since CSS can position things and a poor iframe implementation could let outside code do something like interact with the parent frame, then maybe, just maybe? |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#337 | |
Sep 2009
2·33·43 Posts |
![]() Quote:
And avoiding "dangerous" web sites is harder than you think. At least skip any site with advertising on it (you can't rely on AdBlock+ to stop all advertising). Chris |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#338 | |
Aug 2002
Buenos Aires, Argentina
2·3·241 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#339 |
If I May
"Chris Halsall"
Sep 2002
Barbados
243108 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#340 |
Serpentine Vermin Jar
Jul 2014
63758 Posts |
![]()
And often do.
The websites I manage run ads. Some come from Google Adsense, some are direct buys, and they all get checked to make sure they're cool. The problem comes about when an advertiser buys a placement using some benign looking stuff, and then once it's approved, they change up what they serve from their own system. The old bait and switch. End result is someone visits our site and gets one of those bogus "you've got a virus!" things that takes over the window and can't be closed using conventional means. It's annoying, we hate it, our customers hate it, Google hates it, and they do end up getting banned for life, but these are sock puppets and show up again somewhere else. I just got my first Chrome on Android "you've got a virus" pop-up... super annoying. I normally root my phones and install an ad-blocker, but in this case I haven't done that yet, and sure enough, the darn thing pops up and even made my phone vibrate at max intensity... super annoying. Of course the idiot who gets these and then says "oh noes, I better click on that shiny flashy button and type in my credit card #" really only has himself to blame at that point. Worst case is when the malicious ad has zero-day stuff or redirects you somewhere that does. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#341 |
Romulan Interpreter
"name field"
Jun 2011
Thailand
26E916 Posts |
![]()
One more reasons to love Firefox. We used to go endless roundabouts to avoid clicking on popping stuff like (when you click the red x) "this page asks you to confirm that you want to close it". One can do strange stuff with those popups, if you allow it (by clicking on it, because you don't know what you are clicking on, they can overpose pictures over the real popups)... Sometime using escape key closes the popup but you still could not close the page, because when clicking the red x, you get the popup again. With the old FF we could drag the tab on the desktop, where another instance of FF would open (move the current tab to new browser window) and we closed the other instance from the task manager, this way avoiding to close all open tabs. Since people claimed to the company and suggested patches - advantages of having an open source browser - they changed last year: now you just click once more on the red x and the bad tab, together with all malefic popups, is gone. We hate when a site asks us "are you sure you want to close me?" after we click the red x, forcing us to click an "yes" on an uncertain popup window.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Requests? | Xyzzy | Forum Feedback | 104 | 2017-04-02 22:20 |
Collaboration Requests | robert44444uk | Prime Gap Searches | 2 | 2017-01-17 07:57 |
Requests for change... | WraithX | FactorDB | 32 | 2014-12-18 03:40 |
Manual Requests | tului | GPU Computing | 15 | 2014-06-24 06:22 |
a few simple requests for v5 | ixfd64 | PrimeNet | 44 | 2010-01-11 20:21 |