Slashdot Mirror

I assume this APK is the same APK (aka. akowals ... akowals1@twcny.rr.com ) that trolls Ars as well as here. Same style of writing, same attitude...
http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=812192

The Apple Store geniuses or the hardened and seasoned UNIX geniuses?

There was an article over at arstechnica looking into why Itanium is still around. Apparently the Itanium market is worth $4 billion. Not exactly chump change.

Of course it's not. Not only is it not free in the RMS sense of the world, withholding source is not the openness Google always claimed it was promoting.

However it is still the most open out there, or like Stallman said the less bad. In fact the last time I checked gnu.org had an article about Android Development on its first page. Perhaps Android is not free as the GNU project would like, perhaps Google is not good as someone likes to think, but the remaining is far worse: MS and Apple are a nightmare, Novell, Oracle and all the other big players are pretty bad.

The only reason it got so much support from techies is because it runs on Linux, and Google's PR department convinced them that it represented the usual unrealistic OSS fantasies about free ecosystems.

No, it got so much support because everyone can write and release an application for it. Not only that, everyone can write and release an application for Android using free software and free software libraries.

Apple is still the #1 smartphone vendor

No. There's a "still" too much. Apple became the number 1 just in the last quarter when it took over Nokia, thanks Microsoft for this. However it's a head to head with Samsung, which is growing much faster (thanks to Android by the way), so it could be a very short lived lead.

and iOS the #1 mobile operating system counting iPads, iPhones, and iPods.

[citation needed], in the smartphone market Android is selling 2.5 times iOS. I smell bullshit here:
Q3 2011 (millions)
iPad 9.25
iPhone 20.34
iPod 7.54
---------iOs total 37.13
Android smartphones ~50
But probably you have got some secret figures that show heavy negative sales for android tablets...

Of course it's not. Not only is it not free in the RMS sense of the world, withholding source is not the openness Google always claimed it was promoting. Android exists solely to get people onto Google services for purposes of web advertising. The only reason it got so much support from techies is because it runs on Linux, and Google's PR department convinced them that it represented the usual unrealistic OSS fantasies about free ecosystems. Most users don't even care about such things. Apple is still the #1 smartphone vendor, and iOS the #1 mobile operating system counting iPads, iPhones, and iPods.

Remember, Google's main business is a closed, proprietary product--the search engine. Web traffic is regulated by a closed product run by an advertising megacorp. They are not some benevolent cheerleader of openness. They won't even implement Do Not Track in Chrome because it would interfere with their ad business.

Over here. And you're right, it is highly relevant.

We also need a link telling us what Shatner thinks about his interview being slashdotted.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/07/microsoft-posts-record-revenue-in-spite-of-flat-windows-market.ars

Server and Tools posted strong figures with revenue for the quarter of $4.64 billion, up 12 percent year on year, and full year revenue of $17.10 billion, up 11 percent for the year. This growth was attributed to Windows Server, System Center, and SQL Server.

It should further be noted that IBM has actually taken patents for things and allowed totally free use simply to prevent anyone from controlling some fundamental technology. As far as patents go they seem like the good guys.

I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand, they seem to be fairly well behaved when it comes to software patents; you don't see IBM going out and trying to put its competitors out of business by threatening them with patent injunctions. (Although there was that one time.)

At the same time, I have to wonder how much of that is just circumstance. IBM is one of the strong proponents of the scourge of software patents outside of the patent lawyers who don't want to lose their jobs. And when you think about it, who would IBM go after that they aren't already? Their direct competitors basically all have their own patents and they therefore almost certainly have cross-licensing agreements with them rather than court battles, which may or may not involve cash payments. And since license agreements are not generally public information, for all we know they are already collecting their tithe from everybody in the industry.

Ars Technica did a review of Windows 8 by using explorer.exe and tried to use it as a regular PC running Word. Results are mentioned here

Sure. I guess they just weren't serious enough with larrabee.

http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/12/intels-larrabee-gpu-put-on-ice-more-news-to-come-in-2010.ars

Here: http://www.gsmarena.com/rumor_intel_to_discontinue_meego_development_temporarily-news-3087.php

and here: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/09/intel-denies-giving-up-on-meego-but-it-doesnt-mean-much.ars

What a load of garbage and all anti MS biased.

Ars Technica is in the process of writting review for those who prefer the old explorer. MS made it quite clear both GUIs will be used.

The screenshots of the new task manager and explorer are cleary not Metro.

FUD back at you again. Most apps DON'T use Metro. Metro is for HTML5 + Ajax crap.

For a non-biased story, well respected Ars Technica admitted to it having both interfaces. They have one of the Samsung tablets and did a review with Metro and are now writting a review with using Windows 8 on a regular desktop with the Windows 7 desktop.

Worst storying posting on slashdot ever.

A no-name company with a skeevy CEO, a custom OS instead of Android or something more well-supported? Maybe at $100, or possibly even $200.

I fear your expectations for a $100 tablet may be a bit high.

We should shorten the copyright term to around 14 years...

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/07/research-optimal-copyright-term-is-14-years.ars

Interesting story about not buying an Apple and the Apple Tax: http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2011/09/ultrabook-intels-300-million-plan-to-beat-apple-at-its-own-game.ars

In other news, Microsoft posts security bulletins 4 days early, scrambles to fix mistake.... oh, sorry I didn't realizes /. was in "bash apple" mode again.

That's right. People in all of EU, except Germany, can buy Galaxy Tabs from any division of Samsung other than Samsung Germany, due to jurisdiction limits of the German court. However, Apple registered their design in the EU, so they might theoretically sue in other countries as well, and maybe even be able to use the court verdict in Germany as a precedent. IANAL.

This works fine as long as you don't visit an EV site. You must delete the cert, and make changes to your system on OS X. This is not an easy fix for most people. Please find more info here

Among these are [fraudulent] certificates for *.*.com and *.*.org, which would allow someone in possession of the certificates to perform man-in-the-middle attacks for almost any site with a .com or .org domain—a far wider problem than initially assumed. The Tor Project has also discovered some unusual text in one of the certificates. It contains a number of phrases written in Farsi, which translate as "great cracker," "I will crack all encryption," and "I hate/break your head." This alludes to ComodoHacker's statement about the Comodo hack, in which he claimed to be able to break strong encryption. There's also increasing evidence that the certificates were used widely within Iran. Trend Micro's Smart Protection Network collects many kinds of data, including domain name lookups. Over the past few weeks, the number of Iranian systems looking up DigiNotar's validation.diginotar.nl domain was far higher than normal, until it abruptly dropped on August 30th. This activity implies that with large numbers of Iranian machines were performing revocation checks on the bogus DigiNotar certificates during July and August. The abrupt stop in turn implies that traffic to validation.diginotar.nl has now been blocked within Iran. This suggests that the number of man-in-the-middle attacks performed against Iranians was substantial, and that the attacks occurred over many weeks, making secure communication insecure for all those within Iran. After the Comodo hack, ComodoHacker made clear that he was deliberately acting to thwart anti-government dissidents within Iran. In spite of his criticism of the Dutch, the true target remains the Iranian people.

Actually no they didn't. They present pictures of both (yes those picture aspects were changed to make them look more familiar) but they also had physical representations of the models in court. The decision wasn't made off the photo's alone.

Do you have a citation for that?

Apple themselves stated in the evidence that the Galaxy S was larger in dimensions and the photo in question was just one (I believe it one of the photos on page 28 of the evidence presented). It was the only photo with the 'bad' dimensions. It is believed by legal experts that the photo is actually a prototype photo similar to the mock ups released by Samsung prior to the actual product release showing it was 'thinner' than the iPad.

http://gadgetsheaven.n-ame.com/?p=2309

Galaxy S does include “some non-identical elements, such as the slightly larger dimensions.” This supports the idea that Apple isn’t trying to secretly submit this evidence to the courts. Many have noted a German court’s decision to grant Apple with the original preliminary injunction on the Galaxy tab didn’t take the doctored images into account. In fact, patent expert Florian Mueller noted ”the court’s decision was based on both Apple’s motion and Samsung’s pre-emptive opposition pleading” and also stated “Samsung is in a legally weak position against Apple. If Samsung wants to inspire confidence, it has to understand that half the truth is sometimes tantamount to a whole lie.”

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/is-apple-faking-evidence-to-crush-the-competition-not-likely.ars

Müller doubts that the images are outcome-determinative for the case in The Netherlands. "Apple has asserted in its Dutch complaint several technical patents, unrelated to the size of the device, and a Community design that's also about a shape rather than a particular size," he said. Furthermore, Apple clearly noted that there is a size difference between the two devices in its legal filing.

http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/19/samsung-claims-apple-doctored-galaxy-phone-images-in-netherlands-court/ http://gadgetsheaven.n-ame.com/?p=2309

The decision to ban was not made of off a single photo out of a series of photos. Would you, if you were a judge, base your decision off of an image when the relevant piece of hardware can simply be handed to you for inspection?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apple-accused-of-doctoring-image-to-sink-galaxy-tab-101-in-europe-update/14246

[UPDATE: The judge at the middle of this case claims that he actually handled the tablets to back up the images supplied by Apple.]

So you don't have any citation that they had physical representations in court then.

Apple themselves stated in the evidence that the Galaxy S was larger in dimensions and the photo in question was just one (I believe it one of the photos on page 28 of the evidence presented). It was the only photo with the 'bad' dimensions. It is believed by legal experts that the photo is actually a prototype photo similar to the mock ups released by Samsung prior to the actual product release showing it was 'thinner' than the iPad.

http://gadgetsheaven.n-ame.com/?p=2309

Galaxy S does include “some non-identical elements, such as the slightly larger dimensions.” This supports the idea that Apple isn’t trying to secretly submit this evidence to the courts. Many have noted a German court’s decision to grant Apple with the original preliminary injunction on the Galaxy tab didn’t take the doctored images into account. In fact, patent expert Florian Mueller noted ”the court’s decision was based on both Apple’s motion and Samsung’s pre-emptive opposition pleading” and also stated “Samsung is in a legally weak position against Apple. If Samsung wants to inspire confidence, it has to understand that half the truth is sometimes tantamount to a whole lie.”

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/08/is-apple-faking-evidence-to-crush-the-competition-not-likely.ars

Müller doubts that the images are outcome-determinative for the case in The Netherlands. "Apple has asserted in its Dutch complaint several technical patents, unrelated to the size of the device, and a Community design that's also about a shape rather than a particular size," he said. Furthermore, Apple clearly noted that there is a size difference between the two devices in its legal filing.

http://9to5mac.com/2011/08/19/samsung-claims-apple-doctored-galaxy-phone-images-in-netherlands-court/
http://gadgetsheaven.n-ame.com/?p=2309

The decision to ban was not made of off a single photo out of a series of photos. Would you, if you were a judge, base your decision off of an image when the relevant piece of hardware can simply be handed to you for inspection?

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/apple-accused-of-doctoring-image-to-sink-galaxy-tab-101-in-europe-update/14246

[UPDATE: The judge at the middle of this case claims that he actually handled the tablets to back up the images supplied by Apple.]

(possibly apple excluded)

Apple has a long history of ridiculously poor input devices. The hockey-puck mouse being the first that comes to mind, though we're talking keyboards here.

I give you these abominations:
Apple Wireless Keyboard
Apple Aluminum Keyboard

I can't answer specifically to a macbook english-french/french-canadian bilingual keyboard -- I couldn't find a picture. Though their English keyboard seems to have an unbelievably tiny left-shift key, if that helps at all.

for as long as steam continues to exist

How many online WMA DRM music stores no longer continue to exist? Even Microsoft couldn't keep running its DRM servers forever.

Read the Ars article for an better explanation, but I'll quote the relevant bit here:

So how did these criticisms slip by the paper's initial reviewers? According to Wagner, the paper was reviewed by three investigators who are sympathetic to Spencer's views. This isn't unheard of, but it seems unlikely to be a matter of chance, given that those sympathetic to Spencer's views constitute a small minority of the climate sciences community. More probably, Spencer was informally given the chance to suggest people who would be qualified to review the material.

Mike Godwin, the creator of Godwin's Law, says that your common sense is wrong:

Mentioning Hitler when it is appropriate like when comparing genocidal dictators is not covered by the law. It's the glib comparisons like that of your "common sense" that should be avoided.

Just like you can get a car second hand, you can get a Disney movie on DVD (new or used, or rented).

But you can't watch them via a streamed connection as the case against Zediva has shown. Zediva bought individual discs and streamed them on a one-to-one basis to users. For all intents the user had rented a real physical disc but because it was streamed over a network the courts deemed it a violation of copyright. So no, streaming companies cannot just buy used or new discs from just anyone. This would be the same as requiring all used car lots to buy their cars from the licensed dealer (no car auctions, no trade-ins, no private purchases).

Not to burst your bubble, but law enforcement in Canada has been trying to get the same:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/08/need-a-warrant-to-unmask-internet-users-not-if-canada-gets-its-way.ars

and

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/pushing-the-limits-of-state-surveillance/article2130692/

DRM is about managing protection on files, not about policy in regards to pricing or what will be allowed in an app store.

These are just the tip of the rejections.

Boo Hoo. That is not about DRM which is the topic under discussion in this thread.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/07/apple-loses-big-in-drm-ruling-jailbreaks-are-fair-use.ars

The Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that jailbreaking one's iPhone should be allowed, even though it required one to bypass some DRM and then to reuse a small bit of Apple's copyright firmware code. Apple showed up at the hearings to say, in numerous ways, that the idea was terrible, ridiculous, and illegal. In large part, that was because the limit on jailbreaking was needed to preserve Apple's controlled ecosystem, which the company said was of great value to consumers.

Do you know more than the lawyers at EFF?

Also, what do you call the mechanism by which Apple enforces the app store policies to ensure the payments? Gestapo tactics?

So we should make google and other search engines illegal? They link to the "illegal content" all the time and they know it (just try to search for piratebay). Also if i write an article on my blog about file-sharing and include link to the pirate-bay, i shall be prosecuted according to your logic? No! Making linking to dubious content ilegal is serious threat to free speech. Czech pirate party is currently fighting for the right to link by launching the site http://tipnafilm.cz/ where they link to several thousands of copyrighted movies. See http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/linking-is-not-a-crime-czech-pirate-party-declares-war-on-anti-piracy-unionlinking-is-not-a-crime-czech-pirate-party-declares-war-on-big-content.ars for more details.

Both in the same market trying to subscribe the same customers is doing the job.

OMG, 20mbps!

Sorry dude, but that's a shit-bitrate. Get back to us when you can do 1Gbps for under $50

I am not sure why people keep saying this even in the light that Microsoft has said that they are bringing .NET even closer to the core API here.

HTML 5/JS is just being added onto what is already there. The fact that no one has heard about Silverlight has made everyone worried. Microsoft has talked about Silverlight just not to the degree that everyone had hope for. So since no one likes waiting until September, we'll just spread rumors and make Microsoft pay for suddenly wanting to do things like Apple and keep quiet.

I decided to look up the link, it was arstechnica actually, not techdirt. Sorry.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/08/how-star-trek-artists-imagined-the-ipad-23-years-ago.ars

Most apple keyboards I've seen have a "fn" button before control.

Other than laptops (Of all brands), the only recent apple keyboard with a function key is the half-length bluetooth keyboard. The full length one however does not, nor any of the older USB keyboards.

http://origin.arstechnica.com/journals/apple.media/awk04.jpg

I used to own that smaller bluetooth keyboard but had to sell it due to the function key, and ended up buying the full length bluetooth keyboard.
It is simply impossible for me to game on a keyboard with a function key.

So it is far from 'most', and in fact for recent desktop keyboards it is just that one.
You can argue most apple computers sold are laptops (I have no idea if that is true, but seems possible), however that is far from an apple thing. It's next to impossible to find any brand laptop without that damn key!

You have to go back almost a decade to those horrible USB iMac keyboards to find a wired USB one without a numeric keypad and thus with a function key.

And there's no reason to pick on the poor fruity iMacs, they didn't have much at all going for them even at the time, let alone their keyboards.
Thankfully those iMacs are far from the only offerings from Apple.

So there have been a number of articles about how the 3DS (with an actual 3D screen) is having a hard time competing against the iPhone. Sony's entry? Basically the same specs as an iPhone 4. Yeah the Vita has a faster cpu and hardware buttons, but it also has a lower resolution screen and the games will be more expensive. Needless to say all the rumors point to a new iPhone being released in the next few weeks which would probably close the gap on the cpu. Are hardware controls really going to sell $40 games?

> ICultists wont touch it with a 10 foot pole at any price because it's
> not made by Apple and everyone else that's on the fence is going
> to see the identical price and buy the Ipad because either they saw
> it on TV more / their ICult buddy recommended it and since they're
> priced the same might as well get what everyone else is talking about

I am SO FUCKING SICK of all this "it's all because of fanboys/marketing/cultishness" shit! EVERY SINGLE MAJOR REVIEW of the TouchPad says it's barely in the same league with the iPad 1 and not even CLOSE to the iPad 2.

And because someone is bound to post a reply asking for proof, here are two major mainstream ones:

• David Pogue, New York Times
  "... the TouchPad doesn't come close to being as complete or mature as the iPad or the best Android tablets..."
• Walt Mossberg, Wall Street Journal
  "Bottom line: ... I can't recommend the TouchPad over the iPad 2"

And if you think the big sites are just dumb and/or Apple whores, how about some tech sites, like Ars Technica or Engadget?

• Engadget
  We all wanted the TouchPad to really compete, to give us a compelling third party to join the iOS and Android boxes on the ballot. But, alas, this isn't quite it... The shortage of apps is a problem, no doubt, but that will change with time. What won't change is the hardware, and there we're left a little disappointed. Holding this in one hand and either an iPad 2 or a Galaxy Tab 10.1 in the other leaves you wondering why you'd ever be compelled to buy the HP when you could have the thinner, lighter alternative for the same money. Meanwhile, the performance left us occasionally wanting and, well, what is there to say.
• Ars Technica
  The HP TouchPad, if it were less expensive, could be an extremely strong, if slightly less polished, alternative to the iPad. But like other recently-released high-profile Android tablets, it's determined to take on the champ. And just like those Android tablets, its hard to recommend over an iPad at the same price.

That said, I would have snapped one up for $99 but it's now Saturday afternoon and there are none to be found. (I went to bed early last night and was out of the house first thing in the morning. Dammit!)

> Non Apple Tables are priced roughly $200-300 too expensive. Get
> them around $199-$299 and they'll sell like gangbusters just like it
> did for Android phones in the mobile market.

There is not magical "make it cheap" dust that can be sprinkled on non-iOS devices. The fact that the OS is free really doesn't amtter much at all. (Remember when everyone thought Linux would take over the desktop because it was considered to be as good as Windows?) Believe it or not, Apple is being DAMN price competitive on the iPad. Do you think multibillion dollar companies are spending billions of dollars to bring tablets to the market and then watching them fail just for fun? No, they're selling them for that much because they HAVE to in order to make any profit at all, and they're failing because they just aren't as good. You CAN NOT MAKE a tablet as good as the iPad for less. It has a good looking, responsive touchscreen, the best battery life out there, and it's within 1mm of being the thinnest as well. Lightest of all the 10" tablets, too, AFAIK. Cheaper tablets have screens that are worse looking and/or less sensitive, they're thicker, they're heavier, AND they have worse battery life.

There ARE cheap Android tablets out there (especially if you include things like the Pandigital Novel and B&N Nook Color) and they ARE NOT SELLING anywhere

No, the market price by itself would support opening or reopening of rare earth mines.

NOT, actually. Nobody will invest in a mine at ANY market price because history shows that China is likely to AGAIN drop prices in the future, driving other mines out of business. THUS, some kind of guarantee for investors is needed.

All that is needed is the US government to guarantee purchase at some set price and dozens of new mines would open overnight in the US.

No, the market price by itself would support opening or reopening of rare earth mines. What you may need is a waiver from the EPA.

Rare earth mining is problematic because even 'high quality' ore is very dilute. Vast quantities of material have to be processed in order to obtain any product. The primary extractive processes aren't all that polluting. The mines use a combination of physical process (magnetic separation, water separation) to concentrate the material to about 50% purity. Getting it from 50% to pure metal, however, requires quite a bit of energy and the use of a number of toxic processes.

One way to solve this problem is to do the primary extraction at the mine site and then transport the more valuable (and now quite a bit more concentrated) ore to a central site which has the technology and supervision to further extract the material at minimal environmental risk. The US DOE (Dept. of Energy) is looking into these sorts of issues. Of course, China need not be bothered by any of this mamby pamby Greeny stuff, so they have a built in competitive advantage.

Sure, here you go:

Google indefinitely withholds Android source from non-privileged partners

Google tries to suppress "highly confidential" Android source code in court case

Google memo admits they "use compatibility to make [Android vendors] do what we want"

Shall I go on, or are you and other fans going to robotically repeat the term "FUD" as if that somehow dismisses all facts?

Apple dropped the price of OS updates from $129.99 to $29.99. Piracy for OS updates dropped significantly and they actually make more money at the lower price point. Plus since more machines are running the latest version of the OS, they have less problems with old OS issues.

Apple can do this because their software is tied directly to the hardware, MS is solely a software company, realm of computers anyways. Office and Windows are currently the most profitable divisions of the company http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/04/microsoft-beats-estimates-but-not-apple-in-third-quarter-earnings.ars I'm sure they would sell more upgrades at a lower price but the question to answer is: "What price point nets them the most money?"

Here it begins, the FUD DRM campaign against Windows 8 and a collective group of people getting their panties in a twist.

Remember some gems for Windows 7, can anyone tell what became of them?

Draconian-DRM-Revealed-In-Windows-7
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/16/2259257

Debunked here:
Oh, the humanity: Windows 7's draconian DRM?
  http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/oh-the-humanity-windows-7s-draconian-drm.ars

Vista was the most fudded one though(DRM etc.) , with a fake columnist making up fake data and benchmarks to play on Slashdot commenters and it did work well.

Sponsored by BoycottNovell?

Today it is, anyway.

Hey, anyone remember when banning users was solely an ISP decision, not a government mandate? Boy, those were the days.

To get that information, law enforcement won't necessarily need a warrant. Each agency can designate up to 5 percent of its total employees as authorized to request the information, and it can ban telcos from admitting that they have provided any such information.[emphasis mine]

In other words, you can make FOIA requests until you're blue in the face, but it won't get you anywhere.

Too bad the submitter didn't read the ARSTechnica article about the same ruling; it was a more impartial analysis and demonstrated how, even though the ruling appears to favor the ultimate abolition of software patents, it's such an illogical ruling that it probably won't really help to serve that purpose, other than perhaps persuading other courts to think more critically about software patents. "Unless it's too complicated for a human to do the math"? Good grief.

It also directly goes against In re Beauregard.

Too bad the submitter didn't read the ARSTechnica article about the same ruling; it was a more impartial analysis and demonstrated how, even though the ruling appears to favor the ultimate abolition of software patents, it's such an illogical ruling that it probably won't really help to serve that purpose, other than perhaps persuading other courts to think more critically about software patents. "Unless it's too complicated for a human to do the math"? Good grief.

Apple was sued by Creative for $100M, Personal Audio LLC for $8M, and probably more I'm forgetting about. They actually tried to deflect one of the lawsuits by admitting the basic idea was invented in 1979. Apple's situation exactly demonstrates both major problems here. No real innovation, just refinement of existing ideas with a better look/feel. And they were only able to survive because they could shrug off a ridiculous $100M lawsuit from Creative and keep going.

Easy on the hyperbole there, trigger. http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/07/wifi-hole196-major-exploit-or-much-ado-about-little.ars/2

So far they've brought lawsuits on dead people, children, and now a blind guy. What's next, someone who doesn't even own a computer? Oh wait, they totally did that already.

I see, MS with it's 54% IE user base (not 40% - see here http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2011/06/may-browser-market-share-microsoft-and-mozillas-continuing-chrome-conundrum.ars) is not ubiquitous enough to bother targeting. But when we say that Linux isn't targeted because it only has 2% of the desktop people here sneer and say that isn't possibly true. I guess here, we have it both ways. Anyway, beneath all the bluster I think we all know that between social engineering attacks and attacks on Flash, Adobe Reader, and Java - directly attacking a browser is pretty much out of style.

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/06/firefox-update-policy-the-enterprise-is-wrong-not-mozilla.ars

Also, your sig is cracking me up. I bet you were foaming at the mouth when you typed it.