Slashdot Mirror
Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera
mwandaw writes "Banking giant JPMorgan Chase may drop support of some popular browsers because they do not 'all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.' After July 18 you may not be able to access the website with a browser that they do not support. The list of browsers they currently support seems outdated: Internet Explorer 6.0 and higher, Firefox 2.0 and higher, and Safari 3.0 and higher (for Macs only). With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect. On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?"
User Agent Switcher.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59/
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
They bought out my mortgage, I didn't really have a choice.
Chase sucks.
People spend more time figuring out what kind of a vacuum cleaner they are going to buy than thinking about the bank they will put their money into.
There is no competition and the reasons are that government now plans/runs the economy. Chase will have their customers, nobody will be leaving because Chase is going to drop support for a browser. Nobody will be leaving if Chase continues gambling with deposits. Nobody will be leaving even if Chase continues trading any kinds of derivatives.
The reason for this is FDIC, the Fed insuring the deposits, which creates a set of problems:
1. The banks don't have a reason to care about earning customers' trust, they can start gambling with your deposits.
2. The people don't care and don't pay attention where their money is.
3. Competitiveness between banks is no longer that important, this is a problem, small banks start losing out to bigger ones just based on this alone.
4. Large banks do gamble with your money, as they also receive Free Money from the Fed they become bigger and bigger, until they are... "Too Big To Fail" *(a government creation, in reality they are too big to exist at that point.)
FDIC, just like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac etc., create a moral hazard for everybody - the creditors and the debtors.
Government shouldn't be in insurance business at all, it is terrible at assessing risks, for reference see Ben Bernanke sitting the middle of a huge credit bubble he helped to create and not seeing it at all even while staring right into its face (I am talking about the housing bubble and that guys saying: we don't have a bubble in 2007!
INTERVIEWER: Tell me, what is the worst-case scenario? We have so many economists coming on our air saying 'Oh, this is a bubble, and it's going to burst, and this is going to be a real issue for the economy.' Some say it could even cause a recession at some point. What is the worst-case scenario if in fact we were to see prices come down substantially across the country?
BERNANKE: Well, I guess I don't buy your premise. It's a pretty unlikely possibility. We've never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don't think it's gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though. - these are the people who will now, under new Obama's financial reform will be watching for the signs of bad things about to happen? Seriously? Really? You must be kidding me?
Banks must NOT be Federally insured, any insurance must be private and insurers must provide information on the conditions of insurance, the payments etc., so that risk can be evaluated by the banks' customers.
Many will say: but how do you expect an average person to look and understand.... well I guess that's what arithmetic is for.
People NEED competition in banks just like in anything else, otherwise soon enough all banks will be one same too big to fail, only IE is allowed mega-bank, and the problems will not be limited to just what kind of browser the banks allows you to use on their site, that will be the smallest of the problems.
You can't handle the truth.
and where to find them.
So you don't support IE7 and IE8 either, then? Because speaking as a developer at a different company, we have to specifically test each of those separately anyhow. And Firefox, of course. And Safari.
So what you're really saying is that it's too hard to support 3 versions of IE and Firefox and Safari AND Chrome and Opera as well.
Since Chrome is Webkit, just like Safari, it seems to me you should probably go ahead and support that one. And if your app works on Firefox and Safari without any hacks, it'll run on Opera as well.
And like it or not, Chrome is taking market share from IE and Firefox. We are rapidly approaching a market that doesn't have 1 dominant browser, and you'll have to support them anyhow. Giving up now is letting go of things you'll need right before they become critical.
I feel we need a car analogy, so it's like going from a single car on the highways to having many companies making many cars, but paving your roads to only work for that single car.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Internet Explorer advisories (5 pages)
Google Chrome advisories (1 page, total of 13 advisories)
And how is anyone supposed to believe that a browser that didn't exist before 2008 would have nearly as many flaws as one that's been around getting lusers infected for 15 years?
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
I just did.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Where do you get your information? Some libertarian kook blog?
FDIC is not the Fed.
FDIC doesn't guarantee banks.
FDIC guarantees individuals' deposits. Your checking account. Your savings account.
When a bank can't cover its deposits, FDIC swoops and seizes the bank.
The bank is shut down. Management is fired. Stockholders lose everything.
Absolutely the opposite of what you imagine to be the case.
You're fooling yourself.
For one, presentation is king, not content. Content is important, and necessary, but if it isn't presented well it's worthless. People will generally get more out "nothing" presented well than "everything" presented poorly. That may make you sad, but it's real.
For another, two browsers with the same rendering engine may, or may not, be identical in performance and display. Most Gecko based browsers are, Safari and Chrome are not, aside from not always using the same version of webkit, they have totally different javascript engines which can lead to rather major differences.
According to Secunia:
Google Chrome 3.x has had 5 advisories, 1 of which is unpatched. Google Chrome 4.x has had 6 advisories, 1 of which is unpatched. Google Chrome 5.x has had 2 advisories, 0 of which are unpatched.
MSIE 6.x has had 146 advisories, 23 of which are unpatched.
MSIE 7.x has had 45 advisories, 10 of which are unpatched.
MSIE 8.x has had 13 advisories, 4 of which are unpatched.
So no, it isn't just "marginally more secure."
Number of advisories is not the problem. It's how quickly the issues were fixed.
It's also important how exploitable the issue is in the real world and what the likely consequences are of an exploit actually are.
I'd worry about how long a known exploit remains open for before I'd worry about how many exploits they've had in the past. In this regard both MS and Apple have very bad records.
Also with proprietary software you only have one source of a possible fix. Which may take a long time or wind up bundled with "enhancements" for marketing/political reasons.
If your bank is adjusting your balance downward without explanation, there are several places you can report it and get action. The local police are not one of them.
It could be a case of someone inside the bank committing fraud, in which case the management of the bank would LOVE to know about it and have the chance to act (I know... I work for a bank). It is even possible (although unlikely) that the bank officers are in on it and are attempting to defraud consumers. In the first case, reporting it to management will resolve the problem, and probably VERY quickly and politely. Search your bank's website or other documents for the name of the bank's COO or CEO and send a letter to that person. If you truly believe that the bank's management is "in on it" then you can report them to the banking regulators (http://www.sec.gov/answers/bankreg.htm gives contact info in the USA). They will certainly follow up (and afterward I can assure you that your bank will hate you... but they'll also treat you fairly since they know the regulators are watching).
Of course, it is also possible that the bank was right and your own records were wrong. Be prepared to discover that you were wrong and apologize if that turned out to be the case. Don't let fear of this prevent you from following up if you feel cheated, just keep an open mind.
"Information. We want information. And by hook or by crook, we'll get it." -#2
No, you're the one fooling yourself. People will not generally get more out "nothing" presented well; no matter how pretty, nothing is still nothing. The New York Times doesn't get page views because of its layout; people go there for the content. People don't use Wikipedia because it's pretty, they go there for information.
A pretty web site that lacks content is completely useless to everyone. A web site that has the information you're looking for is useful no matter how ugly it is, as long as it's readable.
Content must come first; presentation is necessary, but content is why people are going there in the first place, and if there's no content it doesn't matter how pretty it is, they're not coming back.
Free Martian Whores!