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."
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.
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."
"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!