'Users reject security advice, that are considered rational' swaps an unclear referent for an extraneous comma AND a number-verb misalignment - ie one error for two, not to mention the meaning of your version appears to be the opposite of the actual point of the story.
Try this instead: Users' rejection of security advice is considered rational; or, Users who reject security advice are considered rational.
The problem is that while verbs are typically ommitted from headlines but in this case you need the verb (is or are in these versions), or you need to reword along these lines: Users considered rational for rejecting security advice.
As for the actual story, I don't see what's so groundbreaking about the conclusions - anybody who's had to change a password or use a token or certificate (not to mention apply security patches, set up LAN security, etc) knows what a pain it is.
PLEASE please stop using italics for quotations. it's ugly on the screen and a pain to read. and most of what appears seems to be in the form of quotations. that's a lot of ugliness, a lot of pain. ta.
"suitable for adults"? how old are you? aren't most people who code for a living also old enough to vote? when do people reach actual adulthood these days anyway?
I agree with the reasoning behind the brief's argument - that allowing the applications company to maintain a browser monopoly would reward its illegal behavior, that it would undermine the monopolistic potential of the applications company - but I'm not so sure a browser company could survive, or that it would accomplish what its authors intend. . The brief reads: "The Internet Explorer Company would instantly become one of the most vigorous Internet companies, as the default supplier of the Internet user interface to an installed base of more than 100 million Internet users. The Internet Explorer Company surely would sponsor its own Internet portal, and could sell placement on toolbars and channel bars. Potential content ventures alone would be substantial for a holder of even a temporary 80-90% share of the Internet browser market. The Internet Explorer Company could generate revenue by providing engineering services to a wide variety of applications providers that wanted to integrate their offerings with the leading browser. The Windows Company and the Applications Company would be motivated to pay the Internet Explorer Company to provide and maintain the functionality that they wanted to invoke from within their products, at least until they developed competing browsers of their own. The thriving applications service provider (ASP) market would provide another source of revenue for the Internet Explorer Company. Asps are particularly dependent upon the browser interface, and could be charged for browser customization and for feature addition. OEMs and portals also might pay the Internet Explorer Company to deliver customized browsers or to provide browser integration with other offerings." . Nobody is going to pay for the browser - that's a given. And this sounds more like a portal company than a browser company. And allowing the other two companies to develop their own browsers defeats the purpose. I'm not sure about the other stuff. . I think the brief's proposed alternative - keeping the browser with the applications company but making it an opensource product - makes more sense. It weakens or kills the browser monopoly. But I'm not sure if the brief or the DOJ proposal say anything about preventing either the OS or the applications company from developing a proprietary browser - and potential browser monopoly - regardless of what happens with IE5. . The brief is at http://www.ccianet.org/amicus5-19-00.htm . mcsneedy
Slashdot Mirror
'Users reject security advice, that are considered rational' swaps an unclear referent for an extraneous comma AND a number-verb misalignment - ie one error for two, not to mention the meaning of your version appears to be the opposite of the actual point of the story.
Try this instead: Users' rejection of security advice is considered rational; or, Users who reject security advice are considered rational.
The problem is that while verbs are typically ommitted from headlines but in this case you need the verb (is or are in these versions), or you need to reword along these lines: Users considered rational for rejecting security advice.
As for the actual story, I don't see what's so groundbreaking about the conclusions - anybody who's had to change a password or use a token or certificate (not to mention apply security patches, set up LAN security, etc) knows what a pain it is.
PLEASE please stop using italics for quotations. it's ugly on the screen and a pain to read. and most of what appears seems to be in the form of quotations. that's a lot of ugliness, a lot of pain. ta.
"suitable for adults"? how old are you? aren't most people who code for a living also old enough to vote? when do people reach actual adulthood these days anyway?
25 - it's the new 18.
do you have any plans to support wildcard searches? it's tedious to have to type (recipe OR recipes) all the time. how about regex pattern matching?
I agree with the reasoning behind the brief's argument - that allowing the applications company to maintain a browser monopoly would reward its illegal behavior, that it would undermine the monopolistic potential of the applications company - but I'm not so sure a browser company could survive, or that it would accomplish what its authors intend. . The brief reads: "The Internet Explorer Company would instantly become one of the most vigorous Internet companies, as the default supplier of the Internet user interface to an installed base of more than 100 million Internet users. The Internet Explorer Company surely would sponsor its own Internet portal, and could sell placement on toolbars and channel bars. Potential content ventures alone would be substantial for a holder of even a temporary 80-90% share of the Internet browser market. The Internet Explorer Company could generate revenue by providing engineering services to a wide variety of applications providers that wanted to integrate their offerings with the leading browser. The Windows Company and the Applications Company would be motivated to pay the Internet Explorer Company to provide and maintain the functionality that they wanted to invoke from within their products, at least until they developed competing browsers of their own. The thriving applications service provider (ASP) market would provide another source of revenue for the Internet Explorer Company. Asps are particularly dependent upon the browser interface, and could be charged for browser customization and for feature addition. OEMs and portals also might pay the Internet Explorer Company to deliver customized browsers or to provide browser integration with other offerings." . Nobody is going to pay for the browser - that's a given. And this sounds more like a portal company than a browser company. And allowing the other two companies to develop their own browsers defeats the purpose. I'm not sure about the other stuff. . I think the brief's proposed alternative - keeping the browser with the applications company but making it an opensource product - makes more sense. It weakens or kills the browser monopoly. But I'm not sure if the brief or the DOJ proposal say anything about preventing either the OS or the applications company from developing a proprietary browser - and potential browser monopoly - regardless of what happens with IE5. . The brief is at http://www.ccianet.org/amicus5-19-00.htm . mcsneedy