Is there enough statistically significant clear, objective data that is available to be verified that indicates anything with any amount of confidence?
Except now people are starting to wake up and realize that as well. It is a buggy bloated distro that got lucky because they mailed cd's to people. However now people are starting to realize Fedore and Mandriva exist. It's that simple.
Not sure what point your making. I was assuming Vista and up for my statement. To clarify, Chrome and IE8+ are the most secure browsers on versions of Windows Vista and after due to making use of WIC and/or sandboxing.
SO, at present the most secure browsers on Windows are Chrome and IE8+
Why?
Because they make use of Windows Integrity Controls, a type of MAC which means if a low level process is exploited it has no access to the rest of the user account.
As much as people laud Opera they are really behind the fucking curve on this one, and I don't know what Mozilla's excuse is. With the excess beta's they really don't have one.
It should be noted out before hairyfeet gets in that while Firefox and Opera do not make use of WIC, this is not the same as running a browser as root and leaving the whole system vulnerable as he has tried to state before. If you run as a basic user and keep your browser up to date then you are reasonable secure, just not as secure as Chrome or IE in the event of an attack.
On linux it is a different story, as with SELINUX, RSBAC, Grsecurity or any of the other frameworks you can restrict the helper processes as you see fit, and restrict excatly what directories or objects they have write read or execute permission to. It would be nice if the browser makers hopped on board and added some native support though.
1) no. You could always view the dogma of a religion for 3 longer than not. Scientology is unique in that it is secret and they sue people who make it available.
Gestures are overrated in browsers or elsewhere. It's a nice gimmick, but when it comes down to it a good old fashioned button is a lot simpler and quicker.
IE9 really is an excellent release. I personally don't like it because it lacks the extra functionality that browsers like Firefox and Opera have. However it is standards compliant, fast and very secure. Given that it is also more configurable than Chrome (which doesn't let you configure a fucking thing) I do recommend it.
Power users may not want it, but that is not important. What is important is that average users at home now have access to a secure and well performing browser. No more shitty toolbars or Active X crap, just a fast browser that works.
I don't like the limited space for tabs, but people who use IE are generally not the types to have a large amount of tabs open at once.
Mention should also be made of the security aspects. IE and Chrome are the two most secure browsers by far. They are the only browsers to fully support WIC and to make use of ASLR and DEP. Firefox 4 has support for DEP but not ASLR or WIC, nor does Opera.
People are going to bash Microsoft because they are Microsoft, but they have really done a good job here.
It was invented by the English, period. It was adopted by the french, they didn't formalize it as it was already defined.
As to the rest of your post....the majority of the world is metric, and there is not really any issue. The issue is simply non metric countries not liking change, although it is happening slowly as it is inevitable.
Hairyfeet tends to comment on new firefox stories explaining that he doesnt use firefox because it does not make use of WIC. Which is fair enough, and browsers that do like Chrome and IE are more secure for it. However, he wrongly equates the lack of support for WIC with running as a root process. You can see the start of his silliness here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1949540&cid=34867122
Stick with the point versions, and focus on getting 4.5 out by mid 2012.
Releasing 4 major versions in one year is immature, and Mozilla should no better. What motivation do they have other than competing with the other browsers that have higher version numbers? Stupid.
Hariyfeet, if you read this, I want to remind you once again that Firefox deciding not to make use of Windows Integrity Controls is not equivalent to running the browser as a root process. Sigh.
How would you distinguish a "Religiosity gene" from a gullible gene, or a gene for looking for an easy way for dealing with stress or negative emotions, or a gene for simply fitting in with family and friends without actually believing....
People believe or follow religions for various reasons, to reduce them all to a gene is ridiculous. Even one type of 'follower' being reduced to a gene, even reduced to a predisposition is fucking unlikely, for very simple reasons.
How is pinning any different than having links in the Quicklaunch? Yes, it is a bit but the principle is the same.
I also note you didnt mention explorer, which has actually removed functionality. I have to go to the properties of a folder to see the size now, as it is not in the status bar. Lame. Why do you consider it better?
No, Adobe Reader X is far, far more secure than either Foxit or Summatra or any other reader. Adobe Reader X, apart from haing the sandbox, is also the only reader to make use of Windows Integrity Controls so it is running in a low process by default. It is also the only reader to make use of DEP and ASLR, neither of which Foxit or Sumatra have ever tried to do. The javascript issue is not useful for comparison, as you noted others have js support and it can easily be disabled. The measure of security is how they actually deal with stopping attacks, and reader x is the only one that tries.
In typical case where the user simply wants to view or print a document, there is an incredibly simple solution. Tell the user to switch to something other than Adobe Reader, e.g., Foxit on Windows, Preview on MacOS X, or Evince on Linux. (For Windows users who get annoyed by how long it takes to open a PDF in a web browser, this has the added selling point of fixing that problem.) For users who can't switch (either because they need features of AR or are in a corporate environment where they can't install software), the next best option is disable JavaScript: go to Edit, Preferences, JavaScript, and uncheck "Enable Acrobat JavaScript."
Just to point out that on Windows, it is actually more secure to use reader x. The sandbox and exploit mitigation techniques are much better than the negligible gain in security by obscurity in using foxit or sumatra.
Agnosticism may be more than just fence sitting, or it may have intended to have been, but these days when someone claims to be an agnostic they are either fence sitting or equivalent to a weak atheist.
I ask again, what is the point of being agnostic over weak atheism? Weak atheism is most in line with the scientific method, taking a skeptical approach.
Agnosticism is more than that, either implicitly speculating on the likelihood of gods existence, the relevance of gods existence, or both.
The problem with the pink elephant example is that while it may be irrelevant, we actually hamper education and knowledge by giving any credence whatsoever to ridiculous constructs. Why should god be any different until there is a reason for him to be?
Also, at the end there you fell into the trap of saying "Atheist believe". Atheists don't believe anything. That's what makes them atheists. Or, it should be.
It doesn't matter what people say trying to dress itup as some kind of preference BS...mouse and keyboard is vastly more accurate and intuitive. Yes, KB/M are available for consoles, but most people don't use them. This comes down to gamers using a more accurate input system, and pulling ahead of it because of that, nothing more/
Slashdot Mirror
Is there enough statistically significant clear, objective data that is available to be verified that indicates anything with any amount of confidence?
Except now people are starting to wake up and realize that as well. It is a buggy bloated distro that got lucky because they mailed cd's to people. However now people are starting to realize Fedore and Mandriva exist. It's that simple.
Not sure what point your making. I was assuming Vista and up for my statement. To clarify, Chrome and IE8+ are the most secure browsers on versions of Windows Vista and after due to making use of WIC and/or sandboxing.
Why?
Because they make use of Windows Integrity Controls, a type of MAC which means if a low level process is exploited it has no access to the rest of the user account.
As much as people laud Opera they are really behind the fucking curve on this one, and I don't know what Mozilla's excuse is. With the excess beta's they really don't have one.
It should be noted out before hairyfeet gets in that while Firefox and Opera do not make use of WIC, this is not the same as running a browser as root and leaving the whole system vulnerable as he has tried to state before. If you run as a basic user and keep your browser up to date then you are reasonable secure, just not as secure as Chrome or IE in the event of an attack.
On linux it is a different story, as with SELINUX, RSBAC, Grsecurity or any of the other frameworks you can restrict the helper processes as you see fit, and restrict excatly what directories or objects they have write read or execute permission to. It would be nice if the browser makers hopped on board and added some native support though.
Simply releasing something onto the web is not sufficient proof of prior art. It might help sure, but it isn't enough by itself.
Heh. No.
1) no. You could always view the dogma of a religion for 3 longer than not. Scientology is unique in that it is secret and they sue people who make it available.
and further the agenda of the patriarchy.
It's a shame, you were making a lot of sense until this point.
Gestures are overrated in browsers or elsewhere. It's a nice gimmick, but when it comes down to it a good old fashioned button is a lot simpler and quicker.
Actually, it's more like $50 which isn't bad for 10 years worth of improvements.
Power users may not want it, but that is not important. What is important is that average users at home now have access to a secure and well performing browser. No more shitty toolbars or Active X crap, just a fast browser that works.
I don't like the limited space for tabs, but people who use IE are generally not the types to have a large amount of tabs open at once.
Mention should also be made of the security aspects. IE and Chrome are the two most secure browsers by far. They are the only browsers to fully support WIC and to make use of ASLR and DEP. Firefox 4 has support for DEP but not ASLR or WIC, nor does Opera.
People are going to bash Microsoft because they are Microsoft, but they have really done a good job here.
It was invented by the English, period. It was adopted by the french, they didn't formalize it as it was already defined. As to the rest of your post....the majority of the world is metric, and there is not really any issue. The issue is simply non metric countries not liking change, although it is happening slowly as it is inevitable.
Hairyfeet tends to comment on new firefox stories explaining that he doesnt use firefox because it does not make use of WIC. Which is fair enough, and browsers that do like Chrome and IE are more secure for it. However, he wrongly equates the lack of support for WIC with running as a root process. You can see the start of his silliness here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1949540&cid=34867122
Releasing 4 major versions in one year is immature, and Mozilla should no better. What motivation do they have other than competing with the other browsers that have higher version numbers? Stupid.
Hariyfeet, if you read this, I want to remind you once again that Firefox deciding not to make use of Windows Integrity Controls is not equivalent to running the browser as a root process. Sigh.
The English invented the metric system actually.
How would you distinguish a "Religiosity gene" from a gullible gene, or a gene for looking for an easy way for dealing with stress or negative emotions, or a gene for simply fitting in with family and friends without actually believing.... People believe or follow religions for various reasons, to reduce them all to a gene is ridiculous. Even one type of 'follower' being reduced to a gene, even reduced to a predisposition is fucking unlikely, for very simple reasons.
Just as are many of Americans, or any of the various countries where the UK had penal colonies, such as in the USA.
How is pinning any different than having links in the Quicklaunch? Yes, it is a bit but the principle is the same.
I also note you didnt mention explorer, which has actually removed functionality. I have to go to the properties of a folder to see the size now, as it is not in the status bar. Lame. Why do you consider it better?
Why would the US have to pay immediately what was obviously an attack? Could they not just call in their debts to other countries?
No, Adobe Reader X is far, far more secure than either Foxit or Summatra or any other reader. Adobe Reader X, apart from haing the sandbox, is also the only reader to make use of Windows Integrity Controls so it is running in a low process by default. It is also the only reader to make use of DEP and ASLR, neither of which Foxit or Sumatra have ever tried to do. The javascript issue is not useful for comparison, as you noted others have js support and it can easily be disabled. The measure of security is how they actually deal with stopping attacks, and reader x is the only one that tries.
version 10 has been out for a while now.....
In typical case where the user simply wants to view or print a document, there is an incredibly simple solution. Tell the user to switch to something other than Adobe Reader, e.g., Foxit on Windows, Preview on MacOS X, or Evince on Linux. (For Windows users who get annoyed by how long it takes to open a PDF in a web browser, this has the added selling point of fixing that problem.) For users who can't switch (either because they need features of AR or are in a corporate environment where they can't install software), the next best option is disable JavaScript: go to Edit, Preferences, JavaScript, and uncheck "Enable Acrobat JavaScript."
Just to point out that on Windows, it is actually more secure to use reader x. The sandbox and exploit mitigation techniques are much better than the negligible gain in security by obscurity in using foxit or sumatra.
What about things like the 3 strikes law, where the EU was fining countries for not implementing it?
Agnosticism may be more than just fence sitting, or it may have intended to have been, but these days when someone claims to be an agnostic they are either fence sitting or equivalent to a weak atheist.
I ask again, what is the point of being agnostic over weak atheism? Weak atheism is most in line with the scientific method, taking a skeptical approach.
Agnosticism is more than that, either implicitly speculating on the likelihood of gods existence, the relevance of gods existence, or both.
The problem with the pink elephant example is that while it may be irrelevant, we actually hamper education and knowledge by giving any credence whatsoever to ridiculous constructs. Why should god be any different until there is a reason for him to be?
Also, at the end there you fell into the trap of saying "Atheist believe". Atheists don't believe anything. That's what makes them atheists. Or, it should be.
It doesn't matter what people say trying to dress itup as some kind of preference BS...mouse and keyboard is vastly more accurate and intuitive. Yes, KB/M are available for consoles, but most people don't use them. This comes down to gamers using a more accurate input system, and pulling ahead of it because of that, nothing more/