Yes. I use Thunderbird at home and have used it for many years. It works, i.e., it allows me to send and receive e-mail, and doesn't seem to be terribly buggy. What more do you need?
There's very little maintenance or development that needs to be done. Which is probably why Mozilla is in a hurry to get rid of it. They can't figure out a way to fuck it up like they did Firefox.
They can't make it any worse than it already is... why bid for a sinking ship?
Are you serious? Several calls to Verizon support have disabused me of that notion. Verizon is arrogant and is a money making machine. If acquired, Yahoo will change dramatically, possibly for the better, but probably for the worse.
I find it hard to believe that even Verizon could make Yahoo any worse than it already is. Although, in all fairness, "worse" is probably not the correct word to use. I think it would be more correct to say "How could Verizon make Yahoo even more pointless than it already is".
Microsoft still treats auto-run like it's not a terrible idea.
Although Microsoft is certainly guilty of a lot of really bad design decisions, they are not alone. Almost every company that produces software seems to operate as if they've given zero consideration to security.
So, let me get this straight. Brave will either collect money from advertisers and maybe pay some of it to Web site operators based on delivered impressions; or Brave will collect money from users under the guise of a "subscription."
Why does this parse as "scam" to me?
What exactly would I, a "subscriber," be subscribing to? "Look at all this lovely personally identifiable data we've collected. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it..." Yeah, the word "subscription" doesn't properly describe that kind of transaction...
And how exactly does all this fit into the business of "a privacy and speed focused web browser"?
Sorry, but speed and privacy are incompatible with advertising.
FCC, you are supposed to protect and look out for the public good rather than be beholden to the corporations. I can't imagine a more appropriate use of your authority to ban this type of crap.
Funny thing about that. Every time the FCC tries to actually do their job, all of the pro-competition Republicans immediately sue them over it, and often win, thanks to Republican-appointed judges.
Time Warner is available in my area. Perhaps I'll switch. They offer faster speeds anyways, and my neighbor's connection is proof that they are, indeed, faster.
This case is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the US justice system. If anyone needs any more evidence that it's time to just completely start again, the fact that this utter crap has been allowed to drag on for something like 13-odd years is it.
I followed the case for a while and I was quite shocked by the complete corruption and incompetence of the various federal judges involved. Over and over again they allowed SCO to play ridiculous games in order to keep their case alive.
Most Products and Services in the IT world are that way. Dell Computers are more expensive not because they are better, but rather because you get "Enterprise" support. Do not underestimate the power of "Enterprise Support" in the world of CIOs and Directors of IT. They have a distinct aversion to taking the blame for bad decisions, and that "Enterprise" label allows them to shift blame to the vendors.
Exactly right. There's an old saying in business: "When something goes wrong, there better be someone you can blame".
It's more subtle than that - it's about who did what to generate profits, and who gets what in return. Suppose I upload some pictures / video / interesting reading material to say, FB. And that helps to attract other users, and 'eyeballs' for advertising / marketing purposes, and that -in turn- generates profit.
Then effectively my effort translates into FB's profits. I would have 0 say in how it's all done, and see 0 of those profits.
I think mr. Zboralski is arguing that isn't fair. Or at least that the effort vs. rewards equation is tilted too much towards the corps that run the show. And indeed... I think he's got a point there.
No.
All business depends on customers. If there are no customers, a business cannot exist. According to Mr. Zboralski's logic, I am entitled to some of the profits from every company I have ever been a customer of. And that's just ridiculous.
The AVG Web TuneUp Chrome extension, forcibly added to Google Chrome browsers when users install AVG antivirus, is vulnerable to trivial XSS (cross-site scripting) attacks.
"This extension adds numerous JavaScript APIs to Chrome, apparently so that they can hijack search settings and the new tab page. The installation process is quite complicated so that AVG can bypass the Chrome Store malware checks, which specifically tries to stop abuse of the Chrome Extension API."
I wonder what happens if you don't accept the end-user license agreement. Surely it must ask for acceptance before it does anything.
I just read an article yesterday which recommended exact;y this as a way to deal with the problem. Just don't accept the EULA and Windows 10 won't be installed.
I've had Verizon forever. Hope to get some money from this.
The fine works out to just slightly more than one penny per user (1.35 cents). I'm sure being fined a penny per user will really teach Verizon a lesson.
Man, you managed to read that far into the article but not the next 2 paragraphs. I can't tell if you're being purposefully disenginous or if your attention span is that short... For the record, the next two paragraphs state:
The company says they are already in the midst of the process of updating their servers to SHA-2, but this blunder now puts some of its users in danger of not having their payments go through.
Internally, Mozilla has agreed to allow Symantec to issue these certificates under two conditions: the entire process should be transparent, and that the certificates should expire after only 90 days.
First, why are they only "in the midst of updating" after the deadline has already has passed? This should have been done already. This goes back to my original point -- their attitude was not "hey we need to upgrade before Jan1". It was "we just need to hurry up and get some new certs before Jan 1 and then we can fuck off and do nothing for another year".
Second, what do you think is REALLY going to happen in 90 days?
Once again we are reminded of the truly sad state of business security.
From TFA:
A company representative has informed Mozilla that one of its clients, Worldpay PLC, has asked for nine new SHA-1 certificates. Symantec explains that Worlpay has forgot to ask for nine new SHA-1 certificates for some of its servers that process SSL/TLS communications for over 10,000 payment terminals across the world. Worldpay blames this situation on a communications mishap. They say that someone forgot to ask for these certificates before the January 1 deadline.
The purpose of the January 1 deadline was supposed to be "Hey, your shit is not secure, you need to change to something else". It was NOT intended as "Hurry up and get all your shitty insecure SHA-1 certificates right away before we stop giving them out on Jan 1".
Slashdot Mirror
i just block the outgoing connection with my firewall.
There's probably technical reasons for this
No, there isn't.
additional revenue.
The *ONLY* reason it's being done.
Yes. I use Thunderbird at home and have used it for many years. It works, i.e., it allows me to send and receive e-mail, and doesn't seem to be terribly buggy. What more do you need?
There's very little maintenance or development that needs to be done. Which is probably why Mozilla is in a hurry to get rid of it. They can't figure out a way to fuck it up like they did Firefox.
Please notice that it says "a $100 million research program".
They can't make it any worse than it already is... why bid for a sinking ship?
Are you serious? Several calls to Verizon support have disabused me of that notion. Verizon is arrogant and is a money making machine. If acquired, Yahoo will change dramatically, possibly for the better, but probably for the worse.
I find it hard to believe that even Verizon could make Yahoo any worse than it already is. Although, in all fairness, "worse" is probably not the correct word to use. I think it would be more correct to say "How could Verizon make Yahoo even more pointless than it already is".
Microsoft still treats auto-run like it's not a terrible idea.
Although Microsoft is certainly guilty of a lot of really bad design decisions, they are not alone. Almost every company that produces software seems to operate as if they've given zero consideration to security.
So, let me get this straight. Brave will either collect money from advertisers and maybe pay some of it to Web site operators based on delivered impressions; or Brave will collect money from users under the guise of a "subscription."
Why does this parse as "scam" to me?
What exactly would I, a "subscriber," be subscribing to? "Look at all this lovely personally identifiable data we've collected. Sure would be a shame if something happened to it..." Yeah, the word "subscription" doesn't properly describe that kind of transaction...
And how exactly does all this fit into the business of "a privacy and speed focused web browser"?
Sorry, but speed and privacy are incompatible with advertising.
FCC, you are supposed to protect and look out for the public good rather than be beholden to the corporations. I can't imagine a more appropriate use of your authority to ban this type of crap.
Funny thing about that. Every time the FCC tries to actually do their job, all of the pro-competition Republicans immediately sue them over it, and often win, thanks to Republican-appointed judges.
Time Warner is available in my area. Perhaps I'll switch. They offer faster speeds anyways, and my neighbor's connection is proof that they are, indeed, faster.
I see what you did there.
This case is the embodiment of everything that is wrong with the US justice system. If anyone needs any more evidence that it's time to just completely start again, the fact that this utter crap has been allowed to drag on for something like 13-odd years is it.
I followed the case for a while and I was quite shocked by the complete corruption and incompetence of the various federal judges involved. Over and over again they allowed SCO to play ridiculous games in order to keep their case alive.
Would be interesting to know where the other $1.7B goes.
Lot's of highly paid employees. Lots of them. Far more than they actually need, and hence the $1.7 Billion in overhead.
Most Products and Services in the IT world are that way. Dell Computers are more expensive not because they are better, but rather because you get "Enterprise" support. Do not underestimate the power of "Enterprise Support" in the world of CIOs and Directors of IT. They have a distinct aversion to taking the blame for bad decisions, and that "Enterprise" label allows them to shift blame to the vendors.
Exactly right. There's an old saying in business: "When something goes wrong, there better be someone you can blame".
Damn bossy underwear!!!
It's more subtle than that - it's about who did what to generate profits, and who gets what in return. Suppose I upload some pictures / video / interesting reading material to say, FB. And that helps to attract other users, and 'eyeballs' for advertising / marketing purposes, and that -in turn- generates profit.
Then effectively my effort translates into FB's profits. I would have 0 say in how it's all done, and see 0 of those profits.
I think mr. Zboralski is arguing that isn't fair. Or at least that the effort vs. rewards equation is tilted too much towards the corps that run the show. And indeed... I think he's got a point there.
No.
All business depends on customers. If there are no customers, a business cannot exist. According to Mr. Zboralski's logic, I am entitled to some of the profits from every company I have ever been a customer of. And that's just ridiculous.
"life-threatening event"
Gawker is a corporation, not an actual living entity.
Not according to the Supreme Court.
Most AV programs have not only become bloatware, adding more and more useless "features", but they have actually become malware themselves.
For example:
The AVG Web TuneUp Chrome extension, forcibly added to Google Chrome browsers when users install AVG antivirus, is vulnerable to trivial XSS (cross-site scripting) attacks.
"This extension adds numerous JavaScript APIs to Chrome, apparently so that they can hijack search settings and the new tab page. The installation process is quite complicated so that AVG can bypass the Chrome Store malware checks, which specifically tries to stop abuse of the Chrome Extension API."
I wonder what happens if you don't accept the end-user license agreement. Surely it must ask for acceptance before it does anything.
I just read an article yesterday which recommended exact;y this as a way to deal with the problem. Just don't accept the EULA and Windows 10 won't be installed.
No, the next step is to kill Javascript which has now become a cancer that is destroying the Internet.
Once again, truth is stranger that fiction.
V probably spent more on lawyers than this bad-joke of a 'punishment'
True. However, I'll bet that the benefit to Verizon was far greater than the cost of the fine and lawyers fees.
I've had Verizon forever. Hope to get some money from this.
The fine works out to just slightly more than one penny per user (1.35 cents). I'm sure being fined a penny per user will really teach Verizon a lesson.
The article on CNN calls him Ashton Carton.
Was CNN bought by the same shit company that recently bought Slashdot?
Man, you managed to read that far into the article but not the next 2 paragraphs. I can't tell if you're being purposefully disenginous or if your attention span is that short... For the record, the next two paragraphs state:
The company says they are already in the midst of the process of updating their servers to SHA-2, but this blunder now puts some of its users in danger of not having their payments go through.
Internally, Mozilla has agreed to allow Symantec to issue these certificates under two conditions: the entire process should be transparent, and that the certificates should expire after only 90 days.
First, why are they only "in the midst of updating" after the deadline has already has passed? This should have been done already. This goes back to my original point -- their attitude was not "hey we need to upgrade before Jan1". It was "we just need to hurry up and get some new certs before Jan 1 and then we can fuck off and do nothing for another year".
Second, what do you think is REALLY going to happen in 90 days?
Well, at least Mozilla never promised that they wouldn't completely fuck up Firefox and render it irrelevant.
Once again we are reminded of the truly sad state of business security.
From TFA:
A company representative has informed Mozilla that one of its clients, Worldpay PLC, has asked for nine new SHA-1 certificates. Symantec explains that Worlpay has forgot to ask for nine new SHA-1 certificates for some of its servers that process SSL/TLS communications for over 10,000 payment terminals across the world. Worldpay blames this situation on a communications mishap. They say that someone forgot to ask for these certificates before the January 1 deadline.
The purpose of the January 1 deadline was supposed to be "Hey, your shit is not secure, you need to change to something else". It was NOT intended as "Hurry up and get all your shitty insecure SHA-1 certificates right away before we stop giving them out on Jan 1".