Do they use the name Mozilla, which is trademarked?
Why yes they do. Then they do have some affiliation with Mozilla.
Oops, missed that fine little point didn't we.
In addition, this site has been hacke before. In light of such events, it would be in the interest of the Mozilla foundation to exercise some oversight and make sure their name isn't being sullied.
But, you never bothered to think it through that far did you?
"Yet no where does the article attempt to explain why some might want to curb it."
Well, I believe you answered your own question.
The people you speak of are "oppressive and uninformed"
"This is an opinion that this article seemed to prefer to mock"
It should be mocked. The people who attempt to limit cursing are doing EXACTLY the same thing a those who curse, that is, they are trying to change the conversation in a way that benefits them, and makes them comfortable.
When I was a kid, during a ride home we stopped at a toll that didn't work. My dad railed about the "stupid bastards" that designed it.
We got home, where the elevator to our apartment didn't work. When I mentioned the "stupid bastards" that designed it, that didn't go over well at all.
In retrospect, it's not even a curse word. God sometimes parents are stupid.
"I just don't like it when someone tries to point out a flaw in an anti-OSS article, and people jump up and scream "fanboy"."
All due respect, failing to adress criticism and responding with irrelevant arguments is the definition of "fanboy."
The article brought up real issues, and the first post was a screed about the flaws of IE.
Look at it again. Is there any plce in the first post that admits there are flaws in Mozilla? Is there any line that describes ratioanl responses to such problems?
"I could go on, but I think it goes without saying that at best this "report" uses extremely flawed logic to draw its conclusions,"
How so? They use a standard that is easily understood, and applied.
Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean their evaluation is incorrect. Hell you bring up this point
"Assuming customer choice is important, a customer can elect to not use Firefox and remove it from their system. Can the customer remove IE? Can the customer even elect to not use IE, or does the OS still force them to use IE for some tasks?"
What does that have to do with browser security?
Whenever I see a post trying to discuss weaknesses in open source products, I KNOW a fanboy screed will be the first post. EVERY TIME.
And just so you know, I use Firefox exclusively, and I hate IE. With the news about opera, I'm going to try that later today. So no, I'm no apologist for MS.
I'm just tired of people refusing to have a reasonable discussion about OSS security without incorrect, invalid, irrelevant comparisons to MS.
Reminds me of a quote
"Winners compare their performance to their goals, loser compare their performance to other's performance"
Mozilla isn't secure enough yet. That's the story. The rest is just excuses.
"A forward thinker with some goals to run this goddamn outfit. You know, someone who can say yeah. "It'd probably be a good idea to have a Base Station in outerspace where we could easily launch missions from instead of having to worry about earths atmosphere and large gravitational pull. Ok, lets do it"."
At which point a person not enamored with the idea of a base on the moon would reply "I'm so glad we only have to worry about the atmosphere and gravity EVERY F-ING TIME WE SEND SUPPLIES." Stuff still has to get there so we can launch it into space. (and please don't try to tell me we'll manufacture it on the moon. That will work for simple substances, but a satellite? Riiiiight)
I'd love a moon base, but let's not overlook the problems having one would create, especially in an attempt to discredit current alternatives.
I don't think there's anywhere in the universe to "easily launch missions from." You're just trading one set of problems for another.
"The funding of the space program continues to be less and less each year (adjusted for inflation)."
You said that.
"Griffin (as in head of NASA) said the agency has received a steady flow of funding that when adjusted for inflation is comparable to the funding the agency had when it first sent astronauts to the moon during the Apollo program of the 1960s and early 1970s."
That was from SPACE.com.
Well, which is it? I know who I believe. (hint: not you)
Slashdot Mirror
Do they use the name Mozilla, which is trademarked?
Why yes they do. Then they do have some affiliation with Mozilla.
Oops, missed that fine little point didn't we.
In addition, this site has been hacke before. In light of such events, it would be in the interest of the Mozilla foundation to exercise some oversight and make sure their name isn't being sullied.
But, you never bothered to think it through that far did you?
I heard that white people belw up the levies in New Orleans, so the black people would get flooded and the white neighborhoods would remain safe.
OH WAIT!!! That was stupid conspiracy crap too...
"So as you see it has nothing to do with the Mozilla foundation"
They have the trademark, which they "police" somewhat in order to maintain its integrity.
So, as you see, you are wrong.
By the way if this story had "Microsoft" instead of Mozilla, I'd be modded +1000 Ubergeek.
Hypocrites.
"It has nothing to do with Mozilla's browser"
It was released in a binary for MOZILLA'S BROWSER. Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but doesn't that mean it has SOMETHING to do with Mozilla?
PS
Arguing by analogy is for idiots.
One of the reasons that people supported Linus trademarking Linux was to prevent other people from releasing buggy code.
How is this different?
"Mozilla hits back at browser security claim"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
"There's nothing wrong with holding yourself to a high standard of conduct"
According to this research there is.
You wouldn't call refusing to breathe "holding yourself to a high standard of conduct", so why do you classify refusing to curse that way.
In fact, your post betrays your feelings on the subject, namely that you think people who don't curse are superior ("better" instead of "different").
"Yet no where does the article attempt to explain why some might want to curb it."
Well, I believe you answered your own question.
The people you speak of are "oppressive and uninformed"
"This is an opinion that this article seemed to prefer to mock"
It should be mocked. The people who attempt to limit cursing are doing EXACTLY the same thing a those who curse, that is, they are trying to change the conversation in a way that benefits them, and makes them comfortable.
Your post brought up a pretty interesting memory.
When I was a kid, during a ride home we stopped at a toll that didn't work. My dad railed about the "stupid bastards" that designed it.
We got home, where the elevator to our apartment didn't work. When I mentioned the "stupid bastards" that designed it, that didn't go over well at all.
In retrospect, it's not even a curse word. God sometimes parents are stupid.
When I was in high school, I asked my teacher what the German word for "ass" was. He told me it was "po".
Later, during one of my world history classes, we started discussing Poland. I had a really hard time explaining why I cracked up in class.
Is "po" really slang for "ass" in German, by the way? I never checked, it seemed to good to be true.
Twat.
I love to say it, it's just nice on the tongue...
There are some things to consider here.
It is now, and will remain for some time, FAR easier to simply gain access to the computers storing hotel data. A smart thief would get it that way.
"But if you were unaware that an unencrypted credit card number also was part of the card you may think nothing of it."
THIS is the only relevant point I've heard on this subject by anyone. If you don't know, then you might get in trouble.
This is a non issue, let's be honest about it.
No, actually this is what I meant
"I never have returned it."
EVERYTHING else is irrelevant. If you don't have ot return it (and you've already admitted to not doing so) then this is a non issue.
The ONLY reason this would be an issue is if you were compelled to return the cards.
If you keep them then destroy them, the "my data might get stolen" argument is mooted.
"I just don't like it when someone tries to point out a flaw in an anti-OSS article, and people jump up and scream "fanboy"."
All due respect, failing to adress criticism and responding with irrelevant arguments is the definition of "fanboy."
The article brought up real issues, and the first post was a screed about the flaws of IE.
Look at it again. Is there any plce in the first post that admits there are flaws in Mozilla? Is there any line that describes ratioanl responses to such problems?
NO. So tell me again how he's not a fanboy?
"I can't remember which ones they were but I never have returned it." And there's the point. The rest doesn't matter.
Why would they want to "exploit" this. Anyone with access to the keycards would also have access to the computers the info is on.
Far easier to simply print it out than to jump through hoops with a card reader.
"No, he's complaining because a lot of hotels tell their guests to RETURN the card to them when they leave."
Really? Name some, then tell me why you can't insist they destroy the cards, or destroy them yourselves.
I've traveled a lot, and NEVER returned the card. Not once. I have also NEVER been told to return the cards. YMMV.
No, I was right, he's making up crap to complain about.
"Taking that into consideration, Mozilla browsers seem a bit more secure than IE"
No, I didn't but you sure missed my point.
This isn't a pissing contest. I DON'T CARE about IE, I only care that I use a secure browser.
Comparing them to each other is fine, but when it comes at the expense of reasonable discussion of REAL security issues, that's too much.
That something he keeps in his wallet with his driver's license and credit cards has his personal info and credit card number on it?
C-R-Y-B-A-B-Y.
People just love to invent stuff to complain about.
"We put it on a rocket and release it, how is that a problem?"
Which we can do with virtually every type of mission we have now. So what's the use of a moon base then?
Right.
"People like you are whats wrong with NASA. We need to get people with your mentality OUT of the place."
Nothing like an ad hominem from an AC. Spicy!
You mean the graph that shows NASA's current budget at aroun 3.2%, while in 169 it was 3.3%? THAT graph?
Damn man, read your own link, (or learn to read a graph) before you stick your foot in your mouth.
I nominate you for the "posted a link to prove someone wrong, but looked like an ass myself award."
The good news is you won't win, because 100 other people will do the same thing this week.
"I could go on, but I think it goes without saying that at best this "report" uses extremely flawed logic to draw its conclusions,"
How so? They use a standard that is easily understood, and applied.
Just because YOU don't like it, doesn't mean their evaluation is incorrect. Hell you bring up this point
"Assuming customer choice is important, a customer can elect to not use Firefox and remove it from their system. Can the customer remove IE? Can the customer even elect to not use IE, or does the OS still force them to use IE for some tasks?"
What does that have to do with browser security?
Whenever I see a post trying to discuss weaknesses in open source products, I KNOW a fanboy screed will be the first post. EVERY TIME.
And just so you know, I use Firefox exclusively, and I hate IE. With the news about opera, I'm going to try that later today. So no, I'm no apologist for MS.
I'm just tired of people refusing to have a reasonable discussion about OSS security without incorrect, invalid, irrelevant comparisons to MS.
Reminds me of a quote
"Winners compare their performance to their goals, loser compare their performance to other's performance"
Mozilla isn't secure enough yet. That's the story. The rest is just excuses.
"A forward thinker with some goals to run this goddamn outfit. You know, someone who can say yeah. "It'd probably be a good idea to have a Base Station in outerspace where we could easily launch missions from instead of having to worry about earths atmosphere and large gravitational pull. Ok, lets do it"."
At which point a person not enamored with the idea of a base on the moon would reply "I'm so glad we only have to worry about the atmosphere and gravity EVERY F-ING TIME WE SEND SUPPLIES." Stuff still has to get there so we can launch it into space. (and please don't try to tell me we'll manufacture it on the moon. That will work for simple substances, but a satellite? Riiiiight)
I'd love a moon base, but let's not overlook the problems having one would create, especially in an attempt to discredit current alternatives.
I don't think there's anywhere in the universe to "easily launch missions from." You're just trading one set of problems for another.
"The funding of the space program continues to be less and less each year (adjusted for inflation)."
You said that.
"Griffin (as in head of NASA) said the agency has received a steady flow of funding that when adjusted for inflation is comparable to the funding the agency had when it first sent astronauts to the moon during the Apollo program of the 1960s and early 1970s."
That was from SPACE.com.
Well, which is it? I know who I believe. (hint: not you)