If you're truly interested in whether or not Firefox is faster (rather then assuming) perhaps you could do a study of all reports from 2 years ago, how many were made, how many were ranked as very very serious, and how long until each was fixed. That would be much more useful and informative then this non-article (Symantec says Firefox is unsecure with facts and figures, Firefox comes back with refute with nothing but their word to back them up).
Or if you'd like to just keep spreading FUD, go on as you were.
So Microsoft keeping vulnerabilities quiet is a good thing too? Or is it only good when Mozilla does it?
I'll get modded down for this (I'm thinking -1 Troll), but this is pathetic. As long as a company isn't Microsoft it can do no wrong according to you people. You're a zealot.
Well done, you just restated the point made in THIS ARTICLE. It may have been a valid point if, you know, you had posted it in one of the previous stories on this subject.
Were you trying to make a point? Or just looking for mod points (as of posting this the parent is at +2 Insightful).
I had that same thought, but upon further consideration I decided against that reasoning.
Firefox being open-source does give the vendors more of a chance to find holes more easily. But it also gives the hackers that same chance. So yes, IE may have 1 million holes while Firefox has 1 thousand. Vendors find 25 holes in Firefox, and only find 13 holes in IE.
Hackers are just as likely to find more holes in Firefox, then they are in IE, despite the fact there's more in IE.
However this assumes hackers will spend as much time on the two browsers as the vendors did. It's quite possible the vendors spent equal time on the browsers, while the hackers are spending much more time on IE.
So the true number of security holes and the known number might be two quite different things. Who knows. I do know, though, that more viruses and spyware are being made for IE then they are for Firefox.
It does mean that given this particular moment, Firefox is more unsecure, however given their speedy patching time, in say one year, Firefox will be more secure. If you're after whose the most secure browser right at this particular second, then IE does appear to be the one. However if you care about long-term stability then Firefox is your browser.
Having said that, this is assuming Tristan Nitot isn't simply spreading FUD. I don't know how fast IE and Firefox do release their patches. I do know one thing, not as many people are taking advantage of Firefox's insecurities as are taking advantage of IE's. So at the moment, it's safer for me to use Firefox.
The problem isn't sending pirated discs, but pirating the disc for personal use and then sending the original back.
Me, I've attempted to use way too many pirated discs (it wasn't mine, it was given to me by friend(s) and I didn't realise until I started watching it). The quality has been so shit that I've given up. Sure there's ways to pirate stuff while keeping the quality, but I've been burned so many times (friend rents a DVD and burns it) that I've given up with all of it and now refuse to watch any pirated movies. If it's good enough to watch, it's good enough for me to spend some money on it.
The software isn't that good. I'm sure it's more sophisticated then the "Claire" AIM Bots, but I doubt very much it can offer "meaningful conversations." I can imagine initiating conversations, basically following it (if Japanese is much more rigid and not as colloquial as English then there is an advantage), but not able to offer anything more then standard responses (such as "really?" "I see" "that's good news" "that's bad news".
I'm sorry, but either the RIAA should stop actively profitting from p2p or they shouldn't be allowed to put people through courts and pressure their congressmen into creating laws to outlaw it.
The fact that they can profit from p2p while hassle their customers, to me, seems to be a perversion of the law and shouldn't be allowed.
So they design a shiny label saying "Jens of Sweden" (a retarded name if I ever saw one, and I'm a Swede) which they slap on a bunch of Korean players - is that really worth 30-40% higher price for you?
No, but supporting a company that upholds a person's ideals is a good reason to pay the extra 30-40% (and when we're talking earbuds, that 30-40% aint much).
Son of a bitch! What sort of asshole would do something that like? "Oh look, there's some people acting peacefully in a joint operation. Well I better fix their little red wagon! Haha! They'll surely worship me after this."
If there is a Christian god, he is a DICK! The only person whose more of a dick then him, is superman.
Will the "in case of fire please do not use the elevator, take the stairs" rule still apply? I think I'd just shoot myself rather then try to walk back down to Earth on a set of stairs (I don't have a very good head for heights).
Of course they're not going to tell you what it is, it's quite possible that they've either entered into a mutually beneficial agreement with Microsoft to keep this information under their hat, or they know it's nothing to be overly concerened with, but are trying to sell protection anyway, so they're making it out to be bigger then it is.
Whatever the reason (if it isn't both), they're profiting from people's fears and Windows's insecurities.
How could Microsoft have NOT noticed that there could be security issues with integrating their browser so closely with their OS?
Simply put, they don't care. They tied it in so it is impossible (for the average user) to remove. That benefit far outweighed any security issues, and still does outweigh the security issues. Microsoft will go on about how it's impossible to remove without breaking Windows, well but people have already done it and it works fairly okay (for people who haven't been able to see the Windows code that is).
So can we please get equal time share for *nix vulnerabilities
That doesn't make very much sense. It makes more sense to give time share based on the percentage of *nix users, also taking into account the amount of *nix vulnerabilities.
Given those 2 criteria I'd say you do get your allotted share of time.
provide a way to filter out vulnerability announcements for software we don't use?
Here's a tip, don't click on the link and post to complain about the article. Glance at it (or use an RSS feed to read the title) and move on. It takes a whole 5 seconds out of your life. I think you can survive.
Doesn't Microsoft demand you use IE to patch Windows? Sure you might make it a bit more secure by getting rid of IE, but you'll still need those updates (but I guess you can illegally download those off p2p, just have fun trying to avoid the viruses as well).
IE is unsecure, and it's insecurities are compounded by how much it is tied in with Windows.
Issuing patches is just playing catch-up in a game that Microsoft will never win. However addressing the fundamental problems (such as how much IE is tied into the operating system, not preinstalling every Windows installation with IE) IE's problems will always be larger.
News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
on
The Slurpee at 40
·
· Score: -1, Troll
This is hardly news for nerds, I know plenty of people that aren't nerds and they love slurpees. And it's hardly something that matters. It's been around for 40 years? Who cares. As long as the slurpee I'm drinking hasn't been around for 40 years, that's all I care about.
Slashdot yet again proving that it isn't a site for nerds that care about stuff that matters.
Slashdot Mirror
If you're truly interested in whether or not Firefox is faster (rather then assuming) perhaps you could do a study of all reports from 2 years ago, how many were made, how many were ranked as very very serious, and how long until each was fixed. That would be much more useful and informative then this non-article (Symantec says Firefox is unsecure with facts and figures, Firefox comes back with refute with nothing but their word to back them up).
Or if you'd like to just keep spreading FUD, go on as you were.
So Microsoft keeping vulnerabilities quiet is a good thing too? Or is it only good when Mozilla does it?
I'll get modded down for this (I'm thinking -1 Troll), but this is pathetic. As long as a company isn't Microsoft it can do no wrong according to you people. You're a zealot.
Well done, you just restated the point made in THIS ARTICLE. It may have been a valid point if, you know, you had posted it in one of the previous stories on this subject.
Were you trying to make a point? Or just looking for mod points (as of posting this the parent is at +2 Insightful).
I had that same thought, but upon further consideration I decided against that reasoning.
Firefox being open-source does give the vendors more of a chance to find holes more easily. But it also gives the hackers that same chance. So yes, IE may have 1 million holes while Firefox has 1 thousand. Vendors find 25 holes in Firefox, and only find 13 holes in IE.
Hackers are just as likely to find more holes in Firefox, then they are in IE, despite the fact there's more in IE.
However this assumes hackers will spend as much time on the two browsers as the vendors did. It's quite possible the vendors spent equal time on the browsers, while the hackers are spending much more time on IE.
So the true number of security holes and the known number might be two quite different things. Who knows. I do know, though, that more viruses and spyware are being made for IE then they are for Firefox.
It does mean that given this particular moment, Firefox is more unsecure, however given their speedy patching time, in say one year, Firefox will be more secure. If you're after whose the most secure browser right at this particular second, then IE does appear to be the one. However if you care about long-term stability then Firefox is your browser.
Having said that, this is assuming Tristan Nitot isn't simply spreading FUD. I don't know how fast IE and Firefox do release their patches. I do know one thing, not as many people are taking advantage of Firefox's insecurities as are taking advantage of IE's. So at the moment, it's safer for me to use Firefox.
The problem isn't sending pirated discs, but pirating the disc for personal use and then sending the original back.
Me, I've attempted to use way too many pirated discs (it wasn't mine, it was given to me by friend(s) and I didn't realise until I started watching it). The quality has been so shit that I've given up. Sure there's ways to pirate stuff while keeping the quality, but I've been burned so many times (friend rents a DVD and burns it) that I've given up with all of it and now refuse to watch any pirated movies. If it's good enough to watch, it's good enough for me to spend some money on it.
The software isn't that good. I'm sure it's more sophisticated then the "Claire" AIM Bots, but I doubt very much it can offer "meaningful conversations." I can imagine initiating conversations, basically following it (if Japanese is much more rigid and not as colloquial as English then there is an advantage), but not able to offer anything more then standard responses (such as "really?" "I see" "that's good news" "that's bad news".
I'm sorry, but either the RIAA should stop actively profitting from p2p or they shouldn't be allowed to put people through courts and pressure their congressmen into creating laws to outlaw it.
The fact that they can profit from p2p while hassle their customers, to me, seems to be a perversion of the law and shouldn't be allowed.
Is there some way we can rate the moderators? This moderator should be moved on to responsibilities other than moderating.
It's called metamoderating. And I was going for a +1 Funny, not a +2 Interesting. The mods must be on crack.
So they design a shiny label saying "Jens of Sweden" (a retarded name if I ever saw one, and I'm a Swede) which they slap on a bunch of Korean players - is that really worth 30-40% higher price for you?
No, but supporting a company that upholds a person's ideals is a good reason to pay the extra 30-40% (and when we're talking earbuds, that 30-40% aint much).
The last thing I want is a big website telling me where I can actually *find* this crap-ola.
Then perhaps this website isn't targetted towards you? (HINT: You're not the center of the internet).
As for disliking Flash, I make my comics in flash (exported to png) so it would be rather silly of me to keep it off my computer.
It is Australian slang for American...
It is? I've never heard it before.
Son of a bitch! What sort of asshole would do something that like? "Oh look, there's some people acting peacefully in a joint operation. Well I better fix their little red wagon! Haha! They'll surely worship me after this."
If there is a Christian god, he is a DICK! The only person whose more of a dick then him, is superman.
Will the "in case of fire please do not use the elevator, take the stairs" rule still apply? I think I'd just shoot myself rather then try to walk back down to Earth on a set of stairs (I don't have a very good head for heights).
I don't know why.
Because the government wants to keep control over what you're doing of course. I'd think that's rather obvious.
Is anyone trying to claim that by hiding them we'll never be hit by them?
Of course they're not going to tell you what it is, it's quite possible that they've either entered into a mutually beneficial agreement with Microsoft to keep this information under their hat, or they know it's nothing to be overly concerened with, but are trying to sell protection anyway, so they're making it out to be bigger then it is.
Whatever the reason (if it isn't both), they're profiting from people's fears and Windows's insecurities.
How could Microsoft have NOT noticed that there could be security issues with integrating their browser so closely with their OS?
Simply put, they don't care. They tied it in so it is impossible (for the average user) to remove. That benefit far outweighed any security issues, and still does outweigh the security issues. Microsoft will go on about how it's impossible to remove without breaking Windows, well but people have already done it and it works fairly okay (for people who haven't been able to see the Windows code that is).
There is no benefit for MICROSOFT to remove IE from Windows. Sure it will benefit it's users, but then they can't use software to check up on people as easily. When your a convicted monopolist and then been allowed to walk away unscathed, customer satisfaction isn't a very big priority. Neither's employee satisfaction apparently.
But then again, why address problems, When you can throw money at it to fund FUD.
So can we please get equal time share for *nix vulnerabilities
That doesn't make very much sense. It makes more sense to give time share based on the percentage of *nix users, also taking into account the amount of *nix vulnerabilities.
Given those 2 criteria I'd say you do get your allotted share of time.
provide a way to filter out vulnerability announcements for software we don't use?
Here's a tip, don't click on the link and post to complain about the article. Glance at it (or use an RSS feed to read the title) and move on. It takes a whole 5 seconds out of your life. I think you can survive.
This slashvertisement was brought to you by Coke. A soft drink it aint.
Doesn't Microsoft demand you use IE to patch Windows? Sure you might make it a bit more secure by getting rid of IE, but you'll still need those updates (but I guess you can illegally download those off p2p, just have fun trying to avoid the viruses as well).
At least according to slashdot anyway.
IE is unsecure, and it's insecurities are compounded by how much it is tied in with Windows.
Issuing patches is just playing catch-up in a game that Microsoft will never win. However addressing the fundamental problems (such as how much IE is tied into the operating system, not preinstalling every Windows installation with IE) IE's problems will always be larger.
This is hardly news for nerds, I know plenty of people that aren't nerds and they love slurpees. And it's hardly something that matters. It's been around for 40 years? Who cares. As long as the slurpee I'm drinking hasn't been around for 40 years, that's all I care about.
Slashdot yet again proving that it isn't a site for nerds that care about stuff that matters.
Are you using Firefox?
A misleading summary that allows the user to forward his anti-Wikipedia agenda? That's unpossible on slashdot!