It's not my cash cow. And look up the definition of market saturation. PC market has been saturated for a long time. It has no reason to grow. Whereas mobile market was non-existent a few years ago. It has every reason to see growth.
Bruce saying that "Passwords have reached end of life and are for lower-security applications only" is just plain stupid.
Maybe if he said passwords to online services, then I might agree. But a good offline password is still one of the highest-security measures there are.
it can't be obtained via coercion or torture â" i.e. rubber-hose cryptanalysis
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to see how that could be true. How could you NOT be forced to play the authentication "game" by torture or coercion? wtf?
one of its broad strategic goals is to expand its base of editors
You must be joking. Several times in the past people tried to change the tagline shown below each article tag from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"
And each time the attempt failed when some group of assholes with hidden agenda reverted or opposed the change. They actually do NOT want people to know everyone can edit it. That's the whole truth.
The page load time tests are the same eight pages in our startup time tests: Google, YouTube, Yahoo!, Amazon, Wikipedia, craigslist, eBay, and Wikipedia.
Before a knee jerk posts "I use NoScript -- I'm safe!"...
This doesn't mean that JavaScript is insecure. It just means there's an exploitable unpatched vulnerability in JS in some browser. The fact that this malware uses JavaScript + iframe doesn't mean JavaScript is inherently insecure or less secure than bare HTML.
And now the worst news of all for you: the HTML engine (or any other portion) of the browser can and often does contain exploitable unpatched vulnerabilities. So even if you disable JavaScript you can get infected.
The bottom, line the best way to protect yourself is honor the following three golder rules:
1. Keep your browser and OS updated with security fixes.
2. Don't visit suspicious websites and don't open suspicious email attachments.
3. Use a good antivirus that monitors your internet traffic.
Yep, that looked very promising, until I realized that most of the major websites today use dozens of domain names (not subdomains, but different 2nd-level domains) one a single site to speed things up.
For example, google.com uses gstatic.com, g4154605.com, or whatever-they-come-up-with-at-that-day.
Just like NoScript breaks the web for me, so does RequestPolicy. Both are unusuable. And this is not a flame, it is a reflection of reality.
Nothing is inherently more secure about Mac OS X than Windows. All software can have software vulnerabilities, including Mac OS X.
The old (but still true) fact is that Mac OS X has less malware because it is a smaller target (about 10% market share) than Windows for the bad guys to be cost effective.
I see a problem with StatCounter stats -- biased demography. StatCounter (in contrast to other players) is used predominantly by small to medium sites.
Now who is the most frequent visitor to a small or obscure site? The webmaster! They keep looking at their site many times every day.
Hence, most of the StatCounter stats are from the webmaster demography. I can assure you that webmasters are biased towards Google. That means that they are more likely to use Google browser.
If you use a stats source that is used only by the biggest players (a la microsoft.com), you will see totally different stats:
Before anyone yells [citation needed] at me, here's your proof straight from the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia):
Do you realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source that can be cited? You could have inserted the quoted text there. Next time try a primary or secondary source.
If you're too weak, then "trying to shape the reality" is essentially the same as "denying it". And believe me that Google Chrome and Firefox are too weak. H264 is not used by and on the web. It is primarily used by modern camcorders, PVRs, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
paywall seeking donations
Paywall by definition means REQUIRED payment (fee). In contrast, a donation is a VOLUNTARY payment (gift)
It's not my cash cow. And look up the definition of market saturation. PC market has been saturated for a long time. It has no reason to grow. Whereas mobile market was non-existent a few years ago. It has every reason to see growth.
And in the meantime, 95% of PCs in the world continue running Windows and software written for it...
Bruce saying that "Passwords have reached end of life and are for lower-security applications only" is just plain stupid.
Maybe if he said passwords to online services, then I might agree. But a good offline password is still one of the highest-security measures there are.
Seriously, if you feel sorry for me because of that, then I feel sorry for you, sir.
it can't be obtained via coercion or torture â" i.e. rubber-hose cryptanalysis
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I fail to see how that could be true. How could you NOT be forced to play the authentication "game" by torture or coercion? wtf?
one of its broad strategic goals is to expand its base of editors
You must be joking. Several times in the past people tried to change the tagline shown below each article tag from "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit"
And each time the attempt failed when some group of assholes with hidden agenda reverted or opposed the change. They actually do NOT want people to know everyone can edit it. That's the whole truth.
You cite completely unreasonable religious fanatics purchasing habits as a model for the PC? What a crazy man you must be, dude.
An attacker could take over a user's system if they are logged in as admin and they install a vulnerable gadget.
I always thought that if an attacker is logged in as admin, he owns the system already.
Why do they talk about a specific attack? There are zillions of them if you have admin rights.
The summary elegantly avoided the most important metric - Page Load Time. Ok, so let's see how we're doing there:
IE9 - fastest
Safari - 2nd
Chrome - 3rd
Firefox - 4th
Opera - 5th
The page load time tests are the same eight pages in our startup time tests: Google, YouTube, Yahoo!, Amazon, Wikipedia, craigslist, eBay, and Wikipedia.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-chrome-20-firefox-13-opera-12,3228-6.html
What I care about in a browser is (in order of importance) security, compatibility, reliability, speed.
I stopped examining RAM usage of any software since the time I bought 16GB of RAM for practically no money.
Even before, when I had "only" 4GB of RAM, I had swap file turned off for years and I haven't seen a single "Insufficient RAM" error.
No problem isn't solved. But believe whatever you want.
Before a knee jerk posts "I use NoScript -- I'm safe!"...
This doesn't mean that JavaScript is insecure. It just means there's an exploitable unpatched vulnerability in JS in some browser. The fact that this malware uses JavaScript + iframe doesn't mean JavaScript is inherently insecure or less secure than bare HTML.
And now the worst news of all for you: the HTML engine (or any other portion) of the browser can and often does contain exploitable unpatched vulnerabilities. So even if you disable JavaScript you can get infected.
The bottom, line the best way to protect yourself is honor the following three golder rules:
1. Keep your browser and OS updated with security fixes.
2. Don't visit suspicious websites and don't open suspicious email attachments.
3. Use a good antivirus that monitors your internet traffic.
Profit?
Yep, that looked very promising, until I realized that most of the major websites today use dozens of domain names (not subdomains, but different 2nd-level domains) one a single site to speed things up.
For example, google.com uses gstatic.com, g4154605.com, or whatever-they-come-up-with-at-that-day.
Just like NoScript breaks the web for me, so does RequestPolicy. Both are unusuable. And this is not a flame, it is a reflection of reality.
Even if you switch an ISP, 99% of your browsing will still be logged by third-party servers (most of which are in the US, if that matters to you).
Most sites today use iframes that send HTTP requests to the following:
Google Analytics
Google ads
Facebook
Twitter
etc.
Nothing is inherently more secure about Mac OS X than Windows. All software can have software vulnerabilities, including Mac OS X.
The old (but still true) fact is that Mac OS X has less malware because it is a smaller target (about 10% market share) than Windows for the bad guys to be cost effective.
I can imagine somebody was trying to address a number one concern of girls: It's not a sexy enough job! And I can't be sexy doing it, either.
Proper link that ought to have been in the summary instead of that csoonline link (whatever that is):
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/649219
Since when is sheer unsourced FUD posted by Anonymous Coward starting with "I think that" moderated +5?
Source? Remember: Vista Aero was introduced in RTM too.
Despite being promised a new, flat, Desktop/Explorer UI, Aero is still the default theme in Windows 8 RP
All right, only they didn't promise the new UI for pre-release versions. They explicitly said it will be in RTM.
I see a problem with StatCounter stats -- biased demography. StatCounter (in contrast to other players) is used predominantly by small to medium sites.
Now who is the most frequent visitor to a small or obscure site? The webmaster! They keep looking at their site many times every day.
Hence, most of the StatCounter stats are from the webmaster demography. I can assure you that webmasters are biased towards Google. That means that they are more likely to use Google browser.
If you use a stats source that is used only by the biggest players (a la microsoft.com), you will see totally different stats:
IE: 54.09%
Firefox: 20.20%
Chrome: 18.85%
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0&qpcustomd=0
Before anyone yells [citation needed] at me, here's your proof straight from the Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinavia):
Do you realize that Wikipedia is not a reliable source that can be cited? You could have inserted the quoted text there. Next time try a primary or secondary source.
If you're too weak, then "trying to shape the reality" is essentially the same as "denying it". And believe me that Google Chrome and Firefox are too weak. H264 is not used by and on the web. It is primarily used by modern camcorders, PVRs, etc.
Travel (as in free movement), yes. Flying, no.