See my other comment below. We discovered a problem and we're trying to get it fixed now. After the block is fixed, you should be able to re-enable the blocked plugin.

Quick update: it looks like something broke in the blocklist after the block was put in place, so many users are seeing a hardblock and not a softblock. We're working on fixing this now.

I'm talking from experience - I work for Mozilla and was partly in charge of the block. Unless you're using a Firefox version older than 3.5, you should see a checkbox next to the plugin name in that window you just mentioned. Unchecking it should prevent the plugin from being disabled.

Apple released a Java update today, so everybody should be checking Software Update now, before we block on Mac.

Yes. Unfortunately there's no alternative, so we must favor warning users. We haven't added the Mac OS X block yet, but we will probably do so soon. Like the Windows block, though, users, will have the option to keep the vulnerable plugin enabled.

Plugin blocks apply to all versions of Firefox and they don't require you to update it. Firefox downloads the blocklist regularly to see if there are new add-ons or graphics drivers that need blocking.

It's not an all or nothing deal. You are free to ignore the block and continue using the vulnerable versions of the plugin.

That is almost exactly what we did. You get a warning with the option to ignore it and continuing like nothing happened.

This is a softblock, meaning that you can ignore it if you want to or need to.

Have you reported this bug on Bugzilla? And do you have any themes enabled? I wonder if the blue color comes from a theme or window transparency.

I'm only pointing out that the methodology you're using in that specific comparison is flawed. I'm not even saying you're wrong (I don't know if you are).

I'm not making up excuses, I'm actually trying to help you come up with more compelling arguments.

You can spare us the list/rant. I know I've read it many times before.

He never said only Christians. The GP would probably agree that this applies to most if not all religions.

Comparing crashes this way isn't quite fair. Firefox interacts with other software (plugins, extensions, injected DLLs) and it is likely that a new release will cause more crashes that a release that has been out for 6 weeks already because the developers of this software haven't tested or updated it to work in the new version. One would need to compare the current crash rate in 11 vs. the crash rate in 10 at the same point in the release cycle to come up with meaningful numbers.

That's not true. The profile manager is still part of Firefox. There are plans to remove it once a suitable replacement is created, but that hasn't happened yet.

I think many Slashdotters should get that reference, though the lack of replies is a little disconcerting :).