What an idiotic comment. Even more so, when coming from supposed professionals.

Unlike iE, Safari has followed web standards from day one. Unlike Microsoft, Apple didn't think that it was a good idea to integrate itself tightly into the OS, right down to the kernel, making it a shocking security nightmare.

Apple didn't have to throw out their entire software line and create a new browser from scratch cause they fucked the old one up so badly that it was irredeemable.

This kind of hyperbolic nonsense not only confuses the issue, it minimizes the damage that Microsoft caused, setting web development back by a good decade.

A friend is currently playing around with the latest alpha^H^H^H^H^H insider preview of Windows 10 (wow is that thing unstable...), and when he installed Chrome and tried to set it to default, a pop up appeared saying that you can only change the default application by going into the control panel and changing it explicitly.

I have to admit that this is a good thing. With so many applications hijacking file and URL associations, it's inevitable that the option needs to be removed from them.

Thinkpads used to be good, but after having been burned and/or frustrated by several recent Lenovo purchases, I'm loathe to buy from them again. Doesn't seem to matter what it is... servers... laptops... it seems that all their care about nowadays is that when you push the power button it turns on. Whether it works properly after that is a different question entirely.

If the original Thinkpads were released with the quality Lenovo puts out now, they would never have been heralded as the durable workhorse they had been.

I mean, really. Unless something has fundamentally changed in mathematics since I was in school, dividing a number by zero is *undefined*. It doesn't make sense.

If your code is generating divide by zero errors, then you are doing something wrong. Period.

If you are so lazy or intellectually bankrupt that you can't handle that, then you shouldn't be programming computers.

What about CompuServe integration?

That's why the grandparents post mentions audits that are defined by the insurance company. If the insurance companies believes that you've taken all reasonable precautions, then the buck stops there. As the insurance client, your responsibility is to meeting the insurers requirements. If something *still* goes bad, then the insurer gives you money.

How the insurer reclaims that money is a different question altogether, and is generally irrelevant to you as the client (with the obvious exception of raising your rates).

While I agree 100% with what you're saying, I think the problem lies in the fact that there is no consistent, *external* measure to indicate your security level, and that's where things fly off the rails.

There are things like SOX compliance (in the US, anyway), but that's more for auditibility than security. What is the minimum required aspects your infrastructure has to have to be able to say that you're considered reasonably "secure"? Encryption of all data stores using an officially recognised encryption scheme? All logins for all devices managed through kerberos? All communications between devices must be wrapped by SSL?

I don't know if there's an ISO standard or something that mandates these things, but it sounds to me that until there are some clear minimum requirements to indicate securedness, this all seems like nothing more like a license for insurance companies to print money on the backs of their clients.

One will *always* be able to give some hindsight response whenever a breach occurs... to the point where companies would have to lock themselves tighter than Fort Knox before they *might* be able to squeeze money out of their insurance provider.

The only way we're going to be able to drive wages into the ground while simultaneously getting/abusing the creme of the talent crop will be to flood the market with CS people. Doesn't matter if it's schools or immigration... just flood the damn market already!
--All Fortune 100 Tech Company CEOs.

Apparently he's from one of those bizarro twilight zone parallel universes where people actually read the article before they comment.

Plenty more to go. The single biggest one being, of course, only being able to use it with an iPhone. I mean, c'mon... at least give iPad support too!

Cortany?

Too bad you can't embed images in slashdot posts, otherwise this would be a great time to use the "The most evil thing I can imagine" meme. :)

I just need to point out something to all the people bitterly complaining about how IE "got better" and no longer deserves it's reputation:

It doesn't matter that IE is better now. It's too late.

Even by Microsoft's "it takes 3 tries to get it right" reputation, IE is still a failure. IE didn't get even remotely functional until, what, version 10? That's 9 major previous versions, spanning well over a decade, that IE was varying levels of shit. For over a decade, IE not only didn't support web standards, but actively broke them in an attempt to segregate and silo the web. And by the time it finally occurred to Microsoft that they were losing that war, the IE code base had become such a steaming craphole that it was unrecoverable. Not only the code base, but the IE brand.

Finally, all you people shouting, "But but but..." are clearly not web developers. If you were, you would realize how much of a mindblowing pain in the ass it is to make a website that supports IE. You essentially have to make one website for IE, and one website for everybody else. Who cares if IE11 finally has support standards that other browsers have supported for 5 years? That still leaves the IE10, IE9, etc users, most of whom don't even have the slightest concept of what version of IE they are using. And it is these people that will complain that you are lying and are dishonest because your website says it works with IE when it clearly doesn't.

There are only 2 rational solutions to this: Write off IE entirely and say you just don't support it, or you charge your clients triple what it would normally cost, to cover the cost of the additional aggravation. If you're lucky, the company will at least do testing to verify that the site will at least work on a relatively modern (ie: 9+) version without exploding horribly.

Microsoft is abandoning IE and releasing Edge because they have no other choice if they want to remain even the slightest bit relevant. IE has been a zombie for years now, just plodding along and waiting for someone to put it out of its misery.

I'm not sure what PC stuff you're talking about. The kid clearly has issues. Your comment is a completely unnecessary, and downright silly, attempt at taking a stab at the left.

That being said, based on current societal values (ie: What society actionably treats as acceptable, rather than what they *say* is acceptable) I think the only thing wrong is that he got caught. Had he succeeded, he would have made an excellent CEO.

All fair points. And also don't forget about the ridiculous bailout the Democrats gave Wall Street too. They should have been put in jail, not given a free ride.

It's really distressing. The choices are basically, do you want a lubricated glove (Democrats), or a chainsaw (Republicans). But you still need to bend over regardless.

Only reason I lean towards the Democrats, is that there is at least a theoretical chance that a good person may make it to the top, like Elizabeth Warren or that other guy that recently threw his hat in (I forget his name now...). With the Republicans, it's very clear they will do everything they can as quickly as they can, to make sure world burns and force their messiah to come down a toast gold-plated marshmallows on the world's charred remains.

I gave this reply to someone else. Here's a link so that you get the slashdot reply notification.

http://news.slashdot.org/comme...