There are a lot of factors why the cinemas and the film makers are having a hard time. First is the experience in the theater itself:

• The movies used to be a reasonably affordable night out for the family. It no longer is. High ticket prices and even higher snack prices easily drive a night out for a family of 4 to $60 - $80 or more. For a movie? Less expensive matinees at least get into the realm of reasonableness.
• The experience inside the theater is usually less than pleasant. The move starts 20 minutes after they say it will to bombard you with add. Many folks, all of which think they are the center of the universe, talk or text on their phones during the movie, ruining the experience. Again, matinees help since there are usually fewer people, but still.

Second is the home entertainment experience.

• It's more and more common place for people to have large, flat screens in their house. It's not a cinematic experience, but it's close enough that it outweighs the aggravation of the theater.
• It used to take a year or more for movies to finally hit the movie channels and then to DVD. Now they're available in a few months on the movie channels or NetFlix or other provider. Heck, you can reserve movies on NetFlix while they're still in the theater. And you KNOW that summer blockbuster (or stinker) will be readily available in time for your Holiday shopping. You wait, at most, a few months before you can see anyway.

What has evaporated is the incentive to actually see it in the theater. The experience.

No My Problem.

This is new? Back in 1991, they used this technique to figure out what breaks the Ex-Presidents surf.

This isn't really a code signing certificate, this is just a Chrome thing.

What you're referring to is a certificate that a company pays hundreds or thousands of dollars for and gets from a company like Verisign (are they still in business?). This certificate needs to be treated with utmost care because anyone that gets it can sign an executable or other application saying that it came from a specific company.

These certificates should NOT be used to sign Chrome extensions, because in the Chrome world you can only sign one extension for each certificate because the unique ID is based on a hash of the certificate.

Firefox supports using these certificates to sign add-ons. That's why sometimes when you install Firefox add-ons, you see a company name in the install dialog.

To add to what Anonymous posted below, what Google has essentially done is blacklisted the ID associated with that key.

They want to be proactive and make sure noone else uses that key because any time a Chrome extension signed with that key is installed, it would always overwrite Yahoo Axis.

Chrome keys are used to generate unique IDs for their extensions one key == one ID.

They also blacklist IDs for things like malware.

Blacklisting extensions is done by Mozilla as well based on IDs, only the Firefox IDs are generated by the developer of the add-on.

I'm not sure everyone understands exactly what this file is.

When you create a Chrome extension, if you are not going to submit the Chrome extension to the store, you ask Chrome to package the extension. In this process, Chrome generates a private key. This key has nothing to do with identifying you as the author. It is only used so that you when you update the extension, you can package and sign it using the same key. Everyone has to keep a local copy of this key, because if you lose it, you can never update your extension. It appears Yahoo kept it in their build directory and accidentally packaged it.

Having this private key allows you to build a Chrome extension that when installed overlays the existing Yahoo extension. This is because the private key is how Chrome uniquely identifies an extension.

So yes, this was a dumb mistake. It would allow someone to create an add-on that when installed would overwrite the Yahoo Axis extension. To do this, you would need to create the extension and then convince someone to install it. But if you can convince someone to install it, you can convince them to install any Chrome extension.

This was not giving away "Yahoo's private key," it was giving away "the private key that Chrome generated to allow Yahoo to sign their extension."

There is the remote possibility that Yahoo used a real private key to sign their Chrome extension and not one generated by Chrome. If that's the case, everyone involved in the project should be fired.

The previous EWG was my effort and yes I believe it it failed because of a lack of interest by Mozilla.

The old information is here:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Old

And yeah, it is sad that the blog came down with the meeting notes.

It looks like the wayback machine caught my back though

http://web.archive.org/web/20080608175739/http://e2pt0.blogspot.com/2007/08/firefox-ewg-meeting-2.html

At least for some posts.

Actually I've built a CCK Wizard for Firefox. It's been around for a while. It doesn't do the installer, but it does a lot of the other stuff: https://addons.mozilla.org/firefox/addon/cck/

Not necessarily "bad" parenting, but certainly lazy parenting. It is completely the parent's responsibility to monitor what their children are doing. Blaming Apple for your kids running up your credit card is like blaming Glock when you shoot someone. It's YOUR responsibility. I have young child who has an iPod Touch and we set up an account for him with no credit card attached to it and only we know the password. If he wants to purchase anything he has to come to us, he pays us with his allowance and we purchase it for him. This serves several purposes:

• 1) It allows us to monitor what he's playing/using and veto power if we don't think the content is appropriate.
• 2) He learns the value of money, since he's spending his own.
• 3) There's interaction between us regarding this device, and he asks plenty of questions.

Can Apple (or other software vendors) do a better job with parental controls, ease of use and understanding of this technology? Of course, but it'll never be perfect and every kid and family is different. It's no different than any other product - if you don't understand it, feel it's dangerous or not appropriate, don't like the company's policies or history, etc. - you don't buy the product.

This "poor me, it's not MY fault" attitude just boils my blood.

YOU bought the product. YOU allow your kid to use it. It's YOUR responsibility.

It's not an electronic babysitter. It's a device that can be used for good or evil - there needs to be guidance.

Appropriate XKCD reference. This discussion is now over. There is nothing left to be said.

Totally agree.

The problem here is usually not new stuff, though. It's things like apps that someone wrote five years ago that noone has touch in years that still need to be maintained. Or third party applications that IBM purchased years ago and didn't buy updates so they are stuck. Or an app where the requirements were done five years ago and it's just now being deployed.

IBM has been battling internal groups trying to get them to support browsers other than IE for 5 years plus (believe me - I was there, and I was involved)

At some point you have to say "this is the future" and get groups to change. Simply sticking your head in the ground and saying "we're stuck on IE" is not a solution.

The internal apps need to be moved to open standards. That's the message the internal groups will be getting here.

Yes. and Yes.

You can hide it completely so it can't be uninstalled.

And you can install it in a central location on the machine.

Accessibility is also a huge issue. IBM has invested heavily into Firefox accessibility.

The deployment is a separate issue, but if you want to package and deploy a customized Firefox like IBM, you can use the CCK to do the customization:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/2553/

and then you can customize the Firefox installer:

http://kaply.com/weblog/2010/06/18/customizing-the-firefox-installer-on-windows/