thunderbird-38.4.0-1.fc22.x86_64

[g]

On 01/13/16 04:23, Tim wrote:
<<>>

> g:
>> *nix are as close as you will get for os.
> 
> What's that saying amongst NASA employees?
> "There's no problem that you cannot make worse."
>
i may be wrong, but i understood that NASA used microscratch, like too
many other federal gov departments. especially the navy. ;-)

>> moz software will never be because of attitude of hackers playing with
>> software there.
>
> That, in particular, is *the* modern problem.  Home computer hacking
> (malware, viruses, etc.), used to be mostly confined to those illegally
> copying and sharing discs, who you might say, "deserved it."  Though
> there was some peripheral damage, such as those nitwits bringing such
> discs to work and wrecking their boss' computer system.
>
most true.

a long time friend worked [now retired] at FedEx and made mistake of copying
a long email [text/html] to a 3.5" disk and to work and loaded it on his
office computer so he could read it. lest than 30 min, 4 IT and 3 security
badges where at his desk. seems that email had a worm that crawled his
system, and 6 more in his department and department server and was trying
to get into one of the main frames when it got caught.

he did not get fired because of his position, but he did get reamed rather
heavy.

after, a new policy was set. anyone caught loading outside material on
corporate system would be automatically terminated.

> Now, you're at risk just by looking at websites, not even attempting to
> do anything dodgy.  The browser is such a fundamental part of using a
> modern home computer, and probably the riskiest.  You have browsers
> coded by amateurs, there probably are some black hats amongst them, and
> they've consistently refused to make the browsers better at handling
> errors.  i.e. Such things as not rejecting malformed pages, and trying
> to make something out of the tag soup mess, regardless of the risks.
> Whereas if the browser had gone, "nup, can't read that," in the first
> place, the nincompoop making bad websites would have seen their errors
> as they went along.
>
too many web page builders, "builders" because they use drag and drop
page composers, are taking short courses in making web pages and have no
clue of what they are doing. they think that because it looks good on their
system, it will look good on every other system. light gray text on white
background proves it.

very few ms users have any idea of what w3c is and even fewer know how to
use info w3c reports.

> I find it difficult to browse many websites, these days.  I have the
> script blocking, ad blocking stuff, to protect my sanity, and to try and
> make browsing safer and more private.  But when you go to a website, you
> find you have to allow half a dozen scripts, and unrelated websites,
> just to get the damn page to render.
>
i run with NoScript, ABP, and Ghostery active, and cookies disabled. when
i hit a website that does not like such, i give much thought to whether i
want to allow site. if page is not too lost, i go with what is shown. if
if does not work, i open source to see if there is a lot of 3rd party links,
and i check such sites for black listing.

many of the rogue sites i have run across are poorly written and feeding
url to w3c is another way to find out about them.

>>> It's F*****d up world.
>
>> a 7 letter curse word starting with 'F' ?
>
> Must be deadly... ;-)
>
as a Tasmanian Devil during mating season. :-D


-- 
peace out.

If Bill Gates got a dime for every time Windows crashes...
 ...oh, wait. He does. THAT explains it!
-+-
in a world with out fences, who needs gates.

CentOS GNU/Linux 6.7

tc,hago.

g
.