Microsoft stunts

[DomainK]

In a very interesting study results conducted by NSS labs, it has been discovered that IE8 gives the best protection against malware while browsing. Here is a copy of the report: http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/NSS%20Labs%20Browser%20Security%20-%20Socially%20Engineered%20Malware%20Q3%202009.pdf And that IE also gives the best protection against Phishing attacks. Here is a copy of the report: http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/NSS%20Labs%20Browser%20Security%20-%20Phishing%20Q3%202009.pdf Both reports show that IE8 is miles ahead of FF, Chrome and Safari when it comes to protection against malware and phishing attacks. Similar reports had been produced in the past for IE7 as well. Now the interesting question: In the recent Turkish hacker attack, when malware was planted on the hacked websites, FF and Chrome gave the best security where IE simply downloaded the malware without even asking for user permission. How did that happen? Here is something that the report does not say: 1. The study was sponsored my Microsoft. 2. The criteria for testing was how MS defines malware. In clearer words, MS created certain malware and the study tested the browsers for those particular malware. How convenient. Stop playing with us, MS.

[Sachinism]

everyone knows FF pwns IE

[Lord]

n Opera pwns all even according to the report.

[Ram]

Not surprising news at all. Whenever you see one of the ‘reports’ coming out, comparing two products or hailing the merits of drinking tea or eating eggs or using this medicine, you can be rest assured that 90% of the time, the study was funded by a organization that had a vested interest in the outcome of the report. The staggering thing about all this is, it is now pretty evident that most of these people who come up with these reports have no effin clue of what they’re talking about (I don’t want to generalize, but I can definitely speak for these economic predictions..), but are completely oblivious to the fact that there corporations and other organizations out there that make multi-billion investment decisions based on these ‘findings’. For example, when Goldman Sachs came out with this now famous reports a couple of years ago ( it was co-authored by an Indian named Roopa Purushottam, a 20 something Ivy league MBA grad who has since quit Goldman and joined another company to head it) that said that in 20 years time, Brazil, Russia, India and China will be among the pre-eminent economies of the world, what they very well know is that there some big-shot CEO of some big-buck company out there who will base his investment strategy on this. Billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake. But who can trust anything that Goldman says? In Aug of 2007, when oil was at $140/barrel, they predicted that it would touch $200/barrel in 2009, only to see it plummet to $32/barrel.

[Mr. Wicket]

But who can trust anything that Goldman says? In Aug of 2007' date=' when oil was at $140/barrel, they predicted that it would touch $200/barrel in 2009, only to see it plummet to $32/barrel.[/quote'] Given the momentum and rampant oil speculation, it wasn't that stupid a prediction then.

[Ram]

Given the momentum and rampant oil speculation' date=' it wasn't that stupid a prediction then.[/quote'] Oh trust me it was stupid. In fact it was downright horrible. Its part of your job as the author of the report to see beyond what is obvious and understand the real the reasons for that manic price-rise, hence coming to a conclusion that those driving factors could not have lasted forever. There were other analysts out there who were predicting that the prices will fall. How did that happen? And guess what? They did it again this year too. Earlier this year, when the price of oil was hovering around $45/barrel, they predicted that it will end up at $30/barrel by the end of this year (I am quoting figures from memory, so don’t be surprised if the actual numbers differ by +(or) – $5/barrel) Now, the price is upwards of $70/barrel and rising all the time. :haha: If anything, I wouldn’t surprised at all if the price of oil ends around $85/barrel, especially if the US shows neutral or marginally positive GDP growth rate for the 3rd quarter. :haha: Another case of rampant speculation and volatile market making predictions tougher? Could be. But my guess is that there was ridiculous business logic that went in behind these ‘predictions’

[Lurker]

everyone knows FF pwns IE

For personal use Yes but for official use hard to look beyond IE. Most of the applications that I typically build/use run into problems with FF or Chrome. As an end user I would like to see different options but for now IE is way ahead when it comes to use for professional reasons.

[Sachinism]

^^ Yeh, why is that? How comes Firefox can't provide a platform for all applications or do people create the applications to run on IE and forget about the rest?

[DomainK]

For personal use Yes but for official use hard to look beyond IE. Most of the applications that I typically build/use run into problems with FF or Chrome. As an end user I would like to see different options but for now IE is way ahead when it comes to use for professional reasons.

No way Lurker. Unless you are developing applications using MS technology that decides to be singularly compatible with IE and none else. What app are you talking about BTW?

[triam]

No way Lurker. Unless you are developing applications using MS technology that decides to be singularly compatible with IE and none else. What app are you talking about BTW?

Agree with Lurker, most corporations use standard IE browsers, and they dont want to spend anything extra to make applications cross browser compatible.

[triam]

In a very interesting study results conducted by NSS labs, it has been discovered that IE8 gives the best protection against malware while browsing. Here is a copy of the report: http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/NSS%20Labs%20Browser%20Security%20-%20Socially%20Engineered%20Malware%20Q3%202009.pdf And that IE also gives the best protection against Phishing attacks. Here is a copy of the report: http://nsslabs.com/test-reports/NSS%20Labs%20Browser%20Security%20-%20Phishing%20Q3%202009.pdf Both reports show that IE8 is miles ahead of FF, Chrome and Safari when it comes to protection against malware and phishing attacks. Similar reports had been produced in the past for IE7 as well. Now the interesting question: In the recent Turkish hacker attack, when malware was planted on the hacked websites, FF and Chrome gave the best security where IE simply downloaded the malware without even asking for user permission. How did that happen? Here is something that the report does not say: 1. The study was sponsored my Microsoft. 2. The criteria for testing was how MS defines malware. In clearer words, MS created certain malware and the study tested the browsers for those particular malware. How convenient. Stop playing with us, MS.

Every company worth its dime plays this game, thats why an entity called Gartner exists.

[Lurker]

No way Lurker. Unless you are developing applications using MS technology that decides to be singularly compatible with IE and none else. What app are you talking about BTW?

Most DW applications really. I am test riding this new software from Business Objects for deploying at client site and run into issues with FF. 90% user base is IE and it works all good. 10% user base is FF and anytime they login I see memory issue.

[punjabi_khota]

Not surprising news at all. Whenever you see one of the ‘reports’ coming out, comparing two products or hailing the merits of drinking tea or eating eggs or using this medicine, you can be rest assured that 90% of the time, the study was funded by a organization that had a vested interest in the outcome of the report. The staggering thing about all this is, it is now pretty evident that most of these people who come up with these reports have no effin clue of what they’re talking about (I don’t want to generalize, but I can definitely speak for these economic predictions..), but are completely oblivious to the fact that there corporations and other organizations out there that make multi-billion investment decisions based on these ‘findings’. For example, when Goldman Sachs came out with this now famous reports a couple of years ago ( it was co-authored by an Indian named Roopa Purushottam, a 20 something Ivy league MBA grad who has since quit Goldman and joined another company to head it) that said that in 20 years time, Brazil, Russia, India and China will be among the pre-eminent economies of the world, what they very well know is that there some big-shot CEO of some big-buck company out there who will base his investment strategy on this. Billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs are at stake. But who can trust anything that Goldman says? In Aug of 2007, when oil was at $140/barrel, they predicted that it would touch $200/barrel in 2009, only to see it plummet to $32/barrel.

So you know how unreliable these findings are, and you think those companies who are going to invest don't know this ? Every company worth its salt has a in house finance team, which has the responsibility to look deeply into all the data and make decisions. People get predictions wrong all the time, since economic forecasting isn't exact science. Some of the smartest brains on planet work for Goldman Sachs (ever seen their recruitment process.. ? Most people **** in their pants when they go for the all day long interview). And whether they have vested interests in mind when they make predictions, that is up for speculation.

[DomainK]

So you know how unreliable these findings are, and you think those companies who are going to invest don't know this ? Every company worth its salt has a in house finance team, which has the responsibility to look deeply into all the data and make decisions. People get predictions wrong all the time, since economic forecasting isn't exact science. Some of the smartest brains on planet work for Goldman Sachs (ever seen their recruitment process.. ? Most people **** in their pants when they go for the all day long interview). And whether they have vested interests in mind when they make predictions, that is up for speculation.

That's right. Those who invest that much usually have a very strong research team that do the job for them.

[triam]

That's right. Those who invest that much usually have a very strong research team that do the job for them.

Not only that, they have far superior technological help too.

It is called high-frequency trading — and it is suddenly one of the most talked-about and mysterious forces in the markets. Powerful computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else’s expense.

[Ram]

Some of the medical reports/findings that come out can be particularly pointless. A little while ago, there was an article on the BBC health section that talked about how ‘Optimistic women live longer’. I am assuming the article was for a women audience. Lets say I was a women and read that article, what am I supposed to do with the information? Just say to myself ‘A’right from tomorrow onwards I am going to more optimistic than ever and hence live longer. Life couldn’t get any better…’?! Why do they spend so much money on these utterly useless studies? Saying optimistic women live longer is like saying ‘If you have lots of money, you can buy whatever you want.’ We already know that Captain Obvious, tell us something we don’t know or something we can use to improve ourselves. If the article talked about 10 ways for women to improve their morale and attitude, sure that may be of some help to someone, but to just say ‘Optimistic women live longer’ is such a waste of everyone’s time.

[Ram]

So you know how unreliable these findings are, and you think those companies who are going to invest don't know this ? Every company worth its salt has a in house finance team, which has the responsibility to look deeply into all the data and make decisions. People get predictions wrong all the time, since economic forecasting isn't exact science. Some of the smartest brains on planet work for Goldman Sachs (ever seen their recruitment process.. ? Most people **** in their pants when they go for the all day long interview). And whether they have vested interests in mind when they make predictions, that is up for speculation.

Not every company in the world has its own in-house research team.. Sure, if you're a multi-billion dollar conglomerate like GE or Siemens, you’d do all the ground work yourself. But what if you’re a medium sized Corporation with an annual revenue or $25-$100 million/year. Most of those companies rely on these reports to formulate their investment strategies, especially abroad.

[Rajiv]

Safari - pawns both now - what speeds

[DomainK]

Safari - pawns both now - what speeds

Don't behave like a Shoiab Akhtar fan......speed is not everything.