<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: of all the stupid things</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/06/of_all_the_stupid_things.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/06/of_all_the_stupid_things.html</link>
	<description>defending our rights from the ramparts</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Feb 2012 19:20:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linoge</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/06/of_all_the_stupid_things.html#comment-2554</link>
		<dc:creator>Linoge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:58:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=1607#comment-2554</guid>
		<description>Well, speaking personally, I understand and appreciate the &quot;are you sure&quot; box, and I have actually left it active on my computer.  What I do &lt;em&gt;not&lt;/em&gt; get about that particular functionality is that it can sometimes &lt;em&gt;ask you twice&lt;/em&gt; about the same, exact button-push.  That just seems stupid, and does annoy me.
However, in this particular instance, changing the answer from &quot;yes&quot; to &quot;no&quot; in no way makes anything more secure.  Once people get used to the change, they will just keep checking the appropriate box by reflex, often not really thinking about it.  However, until that adaptation takes effect, they will be unnecessarily annoyed at a pointless change.  Now, instead of saying, &quot;Yes, I do want to see everything on this webpage,&quot; you are saying, &quot;No, I do want to see everything on this webpage.&quot;  It hardly makes sense, especially given that humans are more receptive to affirmation.
Hell, this falls right in line with M$&#039; stupdity when it comes to the new Office, what with the doing-away of drop-down menues and everything...  And that change served no purpose, whatsoever (apart from making Office more Mac-y, which I guess is important these days).
So, sure, by some stretch of the definition of &quot;secure&quot;, IE8 will be imperceptibly more secure until such time as people get back into the habit of pushing one button or the other... but something tells me that randomly scrambling interfaces is not a good long-term solution to balancing security and usability.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, speaking personally, I understand and appreciate the &#8220;are you sure&#8221; box, and I have actually left it active on my computer.  What I do <em>not</em> get about that particular functionality is that it can sometimes <em>ask you twice</em> about the same, exact button-push.  That just seems stupid, and does annoy me.<br />
However, in this particular instance, changing the answer from &#8220;yes&#8221; to &#8220;no&#8221; in no way makes anything more secure.  Once people get used to the change, they will just keep checking the appropriate box by reflex, often not really thinking about it.  However, until that adaptation takes effect, they will be unnecessarily annoyed at a pointless change.  Now, instead of saying, &#8220;Yes, I do want to see everything on this webpage,&#8221; you are saying, &#8220;No, I do want to see everything on this webpage.&#8221;  It hardly makes sense, especially given that humans are more receptive to affirmation.<br />
Hell, this falls right in line with M$&#8217; stupdity when it comes to the new Office, what with the doing-away of drop-down menues and everything&#8230;  And that change served no purpose, whatsoever (apart from making Office more Mac-y, which I guess is important these days).<br />
So, sure, by some stretch of the definition of &#8220;secure&#8221;, IE8 will be imperceptibly more secure until such time as people get back into the habit of pushing one button or the other&#8230; but something tells me that randomly scrambling interfaces is not a good long-term solution to balancing security and usability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dirtcrashr</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/06/of_all_the_stupid_things.html#comment-2553</link>
		<dc:creator>dirtcrashr</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:03:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=1607#comment-2553</guid>
		<description>Yay Firefox! :-)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yay Firefox! <img src='http://www.wallsofthecity.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sharp as a Marble</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/06/of_all_the_stupid_things.html#comment-2552</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharp as a Marble</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:37:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=1607#comment-2552</guid>
		<description>Quick answer - Software can be easy to use, or it can be secure. The easier to use, the less secure and vice versa.
Microsoft changed computers by making them very easy to use. Because of that, there were a lot of holes and they got (deservedly so) the reputation for being buggy and full of security holes.
They fixed a lot of those things. And then people started bitching up a storm that a popup box kept asking them if they were sure.
In this instance, the default action (which is generally people hitting &#039;Yes&#039; for everything), is now more secure.
They simply can&#039;t win ;)
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Quick answer &#8211; Software can be easy to use, or it can be secure. The easier to use, the less secure and vice versa.<br />
Microsoft changed computers by making them very easy to use. Because of that, there were a lot of holes and they got (deservedly so) the reputation for being buggy and full of security holes.<br />
They fixed a lot of those things. And then people started bitching up a storm that a popup box kept asking them if they were sure.<br />
In this instance, the default action (which is generally people hitting &#8216;Yes&#8217; for everything), is now more secure.<br />
They simply can&#8217;t win <img src='http://www.wallsofthecity.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Linoge</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/06/of_all_the_stupid_things.html#comment-2551</link>
		<dc:creator>Linoge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:59:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=1607#comment-2551</guid>
		<description>Yeah.  Bite me.  ;P
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah.  Bite me.  ;P</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kurt P</title>
		<link>http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2009/06/of_all_the_stupid_things.html#comment-2550</link>
		<dc:creator>Kurt P</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wallsofthecity.net/?p=1607#comment-2550</guid>
		<description>Silly little hoplophile...
Because it&#039;s &lt;i&gt;CHANGE&lt;/i&gt; and any change is good.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Silly little hoplophile&#8230;<br />
Because it&#8217;s <i>CHANGE</i> and any change is good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

