What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
He sings, he strums, and he works at Best Buy. view!
youtube.com - Musician and Best Buy employee, Keith Parsons, rocks his Best Buy holiday campaign audition.
51 Comments
- Spinney, on 10/10/2007, -16/+126dugg just cause I like seeing ***** on the front page
- D3koy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+63Maybe a more realistic approach, may I suggest the following:
-As soon as ***** possible
-Within ***** reason
-We're Mozilla, it'll get ***** done
-Quit Bitching, It's on it's way
or
-We're still ***** working on it, you'll know when were finished goddammit... - NerveBand, on 10/10/2007, -3/+59At least Mozilla is doing PR control. No way can a company live up to a "10 ***** days" claim. Its just too unrealistic.
- acu8509, on 10/10/2007, -2/+50"Ten ***** Days" - the only two things to live up to that motto are drug tests and finding out if your girlfriend is pregnant.
- dirtyhand, on 10/10/2007, -3/+37SOMEONE GOT YELLED AT
- carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29i'd still bet they can roll out most patches in that time.
- SillyRabbits, on 10/10/2007, -3/+29Is it really that big of a deal for you? Are you 12?
- pictureDIGGER, on 10/10/2007, -3/+26It would be quite amazing if they met that goal. Maybe it is a PR stunt with a safety net.
- PRlME, on 10/10/2007, -4/+22they had to retract it cause if they go 8 seconds over the time they set some asswad would post a blog about it.
- Urusai, on 10/10/2007, -3/+20Balls retracted.
- squegie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16More likely he drugged a girl and now wants to know if she's pregnant or not. Or maybe he got drugged and now wants to know if he's pregnant.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Or make an asinine comment on digg about it.
- gabraham, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13The original "claim" was made in reference to security bugs, not minor inconveniences or feature requests in the Bugzilla tracker.
- Kwipper, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Geeez! All this because someone says the word "*****". It's good to know at least 50% of digg users are immature in the head. Now ***** digg me down for this... you *****.
- omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Digg should say the same about the comment system and picture section.
- mbthompson, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Did anyone read TFA?!
"When I asked him about it, he said he meant to communicate to Robert that since Mozilla got a recent security update out in only ten days, that there was no reason for Robert to post details of vulnerabilities publicly before a patch was available. Since we’re among the most responsive software vendors, security researchers do not have to resort to full disclosure to get us to patch bugs quickly."
In other words, Mike told Robert to stop being an ass and trying to look cool by using full disclosure on Firefox vulnerabilities as there was no need for such things. Hells bells folks, NOTHING WAS RETRACTED! They clarified, and in some ways re-emphasized what was said.
That being said...
buried for inaccuracy. - offput, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11For God's sake, they didn't "retract" anything being they never submitted it. The guy said it during black-hat hacking party. There was no press release, and it was never official policy. It was a joke that one hacker took too seriously.
- sammcj2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9It's not being retracted is it, its being clarified.
- omarciddo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Well, if they hadn't it *really* would've bit them in the ass later. Take the small hit now, avoid the large one later.
- TheCure, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Fact: Chuck Norris fears no one but if he did it would be Mike Shaver
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5wow sweet! So it WAS like a real milk-and-cookies slumber party, complete with ***** stories of things that never happened and things you'll never do.
I was wondering when and if there would be any backlash to this claim. - inveigle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I think mike shaver could've done it. They shouldn't have taken it back
- mbthompson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Gah, stupid comment edit system is broken. Just for those of you who might say "This is not our official policy" is a retraction, how can it be when Mike didn't "officially" say it in a news conference etc. If it was never officially said, there can be no official retraction.
- hockey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Judging from the fact that his comment currently sits at 90+ diggs he's apparently not the only one who's that young.
- cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3That doesn't happen. What are you talking about?
- cawpin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2While I agree, that's not actually the case. My wife works in the editorial department of a large newspaper. She has had to write a correction for something that she didn't actually say. It's just that stupid people took something completely the wrong way and they can't just let it go because they'd have to deal with letters and calls forever.
- Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3my 2 cents: mozilla does know that security is not their real strength (reactivity and no full disclosure is) so they doesn't want that kind of attention, too many people searching for security flaws will find some if not a lot, which would hurt firefox public image and expose marketing for what it is: marketing bs.
on the other hand having many people scrutinizing code for security flaws is exactly the way to go to secure a piece of software.
maybe mozilla is afraid they wouldn't have enough money from google to pay all the bounties from such scrutiny: http://www.mozilla.org/security/bug-bounty.html - OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Oh the controversy.
- sammcj2000, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3switch to opera for 1 day, get sick of the bloated interface and the lack of customization not to mention the bad UI and switch back to firefox ;)
- Fordi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Thing is, they *usually* meet that goal: 10 days or less after discovery of a bug, they usually have it covered.
Reading the article, it basically says, 'Well, we usually get security fixes done in a manner of days with responsible disclosure, but we can't *officially* promise it. You never know what's going to come up.' - Pritchard, on 10/10/2007, -0/+110 days seems pretty realistic for Mozilla, no matter their policy. The problem with saying that kind of thing is really when there's no stigma about it beforehand, and this sort of thing comes out of no where. You have to worry about the reaction from all of the developers helping Mozilla grow. I think they made the right move, but honestly, if everyone was okay with this kind of claim being made loosely by executives, they could pull it off.
- Wootery, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"it feels to me as if Mozilla is starting to blend into the corporation scene just like any other evil corporation"
Let me know when Mozilla start screwing people for money. - Izzie, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I switched to opera out of curiosity as several of my FF extensions had "same as in opera" in their description. I never looked back. Actually, at that time IMHO opera had almost all that FF lacks from useful features like mouse gestures to performance and security, of course YMMV.
- acomj, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1go to the address bar in in firefox and type:
about:mozilla
I'm glad they keep this in. - trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The "Firefox naming debacle on Debian" was completely hype, both Debian and Mozilla realized that while they were both justified in their positions those positions were incompatible. The only real animosity came from naive Digg users flaming each other.
- brad016, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Fact: When Chuck Norris jumps in the water, Chuck Norris doesn't get wet, the watter gets Chuck Norris.
- brad016, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Mozilla, Y did you have to retract that statement? It was like, showing your power with balls, I like that.
I feel good...in a special way, I'm in love and it a sunny day. Good Day Sunshine. - Yatti420, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Agreed.
- Antiproton, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Corporation paranoia isn't going to do you any good.
- benplaut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Good day sunshine!
Good day sunshine!
Good day sunshine!
I need to laugh
And when the sun is up
I've got something I can laugh about
I feel good... in a special way
I'm in love and it's a sunny day!
What a great song :) - DarnellTruluck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Half the work that is done in this world is to make things appear what they are not.
- MarkOfTheDead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1you live life doin that and well, you don't really just live life.
- Kahlnen, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1They probably just didn't want any more people TRYING to find holes in the security than necessary, moreso than a PR stunt.
If they didn't follow through on the 10 days, it could be a huge critical hole that would compromise all of our security, and the exploit would only gain more popularity through this whole fiasco, creating a problem that grows exponentially.
This is not to say they CAN'T, but rather they most likely don't want to take the risk. - PatrickTulskie, on 06/04/2008, -1/+0Chuck Norris is one of the lead developers for Mozilla. They had to back off on the 10 day claim incase Chuck decides to go on vacation.
- uknowwhoibe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Think of what people said about Google...back in the day...look what they tout now!
- xevidentx, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3use firefox for 10 days, switch to opera
- renegadeafk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2*****.
- CaptainHarlock, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Almost looked like they were going to rename their group "*****".
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -16/+6Especially when you've got a 5 year old backlog of bugs to fix.
- suxmonkey, on 10/10/2007, -19/+4I thought this was an announcement for the new "28 ***** Days Later" movie :S
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is