Google phases out support for IE6

Google has drawn first blood.Let’s see what Micro Soft does in retaliation.
Story:
Google has begun to phase out support for Internet Explorer 6, the browser identified as the weak link in a cyber attack on the search engine.

The firm said from 1 March some of its services, such as Google Docs, would not work “properly” with the browser.

It recommended individuals and firms upgrade “as soon as possible”.

Google threatened to withdraw from the Chinese market following the “sophisticated and targeted” attacks, which it said originated in China.

Hackers used a flaw in Microsoft’s Internet Explorer (IE) browser to target the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists.

‘Key functionality’

Following Google’s revelations, the French and German governments advised their citizens to switch to a different browser until the hole had been closed.

Microsoft reacted by quickly updating the browser, nearly three weeks ahead of its regular security update.

However, Google has now said it is going to phase out support for the browser “starting with Google Docs and Google Sites”.

It said that as a result, some “key functionality” of the applications would not work when used with IE6.

Google Docs is the firm’s answer to products such as Microsoft Office, whilst Google Sites allows people to create web pages.

“The web has evolved in the last ten years, from simple text pages to rich, interactive applications including video and voice,” wrote Google’s Rajen Sheth in a blog post.

“Unfortunately, very old browsers cannot run many of these new features effectively.”

Threat downplayed

Around 20% of web users still use the nine-year old browser, including many UK government departments.

But many developers want to see the browser phased out as soon as possible.

The online campaign ie6nomore, supported by more than 70 web firms, says that because the browser does not support modern web standards it restricts what developers can do and is “holding the web back”.

Microsoft has said that it will support the browser until 2014.

Microsoft has released a fix for Internet Explorer and recommended that customers install the update as soon as possible or update to the latest version of the web browser for “improved security”.

Microsoft normally issues patches monthly but the high-profile nature of the attacks led it to act more quickly.

Market share

The UK government played down the threat and said there was “no evidence that moving from the latest fully patched versions of Internet Explorer to other browsers will make users more secure”.

However, Microsoft took the unusual step of patching the hole nearly three weeks ahead of its regular security update.

The new patch is available via the Microsoft Update site and will also be fed out to those who have their machines set to update automatically. All versions of Internet Explorer will receive the update.

Microsoft has admitted that it has known about the vulnerability “since early September” 2009 and had planned to patch it in February.

The bad publicity has allowed rivals such as Firefox to gain market share.

According to web analytics company StatCounter, Firefox is now a close second to Internet Explorer (IE) in Europe, with 40% of the market compared to Microsoft’s 45% share.

In some markets, including Germany and Austria, Firefox has overtaken IE, the firm said.

Mozilla, the foundation behind Firefox, has just released the latest version (3.6) of the open-source browser.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8488751.stm

10 Ways to Stop Corporate Dominance of Politics.Video On Consumerism

Sensible suggestions.Substitute ‘US’ with any country, it is still good.
Story:
It’s not too late to limit or reverse the impact of the Supreme Court’s disastrous decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Here’s how.
1. Amend the U.S. Constitution to declare that corporations are not persons and do not have the rights of human beings. Since the First Amendment case for corporate spending as a free speech right rests on corporations being considered “persons,” the proposed amendment would strike at the core of the ruling’s justification. The push for the 28th Amendment is coming from the grassroots, where a prairie fire is catching on from groups such as Public Citizen, Voter Action, and the Campaign to Legalize Democracy.
2. Require shareholders to approve political spending by their corporations. Public Citizen and the Brennan Center for Justice are among the groups advocating this measure, and some members of Congress appear interested. Britain has required such shareholder approval since 2000.
3. Pass the Fair Elections Now Act, which provides federal financing for Congressional elections. This measure has the backing of organizations representing millions of Americans, including Moveon.org, the NAACP, the Service Employees International Union, and the League of Young Voters. Interestingly, the heads of a number of major corporations have also signed on, including those of Ben & Jerry’s, Hasbro, Crate & Barrel, and the former head of Delta Airlines.
4. Give qualified candidates equal amounts of free broadcast air time for political messages. This would limit the advantages of paid advertisements in reaching the public through television where most political spending goes.
5. Ban political advertising by corporations that receive government money, hire lobbyists, or collect most of their revenue abroad. A fear that many observers have noted is that the Court’s ruling will allow foreign corporations to influence U.S. elections. According to The New York Times, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) are exploring this option.
6. Impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns. Representative Alan Grayson (D-Florida) proposes this, calling it “The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act.”
7. Prohibit companies from trading their stock on national exchanges if they make political contributions and expenditures. Another one from Grayson, which he calls “The Public Company Responsibility Act.”
8. Require publicly traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than for promoting their products. Grayson calls this “The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act.”
9. Require the corporate CEO to appear as sponsor of commercials that his or her company pays for, another possibility from the Schumer-Van Hollen team, according to The New York Times
10. Publicize the reform options, inform the public of who is making contributions to whom, and activate the citizenry. If we are to safeguard our democracy, media must inform and citizens must act.

The measures listed above—and others that seek to reverse the dominance of money in our political system—will not be easy. But grassroots anger at this latest win for corporate power is running high. But grassroots anger at this latest win for corporate power is running high. History shows that when the public is sufficiently aroused, actions that once seemed impossible can, in hindsight, seem inevitable.

Is Article 227 indispensable?-Pakistan.

Point well taken.Unfortunately for Pakistan, sane people are not heard and worse is that they do not take the masses with them;they are satisfied with expressing their views.Time that Religious fanaticism is laid to rest and the path of building the Nation is started.Media, students and intelligentsia must mobilize Public opinion and set Pakistan in order to prevent it becoming another Afghanistan or being swallowed by China.
Story:
If the Taliban were to come to power in Pakistan (which is what their struggle is all about), what would they do to the Constitution? The answer is: they would retain Article 227 and discard the rest of the Constitution. This single article of the Constitution would be sufficient for them to run the country. Their interpretation of this Article would be: “All laws to be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam – as perceived by the Taliban.”

They could arguably use the article to make laws to kill a barber for a haircut, bomb a school if it was attended by females, gouge the eyes of those who watched television, lash people for wearing shorts and cut off hands for theft, and to slaughter those who differed with the Taliban’s brand of religion – all in the name of Islam. Thanks to Article 227, all this would be well within the ambit of law and the constitution. The Taliban could not have conceived a better, simpler and more accurate one-liner constitution.
http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/01/31/is-article-227-indispensable/#comment-26359