> You keep trying to change the subject. The issue is that this vulnerability > was inserted into a competitor's product by M$.
Sorry, but you haven't established yet that there actually is a vulnerability. Repeating it does not make it so. > By doing so it removed a > major advantage of using the competitor's product. This is particularly > important because this is the very same competing product that was at the > center of M$'s anti-trust conviction. Looks to me like M$ has unilaterally > declared the consent agreement void. Nope, not the same product. It may be based on the same rendering engine and I know how easily confused you can get, but it's a completely separate product from Netscape. Netscape was owned by the evil AOL (weren't they supposed to own the Internet by now?), Firefox is owned by Mozilla, a non-profit. Just in case you're *really* confused, Safari and Chrome are differrent products too, even though they share code as well. > (Now I suppose you will spring to the > defense of Kim Jong-il.) Nah, he seems like much more of a Mac guy. Feelings of inadequacy, vain, crushing central authority, conformity at all costs and so on. ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
