From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Wed Jan 30 2002 - 19:41:57 MST
Simon McClenahan wrote:
>
> From: "Doug Jones" <djones@xcor.com>
>
> > Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > > tests your computer to see if you are infected only works on Internet
> > > Explorer with JavaScript enabled.
> >
> > ...which is why I still use good ol' Netscape 4.7 for browsing and
> > email- it's immune to the hacks used on IE and Outlurk. Once I find a
> > tool I like, I keep using it (looking at my 20-year-old HP 11C
> > calculator).
>
> If you're on a good thing, stick to it? What do you think about
> transhumanism then?
>
> I believe (although I don't practice as much as I would like) in early
> adoption of technology. Hanging on to the old for security reasons just
> addresses the symptoms of the issue, not the cause.
>
> Can't you find a more modern calculator that does the same job as the old
> one, plus more? Assuming that you can but choose not to, why would you not
> want to use more advanced calculator features?
The problem is one of costs versus benefits. If other people get more
benefits from my using a newer application than I do, especially if the
benefits they get are to my detriment, then newer is not necessarily
better. The newer browser applications provide marketing data to others
at the cost of my privacy, they provide security loopholes to others at
the expense of my data and money when exploited against me, so the extra
'features' provided are actually of rather marginal benefit, if not
totally negative.
For this reason, I will not use Outlook, Explorer, or the 6+ versions of
Aolscape (formerly Netscape). I do not betch and whine about it, I am
perfectly happy with the choice I've made. Those who see nothing wrong
with following, lemminglike, into the borganism of total transparency
make their own choices. Newer is not necessarily better.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:37 MST