Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer Opera Security IT

Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera 398

Posted by kdawson
from the chasing-last-century's-technology dept.
mwandaw writes "Banking giant JPMorgan Chase may drop support of some popular browsers because they do not 'all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.' After July 18 you may not be able to access the website with a browser that they do not support. The list of browsers they currently support seems outdated: Internet Explorer 6.0 and higher, Firefox 2.0 and higher, and Safari 3.0 and higher (for Macs only). With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect. On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Chase Bank May Drop Support of Chrome, Opera

Comments Filter:
  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:32PM (#32711192)
    "Traditional" businesses don't understand technology at all, especially "consumer" technology trends. Usually software backed up by a large businesses is considered to be a bonus for the "traditional" business drone, however, as any tech-literate person will tell you, those programs usually are outdated, slow and bloated.

    Its quite silly how they don't understand it. In their mind IE = Microsoft = stable. In everyone elses mind IE = Microsoft = Slow/Bloated/Insecure. In their mind Chrome = New = Unstable, in everyone elses mind Chrome = New = Fast.

    Businesses need to realize people don't, and shouldn't, choose software like they choose a car.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mcvos (645701)

      Businesses need to realize people don't, and shouldn't, choose software like they choose a car.

      Why not? Performance and safety matters for software just like it matters for cars. If you want a fast, efficient, safe car that doesn't have billowing clouds of black smoke coming from the exhaust, then you don't buy a car from 60 years ago. Similarly, if you want a good, reliable, modern browser, you don't use one that's 10 years old.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by d7415 (1068500)

      I agree with your point, but the pedant in me can't resist:

      Usually software backed up by a large businesses is considered to be a bonus for the "traditional" business drone,

      Google?

    • by Urza9814 (883915)

      There's a reason for large financial institutions to think like that. Sure, for CNN or ABC, they should support as many browsers as possible, and the newer browsers might be more efficient and better for them. But for a bank - well, a bank isn't going to build their main vault out of some brand new material that hasn't even been tested yet, so why would they do so for browsers? I'm not saying that IE is more secure, but it's old, it's trusted, and it's backed by a major corporation. If something goes wrong

      • Basically, when there's a fairly significant liability there, years of experience and large corporate backing do matter. They maybe shouldn't, but they do.

        Sure, but if they can't provide concrete data for choosing one browser over another, then how can you be sure they are making the right choice. I understand their argument, but I have no evidence that they proved these browsers to be unreliable.

        What we need is a security acid test, akin to the CSS3 acid test, that is recognized by security and financial i

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rickb928 (945187)

      I don't think of stability as one of IE's problems, so if you're trying to make the point that IE is no more or less stable than Chrome or Opera, you've lost me.

      On the other hand, Chrome and Opera development are both pretty dynamic, lots of changes, trying to match features of, of all things, IE. Firefox seems to like to break addons, but at least much core functionality seems to survive intact.

      Come to think of it, IE6->IE7 was uncomfortable, but IE7->IE8 is a major pain, even for ASP sites. IE6-

    • by westlake (615356)

      "Traditional" businesses don't understand technology at all, especially "consumer" technology trends.

      Net Applications tracks 40 browser versions:

      IE 8.0 25%
      IE 6.0 17%
      FFX 3.6 16%
      IE 7.0 12%
      FFX 3.5 5%
      Chrome 4.1 5%
      Safari 4%
      Opera 10.x 2%
      Chrome 5.0 1%

      Browser Version Market Share [netmarketshare.com]
      These are global webstats, not Chase's internal webstats - there can be a difference and a difference that matters.

      However "trend-forward" Opera and Chrome may appear to the geek, they really aren't all that significant in the mass consume

    • If businesses understood technology, they would be asking for designers to support specific rendering engines. Not browsers which is edging on silly.

      The asshats also wouldn't lock out other browsers because there is a chance the untested w3c html may render slighly differently but still be totally useable. Different doesn't mean wrong businessmen. While presentation is important, content is king.

    • Chase thinks people inherently choose cars that are bloated, slow and insecure?

      I noticed that you equated Chrome to new and fast, but not to security. I think that might be the problem.

  • Time Warner Cable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Thing I am (761900) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:32PM (#32711194) Journal
    ... does the same thing. I got this [67.211.36.225] message (today) trying to order service using the latest version of Chrome.
    • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:46PM (#32711318) Journal
      I find it hilarious that Time Warner Cable is, at least by implication, suggesting that there actually exists a browser in which dealing with them could represent "the best possible shopping experience"...
      • by hedwards (940851) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:26PM (#32711612)
        I think it's just they're way of saying that if you've got the competence to install Chrome, then perhaps you shouldn't be buying from us.
  • by Nerdfest (867930) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:35PM (#32711224)

    not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site

    - but they'll still be supporting IE6. Where the hell are they getting their security information from? I can see still supporting it purely because of the sheer numbers of nutbars still using it, but to mention security when talking about any other browser?

    • by gtall (79522) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:48PM (#32711342)

      "Where the hell are they getting their security information from?" Recent Business School Product.

    • by GumphMaster (772693) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:48PM (#32711768)
      This has nothing to do with them thinking IE6 is secure, or that Chrome is evil. It is simply easier to continue offering support for the browser that your web site was built for compatibility with. It would cost them money to revisit their web site HTML etc. to make sure it actually works with standards compliant browsers (CSS box model anyone?) or even just to check that it works well enough. How could they afford their executive bonuses if they spend money on servicing customers?
  • Three words.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by couchslug (175151) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:37PM (#32711234)

    User Agent Switcher.

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59/ [mozilla.org]

  • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:38PM (#32711254)

    Why are some browsers not supported? There are two primary reasons--security and popularity. There are dozens of browsers in use today, but not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site. The security of your accounts and private information is one of our highest priorities and some browsers, especially older versions, are simply higher security risks to use with our site. As for popularity, we continually monitor the types of browsers that customers use to access our site. Based on that information, we know that supported browsers are used by more than 95% of our customers. If a new browser begins to grow in popularity, we will assess and test its security and performance with our site to determine whether or not we should support its use.

    Right... Because its sooooo hard to use standards and make a secure site? Lets face it, if you code things right you can support every single browser except for perhaps IE (though they have gotten better). It is pure stupidity not to support various other browsers because they "aren't secure" when you can't give a reason other than they aren't used as much.

    The vast majority of security for banking comes from 3 main places. Encryption (controlled by the site owners), Physical/Software security of the servers (controlled by the sites owners) and elimination of flaws in the browser (judging by their inclusion of IE 6... they aren't worried about this).

    • There is one additional place: Security of the client OS. Keyloggers don't really care about SSL, or XSS countermeasures, or just about anything else.

      I'm assuming that that is a battle that they simply have no wish to fight, though...
      • by Dragonslicer (991472) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:09PM (#32711506)

        There is one additional place: Security of the client OS. Keyloggers don't really care about SSL, or XSS countermeasures, or just about anything else. I'm assuming that that is a battle that they simply have no wish to fight, though...

        More like a battle that they can't possibly win. There's no way for a bank website to prevent stupid users of any operating system from installing keyloggers.

        • Completely impossible to win all the time; but a chat with an A/V vendor or botnet research outfit could probably get you a reasonably accurate rundown of "Percentage of systems compromised, by OS and version". From there, you could present the "zOMG Upgrade!" screen to users of any platform whose numbers fell above your acceptable risk threshold.

          It would be an even more thankless task than bugging people about their browser version, which is why they aren't doing it; but you could probably cut down on ri
        • by owlstead (636356)

          Well, a few things come to mind to mitigate attacks by keyloggers:
          - the OS could disallow normal users to install keyloggers
          - the bank could use a separate authentication device (and additionally transaction based security)

          These don't completely stop MitM attacks, but they make them much harder.

        • by xaxa (988988)

          They can try though. My bank asks for characters from my password, and each time they ask for different characters in a different order (e.g. the 4th, 1st and 9th). They then ask for two numbers from a PIN, and I input that using a drop-down box.

          A competing bank uses the chip on the debit card to authenticate logging in, mine only uses the chip for authorising a transaction. (Using one of these [silicon.com]) Either way, you input a one-use-only number into the bank website.

    • Alternatively they could just use a type of banking, that doesn't rely on any kind of software on the user's system. My Swedish bank uses a smart-card-reader and the chip on my card for challenge response.

      While I haven't tested it, I wouldn't be surprised if the website and all transactions would work in Lynx - only iffy thing there is the CSS used, but even then. Hell, it should work on any kind of web-enabled device, from Windows to OS X to obscure OSes, to phones, to toasters to Bluray players.

      Then you'r

  • As a mac user (Score:4, Insightful)

    by AnAdventurer (1548515) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:42PM (#32711276)
    A few years ago, before Firefox and Safari had any market share I used to find from time to time websites requiring me to use IE. Since it was not possible at the time (IE had not been updated for Apple in a few years) you know what happened? I did not use their service and I did not miss it, I just used a competitor who allowed me to use my browser. Didn't matter if it was a back of a brokerage account, or a Japanese tee shirt shop (whatever). Now I never encounter that kind of message anymore. Is this a positive example of free market? I am not sure, but it might be!
    • This isn't a positive example of the free market because it is a net negative for the net as a whole. Yes, the free market working on perhaps its last stronghold that keeps on getting eroded is a good thing, but why was IE not being used? Because it was filled with more holes than swiss cheese, that it didn't support hardly any technology, it was a pain to code for, etc.

      The only reason why this has happened is because IE for a time was complete crap. Yes, it has resulted in benefits for some of us, but
    • Re:As a mac user (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tepples (727027) <tepples&gmail,com> on Sunday June 27, 2010 @08:01PM (#32712182) Homepage Journal

      I did not use their service and I did not miss it, I just used a competitor who allowed me to use my browser. Didn't matter if it was a back of a brokerage account, or a Japanese tee shirt shop (whatever).

      How would you switch if the offending company were a monopoly, such as the local electric power company or (in a case like this) the only bank with ATMs in your town?

  • Hmmph... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:42PM (#32711280) Journal
    I can understand the "popularity" argument, though it certainly does tend to coddle poor design practices, the fewer browsers they have to check for correct rendering on the cheaper their web development will be.

    I find the "security" one much harder to understand(unless, as is quite likely, it is just being used cynically to make a purely cost-based decision sound more urgent). From a security perspective, things like IE6 and FF2.0 are seriously retro; but supported, which makes it seem quite unlikely that they are making the "security" decision based on the presence/absence of some specific feature(e.g. specific SSL/TLS ciphers, "anti-phishing filters", XSS countermeasures, etc.). Further, the "Safari 3.0 or higher (Mac Only)" thing seems downright inscrutable from a security perspective, and not much clearer from a web-design perspective. Is Safari version X on Windows really that drastically different? And is Chrome all that different, in terms of the rendering features that you would need to present a bunch of numbers, some fine print about fees, and clip-art of smiling families?
  • by Mabbo (1337229) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:47PM (#32711322)
    ... I can say it's pretty short sighted of them. What do they plan to tell the people who buy Chrome OS Netbooks [theregister.co.uk] in the near future? Sorry, you can't use our bank? I'm sure both Google and various hardware vendors who offer such devices will have a few words to say to Chase Bank.
    • by IANAAC (692242)

      What do they plan to tell the people who buy Chrome OS Netbooks in the near future?

      You may not remember this, but back when Firefox was the new kid on the block, you could only get to most banking sites with IE. Once they started to see an increase in Firefox usage in their logs, they probably then decided to start to allow it. Same with Safari.

      And the same will go for Chrome (I sincerely doubt Opera will be included in the list). Contrary to popular slashdot thinking, most people don't use Chrome

  • by dingen (958134) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:49PM (#32711350)

    '...not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site.'

    Yeah, if you've made a site and it doesn't look in both Chrome and Opera, there must be a problem with those browsers. I'm sure they paid a lot of money to get their site developed, so there can't be anything wrong with that.

    • Their insistence on supporting IE 6.0 is odd considering Microsoft itself is winding down support for it. I know I've heard/read anecdotal evidence that a lot of users are still using it; to that I say 1) They need to move on, & 2) I personally don't know anyone still using it. If you buy a new system your getting Windows 7 (whether you want it or not), and I'm not even sure how you'd begin to back grade IE; so the majority of those users must not have installed or updated their Windows installs in...
  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @05:50PM (#32711356) Homepage
    "We paid Vice President McNepotista's retarded cousin Benny six hojillion greenbacks to lash up a flaky site in Front Page, and if we had to acknowledge that our crappy site doesn't render in most standards compliant browsers, we might not feel like such virile corporate stallions tonight while we're snorting coke out of a hooker's ass crack."
  • What is all the "outdated" commentary in the article, and the bemoaning of IE6. The text, typed or pasted by the very poster, lists IE6, Safari 30. and Firefox 2.0, each decorated with the words "or higher".

    Those two words largely eliminate fully half the posed and inferred questions about IE6 being out of date and the whole list being backwards or whatever.

    My unleaded gas is for use with a 1975 automobile or later. This doesn't make it unfit for my 2006 prius.

    Someone in the editorial department needs to go

    • > What is all the "outdated" commentary in the article, and the bemoaning of
      > IE6.

      The point is that if they actually cared about security they would specifically block IE6.

  • I use Chrome and sometimes Opera for security. I will not do internet banking with anything else other than Chrome or the browser on my Android phone. Firefox, as much as I love it, has become outdated slow and bloated. It's also very popular, meaning it's under attack (indeed have witnessed more and more malware getting through firefox - it's no longer the automatic cure for malware magnet users) although flaws are fixed so fast it makes your head spin, in reality it's always been unpatched browsers that h
  • They promote the use of IE6 instead of Chrome or Opera to decrease security... probably they will kick people usiing updated flash players and recent firefox.

    If well Hanlon's always take precedence, by now a variation of Clarke's law should be applied: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice"
  • +1 Troll article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MagicM (85041) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:00PM (#32711434)

    Nothing in the linked page says that they're going to lock out "unsupported" browsers.

    If you are using a browser that we don't support, you may not be able to access our site or you may not have the same level of performance as if you were using a supported browser.

    Essentially they're saying that the site may not perform per specification in browsers that they do not test with because they're only used by less than 5% of their users. This is nothing other than a "we didn't test, so don't expect it to work" disclaimer. Nobody is getting locked out and nobody is discriminated against. The site's developers are simply cutting some corners to save costs. Business as usual.

    Y'all are posting in a troll thread.

  • Fuck Chase...I had Wamu before they were swallowed by Chase, and Wamu's website was FAR superior to the ancient web banking that Chase offers. I have to click through 5 screens just to transfer money across accounts with chase, and I doubt they're not using anything more sophisticated than plain https, so any BS reason they offer for not supporting certain modern browsers is just that...BS.
  • I work at Chase (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:01PM (#32711448)
    The reason that IE6 is included is because it's currently installed as the only browser on 140,000 Chase employee workstations, laptops, etc. If IE6 was blocked then Chase employees would be unable to bank with Chase from the office.
    • by shentino (1139071)

      One thing that corporate overlords like about IE6 is that it breaks sites like facebook, youtube, etc that the PHB's don't want their wage serfs looking at while on duty.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      Hmm, that sounds like a compelling reason for me to continue not doing business with them. That's really not a valid excuse. IE6 isn't secure, while if you can sequester it to an internal LAN and keep it from the net you approach security, there's really no excuse for forcing that on other people. There's just way too many portable web browsers to choose from, Chrome, Firefox and Iron to name basically two, plus I'm sure that most other major browsers are available as such as well. Plus if you do it right,
    • Re:I work at Chase (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TigerTime (626140) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @07:05PM (#32711878)

      Thanks for letting me know how security is viewed at Chase. I mean if you are using the most insecure browser in the market today that is even seen by Microsoft as being inadequate. And Chase can't seem to find the time and money to upgrade, who knows what other corners they are willing to take to save a buck security-wise. I mean that's pathetic that a FINANCIAL institution is still using that completely insecure browser behind their doors.

  • by istartedi (132515) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:02PM (#32711456) Journal

    The scripting engine in Chrome is at least twice as fast as the one in IE, and it's stable. The first thing I noticed was that Facebook didn't work well in IE. I got sick of Facebook, and stopped using Chrome for a while. Then I noticed that a couple sites I use a lot both work reliably in Chrome. I had been blaming those sites for having bad scripts. Nope. It's IE.

    Now, perhaps this is because I went through my IE settings and turned off anything that I thought might make me vulnerable. I don't run AV, so I tend to go through all the security tweaks for IE.

    Maybe, just maybe, if I set IE back to defaults it would work OK with the aforementioned sites. I won't do that. So many MS problems are due to insecure default settings, almost as much as the software itself.

    So. There's Chrome, it works on these sites, so I use it. Many people sitting behind PCs won't try alternative browsers. They'll just think the site is slow or unreliable.

    I don't know what MS is doing with IE. Maybe they're too distracted with smartphones and Bing. Maybe Google's brain power, revenue, and "momentum" is just crushing MS in the browser space. Whatever it is, the failure of IE is now painfully obvious, not just from a security standpoint; but useability. To reiterate, I suspect the scripting engine, since the sites where I've observed problems tend seem to be fairly script intensive. Anything that processes AJAX requests is twice as fast, or faster in Chrome. IE sometimes "forgets" drop-down settings or refuses to take input. Chrome just works.

  • by WRX SKy (1118003) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:03PM (#32711464)
    ... for a Fortune 50 company that received flack for something similar, I can assure it's not a safety thing so much as it is a laziness thing. The internal standard is IE6, therefore most developers have it on their machine and develop/test against it. To officially add support for other browsers would require QA to have all of the browser/machine combo's and likewise for development.

    Use standards and you won't have that problem? Wrong, because MS doesn't follow the standards. Which means that we end up writing two versions (minimum) - one for standards compliant and one for IE.

    Use a javascript package to make IE compliant? Can't. Corporate architecture doesn't allow us to use open source or third party libraries.

    End of the day... it's laziness, not security.
    • by Aladrin (926209) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:34PM (#32711664)

      So you don't support IE7 and IE8 either, then? Because speaking as a developer at a different company, we have to specifically test each of those separately anyhow. And Firefox, of course. And Safari.

      So what you're really saying is that it's too hard to support 3 versions of IE and Firefox and Safari AND Chrome and Opera as well.

      Since Chrome is Webkit, just like Safari, it seems to me you should probably go ahead and support that one. And if your app works on Firefox and Safari without any hacks, it'll run on Opera as well.

      And like it or not, Chrome is taking market share from IE and Firefox. We are rapidly approaching a market that doesn't have 1 dominant browser, and you'll have to support them anyhow. Giving up now is letting go of things you'll need right before they become critical.

      I feel we need a car analogy, so it's like going from a single car on the highways to having many companies making many cars, but paving your roads to only work for that single car.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      This is a tough one, normally I'd say that making the bank accountable for breaches would be the prescription, but in this case, technically Chase is just enabling stupid behavior.
    • They want IE6 back, who knows why? There is a serious point though *lazy IT departments who push us towards IE6 because they haven't updated in a damn decade make the internet less secure, and less free. :(
  • Really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by R3dL3d (1072474) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:07PM (#32711490)
    As I once wrote to my bank: "I'll switch banks before I switch browsers".
  • Well (Score:3, Funny)

    by DaMattster (977781) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @06:53PM (#32711794)
    Considering Chase was one of the few that played recklessly with our money, I guess I wouldn't have to worry about their insecure system anyway because I wouldn't give them my money if they were the last bank in America. Instead it will be the First National Bank of My Mattress.
  • "With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect."

    Well, gs.statcounter has IE6 listed 4th, and only beaten by newer versions of IE and one version of Firefox. My company (not Chase) tracks browsers by type/version, and more than 80% of clients identify themselves as IE6. It would be silly for us not to support IE6, just as I'm sure Chase is basing their decision on similar experience with client data. If alternative browser users want t

  • by zuperduperman (1206922) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @07:07PM (#32711888)

    If I was a bank I would just completely avoid recommending any particular browser. Once you do that you are complicit / partially liable when a user is compromised by following your advice. As a case in point, as far as I know, FireFox 2.0 is no longer receiving security updates and there are known vulnerabilities in the last released version. Chase recommending this browser could easily be taken as an argument in a court case if a user is compromised while using their web site.

    It would be far more sensible for the bank to impose no limitations and simply recommend that all users acquire a secure and standards compliant browser for using their web site.

  • Er, sorry to state the obvious, but can't these browsers simply spoof as IE if they wanted to?

  • by dhammond (953711) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @08:32PM (#32712348)

    Nowhere in the notice does it say that you MUST use one of the supported browsers. It says, "If you are using a browser that we don't support, you may not be able to access our site or you may not have the same level of performance as if you were using a supported browser." I'd be willing to bet that the site will work fine in Chrome. Why don't they list Chrome? Because they don't test with Chrome ("Supported browsers are browsers that we consistently use and test with our site"). Why don't they test with Chrome? Because every additional browser that must be tested with adds time to development and QA. You could argue that Chrome has enough users for them to invest the time to test with it, but if they are testing with Safari, they are probably fine with Chrome anyway. It's a simple matter of resources and I, frankly, don't see much wrong with it. I'm speaking both as a web developer and a Chase customer.

  • by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Sunday June 27, 2010 @08:43PM (#32712386) Journal

    Seeing as mwandaw wants to feed the outrage machine by spinning and taking things out of context, let's take a look at the actual facts.

    From the Chase FAQ:

    Why are some browsers not supported?
    There are two primary reasons--security and popularity. There are dozens of browsers in use today, but not all offer the minimum levels of security that we require while others may not perform well with our site. The security of your accounts and private information is one of our highest priorities and some browsers, especially older versions, are simply higher security risks to use with our site.

    Now, lets look at the spun summary:

    The list of browsers they currently support seems outdated: Internet Explorer 6.0 and higher, Firefox 2.0 and higher, and Safari 3.0 and higher (for Macs only).

    Because many people do not upgrade to the latest and greatest.

    With usage of IE6 plummeting and concerns about its security well known, the inclusion of that browser seems suspect.

    Which is why they mention older browsers being a security risk. Oh, and as the summary says, usage of IE6 is plummeting, but as support is existing and use is still high, it is best to support it.

    On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?"

    Who the fuck cares what Google thinks? Chrome is not the do-all, end-all of the internet. Chrome is not even that popular.

    As for popularity, we continually monitor the types of browsers that customers use to access our site. Based on that information, we know that supported browsers are used by more than 95% of our customers. If a new browser begins to grow in popularity, we will assess and test its security and performance with our site to determine whether or not we should support its use.

    Would you want to bet that Chase checked their server logs to figure out what their customers use?

    And the effects not using a supported browser?

    What if I continue to use a browser that is not supported?
    If you are using a browser that we don't support, you may not be able to access our site or you may not have the same level of performance as if you were using a supported browser.

    And, about those older browsers?

    How do I upgrade my browser?
    To upgrade, please go to the web pages listed below for each of the supported browser types. We recommend that you upgrade to the latest version available for your preferred browser.

    Ok, now that the truth is out there, are you going to stop being an asshole, mwandaw?

  • by TangoCharlie (113383) on Monday June 28, 2010 @10:12AM (#32716108) Homepage Journal

    > On the other extreme, rising star Chrome appears to be left out, too. What does Google think of that?"

    Who are JPMorgan Chase? I did a Google search for them and I didn't find anything?

Murphy's Law, that brash proletarian restatement of Godel's Theorem. -- Thomas Pynchon, "Gravity's Rainbow"

Working...