You know what would be even faster?
I found this post on Lifehacker via Kurt Wismer, someone whose comments I've kept an eye on for since I started reading the alt.comp.virus newsgroup, which is quite a time ago now. Kurt seems to have the habit of annoying people by simply speaking the truth as he sees it and not spending too much time and effort on sugar-coating. I'd personally consider that an asset in people who are there to talk about security but many people still seem to blame the messenger when someone points out the flaws in a plan.
Anyway, the Lifehacker post talks about an add-in for Firefox that allows you to choose to "download and execute" files instead of downloading them then having to go and execute them yourself in a separate action. (No I'm not going to link to the Firefox add-in itself, if you're stupid enough to think that sounds like a good idea you can go and find it yourself.)
Sure, it's convenient to be able to have something download and auto-run. Sadly, it isn't just convenient for you as the computer user but also for anyone who'd like to compromise your security; auto-running programs on download is quite simply a very bad idea and I'm actually rather disappointed that people still think otherwise.
When you download a file from a web-browser, leave the browser and go to use the file via the operating system's file management tools (explorer, finder, etc) you have an opportunity to inspect the file before opening it. You can see if it's what you expected. You can easily view the file properties if you want to be careful. If you're running a typical Windows antivirus and anti-spyware package, you can usually right-click on the file and get a report on what it is and whether or not it is clean. If it's an executable archive (e.g. a self-extracting zip file, a common way of distributing downloads in Windows) you have the opportunity to open the archive without 'executing' any of the code - something I always do when I can.
All of this is gone when your browser opens the file for you. Sure, most virus scanners will inspect a file before allowing it to run, but you miss the chance to view the file and say "hmm, I thought I was downloading an archive here, so why does it actually appear to be a batch file?"
I want to address the comments on the lifehacker post about 'trust'. The idea is that you can do this with downloads you 'trust' without any worry. Now I'd agree that some download sites are more trustworthy than others, but there is still a problem with trust: It doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means.
Some people talk about 'trust' in computing (hell any walk of life) as if it is some kind of magic ray that makes it OK to abandon any sensible precautions. That isn't the case. I trust my best friend who I've known since school to not harm me. I hope that he and his family would say the same about me. All that this "trust" means is that we wouldn't do anything to harm each other intentionally - that doesn't mean that accidents won't happen or that mistakes won't be made.
So you trust Microsoft. Or Apple. Or Mozilla. Or Redhat. Fine. You trust them not to intentionally set out to do you and your computer harm. Great. I'm actually inclined to agree with you, with a couple of caveats... Firstly, you had better hope that their definition of not doing anything to harm customers like you roughly corresponds with your definition of harm. Secondly, you better hope that they don't see a need to trample on the edges of your needs in order to protect themselves. Lastly, you better hope they never make a mistake.
Good luck with all that, especially the last one.
Still, Lifehacker is all about "getting things done" and clearly they're all busy people over there. So I have a suggestion to "get things done" in terms of what will inevitably happen to people who auto-run content they don't know much about: Email your usernames and passwords to hackers so they and you don't have to go to the trouble of having you download and running something without inspecting it first. It's OK. You don't have to thank me now.