Probably Stansted (UK), about 2 years ago - we're all clustered in a security queue. Some guy from the back comes forward from the back, nobody saw where, and hands over a 500ml can of "beer" to one of the securidroids and says "I won't be able to take that through will I?", and then he darts back out of sight again. She takes it and drops it in the plastic office bin at her feet.
I nearly shouted "that could be a fucking bomb!" *instinctively*. It reached my mouth, but not my vocal cords. If I wanted to terrorise a population, and injure or kill many dozens of people, doing what that guy did would be a great technique. To be honest, I don't know what stopped me from shouting anything out and bringing their "security" into question. Probably because I just wanted to get on my flight and go home. To be honest, I don't mind security. It's when the pretend security provides no actual security that I get narked. (Citibank asked my g/f "what are the last 4 digits of your SSN?" the other day as a "security" measure.)
This airport event was 6 months before Domodedovo, I wasn't just twitchy because of that incident.
I'm with you, but I think we're in the minority. However, I cling to my view because I have a strange obsession with a kind of purity that's probably because of my pure mathematics background.
If an envelope weighs less than 60g, then the postal service should deliver it. It should presume that it contains bombs, nerve poison, and corrosives, etc. but it should deliver it in tact, and then it's the recipient's problem. It should let the recipient know that it's not to be trusted, of course.
If a text entry field for a forum can have 60 characters, then it should be able to contain any 60 characters, and presume it contains stuff that looks like HTML, SQL, javascript, etc. , and the server should happily accept that message, and then included it in the forum page delivered to the browser. Of course, it should let the browser know, by escaping it, that it's untrusted data that should not be assumed to have any particular meaning (i.e. be in any language that can be interpreted), of course.
OK, it's in imperfect analogy, but I think the server (containing user-submitted content) should just be a pipe along which arbitrary data can flow. As long as the recipient knows it's arbitrary data, then it's his own fault if he attempts to parse it and give it meaning. (I'm thinking of double-escaped '<' characters, for example, which some browsers have decoded twice accidentally, and started to parse the following tags.)
Unfortunately, my mindset prevents the user from using even the simplest markup in his forum messages. And then another meta-syntax has to be created to put that functionality back. Mess ensues...
Which is why I don't design websites for anything apart from my own use...
> I'm simply re-arranging the words he wrote >>It's an awful and stupid religious practice, and should be BANNED.
False.
His words, the ones you were mimicking, were: >>>>> KEEP YOUR FUCKING RELIGION AWAY FROM MY PENIS.
> When someone starts talking about banning religious practices, they are talking about banning religion. I won't abide that.
Then you have no rationality at all. "Religious practices" can contain everything up to and including ritual mass murder, terroristic jihad, etc. If you do not think those should have laws forbidding them, then quite frankly you're not a libertarian, you're a liberty.
I see you don't even know the difference between singular and plural. Let alone the difference between taut keratinised scar tissue and flexible skin. Given your previous displays of stupidity, these come as no surprise.
"Libertarian" is your religion?!? Even were that to be true, you've damned yourself with your own mouth, as the Libertarians certainly don't keep themselves out of his political system.
And regarding how you continued - I'm fairly sure you're putting words into his mouth. You're not projecting, are you?
"Big Circumcision" may be a joke, but of course many biotech companies do want the skin from circumcisions to research and experiment on, and sometimes to culture. And biotech does have quite a powerful lobby, so the joke might not be as off-the-wall as it was initially intended.
> Did you ever notice that the adult store doesn't stock a wide range of dildos that model uncircumcised dicks? Would you care to hazard a guess why that might be?
Apparently you've shot your load right over your foot with that one. The first google hit for ``realistic dildos'' yielded a site ( www.edenfantasys.com/dildos/realistic-dildos/ ) with what seemed like hundreds of dildos, and the *clear majority* of them had the tell-tale ribbing of an uncircumcised cock. OK, that's a sample size of one source, but did you never stop to wonder what "ribbed for her pleasure" on some condoms was trying to mimic?
Statistically they are highly represented in that field, but I wouldn't necessarily put the blame on them in this instance. It wasn't jews who brought circumcision to the US, it was christains and their anti-wanking policies who are to blame. Probably most famous was Seventh Day Adventist J.H. Kellogg's "Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects". Plain Facts for Old and Young.
I know 2 people (a married couple) who did just that. Although it wasn't the decay/per se/ they wanted to avoid, they wanted to avoid "slowly getting older". No "oops, there goes another one". I never heard them later regret that decision.
No wonder there's pain - you put your penis in a brace!
Joking aside, and apologies for the poor taste of the humour, it's cases like yours that actually make me froth with anger at the stupidity and ignorance of the the decision-makers who could actually make a difference (by classifying unconsented irreversible body modifications as abuse, for example). Centuries down the line hopefully humankind will cringe at how barbaric some factions of their race were in the 21st and previous centuries.
Only if you overlook the claim that "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells."
Both sides can cherry pick evidence. The truth will out when all the bullshit is stripped away. Alas, the majority of that is from the pro-maiming group and, for example, their outrageously-flawed-in-almost-every-way African trials: http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
> Wow, I love to see the Slashdot community getting behind Intelligent Design!
Bollocks. We were made this way because it was evolutionarily beneficial to have the generation of sensitive and protective foreskins codified in our DNA. It helped us go forth and multiply, you might say. At no point do you need anyone guiding that process.
However, you've confessed to seeing things that aren't there, so this additional bit of self-delusion should come as no surprise.
If, if you're waiting until they are old enough to decide for themselves, then it is the 18-year-olds themselves who are chosing to maim themselves when they are most sexually active, not anyone else.
Voluntary rates might be a lot lower, and nothing apart from outdated ill-founded traditions would be lost.
However, you didn't bring it up in a context where any actual confusion was implied, quite the opposite. I'm directing my post at the wrong person. Ignore me!
Using that logic you must think John Paul Getty III having his ear removed by his captors is the same as parents giving their 3-year-old an ear piercing?
You must do, as they are both the unconsented surgical alteration of a person's ear.
I however don't. And I consider bringing one up when the topic under discussion is the other to imply either gross ignorance of at least one, and probably both topics, or simply a trollish desire to go off topic.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably Stansted (UK), about 2 years ago - we're all clustered in a security queue. Some guy from the back comes forward from the back, nobody saw where, and hands over a 500ml can of "beer" to one of the securidroids and says "I won't be able to take that through will I?", and then he darts back out of sight again. She takes it and drops it in the plastic office bin at her feet.
I nearly shouted "that could be a fucking bomb!" *instinctively*. It reached my mouth, but not my vocal cords. If I wanted to terrorise a population, and injure or kill many dozens of people, doing what that guy did would be a great technique. To be honest, I don't know what stopped me from shouting anything out and bringing their "security" into question. Probably because I just wanted to get on my flight and go home. To be honest, I don't mind security. It's when the pretend security provides no actual security that I get narked. (Citibank asked my g/f "what are the last 4 digits of your SSN?" the other day as a "security" measure.)
This airport event was 6 months before Domodedovo, I wasn't just twitchy because of that incident.
> I live in a foreign country and it's beyond any shred of a doubt that I should have the proper visa at all times.
I live in a foreign country, and I don't need a visa at all.
You are clearly over-generalising.
> I don't drink alcohol ... ... get my age mistaken for early to mid 30ies (kind of a big deal when you're 42)
/per se/.
>
Pah. I'm 42, and only 2 nights back I was placed in the mid-to-late 20s.
Yet I drink like a fish (though rarely get drunk, I just drink a fair amount almost daily), so don't blame the alcohol
Web filtering won't work in general. See the cookie "path" issue.
Summary: http://www.foo.com/you/trust/this/bit/../.%2e/../../oh/shit
> The problem is you currently can't escape everything reliably.
You can - by escaping everything.
> If your library is not aware of the latest stuff it will not escape the latest crazy "Go" button
It will. It escapes everything. What bit of "everything" did you not understand.
Sure, it won't let people have crazy "go" buttons, whatever they are, but nothing of value was lost.
> ... that explicitly allowing them actually results in more secure code ...
Amen! Everything's a bomb!
(and no, not one of those airport security 125ml toothpaste tube bombs which they dispose of by chucking it in the waste paper bin below the counter.)
I'm with you, but I think we're in the minority. However, I cling to my view because I have a strange obsession with a kind of purity that's probably because of my pure mathematics background.
If an envelope weighs less than 60g, then the postal service should deliver it. It should presume that it contains bombs, nerve poison, and corrosives, etc. but it should deliver it in tact, and then it's the recipient's problem. It should let the recipient know that it's not to be trusted, of course.
If a text entry field for a forum can have 60 characters, then it should be able to contain any 60 characters, and presume it contains stuff that looks like HTML, SQL, javascript, etc. , and the server should happily accept that message, and then included it in the forum page delivered to the browser. Of course, it should let the browser know, by escaping it, that it's untrusted data that should not be assumed to have any particular meaning (i.e. be in any language that can be interpreted), of course.
OK, it's in imperfect analogy, but I think the server (containing user-submitted content) should just be a pipe along which arbitrary data can flow. As long as the recipient knows it's arbitrary data, then it's his own fault if he attempts to parse it and give it meaning. (I'm thinking of double-escaped '<' characters, for example, which some browsers have decoded twice accidentally, and started to parse the following tags.)
Unfortunately, my mindset prevents the user from using even the simplest markup in his forum messages. And then another meta-syntax has to be created to put that functionality back. Mess ensues...
Which is why I don't design websites for anything apart from my own use...
> Problem 1: Browsers try real hard to be clever and interpret maltagged/malformed content instead of validating inputs.
But XHTML saved us from that over a decade ago!
Channelling Eric Naggum: Clearly we're not using enough XML!
> I'm simply re-arranging the words he wrote
>>It's an awful and stupid religious practice, and should be BANNED.
False.
His words, the ones you were mimicking, were:
>>>>> KEEP YOUR FUCKING RELIGION AWAY FROM MY PENIS.
> When someone starts talking about banning religious practices, they are talking about banning religion. I won't abide that.
Then you have no rationality at all. "Religious practices" can contain everything up to and including ritual mass murder, terroristic jihad, etc. If you do not think those should have laws forbidding them, then quite frankly you're not a libertarian, you're a liberty.
I see you don't even know the difference between singular and plural. Let alone the difference between taut keratinised scar tissue and flexible skin. Given your previous displays of stupidity, these come as no surprise.
"Libertarian" is your religion?!? Even were that to be true, you've damned yourself with your own mouth, as the Libertarians certainly don't keep themselves out of his political system.
And regarding how you continued - I'm fairly sure you're putting words into his mouth. You're not projecting, are you?
"Big Circumcision" may be a joke, but of course many biotech companies do want the skin from circumcisions to research and experiment on, and sometimes to culture. And biotech does have quite a powerful lobby, so the joke might not be as off-the-wall as it was initially intended.
> Did you ever notice that the adult store doesn't stock a wide range of dildos that model uncircumcised dicks? Would you care to hazard a guess why that might be?
Apparently you've shot your load right over your foot with that one. The first google hit for ``realistic dildos'' yielded a site ( www.edenfantasys.com/dildos/realistic-dildos/ ) with what seemed like hundreds of dildos, and the *clear majority* of them had the tell-tale ribbing of an uncircumcised cock. OK, that's a sample size of one source, but did you never stop to wonder what "ribbed for her pleasure" on some condoms was trying to mimic?
As rendered on one of my favourite recent (last 10 years) UK comedy shows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuMfEAp31HE
Statistically they are highly represented in that field, but I wouldn't necessarily put the blame on them in this instance. It wasn't jews who brought circumcision to the US, it was christains and their anti-wanking policies who are to blame. Probably most famous was Seventh Day Adventist J.H. Kellogg's "Treatment for Self-Abuse and Its Effects". Plain Facts for Old and Young.
I know 2 people (a married couple) who did just that. Although it wasn't the decay /per se/ they wanted to avoid, they wanted to avoid "slowly getting older". No "oops, there goes another one". I never heard them later regret that decision.
\emph{penis}
No wonder there's pain - you put your penis in a brace!
Joking aside, and apologies for the poor taste of the humour, it's cases like yours that actually make me froth with anger at the stupidity and ignorance of the the decision-makers who could actually make a difference (by classifying unconsented irreversible body modifications as abuse, for example). Centuries down the line hopefully humankind will cringe at how barbaric some factions of their race were in the 21st and previous centuries.
Only if you overlook the claim that "Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by Langerhans cells."
Both sides can cherry pick evidence. The truth will out when all the bullshit is stripped away. Alas, the majority of that is from the pro-maiming group and, for example, their outrageously-flawed-in-almost-every-way African trials:
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/05/when-bad-science-kills-or-how-to-spread-aids/
That was clever. I approve.
> Wow, I love to see the Slashdot community getting behind Intelligent Design!
Bollocks. We were made this way because it was evolutionarily beneficial to have the generation of sensitive and protective foreskins codified in our DNA. It helped us go forth and multiply, you might say. At no point do you need anyone guiding that process.
However, you've confessed to seeing things that aren't there, so this additional bit of self-delusion should come as no surprise.
If, if you're waiting until they are old enough to decide for themselves, then it is the 18-year-olds themselves who are chosing to maim themselves when they are most sexually active, not anyone else.
Voluntary rates might be a lot lower, and nothing apart from outdated ill-founded traditions would be lost.
Yeah, but that's only eyesight. We were talking about part of someones COCK here!
(<irony> tags to be assumed. I'm colourblind, my g/f's partly blind, so this isn't to be taken as belittling visual problems.)
That could be achieved trivially if your religion kept itself well away from his political system.
Does it?
However, you didn't bring it up in a context where any actual confusion was implied, quite the opposite. I'm directing my post at the wrong person. Ignore me!
Using that logic you must think John Paul Getty III having his ear removed by his captors is the same as parents giving their 3-year-old an ear piercing?
You must do, as they are both the unconsented surgical alteration of a person's ear.
I however don't. And I consider bringing one up when the topic under discussion is the other to imply either gross ignorance of at least one, and probably both topics, or simply a trollish desire to go off topic.