when i request a web page, what i get is serialized content. firefox is processing that stream into a nodetree. nothing you can possibly say gets around the obvious fact that processing serialized content into a nodetree is not only a normal part of a browser's functions, it is THE function of a browser
and now you are telling me that a browser can't do this essential function under some sort of mitigating circumstance?
sorry, i'm not sold. it's like you are telling me you can program a stoplight to play chess, but you can't make it glow red
That's exactly how the fictional Trinity uses it. In a sequence that flashes on screen for a few scant seconds, the green phosphor text of Trinity's computer clearly shows Nmap being run against the IP address 10.2.2.2, and finding an open port number 22, correctly identified as the SSH service used to log into computers remotely.
"I was definitely pretty excited when I saw it," says "Fyodor," the 25-year-old author of Nmap. "I think compared to previous movies that had any kind of hacking content, you could generally assume it's going to be some kind of stupid 3D graphics show." blockquote>
kind of like saying "so an elephant can fly gracefully"
the idea is harm reduction right?
the best harm reduction approach, for something as truly vile (highly addictive+highly inebriating, so job/ relationship maintenance is horribly difficult) as meth/coke/heroin is TO PREVENT THE CREATION OF ADDICTS IN THE FIRST PLACE
no, because its cheaper and easier to buy that stuff
the only reason people grow their own pot is because its illegal. if pot were made legal, only a tiny fringe would continue to still grow their own pot. somewhere between the number that microbrew their own beer and the number that grow their own tobacco for smoking
i suppose you are referring to ethanol laced with methanol, wood alcohol. that kills your liver and causes blindness
in which case, it would be more appropriate to compare drugs on the black market laced with bullshit (literally, bullshit), strychnine, and other toxic impurities
and you are correct: if methamphetamine were made legal, toxic impurities disappear
however, you need to study what methamphetamine does to your body and brain, permanently, to understand something like methamphetamine is not something you exmperiment with. its something you steer clear of and keep teenaged idiots away from in spite of themselves. oh certainly, there will always be idiots who will get it no matter what, but making something illegal actually means orders of magnitude less people are exposed to it. that has great value
the negative aspects of making methamphetamine illegal are smaller than the negative aspects of making it legal. and if you are telling me what business is it of mine if someone else destroys their life, well me, taxpayer, society, we have to clothe and feed and house zombies who would otherwise be normal functional people. that waging war on something like meth is cheaper, even with all the jails and police, than supporting legions of drug zombies, because they got exposed to it when they were dumb kids, that we should have prevented, for our sake, and theirs
no. are you telling me i have to take cyanide to understand its not good for me too?
Do you know what it does to you actually - not what from what you hear in the media?
it seems to me "teh ev1l med1a" pretty much tows the line for the big, obvious, well-established negative medical aspects of methamphetamine. its hard for something to be called propaganda when it communicates to you the obvious and well-established facts
Did you know it's a prescription drug, used for Obesity, ADHD and extreme Narcolepsy.
we also use morphine for extreme pain, digitalis for heart failure, and maggots for gangrenous wounds. what does any of that supposed to tell us about recreational use?
Yeah you heard me right. Do you know that the seemingly harmless ADHD medicine we hand out daily to millions of kids worldwide is actually Meth's younger brother - Amphetamine?
and i happen to think we overmedicate our children, that plenty of so-called medical conditions are just overactive children, and the pharmaceutical industry is just inventing disease conditions that aren't really that bad to shove drugs down the throats of people. but again, what the hell does a medical condition supposed to inform us about recreational use?
nor does making a ban airtight mean it is not effective
preface: marijuana, shrooms lsd should be legal. heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine should NEVER be legal
the war on drugs will last forever. the war on drugs SHOULD last forever. its simply a maintenance function of society, like taking out the trash. there is a "war on trash". that we don't get rid of garbage means we should stop taking out the garbage? there's this strange mentality out there that says that because the war on drugs isn't 100% effective, that it isn't effective at all
if you make something illegal, you make it more difficult to get, not impossible. when you make something more difficult to get, you decimate the number of people who use or try something
there will ALWAYS be someone who will go to any length to get a drug. the existence of such people means nothing, teaches us nothing, about the hundreds of thousands deterred from ever trying a drug, which only has a downside, because it is illegal
there is a difference between harm reduction: once someone is addicted, making sure their lives are less of a disaster area than it would otherwise be, and harm reduction: making sure the person's life is never a disaster area in the first place by never letting them get near a drug
of course, when you make something illegal, you give it a tgaboo cachet among some idiots, and you feed organized crime. for most drugs, this means legality is a better approach. but for the highly inebriating+highly addictive drugs, the destruction of people's lives is such that even taking the negative effects of illegality into account, illegality is still worth it
all drugs exert a destructive influence on lives. every single one
you start with something like coffee (infinitesimal destructive cost), all they way up to a continuum to something like methamphetamine (huge destructive cost)
but, also for making these drugs illegal, you exert a societal cost in terms of funding organized crime, etc.
so you have to weighs pros and cons. if you say to me its all con for making drugs illegal, or all pro for making drugs illegal, you're like a 14 year old debate club idiot: you are a total ognrant on the facts of what you are discussing
you have to make a cost/ benefit analysis of legalizing/ making illegal for every single drug. you begin by recognizing there is a cost for making drugs legal, and a cost for makign drugs illegal. then you have to pick between grey areas: by making a drug illegal or legal, are gianing more or less destruction overall?
its incredibly difficult and complicated. if you think its easy and a nobrainer, you, again, are a completel fool
for a lot of drugs (lsd, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana) the societal costs of making them illegal (organized crime, taboo cachet for idiot teenagers, etc) clearly outweight the personal costs of making them legal (smoking gives you cancer, alcohol addiction and drunk driving, etc.)
but for some drugs (heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine) the societal costs of making them illegal ARE LESS THAN the personal costs of making them legal
to understand that, you need to understand just how devastating the addictive effects of these drugs are. that it is easy to become addicted, and once addicted, you are unable to hold a job, a relationship, etc. (well, you are, for awhile, but its a rocketship you fall off of at some point... if you meet someone who says someone can be a cocaine adict or a heroin addict and remian in a relationship or job forever, no ill effects, you are dealing with an addict in denial and/ or a complete idiot)
if you don't understand the cold hard facts of the destructive power of hardcore drugs on people's lives, you are speaking form a position of complete ignorance
hardcore inebriating and addictive substances do to lives is nothing but a story of utter destruction
and again, you may say: so what? why do i care if someone destroys their lives? because me, society, my taxes, has to pay to feed and house people who are basically zombies unable to feed or clothe or house themselve,s just ithcing for a drug
if i'm shell out some cash, i'd rather fund the CHEAPER cost of forever (yes, the war lasts forever and never ends, i know that) of waging war on HARDCORE drugs (only heorin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.) marijuana, lsd, mushrooms: should be legal
something like nicotine is extremely addicting, but not inebriating
should be legal
while something like lsd is not addicting, but highly inebriating
should be legal
then moderately addicting and moderate inebriating substances like alcohol, marijuana
should be legal
however, on the deep end of the graph are things like methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin: very addicting, very ienbriating. you can't maintain your relationships, you can't hold a job, you threaten your health and your life
no, these should not be legal. simply because the prohibition effects of fighting these drugs (supporting the mafia, giving the drugs a taboo cachet, etc) are still less costly than the direct life destruction these drugs create
in other words, something like marijuana should be legalized, but something like methamphetamine should not. you need to evaluate legality on a drug-by-drug basis. to just blanket statement "all drugs should be legal" reveals a very shallow understanding of some of the really devastating effects of some of the highly inebriating AND highly addicting drugs
it is only the deep end of the pool that should remain verboten
in a few weeks, poor innocent little children will get visits from aunt bertha and grandma marge, and the first thing the strange smelly relatives will do is find the innocent children, exclaim "my how you've grown!" or "aren't you the cutest thing, i could eat you up!" and, approaching the children, who will now be rapt in horror, they will proceed to plant wet sloppy kisses, over the protestations and gyrations of the children sturggling to break free of the bear arm grip
and, the kids are right to object. they are trying to avoid herpes and alzheimers
kisses from old relatives is a brain mummifying disease
how do you think they got cloud computing off the ground?
if its really bad code it goes to code hell
most pieces of malware, for example, are zombie pieces of code stitched together from pieces of netscape and aol. the code devil himself is composed of the evit bit and the piece of code that confused imperial units and metric units and caused the mars climate orbiter to crash
so i write a comment board. someone wants to put < > & " ' < > & " ' in their comments. rather than just disable-output-escaping, now i have to (new XMLSerializer()).serializeToString the content, and then tediously work through all of the markup, then turn it back into a node tree
in javascript. or on the server. everytime i want to display the fucking content. special, for firefox. not opera, not safari, not chrome, not msie. those browsers have seen the light, why haven't you?
but noooo.. every time i want to use disable-output-escaping, i'm just a bad programmer, right?
fucking bullshit you arrogant fuck: IT IS THE MAJORITY OF CASES where it is perfectly necessary and important and appropriate to use disable-output-escaping. remember innerHTML? every time you use that, you're just a hack, right?
because assholes like you lack the imagination to consider real world programming tasks, outside of your holier-than-thou ivory tower mental straightjacket of how the world should behave, rather than how it actually DOES behave. there is the universe of programming tasks before you as determined by your stunted ability to understand reality, then there is the actual and real universe of programming tasks real programmers face. ever hear of RSS? jesus christ you arrogant fuck
but don't mind me, i'm obviously just some sort of low level hack. the need for diable-output-escaping is purely imaginary if you are good programmer. right?
This is actually pretty close to the question above. And in short, no. Disabling output escaping requires us to add a parsing step to our output generation, which we don't. In most cases, there are pretty easy workarounds. The only use cases we have seen are bad XML or bad XSLT. And RSS feeds. The latter is pretty much the only issue to us, and we're sorry that we can't support it. But mixing parsing with XSLT is brittle and we rather not support d-o-e than either crash or be even slower.
really? a desperately needed piece of functionality is bad xml?
you had pretty much the same holier-than-thou attitude behind your resistance to supporting innerHTML, and you reversed yourself, for good reason: its what programmers need and want. programmers are your friends. keep us as your friends
we shouldn't have to spend time coding special scenarios to support your browser, for the most stubborn and shortsighted of reasons
Slashdot Mirror
when i request a web page, what i get is serialized content. firefox is processing that stream into a nodetree. nothing you can possibly say gets around the obvious fact that processing serialized content into a nodetree is not only a normal part of a browser's functions, it is THE function of a browser
and now you are telling me that a browser can't do this essential function under some sort of mitigating circumstance?
sorry, i'm not sold. it's like you are telling me you can program a stoplight to play chess, but you can't make it glow red
while mostly being a steaming pile of shit compared to the original, it attempts to redeem itself by accurately using nmap in one scene
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/05/16/matrix_sequel_has_hacker_cred/
and made a droopy monkey face, and continued, in staccato stammering
"is our childrens learning? is our childrens educatored? you know, heh, i will be the decider, until its 'mission accomplished'"
"an addict can managing their use intelligently"
thanks for the laugh
kind of like saying "so an elephant can fly gracefully"
the idea is harm reduction right?
the best harm reduction approach, for something as truly vile (highly addictive+highly inebriating, so job/ relationship maintenance is horribly difficult) as meth/coke/heroin is TO PREVENT THE CREATION OF ADDICTS IN THE FIRST PLACE
my tin foil hat says "made in china" on the side
should i worry?
no, because its cheaper and easier to buy that stuff
the only reason people grow their own pot is because its illegal. if pot were made legal, only a tiny fringe would continue to still grow their own pot. somewhere between the number that microbrew their own beer and the number that grow their own tobacco for smoking
i suppose you are referring to ethanol laced with methanol, wood alcohol. that kills your liver and causes blindness
in which case, it would be more appropriate to compare drugs on the black market laced with bullshit (literally, bullshit), strychnine, and other toxic impurities
and you are correct: if methamphetamine were made legal, toxic impurities disappear
however, you need to study what methamphetamine does to your body and brain, permanently, to understand something like methamphetamine is not something you exmperiment with. its something you steer clear of and keep teenaged idiots away from in spite of themselves. oh certainly, there will always be idiots who will get it no matter what, but making something illegal actually means orders of magnitude less people are exposed to it. that has great value
the negative aspects of making methamphetamine illegal are smaller than the negative aspects of making it legal. and if you are telling me what business is it of mine if someone else destroys their life, well me, taxpayer, society, we have to clothe and feed and house zombies who would otherwise be normal functional people. that waging war on something like meth is cheaper, even with all the jails and police, than supporting legions of drug zombies, because they got exposed to it when they were dumb kids, that we should have prevented, for our sake, and theirs
Have you done Methamphetamine yourself?
no. are you telling me i have to take cyanide to understand its not good for me too?
Do you know what it does to you actually - not what from what you hear in the media?
it seems to me "teh ev1l med1a" pretty much tows the line for the big, obvious, well-established negative medical aspects of methamphetamine. its hard for something to be called propaganda when it communicates to you the obvious and well-established facts
Did you know it's a prescription drug, used for Obesity, ADHD and extreme Narcolepsy.
we also use morphine for extreme pain, digitalis for heart failure, and maggots for gangrenous wounds. what does any of that supposed to tell us about recreational use?
Yeah you heard me right. Do you know that the seemingly harmless ADHD medicine we hand out daily to millions of kids worldwide is actually Meth's younger brother - Amphetamine?
and i happen to think we overmedicate our children, that plenty of so-called medical conditions are just overactive children, and the pharmaceutical industry is just inventing disease conditions that aren't really that bad to shove drugs down the throats of people. but again, what the hell does a medical condition supposed to inform us about recreational use?
anything else i can help you with today?
never intends to be airtight
nor does making a ban airtight mean it is not effective
preface: marijuana, shrooms lsd should be legal. heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine should NEVER be legal
the war on drugs will last forever. the war on drugs SHOULD last forever. its simply a maintenance function of society, like taking out the trash. there is a "war on trash". that we don't get rid of garbage means we should stop taking out the garbage? there's this strange mentality out there that says that because the war on drugs isn't 100% effective, that it isn't effective at all
if you make something illegal, you make it more difficult to get, not impossible. when you make something more difficult to get, you decimate the number of people who use or try something
there will ALWAYS be someone who will go to any length to get a drug. the existence of such people means nothing, teaches us nothing, about the hundreds of thousands deterred from ever trying a drug, which only has a downside, because it is illegal
there is a difference between harm reduction: once someone is addicted, making sure their lives are less of a disaster area than it would otherwise be, and harm reduction: making sure the person's life is never a disaster area in the first place by never letting them get near a drug
of course, when you make something illegal, you give it a tgaboo cachet among some idiots, and you feed organized crime. for most drugs, this means legality is a better approach. but for the highly inebriating+highly addictive drugs, the destruction of people's lives is such that even taking the negative effects of illegality into account, illegality is still worth it
understand that for something like methampethamine, the costs of legalization far outweighs prohibition
but something like marijuana, or lsd, or mushrooms: the costs of prohibition are far greater. these drugs should be legal
familiarize yourself what something like methampetamine does to a person and their brain and their family and their job
once you understand that, you understand that all drugs are not the same, and shoul dnot be treated the same legally
case-by-case is the wisest approach
all drugs exert a destructive influence on lives. every single one
you start with something like coffee (infinitesimal destructive cost), all they way up to a continuum to something like methamphetamine (huge destructive cost)
but, also for making these drugs illegal, you exert a societal cost in terms of funding organized crime, etc.
so you have to weighs pros and cons. if you say to me its all con for making drugs illegal, or all pro for making drugs illegal, you're like a 14 year old debate club idiot: you are a total ognrant on the facts of what you are discussing
you have to make a cost/ benefit analysis of legalizing/ making illegal for every single drug. you begin by recognizing there is a cost for making drugs legal, and a cost for makign drugs illegal. then you have to pick between grey areas: by making a drug illegal or legal, are gianing more or less destruction overall?
its incredibly difficult and complicated. if you think its easy and a nobrainer, you, again, are a completel fool
for a lot of drugs (lsd, nicotine, alcohol, marijuana) the societal costs of making them illegal (organized crime, taboo cachet for idiot teenagers, etc) clearly outweight the personal costs of making them legal (smoking gives you cancer, alcohol addiction and drunk driving, etc.)
but for some drugs (heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine) the societal costs of making them illegal ARE LESS THAN the personal costs of making them legal
to understand that, you need to understand just how devastating the addictive effects of these drugs are. that it is easy to become addicted, and once addicted, you are unable to hold a job, a relationship, etc. (well, you are, for awhile, but its a rocketship you fall off of at some point... if you meet someone who says someone can be a cocaine adict or a heroin addict and remian in a relationship or job forever, no ill effects, you are dealing with an addict in denial and/ or a complete idiot)
if you don't understand the cold hard facts of the destructive power of hardcore drugs on people's lives, you are speaking form a position of complete ignorance
hardcore inebriating and addictive substances do to lives is nothing but a story of utter destruction
and again, you may say: so what? why do i care if someone destroys their lives? because me, society, my taxes, has to pay to feed and house people who are basically zombies unable to feed or clothe or house themselve,s just ithcing for a drug
if i'm shell out some cash, i'd rather fund the CHEAPER cost of forever (yes, the war lasts forever and never ends, i know that) of waging war on HARDCORE drugs (only heorin, cocaine, methamphetamine, etc.) marijuana, lsd, mushrooms: should be legal
if something like marijuana would legalized, the taxes collected on that would be staggeringly huge
if you want to argue profit (for the government), you argue for legalization
sure there are entrenched interests, but there is no larger entrenched interest than the taxman
take a graph: ease of addiction versus inebriation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg
something like nicotine is extremely addicting, but not inebriating
should be legal
while something like lsd is not addicting, but highly inebriating
should be legal
then moderately addicting and moderate inebriating substances like alcohol, marijuana
should be legal
however, on the deep end of the graph are things like methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin: very addicting, very ienbriating. you can't maintain your relationships, you can't hold a job, you threaten your health and your life
no, these should not be legal. simply because the prohibition effects of fighting these drugs (supporting the mafia, giving the drugs a taboo cachet, etc) are still less costly than the direct life destruction these drugs create
in other words, something like marijuana should be legalized, but something like methamphetamine should not. you need to evaluate legality on a drug-by-drug basis. to just blanket statement "all drugs should be legal" reveals a very shallow understanding of some of the really devastating effects of some of the highly inebriating AND highly addicting drugs
it is only the deep end of the pool that should remain verboten
opinions are like anuses: everyone has one, but most of them stink
do not expose your mind to too much of what you find on comment boards, or you will go insane, lose all faith in humanity, etc.
most of the drek you find in comments here isn't worth your time. yes, there are a few gems. so, by all means, continue looking for those gems
but place your sleeve over your mouth, and try not to breathe too much of the foul air, all you will do is retch
but they've always had a great PR department
</sarcasm>
nambla troll?
in a few weeks, poor innocent little children will get visits from aunt bertha and grandma marge, and the first thing the strange smelly relatives will do is find the innocent children, exclaim "my how you've grown!" or "aren't you the cutest thing, i could eat you up!" and, approaching the children, who will now be rapt in horror, they will proceed to plant wet sloppy kisses, over the protestations and gyrations of the children sturggling to break free of the bear arm grip
and, the kids are right to object. they are trying to avoid herpes and alzheimers
kisses from old relatives is a brain mummifying disease
spoof it all over media sentry's logs
have him sued for piracy
lock him the same cell as the somali pirates
same thing, right? right?
arrrr
;-)
what's wrong with client side transformations?
except for firefox, that is
to what is thoughts were on the evolution of scifi?
if anyone has a perspective on that, this man certainly does
RIP
for not understanding that messiness is an aspect of dealing with real life constraints, not simply bad code
how do you think they got cloud computing off the ground?
if its really bad code it goes to code hell
most pieces of malware, for example, are zombie pieces of code stitched together from pieces of netscape and aol. the code devil himself is composed of the evit bit and the piece of code that confused imperial units and metric units and caused the mars climate orbiter to crash
so i write a comment board. someone wants to put < > & " ' < > & " ' in their comments. rather than just disable-output-escaping, now i have to (new XMLSerializer()).serializeToString the content, and then tediously work through all of the markup, then turn it back into a node tree
in javascript. or on the server. everytime i want to display the fucking content. special, for firefox. not opera, not safari, not chrome, not msie. those browsers have seen the light, why haven't you?
but noooo.. every time i want to use disable-output-escaping, i'm just a bad programmer, right?
fucking bullshit you arrogant fuck: IT IS THE MAJORITY OF CASES where it is perfectly necessary and important and appropriate to use disable-output-escaping. remember innerHTML? every time you use that, you're just a hack, right?
because assholes like you lack the imagination to consider real world programming tasks, outside of your holier-than-thou ivory tower mental straightjacket of how the world should behave, rather than how it actually DOES behave. there is the universe of programming tasks before you as determined by your stunted ability to understand reality, then there is the actual and real universe of programming tasks real programmers face. ever hear of RSS? jesus christ you arrogant fuck
but don't mind me, i'm obviously just some sort of low level hack. the need for diable-output-escaping is purely imaginary if you are good programmer. right?
fucking ignorant, arrogant ivory tower prick
fucking support disable-output-escaping already
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98168
your reason for not supporting it is arrogance:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/XSL_Transformations_in_Mozilla_FAQ_(external)
really? a desperately needed piece of functionality is bad xml?
you had pretty much the same holier-than-thou attitude behind your resistance to supporting innerHTML, and you reversed yourself, for good reason: its what programmers need and want. programmers are your friends. keep us as your friends
we shouldn't have to spend time coding special scenarios to support your browser, for the most stubborn and shortsighted of reasons
leave that kind of hatred for msie, ok? thanks