Javascript is a loosely-typed language designed without security considerations in mind.
There are clear security considerations in the design of Javascript, eg. domain restrictions, file system restrictions and DOM restrictions.
Ironically, true Java applets prevent the very problems that Javascript/AJAX engender.
While I do have a high opinion of "true" Java, I find "true" Javascript acting on the HTML DOM is a far more suitable tool to develop web applications with. Different tools for different jobs.
Personally I find Java applets to be painfully slow because our corporate anti-virus setup makes Java run at glacial speed... which makes me laugh because we're a software company that develops almost entirely in Java.
As someone who's had to wrangle plenty of Javascript, I agree that it sucks, but I disagree with any argument that security vulnerabilities are inevitable. These days, they seem to be more a product of adding features without thinking about the security implications (Hey, let's allow email viewed in Outlook to run scripts!) than poor implementations of those ideas. Although implementation problems play a part: You're busy coding the nifty new feature, you get to a point where it works, and you happily go and check it into CVS oblivious to the buffer overflow you've introduced.
XSS Vulnerabilities are caused by improperly escaped HTML tags, which are absolutely an implementation issue. HTML tags have to be escaped regardless of XSS because otherwise users can accidentally or otherwise paste a </div> tag into your page and screw the whole thing.
Why shouldn't you have Javascript in an HTML email? It's just a document like any other. Surely that's the same argument as saying that we shouldn't have Javascript in web pages... or is it the implementation of permissions in the email application that are the problem?
Although police implies a force controlled by some agreed upon laws, and without it's own interests. This is not the case. The police here is governend by _your_ laws...
Even then they're not always governed by US law (yes, this is a gratuitous Guantanamo reference).
By what metric? Expressiveness? Ease of implementation? Ease of maintenance? Error rate? Because, last I checked, low-level languages like C fail on all those points compared to a higher-level language.
It's a little unfair to pick on the low-level language programmers. There'd be more of them here to defend themselves but they're all so busy looking for memory leaks and buffer overflows.;-)
Unfortunately all the gov has to do is "claim" a national security matter and any safeguards are null and void anyway. Thats the real issue that needs fixed.
Agreed. If a government's alleged crisis is important enough to walk all over civil liberties then they shouldn't mind submitting to a court to confirm the validity of their decisions. If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear, right?
I give up. Your ignorance and stupidity just can't be beat.
Come on mate. I'm trying to have a rational, calm, conversation about a serious topic, and you're just whining about me being "ignorant", "immature", and "stupid" but have totally failed to back any of that up with rational argument. Show me where I've been immature. Explain it like a grown up, without any of your bitching, then I might take you seriously.
What part of "I made my living will before undergoing a risky medical procedure" did you fail to understand?
The part where that's not what you said. Besides, you're still making decisions before you're actually in that condition. The point I've been trying to make is that until you are in that position you will not know how you might feel about it.
That's a risk I'm taking.
Exactly. Living with PVS and these drugs might be the happiest days of your entire life. You are absolutely, uncategorically, not qualified to predict how you might feel under those circumstances. By all means arrange to stop your own life support, that's up to you, but I stand by my point that you're completely in the dark as to how you'll feel about that decision when you're actually in that condition.
You are, unfortunately, an example of the kind of meddling idiot who presumes he can tell other people how they have to run their lives.
Temper temper. At what point have I told you how to do anything? (That's a rhetorical question by the way because I didn't, but if you like I could give you a few pointers on how to conduct a civilised discussion.)
You don't seem to have understood my point. I don't think people are capable of predicting how they will feel in the actual event of serious illness. Given the vast variation in ways you can become ill, even to lump them together is ludicrous, let alone try to predict how you'll feel in those situations.
For example, what if you realise you're quite happy in whatever situation you end up in? Reduced mental capacity is hardly enough to warrant death, take Down Syndrome kids as an example... they're sweet, lovely people who would not want to die just for being the way they are.
Go find out a bit about life and death...
You have no idea what my experiences are. You should find out before presuming to tell me to go and learn about life.
...you presume to lecture other people on whether they know what their own preferences are.
Preferences change, particularly in adverse circumstances. I hope you don't have to find that out... particularly since you'd then be sentenced to death by your own "living will".
I guess I haven't been clear enough: I have been in the situation of having to make that choice. I decided I do not want to live with severe physical disability or brain damage...
You're still not being clear enough. Am I now speaking to a corpse?
Or maybe I know better than you do, because I've actually had to come to terms with this issue personally and watched a number of relatives (both old and young) face these questions.
I'm sorry for any suffering your family may have faced, but I refuse to believe that you know how you will react until you're in that situation yourself... particularly when the alternative to death is only a drug dependency. Get some perspective mate, before you top yourself when faced with a twisted ankle.
No, I'm pretty certain that all of the I's that m874t232 used in his post meant he was talking about himself.
...and I don't think he knows himself as well as he thinks he does. You can prove me wrong by offering him a choice between death or life-long drug dependence and showing that he chooses death.
I'm not deciding on anyone's behalf. I'm just suggesting that m874t232's claim that it's a crime to keep people alive might be missing a little perspective... notably the perspective of the patient, who may wish to live if only for one hour a week.
If my brain has been damaged so much that I can only be roused to awareness of my surroundings by a drug that artificially and temporarily activates bits and pieces of my brain, I just want to die quickly and painlessly. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest crime against me would be to keep me alive.
You say that now, but if it were to actually happen to you I very much doubt that you'd rather die than be dependent on that drug.
It's like all the people that say they'd rather die young, and can't stand the thought of growing old. When it actually happens to you and you're faced with the prospect of death you'll change your mind pretty fast.
For one thing, most evolution has less to do with mutations, and more to do with subtle variations between members of a species.
Can you define the difference between mutations and "subtle variations between members of a species" please? Surely one is the effect over time of the other, so they can't be so easily seperated.
I would suggest the oppsite. Go with something new.
I'd suggest you both fell into the trap posed by an incomplete question. Teaching someone to use an IDE and teaching them not to use an IDE are not mutually exclusive.
A good programmer should know the basics without distraction, and also know when to save time by using an IDE.
Again, any society capable of getting there will also have discovered the periodicity of chemistry...
So, you're saying that before 1896 the human race would have been incapable of mining out a couple of hundred metres of concrete?
Any pharoah worth his salt could have that concrete shaft carved into a tasteful spiral staircase within his lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that he's powered by the Sun, I'd lean more towards an optical nervous system.
I'd lean more towards getting out more.
Your "Formula 0" would quickly be a human-aided computer, and eventually the human would be reduced to the title "passenger".
...or since nothing ever runs to plan, especially at 200mph, the human would br reduced to the title "grease stain".
One can but hope. Slashdot tends to shake your faith a little.
Shh... Slashdot users aren't meant to understand irony.
Javascript is a loosely-typed language designed without security considerations in mind.
There are clear security considerations in the design of Javascript, eg. domain restrictions, file system restrictions and DOM restrictions.
Ironically, true Java applets prevent the very problems that Javascript/AJAX engender.
While I do have a high opinion of "true" Java, I find "true" Javascript acting on the HTML DOM is a far more suitable tool to develop web applications with. Different tools for different jobs.
Personally I find Java applets to be painfully slow because our corporate anti-virus setup makes Java run at glacial speed... which makes me laugh because we're a software company that develops almost entirely in Java.
As someone who's had to wrangle plenty of Javascript, I agree that it sucks, but I disagree with any argument that security vulnerabilities are inevitable. These days, they seem to be more a product of adding features without thinking about the security implications (Hey, let's allow email viewed in Outlook to run scripts!) than poor implementations of those ideas. Although implementation problems play a part: You're busy coding the nifty new feature, you get to a point where it works, and you happily go and check it into CVS oblivious to the buffer overflow you've introduced.
XSS Vulnerabilities are caused by improperly escaped HTML tags, which are absolutely an implementation issue. HTML tags have to be escaped regardless of XSS because otherwise users can accidentally or otherwise paste a </div> tag into your page and screw the whole thing.
Why shouldn't you have Javascript in an HTML email? It's just a document like any other. Surely that's the same argument as saying that we shouldn't have Javascript in web pages... or is it the implementation of permissions in the email application that are the problem?
Although police implies a force controlled by some agreed upon laws, and without it's own interests. This is not the case. The police here is governend by _your_ laws...
Even then they're not always governed by US law (yes, this is a gratuitous Guantanamo reference).By what metric? Expressiveness? Ease of implementation? Ease of maintenance? Error rate? Because, last I checked, low-level languages like C fail on all those points compared to a higher-level language.
It's a little unfair to pick on the low-level language programmers. There'd be more of them here to defend themselves but they're all so busy looking for memory leaks and buffer overflows.Unfortunately all the gov has to do is "claim" a national security matter and any safeguards are null and void anyway. Thats the real issue that needs fixed.
Agreed. If a government's alleged crisis is important enough to walk all over civil liberties then they shouldn't mind submitting to a court to confirm the validity of their decisions. If they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear, right?
Lobby groups are in office. Fritz Hollings et al are just their PAs.
Plenty of corporates donate to both of the major parties so that they're indebted should they be elected.
1) Licensing that allows a fork.
2) Frustrated users who feel like they can't shape the future of the product via existing channels.
I'd add:
3) A lack of a passable alternative
There wouldn't be much point forking product X if product Y met the requirements.
I give up. Your ignorance and stupidity just can't be beat.
Come on mate. I'm trying to have a rational, calm, conversation about a serious topic, and you're just whining about me being "ignorant", "immature", and "stupid" but have totally failed to back any of that up with rational argument. Show me where I've been immature. Explain it like a grown up, without any of your bitching, then I might take you seriously.
What part of "I made my living will before undergoing a risky medical procedure" did you fail to understand?
The part where that's not what you said. Besides, you're still making decisions before you're actually in that condition. The point I've been trying to make is that until you are in that position you will not know how you might feel about it.
That's a risk I'm taking.
Exactly. Living with PVS and these drugs might be the happiest days of your entire life. You are absolutely, uncategorically, not qualified to predict how you might feel under those circumstances. By all means arrange to stop your own life support, that's up to you, but I stand by my point that you're completely in the dark as to how you'll feel about that decision when you're actually in that condition.
You are, unfortunately, an example of the kind of meddling idiot who presumes he can tell other people how they have to run their lives.
Temper temper. At what point have I told you how to do anything? (That's a rhetorical question by the way because I didn't, but if you like I could give you a few pointers on how to conduct a civilised discussion.)
The time to make a living will...
You don't seem to have understood my point. I don't think people are capable of predicting how they will feel in the actual event of serious illness. Given the vast variation in ways you can become ill, even to lump them together is ludicrous, let alone try to predict how you'll feel in those situations.
For example, what if you realise you're quite happy in whatever situation you end up in? Reduced mental capacity is hardly enough to warrant death, take Down Syndrome kids as an example... they're sweet, lovely people who would not want to die just for being the way they are.
Go find out a bit about life and death...
You have no idea what my experiences are. You should find out before presuming to tell me to go and learn about life.
Preferences change, particularly in adverse circumstances. I hope you don't have to find that out... particularly since you'd then be sentenced to death by your own "living will".
You are so terribly naive.
Now now... don't scratch.
I guess I haven't been clear enough: I have been in the situation of having to make that choice. I decided I do not want to live with severe physical disability or brain damage...
You're still not being clear enough. Am I now speaking to a corpse?
Or maybe I know better than you do, because I've actually had to come to terms with this issue personally and watched a number of relatives (both old and young) face these questions.
I'm sorry for any suffering your family may have faced, but I refuse to believe that you know how you will react until you're in that situation yourself... particularly when the alternative to death is only a drug dependency. Get some perspective mate, before you top yourself when faced with a twisted ankle.
Your claiming that you think you know better than him.
Funny, I thought I just said that.
Sorry to hear that mate.
No, I'm pretty certain that all of the I's that m874t232 used in his post meant he was talking about himself.
...and I don't think he knows himself as well as he thinks he does. You can prove me wrong by offering him a choice between death or life-long drug dependence and showing that he chooses death.
Who are you to decide?
I'm not deciding on anyone's behalf. I'm just suggesting that m874t232's claim that it's a crime to keep people alive might be missing a little perspective... notably the perspective of the patient, who may wish to live if only for one hour a week.
If my brain has been damaged so much that I can only be roused to awareness of my surroundings by a drug that artificially and temporarily activates bits and pieces of my brain, I just want to die quickly and painlessly. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest crime against me would be to keep me alive.
You say that now, but if it were to actually happen to you I very much doubt that you'd rather die than be dependent on that drug.
It's like all the people that say they'd rather die young, and can't stand the thought of growing old. When it actually happens to you and you're faced with the prospect of death you'll change your mind pretty fast.
For one thing, most evolution has less to do with mutations, and more to do with subtle variations between members of a species.
Can you define the difference between mutations and "subtle variations between members of a species" please? Surely one is the effect over time of the other, so they can't be so easily seperated.
I would suggest the oppsite. Go with something new.
I'd suggest you both fell into the trap posed by an incomplete question. Teaching someone to use an IDE and teaching them not to use an IDE are not mutually exclusive.
A good programmer should know the basics without distraction, and also know when to save time by using an IDE.
Again, any society capable of getting there will also have discovered the periodicity of chemistry...
So, you're saying that before 1896 the human race would have been incapable of mining out a couple of hundred metres of concrete? Any pharoah worth his salt could have that concrete shaft carved into a tasteful spiral staircase within his lifetime.So what would be a healthier reaction? Right. Anger management.
Fucking Americans!
Hey, that helps. Thanks.
Is it more or less natural than an elk in a canoe?