That's a good point, and plays directly into my long-range baby irradiation plans. Keeps them fresher longer and inhibits bacteria growth, so you don't have to always be changing them and washing them. The added mutations when they have children of their own would simply be a happy side-effect!
> Blue eyes are in decline in America. How diverse will humanity be when everyone looks the same?
Oh god no, not that. An America without blue-eyed people just isn't worth living in. What ever will we do. I'm going to stop typing now because I have to go wring my hands for an hour or so.
> A white separatist can apply to one who simply opposes immigration, a white supremist holds his race superior to all others.
I thought the PC term for them was 'white nationalists'? You guys are gonna have to get this straight before I start listening to what you have to say.
> Being that many white genes (blue eyes, for example) are recessive, I would consider those who are pro-immigration as advocates of genocide.
Yeah. Ok. Like I said, I have better things to do with my time than decide which one of your inane splinter factions is stupider than the other.
> The posting above does not include the term white supremacists but rather white nationalist. There are differences between the two, although it appears you would rather paint them all with the same brush.
I sure would. I decline spend the effort necessary to figure out just exactly what one group of shitheads contends separates them from a similar group of shitheads, and where exactly these shitheads want the shithead line drawn. I simply draw it around both, and sleep well at night for doing so.
> By the way, how could you miss the technology angle? This is about how the use of technology impacts society, and the ethical questions surrounding technology.
That's fine, like I said, we can have that discussion for the 47th time. But the weird tangents the submitter goes off on (the islamic textbook bit is relevant how?) are what I object to.
> Oh noes! Somebody is interested in reading something that you don't approve of!
Don't be insulting. My objection is to complete lack of editorial effort. This article is the web equivalent of a broadcast news anchor simply reading a press release that Bob's Chicken Shack hands to her about how new findings have found Bob's Chicken to be high in tastyons. I'd appreciate it if the editors did more than simply blindly pass the press release along.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the point when slashdot became a discussion board for issues of general interest. I was under the impression it was for discussion of issues relating to science and technology.
I look forward to further slashdot articles such as "Ask Slashdot: What knitting needles are best for sweaters?" and "Everybody Loves Raymond Picked Up for Nth Season".
Ok, sure, we got the net nanny stuff blocking things it maybe should and maybe shouldn't, and we can have that debate for the 47th time. But do we need the giant screed about whether these people are white supremacists or not? Shouldn't that have been, oh, I dunno, edited out? By someone whose job it is to edit things? Like some kind of an editor? And why is there this weird aside about some Islamic textbook thing wedged in there?
I mean, I don't know what the article-publishing mechanism is. I wouldn't imagine you'd design it as just a button labeled "Publish" and no edit controls, but I don't really see any evidence to the contrary.
yeah, but it actually -does- something, as opposed to the 30mb of software for my logitech keyboard that wants to manage the media keys and a few other stupid things.
As for buggy, I dunno, it's never crashed once for me, nor has it ever done anything unexpected.
> This vulnerability puts me at risk if a machine I connect to is compromised by an attacker.
I guess I've never seen anyone do this with machines that aren't their own or their employers. Do you?
> If you say so.
Don't take my word for it, rtfa.
> A random web page crashing my machine is still not a "non-issue".
It crashes X, not the whole box. And it's got a pretty simple solution: if you go to a website that crashes your xsession, just don't go back there. Ok, so 'nonissue' is a little strong, but it's not something you're likely to see much of, since it's such a self-limiting 'attack'.
Ok, well I supppose the 4 people who run large xservers on x86 machines with nvidia cards have a legitimate gripe. If any of them would like to speak up, I'll listen. The rest of us have no business opening up xsessions to the internet.
> It could have executed arbitrary code on your machine as root. Hardly a non-issue!
Not through a web page it can't. The exploit can be demonstrated as a ridiculously-long INPUT element, and in that case is simply a DoS attack that crashes X - or at least that's how I read the exploit report. Web-based DoS exploits like this kind of limit themselves, because the user has to direct their browser to the page they (hopefully) eventually realize is crashing their stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
... you'll not ruin mine, A_Capulet935!
That's a good point, and plays directly into my long-range baby irradiation plans. Keeps them fresher longer and inhibits bacteria growth, so you don't have to always be changing them and washing them. The added mutations when they have children of their own would simply be a happy side-effect!
> Blue eyes are in decline in America. How diverse will humanity be when everyone looks the same?
Oh god no, not that. An America without blue-eyed people just isn't worth living in. What ever will we do. I'm going to stop typing now because I have to go wring my hands for an hour or so.
Good point. Objection withdrawn! ;)
> robust
I suppose you're right, but I'd really settle for "some sort of attempt at"
> A white separatist can apply to one who simply opposes immigration, a white supremist holds his race superior to all others.
I thought the PC term for them was 'white nationalists'? You guys are gonna have to get this straight before I start listening to what you have to say.
> Being that many white genes (blue eyes, for example) are recessive, I would consider those who are pro-immigration as advocates of genocide.
Yeah. Ok. Like I said, I have better things to do with my time than decide which one of your inane splinter factions is stupider than the other.
> The posting above does not include the term white supremacists but rather white nationalist. There are differences between the two, although it appears you would rather paint them all with the same brush.
I sure would. I decline spend the effort necessary to figure out just exactly what one group of shitheads contends separates them from a similar group of shitheads, and where exactly these shitheads want the shithead line drawn. I simply draw it around both, and sleep well at night for doing so.
> By the way, how could you miss the technology angle? This is about how the use of technology impacts society, and the ethical questions surrounding technology.
That's fine, like I said, we can have that discussion for the 47th time. But the weird tangents the submitter goes off on (the islamic textbook bit is relevant how?) are what I object to.
> Oh noes! Somebody is interested in reading something that you don't approve of!
Don't be insulting. My objection is to complete lack of editorial effort. This article is the web equivalent of a broadcast news anchor simply reading a press release that Bob's Chicken Shack hands to her about how new findings have found Bob's Chicken to be high in tastyons. I'd appreciate it if the editors did more than simply blindly pass the press release along.
I'm sorry, I must have missed the point when slashdot became a discussion board for issues of general interest. I was under the impression it was for discussion of issues relating to science and technology.
I look forward to further slashdot articles such as "Ask Slashdot: What knitting needles are best for sweaters?" and "Everybody Loves Raymond Picked Up for Nth Season".
Since when is that a relevant discussion to have on slashdot? How is that 'news for nerds'?
Nothing. I do expect something from the
Yeah, ok, I know, but still.
The little-known fact that he signed his name as "Chuck D."
"Political correctness" exists at both ends of the spectrum, no need to change the term just because a different set of nutjobs are using it.
Ok, sure, we got the net nanny stuff blocking things it maybe should and maybe shouldn't, and we can have that debate for the 47th time. But do we need the giant screed about whether these people are white supremacists or not? Shouldn't that have been, oh, I dunno, edited out? By someone whose job it is to edit things? Like some kind of an editor? And why is there this weird aside about some Islamic textbook thing wedged in there?
I mean, I don't know what the article-publishing mechanism is. I wouldn't imagine you'd design it as just a button labeled "Publish" and no edit controls, but I don't really see any evidence to the contrary.
I agree. However, I was a little horrified when I found this:
t .mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsautomotive/defaul
Hopefully it doesn't have anything to do with the car itself, only GPS things and the like.
I'm not. some management of the media keys would be nice, but not at 30MB.
yeah, but it actually -does- something, as opposed to the 30mb of software for my logitech keyboard that wants to manage the media keys and a few other stupid things.
As for buggy, I dunno, it's never crashed once for me, nor has it ever done anything unexpected.
Indeed. In other words, it's a great tool for anyone wanting to know which websites are most frequented by the vast majority of internet users.
the kings of bloated drivers (30MB to install my keyboard?!?) meet the kings of super-awesome software. WHO WILL WIN?!
My money is on logitech. Glad I bought a squeezebox a few months ago (they are 10lbs of awesome stuffed into a 5lb sack).
> And Jon Katz, we loved ya.
That's a goddamn lie and you know it.
what?
> Fix the software, the law, and the enforcement of the law (esp. jurisdiction), and you'll neutralise 95+% of the bad people.
Wow, just fix everything and the problem goes away. Damn, why didn't I think of that??
Obligatory http://grcsucks.com/ link, because Steve Gibson ... well, he sucks.
> This vulnerability puts me at risk if a machine I connect to is compromised by an attacker.
I guess I've never seen anyone do this with machines that aren't their own or their employers. Do you?
> If you say so.
Don't take my word for it, rtfa.
> A random web page crashing my machine is still not a "non-issue".
It crashes X, not the whole box. And it's got a pretty simple solution: if you go to a website that crashes your xsession, just don't go back there. Ok, so 'nonissue' is a little strong, but it's not something you're likely to see much of, since it's such a self-limiting 'attack'.
> Why?
Ok, well I supppose the 4 people who run large xservers on x86 machines with nvidia cards have a legitimate gripe. If any of them would like to speak up, I'll listen. The rest of us have no business opening up xsessions to the internet.
> It could have executed arbitrary code on your machine as root. Hardly a non-issue!
Not through a web page it can't. The exploit can be demonstrated as a ridiculously-long INPUT element, and in that case is simply a DoS attack that crashes X - or at least that's how I read the exploit report. Web-based DoS exploits like this kind of limit themselves, because the user has to direct their browser to the page they (hopefully) eventually realize is crashing their stuff.