On 07/02/2011 06:40 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 07/02/2011 05:48 PM, JD wrote: >> I do understand why you are so shrill in defending >> javascript, and resorting to cussing and name calling. >> Apparently it is your bread and butter :) > JD, if one or two people here were insisting that you're wrong, and that > javascript can't do what you say it's doing, I'd be encouraging you to > continue as you are. As it is, every single person responding to you is > insisting that you're wrong and that javascript can't do what you claim. > I have to say that at this point the odds are that you are, alas, > wrong. You probably don't agree with me, but the evidence seems to be > against you. Not only that, you've been asked, more than once, to back > up your opinion with facts and have failed to do so. At this point, it > might be best if you accept that you misunderstood what was happening > and simply consider this discussion to be a learning experience. Well Joe, people in general will always believe in the faith that modern priests of the professions preach, weather or not the people know or understand the details of that faith or not. As I just responded, that at the very least, pushing on the user code to be executed by the user's machine, without the user's knowledge that it is being done, and without the user's knowledge of what is being done, is the very definition of invasion of privacy, if not the definition of security threat. As I said, the "troubling history" of javascript security holes should be enough to lead security and privacy minded people to reject the assertion that it is safe. How could anyone judge an intruder into the house as safe and friendly just on the insistence of the priests of the javascript say it is so? Were not nuclear power plants pushed on us as perfectly safe? Yet, their promoters insist that they are and that any examples of disasters of nuclear power plants are only bugs to be worked out. And how many times did windows have to be so easily attacked by the simplest of means, yet MS kept insisting that overall, it was a safe operating environment? It is all based on vested interests who stand to profit from something that is pushed and marketed as safe. Like so many drug companies that pushed and still push drugs with deadly side effects. At the very least, javascript should be blocked just because it is invasive! Cheers, JD -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
