Quoting JD <jd1008@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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!http://nisearch.com/search/pdf/air+pollution+effects+and+causes+pdf so.....have you blocked it? d > > 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 > -- "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." Krishnamurti -- 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
