Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:But they're not white, so it's OK (Score 1) 338

It's a shame the term is so meaningless that you probably believe it as strongly as someone who believes that you are an SJW (after all, you advocate for transgender people) believes that you are one too.

Be honest: it's a meaningless term, usually applied by anyone who feels uncomfortable about their own racism or sexism (or other prejudices), applied to anyone who made them uncomfortable in any way. If I say "Isn't it a shame the average, well qualified, woman is going to have to fight harder than the average, average qualified, man to get and hold on to a job in IT", it's a simple observation, but I'll get labelled an SJW as a result.

And you? Well, you personally might not. I don't know. You know I'm fairly left wing, and sympathetic to the plight of minorities, but I'm also happy to say when I think people are unfairly demonized, such as Pax Dickinson or the parents of Leelah Alcorn (and to a certain extent you and I had disagreements on the latter, which doesn't surprise me.)

So, given that, what's the point of using the term? Is it used, in practice, for any real life use other than shutting down debate? "OMG! This person suggested I might have certain advantages in life that aren't available to black people, let's call him an SJW and then nobody will take him seriously!"

'cos that's how I see it used. It might, once, by some people, have been used to denote a particular type of over-zealous and highly obnoxious troll who used social justice issues as their weapon, but it doesn't today, and when you use it on Slashdot, you use it in an environment where virtually nobody is referring to those trolls. You're using it in an environment in which it'll be read, and understood, as referring to feminists, civil rights activists, LGB(T*) activists, and, transgender activists, regardless of whether they're hysterical, or just do passive, entirely optional, advocacy, say, in the forms of videos explaining carefully how they feel movies or video games could be improved so that they're not unintentionally a problem for many women.

Comment Re:Wait a mintue (Score 1) 277

No, but that's not really the point (actually, all of the others have added additional security features, but they all had sandboxing last year). The point is that Firefox does not implement the core mechanisms for security that the others all had last year (and, mostly, the year before and the year before that too). This makes is uninteresting as a target.

Comment Re:Wait a mintue (Score 1) 277

This is a reliability measure, not a security measure. The process that plugins run with is not sandboxed and runs with ambient authority. It can read every file in the user's home directory and can open arbitrary network connections. If Flash crashes, then it won't crash Firefox (which is a good thing), but if Flash is compromised then it's exactly the same as if Firefox were compromised. In contrast, if Flash is compromised in Safari or Chrome, the attacker has access to a process running with very restricted privileges and an IPC channel to the browser. To do anything useful, the attacker must use the IPC channel to compromise the sandboxed renderer process, then do the same thing again (though likely with a different vulnerability) to compromise the main browser process (the one that runs with ambient authority). You need, at a minimum, three exploits: one in Flash and two in the browser, to get from a malicious Flash app to a user-level compromise in Chrome or Safari. With Firefox, you need just the first one to do the same amount of damage.

Comment Re:What? (Score 1) 277

Now look at the entitlements for that process. It runs without any sandboxing. A crash in the plugin won't crash the browser, but a compromise of that plugin will give enough privileges to attach a debugger to the main process (on OS X the system will prompt for this, because it looks suspicious, but it can still open arbitrary network connections and read every file in your home directory). Reliability and security often have similar mechanisms, but don't confuse one for the other.

Comment Re: Hoax (Score 1) 738

Eventually means the citizens will eventually demand that something happens, whether it's approving a nomination or changing the rules, or changing the constitution. Most likely it will mean kicking out congress if they continue to not do the job they're being paid to do.

Comment Re:What happens next... (Score 3, Funny) 738

What, a long haired socialist like Jesus on the court? Nonsense, they'd want a proper Christian not some middle eastern immigrant who's soft on crime.

Of course they're not the party of Lincoln anymore. They were invaded by the racist southern Democrats who were opposed to desegregation. Lincoln's party was the party of the damn yankees interfering in their god given right to keep slaves and beat them regularly.

Comment Re:What happens next... (Score 1) 738

Remember when Scalia was nominated. There had been a somewhat small fight over Rehnquist, didn't last long though just long enough for senators to have their say. But even that small fight seemed a too disruptive and unseemly so they gave little to no fight over Scalia (I suspect everyone was secretly happy Bork wasn't nominated instead). The assumption from senators in the past was they they had to have someone approved and it was better to have the imperfect nominee than to leave it unfilled for too long.

Comment Re: Hoax (Score 3, Insightful) 738

The position has to be filled eventually. Hopefully it's not 9 years in the future. This current congress is more intransigent than any congress we've had and they appear poised to get worse as they continue kicking out moderates (also known as people willing to govern rather than be controlled by ideology).

Comment Re:Curious (Score 1) 338

Which is why the Catholic church created the notion of limbo and various levels of hell, making fine distinctions of it all. The Bible however can be interpreted as not having a literal hell as well and just a separation from God. With all religions the fundamental core of the religions and cultural add-ons get muddled together and become hard to separate over time.

Slashdot Top Deals

Support Mental Health. Or I'll kill you.

Working...