-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Shawn wrote: > On Tuesday 23 May 2006 21:56, Mitchell Brown wrote: >> Hello all, I'm just looking for a little bit of discussion on this site. > > I do see that you indicated OT in your topic which is a start at least, but > how is this thread even remotely of interest to anyone in the group? It's > not Linux/FOSS specific, It's not really tech oriented (or at least not tech It is FOSS related because it affects Firefox on Linux. > that should be encouraged), and it's not work related and most people here do > not have any interest in this type of site. I could be wrong though (but I > don't think so). Worse yet, you've just added this thread to the archives, > and now some poor sap will be at work and click on this link, crash his > computer, and potentially loose valuble time and maybe even their job. > Sexual issues are incredibly sensitive these days in the work force. > - From a security perspective knowledge, no matter how offensive, is a good thing. I like that it is a warning, and a possible testing site for tuning things like dansguardian. Of course I will use something disposable/reversible like a VM to actually do the testing on. > Now, as a web developer, I know of a few methods off the top of my head some > of this could be done. However, I will not discuss it in a public forum for > two reasons: > > 1) I would like to preserve some of the integrity I think people believe I > have... :) > 2) I would not want to tell anyone how to create such a useless, ad (and > probably spyware) driven site. Sites like this are not to be encouraged by > passing the links around, or discussing them. (My opinion). > But it does serve as starting point for those who desire the blocking or disabling of such sites. Hiding things that are offensive does not help. It gives unnecessary power to the offensive material (it is implied that we are afraid to face it, therefore it has power) that would otherwise quickly evaporate in the spotlight. If developers were aware of such sites, they should be able to help protect against it. > (No, I did not click the link, nor have any desire to - I can get my adult > material from more, um... ethical?, sites... ). > > This thread should be dropped now like a lead brick. I disagree. One thing that has always bothered me is the "we are more secure" camp. I know I catch myself being complacent when clicking on links without thinking or evaluating. Hiding things like this helps no one except the site maintainer. Reading the source code was fairly informative. It is actually well documented. Of course I am open to the possibility, as remote as it may be, that I am completely full of <expletive delorted> :) Cheers, > > Shawn > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEc/P1wRXgH3rKGfMRAglXAJ4xLEDEejmJTseSV3ayUV3Qz83aaQCcCBvg Z3yJu7zqaxRAHSVix5j9TCI= =txkS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
