Mozilla continues their march toward complete stupidity
-
@OldCrow said:
A bunch of grouching about JS
EDIT: The "out of date" browser is because I use Debian Stable.
You forgot to say "I just want to make a phone call; I don't need a smartphone." Also, a nice young man will be showing up at your doorstep soon to take you to the pharmacy to buy a cane. Please have your boater hat ready, and your pants on. If you don't have sandals and knee-high white socks already, he'll make sure you buy some.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
How about this: instead of blaming the technology, you blame the people who don't know how to use it properly. Or, you could just go on acting like Richard Stallman.
But I AM blaming people who don't use it properly. If everybody used it properly, I'd have a blacklist instead of a whitelist going in NoScript.
@The_Assimilator said:
I dunno what the fuck sites you browse; I run with JavaScript enabled and have never had an issue with malicious scripts. The only things I habitually block are Flash adverts, because they're annoying and intrusive and people who make them should die slowly and painfully. So either I'm really lucky, or you're overly paranoid.
I'd say you're lucky. Drive-by type of attacks tend to come via hacked sites or ad networks (implanted in legitimately bought ad space) these days. Nobody spikes their own site.
Then again, are you sure that you're not actually carrying a virus right now?
@Sutherlands said:
@El_Heffe said:
That sounds nice, but after having done some benchmarking for just this thing, I was truly surprised at how many simply didn't work without javascript. Of those that had some functionality without JS, I don't think any provided all the CORE functionality that the js version had. Unless you're simply not using a lot of popular sites, then it's not going to work very often.[/quote]
It depends on what you mean by "websites don't work". Works for you or works for me? Javascript is used for a lot of things that provide no value to me and in some cases make things worse, or at least more annoying. Yes, there are many legitimate uses for Javascript. But many pages only "need" Javascript in order to do some bullshit that I don't want or don't care about and they work just fine with JS temporarily turned off. They might not work the way that YOU want, but they work the way I want. And that's the way it should be. Having JS turned off all the time is unnecessary and overkill, but there are legitimate reasons to occasionally turn it off.[quote user="Ben L."] If websites don't work without JavaScript and you're a web browser (whose sole purpose in life is to display websites), you shouldn't let users disable JavaScript. Same goes for images and cookies.
Did you really just say "popular sites"? You do realize that this forum has people who tend too create stuff on the computer, and not just consumers, right? I mean, I might have watched a YouTube video every now and then (approximately 3 per month), but I sure don't have time to waste on, say, Facebook or whatever the newest fad is.
Wikipedia thankfully works without js, as does Hackaday. TDWTF required js but surprisingly provides it all from their own domain. BBC news works without js, as does the local Iltalehti . ...And that's about the extent of my daily browsing, unless I look into someone's blog on a link from Hackaday.
-
@FrostCat said:
@OldCrow said:
A bunch of grouching about JS
EDIT: The "out of date" browser is because I use Debian Stable.
You forgot to say "I just want to make a phone call; I don't need a smartphone." Also, a nice young man will be showing up at your doorstep soon to take you to the pharmacy to buy a cane. Please have your boater hat ready, and your pants on. If you don't have sandals and knee-high white socks already, he'll make sure you buy some.
A smartphone was offered to me for free. A friend had bought the newest model and was giving away his old one, which was still in a good condition. I turned it down, as I decided that keeping one more device up-to-date on the browser and anti-virus fronts was too much of a hassle. I prefer my phone to just work.
So, git your junk-peddling ass off my lawn.
-
-
@OldCrow said:
Yes, I did say "popular sites." I'd say from your list of sites you use, that's an accurate statement, too. I'm not sure what your point was with the rest of that incoherent rambling.Did you really just say "popular sites"? You do realize that this forum has people who tend too create stuff on the computer, and not just consumers, right? I mean, I might have watched a YouTube video every now and then (approximately 3 per month), but I sure don't have time to waste on, say, Facebook or whatever the newest fad is.
Wikipedia thankfully works without js, as does Hackaday. TDWTF required js but surprisingly provides it all from their own domain. BBC news works without js, as does the local Iltalehti . ...And that's about the extent of my daily browsing, unless I look into someone's blog on a link from Hackaday.
-
@Lorne Kates said:
@OldCrow said:
So, git your junk-peddling ass off my lawn.
Ah-ha! So there IS a use for Git!
And it keeps my source history too.
But I have to agree with Blakey that Git for Windows is a mess. I tried MSYSGit, and couldn't figure out how to use the GUI. So I use the shell version that was installed with it. A word of warning though for those who come after me: The default text editor for MSYSGit is Vim, which will jump on you if you forget the -m argument.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@OldCrow said:
Yes, I did say "popular sites." I'd say from your list of sites you use, that's an accurate statement, too. I'm not sure what your point was with the rest of that incoherent rambling.Did you really just say "popular sites"? You do realize that this forum has people who tend too create stuff on the computer, and not just consumers, right? I mean, I might have watched a YouTube video every now and then (approximately 3 per month), but I sure don't have time to waste on, say, Facebook or whatever the newest fad is.
Wikipedia thankfully works without js, as does Hackaday. TDWTF required js but surprisingly provides it all from their own domain. BBC news works without js, as does the local Iltalehti . ...And that's about the extent of my daily browsing, unless I look into someone's blog on a link from Hackaday.
Accurate as in the majority breaking without js, or as in the sites being popular?
I'm not sure that any news site can be said to be popular since humans have a need to get their news and will pick either the first source or the next source, and they seem to be OK without javascript. And Iltalehti is better without js, as they tend to have commercials from TV in one of their ad banners. Why are there no volume controls in browsers? Thank God for NoScript.
Hackaday and TDWTF are niche sites, made ultimately by engineers, armed with the knowledge that people are not drawn hither by flashing colors or animations but the actual content. And both look just as good without js. Even the ad banners work on TDWTF, which is a plus since I don't want to deprive Alex of his daily bread. But are TDWTF or Hackaday popular sites? Not in the sense that I understand the term "popular culture". But perhaps we think of different things
-
Accurate as in - the popular sites use JS, you don't visit the popular sites, so you don't notice that you need JS.
-
@Sutherlands said:
Accurate as in - the popular sites use JS, you don't visit the popular sites, so you don't need JS.
FTFY
-
@OldCrow said:
A smartphone was offered to me for free. A friend had bought the newest model and was giving away his old one, which was still in a good condition.
A second hand phone is disgusting. Not only because of the ear sweat, finger grease and spit that got spread on the device for an extended period of time, but also because of the uninteresting, dirty little secrets that were whispered or texted and got processed and converted on the microchips. And for all you know it could have been used to rape a midget while the soundtrack of Steel Magnolias is played at full blast on the speaker. I'd rather shit standing up than use someone else's phone.
-
@FrostCat said:
@OldCrow said:
A bunch of grouching about JS
EDIT: The "out of date" browser is because I use Debian Stable.
You forgot to say "I just want to make a phone call; I don't need a smartphone." Also, a nice young man will be showing up at your doorstep soon to take you to the pharmacy to buy a cane. Please have your boater hat ready, and your pants on. If you don't have sandals and knee-high white socks already, he'll make sure you buy some.
I own and use a Nokia 6100. My previous phone was a Nokia 3310. I neither have, nor want, a smartphone. Especially since a tablet offers better performance with a screen I don't have to squint at for generally less money than a smartphone.
@Ronald said:
@OldCrow said:
A smartphone was offered to me for free. A friend had bought the newest model and was giving away his old one, which was still in a good condition.
A second hand phone is disgusting. Not only because of the ear sweat, finger grease and spit that got spread on the device for an extended period of time, but also because of the uninteresting, dirty little secrets that were whispered or texted and got processed and converted on the microchips. And for all you know it could have been used to rape a midget while the soundtrack of Steel Magnolias is played at full blast on the speaker. I'd rather shit standing up than use someone else's phone.
Dude, you have issues.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
Dude, you have issues.
Says the guy from a country where women have to booby-trap their vagina with barbed wire because they can't go to the convenience store or the hairdresser without getting raped 5 times on their way (and that makes them miss their soap opera on tv). I mean, when your country is in a close race with India to get the title of Rape Land it's a bit rich to tell to other people that they have issues.
-
@Ronald said:
@The_Assimilator said:
Dude, you have issues.
Says the guy from a country where women have to booby-trap their vagina with barbed wire because they can't go to the convenience store or the hairdresser without getting raped 5 times on their way (and that makes them miss their soap opera on tv). I mean, when your country is in a close race with India to get the title of Rape Land it's a bit rich to tell to other people that they have issues.
scratches head
Are you saying that you don't have issues, on the grounds that there's a lot of rape happening in the vicinity of The Assimilator?
If so, I'm perfectly fine with that.
-
@eViLegion said:
@Ronald said:
@The_Assimilator said:
Dude, you have issues.
Says the guy from a country where women have to booby-trap their vagina with barbed wire because they can't go to the convenience store or the hairdresser without getting raped 5 times on their way (and that makes them miss their soap opera on tv). I mean, when your country is in a close race with India to get the title of Rape Land it's a bit rich to tell to other people that they have issues.
scratches head
Are you saying that you don't have issues, on the grounds that there's a lot of rape happening in the vicinity of The Assimilator?
If so, I'm perfectly fine with that.I mean that I'm the Slower Fifty Step Soldier.
-
@Ronald said:
I'd rather shit standing up than use someone else's phone.
And now we know who caused the problems that sparked the "Protecting the truly important stuff" thread!
-
@The_Assimilator said:
I own and use a Nokia 6100. My previous phone was a Nokia 3310. I neither have, nor want, a smartphone. Especially since a tablet offers better performance with a screen I don't have to squint at for generally less money than a smartphone.
Let me introduce you to my Galaxy Note II, with a 5.5" screen.
