Mozilla continues their march toward complete stupidity
-
So, websites can serve 0.5MB of just js today?
That alone kind of justifies NoScript. That's still a lot of data on any mobile plan for a page, even without a monthly quota.
The other nice point with having javascript disabled is that it thwarts about half of all drive-by malware. ...Does anyone here happen to have more precise numbers on that, actually? In any case, I feel that it is simply unsanitary to run just any random code from the 'nets on my machine.
Actually, "Run JS only from the domain of the current page" should be a standard option in every browser.
-
@OldCrow said:
Actually, "Run JS only from the domain of the current page" should be a standard option in every browser.
Sounds great. Except we use CDN-hosted jQuery (to save our visitors bandwidth), and our locally hosted JS will crash and burn without that.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@OldCrow said:
Actually, "Run JS only from the domain of the current page" should be a standard option in every browser.
Sounds great. Except we use CDN-hosted jQuery (to save our visitors bandwidth), and our locally hosted JS will crash and burn without that.This is not my area of expertise, so please excuse my ignorance, but how does a CDN at YOUR end of the line save MY bandwidth exactly?
Edit: Also, what exactly do you need javascript for that would be worth my time?
Edit 2: Wait, scratch that, this is one of those corporate/enterprise things, isn't it?
-
@OldCrow said:
@joe.edwards said:
@OldCrow said:
Actually, "Run JS only from the domain of the current page" should be a standard option in every browser.
Sounds great. Except we use CDN-hosted jQuery (to save our visitors bandwidth), and our locally hosted JS will crash and burn without that.This is not my area of expertise, so please excuse my ignorance, but how does a CDN at YOUR end of the line save MY bandwidth exactly?
There's a high likelihood you've already downloaded a copy of jQuery from Google's CDN on another website you've browsed. So, you don't have to download it again for our site.
-
@joe.edwards said:
There's a high likelihood you've already downloaded a copy of jQuery from Google's CDN on another website you've browsed. So, you don't have to download it again for our site.
That's presuming I'm not bothered by Google following me around for Uncle Sam.
But technically true.
Still doesn't explain what you need js for.
-
@OldCrow said:
@joe.edwards said:
There's a high likelihood you've already downloaded a copy of jQuery from Google's CDN on another website you've browsed. So, you don't have to download it again for our site.
That's presuming I'm not bothered by Google following me around for Uncle Sam.
But technically true.
Still doesn't explain what you need js for.
Mostly glitz. Our site is littered with carousels, slideshows, accordions, lightboxes, "twisties" (I hate that term), form validation, AJAX forms/tabs/search results, etc. It's script-heavy.
I personally code with a "progressive enhancement" methodology that adds hours to the development cycle but accommodates users without JS. Others on my team though have been very resistant and will argue when I tell them they need to support that scenario. You win some, you lose some. But almost every page of our site (and there are around 10,000 of those, no joke) uses JS in some form or fashion.
-
@OldCrow said:
So, websites can serve 0.5MB of just js today?
That alone kind of justifies NoScript. That's still a lot of data on any mobile plan for a page, even without a monthly quota.
The other nice point with having javascript disabled is that it thwarts about half of all drive-by malware. ...Does anyone here happen to have more precise numbers on that, actually? In any case, I feel that it is simply unsanitary to run just any random code from the 'nets on my machine.
Actually, "Run JS only from the domain of the current page" should be a standard option in every browser.
Yeah, making CDNs useless is sure to speed up the web. You are brilliant!
-
@OldCrow said:
So, websites can serve 0.5MB of just js today?
That alone kind of justifies NoScript. That's still a lot of data on any mobile plan for a page, even without a monthly quota.
- Load page;
- Realize page is broken with JavaScript disabled;
- Enable JavaScript for the site's domain;
- Reload page;
- Realize page is still broken because it depends on JS hosted elsewhere;
- Enable JavaScript for another domain that "seems to be the one";
- Is the page okay now? If not return to step 4.
Yeah, that saves bandwidth.
I'm talking from experience btw. But I don't care about bandwidth, I just like seeing sites break.
-
A fellow traveller, I see. I've done that a zillion and one times.
-
@Zecc said:
@OldCrow said:
So, websites can serve 0.5MB of just js today?
That alone kind of justifies NoScript. That's still a lot of data on any mobile plan for a page, even without a monthly quota.
- Load page;
- Realize page is broken with JavaScript disabled;
- Enable JavaScript for the site's domain;
- Reload page;
- Realize page is still broken because it depends on JS hosted elsewhere;
- Enable JavaScript for another domain that "seems to be the one";
- Is the page okay now? If not return to step 4.
Yeah, that saves bandwidth.
I'm talking from experience btw. But I don't care about bandwidth, I just like seeing sites break.
You forgot step 2.5: Realize that the site wasn't that important anyway, and go do something else.
-
@OldCrow said:
@joe.edwards said:
@OldCrow said:
Actually, "Run JS only from the domain of the current page" should be a standard option in every browser.
Sounds great. Except we use CDN-hosted jQuery (to save our visitors bandwidth), and our locally hosted JS will crash and burn without that.This is not my area of expertise, so please excuse my ignorance, but how does a CDN at YOUR end of the line save MY bandwidth exactly?
Edit: Also, what exactly do you need javascript for that would be worth my time?
Edit 2: Wait, scratch that, this is one of those corporate/enterprise things, isn't it?
Obviously we now need a javascript library package manager in the browser so you can download and install all the usual js libraries exactly once. I vote we integrate maven and add a new tag - pom. Then the page html will look like this:
<html>
<head>
<pom>
<dependencies>
<dependency>
<groupId>org.jquery</groupId>
<artifactId>jquery</artifactId>
<version>4.8.7-SNAPSHOT</version>
</dependency>
... etc ...
</dependencies>
<repositories>
<repository>
<id>com.mycompany.cdn</id>
<name>MyCompany's superfast homegrown CDN</name>
<url>http://cdn.mycompany.com/releases</url>
</repository>
<repository>
<id>com.google.cdn</id>
<name>Gooogle's happy fun time bandwidth saver</name>
<url>https://cdn.google.com</url>
</repository>
</repositories>
</pom>
... rest of html ...In place of the current
<html><head><link rel="stylesheet" href="https://cdn.google.com/jquery-4.8.7-SNAPSHOT.min.js" type="text/css" media="screen" /> ... etc ...
It might become a problem when the pom starts to become larger than the js itself, but this problem is nothing that can't be solved with a pom minifier or simply serving the html gzipped.
-
The new Firefox logo looks exactly the same as the old one except for some very minor colour changes. That's not "new", that's an update. An entirely useless one at that. But Mozilla are getting good at the whole useless shit thing, just like when they started with the version number race with Chrome.
@OldCrow said:
So, websites can serve 0.5MB of just js today?
Ever heard of "caching"? You know, that thing browsers do so you don't have to download half a meg of JavaScript each time you hit a page, only the first time?
-
@Mo6eB said:
This is not my area of expertise, so please excuse my ignorance, but how does a CDN at YOUR end of the line save MY bandwidth exactly?
Every site that also pulls its libraries from that same CDN gets to re-use the browser's cached copy.
Once we all finally get around to figuring out that libraries should be referred to by magnet links instead of http URLs, this will work really well.
-
@OldCrow said:
Still doesn't explain what you need js for.
Websites don't need JavaScript. In the same way OSes don't need preemptive multitasking and computers don't need CPUs with more than 1 core.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
@OldCrow said:
Still doesn't explain what you need js for.
Websites don't need JavaScript. In the same way OSes don't need preemptive multitasking and computers don't need CPUs with more than 1 core.
You mean kind of like how I don't need pointless animations or theme music when I check the opening hours of a local car repair shop?
Or how I don't need a lightbox with a feedback form just popping to my view while I try to pay my bills in the online bank?
You know what? Maybe I'd settle for a "Disable all sounds and animations" button.
I may be old fashioned, but I usually browse the net for information or to complete some task, e.g. online banking. And I haven't seen either made easier with javascript.
I ignore the banner on my bank's website that says "Please turn on your javascript", because the one time that I got interested in what it'd do, it just turns into a banner that says "Please update your browser".So, it needs javascript for browser detection only? Thanks, but no thanks. Their site works well enough without, or better, since there are fewer animations and less flashing overall.
I have an account in another bank too, but their site uses Java, so I use their "back-up/mobile/text" site instead. It's wonderfully plain, with zero images and a very nice and readable text size and font.
Where have all the good old text-only sites gone these days?
EDIT: The "out of date" browser is because I use Debian Stable.
-
@The_Assimilator said:
Ever heard of "caching"? You know, that thing browsers do so you don't have to download half a meg of JavaScript each time you hit a page, only the first time?
Ever hear of "cache expiry"? How many sites do you check for new content daily? How many do you browse further? How long does the cache stick around?
And then we get to the subject of browser memory consumption.
-
Gotta be careful of those hibernation pods, they only go one direction.
-
-
@joe.edwards said:
I personally code with a "progressive enhancement" methodology that adds hours to the development cycle but accommodates users without JS. Others on my team though have been very resistant and will argue when I tell them they need to support that scenario. You win some, you lose some. But almost every page of our site (and there are around 10,000 of those, no joke) uses JS in some form or fashion.
I personally support code with a "screw the user if they don't have js" methodology. < 0.5% of our users don't have javascript enabled, and some tasks it takes an extra week to get it to work without javascript. It's not worth the cost.@OldCrow said:
I may be old fashioned, but I usually browse the net for information or to complete some task, e.g. online banking.
Ah, yes. I, too, get on the internet to either get information or perform a task.@OldCrow said:
There's lots of things that javascript can do. For one, it can only reload parts of a page that need refreshed instead of the whole thing, so you're saving speed and bandwidth there. @OldCrow said:And I haven't seen either made easier with javascript.
I ignore the banner on my bank's website that says "Please turn on your javascript", because the one time that I got interested in what it'd do, it just turns into a banner that says "Please update your browser".So, it needs javascript for browser detection only? Thanks, but no thanks. Their site works well enough without, or better, since there are fewer animations and less flashing overall.
Where have all the good old text-only sites gone these days?
Seems to be an oxymoron. And yes, it's weird that people make sites look good like everyone wants instead of making them plain text like you want.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@joe.edwards said:
I personally code with a "progressive enhancement" methodology that adds hours to the development cycle but accommodates users without JS. Others on my team though have been very resistant and will argue when I tell them they need to support that scenario. You win some, you lose some. But almost every page of our site (and there are around 10,000 of those, no joke) uses JS in some form or fashion.
I personally support code with a "screw the user if they don't have js" methodology. < 0.5% of our users don't have javascript enabled, and some tasks it takes an extra week to get it to work without javascript. It's not worth the cost.
I support code with a "don't include options that break the program" methodology. 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.
-
@Ben L. said:
I support code with a "don't include options that break the program" methodology. 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.
I support code with a "your program is extremely open ended and not only do you have no fucking clue how every one of your users uses it, but it's also impossible to know that information completely and you're a douchebag for presuming that you can, therefore if you had an option, even if it could potentially break something, you never remove it, and intead at worst you move it off to an advanced screen and if it makes you feel better put a warning message that will just be ignored anyways to cover your ass because the only people who will use that screen will either WANT to 'break' things or will know enough to unbreak them afterwards" methodology.
You don't "let" users take an action that irrevocable deletes or destroys data. Example, the Uninstall button. Or Delete My Profile. Or set a value out of range.
Other than that, "let" is a stupid concept and your a bad developer for thinking that way.
-
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:
Ben you're such an i... wait... what? Did you just say something I agree with? Head asplode@joe.edwards said:
I personally code with a "progressive enhancement" methodology that adds hours to the development cycle but accommodates users without JS. Others on my team though have been very resistant and will argue when I tell them they need to support that scenario. You win some, you lose some. But almost every page of our site (and there are around 10,000 of those, no joke) uses JS in some form or fashion.
I personally support code with a "screw the user if they don't have js" methodology. < 0.5% of our users don't have javascript enabled, and some tasks it takes an extra week to get it to work without javascript. It's not worth the cost.
I support code with a "don't include options that break the program" methodology. 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.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:
Ben you're such an i... wait... what? Did you just say something I agree with? *Head asplode*@joe.edwards said:
I support code with a "don't include options that break the program" methodology. 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.I personally code with a "progressive enhancement" methodology that adds hours to the development cycle but accommodates users without JS. Others on my team though have been very resistant and will argue when I tell them they need to support that scenario. You win some, you lose some. But almost every page of our site (and there are around 10,000 of those, no joke) uses JS in some form or fashion.
I personally support code with a "screw the user if they don't have js" methodology. < 0.5% of our users don't have javascript enabled, and some tasks it takes an extra week to get it to work without javascript. It's not worth the cost.And you're both bad developers who care more more about your comfort coding than about the user.
-
@dhromed said:
@Sutherlands said:
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:
Ben you're such an i... wait... what? Did you just say something I agree with? Head asplode@joe.edwards said:
I personally code with a "progressive enhancement" methodology that adds hours to the development cycle but accommodates users without JS. Others on my team though have been very resistant and will argue when I tell them they need to support that scenario. You win some, you lose some. But almost every page of our site (and there are around 10,000 of those, no joke) uses JS in some form or fashion.
I personally support code with a "screw the user if they don't have js" methodology. < 0.5% of our users don't have javascript enabled, and some tasks it takes an extra week to get it to work without javascript. It's not worth the cost.
I support code with a "don't include options that break the program" methodology. 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.And you're both bad developers who care more more about your comfort coding than about the user.
Also, browsing the web without at least NoScript (even in Allow mode, it blocks a lengthy list of known exploits) is like having a series of one night stands without a condom.
-
@dhromed said:
And you're both bad developers who care more more about your comfort coding than about the user.
No, I'm someone who understands that it doesn't make sense to spend twice as much time developing features that only affect a super-small portion of your user-base.
-
@dhromed said:
And you're both bad developers who care more more about your comfort coding than about the user.
Wait what? They're exactly 100% right.
-
@OldCrow said:
@The_Assimilator said:
@OldCrow said:
Still doesn't explain what you need js for.
Websites don't need JavaScript. In the same way OSes don't need preemptive multitasking and computers don't need CPUs with more than 1 core.
You mean kind of like how I don't need pointless animations or theme music when I check the opening hours of a local car repair shop?
Or how I don't need a lightbox with a feedback form just popping to my view while I try to pay my bills in the online bank?
You know what? Maybe I'd settle for a "Disable all sounds and animations" button.
I may be old fashioned, but I usually browse the net for information or to complete some task, e.g. online banking. And I haven't seen either made easier with javascript.
I ignore the banner on my bank's website that says "Please turn on your javascript", because the one time that I got interested in what it'd do, it just turns into a banner that says "Please update your browser".So, it needs javascript for browser detection only? Thanks, but no thanks. Their site works well enough without, or better, since there are fewer animations and less flashing overall.
I have an account in another bank too, but their site uses Java, so I use their "back-up/mobile/text" site instead. It's wonderfully plain, with zero images and a very nice and readable text size and font.
Where have all the good old text-only sites gone these days?
EDIT: The "out of date" browser is because I use Debian Stable.
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.
@joe.edwards said:
@dhromed said:
@Sutherlands said:
@Ben L. said:
@Sutherlands said:
Ben you're such an i... wait... what? Did you just say something I agree with? Head asplode@joe.edwards said:
I personally code with a "progressive enhancement" methodology that adds hours to the development cycle but accommodates users without JS. Others on my team though have been very resistant and will argue when I tell them they need to support that scenario. You win some, you lose some. But almost every page of our site (and there are around 10,000 of those, no joke) uses JS in some form or fashion.
I personally support code with a "screw the user if they don't have js" methodology. < 0.5% of our users don't have javascript enabled, and some tasks it takes an extra week to get it to work without javascript. It's not worth the cost.
I support code with a "don't include options that break the program" methodology. 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.And you're both bad developers who care more more about your comfort coding than about the user.
Also, browsing the web without at least NoScript (even in Allow mode, it blocks a lengthy list of known exploits) is like having a series of one night stands without a condom.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.
-
@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.
You're talking to a guy who at one time had a list of about 200 distinct session tokens to a social networking site with unique logged-in usernames (including 2 or 3 administrator accounts) XSS copied to a remote site, and a little UI that let him just click one of the compromised names and become that user. Oh, and each compromised account became a new vector for the XSS snippet. Also, note that none of those affected had any indication of anything amiss, and no modifications were made to their local machine.
The statute of limitations has passed on that; still, I don't usually discuss my grayhat beginnings - makes a me a decent security consultant though.
-
@Ben L. said:
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.
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.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@dhromed said:
You seem to have lost track of the issue here. Nobody is telling you that you should do extra work and create a website that works both with and without Javascript (well, I'm not). You want to use Javascript? Go ahead. I just want a browser that let's me easily turn JS off from time to time because your JS is doing some silly bullshit that I don't want.And you're both bad developers who care more more about your comfort coding than about the user.
No, I'm someone who understands that it doesn't make sense to spend twice as much time developing features that only affect a super-small portion of your user-base.
-
@joe.edwards said:
@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.
You're talking to a guy who at one time had a list of about 200 distinct session tokens to a social networking site with unique logged-in usernames (including 2 or 3 administrator accounts) XSS copied to a remote site, and a little UI that let him just click one of the compromised names and become that user. Oh, and each compromised account became a new vector for the XSS snippet. Also, note that none of those affected had any indication of anything amiss, and no modifications were made to their local machine.
The statute of limitations has passed on that; still, I don't usually discuss my grayhat beginnings - makes a me a decent security consultant though.
Did you camo-paint your keyboard and wear neon-colored clothes?
As for being a security consultant: Mafiaboy himself is now a security consultant. That says a lot.
Seriously you have to give an idea of the date when you mention exploits like that. There was a time where just about every Oracle database has scott:tiger enabled and where anyone with notepad and a LAN access could eject the cd-rom on the PC of the dude in the next cubicle. Nowadays you can't even use "password" as a password on low-end porn websites (or so I heard).
-
@El_Heffe said:
You want to use Javascript? Go ahead. I just want a browser that let's me easily turn JS off from time to time because your JS is doing some silly bullshit that I don't want.
Turning JS off: A gateway feature to ad blocking.
You horrible person, you.
-
@El_Heffe said:
@Sutherlands said:
@dhromed said:
You seem to have lost track of the issue here. Nobody is telling you that you should do extra work and create a website that works both with and without Javascript (well, I'm not). You want to use Javascript? Go ahead. I just want a browser that let's me easily turn JS off from time to time because your JS is doing some silly bullshit that I don't want.And you're both bad developers who care more more about your comfort coding than about the user.
No, I'm someone who understands that it doesn't make sense to spend twice as much time developing features that only affect a super-small portion of your user-base.Forget javascript, it is now a mere byproduct. The future is CoffeeScript: a language that can be compiled to javascript using a compiler written in CoffeeScript and running on a javascript engine. It's bullet-proof.
Now the only missing part in this puzzle is a MongoDB plugin that would convert json to CoffeeScript, this would make it possible to have truly data-driven websites.
-
@Ronald said:
Forget javascript, it is now a mere byproduct. The future is CoffeeScript: a language that can be compiled to javascript using a compiler written in CoffeeScript and running on a javascript engine. It's bullet-proof.
Now the only missing part in this puzzle is a MongoDB plugin that would convert json to CoffeeScript, this would make it possible to have truly data-driven websites.
Please, don't give them ideas.
Also, it seems like the root of all WTFs is well-intentioned developers that wouldn't know a bad idea if it down-compiled to Javascript and bit them in the foot.
-
@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.@Ben L. said:
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.
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.
-
@boomzilla said:
@El_Heffe said:
You want to use Javascript? Go ahead. I just want a browser that let's me easily turn JS off from time to time because your JS is doing some silly bullshit that I don't want.
Turning JS off: A gateway feature to ad blocking.
You horrible person, you.
Proof that you're either sarcastic or a Morbs sock puppet. He thinks people who block ads are worse than Hitler.
-
@stinerman said:
@boomzilla said:
Sarcastic, obviously, in direct reference to Morbs's attitude. How could there have been any doubt?Turning JS off: A gateway feature to ad blocking.
You horrible person, you.
Proof that you're either sarcastic or a Morbs sock puppet. He thinks people who block ads are worse than Hitler.
-
@stinerman said:
He thinks people who block ads are worse than Hitler.
Well? Did Hitler block web ads? No! Did Stalin? No! So how could they possibly be as bad as Joe Ordinary AdblockPlus User, hmmm?
-
@dkf said:
Well? Did Hitler block web ads? No! Did Stalin? No! So how could they possibly be as bad as Joe Ordinary AdblockPlus User, hmmm?
Of course Hitler blocked ads. And you'd have learned that fact from the Internet, except that hard working people who make websites with these vital facts go out of business because of adblockers.
IT'S A SLIPPERY CIRCLE!
-
@boomzilla said:
@El_Heffe said:
You want to use Javascript? Go ahead. I just want a browser that let's me easily turn JS off from time to time because your JS is doing some silly bullshit that I don't want.
Turning JS off: A gateway feature to ad blocking.
You horrible person, you.
You know, I've actually seen people take that position non-sarcastically, and it's often been people with right-wing/libertarian worldviews.
I don't for a moment believe that you're that extreme, but I would be interested in your analysis of the proposition that advertising, as an unavoidable impost on the cost of virtually every tradeable item in a modern economy, is functionally equivalent to a consumption tax; from which it follows that the use of an ad blocker is a legitimate political protest against taxation without representation.
-
@flabdablet said:
You know, I've actually seen people take that position non-sarcastically
Those people are crazy and stupid. @flabdablet said:from which it follows that the use of an ad blocker is a legitimate political protest against taxation without representation.
Which is equally crazy and stupid.Adblocking wasn't created by crackpots or people who are evil and want to screw websites trying to make money from advertising. Adblocking came about because of all the assholes who insist on cramming every page with eleventy gazillion bouncing, flashing, jumping, scrolling adverts. Stop making your adverts so annoying and adblocking goes away, except for the crackpots who actually believe that they are making a "legitimate political protest against taxation without representation" And their number is few enough to have no meanigful impact on a website's revenue.
Sadly, too many people who run websites would rather rant againt adblocking rather than admit that they caused the problem in the first place.
-
@El_Heffe said:
eleventy gazillion bouncing, flashing, jumping, scrolling
That's a presentation style that can work, on the level of some kind of art, if it's done consciously and deliberately (for what it's worth, Adblock Plus doesn't change the look of Ling's Cars even slightly).
-
@flabdablet said:
I would be interested in your analysis of the proposition that advertising, as an unavoidable impost on the cost of virtually every tradeable item in a modern economy, is functionally equivalent to a consumption tax; from which it follows that the use of an ad blocker is a legitimate political protest against taxation without representation.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
-
@flabdablet said:
...but I would be interested in your analysis of the proposition...
You can't troll a troller, son.
-
-
@D-Coder said:
@Aeolun said:
@El_Heffe said:
That's easy, tattoo it backwards so they can read it in a mirror.God Bless You. This should be tattooed onto the forehead of every programmer who touches the source code of any browser.
That would be incredibly useless, as none of them would be able to see it...
I'm more concerned that it will have to be in about 5-point text to fit it all in. (Bald programmers will have an advantage here.) Can tattoo-ers do 5-point text? Do we need to breed programmers with bigger foreheads?
Direct URL in case of hotlink fail: http://www.lookinglass-labels.com/shirehill/glasscharm/ancientartofwritingonrice.jpg
-
@eViLegion said:
@D-Coder said:
Do we need to breed programmers with bigger foreheads?
No, we need dual-head programmers, so you can tattoo it onto their secondary forehead for ease of reference, while they continue to work on their primary.
Arms race: Next up, nVidia programmers, featuring triple-head programmers. Matrox makes a stunning return to the high-performance GPU world, saying "fuck it, we're going to five heads."
-
@OldCrow said:
So, websites can serve 0.5MB of just js today?
That alone kind of justifies NoScript. That's still a lot of data on any mobile plan for a page, even without a monthly quota.
The other nice point with having javascript disabled is that it thwarts about half of all drive-by malware. ...Does anyone here happen to have more precise numbers on that, actually? In any case, I feel that it is simply unsanitary to run just any random code from the 'nets on my machine.
Actually, "Run JS only from the domain of the current page" should be a standard option in every browser.
True, although FB is probably not going to send half a meg of JS on the mobile version of their site.
-
