On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 06:19:12PM -0400, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> > Could we please try to keep the level of sarcasm down a little bit? There's
> > no reason this discussion can't stay constructive. Thanks!
> OK OK ;-)
> But I thought the idea of a bonsai tree in front of the netbook screen
> was
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> Could we please try to keep the level of sarcasm down a little bit? There's
> no reason this discussion can't stay constructive. Thanks!
OK OK ;-)
But I thought the idea of a bonsai tree in front of the netbook screen
was a bit funny and wo
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 03:53:03PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
..snip..
>
> smart people never built websites which are unuseable without JS
> JS is nice for additional features and comfort but only a fool
> builds a ordinary website which doe snot work without JS
Don't try counting
Am 10.08.2013 15:43, schrieb Matthew Miller:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:57:15AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> They really downplay the extra security risk of enabling javascript.
>> And they really are placing the blame in the wrong place, very few
>> web sites really need to require javascrip
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:17:26PM +0100, laurence orchard wrote:
> sarcasm does get a bit much at times! lowest form of wit?
Well, sometimes it doesn't translate well into a non-face-to-face
conversation.
> BTW I notice your sig says you are a cloud architect? can we have
> some more of those th
sarcasm does get a bit much at times! lowest form of wit?
BTW I notice your sig says you are a cloud architect? can we have some
more of those that look like bunnies please?
On 10/08/2013 18:55, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:47:16PM -0400, Fernando Cassia wrote:
Oh really?
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:47:16PM -0400, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> Oh really? Thanks you saved my life. Now that you mention it, I prefer
> to read news without images, and shop amazon.com without pictures! You
> get a lot of exciting surprises that way!
Could we please try to keep the level of sa
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:47:16 -0400,
Fernando Cassia wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
they really are placing the blame in the wrong place, very few web sites
really need to require javascript. It would have been nicer to see Mozilla
push back against sites r
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 09:43:03 -0400,
Matthew Miller wrote:
This ship has sailed. In fact, it has sailed out of the harbor, across the
ocean, to the remote isles, and brought back a collection of valuable trade
goods. The web today depends on Javascript, and client-side scripting brings
so
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 1:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> they really are placing the blame in the wrong place, very few web sites
> really need to require javascript. It would have been nicer to see Mozilla
> push back against sites requiring javascript to function rather than to make
> it harder
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 14:13:27 +0200,
poma wrote:
On 10.08.2013 07:44, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
…
Note also that they have also removed the ability to disable loading of
images. As far as I know you can't even do this with about:config.
permissions.default.image;1 - ON
$HOME/.mozilla/firef
On Fri, 9 Aug 2013, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
The real tragedy in Firefox 23 is the death of the tag. [1]
I'll miss it like a retinal tear.
--
Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu
"On Monday, I'm gonna have to tell my kindergarten class,
whom I teach not to run with scissors,
that my fia
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 12:57:15AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> They really downplay the extra security risk of enabling javascript.
> And they really are placing the blame in the wrong place, very few
> web sites really need to require javascript. It would have been
> nicer to see Mozilla push
On 10.08.2013 07:44, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
…
> Note also that they have also removed the ability to disable loading of
> images. As far as I know you can't even do this with about:config.
permissions.default.image;1 - ON
$HOME/.mozilla/firefox//prefs.js
user_pref("permissions.default.image", 2);
On 08/10/2013 12:34 AM, Andras Simon wrote:
> "... and user-set values will be reset to the default" according to
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
>
> Thank you Mozilla Foundation, you have just made my netbook unusable.
>
> What do people suggest? The NoScript addon? A d
On 10.08.2013, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> Personally, I am not with or against this change, but here's their
> rationale http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill
To me, the argumentation presented on this site seems somehow grounded,
but is *not* relevant. Javascript and showing pictures could simply be t
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 07:33:27 +0200,
Ahmad Samir wrote:
Personally, I am not with or against this change, but here's their
rationale http://limi.net/checkboxes-that-kill
They really downplay the extra security risk of enabling javascript.
And they really are placing the blame in the wro
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 16:45:02 -0700,
"T.C. Hollingsworth" wrote:
Yeah, just use NoScript. They probably killed it because that's what
anyone who used that checkbox really wants. Makes sense to me.
NoScript isn't as safe in at least some regards. There are some places
that javascript i
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 01:44:45 +0200,
Andras Simon wrote:
2013/8/10, আনন্দ কুমার সমাদ্দার :
Yes, I'd just use noscript. It gives you much finer grained control
than a simple manual on/off option any way.
Last time I tried it, I concluded that manual on/off was much better
for me. But th
On 10 August 2013 01:34, Andras Simon wrote:
> "... and user-set values will be reset to the default" according to
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
>
> Thank you Mozilla Foundation, you have just made my netbook unusable.
>
> What do people suggest? The NoScript addon? A d
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> but more frustrating is the general attitude all over the software
> wold to hide any options because the developers thinking all their
> users are idiots and finally the next generation of users *will* be
> idiots because they never had a c
Am 10.08.2013 01:34, schrieb Andras Simon:
> "... and user-set values will be reset to the default" according to
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
>
> Thank you Mozilla Foundation, you have just made my netbook unusable.
>
> What do people suggest? The NoScript addon? A
2013/8/10, Fernando Cassia :
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Andras Simon wrote:
>> What do people suggest? The NoScript addon? A different browser? I
>> don't believe I'm the only one who hates JS and only switches it on
>> for websites that absolutely require it.
>
> Prefbar
> http://prefbar.m
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 8:34 PM, Andras Simon wrote:
> What do people suggest? The NoScript addon? A different browser? I
> don't believe I'm the only one who hates JS and only switches it on
> for websites that absolutely require it.
Prefbar
http://prefbar.mozdev.org
F8 to show/hide, there's a ch
2013/8/10, T.C. Hollingsworth :
> On Friday, August 9, 2013, Andras Simon wrote:
>> 2013/8/10, T.C. Hollingsworth :
>>
>>> Yeah, just use NoScript. They probably killed it because that's what
>>> anyone who used that checkbox really wants.
>>
>> I'm not sure I do. But thanks for the suggestion an
On Friday, August 9, 2013, Andras Simon wrote:
> 2013/8/10, T.C. Hollingsworth :
>
>> Yeah, just use NoScript. They probably killed it because that's what
>> anyone who used that checkbox really wants.
>
> I'm not sure I do. But thanks for the suggestion anyway!
Well, in addition to the per-site
On Sat 10 August 2013 01:44:45 Andras Simon wrote:
> 2013/8/10, আনন্দ কুমার সমাদ্দার :
> > Yes, I'd just use noscript. It gives you much finer grained control
> > than a simple manual on/off option any way.
>
> Last time I tried it, I concluded that manual on/off was much better
> for me. But tha
2013/8/10, T.C. Hollingsworth :
> Yeah, just use NoScript. They probably killed it because that's what
> anyone who used that checkbox really wants.
I'm not sure I do. But thanks for the suggestion anyway!
Andras
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subs
2013/8/10, Andre Robatino :
> Andras Simon gmail.com> writes:
>
>> "... and user-set values will be reset to the default" according to
>> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
>>
>> Thank you Mozilla Foundation, you have just made my netbook unusable.
>
> Under about:config , set
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Andras Simon wrote:
> "... and user-set values will be reset to the default" according to
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
>
> Thank you Mozilla Foundation, you have just made my netbook unusable.
>
> What do people suggest? The NoScript add
2013/8/10, আনন্দ কুমার সমাদ্দার :
> Yes, I'd just use noscript. It gives you much finer grained control
> than a simple manual on/off option any way.
Last time I tried it, I concluded that manual on/off was much better
for me. But that was years ago, noscript may have improved, and I
don't seem
Andras Simon gmail.com> writes:
> "... and user-set values will be reset to the default" according to
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
>
> Thank you Mozilla Foundation, you have just made my netbook unusable.
Under about:config , set javascript.enabled to "false" .
-
On Sat, 10 Aug 2013 01:34:24 +0200
Andras Simon wrote:
> "... and user-set values will be reset to the default" according to
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
>
> Thank you Mozilla Foundation, you have just made my netbook unusable.
>
> What do people suggest? The NoScri
"... and user-set values will be reset to the default" according to
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/23.0/releasenotes/
Thank you Mozilla Foundation, you have just made my netbook unusable.
What do people suggest? The NoScript addon? A different browser? I
don't believe I'm the only one who h
34 matches
Mail list logo
