I was greeted with this injected advertising a few weeks ago and was floored. And yet here I am stuck in a contract, with no good alternatives even if I weren’t.
Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
421–430 of 498 posts
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except comcast has datacaps for total transfer per month. I don't use comcast so I do not personally know if they charge for excessive data usage, but I know cox does. Besides the point of potential cost, why should a user who is paying for the service subsidize comcast. They are not getting a discount for offering the wifi to customers.
Do you know the public access point data is being attributed to customers' usage totals? Or does that just seem like the sort of thing they'd do?
Well, if it weren't I would connect everything I own to that guest access point and bypass my cap completely. Or perhaps the speed of that connection is very slow. But then it wouldn't be much use to other customers either.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but it's polite to say when you're not quoting literally. Because that's the default expectation.
You don't need to fall back to a "default expectation" when usage is adequately indicated by context and by good faith efforts to interpret a statement in it's most reasonable form. Nobody confused it for a literal quote, nor did anybody feel it caused any misunderstanding, and those realities preempt any need to appeal to a default expectation.
In your case, I do agree that it was obviously not a literal quote. However, by the time I joined the thread, the topic had become more generalized.
Still, it would have been clearer to say something like "Exactly. And the response, which amounts to 'we're not trying to sell you a modem, we're just encouraging you to strongly consider buying a new one', is such a hair-splittingly asinine response considering the rather serious breach of trust posed by the notification system."
Also, for what it's worth, I do agree 100% with your argument there :)
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#424I'm annoyed by this on several levels. The biggest issue is that I'm using an Arris SB 6121 and I'm getting notifications that my modem is EOL. However, the SB6121 is listed as a supported modem for my speed level on their supported modems page. If I go to their supported modem page, I literally get a page where my current modem is shown as not supported, and the exact same modem is shown next to it as "supported." I…
> edit: Proof https://imgur.com/lzKBkMs If you look at the far right device you see a non-EOL SB6121. The one on the left that is EOL is the leased one, and the retail one is still allowed. I'm not sure if you have a leased device or retail device.
I own it, but Comcast often thinks it's one of theirs. It annoys me to no end. Obviously their inventory management stinks.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
As that page describes, Caddy's detection only works on SSL-served pages, by comparing the TLS Handshake, to the expected TLS Handshake pattern of the advertised User-Agent.
Yes, and it is fair to assume that a page served over HTTP is not trustworthy in any case.
Yup, but "these attacks" in your first post was specifically HTTP modification, which is the only thing Comcast is capable of doing.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about to sharpen the point for brevity and clarity in order to convey a perfectly legitimate point? Arguing against something doesn't mean that you interpreted it uncharitably and doesn't merit the exaggerated description of being weaponized (and the comfort level with such exaggerations as "injurious" and "weaponized" is amusing in the context where the concern is about insufficient proximity between a statement…
> I don't think I twisted or misrepresented anything, and no one seems to be suggesting the anything was actually misrepresented No, that is what I'm suggesting. Your comment reads as a quote. After reading it, I went to the linked page and looked around for the context. Turns out, there was no context for that quote, because it's not a quote, because those words aren't actually in the original text.
You're talking about something slightly different than what I asked. You clearly were able to check and conclude that this wasn't a literal quote. There was no difficulty there. You apparently got stuck there, and were unable to proceed from that information to the conclusion that I was restating the position in an extremely similar but more concise form, which would have been a way of interpreting my statement in its most reasonable form.
I'm asking whether, even a person who wasn't making a reasonable interpretation of what I was saying, would have been misled by the way I characterized Comcast's position. Is there a significant difference between the way I phrased Comcast's position on whether or not they were exhorting their customers to purchase a new modem, and the way they actually phrased it? Because I don't think there is.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but it's polite to say when you're not quoting literally. Because that's the default expectation.
You don't need to fall back to a "default expectation" when usage is adequately indicated by context and by good faith efforts to interpret a statement in it's most reasonable form. Nobody confused it for a literal quote, nor did anybody feel it caused any misunderstanding, and those realities preempt any need to appeal to a default expectation.
@mirmir: Point taken. In the context of this as a more general subject, I think your observation is perfectly reasonable.
However, I think (1) few are as lucid as you on that particular point and (2) whatever the merits of this as a general debate, and I think there is some merit, I think the question is whether this norm improves conversation in a thread like this. I think it was invoked frivolously, spawned a long, 50+ comment chain, and it didn't clear up any of the confusion that it seems like the norm is supposed to be designed for.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you know the public access point data is being attributed to customers' usage totals? Or does that just seem like the sort of thing they'd do?
Well, if it weren't I would connect everything I own to that guest access point and bypass my cap completely. Or perhaps the speed of that connection is very slow. But then it wouldn't be much use to other customers either.
When you connect to an 'xfinitywifi' SSID, you have to authenticate with your comcast credentials. The usage is then tracked as yours, not whose-ever hotspot you hit.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t mean to imply that the web should follow those style guides (and said as much). I was refuting his claim that no one expects that quotes imply an assertion of verbatim quote. I certainly default to assuming it does and in many contexts it is an explicit rule.
I was refuting his claim that no one expects that quotes imply an assertion of verbatim quote. I don't understand how you've refuted that while also saying they sometimes don't. Are we arguing about contexts here? My claim is almost trivial - nobody reasonably familiar with English thinks quotes imply a verbatim quote. That's just not what quotes are for.
I guess I’m far out of the mainstream then. If you put quotes around something and attribute it to someone or some text, I assume you are asserting a verbatim quote, either in the context of web forums, business communications or more formal writing covered by a style guide. In the context of fiction, if you put quotes around something I assume it is to declare that the character is saying exactly what is quoted.
That your position is that I’m in the minority on this is doubly surprising to me given that’s what all the style guides and my high school English teachers taught me.
Re: Comcast is injecting 400+ lines of JavaScript into web pages
#430Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't think I twisted or misrepresented anything, and no one seems to be suggesting the anything was actually misrepresented No, that is what I'm suggesting. Your comment reads as a quote. After reading it, I went to the linked page and looked around for the context. Turns out, there was no context for that quote, because it's not a quote, because those words aren't actually in the original text.
You're talking about something slightly different than what I asked. You clearly were able to check and conclude that this wasn't a literal quote. There was no difficulty there. You apparently got stuck there, and were unable to proceed from that information to the conclusion that I was restating the position in an extremely similar but more concise form, which would have been a way of interpreting my statement in it…
I'm asking whether, even a person who wasn't making a reasonable interpretation of what I was saying, would have been misled by the way I characterized Comcast's position.
You're spending a lot of time prosecuting this point, and requiring time to be spent by others who care about HN being better than other online communities.
Whether or not some hypothetical person not making a "reasonable interpretation" would have been misled, or whether it's reasonable that a reader had to spend time searching for the quote to verify it to realize that it was not actually a quote (and how many others would have bothered to do that), are matters that we could spend many more hours debating.
Or, you could just accept that it's better to refrain from misquoting people in future and we could all get on with our lives.
All it would have taken you was to preface the "quote" with something like "the response, which effectively amounts to saying...", and it would have saved everyone the bother.
C'mon, is this really a hill you want to die on? Maybe let it go :)