81–88 of 88 posts
Now this guy says he has never seen my site and any similarities are coincidental. http://www.nerval.ch/ I don’t believe him but he wasn't stupid enough to leave any JS on my server so I can't do much about it.
A little backstory: They stole my site (socketstudios.com) which showed up on my analytics as they for got to remove it. They also left the contolling javascript file on my server. I modified it to load images of dogs that have no idea what they are doing.
Back in the late 90's when Cnet was really big, they embedded a video -- which was hosted on my server -- into one of their articles. Without asking. I found out because my hosting company called me and said I was about to get a huge bill. Bandwidth was super expensive back then and there was no YouTube for free video hosting. I changed the file to a short clip of hardcore porn. I know it was mean. But it was funny a…
I assume you had the rights to the porn? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tangent: these kind of sites (the site that was stolen from), I'll call them "concept" sites, make me want to throatpunch a baby. If you are seeking to demonstrate your jQuery/HTML5/CSS3 skillz then do it in a way that has some applicable context. Don't break so far from established usage conventions that users have to invest their the majority of their focus figuring out the site at the expense of examining the cont…
> these kind of sites [...] make me want to throatpunch a baby That's the most viscerally disturbing thing I've ever read on HN. For as popular as HN has gotten, it's still one of the more civil discussion forums on the internet. I'm not a priss, but how about a bit of decorum, please?
My apologies folks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using a CDN is usually appropriate, but not hotlinking someone's site.
That's not true. Linking to jQuery stuff on Google's CDN is widely accepted. If you're using Noscript, don't act surprised when modern javascript websites break for you.
* a privilege, not a right
* a huge security vulnerability
* a huge privacy vulnerability
You gotta earn epsilon trust to get me to whitelist your site for JS. If your site is 100% broken with JS off? You haven't earned that trust; you've instead told me that you're sloppy. Double points if your site is something that could get its basic functions done with JS - I have seen blogs, sites whose job is present straight text, that completely break with JS off. What that tells me is that I should be deeply suspicious of the technical chops of the people responsible.
It's not like it's hard to earn epsilon trust! Slap in a element that says "here's what our site does, please turn on JS" is usually enough. "Please turn on JS" by itself, though, is not.
You don't have to cater to people who have JS turned off - you just have to not give us the middle finger! When site designers let their sites break when JS is off, that tells me that they're not worth my time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not true. Linking to jQuery stuff on Google's CDN is widely accepted. If you're using Noscript, don't act surprised when modern javascript websites break for you.
I'm using NoScript because JavaScript is * a privilege, not a right * a huge security vulnerability * a huge privacy vulnerability You gotta earn epsilon trust to get me to whitelist your site for JS. If your site is 100% broken with JS off? You haven't earned that trust; you've instead told me that you're sloppy. Double points if your site is something that could get its basic functions done with JS - I have seen bl…
Javascript is NOT a huge security vulnerability. There are occasional serious bugs that get patched nearly instantly by all major browsers (except maybe stupid IE).
Javascript IS a right, only 1-2% of users disable it, and I generally don't give a shit about them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using Firefox 12 with NoScript installed, your site is entirely unviewable. Even in its most permissive mode (which works for the vast majority of sites), NoScript does block cross-site scripts that it considers dangerous. On your site, I get this in my Error Console: "[NoScript] Blocking cross-site Javascript served from http://flesler-plugins.googlecode.com/files/jquery.scrollTo-... with wrong type info application…
I tried to read your comment with my eyes closed, but was unable to understand it. Please assist.
When NoScript is in "Allow scripts globally" mode, the only things it blocks are particularly nasty vulnerabilities (its anti-XSS and anti-clickjacking features, mainly). As I said from the start, that mode presents no problem at all for the overwhelming majority of sites (script-heavy or not), so when it renders a site unusable that's probably a sign of a serious design or security problem. I've only seen that happen once or twice, so I figured it would be nice to point out the issue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm using NoScript because JavaScript is * a privilege, not a right * a huge security vulnerability * a huge privacy vulnerability You gotta earn epsilon trust to get me to whitelist your site for JS. If your site is 100% broken with JS off? You haven't earned that trust; you've instead told me that you're sloppy. Double points if your site is something that could get its basic functions done with JS - I have seen bl…
Well, grandpa, it's the age of the rich javascript apps. Backbone and Ember, and all kinds of client-side templating engines are widely used. Javascript is NOT a huge security vulnerability. There are occasional serious bugs that get patched nearly instantly by all major browsers (except maybe stupid IE). Javascript IS a right, only 1-2% of users disable it, and I generally don't give a shit about them.
Second, progressive enhancement isn't "grandpa" thinking, it's good design, and more important today than ever. (A cursory search turned up .net magazine declaring it the #1 web design trend for 2012.) Skipping it for an experimental prototype is probably fine, but it's essential for serious work.
Third, as I mentioned from the start, the site in question here fails even when browsing with almost all scripts enabled: something essential in its design gets caught even by NoScript's minimal anti-XSS protection. That suggests an actual security risk to me.
And finally, I won't get into an argument about security bugs, but you haven't commented on the privacy issue at all. In its default mode NoScript prevents the vast majority of tracking systems that I've seen, while having a minor and entirely manageable impact on day to day browsing once you've used it for a week or so. You may not like that tradeoff, but it would be nice if you'd give some minimal level of respect to those who do.