Re: loss of I/O on some websites
On 14/05/14 04:22, Testosticore wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 13 May, 2014 12:04 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 13/05/14 08:07, A Debian User wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 11 May, 2014 10:08 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>> On 11/05/14 22:59, Whit Hansell wrote:
>>>>> Am getting frustrated. On the internet today there are so many sites
>>>>> that have taken on so much advertising that it is killing my desire to
>>>>> go to various sites. I mean specifically news sites.
>>>>>
>> <snipped>
>>>>
>>> As a side note, doesn't NoScript and FlashBlock have redundant features,
>>> in that they both block the loading of Flash content?
<snipped>
>
> Therefore, in a browser with both Flashblock and NoScript installed,
> unless you have some special convoluted use case, Flashblock would be
> "redundant".
No.
>
> It is also technically incorrect that NoScript doesn't block Flash by
> default. It does. It just whitelists YouTube by default a long with a
> few other sites. (Flashblock doesn't whitelist anything by default.)
In plain English (not weasel-speak) by default NoScript does *not* block
*all* Flash.
By default FlashBlock *does* block *all* Flash.
Functional comparison.
Q. By default does NoScript block Flash?
A. No.
Q. When NoScript blocks Flash can it unblock it on a case-by-case basic
with a single click?
B. No.
To a rational person with a basic grasp of logic FlashBlock and NoScript
do not do that same thing. An irrational person, childish sophist, or
someone who doesn't grasp logic may get confused because they both use
the internet and plug into browsers and may affect Flash - and Flash is
a woody word.
If you want to further argue the toss try the offlist forum.
Kind regards
Reply to: