Re: Re: loss of I/O on some websites

[Testosticore <testosticore@openmailbox.org>]

On Wednesday, 14 May, 2014 10:36 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
> 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.
Doesn't matter. We're not talking about default settings.

Besides, you can easily make it do that by changing a single setting 
(i.e. allow restrictions on whitelisted sites). And it's totally worth 
it because you won't need to install another extension for this, which 
should save you some more memory.
> Q. When NoScript blocks Flash can it unblock it on a case-by-case basic
> with a single click?
> B. No.
Actually, it can. The same setting above has this same effect.

Disclosure: I'm not involved with either NoScript or Flashblock.