At least it is my experience, that without NoScript any given site will either take half an hour to load, or have some annoying ads, as an overlay over the content. ( Not to mention videos which start to play automatically, flash banners and sound effects.) Seriously I have no problem with an advertisement which just displays a picture or text. But any possible use of JS in a ad is a use I do not want.
Would you accept a Word.doc that required scripting to display itself? Shouldn't the response to a non-visible blog post be WTF?
(Strangely enough, I am able to read the page w/o js, but responding in general to this type of comment I see on HN frequently.)
Hostile images may exist but they are an order of mag. or two less common of a threat. Of course, where to draw the line is subjective, but the idea that blocking js by default is silly is misguided, imho.
http://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefo...
http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2009/08/stable-upda...
The internet is way better when you don't allow all of the annoying to dangerous JS to run.
If you're worried about security, run Linux or OSX as your operating system.
You do know that Java7 (also part of the web) has a cross-platform 0day exploit. Your OS will not save you here (layered defense might help though).
Something as inelegant as click-jacking will not be prevented by your silver-bullet OS of choice, either.
> Javascript is as much a part of web content as html.
Why is javascript required to see content for a simple blog page?