uuoc

You can, but you should not run the UI script code on the same non-reentrant JS engine that executes scripts delivered from the internet at large.

By doing so (running both the UI code and scripts from the internet on the same non-reentrant JS engine) means that only one gets to run at a time (either UI code or JS from the internet). That's why FF's responsiveness sucks at times, any long running JS script from the internet also prevents the UI code from running.

The JS engine should either have been reentrant (so UI code could run even though some random internet script was still running), or there should have been two independent JS interpreters loaded, one used for the UI code only and a second for all the JS from the internet.

This should come as no surprise. It has always been an epic architectural mistake to use the same single non-reentrant Javascript engine to both render the UI and run JS for webpages in Firefox. This change will finally undo that huge mistake made so very long ago.

tl;dr:

Ex. micro-softie laments all the ways ms failed in the mobile space, while completely overlooking the elephant in the room:

MS, in the mobile space, did not have an already entrenched monopoly upon which to leverage other market share.

The owner of the blog post can now add a fifth reason to their collection of "fuck-ups":

Placing a webpage that contains text and some images into a web-framework that requires javascript running locally in order to render said text and images.

While I can't offer any advice re. Citi ATMs, your experience has taught you a very valuable life lesson, albeit the hard way.

This next part is something that should have been blindly obvious to you, and after this will be:

NEVER EVER perform any transaction at ANY automated system using untraceable items where you stand to gain a loss should the untraceable items go missing.

Cash - this is an untraceable item because its use leaves no paper trail anywhere.

ATM - an automated system.

Therefore, NEVER EVER perform any deposits at ANY ATMs where you are depositing cash.

There are too many opportunities for cash to go missing mysteriously at an ATM to trust any ATM with a cash deposit, ever. Always do your cash deposits with a human where you will obtain a receipt immediately of the amount deposited, and can dispute that amount immediately should there be an error on the receipt.

In your case above, when they directed you to the ATM, you should have said: "No thanks." and walked away to return at another time with the two forms of ID they supposedly needed.

I use this book-marklet to fix pages that decide to use a small font weight, that results in this hard to read text:

javascript:(function(){var%20all=document.getElementsByTagName("*");for%20(var%20i=0,max=all.length;i<max;i++){all[i].style.fontWeight='400';};void(0);})();

Fixes those broken pages to be quite readable.

And now you understand that you are not google's customer. You are their product, and they only tolerate you for as long as they can sell your attention to their advertisers for a profit.

Next time, host it yourself, on hardware you own, and you won't receive a letter telling you that all your material is about to be deleted.

Moral of this story:

1) Always, always, always have backups.

2) If you do not host it yourself, on hardware you own and control, then you are at the mercy of the corporate overlord that does own and control the hardware you are borrowing.

There is a certain irony on a site about keyboard accessibility having this in their style-sheet: "font-weight: 300;" with the result that it produces significantly reduced readability of the site (and thereby reduces the "visual accessibility").

Actually, that attitude is exactly what one receives from the systemd crew. They, and only they, know what you want, when you want it, and they always know better than you do.

That's why the systemd crew generates such great hatred.

And yet, socket activation is nothing new:

inetd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inetd

xinetd: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinetd

Used in the "olden" days to allow a single server to serve a bunch of services, not all of which are being used all of the time, to a bunch of clients, by only activating them when they are used.

US banks make the same promises too.

But which would you trust more when something goes wrong and your "card number" racks up thousands of stolen purchases:

1) credit card dispute/chargeback process that is mandated by law

2) the promise from your bank that, on their good will, they will fix things

Not only that, but thousands of dollars on your credit card is "loaned" to you by the bank, the money's not out of pocket on you yet.

However, thousands of dollars of stolen debit card transactions means your bank account is thousands of dollars lower immediately, and you have to hope your banks promise to give it back will actually pan out.

>The article has neither a link to its text nor an identifying number,

This is so very typical of "old-school" news organizations that do not "get" the internet, nor do they understand the power of connections (HTML links in this case). Of course, the lack of "getting it" is somewhat understandable given that these old-school orgs. are coming in to this "new-fangled" internet tech. with a mindset grounded in 100 years worth of creating paper for dissemination of information. Since paper ca not directly connect a reader to a base source, they never saw any reason to provide the information necessary for a reader to obtain the base sources for themselves. And they continue this practice onto the web, which from their mindset is just another "paper printing press" to disseminate information across.

Additionally, there's the somewhat conspiracy theorist viewpoint that hiding the base source information is overtly purposeful on their part, because that way they can have a better effect in influencing opinion (because the only data you get is that which they deem you suitable to receive) and without any ability to get to the base sources, you are much less likely to form any independent opinions that might diverge from what they want you to believe.

And now you understand what Richard M. Stallman means when he refers to "freedom" in relation to software.

This software was not free, and does not respect your freedoms.

One large driver: NIH syndrome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_invented_here

It is a overt threat of lawyers attacking if he does not comply.

Nothing "amiable" about it. It is a threat, pure and simple.

The second Bob Stratton response (the one implying that lawyers will rain fire and brimstone down on Azer if he does not comply) was so far from a "polite request" that it implies something is wrong with Mike Roberts understanding of "polite" for him to say what he did.

What Mike Roberts should have done, upon seeing Bob Stratton's second email, is walked over to Bob's office/cube/desk/where-ever and had a very long heart-to-heart talk with Bob about his incredibly poor handling of the situation.

The solution here is trivial:

Don't use gmail....

Run your own mail-server, then your limits on email will be how much disk storage space you wish to purchase.

Email as designed is peer-to-peer technology. In fact, it was the first peer-to-peer system for the internet. Return to that world and all your troubles with the "central authority" (google) will disappear.

If you continue to use MS Windows, then you are getting just what you deserve.

Your only solution, given the fact that MS now believes they _own_ you, is to wipe MS Windows from your computers and install a different operating system.

Your site _requires_ javascript to view the pricing plans, even though the plan data is already present in the HTML (turning off css styling makes all the pricing visible).

This is a bad design. You already have the data in the HTML, the basic HTML and CSS styling should display it onscreen in the absence of any javascript running.

Just open up developer tools, use the "find element" tool to find the header, then delete nodes until the header disappears.

Now there's no header at all.

> However, effective community leadership/stewardship is part of the job description for someone like Poettering.

If this is true, then this is exactly _why_ the criticism should be directed towards Redhat. Because in his arrogant world view, he can do no wrong, so he will not report to his bosses that he has ineffective community leadership/stewardship. The only way his bosses will know of his ineffective leadership/stewardship is if the criticism is directed towards Redhet, and therefore, his bosses.

I.e., the criticism has to go around the roadblock, Poettering being that roadblock.

> Disclaimer: I work at Red Hat.

The problem you seem to miss is that his arrogant antics _do_ reflect on Redhat, and reflect badly on Redhat. I for one will _never_ use anything from Redhat, nor pay Redhat any money for anything as long as Poettering and the rest of his crew (Seivers et. al.) are employeed by Redhat.

I am sure I am not alone in this viewpoint. As more realize that the problem is a problem at Redhat, eventually Redhat management will be forced to intervene.

PS as an employee, you should be pointing your upper management to these types of discussions, for the very reason that the actions of a loose cannon group is reflecting very badly on Redhat as a whole.

Hear hear, until Redhat begins to feel some heat from Poettering's (and Seivers and the rest of these fools), these fools will just continue on their arrogant bull in a china factory path they are presently on.

Start informing Redhat that these responses on Poettering's part reflect badly on them as a whole, and especially _stop_ paying Redhat any money until the issue is resolved, and Redhat will resolve the issue very quickly.

> Less window management hassle.

Actually, no, you still have to perform the "find the window" function and the "bring the window to the top" function, for both maximized as well as non-maximized windows. And once any given window is sized, the 'management hassle' for 'find and raise' is identical between both modes (maximized and non-maximized.

The screenshot you posted is of a Mac, so because of that I am going to assume you are using a Mac (because otherwise you would have posted a screen shot of some other OS). This explains why you believe that window management is a hassle.

Mac's window management support is on par with MSWindows window management, which is to say, they both suck for handling more than a handful of windows at once, and they both suck for doing much more than "find something - bring it to the top" (and even that function on both is awful as well). Which is really sad given that Apple is the company that brought the whole multiple overlapping windows GUI model into the popular view (Apple Lisa).

Additionally, because you are using a Mac, I am going to assume you are likely using a Mac laptop (simply due to the sheer number of Mac laptops sold vs. Mac desktops, there is a significantly higher probability you are on a Mac laptop). This leads directly to a second reason why you believe window management is a hassle. On almost any touchpad/trackpad, with the current UI hooks used by Mac (and Windows as well), window management is a hassle and sucks terribly. This is because all the UI hooks are designed around a mouse with a separate button (or buttons) that can be independently held down separately from creating mouse motion. On any touchpad/trackpad that lacks separate mouse buttons that can be independently held down with your second hand, performing any kind of "hold mouse button down while moving" operation is made significantly more difficult and a major hassle. This is due to the need to reposition your fingers on the pad to perform large movements, and the act of repositioning loses the "hold button down" mode, so you have to repeat the "hold button down" action just to reposition your fingers. But this is not a flaw with multiple window UI's, this is a flaw with Apple deploying a touchpad without separate buttons and failing to update the UI interface to better mesh with the physical constraints of a single touchpad without external buttons.

You know, not running your browser maximized on your widescreen monitor would solve that problem, for every site you visit, with no CSS required.

I suspect it is schadenfreude.

For what it is worth, I ALWAYS flag every "X is down" post I see appear in the new list. If there were more flagging of them, the posters would get the message and quit posting them.

> Anyway, some plastic/bottles have aluminum caps, and those I might leave on vs. tossing in the bin detached. I figure it wouldn't matter, aluminum is recyclable too.

Yes, aluminum is recyclable, but not when attached to a plastic bottle.

How do you expect that your 'attached' cap is going to become detached from the bottle so it can be recycled with the rest of the aluminum, and the plastic bottle recycled with the rest of the plastics?

For plants that use separator machinery, the machines can't unscrew caps from bottles. For plants that use humans, it means the human has to unscrew the cap before it is separated.

That's why the pamphlets say separate the caps from the bottles. The bottle and the cap end up in two different streams, and if they are separated at the outset, it is easier to split them up into the two separate streams at the sorting plant.

It shows a lack of attention to detail, a lack of viewing the full picture of all your potential users, and a lack of consideration for those with accessibility issues.

Therefore, if the simple landing page has all of those lacks, it stands to reason (since the app. is written by the same folks that created the landing page) that the app. may likely have all the same lacks, and possibly even more.

> how do you live with javascript disabled nowadays

Noscript (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/noscript/). 2,159,875 users according to that page. Javascript is off by default until I decide the page/app. is sufficiently engaging that I want to turn it on.

> Nowadays everyone's on facebook

Incorrect assumption. I, for one, am not on facebook. Therefore, not everyone is on facebook.

> and everyone's likes shiny features and eye-candy

Fine, but the basic content of the page (i.e., the actual information vs. the shiny objects) should be accessible without needing to enable javascript.

If you actually had an accessibility issue, you'd likely have a very different opinion. Be thankful you don't have an accessibility issue.