Lanny Marcus wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Scott Silva <ssilva at sgvwater.com> wrote: > <snip> >> Noscript will give you an idea of just how many sites run a script of some >> kind. You will see a large part of sites just look different when the scripts >> don't run, and some don't function at all. Not that it is a bad thing, it will >> just make you think a lot. > > Yes, it has made me think about the scripts on the web sites we visit. > I am probably the most conservative surfer in the house. The 4 sites > I visit the most are all very reputable. They all have a lot of stuff > which is flagged by NoScript. The site which prompted this thread has > a bunch of embedded youtube videos on the home page and a lot is > flagged by NoScript there. I whitelist my router, youtube, etc. and the domains for forums I visit. I sometimes disable noscript when making purchases because some vendors, upon checkout, send you to a different domain for CC processing - and sometimes the lack of script screws that up (which is stupid, JavaScript should NEVER be required for CC processing - but alas, often it is - some web devs think they have to do everything under the sun with Ajax even when a virtually static page would be just as good). That's the beauty of noscript - you can permanently whitelist a domain, temporarily whitelist a domain, temporarily whitelist all domains on a page, etc. facebook is a real pita - I've bitterly complained to them and asked them to use only one or two servers for script serving but they won't fix it, so I rarely use my facebook.