I was going to ignore this, but I'm in a confrontational mood today,
so please accept my apologies for the noise.
On 21 May 2008, at 14:08, Michelle Konzack wrote:
Am 2008-05-12 15:40:54, schrieb Stut:
CSS, but I may not be understanding what you mean by blunt.
Javascript
can be written such that it eats CPU and/or memory but this is of no
benefit to anyone so unless you're running on a prehistoric machine I
can't see that being an issue. And it's worth noting that even if a
script starts hammering the machine most browsers these days will
notice that, suspend it and offer to kill it.
About yu "prehistoric machine" :
My Devel-Station is a "AMD Phenom Quad 9800", running Debian GNU/
Linux
Unstable, Testing and Stable in Xen-DomU and I know a couple of
Websites
where Mozilla/Iceape locks up to one minute, consuming 100% of CPU-
Time
and then showing a Message Box, that a Script is consuming very
much
esources and if I continue, my Computer would not more responsive...
WTF?
1) If your quad-core machine grinds to a halt due to runaway
Javascript code then there's something very wrong with the way it's
configured.
2) You said yourself that the browser suspends the script and asks you
if you want it to continue thereby protecting you from stupid
developers and rendering resource-hungry scripts pointless.
3) It's extremely rare for me to come across a site that will cause
that box to appear these days. Dunno what sites you're visiting but
you might want to consider avoiding them in future.
4) None of this is a security risk, it's just annoying as are a lot of
websites both with and without Javascript.
It is causing the error since it has blocked loading the external
file
but not the call to the code it contains. This, to me at least, seems
half-arsed. The error only exists on the page if you deny it
something
that it needs to run correctly. IMHO the assumption that if the call
So forcing peoples to do things they do not want to do?
I do not know, what this urchinTacker() does, but since it is
named
"Tracker", I asume it is a tool, which collect infos about
Websiteusers.
A thing I do not like since it is violation of my privacy.
Violation of privacy? Let's start with the fact that it's not
collecting anything you don't put out there when you use your browser.
Let's add that none of that info can personally identify you without
consulting your ISP who are highly unlikely to disclose who you are
without a court order.
Now let's consider that the original conversation in this thread has
nothing to do with privacy. I have no problem whatsoever if you want
to block Javascript, but please do it properly or at least don't
complain about errors if you only partly block it. That, and only
that, was my point.
to the urchinTracker function can run then so can the script tag to
pull in that code is pretty reasonable. In fact I make it all the
time
in the code I write and I think the same would go for 99.999% of
developers using Javascript.
Ehm you mean, that I am one of those 0.001%?
Hmmm, I do not know a singel JavaScript Developer here in Strasbourg
who
use it...
Whoa there nellie, I stated that I assume that if part A of my
Javascript runs then part B will also run. I said nothing about always
using Urchin or anything of the sort.
Urchin Tracker is a simple(!) analytics package and poses no danger
to
you or your computer. In fact I would suggest it's anti-productive to
block it since it prevents the sites you visit from using the data it
provides to modify their site to make the experience better for you.
So collecting privacy infos about me? -- No thanks!
Again, if you want to block it I have no problem with that. I think
you're overly cautious but it's entirely your choice.
Google Analytics (which is where the Urchin code comes from) does
gather a tiny bit more information than normal server logs but none of
it is personally identifiable or in any way a security risk. But just
to state it again, I couldn't care less if you blocked it.
That error is caused by your use of selective Javascript-blocking
technology, and while I work very hard to ensure the sites I develop
work as well as possible without Javascript I think it's unreasonable
to expect them to work with selective blocking.
Selective because urchinTacker() tracker is collecting infos
about me
which I do not want to give out! -- Privacy violation!
If you use such tools, you have to warn users of your website, that
you
are collecting data otherwise you could be run into trouble...
Not really. You are giving out that information whether you like it or
not because that's the way your browser works. If you want to be
really anal about it you can get browser addons and proxies that will
strip most of that info out, but again I really don't see what you're
afraid of.
I think it's also worth repeating that I couldn't care less if you
decide to block Javascript, that's not even close to the point I was
making in this conversation.
Well, some of his pages do but that's complicating the issue. As far
as I can tell the only bit of Javascript common to all Tedd's pages
is
the Google Analytics code which is not required for you to use the
site, it just enhances the ability for Tedd to analyse how people are
using it.
Ahh, -- urchinTracker() is from Google. :-)
And if used without informing users, it is definitivly a
privacy
violation. At least in most EU countries like Germany and France.
Then don't use sites that use it from those countries. Or, better yet,
turn your computer off and go play outside.
It can and I care greatly about security, but Javascript is very well
locked down these days, and it's fairly difficult to get it to do
anything malicious. Can it do annoying things, yes (but rarely these
days, and usually only on 'special' sites), but I've not come across
anything malicious for quite some time.
Since I am working mobile with my ThinkPad, I do not like to be
tracked
by this urchinTracker() crap since this mean, Google will track
ANY of
my customers where I am working if I use the Internet...
This is not only a privacy violation, it is spionage...
This is HOW secret services (the NSA is using Google) are working.
Really don't know where you're getting that from, but if it's even
remotely true nobody would be using Google Analytics. I'm betting
you're confusing Analytics with something else Google do, but for the
life of me I can't think what.
In summary I can understand where you're coming from, and it's
totally
your choice to use something that modifies your browsing experience,
but to then complain that it's causing errors on the sites you visit
is, to me, beyond ridiculous. That's all I was trying to point out.
I do not know in which country you are, but all peoples worldwide
should
block such shit coming from at least the USA/GB/IL.
Note: I am working for the french Ministry of Defense.
Ooh, give 'em a peanut. I live and work in the UK and every site I
work on that uses Google Analytics has nothing specific about Google
Analytics in the privacy policy. They all talk about use of cookies,
IP addresses and server logs and I've never had any complaints.
But, at risk of labouring the point, I don't have an issue if you
decide to worry about inconsequential things like websites gathering
anonymous usage data so they can improve the experience for you. I
couldn't care less if you disable Javascript to prevent evil popup
ads. I don't really give a damn if you decide to use lynx as the
ultimate surfer condom.
My issue is purely and simply that if someone decides to remove half
the code for something they should not feel they have the right to
complain to the developers when they see errors. You wouldn't expect a
car to work if you removed all the cylinders, would you? But I'd love
to see the persons face when you take it back and complain.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother.
-Stut
--
http://stut.net/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
