Mozilla making plugins (like Flash) click to play. Essentially kills flash ads + flash cookie tracking.

Why wasn't this implemented from the beginning?

Oh and Firefox 14? You've got to be kidding me.

eddyatwork: Oh and Firefox 14? You've got to be kidding me.

At the current release schedule, Firefox 14 should be out in ... *checks watch*... 30 or so minutes.

Flash needs to die a quick death.

finnley wren: Flash needs to die a quick death.

I'm telling grahams you said that! Death threats are not cool!

eddyatwork: I'm telling grahams you said that! Death threats are not cool!

RHETORIC.BAT

eddyatwork: Why wasn't this implemented from the beginning?Oh and Firefox 14? You've got to be kidding me.

The 'new hotness' is to increment major version number with every minor release--14 is actually something like 4.10 or so under the old, sane method of versioning.

\I blame Google
-\Srsly. They popularized this crap with their Chrome versioning.

muninsfire: The 'new hotness' is to increment major version number with every minor release--14 is actually something like 4.10 or so under the old, sane method of versioning.

I blame Google
-Srsly. They popularized this crap with their Chrome versioning.

Look at Windows, NT went from 4.0 to 2000!

muninsfire: The 'new hotness' is to increment major version number with every minor release--14 is actually something like 4.10 or so under the old, sane method of versioning.

I blame Google
-Srsly. They popularized this crap with their Chrome versioning.

They should just start using the revision number or whatever they have for their version control system. Firefox 25675 rules!

Noscript already blocks all adobe flash content by default.

clifton: Noscript already blocks all adobe flash content by default.

Yep. I was like "I already have this feature!".

clifton: Noscript already blocks all adobe flash content by default.

Flashblock also has the click to enable feature, without breaking every website like noscript does.

quick1: Flashblock also has the click to enable feature, without breaking every website like noscript does.

A lot of sites use javascript where it isn't needed.

ambition chicken: A lot of sites use javascript where it isn't needed.

Maybe, but whenever I use it I end up just having to whitelist almost any site I visit. Adblock plus flashblock do just as good a job for me.

quick1: Flashblock also has the click to enable feature, without breaking every website like noscript does.

Yay blank comment.

Ill have to give flashblock a try, then

ambition chicken: A lot of sites use javascript where it isn't needed.

I've disabled javascript entirely within chrome, enabled it on only a few sites. You lose comment sections . . . but is that really a loss?

quick1: Maybe, but whenever I use it I end up just having to whitelist almost any site I visit. Adblock plus flashblock do just as good a job for me.

temp permissions+revoke before leaving or on arrival at another site that needs it. It seems like the Gawker type sites all share a large chunk of scripts, but a lot of them are simply ad statistic things and sometimes, there comes a time when people don't want targeted advertising and something more along the lines of random cable adverts, not the hulu-style of repeating the same 5 in an endless loop of consistency, but the way it was in the mid 90's before there were any realistic ways of tracking TV viewer/ratings.


I'd say if I'm wasting enough time to be visiting random news/gossip crap, I can take the time to observe the relentless onslaught of compulsory assimilation/mandatory targeted advertisement.

finnley wren: I've disabled javascript entirely within chrome, enabled it on only a few sites. You lose comment sections . . . but is that really a loss?

Haha! Mostly not!But the worse offenders IMO are the next or back links which use javascript.