Believe me, as a libertarian I love questioning the wisdom of all laws, but every time I do some social justice activist calls the PC Principal on me, and he's not nice.
My own experience is that the Political Correctness types know how off-topic they are with regard to anything I tend to discuss (I mean, my stance that consenting adults should be able to do what they want whether or not I personally agree naturally includes lots of under-represented non-mainstream cultures). What I get instead is the morons who, despite knowing little or nothing about libertarian thought, feel an irresistable urge to form an opinion on it. Thus simple and easy-to-understand concepts like "minimal government" are conflated with anarcho-capitalism, even after I kindly explain to them that a government which cannot maintain rule of law and cannot enforce necessary regulations is less than minimal (that is, insufficient, too far in the opposite direction) and therefore not at all what I am talking about.
In such discussions said morons tend to respond to what they imagine I must have meant, as though they know this better than I, rather than responding to what I actually said (see the arrogance?). I think a lot of people confuse terms accidentally. When they realize they have done this, they realize it after some discussion has already occurred. Then they continue to do it intentionally, because for them, this is somehow easier than admitting they made a mistake. After all, they already made up their mind what "libertarian" means and aren't interested in honestly examining how accurate their mental representation (stereotype) actually is.
The world is filled with people who don't care about truth but do care very much about their own image and whether they can appear to be "right" in the eyes of others. Admitting fault is not compatible with this worldview, however noble and constructive it may be. Libertarian thought is especially problematic because if it caught on and became popular and well-represented in media, it would cause some drastic societal changes that would amount to a lot of powerful people losing their power. Thus, no one with any funding, power, or representation has any incentive to do anything other than demonize it. The method of demonization is simple: portray only its most extreme, least rational formations and ignore any reasonable method of applying its principles. Thus we are all anarcho-capitalists who don't want rule of law, publically funded police protection and firefighters, reasonable regulations, etc. No, it is "every man for himself", and if you aren't rich enough to hire private guards then you just get fucked.
That's the way you discredit a credible idea: misrepresent it like hell, being careful never to portray its merits. Make no mistake, poltiics is a great big PR game and PR is so effective because most people are lemmings who will not conduct their own research before deciding what they think of a given position. If the average person took a skeptical attitude towards every political stance, never believing anything other than what they can validate with facts and non-fallacious reasoning, then we would not have the situation we experience now, in which the politician with the most funding who buys the most advertising tends to win the election.
But real world seems to probe it doesn't work that way: software development, for instance, has flourished without the need of a strong patent chest. Neither Microsoft, nor Oracle, nor Google, nor Facebook, nor Twitter, nor SAP, nor Red Hat, etc. made their way into big companies thanks to strong patent protection for their innovations, but by being innovative, fast to implement and with good business acumen. It's arguable, though, that they acquired a strong patent portfolio once they were big as a war chest against other big companies also with large patent portfolios and to increase the entry barrier for new competitors.
Just my humble $0.02... it's not often that someone puts forth a position and then, in the same "breath", considers the limitations of their position and/or the arguments that might be perceived as contrary to their own position. I wish that happened more often. It's refreshing. Thank you for doing that.
He figured out that the parasite school of economics wasn't going to work in the long run.
Yeah, suddenly authority figures are considering the importance of economic sustainability? That's a very nice fantasy. If we manage to improve the way the world works, then who knows? It could even happen.
I am reading your comment's parent to mean that, if people are charged with "hacking" for doing much less, why not these ad agencies?
The main reason? The ad agencies are corporations with plenty of lawyers. It takes far less time and resources to prosecute a private individual. Additionally, the private individual has little or no PR capability to make the state look like bad guys for doing so (that part would come naturally to an ad agency).
You can use Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/, or with the help of your package manager) to get a preview of tonight's sky at your terrestrial location (not accounting for cloud cover though). This includes a simulation of the actual eclipse.
Seconded. Stellarium is very good. My last purposeful use of it was to see the configuration of the sky on the winter solstice of 2012 (the one that got so much attention). It was 2010 or so at the time. Since then I've had fun just messing with it, having it fetch space telescope pictures for certain items, etc. It's gotten me more interested in astronomy.
The same way APK and his little fanboys are avoiding mine. And this one too. It's as though they realize that any honest answer would make them look bad.
DNS Blocking isn't the same thing as DNS BL, stop backpedaling.
APK and his myrmidon supporters don't backpedal. Backpedaling when it's obvious you are wrong requires honesty, integrity, and a concern for what the truth is. It also requires the courage to admit fault and the grace to want to.
Expecting APK and his myrmidons to do that is like expecting a cockroach to appreciate opera. It's far beyond their reach.
APK and his myrmidons are the masters of never answering a simple question. While congratulating themselves for being such great debators. More like master debators the way they enjoy their little circle-jerk.
You're welcome. I think it's funny when apk makes trolls go nuts when they can't prove him wrong.
If by "go nuts" you mean laugh at how pathetic apk is, then yes, you've driven us stark raving mad. Of course "troll" is "anyone who doesn't agree with apk".
Get on topic. Do something useful like apk has in his program. You can't prove his points on hosts wrong either. I suppose I for one expect too much from you slashdot trolls. You don't possess the skills to do either one, so go away troll, shoo. I think it's hilarious how apk makes you fools go nuts but you never ever prove him validly technically wrong. Not ever.
That's the amazing thing about APK and his bootlicking myrmidons (like you). You just can't actually respond to what someone is saying. You read what they said, but you lack the argumentation skill to actually rebut it. Being childish, that causes you to feel like you really don't like that person. Unable to meaingfully respond and filled with your vitriol, all you can do is hand-wave, call names, and change the subject.
If (for some strange reason) I wanted to, I could do that, too. What I couldn't do is act that way, and then convince myself that I am right and the other guy is a big dummy. That is a true masterwork of functional self-deception.
FTFY - You're just another can't code himself critic with nothing to show for himself since if you really didn't give a shit you wouldn't even reply. Thanks for projecting that much that you do give a shit.
So... are you going to respond to anything I said, or are you going to keep acting like a spoiled child?
I actually ENJOY watching these troll worms flail all over, blowing all their modpoints (& I just run them dry of them eventually via my UNLIMITED posting abilities here, unlike other ac posters).
So you you put some effort into being a spammer (boast about it in fact) and you admit that you like disrupting the normal functioning of this site.
Did you ever ask yourself, "are these the actions of a happy, fulfilled person who has a meaningful life?" You're a pest and you like being a pest. The irony? You have done more to give your hosts program a bad name than anything anyone else could have possibly said.
You like hosts, go use them and enjoy it. I think hosts have a use but it's not the only thing I use. I like my setup too, and I am enjoying it.
The difference is, I'm not an insecure little man with a desperate need to win converts. I don't really care what other people use. I wouldn't recommend anything to them unless they bring it up first. You remind me of a religious zealot on a mission to preach to the infidels.
Even if that "someone" is a veteran FBI agent? Don't think so.
I said "could" for a reason, instead of "will"
Yes but for the small-minded, the chance to hassle you and cash in that apparent decisive, instant, effortless slam-dunk "victory" is much more important than realizing that you may have said what you said the way that you said it for a reason. Actually arguing against you and navigating all the shades of grey would be too much work for the instant-gratification types.
But do you understand the definition of "asshole" in this context?
Because when all you do is
a. Lie "it does not pin it on Amazon" (The headline most certainly does.)
b. Talk about yourself "I'm in IT"
c. Be a dick "I also understand the definition of 'through' in this context"
It's clear you're either a narcissistic sociopath or just an asshole.
That's why I asked if you know the definition.
E
I'm not the AC, and I also don't believe that AC was being, in any way, an asshole. I believe he was constructively criticizing the way the summary/article was written, which on this site, doesn't happen often enough. I also believe you're overreacting to the point that you're making him look very good.
It's interesting that this sort of rhetoric comes from the far right, while at the same time they defend ignoring external costs that of things like fracking. Your paying for those too. Whether it is a necessary evil, or not, it is almost certainly less efficient and carefully done then it would be with some sort of oversight.
You object to individuals saying, "I'm healthy", but you allow businesses to say, "we're doing the best", "we have good environmental practices", and "we are financially sound" with little (preferably no) oversight.
Actually I want one of two scenarios: insurance goes back to its intended purpose - protecting against rare and catastrophic events; or, a government-funded health care system like you would find in many European nations.
In my mind, external costs like those caused by fracking are a separate issue. If you want to fix that issue, you need to deal with the problem of regulatory capture. The simplest way to do that would be a new law forbidding anyone who has worked at a regulatory agency from ever seeking employment with any company engaged in that industry, with severe criminal penalties for the former regulator and exhorbitant fines for any company that tries to hire him or her.
How can this possibly be "Might be a HIPPA violation?"
It is precisely what HIPPA was created to protect against.
I'm not remotely a lawyer but I can offer an opinion. It's the whole "spirit of the law" versus "letter of the law" deal, I would assume.
For an analogy - that's the main reason Constitutional law can get so complex. Otherwise language like "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" isn't difficult to understand. No I don't think the authors of that document intended for physical papers to enjoy certain protections but not computers, cellphones, and other future replacements for paper not known to them at that time. No sane person who knows anything about them would truly believe that. Not for "terrorism" or for anything else. But motivated people worked hard to find ways of skirting the obvious intent by twisting the words and their definitions. Now the restrictions amount to "... oh, unless you really want to."
So this "might be" a HIPAA violation the same way warrantless domestic spying "might be" unconstitutional. With a sufficiently dense layer of surrounding laws and rulings, nearly any position can come up with some kind of "justification", however flimsy.
Eh sorry to double-post, but there's another aspect to health insurance that complicates things.
Basically, if car insurance worked like health insurance, then every single time you got an oil change or put gasoline in your tank, you'd file a claim and make a co-payment. If homeowner's insurance worked that way, you'd file a claim and make a co-payment every time you re-shingled your roof, repainted your house, or replaced the mulch in some landscaping.
In every other instance, insurance is for rare and catastrophic events only. It's not something you use on a regular basis every time you perform what would be called routine maintainence in any other context. It's one reason contributing to why health insurance is so expensive.
You don't understand insurance. The whole point is that you're paying a fixed premium to eliminate a risk. You're paying for certainty. Without health insurance, you risk that some unpreventable medical problem makes you go into crippling debt for the rest of your life. That can happen regardless of how healthy you are.
Sure, but when you smoke two packs a day, or when the doctor tells you you're 50 pounds overweight and you keep hammering the buffets, shoveling fried food into your corpulent mouth, and not getting any significant exercise, well then we're no longer talking about "unpreventable", are we? That's not the same thing as driving down the road, having a deer jump out in front of you that no one could have seen in time, and getting injured in the crash.
Yes they can apply surcharges and rate some people as much riskier than others, but the entire concept of insurance is much better suited for the latter case than it is for the former. What a lot of people want is to appease their sense of justice by having some assurance that those who are at least attempting to be healthy are not forced to subsidize those who blatantly aren't.
A huge number of people think it's "inconvenient" they can't have everything they want with no downsides. They can't claim ignorance and they're setting themselves up to learn a hard lesson. The adults who understand that decisions carry consequences -- and make their choices accordingly -- don't want any part of the results. That's what I mean by a sense of justice. Whether you agree with it or not, that's where the concern about precisely how the insurance is implemented is coming from.
Of 100 sites that require javascript for basic operation (not just tracking or advertising), 95 of them are not worth visiting anyway and society will not miss anything if they vanish, and the remaining 5 you can get away with by selectively unblocking some common third party javascript sites. Out of 10,000 sites that require javascript, only one of those will be nice to their visitors and use only their own hosted scripts rather than rely on third party.
I don't really understand why someone would want their site to be dependent on unaccountable third parties over whom they have no control. This is especially the case if that site is a business and a main source of income.
At least with ad networks I understand why a third party is trying to serve up scripts (which I reject). But I'm talking about sites that rely on third parties for basic functionality, apart from any (failed) efforts to advertise to me.
Instead of turning off only Java scripts, I recommend turning off Java completely (so both Java applets and Java scripts).
It is an unfortunate fact that Javascript has nothing to do with Java. Javascripts are not Java scripts.
It's equally unfortunate that when someone has no clue concerning what they're talking about, and refuses to look it up despite having more instantaneous and effortless access to information than at any time in human history... it seldom if ever convinces them to listen instead of speaking.
Slashdot Mirror
You guys are so boring, find a new routine or something.
I salute your substantive and intellectually stimulating contribution to this discussion, sir or madam.
Believe me, as a libertarian I love questioning the wisdom of all laws, but every time I do some social justice activist calls the PC Principal on me, and he's not nice.
My own experience is that the Political Correctness types know how off-topic they are with regard to anything I tend to discuss (I mean, my stance that consenting adults should be able to do what they want whether or not I personally agree naturally includes lots of under-represented non-mainstream cultures). What I get instead is the morons who, despite knowing little or nothing about libertarian thought, feel an irresistable urge to form an opinion on it. Thus simple and easy-to-understand concepts like "minimal government" are conflated with anarcho-capitalism, even after I kindly explain to them that a government which cannot maintain rule of law and cannot enforce necessary regulations is less than minimal (that is, insufficient, too far in the opposite direction) and therefore not at all what I am talking about.
In such discussions said morons tend to respond to what they imagine I must have meant, as though they know this better than I, rather than responding to what I actually said (see the arrogance?). I think a lot of people confuse terms accidentally. When they realize they have done this, they realize it after some discussion has already occurred. Then they continue to do it intentionally, because for them, this is somehow easier than admitting they made a mistake. After all, they already made up their mind what "libertarian" means and aren't interested in honestly examining how accurate their mental representation (stereotype) actually is.
The world is filled with people who don't care about truth but do care very much about their own image and whether they can appear to be "right" in the eyes of others. Admitting fault is not compatible with this worldview, however noble and constructive it may be. Libertarian thought is especially problematic because if it caught on and became popular and well-represented in media, it would cause some drastic societal changes that would amount to a lot of powerful people losing their power. Thus, no one with any funding, power, or representation has any incentive to do anything other than demonize it. The method of demonization is simple: portray only its most extreme, least rational formations and ignore any reasonable method of applying its principles. Thus we are all anarcho-capitalists who don't want rule of law, publically funded police protection and firefighters, reasonable regulations, etc. No, it is "every man for himself", and if you aren't rich enough to hire private guards then you just get fucked.
That's the way you discredit a credible idea: misrepresent it like hell, being careful never to portray its merits. Make no mistake, poltiics is a great big PR game and PR is so effective because most people are lemmings who will not conduct their own research before deciding what they think of a given position. If the average person took a skeptical attitude towards every political stance, never believing anything other than what they can validate with facts and non-fallacious reasoning, then we would not have the situation we experience now, in which the politician with the most funding who buys the most advertising tends to win the election.
But real world seems to probe it doesn't work that way: software development, for instance, has flourished without the need of a strong patent chest. Neither Microsoft, nor Oracle, nor Google, nor Facebook, nor Twitter, nor SAP, nor Red Hat, etc. made their way into big companies thanks to strong patent protection for their innovations, but by being innovative, fast to implement and with good business acumen. It's arguable, though, that they acquired a strong patent portfolio once they were big as a war chest against other big companies also with large patent portfolios and to increase the entry barrier for new competitors.
Just my humble $0.02 ... it's not often that someone puts forth a position and then, in the same "breath", considers the limitations of their position and/or the arguments that might be perceived as contrary to their own position. I wish that happened more often. It's refreshing. Thank you for doing that.
He figured out that the parasite school of economics wasn't going to work in the long run.
Yeah, suddenly authority figures are considering the importance of economic sustainability? That's a very nice fantasy. If we manage to improve the way the world works, then who knows? It could even happen.
I am reading your comment's parent to mean that, if people are charged with "hacking" for doing much less, why not these ad agencies?
The main reason? The ad agencies are corporations with plenty of lawyers. It takes far less time and resources to prosecute a private individual. Additionally, the private individual has little or no PR capability to make the state look like bad guys for doing so (that part would come naturally to an ad agency).
See subject: It's YOU vs. myself, here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
* :)
(Always a pleasure making a weasel like YOU run like the scared little weasel you are...)
"Incompetence is the desire to continue doing something without improvement after discovering you have no skill at it." -
You're not very good @ trolling, even stooping so low as to TRY to talk behind my back -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
APK
P.S.=> Truer words were NEVER spoken on /. & you help prove my point... apk
You're funny.
Incompetence first requires the desire to succeed at something.
Incompetence is the desire to continue doing something without improvement after discovering you have no skill at it.
You can use Stellarium (http://www.stellarium.org/, or with the help of your package manager) to get a preview of tonight's sky at your terrestrial location (not accounting for cloud cover though). This includes a simulation of the actual eclipse.
Seconded. Stellarium is very good. My last purposeful use of it was to see the configuration of the sky on the winter solstice of 2012 (the one that got so much attention). It was 2010 or so at the time. Since then I've had fun just messing with it, having it fetch space telescope pictures for certain items, etc. It's gotten me more interested in astronomy.
Coren22 by ac, you still avoiding apk's question here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ? Yes.
The same way APK and his little fanboys are avoiding mine. And this one too. It's as though they realize that any honest answer would make them look bad.
DNS Blocking isn't the same thing as DNS BL, stop backpedaling.
APK and his myrmidon supporters don't backpedal. Backpedaling when it's obvious you are wrong requires honesty, integrity, and a concern for what the truth is. It also requires the courage to admit fault and the grace to want to.
Expecting APK and his myrmidons to do that is like expecting a cockroach to appreciate opera. It's far beyond their reach.
Why's Coren22 avoiding a simple question here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?
APK and his myrmidons are the masters of never answering a simple question. While congratulating themselves for being such great debators. More like master debators the way they enjoy their little circle-jerk.
You're welcome. I think it's funny when apk makes trolls go nuts when they can't prove him wrong.
If by "go nuts" you mean laugh at how pathetic apk is, then yes, you've driven us stark raving mad. Of course "troll" is "anyone who doesn't agree with apk".
Get on topic. Do something useful like apk has in his program. You can't prove his points on hosts wrong either. I suppose I for one expect too much from you slashdot trolls. You don't possess the skills to do either one, so go away troll, shoo. I think it's hilarious how apk makes you fools go nuts but you never ever prove him validly technically wrong. Not ever.
That's the amazing thing about APK and his bootlicking myrmidons (like you). You just can't actually respond to what someone is saying. You read what they said, but you lack the argumentation skill to actually rebut it. Being childish, that causes you to feel like you really don't like that person. Unable to meaingfully respond and filled with your vitriol, all you can do is hand-wave, call names, and change the subject.
If (for some strange reason) I wanted to, I could do that, too. What I couldn't do is act that way, and then convince myself that I am right and the other guy is a big dummy. That is a true masterwork of functional self-deception.
FTFY - You're just another can't code himself critic with nothing to show for himself since if you really didn't give a shit you wouldn't even reply. Thanks for projecting that much that you do give a shit.
So ... are you going to respond to anything I said, or are you going to keep acting like a spoiled child?
I actually ENJOY watching these troll worms flail all over, blowing all their modpoints (& I just run them dry of them eventually via my UNLIMITED posting abilities here, unlike other ac posters).
So you you put some effort into being a spammer (boast about it in fact) and you admit that you like disrupting the normal functioning of this site.
Did you ever ask yourself, "are these the actions of a happy, fulfilled person who has a meaningful life?" You're a pest and you like being a pest. The irony? You have done more to give your hosts program a bad name than anything anyone else could have possibly said.
You like hosts, go use them and enjoy it. I think hosts have a use but it's not the only thing I use. I like my setup too, and I am enjoying it.
The difference is, I'm not an insecure little man with a desperate need to win converts. I don't really care what other people use. I wouldn't recommend anything to them unless they bring it up first. You remind me of a religious zealot on a mission to preach to the infidels.
Even if that "someone" is a veteran FBI agent? Don't think so.
I said "could" for a reason, instead of "will"
Yes but for the small-minded, the chance to hassle you and cash in that apparent decisive, instant, effortless slam-dunk "victory" is much more important than realizing that you may have said what you said the way that you said it for a reason. Actually arguing against you and navigating all the shades of grey would be too much work for the instant-gratification types.
But do you understand the definition of "asshole" in this context?
Because when all you do is a. Lie "it does not pin it on Amazon" (The headline most certainly does.) b. Talk about yourself "I'm in IT" c. Be a dick "I also understand the definition of 'through' in this context"
It's clear you're either a narcissistic sociopath or just an asshole. That's why I asked if you know the definition.
E
I'm not the AC, and I also don't believe that AC was being, in any way, an asshole. I believe he was constructively criticizing the way the summary/article was written, which on this site, doesn't happen often enough. I also believe you're overreacting to the point that you're making him look very good.
It's interesting that this sort of rhetoric comes from the far right, while at the same time they defend ignoring external costs that of things like fracking. Your paying for those too. Whether it is a necessary evil, or not, it is almost certainly less efficient and carefully done then it would be with some sort of oversight. You object to individuals saying, "I'm healthy", but you allow businesses to say, "we're doing the best", "we have good environmental practices", and "we are financially sound" with little (preferably no) oversight.
Actually I want one of two scenarios: insurance goes back to its intended purpose - protecting against rare and catastrophic events; or, a government-funded health care system like you would find in many European nations.
In my mind, external costs like those caused by fracking are a separate issue. If you want to fix that issue, you need to deal with the problem of regulatory capture. The simplest way to do that would be a new law forbidding anyone who has worked at a regulatory agency from ever seeking employment with any company engaged in that industry, with severe criminal penalties for the former regulator and exhorbitant fines for any company that tries to hire him or her.
How can this possibly be "Might be a HIPPA violation?"
It is precisely what HIPPA was created to protect against.
I'm not remotely a lawyer but I can offer an opinion. It's the whole "spirit of the law" versus "letter of the law" deal, I would assume.
For an analogy - that's the main reason Constitutional law can get so complex. Otherwise language like "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" isn't difficult to understand. No I don't think the authors of that document intended for physical papers to enjoy certain protections but not computers, cellphones, and other future replacements for paper not known to them at that time. No sane person who knows anything about them would truly believe that. Not for "terrorism" or for anything else. But motivated people worked hard to find ways of skirting the obvious intent by twisting the words and their definitions. Now the restrictions amount to "... oh, unless you really want to."
So this "might be" a HIPAA violation the same way warrantless domestic spying "might be" unconstitutional. With a sufficiently dense layer of surrounding laws and rulings, nearly any position can come up with some kind of "justification", however flimsy.
Why the hell did his parents give him a name like that?
To make sure he grew up to be tough.
Eh sorry to double-post, but there's another aspect to health insurance that complicates things.
Basically, if car insurance worked like health insurance, then every single time you got an oil change or put gasoline in your tank, you'd file a claim and make a co-payment. If homeowner's insurance worked that way, you'd file a claim and make a co-payment every time you re-shingled your roof, repainted your house, or replaced the mulch in some landscaping.
In every other instance, insurance is for rare and catastrophic events only. It's not something you use on a regular basis every time you perform what would be called routine maintainence in any other context. It's one reason contributing to why health insurance is so expensive.
You don't understand insurance. The whole point is that you're paying a fixed premium to eliminate a risk. You're paying for certainty. Without health insurance, you risk that some unpreventable medical problem makes you go into crippling debt for the rest of your life. That can happen regardless of how healthy you are.
Sure, but when you smoke two packs a day, or when the doctor tells you you're 50 pounds overweight and you keep hammering the buffets, shoveling fried food into your corpulent mouth, and not getting any significant exercise, well then we're no longer talking about "unpreventable", are we? That's not the same thing as driving down the road, having a deer jump out in front of you that no one could have seen in time, and getting injured in the crash.
Yes they can apply surcharges and rate some people as much riskier than others, but the entire concept of insurance is much better suited for the latter case than it is for the former. What a lot of people want is to appease their sense of justice by having some assurance that those who are at least attempting to be healthy are not forced to subsidize those who blatantly aren't.
A huge number of people think it's "inconvenient" they can't have everything they want with no downsides. They can't claim ignorance and they're setting themselves up to learn a hard lesson. The adults who understand that decisions carry consequences -- and make their choices accordingly -- don't want any part of the results. That's what I mean by a sense of justice. Whether you agree with it or not, that's where the concern about precisely how the insurance is implemented is coming from.
Of 100 sites that require javascript for basic operation (not just tracking or advertising), 95 of them are not worth visiting anyway and society will not miss anything if they vanish, and the remaining 5 you can get away with by selectively unblocking some common third party javascript sites. Out of 10,000 sites that require javascript, only one of those will be nice to their visitors and use only their own hosted scripts rather than rely on third party.
I don't really understand why someone would want their site to be dependent on unaccountable third parties over whom they have no control. This is especially the case if that site is a business and a main source of income.
At least with ad networks I understand why a third party is trying to serve up scripts (which I reject). But I'm talking about sites that rely on third parties for basic functionality, apart from any (failed) efforts to advertise to me.
Instead of turning off only Java scripts, I recommend turning off Java completely (so both Java applets and Java scripts).
It is an unfortunate fact that Javascript has nothing to do with Java. Javascripts are not Java scripts.
It's equally unfortunate that when someone has no clue concerning what they're talking about, and refuses to look it up despite having more instantaneous and effortless access to information than at any time in human history ... it seldom if ever convinces them to listen instead of speaking.