Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Misty Kolnazom, the Greatest Cheesemaker Ever!

Reg Pashmad the Recruit

Gruzzlus Holt the Captain

Plumpy the Plump Helmet Man

Kulet Lokunnomel the Nun

Enir Twigappears the Overseer

Darkerdaffodil the Elf

Maynard the Mule

Other

Iron Owl the Iron Knight

[Julien Brightside]

I really like the picture with the staircase. It looks so grand.

[Max™]

Just to confirm, while I do have noscript and my greasemonkey "make everything grey backgrounds with white text" disabled on bay12 (largely due to the dorf sections being one of the few places on the net with a sane color scheme... though that means I hate even looking at the lower boards) after updating to firefox 37.0 (thanks for pointing out it was up!) everything works fine here.

You know you can set Darkling to be the default theme for the entire forum right?

Get strange mood, milk cow, create artifact cheese, name it Saltposition, after Nahere.

[Foxite]

It could be a noscript issue.

Seeing as you probably know more about Noscript than me do you know any good reason to get it? What it does to me is prevent all JS to be executed unless you explicitly allow it to, which if you don't do it takes away the functionality of 80% of sites on the web. :/ It says it's a security measure, but quite a drastic one. To my, that is, ungrounded views, which I am open to change right now.

[greycat]

I never had any problems seeing the chapter 4 images in Firefox (31.2.0 ESR) on Linux.  I also have NoScript installed, but it's not active on bay12forums.com.

[expwnent]

Noscript is good for preventing nosy scripts and trackers like Google analytics. It's easy to whitelist or temporarily whitelist sites. It's also effective for blocking the most annoying of ads.

I think it's a matter of whether tumblr is whitelisted or not.

[Rexfelum]

Noscript is good for preventing nosy scripts and trackers like Google analytics. It's easy to whitelist or temporarily whitelist sites. It's also effective for blocking the most annoying of ads.

I would argue that NoScript makes many sites usable.  I see almost no ads, and it's amazing how much improved a page is when all you see is the content you want.

So you just allow the script for the basic page, leave the ad servers in their default disallowed state, and go.

--Rexfelum

[Foxite]

Noscript is good for preventing nosy scripts and trackers like Google analytics. It's easy to whitelist or temporarily whitelist sites. It's also effective for blocking the most annoying of ads.

I would argue that NoScript makes many sites usable.  I see almost no ads, and it's amazing how much improved a page is when all you see is the content you want.

So you just allow the script for the basic page, leave the ad servers in their default disallowed state, and go.

--Rexfelum

AdBlock is better for blocking ads than noscript, as it also allows non-intrusive ads and thus still support the income of webmasters who actually care about intrusive ads.

[Button]

Noscript is good for preventing nosy scripts and trackers like Google analytics. It's easy to whitelist or temporarily whitelist sites. It's also effective for blocking the most annoying of ads.

I would argue that NoScript makes many sites usable.  I see almost no ads, and it's amazing how much improved a page is when all you see is the content you want.

So you just allow the script for the basic page, leave the ad servers in their default disallowed state, and go.

--Rexfelum

AdBlock is better for blocking ads than noscript, as it also allows non-intrusive ads and thus still support the income of webmasters who actually care about intrusive ads.

The benefits of noscript to me are twofold:

1. Not all viruses are contained in ads. Malicious code comes in many forms, and the best way to avoid it is to preemptively block any code from running that you don't know what it is.
2. Some sites are just overloaded with Javascript that you just plain don't care about, so NoScript improves their performance.

[Foxite]

1. Not all viruses are contained in ads. Malicious code comes in many forms, and the best way to avoid it is to preemptively block any code from running that you don't know what it is.

For windows, this would indeed be true, although I have linux which pretty much simply blocks all attempts to install software unless an administrator gave it the password. But on windows many antivirus programs will prevent that from happening, and some modern browsers even have this kind of security built in their JS engine core. But that still doesn't mean noscript wouldn't be a useful extra measure, you're right.

2. Some sites are just overloaded with Javascript that you just plain don't care about, so NoScript improves their performance.

That's also pretty true. I use adblock for pretty much all sites unless I like their webmaster or the stuff they make (mostly games), know that they won't run malicious or intrusive ads, AND know that letting (at least some of) their ads run for me won't slow down the page. For newgrounds this is a problem as I would have disabled adblock for them but letting them all run would slow down the performance of the games I play there so much, although I would let a select few ads run. But I can't do that :/

[fourpotatoes]

I think we can rule out NoScript as the cause of the problem because the images don't actually need Javascript to load. It's just a bunch of images included with <img>. There's no Javascript on the page except what's loaded from the forums.

(... resisting the urge to voice my Strong Opinions about the rest of the NoScript discussion)

A question: Are all the people having problems loading the images using Firefox? If so, what version & platform? I encountered severe problems with Firefox 37 on 32-bit Linux that seem to be caused by animated GIFs and that, once they start, fit what I've heard of everyone's problems except the person who saw 403 errors. These problems aren't happening with 36.0.4 or with 31.6.0esr. [edited to add: nor do they seem to happen on 64-bit, although I haven't spent as much time on my desktop or my work PC as I have on my nine-year-old 32-bit-only laptop]

If you can't see Misty and you're not on Firefox, what browser are you on and can you tell (with tcpdump, etc) what happens when your browser tries to load the pictures?

[Foxite]

I tried viewing the update on firefox 37, no problems at all. I am on 64-bit ubuntu 14.04 (LTS). And chrome doesn't have any other problems, although I do remember not seeing one picture that I do see now when the update was just posted. But I didn't really notice that the one picture was missing, though.

[Max™]

On firefox 37 and Arch here, been having a bit of trouble with embedded videos using way too much cpu on a few sites of a nsfw variety... but besides that no problems with the updates here or bay12 even, I usually use it as a canary site when someone complains about the wifi here, if bay12 loads normally I know they need to reconnect or I may have to wake the router up.

[Ancalagon_TB]

works great on chrome for me, looking forward to more

[Ops Fox]

I wounder if Shielddawn is going to fall to the elfs because the plump helmet man began their rebellion at the same time the elves attack. Bonus points if Misty also accidentally opens the door to the 3rd cavern layer letting a forgotten beast in. What a way for shielddawn to fall, forgotten beast, elves, and rebelling plump helmet men.

[Pencil_Art]

I wounder if Shielddawn is going to fall to the elfs because the plump helmet man began their rebellion at the same time the elves attack. Bonus points if Misty also accidentally opens the door to the 3rd cavern layer letting a forgotten beast in. What a way for shielddawn to fall, forgotten beast, elves, and rebelling plump helmet men.

New ideas always welcome .