Tom T. wrote:Guest wrote:PS: Tom -- That was a terrible title. It makes you seem desperate.
Thanks for the input. As we all know, everyone perceives things differently. My intent was to try to calm the situation -- it's fixed -- and to try to bring some reason to those who stomped off "threatening" to remove NS. Since it's not a paid-for program, (or if it was, you already bought it), this doesn't hurt the developer nearly as much as it hurts the user who removes it. That is the point I was trying to bring home to those who were angry -- you're only hurting yourself. I wouldn't think of browsing without NS, and I don't get paid to say that -- I'm a volunteer here, as we all are.
I just care about everyone's safety on the Net. I guess I could say, "Okay, get rid of it. Hope you're pwned within two hours." I'm not that kind of person -- not spiteful.
If other people perceive that title as sounding "desperate", I'm certainly open to editing the title. What would you suggest?
Tom T. wrote:@ John the Jew and
@ The Original God of War,
We need to stay on topic and especially leave race, religion, nationality, and all other irrelevant factors out of this. Otherwise, the post will have to be deleted.
Please express your opinions calmly -- it gives them more credibility. Thank you for your cooperation.
Tester wrote:I think what the developer of Noscript did is not excusable and shows that he is not at all a trustworthy person. So logicly I just uninstalled Noscript. BTW: I m not 13 but 38. But I still think that I don't want to have anything to do with someone who tries to trick me just in order to make more $$$ CASH $$$ by betraying me behind my back.
If other people think that this behavior is normal or excusable they are free to do so. I personally hope that some laywer sues the Noscript-Author for what he did to computers of total strangers without ANY permission...
Ricksterto wrote:So the noscript "filter adjustment" is gone....but those same sites in question remain whitelisted in noscript. I manually removed them.
Ricksterto wrote:I don't care who started what - this extension was about not trusting sites and blocking potentially harmful content. Now this extension's integrity itself is put into question by the motives of the developer. With the recent "whoops" of facebook for example, you would have thought that upfront disclosure would have been a no-brainer; but once again someone hoped that no one would notice the change.
Ricksterto wrote:I myself don't use flashgot (another extension by the same author) because there are way too many attempts to read / change the registry that can't be explained by normal operation,
Ricksterto wrote:and the number of advertising related IP addresses attempting and inbound request increase dramatically with the extension installed.
Ricksterto wrote:It is also interesting that an older version of noscript allowed you to block references (for ads) - and now it doesn't because of "performance issues". I'll put money on it (or rather someone put money into someone's pocket) to take this feature out. This action a year ago is congruent with this attempt at advertising money.
Giorgio Maone wrote:Back to the Hackademix post now (I wonder if I should postpone it to tomorrow, after taking some sleep?)
Users browsing this forum: EnandaSurawah and 4 guests