Anmimation cartoons blocked

[Tom T.]

For some reason, on Fx 3.6.25, tabolasyndication is not showing up.
It was the last one to show up in 9.01.
I benchmarked the connection at 9.76 Mbps down and 0.97 Mbps up, about the highest it will ever be.
Watching Connection > Status load packets from that server is like watching paint dry. One at a time.
It was still showing "Loading data from washingtonpost.com" etc. when I ran out of patience.

I don't know why this is, but please try Fx 9.01 before deciding this must be Mac-specific.
If you need help in installing 9.x without uninstalling 3.6, we can do that.
Or hopefully you saved the installer for 3.6.x. Uninstall it, and try 9.01 (from the same http page, not the ftp page.)

I'm stumped on the 3.6.x issue.

[GµårÐïåñ]

To the best of my assessment using a Mac with Os X lion and also a virtual Mac running leopard (a sub version of Os x) and I could not specifically link this issue to the OS but rather was able to "sort of" mimic the issue on a good old xp machine. So I believe we need to look at what's causing it not the platform. Although I welcome any analysis that might suggest differently.

[Tom T.]

To the best of my assessment using a Mac with Os X lion and also a virtual Mac running leopard (a sub version of Os x) and I could not specifically link this issue to the OS but rather was able to "sort of" mimic the issue on a good old xp machine. So I believe we need to look at what's causing it not the platform. Although I welcome any analysis that might suggest differently.

Thank you, GµårÐïåñ. I'll remove the "Mac-specific" from the title.

If you have time, perhaps you can discover what I'm missing: The site works on Fx 9.01, but not on 3.6.25 - tabolasyndication won't show in the menu.

Perhaps related to support for HTML5? ... In a separate thread about YouTube, it was discovered that YT vids launched with HTML5 enabled, on a browser that doesn't support it, will do a graceful fall-back to old-fashioned Flash, and play fine. Might be related to this thread?

[GµårÐïåñ]

I could sort of reproduce the issue under an old version of 3.x on XP where the way the code handles threading and HTML5 and some other JS functions were done a bit differently. I don't have the bug number on hand but a workaround was done by Giorgio to fix it but I believe it was limited to higher versions, so I am not sure applicable here or not but I'd say if it quacks, walks and looks like a duck, probably a duck or its platitudinous disguised as a duck.

[Tom T.]

I sent the following message to Washington Post's technical support department:

Hello. I am a Global Moderator and Support Team member for the NoScript add-on to the Firefox web browser. One of our users reported that Ann Telnaes animations do not display correctly. I have reproduced the issue on Firefox 3.6.25.

On Firefox 9.01, they work correctly if scripting is allowed from washingtonpost.com, wapolabs.com, yahooapis.com, and tabolasyndication.com. However, on Firefox 3.6.25, the last one, tabolasyndication.com, never appears in NoScript's menu of scripts asking to be run, despite multiple page refreshes.

Is this possibly related to the fact that the 3.x branch of Firefox does not support the recent HTML5 implementation? YouTube videos with HTML5 (audio)(video) tags will do a graceful fallback to Flash without problem. We can't think of any other possibilities.

I have tried adding tabolasyndication.com to the permanent whitelist, but as I write this, the site is stuck on "Transferring data from media.washingtonpost.com".

Please feel free to post directly at the forum. We allow guest posting, if you don't mind the reCaptcha thing, or registration is quick and easy. If you prefer, please e-mail me directly, but I would ask you not to publish that e-mail address, nor to sell, rent, trade, or otherwise disclose it. Your confidence is appreciated.

Besides, it's a disposable address.

Thank you,
Tom T.
Forums.Informaction.com

I look forward to their reply.

[therube]

Flash 11.1 r102, Win7 x64


OP is using FF 3.5.6 from 2009
& NoScript 2.1.0.2 from April of last year.

Not FF 3.6.25 nor NoScript 2.2.5.
With that combination, I (eventually) get taboolasyndication.com to appear, at which point the clip plays.

FF 3.5.19 & NoScript 1.9.9.99 or 2.2.5 also works.

And this is working too ...

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.6) Gecko/20091201 Firefox/3.5.6 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729) & NoScript 2.2.5 or 2.1.0.2.


So, for me, it is working regardless of anything (other then I have no way to check Mac or Win other then 7).

[Tom T.]

Flash 11.1 r102, Win7 x64

OP is using FF 3.5.6 from 2009
& NoScript 2.1.0.2 from April of last year.

Not FF 3.6.25 nor NoScript 2.2.5.
With that combination, I (eventually) get taboolasyndication.com to appear, at which point the clip plays.

The above is exactly what I use: Fx 3.6.25 and NS 2.2.5. And it breaks.

I did not get the latest Flash version, for reasons I don't remember at the moment. But that shouldn't be the issue, because I can get the video to play on Fx 9.01, same NS, same (older) Flash installed on the HD. And it's a script issue, not a Flash issue, anyway, because I'm not getting tabola to show up. Data transfer shows in the lower left, but goes on forever.

I (eventually) get taboolasyndication.com to appear,

Just how long, exactly, was "eventually"?
Any 30-second cartoon that takes 30 minutes to load is not worth it, IMHO.
As said, high-speed cable benchmarked at almost 10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up.

ETA:

I have no way to check Mac or Win other then 7

I'm on Win XP. Wonder if that makes a difference -- they optimized it for Vista/7?
XP is still supported by MS through 2014.

[therube]

> same (older) Flash installed on the HD

Flash being regularly exploited ... There is NO reason you should not be up to date on Flash.

> I (eventually) get taboolasyndication.com to appear,
>> Just how long, exactly, was "eventually"?

"Eventually" in this case is because you had to Temporarily Allow about 1000 times before it actually appeared in the list, nothing to do with the clip being slow to load (sorry for not being clear on that).

XP SP3, Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.19) Gecko/20110420 Firefox/3.5.19 (.NET CLR 3.5.30729), NoScript 2.0rc2. (This is a whatever it happened to be profile from some ancient time that was sitting there that I opened that I loaded the washingtonpost page in question that then played the video [which is now a different clip from what it was the other day].)

And since I've got a 3.6.25 sitting here too ...

Ditto. FF 3.6.25, NoScript 2.1.2.9rc1, XP SP3, Flash 11.1 r102.

[Tom T.]

> same (older) Flash installed on the HD

Flash being regularly exploited ... There is NO reason you should not be up to date on Flash.

This, from the guy who said

Allow Globally (safety concerns aside) takes a lot of frustration out of the picture....

I could be mistaken, and I probably am, so please forgive me, but somehow, I was under the impression that the reason we use NS in the first place is, uh, "safety concerns".

And who also told us that he doesn't use AV?

Not quarreling with your choices; you're knowledgeable enough to deal with threats in other ways. Maybe I am, too?

But agree that Best Practice, and advice for all, is to keep Flash etc. updated -- along with AV, and never Globally Allow.

I (eventually) get taboolasyndication.com to appear,

Just how long, exactly, was "eventually"?

"Eventually" in this case is because you had to Temporarily Allow about 1000 times before it actually appeared in the list, nothing to do with the clip being slow to load (sorry for not being clear on that).

Can't imagine *any* short vid clip that's worth 1000 TAs. And having seen a few of hers on Fx 9.01, some are amusing, some not, none worth that much trouble.

Still no reply from Wash. Post Tech Support.

It might be the older Flash. I'll go remind myself why I didn't want the new one.

[Tom T.]

Firefox 3.6.x apparently doesn't support Flash 11, because Flash 10 is all they offered me when I went there.
Verified in System Requirements that Flash 11 requires Fx 4+.

Went there with Fx 9.01, and they offered me (only) Flash 11.

Apparently, you got Flash 11 to run on 3.6.25? Does Adobe know about this? (possibly because Win 7?)

Since they are supporting the 10 branch for Fx 3.6.x, it should have whatever fixes are needed for those many exploits.

Also note that Fx 9 supports the Flash 10, since I could play the WP animations with Fx 9.

FWIW, my six-year-old CPU doesn't meet their System Requirements (speed) for either version of Flash. Not all of us are so rich as to buy a new computer every year or two, or for that matter, care to do so, after going to a lot of trouble to get all one's desired programs, config settings, etc. on one machine. And lots of lesser-income countries are still on XP. Remember the flap about MS MiSrepresenting how many existing machines were "Vista-ready"? EU sued over that.

So if Flash doesn't want to support a fully-supported OS and browser, pbbbthhhhhhh.

[therube]

Firefox 3.6.x apparently doesn't support Flash 11, because Flash 10 is all they offered me when I went there.
Verified in System Requirements that Flash 11 requires Fx 4+.

What they may "offer" & what are "supported" I can't say.

Though I can say that both Flash 11 & Flash 10 work in FF 3.6.25 with the clip in question, with all combinations that I have tried.

Here is FF 3.6.25 & Flash 10 - working, clip playing.
(View Image, to see full size)

[Tom T.]

Though I can say that both Flash 11 & Flash 10 work in FF 3.6.25 with the clip in question, with all combinations that I have tried.

But apparently, only after "1000 TAs" -- meh.

Here is FF 3.6.25 & Flash 10 - working, clip playing.

Hey, you Photoshopped that!

(View Image, to see full size)

Did you mean, "Click image, to see full size"?

In any event, it's showing full-size on my screen, without clicking.

[therube]

Did you mean, "Click image, to see full size"?
In any event, it's showing full-size on my screen, without clicking.

No, the image is not click-able.
Meant just what I said, right-click context menu | View Image.
Best I can determine, the forum places the image in a frame, the frame truncates parts of the image, so you're not seeing the full image otherwise. (Should be seeing 3 windows; washingtonpost, about:, about:plugins.)

[Tom T.]

Did you mean, "Click image, to see full size"?
In any event, it's showing full-size on my screen, without clicking.

No, the image is not click-able.
Meant just what I said, right-click context menu | View Image.

That's not what you said.
You said,

(View Image, to see full size)

Nothing about r-clicking. Idk what "View Image" means, so went to the most familiar, "Click image".
As noted elsewhere, risky to assume that everyone else thinks as any one person does.

Best I can determine, the forum places the image in a frame, the frame truncates parts of the image, so you're not seeing the full image otherwise. (Should be seeing 3 windows; washingtonpost, about:, about:plugins.)

For some reason, it showed full-screen when first I saw it. No point in trying to figure out why.

But the "Plugins" page showed Flash 10 on Fx 3.6.25, and one of your points was that Flash 11 can in fact run on F3, despite what the vendor says?
N/M, I'll take your word for it.

[therube]

But the "Plugins" page showed Flash 10 on Fx 3.6.25

At that point, I had specifically put in Flash 10 to test along with FF 3.6.25.

(A bit of a PITA to install Flash 10 without uninstalling Flash 11, but now I've archived a Flash 10 NPSWF32.dll so any further test with 10 would be a cinch. And in the same way, what I learned from that will help me install Adobe <Acrobat> Reader 9 without uninstalling Reader X.)