Alas, only a black screen with javascript disabled. But that's not why I'm writing this, I am getting used to idiotic webdesigners by now. What made me chuckle was this piece of text inside the "script" tag:
Yea but having a hybrid doesn't just take care of that 1.3%, it tremendously helps those that are blind [1], the huge smear with different versions of JS, those that come in on mobile with JS enabled and then flick it off because your site broke for their random configuration of screen size and mobile browser, etc.
Finally, that's the UK. Students in India trying to learn about space may not have the internet speeds we're used to, and might browse with JS disabled because that's the literally the only way they can afford to without blowing data caps.
Anyway, you'll never catch me doing it unless I'm testing my own site, but it's definitely forward-thinking and kinda polite to have SOME sort of fallback for people without JS enabled.
Nobody is asking any miraculous things. Merely a dump of article contents without any formatting effort on webdesigner's part would do. Us "nojs vegans" aren't picky. Don't even need pictures, just the meat (I'm sure a pun of some sort could be made here) of the page.
I don't think that's unreasonable, given that the meat here is just plain text, something that web has been capable of delivering years before your javascript crutch became widely available.
I cannot agree more with this comment. Too bad that others feel the need to wrap text and photos in JS, to the detriment of many billions of Internet users out there who aren't on fast connections and powerful machines.
Agree here, I don't understand why arch users would be the target of that comment.
I switched from Ubuntu, and I find the experience pretty similar, by and large. Nobody screams about Ubuntu users.
If anything, by stereotype, I would expect Arch users to be "do it yourselfers". They are the "5%" of users by choice, and they figure out a way to make it work. In contrast to the GGP comment who wants everything to "just work" for him even though he's chosen to break things.
Seems to me like they're exact opposites.
I also don't think the arch stereotype holds true, anymore. I haven't had to fix a broken system or do any manual-update stuff in the couple of years I've been running arch. I think it has much broader appeal at this point.
And there are 5 times as many people who get personally upset about another person's preferences to the extent that they blow right by the part about "...not why I'm writing this" and the actual comment that the poster made in order to post their anti-vegan and, for some reason, Arch Linux user screed.
I think NoJS users are the opposite of vegans. Vegans scream that "Not eating animals works for me, maybe it works for you too!" rather than "Without meat my body does not work, could you change the nutritional requirements for humans?"
That is tremendous, thanks for sharing. Congratulations to all the New Horizons folks! I look forward to our upcoming fly-by of the object that caused the occultation. With five different observations of the occultation I would imagine that they will be able to get some decent information on the size/shape of the object.
Reading this I wondered that if NASA's New Horizon's team had actually struck gold, could they use the money in their budget to do more Kuiper Belt probes?
Or would it be diverted to the Shelby Launch System?
I have seen the transit of Venus but to see this a team find an occlusion that only occurs for milliseconds is is awe inspiring! Congrats to the people who made this happen!
> "A primitive solar system object that’s more four billion miles (6.5 billion kilometers) away passed in front of a distant star as seen from Earth." Did they forget a "than" after "more" and before "four"? Or is it "a mere"?
I think "mere" kind of makes sense at these scales?
I mean the nearest known star (Proxima Centauri) is 40,208,000,000,000 km away. (Guess it depends on whether you're using "American" Billions or not...)
Can someone explain why they had to set up a temporary telescope in Argentina to get data from a probe? If the article explained it, I missed that part.
They used Earth based telescopes to find a more accurate information about MU69. In order for New Horizons to get good pictures they need to know exactly where it is, how big it is, and how reflective it is.
35 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 93.6 ms ] thread/ * © 2011-2014 iPerceptions, Inc. All rights reserved. Do not distribute. * iPerceptions provides this code 'as is' without warranty of any kind, * either express or implied. */
Doesn't the fact that it is being downloaded with every page view constitute distribution? :)
Not sure how it adds much to the conversation to point out that if you turn off the thing 95%+ of users have turned on something doesn't work.
The users already decided this one, I don't entirely understand it either but reality is what it is either way.
A hybrid approach is best, especially when this article is literally text and some photos.
If I ran a restaurant and 98.7% of my revenue came from the drive through I'd seriously consider shutting the foot traffic part down.
Finally, that's the UK. Students in India trying to learn about space may not have the internet speeds we're used to, and might browse with JS disabled because that's the literally the only way they can afford to without blowing data caps.
Anyway, you'll never catch me doing it unless I'm testing my own site, but it's definitely forward-thinking and kinda polite to have SOME sort of fallback for people without JS enabled.
[1] https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/57340/percentage-of-s...
Given infinite resources I'd do all three but the with JS experience and accessibility matters more (to me).
I don't think that's unreasonable, given that the meat here is just plain text, something that web has been capable of delivering years before your javascript crutch became widely available.
Bit harsh, my personal blog has zero javascript.
He's already too far gone lads, just let him go in peace
I switched from Ubuntu, and I find the experience pretty similar, by and large. Nobody screams about Ubuntu users.
If anything, by stereotype, I would expect Arch users to be "do it yourselfers". They are the "5%" of users by choice, and they figure out a way to make it work. In contrast to the GGP comment who wants everything to "just work" for him even though he's chosen to break things.
Seems to me like they're exact opposites.
I also don't think the arch stereotype holds true, anymore. I haven't had to fix a broken system or do any manual-update stuff in the couple of years I've been running arch. I think it has much broader appeal at this point.
I was riffing on the common joke about "How do you tell someone is a vegan? You don't need to, they'll tell you".
Or would it be diverted to the Shelby Launch System?
(I can't vouch for the specific wording, but search for "American".)