🚀 go-pugleaf

Harold Sasaki <hsasaki@harold.com> spewed forth:
: Does anyone here know how to disable Javascript in IE4.0 for Windows?

: Thanks.

: -- 
: -----
: Harold Sasaki
: http://www.harold.com/

Harold -
	I believe that if you disable Java, it takes out
Javascript capability also.

-- 
                       --  Schaft  --
            www.schaft.com        schaft@schaft.com
 "Sir, there are two people in the world right now 
  who care about your Internet problem, and I am losing interest." 
                                        -- Unknown Tech Support

On 13 Nov 1998 00:48:36 GMT, schaft@schaft.com wrote:
>Harold -
>	I believe that if you disable Java, it takes out
>Javascript capability also.

and conversely, if you want to disable javascript, you have to disable java?

How incredibly microsoft. This makes much more people coerced into enabling
javascript. Which is a Bad Thing.

-- 
[trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
 --------------------------------------------------
"initiating.. 'getting the hell out of here' maneouver" - Lennier, babylon5

schaft@schaft.com wrote:
=> 	I believe that if you disable Java, it takes out
=> Javascript capability also.

Geroge,

Thanks.  I'll try that.

Uhh, how do you disable Java?

-- 
-----
Harold Sasaki
http://www.harold.com/

phil.s2@bolthole.no-bots.com (Philip Brown) wrote:

>schaft@schaft.com wrote:
>>	I believe that if you disable Java, it takes out Javascript capability also.
>
>and conversely, if you want to disable javascript, you have to disable java?
>How incredibly microsoft. This makes much more people coerced into enabling
>javascript. Which is a Bad Thing.

Why do you want to disable JavaScript, and yet allow Java??


- Bob Wallace (just my opinion);  bobw@promind.com

Mind Books offers publications about psychedelics; 
books@promind.com, or http://www.promind.com

Harold Sasaki <hsasaki@harold.com> spewed forth:
: schaft@schaft.com wrote:
: => 	I believe that if you disable Java, it takes out
: => Javascript capability also.

: Geroge,

: Thanks.  I'll try that.

: Uhh, how do you disable Java?

	Sigh.... made me fire up that piece of trash... :) 
In the one I have (3.x) its "view | options | advanced" then 
uncheck the JIT compiler option. 
-- 
                       --  Schaft  --
            www.schaft.com        schaft@schaft.com
 "Sir, there are two people in the world right now 
  who care about your Internet problem, and I am losing interest." 
                                        -- Unknown Tech Support

On Fri, 13 Nov 1998 18:05:37 GMT, bobw@promind.com wrote:
>phil.s2@bolthole.no-bots.com (Philip Brown) wrote:
>
>>schaft@schaft.com wrote:
>>>	I believe that if you disable Java, it takes out Javascript capability also.
>>
>>and conversely, if you want to disable javascript, you have to disable java?
>>How incredibly microsoft. This makes much more people coerced into enabling
>>javascript. Which is a Bad Thing.
>
>Why do you want to disable JavaScript, and yet allow Java??

javascript is bad by design.
java is only bad in the case of an implementation error on the browser side.


-- 
[trim the no-bots from my address to reply to me by email!]
 --------------------------------------------------
"initiating.. 'getting the hell out of here' maneouver" - Lennier, babylon5

IE4 is a bit more complex and offers more subtle control:
There are Java, Javascript, and Activex controls:

View, Internet Options, Security Tab, Custom Radio Button, Settings Button

By scrolling down, you will find radio buttons for Java, Javascript, and
Activex.

G2

schaft@schaft.com wrote in message <364c887d$0$12769@nntp1.ba.best.com>...
>Harold Sasaki <hsasaki@harold.com> spewed forth:
>: schaft@schaft.com wrote:
>: => I believe that if you disable Java, it takes out
>: => Javascript capability also.
>
>: Geroge,
>
>: Thanks.  I'll try that.
>
>: Uhh, how do you disable Java?
>
> Sigh.... made me fire up that piece of trash... :)
>In the one I have (3.x) its "view | options | advanced" then
>uncheck the JIT compiler option.
>--
>                       --  Schaft  --
>            www.schaft.com        schaft@schaft.com
> "Sir, there are two people in the world right now
>  who care about your Internet problem, and I am losing interest."
>                                        -- Unknown Tech Support

phil.s2@bolthole.no-bots.com (Philip Brown) wrote:

>javascript is bad by design.

I don't understand this. I wrote a nice shopping-cart application 
in JavaScript, our customers use it all the time, it's a very 
important and strategic element in our business. 

Sure, all languages, applications, operating systems, and 
software in general are badly designed and have bugs. 
But Javascript seems no worse (or better) than any other...



- Bob Wallace (just my opinion);  bobw@promind.com

Mind Books offers publications about psychedelics; 
books@promind.com, or http://www.promind.com

In article <364dd297.2286637@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Bob Wallace <bobw@promind.com> wrote:
>I don't understand this. I wrote a nice shopping-cart application 
>in JavaScript, our customers use it all the time, it's a very 
>important and strategic element in our business. 

It takes a lot of trust to enable javascript on a web site.  If I
knew you personally, I might consider it.  Other people are just
naturally more trusting (ignorant).  Potentially needing to clean
up a mess some "webmaster" makes on my desktop and/or system just
to use a website is not nearly worth it to me.  This is especially
true since anything useful done in javascript can be done without
javascript.  That makes the incentive to enable it essentially nil.

In article <364e23e0$0$12779@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Malcolm Hoar <malch@malch.com> wrote:
>Yup, I'd rather take a cookie than run Java/Javascript.

Yes, I don't generally take cookies, but the "mess potential" there
is indeed limited.

>Of course, there are legitimate uses for both

Like I said, anything worthwhile in javascript can be done without
javascript, so I don't know that I really agree with your statement.
Javascript doesn't have to be abusive, true, but the only functionality
it actuallys *adds* is basically that.  I guess it might be easier to
program things like shopping carts with it, but those are easy enough
to program with regular cgis.

In article <72kkjv$8i$1@machaut.medieval.org>, mccomb@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:

>It takes a lot of trust to enable javascript on a web site.  If I
>knew you personally, I might consider it.  Other people are just
>naturally more trusting (ignorant).  Potentially needing to clean
>up a mess some "webmaster" makes on my desktop and/or system just
>to use a website is not nearly worth it to me.  This is especially
>true since anything useful done in javascript can be done without
>javascript.  That makes the incentive to enable it essentially nil.

Yup, I'd rather take a cookie than run Java/Javascript. Much easier
to clean up the mess. Of course, there are legitimate uses for both
but, sadly, they're both abused more often than they're used 
appropriately.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <72l9jp$7r$1@machaut.medieval.org>, mccomb@medieval.org (Todd Michel McComb) wrote:

>Like I said, anything worthwhile in javascript can be done without
>javascript, so I don't know that I really agree with your statement.
>Javascript doesn't have to be abusive, true, but the only functionality
>it actuallys *adds* is basically that.  I guess it might be easier to
>program things like shopping carts with it, but those are easy enough
>to program with regular cgis.

Things like some initial client-side forms validation make
a certain amount of sense, IMO. That assumes they actually work,
of course, which has not been that common in my experience :-)

But, I also find the use of cute JavaScripts when <a href=> 
would do the job, very annoying.

-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
| malch@malch.com                                     Gary Player. |
| http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article <364dd297.2286637@nntp1.ba.best.com>,
Bob Wallace <bobw@promind.com> wrote:
>phil.s2@bolthole.no-bots.com (Philip Brown) wrote:
>
>>javascript is bad by design.
>
>Sure, all languages, applications, operating systems, and 
>software in general are badly designed and have bugs. 
>But Javascript seems no worse (or better) than any other...

In terms of clean namespace and strong typechecking, JavaScript is flawed.

In terms of usage, JavaScript is what is used to create obnoxious pop-up
consoles.  Like the type that open up two new windows every time you
close one of them.
	-Joe
-- 
INWAP.COM is Joe and Sally Smith, John and Chris O'Halloran and our cats
See http://www.inwap.com/ for PDP-10, "ReBoot", "Shadow Raiders"/"War Planets"