If that's what you mean then I tend to agree. I always put noscript tags in place if there is functionality that wont work without JS, and I always test for cookie support and tell the user that cookies are required rather than breaking things, or at least they will know why things aren't working.

But still, for most companies, anything more than that just isn't worth the effort for the 2%. THere are a lot of huge sites that don't even do that, they just break. And I do mean huge...

Sorry, I don't buy this. Please post the offending link. It might have downloaded and mounted a DMG, but default settings do not allow for auto installation.

I, unlike you, are not a fucking idiot.

Not zero thought about degradation and not bad implementation. This isn't the same as developing for IE for example. It's simply that implementing features two ways - one for JS and one for no, takes more than twice as much effort, so it doesn't get done. I've told clients before about the JS issues, but what it comes down to is the client doesn't want to spend twice as much to service the 2% that turn off JS. Period. They get a message that tells them to enable JS to use those functions. It's cost vs. benefit 101.

Why sad? THe ability to have portions of the page refresh without round-tripping to the server for a whole new page is only one of the highly useful functions provided by JS.

Uh, no. Javascript is required for a significant portion, I'd say most, of the high traffic sites out there. It is simply not feasible, or acceptable to suggest that all users disable a significant portion of the functionality of the web.

I have a Mac and 25 down / 5 up connection. I don't need BluRay. In fact I don't need DVD either. I don't understand why MacBooks still have optical media drives at all. I've probably used the DVD Drive on the Mac maybe 10 times in 3 years. I'd much rather have more battery, or an SSD/HD combo than an optical drive...

I'm actually a bit disappointed. I was hoping for some HD video of a sniper shot. Nothing says job well done like your target's head exploding in a cloud of pink mist.

No. But that's not what they do. THey don't store your "specific location" they store the cell towers and wifi hotspots your phone has been in communication with. That's all. They're not tracking you.

Who's the idiot? The person who doesn't care because they're not being tracked, or the person who doesn't know what the fuck they're talking about (you)

Well, since the data is stored on your device which is presumable under your control, and it isn't sent anywhere, and it server a functional purpose as part of the A in A-GPS, I'd say your blogger was correct.

At $50 to $75 a month per subscriber they can afford it.

Agreed. I've been ready for IPv6 for years. All of my machines, mac, windows and linux are configured, my firewall/router/DNS server is configured, my WAP is configured. What's not configured is my ISP who doesn't seem to know what IPv6 is.

What did you expect? /. is populated by IT workers who clearly spend too much time posting here, and not enough time working...

If by "work with" you mean that you'll put it on your schedule to happen in six to twelve months, politicize the issue and use it as a reason to ask upper management for additional headcount while simultaneously back-charging my department approximately ten-times the going market rate had I simply been allowed to outsource it, then yeah, I'm sure you will work with me.

Oh, sweet irony.