The simple answer is that there is a growing movement to reduce user options that can break applications.

Please try to remember whose machine you're running on. You're a guest under my roof, and guests that behave badly do not get invited back. So no, you don't get to run code in my browser until you've earned a certain level of trust, and you certainly don't get to invite in your friends' code. (I mean, just who the fsck is rpxnow.com, anyway?)

For example, there are websites that not only don't work without JavaScript, but they fail in complex ways [ ... ]

The technical term for sites that behave this way is, "Broken."

Hence, once you remove the disable JavaScript option Firefox suddenly works on a lot of websites.

Firefox already works on a lot of Web sites. Is someone shipping FF with JavaScript turned off by default? What exactly is the alleged problem here?

Today there are a lot of programmers of the opinion that if the user has JavaScript off then its their own fault and consuming the page without JavaScript is as silly as trying to consume it without HTML."

These programmers are called, "Wrong."

Back in the 1990's -- in the days of sneaker-net, recall -- macros in Microsoft Word documents, originally thought to be oh so terribly clever, proved to be a monumental nightmare for their ability to spread viruses and generally wreak havoc. It was so bad that even Microsoft was forced to admit it fscked up, and no longer executed macros in a loaded document by default, but would ask first. So you'd think the lesson on embedding executable content in what was fundamentally a document would have been learned.

Then some allegedly clever person kluges together JavaScript in an afternoon, and suddenly executable content embedded in documents -- over a genuine network, mind -- becomes a fantabulous idea again.

Uh, no, it didn't. JavaScript was a stupid idea, and should never have been allowed to happen. Unless your site is trustworthy and useful, you DO NOT GET TO RUN JAVASCRIPT.

Then Firefox will be to mobile what Java was to the desktop in the 90s, I don't see anything that could go wrong with that plan.

If those programs didn't exist, people wouldn't even work at Wal-Mart because it wouldn't pay the bills, and when you don't have employees it's awfully hard to have a business.

Nope. If those programs didn't exist, people would still work at Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart destroyed other local employers, leaving them little alternative.

it all boils down to government being the problem, as usual.

Only if you understand that Wal-Mart, like all corporations (indeed, all "property", as we know it) is a creation of a government.

The Nigerian scam still works on this principle. They send you a check drawn from a foreign or at least out of state bank. You deposit it and the check clears. One business day later all of the funds are available. If you're stupid enough to send them the money, when your bank finally figures out that the check was worthless, they back-charge your account. You end up several thousand dollars negative that you have to repay out of your own pocket.

Despite the instant clearing, this process can sometimes take 8 weeks to play out.

LK

I wholeheartedly agree. The problem I see is that many conservatives and liberals are all for government partnership with big business, when it suits them.

LK

With all due respect sir, you don't know what my life and upbringing were like.

I've been luckier than many. Perhaps in some ways, I've been luckier than most. However, I have faced more than my fair share of hardship.

These are not perpetual infants that we're talking about. These are people who are presumably adults and are responsible for their own decisions, rational or not.
At some point, we become responsible for ourselves.

LK

Please don't take this question as an attack, I do not mean it as such...

Have you ever offered to give one of those domestic employees a $10.00 loan to open an account at a Credit Union?
$10.00 interest free, paid back $2.00/month...

I would suspect not. I would also suspect the reason is that you know they either wouldn't take it or for some other reason it wouldn't work out.

My point is that at some point, people are responsible for their own decisions and their own positions in life.

LK

I switched to a credit union in 2010 after I got fucked over by S & T Bank. My credit union charged me $10.00 for membership.

If you're in a bad financial situation, it can be hard to come up with a spare $10.00 but isn't that better than getting charged $4.00 EVERY TIME you want to access your money?

Yes, being poor sucks. But at some point, you have to start making decisions with an eye towards the long term.

LK

I'm not sure it's just having bounced checks so much as having bounced checks and not paid the money back.

LK

You are correct, check cashing places are on par with "payday lenders" as the lowest of the low when it comes to exploiting the working poor.

I have difficulty believing that aside from the most remote enclaves of humanity, the working poor in the US don't have access to banks or credit unions. This is speculation on my part, I admit that, but I would guess that the bigger problem is the lack of financial education for the poor. When you're more worried about where your next meal is coming from, it's less important to compare fee schedules from financial institutions.

Even a $5.00/month fee for a checking account is still better than the $2.00/transaction that they would get hit with by these rip-off cards,

I'd be less inclined to give the banks incentives. If it were my decision(admittedly it is not), I'd mandate that these cards have maximum fees capped at something like $4.00/month per card. Let the banks negotiate with Visa/MC for a little slice of the 2-4% on credit transactions that they'll make on purchases.

LK

....accepted only at the company store. And somehow you can never get ahead because your scrip is barely enough to pay your rent (in company housing) and buy essentials. But fortunately, the company store offers you credit so that next packet of scrip leaves you just enough behind to need a little more credit...

I honestly don't see how people running a business do this with a straight face, although I suspect its one of those things where someone responsible for payroll is given some ridiculous "cost reduction" goal by an owner and figures either they keep their job by meeting the goal or they get shitcanned.

I've done both. I've been salary and bi-weekly, semi-monthly and monthly. I don't think there really is a "normal" in this regard. It's just whatever the employer feels like doing.

LK

Agreed. I would opt the hell out of those BS cards. I can't believe that this is even a real thing. The first I heard of it was last week.

LK

Once a month isn't too bad if you're salary. It takes a couple of months to get the budget set up but once you do, it's not much worse than biweekly.

LK

Years ago, I tried wearing a wristwatch, but I found it gets in the way. It makes typing uncomfortable for me

Agreed, wrist watches are uncomfortable. For everyday carry, I have a clip watch clipped to a beltloop. It's far easier to check the time there than to dig my phone out of a pocket, plus I have also clipped a keychain-style LED flashlight to it. It's occasionally useful just to have a light-duty carabiner at hand. And I'll take it running or biking, when I usually leave my bulkier cell phone home.

For fancy dress, have some real style and get a pocket watch.