4 ms·

I have NoScript enabled and see nothing spectacular. This is probably more of a JS trick than a CSS one.

by chsonnu 17y ago

FlemishBeeCycle 17y ago
Works for me with JS disabled - maybe you're not looking for the right effect / not impressed?
- alttab 17y ago
  Does not work on iPhone
  - nettdata 17y ago
    Doesn't work with lynx either.
    - gursikh 17y ago
      i laughed for like 5 minutes straight.
    - InclinedPlane 17y ago
      Doesn't work with curl either.
    - alttab 17y ago
      I guess I find these down votes a little surprising. People were giving their 2 cents on whether or not it was working, and the title said it was a CSS trick. So my first impression was that it was compatible with popular browsers, mobile Safari falling in that category in my mind. I apologize if my comment came across as snark - it was not my intent and I'll go to Reddit if I want to try to be witty.
      - nettdata 17y ago
        Dude. It was a light-hearted, good-natured joke, and nothing at all personal. Unless a sense of humour isn't iPhone compatible either?
        alttab 17y ago
        Your joke was funny, the -1 hurt me a little. tear
    - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
      I can confirm that it doesn't work in links2 either.
  - Wiz 17y ago
    Nothing to do with iPhone, he said NoScript which is a firefox extension. Either he doesn't know about background-attachment: fixed; either he didn't understood what the effect was.
marilyn 17y ago
What is the motivation of NoScript in this day and age? You miss so much neat stuff now without out it.
- david 17y ago
  So you can go on web forums and say "Well I really don't see it so you must be cheating with some JS stuff...".
- nfriedly 17y ago
  I installed it when reading HN's RSS feed inside of netvibes, because NYT articles would decide that they didn't want to be framed and take over the hole page. Then I decided that I liked noscript better than addblock+ and kept it instead.
- vsync 17y ago
  http://blog.freenode.net/2010/01/javascript-spam/ http://blog.freenode.net/2010/01/javascript-spam/
- Pistos2 17y ago
  I'm content with Opera's features: You can enable or disable Javascript in main preferences (of course), but you can also momentarily toggle it for your current browsing session, and even store site-specific settings. So, I surf with JS on by default, but turn it off when I happen to run into a misbehaving site, which is pretty rare. That provides for a pleasant enough browsing life.
BrandonM 17y ago
I use NoScript, but I have "Temporarily allow top-level sites by default" enabled (Base 2nd level domains). Basically, if I visit http://foo.example.com http://foo.example.com, any script hosted on example.com is allowed to run. Then, on pages that seem to have stuff missing, I'll go ahead and allow scripts from certain sites to run (e.g. akamai.net, aolcdn.com, autotraderstatic.com, googleapis.com, yahooapis.com, youtube.com). The main point is to limit exposure to XSS attacks. There are still sites (and I'm sure even some linked on HN) that allow comments without properly sanitizing input. This makes it possible for a commenter to embed javascript in a blog comment which would cause a cookie for that site to be sent to an external site, or which takes advantage of a browser vulnerability. Another reason is to deter a lot of forms of tracking. By not running scripts from the likes of google-analytics.com or quantserve.com (two sources for scripts in this submission), my browsing activity is not followed quite as closely as it otherwise would be. Finally, I use it to block Flash, Java, and whatever else ads, which only add annoyance and CPU consumption to my browsing experience. Regardless, the submitted site worked fine for me. The effect is neat but I don't think it really adds a whole lot.
- BrandonM 17y ago
  Hmm... looks like I replied to the wrong comment. I meant to reply to this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1063142 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1063142, one of the higher children of the one I actually replied to.

I have NoScript enabled and see nothing spectacular. This is probably more of a JS trick than a CSS one.

by chsonnu 17y ago

I have NoScript enabled and see nothing spectacular. This is probably more of a JS trick than a CSS one.

FlemishBeeCycle 17y ago

Works for me with JS disabled - maybe you're not looking for the right effect / not impressed?

alttab 17y ago
Does not work on iPhone
- nettdata 17y ago
  Doesn't work with lynx either.
  - gursikh 17y ago
    i laughed for like 5 minutes straight.
  - InclinedPlane 17y ago
    Doesn't work with curl either.
  - alttab 17y ago
    I guess I find these down votes a little surprising. People were giving their 2 cents on whether or not it was working, and the title said it was a CSS trick. So my first impression was that it was compatible with popular browsers, mobile Safari falling in that category in my mind. I apologize if my comment came across as snark - it was not my intent and I'll go to Reddit if I want to try to be witty.
    - nettdata 17y ago
      Dude. It was a light-hearted, good-natured joke, and nothing at all personal. Unless a sense of humour isn't iPhone compatible either?
      - alttab 17y ago
        Your joke was funny, the -1 hurt me a little. tear
  - pbhjpbhj 17y ago
    I can confirm that it doesn't work in links2 either.
- Wiz 17y ago
  Nothing to do with iPhone, he said NoScript which is a firefox extension. Either he doesn't know about background-attachment: fixed; either he didn't understood what the effect was.

marilyn 17y ago

What is the motivation of NoScript in this day and age? You miss so much neat stuff now without out it.

david 17y ago
So you can go on web forums and say "Well I really don't see it so you must be cheating with some JS stuff...".
nfriedly 17y ago
I installed it when reading HN's RSS feed inside of netvibes, because NYT articles would decide that they didn't want to be framed and take over the hole page. Then I decided that I liked noscript better than addblock+ and kept it instead.
vsync 17y ago
http://blog.freenode.net/2010/01/javascript-spam/ http://blog.freenode.net/2010/01/javascript-spam/
Pistos2 17y ago
I'm content with Opera's features: You can enable or disable Javascript in main preferences (of course), but you can also momentarily toggle it for your current browsing session, and even store site-specific settings. So, I surf with JS on by default, but turn it off when I happen to run into a misbehaving site, which is pretty rare. That provides for a pleasant enough browsing life.

BrandonM 17y ago

I use NoScript, but I have "Temporarily allow top-level sites by default" enabled (Base 2nd level domains). Basically, if I visit http://foo.example.com http://foo.example.com, any script hosted on example.com is allowed to run. Then, on pages that seem to have stuff missing, I'll go ahead and allow scripts from certain sites to run (e.g. akamai.net, aolcdn.com, autotraderstatic.com, googleapis.com, yahooapis.com, youtube.com). The main point is to limit exposure to XSS attacks. There are still sites (and I'm sure even some linked on HN) that allow comments without properly sanitizing input. This makes it possible for a commenter to embed javascript in a blog comment which would cause a cookie for that site to be sent to an external site, or which takes advantage of a browser vulnerability. Another reason is to deter a lot of forms of tracking. By not running scripts from the likes of google-analytics.com or quantserve.com (two sources for scripts in this submission), my browsing activity is not followed quite as closely as it otherwise would be. Finally, I use it to block Flash, Java, and whatever else ads, which only add annoyance and CPU consumption to my browsing experience. Regardless, the submitted site worked fine for me. The effect is neat but I don't think it really adds a whole lot.

BrandonM 17y ago
Hmm... looks like I replied to the wrong comment. I meant to reply to this one: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1063142 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1063142, one of the higher children of the one I actually replied to.