7 ms·

After the second hurdle between me and the article, I gave up.

obituary_latte 13y ago
Another benefit of blocking scripts by default. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmnaadbkfbmpbfijlflahbdbdgdf https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmn... http://noscript.net/ http://noscript.net/ Shame that they're necessary, but they work well if you can handle the inconvenience of selectively unblocking scripts.
- Ntrails 13y ago
  It also means that sights with more than 4-5 things I have to unblock go completely unread as I am unwilling to keep going through them to find the non trash sources.
  - obituary_latte 13y ago
    There is an "Allow all blocked for session" button on the extension that will usually get the site loaded for you with one click. You can also go to the extension options and white-list the domain(s). You can use wildcards there so you don't have to type all the relevant subdomains (e.g. cdn.example.com would be included with a *.example.com whitelist entry).
- simonebrunozzi 13y ago
  Did you try: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/script-blocker/edkpojcedjaijmpkagegbjikonnceidm https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/script-blocker/edk... How do you compare them?
  - obituary_latte 13y ago
    I have not tried it, sorry.
- raimue 13y ago
  If they make it that complicated to get to their actual content I simply won't read it. I should not be required to block any scripts in order to make a website usable.
mtgx 13y ago
You can usually copy the link and search for it in Google, and then you can see the post. Or you can use Adblock to manually block the firewall (it sees it as some sort of ad, and removes it as such). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthecable.foreignpolicy.com%2Fposts%2F2013%2F08%2F13%2Fafter_multiple_denials_cia_admits_to_snooping_on_noam_chomsky&ei=60EKUqzCBcba4QT-soDoDQ&usg=AFQjCNGrCnH_MM0AUnWEErmLT-wFnMM5yA&sig2=nGUtiJhKuHFQuJF6F-hiLA https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
raldi 13y ago
You're not missing much. First it gets mad that the CIA kept a file on Chomsky, then it gets mad that they destroyed this file. And finally, it gets mad that, after the file was destroyed, they couldn't retrieve it anymore.
- RyanMcGreal 13y ago
  That was a surprisingly petulant and inaccurate summary of the article.
  - raldi 13y ago
    I'd be interested to see your version.
    - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
      The CIA has spent years denying that it created a file on Noam Chomsky, but an FOI request has now uncovered an FBI document referencing the CIA file. The CIA file was destroyed at some point, and it is not clear whether that was done in accordance with the Federal Records Act.
      - raldi 13y ago
        What's your citation for the claim that the CIA denied ever creating a file? All I see is denials that the file existed at the time of the FOIA requests, and nothing to suggest those denials were untruthful.
a3n 13y ago
After the second hurdle, in Firefox, View/Page Style/No Style, then scroll down and the article's there.

Another benefit of blocking scripts by default. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmnaadbkfbmpbfijlflahbdbdgdf https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/scriptsafe/oiigbmn... http://noscript.net/ http://noscript.net/ Shame that they're necessary, but they work well if you can handle the inconvenience of selectively unblocking scripts.

Ntrails 13y ago
It also means that sights with more than 4-5 things I have to unblock go completely unread as I am unwilling to keep going through them to find the non trash sources.
- obituary_latte 13y ago
  There is an "Allow all blocked for session" button on the extension that will usually get the site loaded for you with one click. You can also go to the extension options and white-list the domain(s). You can use wildcards there so you don't have to type all the relevant subdomains (e.g. cdn.example.com would be included with a *.example.com whitelist entry).
simonebrunozzi 13y ago
Did you try: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/script-blocker/edkpojcedjaijmpkagegbjikonnceidm https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/script-blocker/edk... How do you compare them?
- obituary_latte 13y ago
  I have not tried it, sorry.
raimue 13y ago
If they make it that complicated to get to their actual content I simply won't read it. I should not be required to block any scripts in order to make a website usable.

mtgx 13y ago

You can usually copy the link and search for it in Google, and then you can see the post. Or you can use Adblock to manually block the firewall (it sees it as some sort of ad, and removes it as such). https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQqQIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fthecable.foreignpolicy.com%2Fposts%2F2013%2F08%2F13%2Fafter_multiple_denials_cia_admits_to_snooping_on_noam_chomsky&ei=60EKUqzCBcba4QT-soDoDQ&usg=AFQjCNGrCnH_MM0AUnWEErmLT-wFnMM5yA&sig2=nGUtiJhKuHFQuJF6F-hiLA https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

raldi 13y ago

You're not missing much. First it gets mad that the CIA kept a file on Chomsky, then it gets mad that they destroyed this file. And finally, it gets mad that, after the file was destroyed, they couldn't retrieve it anymore.

RyanMcGreal 13y ago
That was a surprisingly petulant and inaccurate summary of the article.
- raldi 13y ago
  I'd be interested to see your version.
  - RyanMcGreal 13y ago
    The CIA has spent years denying that it created a file on Noam Chomsky, but an FOI request has now uncovered an FBI document referencing the CIA file. The CIA file was destroyed at some point, and it is not clear whether that was done in accordance with the Federal Records Act.
    - raldi 13y ago
      What's your citation for the claim that the CIA denied ever creating a file? All I see is denials that the file existed at the time of the FOIA requests, and nothing to suggest those denials were untruthful.

a3n 13y ago

After the second hurdle, in Firefox, View/Page Style/No Style, then scroll down and the article's there.