December 2007 - Posts

My surfing habits and that irritating 'double-click a word to pop-up a definition' (NY Times!)

I am a web-surfing multi-tasker.  For example, I currently have 7 tabs in this Firefox window and 5 more tabs in 2 other firefox windows going simultaneously.  When I mean "going", I mean they are usually queued up for me too read.

So, I will go to a site like digg.com and I will Ctrl-Click the links I want to read and they all load in background tabs.  I will then subsequently do this with any links in the pages I read.  I will also look up topics or definitions of words with a double-click (highlight the word), right-click, "s" (Search Google For 'word').  This, again loads another tab.

Anyway, so I frequently hop from one tab to another and Alt-Tab between Firefox windows, since I categorize a full "session" represented by a single window.  For example, I will have one that is my "email" window.  I will have tabs for McKearney.com email, Gmail, Myspace (kind of email-ish), etc.

All this said, I obviously bounce around.  So, when I leave one page to look at another, I often need a place-holder to show where I was.  So, I double-click a word to highlight it.  This way, when I come back, my place is held.  In comes the New York Times (among others).

So, the New York Times recently made it off of my shit list because they decided to stop requiring registration just to read the news.  Well, they very quickly made it back on the list because they added this "helpful" feature for people.  If you double-click any text on the entire page, they take the highlighted text and search for a definition for you and pop up a lovely window with it, without asking you if you want it.  Nice.

I first toyed with the idea of using Greasemonkey to add an additional "Are you sure you want to look this up?" question, but I quickly realized that I would never answer that question with a "yes".  So, I looked at the source HTML for the web page.  It begins with this:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<script src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/article/articleShare.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/Tacoda_AMS_DDC_Header.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<script src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/fileit.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common/screen/DropDown.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common/screen/modifyNavigationDisplay.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/common/screen/altClickToSearch.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" language="JavaScript" src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/js/util/tooltip.js"></script>


I bolded the line that caught my eye... this one is the culprit, so I decided to use Adblock Plus (which is usually used to block images) to block that URL.  So, I fired up the Adblock Plus configuration and added "http://*.nytimes.com/js/common/screen/altClickToSearch.js" to the list.  I reloaded the page and... voila!  No more obnoxious "oh, you meant to look up the meaning of 'the'.." logic.

This doesn't get the NY Times off of my shit list, since they did it in the first place, but it at least makes it tolerable if I want to view something on their site.

One note:  This only works for the NY Times, obviously.  So, I will probably have to figure this out again with another site.  It may require Greasemonkey.  Either way, I don't care.  I'm the one in control of my web browsing, not you!
posted by Tom (Comments Off)

Like Peter Tosh sang...

"Legalize It!"

Here is a well thought out and sensible article that tells us why the 'War on Drugs' is a complete waste of our tax paying money.

Why continue to empower drug lords and kill people over something that people want?  It's just silly.  Like US alcohol prohibition in the past, this will eventually be legalized.  Let's just do it now and get it over with.
posted by Tom (Comments Off)

Warning... VERY Politically Incorrect

This is one of the infinite reasons that I hate religious people (obviously a bit of an over-exaggeration):

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-847

WHY THE FUCK DO WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE ANY FUCKING RELIGIONS AT ALL!!!!!!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHh

1) Don't our legistlators have more important things to do than to encroach on my religious freedom?   Here, let me name a few:
    - American currency is in the shitter
    - Iraq
    - Afghanistan
    - Border Security.
    - preventing Britney Spears from polluting the gene pool anymore

2) How much money is it costing the taxpayers so that these assholes can diddle themselves while talking about how much better their fairy tales are than everyone else's?  ("Jesus could beat up Muhammed".. "Oh yeah, Vishnu could kick all their asses!".. Let's just have an imaginary Royal Rumble with Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, Jehovah, God, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Zues, Odin, Santa, and The Tooth Fairy and Mothra while we're at it... settle it all right now)

3) Poverty
4) Crime
5) Electoral Abuse
6) Corporations Controlling the country

God, I am so angry right now, I could kill a cute baby seal with my bare hands and eat its liver.

PLEASE PEOPLE.  Go Vote For Ron Paul!!!  Put Some Sanity back in the government!!

posted by Tom (Comments Off)