From: candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid   
      
   Rich  wrote at 13:51 this Wednesday (GMT):   
   > candycanearter07  wrote:   
   >> Rich  wrote at 13:10 this Wednesday (GMT):   
   >>> Computer Nerd Kev  wrote:   
   >>>> Rich  wrote:   
   >>>>> Computer Nerd Kev  wrote:   
   >>>>>> Damn, I've been using it more and more as JS-walls have become more   
   >>>>>> frequent and prevent me reading pages in lightweight web browsers   
   >>>>>> without JS support. In fact it's about the only thing I use Google   
   >>>>>> for!   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This one works pretty well for /most/ paywalls: https://archive.is/   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Thanks, yes that has the article. It wasn't actually behind a   
   >>>> paywall, but using one of these cache services like Cloudflare that   
   >>>> can block access from browsers without Javascript saying something   
   >>>> like "Enable Javascript and cookies to continue". I thought   
   >>>> "JS-wall" was a good term for it since the effect is like a paywal,   
   >>>> only they demand you run their JS rather than demand payment.   
   >>>   
   >>> Ah, those.  The term you are searching for is "capatcha" [1], at least   
   >>> in the 'cloudfare' case.  They are, supposedly, to prevent bots from   
   >>> scraping/DDOSing the site.  However, an awful lot of sites add them   
   >>> either because they decide to "go cloudfare" (in a belief they are big   
   >>> and popular enough to justify such) or simply because the web devs are   
   >>> idiots that just "follow the herd" and because they see caapatcha's   
   >>> else where, they add one here.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAPTCHA   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> Cloudflare captchas are very annoying, it completely broke a   
   >> webscraping script I used :(   
   >   
   > Which is, actually, the entire *point* of a captcha, to stop web   
   > scrapers.   
      
   Yeah, but it's still annoying :( especially since theres no official api   
      
   >> Also I want to use NoScript   
   >   
   > Then go ahead and do so.  But for certian sites you want to actually   
   > use, you'll have to enable enough JS to get at least the minimum   
   > workinng.  My NoScript setup has lots of exceptions for the sites I   
   > need to use (bank, etc.) that won't work otherwise without some of the   
   > JS turned on (as much as I'd prefer they worked with no JS, I can't   
   > convince them of that fact when 99.8% of their clients run browsers   
   > with JS turned on at all times).   
      
      
   Yeah, but it's still annoying..   
   --   
   user  is generated from /dev/urandom   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)