As we all know, the greatest scandal of the gummint shutdown is Barack Obama's 9/11/Pearl Harbor sneak attack on America's World War II vets, whereby he personally endorsed Hitler by closing the WWII Memorial on the National Mall (although the memorial is now open to vets only). Not surprisingly, we got a few comments from new visitors about our story, and they were None Too Pleased. Consider this note from "ORDINARYPATRIOT," who used up all their available capslock while typing their username:
Munged up settings or data stored in a cookie. It has happened to me on a few occasions, causing specific pages to render all wonky. The first time it happened, other users reported to me that the pages in question were displaying normally in their browsers, which is indeed the case here as well. (I haven't seen any problems with Wonkette pages in my Chrome browser window.) Web developers who happened to be in the group (it was a hobby discussion forum) told me that screwed up data stored in a cookie was the likely culprit, but since it would be quite difficult to identify which of the hundreds stored on my computer was involved, the recommended fix was to simply delete all of them and get fresh ones when I started a new session. Which, sure enough, successfully resolved the problem in that first incident. Later I resorted to the same strategy in a couple of subsequent incidents, and it was again successful.
I'm not discounting the possibility that defects in the page source may be to blame, but one wonders if that could be it when some users see problems while others don't, and that this holds true across multiple browsers and platforms. At some point during the past 36 hours the site itself or one of the advertisers on a page may have sent out some glitchy code, which was quickly resolved, or had display conflicts caused by a plug-in, or whatever, and it was very brief in duration. Even though the glitch disappeared or was resolved, the corrupted display information (or the conflict) ended up getting preserved in one or more browser cookies of people who happened to be viewing the page at that precise moment, with the result that only those unfortunate souls are experiencing persistent page rendering problems, while others who weren't viewing the page at that particular moment report no problems. It's a testable hypothesis, a possible explanation for what has been reported. Ditching all browser cookies may or may not be a rather drastic thing to resort to, depending upon individual users' circumstances.
awesome!
I know I'm late here, but please add me to the roster of intensely liberal veterans. That is all.
Here in America, we don't have Lords. Says so in Article I, section 9 of our Constitution.
Things may be different in Beckistan, but "different" really understates the kind of place it is.
I read that as Phi Omega Smegma. Or maybe that was the tequila.
Erm... was that English?
Nice. Ramones.
Gore Vidal, also, too.
Wow, and I thought MY BiL was right-wing. And you can stand to be in the same room as this guy?
Munged up settings or data stored in a cookie. It has happened to me on a few occasions, causing specific pages to render all wonky. The first time it happened, other users reported to me that the pages in question were displaying normally in their browsers, which is indeed the case here as well. (I haven't seen any problems with Wonkette pages in my Chrome browser window.) Web developers who happened to be in the group (it was a hobby discussion forum) told me that screwed up data stored in a cookie was the likely culprit, but since it would be quite difficult to identify which of the hundreds stored on my computer was involved, the recommended fix was to simply delete all of them and get fresh ones when I started a new session. Which, sure enough, successfully resolved the problem in that first incident. Later I resorted to the same strategy in a couple of subsequent incidents, and it was again successful.
I'm not discounting the possibility that defects in the page source may be to blame, but one wonders if that could be it when some users see problems while others don't, and that this holds true across multiple browsers and platforms. At some point during the past 36 hours the site itself or one of the advertisers on a page may have sent out some glitchy code, which was quickly resolved, or had display conflicts caused by a plug-in, or whatever, and it was very brief in duration. Even though the glitch disappeared or was resolved, the corrupted display information (or the conflict) ended up getting preserved in one or more browser cookies of people who happened to be viewing the page at that precise moment, with the result that only those unfortunate souls are experiencing persistent page rendering problems, while others who weren't viewing the page at that particular moment report no problems. It's a testable hypothesis, a possible explanation for what has been reported. Ditching all browser cookies may or may not be a rather drastic thing to resort to, depending upon individual users' circumstances.
Lady vets could do the same thing with Brazilian waxing. That would draw some interest.
Linear time isn't Vonnegut's strong suite.
Murdoch can't die slowly enough.
I hope they tackle the formatting horrorshow at Wonkville when they're done cleansing the semicolons here.
Good grief -- can you imagine the nonstop bleating about their precious freedumbs, if there ever was a draft?
I'm gonna go with Eleven-Butthurt.