It just says the links are messed up on the index page and the problem is being worked. The page links inside the threads are working.

https://www.rationalskepticism.org/feed ... 38411.html

Using the Chrome browser, a grey shield icon appears at the right end of the address textbox that contains the text ""This page has insecure content" and links to "Load anyway" and "Learn more".

Clicking "Load anyway" reloads the page, but instead of the green https icon, it appears in red with a slash through it.

My workplace uses IE8 so now I get the "Do you want to view only the webpage content that was delivered securely?" box popping up on every single page.

Annoying.

chango369 wrote:"This page has insecure content" and links to "Load anyway" and "Learn more".

Clicking "Load anyway" reloads the page, but instead of the green https icon, it appears in red with a slash through it.

Exactly. Why is not all the content secure? Or none of it (besides the login page)? Every time I load a page, my browser tells me about the secure page that has some un-encoded content and asks me if I really want to see it.

I can turn off the warning in my browser, but there are other pages I visit where I would like to see the warning if it is appropriate.

So, is this shit going to get fixed anytime soon because it's a pain in the ass not being able to just click page numbers.

Collector1337 wrote:So, is this shit going to get fixed anytime soon because it's a pain in the ass not being able to just click page numbers.

Yes, Life is trying. It is really annoying, though I'm glad it isn't just me and my problem.

I thought it was my browser that I use for my general internet stuff since it has been acting funny with various websites the past couple of days but when I logged in through another browser I saw this problem again. Thank you for your efforts to fix this Life, I'm sure you will solve it soon.

chango369 wrote:Using the Chrome browser, a grey shield icon appears at the right end of the address textbox that contains the text ""This page has insecure content" and links to "Load anyway" and "Learn more".

Clicking "Load anyway" reloads the page, but instead of the green https icon, it appears in red with a slash through it.

You can disable it by right-clicking your chrome icon, select Properties and add -–allow-running-insecure-content to the command line.

Strontium Dog wrote:My workplace uses IE8 so now I get the "Do you want to view only the webpage content that was delivered securely?" box popping up on every single page.

Annoying.

That can be fixed as follows:

1. Go to Tools->Internet Options->Security
2. Select the Security tab
3. Click on the Internet zone icon at the top of the tab page
4. Click the Custom Level button
5. In the Miscellaneous section change Display mixed content to Enable

Pulsar wrote:

chango369 wrote:Using the Chrome browser, a grey shield icon appears at the right end of the address textbox that contains the text ""This page has insecure content" and links to "Load anyway" and "Learn more".

Clicking "Load anyway" reloads the page, but instead of the green https icon, it appears in red with a slash through it.

You can disable it by right-clicking your chrome icon, select Properties and add -–allow-running-insecure-content to the command line.

Strontium Dog wrote:My workplace uses IE8 so now I get the "Do you want to view only the webpage content that was delivered securely?" box popping up on every single page.

Annoying.

That can be fixed as follows:

1. Go to Tools->Internet Options->Security
2. Select the Security tab
3. Click on the Internet zone icon at the top of the tab page
4. Click the Custom Level button
5. In the Miscellaneous section change Display mixed content to Enable

Thanks. In contrast to IE8, Chrome is less disruptive as there's no popup. I was erring on the side of caution and reporting the anomaly.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:So, is this shit going to get fixed anytime soon because it's a pain in the ass not being able to just click page numbers.

A bit of patience (and respect/politeness) go a long way.

It's just a question.

Try not to get offended please.

If that's possible.

It wasnt 'just a question'.....

Umm, yes it is.

I've just run across a rather unusual error. Using Harvard Generator got me the reference to this thread as:

New SSL Connection : Music - Page 2 • Rational Skepticism Forum. 2013. New SSL Connection : Music - Page 2 • Rational Skepticism Forum. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.rationalskepticism.org/view ... 4#p1662494. [Accessed 22 March 2013].

Obviously this thread has nothing to do with the Music thread. That the reference was all messed up doesn't matter, unless you want to help fix it so that the link ascribes the correct author...


Just thought I'd help by overloading your work load.

Collector1337 wrote:Umm, yes it is.

It is worded in a manner that most anywhere would take as criticism of the work a much beloved member whose work to setup and keep this site running.

Life has been communicating about problems and obviously working to sort it out. You come in and stand over his shoulder crying about some inconvenience you are experiencing in dealing with a free access site --- which came about at Life's magnanimity --- when it has been noted widely in the forum that problems will be occurring.

Your 'question' reminds me of managers that come and stand over tradesmen demanding to know when random problem will be fixed. Each time the 'question' is asked takes more time away from solving the problem. Tradesmen take great delight in responding to those managers with extensive lists of ongoing and interrelated issues that will delay indefinitely the solution. The fact that each interruption by said managers extends the delay seems to allude them. Unfortunately those managers seem to be ascendent.

Your post was similarly useless and unnecessarily antagonistic. Good luck getting any reasonable response out of it.

Not withstanding, your posting history doesn't seem to indicate any care about any of those style of intricacies... so possibly doesn't matter to you. Personally I think you have substituted libertarianism with anarchy, but that's just an opinion.

FWIW, I haven't had a single problem with Firefox

sennekuyl wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:Umm, yes it is.

It is worded in a manner that most anywhere would take as criticism of the work a much beloved member whose work to setup and keep this site running.

Life has been communicating about problems and obviously working to sort it out. You come in and stand over his shoulder crying about some inconvenience you are experiencing in dealing with a free access site --- which came about at Life's magnanimity --- when it has been noted widely in the forum that problems will be occurring.

Your 'question' reminds me of managers that come and stand over tradesmen demanding to know when random problem will be fixed. Each time the 'question' is asked takes more time away from solving the problem. Tradesmen take great delight in responding to those managers with extensive lists of ongoing and interrelated issues that will delay indefinitely the solution. The fact that each interruption by said managers extends the delay seems to allude them. Unfortunately those managers seem to be ascendent.

Your post was similarly useless and unnecessarily antagonistic. Good luck getting any reasonable response out of it.

Not withstanding, your posting history doesn't seem to indicate any care about any of those style of intricacies... so possibly doesn't matter to you. Personally I think you have substituted libertarianism with anarchy, but that's just an opinion.

Why? Because I used the word "shit?"

I meant no criticism, just curious on a time frame.

Not sure why anyone fixing the problem would waste their time reading this thread.

Riiiiight.....

Collector1337 wrote:Why? Because I used the word "shit?"

I meant no criticism, just curious on a time frame.

Not sure why anyone fixing the problem would waste their time reading this thread.

No, why would that be a problem? I'm Australian, that made me think you might have been genuine. The wording that got my metaphorical guns out was the '... going to get fixed anytime soon because it's a pain ...'

The reason the technician might read this thread is he is just one bloke managing the site. Threads concerning new features are magnets for posts that say the features aren't working.