Basically, I agree with the dissatisfaction with JS-mandatory basic, informative pages.
I'm sure this will cease to be useful at some point, but for the moment, I find that some of the time, running the URL in question through Google Cache produces a useful view.
Of course, Google properties themselves increasingly insist upon JS, even for basic "read-only" views. At least I have some confidence that Google is performing some measure of vetting their own JS against particularly the security problems that most concern me.
I'm sure this will cease to be useful at some point, but for the moment, I find that some of the time, running the URL in question through Google Cache produces a useful view.
Of course, Google properties themselves increasingly insist upon JS, even for basic "read-only" views. At least I have some confidence that Google is performing some measure of vetting their own JS against particularly the security problems that most concern me.
Here's the OP URL, via Google Cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http%3A...