«

DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <> Steve
> <> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>So the problem has been fixed in this instance. are you saying
>>NoScript is no longer trustworthy even after the fix and apology?
>
> Yes. A fix and an apology doesn't fix the inherent bad judgment that
> was demonstrated here.

If they really fixed it & said 10 Hail Mary's & 4 Our Father's, they
should be fine now-- forgive them!

> I also wouldn't trust a security guard to guard my building after he
> helped some other thieves break into a neighbouring building even if
> he did apologize and replace that building's locks.

That's a far more serious transgression & merits time in purgatory-- bad
comparison!


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <> MEB
> <meb-not-> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>> Ah,, wait a minute since you're here, are you attempting to say that
>> it is Okay to break a site?
>> And this would be within acceptable *functionality* standards?
>
> Yes, if it's doing what it is designed to do.
>
> I've floated between Adblock Plus, Flashblock and NoScript for years,
> using different combinations depending on my tolerance and mood, using
> overlapping whitelists to control what functionality is available to
> different sites.
>
> All three intentionally and willfully break sites as a function of their
> design.

Ah, I see, not actually a physical break of a site, per se, but along
the lines of the tool.. mistook what you meant.

>
> I run AdBlock Plus because it removes advertisements, knowing full well
> that it may negatively impact websites' functionality -- If nothing
> else, the ads don't appear.
>
> I know of other sites that have functionality that is broken by AdBlock
> Plus too (UsedCalgary.com's photo galleries disappear, for example)
>
> I run Flashblock because it removes Flash, most of which I find
> annoying. However, because from a website's point of view it looks like
> I have Flash, some sites break when they rely upon a "hidden" flash
> element to kick off other functionality.
>
> I know webmasters who intentionally deliver ads in ways that are similar
> to content to make blocking one without blocking the other difficult or
> impossible, and it inevitably results in either AdBlock or the site not
> functioning as expected.

Right, the junk sites are forcing down the throats of users is near
intolerable.

>
> Since I choose to prefer the risk of blocked content in exchange for
> viewing websites the way I choose rather then the way the author
> chooses, I do use various solutions that offer me greater control over
> my browsing experience.
>
>> You seem to be taking a "side" here, which would actually appear as
>> unacceptable.
>
> I'm actually trying my best to stay neutral. I used both AdBlock Plus
> and NoScript in the past, and I'm somewhat saddened to see NoScript
> removed from that arsenal of tools.
>
> However, the way I see it is this: NoScript specifically added
> obfuscated code designed to interfere with AdBlock Plus. Twice. In
> both cases, the behaviour wasn't documented, and couldn't be disabled or
> reconfigured, and wasn't within the documented scope of the product.
>
> If one of NoScript's features was "displays ads on NoScript's website"
> then I would have no problem at all with NoScript's behaviour.
>
> Ultimately, AdBlock Plus did it's job, it did everything in it's power
> to block ads and it left the user in control by offering a whitelist,
> NoScript tool the trojan horse route, pretending to do one thing while
> doing other arguably malicious activities not necessary to accomplish
> the primary purpose.


I had noticed the ad white lists [call me paranoid but I check
EVERYTHING for defaults and functionality, in fact I had to removed them
from this Linux/FireFox install, along with Google and others. I can see
why they were included: Google for gmail, search [but I never allow
anything there], and webmaster tools (but that also allows that danged
Google API found EVERYWHERE); Microsoft/MSN for hotmail/Live; but that
wasn't the killer it may have been for others. Delete them from the
white list...
His site's ads MIGHT have been okay [providing the tool did allow SOME
right to at least FROM his site], but to make the ad sites white listed
wasn't very bright.
As I said, I wasn't aware of the issue with AdBlock; I agree that is
highly questionable behaviour. Not a very good way to build a reputation..

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

---- Original Message ----
From: "thanatoid" <>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????

> "PCR" <> wrote in
> news:#:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> Using stray letters w/o even a control key may one day
>> cause you to drop one of them inadvertently into a Notepad
>> document! You should be happy they're gone!
>
> Well, I'm not. But I still haven't made a decision about what
> browser to use besides OB1.
>
> AFA notepad, I don't use notepad, and I spell check everything,
> and z and x especially are bound to be caught by ANY
> spellchecker since they are not often used.

I'm still against it on the grounds "z" & "x" may do something different
or even dangerous in some future app you may someday acquire!

>>> Speaking of K-Meleon, which I am in the process of trying
>>> and basically like quite a bit - it works very well,
>>> except NO changes can be made and saved in the search
>>> engines section,
>>
>> That's a regrettable failing of IE6 too. But I guess it
>> wouldn't be right to change the stuff of someone else's
>> page -- even the page as stored in TIFs (Temporary Internet
>> Files) -- anyhow.
>
> No, I mean you can't add, modify details, or delete ANY search
> engine. Unless that's what you meant too.

I see. There is phenomenal search engine control using QuickSearch in
IE6. I can type "g" followed by search criteria in any Address Bar for
Google to be invoked. "av" is for Alta Vista-- & there are 10 others! I
can even add more to the list! QuickSearch I guess came with IE6, as I
can't recall that I downloaded or installed it separately.

>>> and
>>> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
>>> closes PROGRAM?
>>
>> In IE6, Alt-F brings up the File Menu. Then, "C" will cause
>> the IE window to close. But one needn't memorize that "C"--
>> it's underlined in the menu choices!
>
> I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use it.
> Again,

Hmph!

> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4 closes
> PROGRAM?

Why can't you just use the close buttons? Oops, I see I misread earlier.
Alt-F4 & Ctrl-Alt-F4 do shut down an IE6 Window or the program as you
actually did say-- but just use the buttons!

>> Ctle-Alt-F does nothing-- but it's a little large to
>> memorize, anyhow!
>
> Sigh.
>
>>> BTW, you are making a possibly very grave error in
>>> bringing up the subject of "logic" and what is "normal"...
>>> But I'll keep quiet.
>>
>> The arrow keys point perfectly-- "Z" & "X" don't!
>
> Yes they do, z is to the left of x, and x is to the right of z !
>
> Left is back, right is forward, unless you're Jewish!

Once, maybe, when there was no such thing as arrow keys, maybe I'd agree
about "z" & "x"-- but those days are long since gone! Forget it!

> --
> Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
> are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
> thanatoid <> wrote in
> news:Xns9C07F21D9A2F0thanexit@85.214.105.209:
>
>> (...) But I still haven't made a decision about
>> what browser to use besides OB1.
>
> I have. OB1 for almost everything, if I need javascript, Opera,
> if I need flash, FFox 2.20.
> This was getting totally ridiculous.

Someday I may download that OB1 just to see why you like it so much.

> <SNIP>
>
>> I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use
>> it. Again,
>> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
>> closes PROGRAM?
>
> I see the brand new 1.5.3 version makes Ctl-W close the window.
> I just LOVE it when programs change shortcuts with every minor
> upgrade. Not to mention logically. But I'm done with it anyway.

Put a finger in your ears: Ctrl-W works in IE6 too.

> Of course, NOTHING will ever match the butcher job Adobe did on
> PageMaker (on or two of you may remember that once-great
> program) and which is one of the main reasons I hate Adobe,
> besides them successfully shoving Photoshop down everybody's
> throat like MS shoves MS Office down everybody's throat.

PageMaker I know was around long ago -- even maybe for my Commodore
machines -- but I was never a user of it. I never used the NET back
then. Even today I don't author a site. Let it go.

> "Bleat... BLEAT!"


Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

"PCR" <> wrote in
news::

> From: "thanatoid" <>
>> AFA notepad, I don't use notepad, and I spell check
>> everything, and z and x especially are bound to be caught
>> by ANY spellchecker since they are not often used.
>
> I'm still against it on the grounds "z" & "x" may do
> something different or even dangerous in some future app
> you may someday acquire!

Sorry, but you're being ridiculous. If I'm in AN app, pressing
"z" or "x" or even "A" or "F7" will only do what THAT app allows
it to do and will not affect any of the rest of the system.

Ctl-Alt-Del is for /THAT/ - IF C/A/D still exists in the brave
new MS World. I don't know and I hope not to find out.

Not to mention that I can not think of ANY software existing or
yet to be invented which I don't already have and use but would
have any interest in. Nothing worthwhile has been written in the
last 10 years (totally new technology-related stuff excepted).
All bloated eye-ear-candied rewrites of stuff from the 80's and
first ¾'s of the 90's, except 10-50 times bigger, 10-50 times
slower, and 1,000 times stupider.

<SNIP>

>> No, I mean you can't add, modify details, or delete ANY
>> search engine. Unless that's what you meant too.
>
> I see. There is phenomenal search engine control using
> QuickSearch in IE6. I can type "g" followed by search
> criteria in any Address Bar for Google to be invoked. "av"
> is for Alta Vista-- & there are 10 others! I can even add
> more to the list! QuickSearch I guess came with IE6, as I
> can't recall that I downloaded or installed it separately.

There is NO way anything can be "phenomenal" in ANY MS software
(although I HAVE read that MovieMaker is as close as they ever
got to a good app). That's why I only use the OS, and I only use
the OS because that's what I learned on and it does what I
want/need to do - using non-MS software, needless to say. And I
use the OS made at a time when everyone wasn't insane yet, and I
modify it further (Lite) to avoid some really stupid things
which were a dire portent of things to come (like BOB and BOB2
[commonly known as Vista]).

<SNIP>

>> thanatoid <> wrote in
>> news:Xns9C07F21D9A2F0thanexit@85.214.105.209:
>>
>>> (...) But I still haven't made a decision about
>>> what browser to use besides OB1.
>>
>> I have. OB1 for almost everything, if I need javascript,
>> Opera, if I need flash, FFox 2.20.
>> This was getting totally ridiculous.
>
> Someday I may download that OB1 just to see why you like it
> so much.

You'll probably hate it. No movies or flashing rollovers. It's a
tiny DL. It has some serious limitations which IMO make it
/better/ than other browsers, and it has a few features other
browsers wish they had (like 'speed' and 'safety' and tiny
details like "enlarge/reduce font" buttons right on the
toolbar). There is no documentation to speak of, but several
people have figured out a lot of things about it. I have figured
out SOME things. Feel free to ask here or in the 98 group if you
spend more than 2 minutes with it and feel like spending more.

<SNIP>

>>> I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use
>>> it. Again,
>>> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
>>> closes PROGRAM?
>>
>> I see the brand new 1.5.3 version makes Ctl-W close the
>> window. I just LOVE it when programs change shortcuts with
>> every minor upgrade. Not to mention logically. But I'm
>> done with it anyway.
>
> Put a finger in your ears: Ctrl-W works in IE6 too.

Ctl-W is Adobe's fault, it was the original Mac "close window"
(or program, not sure, only had about 20 hrs' experience with
Macs) kbd shortcut.

But it's still way better than ****ing Ctl/Alt/F4 !

>> Of course, NOTHING will ever match the butcher job Adobe
>> did on PageMaker (on or two of you may remember that
>> once-great program) and which is one of the main reasons I
>> hate Adobe, besides them successfully shoving Photoshop
>> down everybody's throat like MS shoves MS Office down
>> everybody's throat.
>
> PageMaker I know was around long ago -- even maybe for my
> Commodore machines -- but I was never a user of it. I never
> used the NET back then. Even today I don't author a site.
> Let it go.

Well, first of all, "NET" and "sites" have little to do with
each other, since what I assume you mean by "NET" has existed
for about 35 years, and "sites" only for about 15. But I know
you know that. Also, it doesn't take that long to visit Wiki to
get your facts straight:

"PageMaker was the first desktop publishing program, introduced
in 1985 by Aldus Corporation, initially for the then-new Apple
Macintosh but soon after also for PCs running the then-new
Microsoft Windows. PageMaker was awarded an SPA Excellence in
Software Award for Best New Use of a Computer in 1986.

As an application relying on a graphical user interface,
PageMaker helped to popularize the Macintosh platform and the
Windows environment. Early releases of the Windows version were
shipped with a "runtime" copy of Windows (with no task-switching
capabilities) to enable users who did not have Windows installed
to run the application from MS-DOS.

Version 3.01 was available for OS/2 and took extensive advantage
of multithreading for improved user responsiveness."
(Wikipedia)

IOW, nothing to let go of. PageMaker is not for authoring sites,
it's for making documents and publications (NOT according to the
Microsoft definition of those words), as in /things on paper/
which you /read/. (Remember reading? Remember books and
journals?)

And you can put those documents in cardboard folders after you
print them. Computer files, OTOH, are stored in /directories/.

I wouldn't "author" a site if you paid me. "Sites" are one of
the biggest problems with the world today. The web has us
trapped and the ****ing Google spiders are eating us alive.

"Bleat... BLEAT!"
"Chomp.... chomp.... chomp..."

(...a few years pass...)

*=* BLESSED SILENCE *=*

I can't wait.


--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?

In message <> MEB
<meb-not-> was claimed to have wrote:

> I had noticed the ad white lists [call me paranoid but I check
>EVERYTHING for defaults and functionality, in fact I had to removed them
>from this Linux/FireFox install, along with Google and others. I can see
>why they were included: Google for gmail, search [but I never allow
>anything there], and webmaster tools (but that also allows that danged
>Google API found EVERYWHERE); Microsoft/MSN for hotmail/Live; but that
>wasn't the killer it may have been for others. Delete them from the
>white list...

Any chance you're talking about AdBlock with Filterset.G? Adblock Plus
and Easylist doesn't appear to use any whitelists by default.

Filterset.G did, but not because they wanted to show ads, instead their
whitelists were mainly focused around fixing compatibility issues caused
by over-agressive blacklisting.

Adblock Plus' approach is a little more refined, preferring to write
blocking rules more narrowly. A quick glance through AdBlock Plus plus
EasyList (the default ruleset) doesn't show any whitelists/exceptions.

DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <> MEB
> <meb-not-> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>> I had noticed the ad white lists [call me paranoid but I check
>> EVERYTHING for defaults and functionality, in fact I had to removed them
>>from this Linux/FireFox install, along with Google and others. I can see
>> why they were included: Google for gmail, search [but I never allow
>> anything there], and webmaster tools (but that also allows that danged
>> Google API found EVERYWHERE); Microsoft/MSN for hotmail/Live; but that
>> wasn't the killer it may have been for others. Delete them from the
>> white list...
>
> Any chance you're talking about AdBlock with Filterset.G? Adblock Plus
> and Easylist doesn't appear to use any whitelists by default.
>
> Filterset.G did, but not because they wanted to show ads, instead their
> whitelists were mainly focused around fixing compatibility issues caused
> by over-agressive blacklisting.
>
> Adblock Plus' approach is a little more refined, preferring to write
> blocking rules more narrowly. A quick glance through AdBlock Plus plus
> EasyList (the default ruleset) doesn't show any whitelists/exceptions.

Oh no, I was referring to No Script's white list. Though now I'm
trying to determine whether I may have done the extra white listing and
perhaps some inadvertent sites/materials were included [beyond No
Script's site and inclusions]. I may have to start from scratch again.

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> I don't think I've ever used that combination; to close things, I use
> Alt-space then C, which I can do with minimal stretching.

No stretching is necessary if you use sticky keys, which I think is a near
necessity for any modifier key plus anything.

--
Mike Easter

Mike Easter wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I don't think I've ever used that combination; to close things, I use
>> Alt-space then C, which I can do with minimal stretching.

I see no such post with those words in it but this one. It's true the
combination you speak of works without stretching-- but you'll get fat
fingers that way! And eventually you'll squash the keyboard!

> No stretching is necessary if you use sticky keys, which I think is a
> near necessity for any modifier key plus anything.

You are the laziest one yet in this whole thread-- including the
invisible posters!


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR

PCR wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:

>> No stretching is necessary if you use sticky keys, which I think is a
>> near necessity for any modifier key plus anything.
>
> You are the laziest one yet in this whole thread-- including the
> invisible posters!

I'm sure I'm the lazy one, but, *How Did You Know That?*



--
Mike Easter

Mike Easter wrote:
> PCR wrote:
>> Mike Easter wrote:
>
>>> No stretching is necessary if you use sticky keys, which I think is
>>> a near necessity for any modifier key plus anything.
>>
>> You are the laziest one yet in this whole thread-- including the
>> invisible posters!
>
> I'm sure I'm the lazy one, but, *How Did You Know That?*

You are unwilling to stretch the distance from the space key to the "c"
key! . No -- who knows? -- that sticky keys thing might give
thanatoid his "z" & "x" shortcuts back in a browser of his choosing.
Very good.


--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR