Hi Tim, try http://muffin.doit.org It may help you in some ways. It is a kind of web filtering and so many options like cookies Monster or snoop and much more!! a student "Matthew R. Hamilton" wrote:
Tim. If I am to follow your logic here then would you say that users DO NOT have the right to dissable cookies, javascript, activeX controls and java applets in their web browsers? Or better yet are not allowed to use anything other than the latest and greatest versions of the most popular web browsers (even though I just happen to run Communicator 4.73 and IE 5.5) to view web your web pages? Or how about those poor individuals who might be at work and have an old Sun SPARC5 that can only handle 256 colors, and you have a web page with all the eye-candy in the world in it, including some pluggins that just do not exist on that particular platform? Are ALL these people in the wrong? I certanly hope not. I will say your analogy is one of the worst I have heard in a long time. Yeah your web site is YOUR property, however the users of the web browsers are not MODIFYING your "e-Realestate" ( Now thats a term I thought I would NEVER hear, e-this, e-that what next ) or HTML documents. To do that they would have to accually log on to the server and EDIT the source files (whatever they might be). I have in the past dissabled javascript in my web browser because I got tired of idiotic web site designers placing javascript functions in the web page that would pop up multiple sub windows when attempting to leave their site as well as when closing the sub windows. Basicly what you had was approx. 18+ little windows popping up everywhere on the computer desktop just because you followed one link. If I am to use your flawed analogy for this, then it would be like going to your house and when I decide to leave you say I can but only after I have visited X number of other houses (and each one could have the same policy). Since the visitors to your web site are in effect downloading the content to their computer it would now be up to them to view what they do or do not want to view. Don't get me wrong I have nothing against the embedded graphic ad banners in a page those I just choose to ignore and read what I want to. What I personally dislike is the pop-up window ads. I do find it hard to believe that a company would pay just to have the link on your page without getting some business as a direct result of someone using that link. I do not know anything about how the people advertizing on web sites so they just might do that as well as pay a bit more for a sale as a result of a web page ad. People aren't getting the "wacky" concept that they can do whatever they want on "the net", it is that you are now just seeing how upset some people have always been with marketing and advertizing (much in the same way as junk mail in the mail box outside their house). Of course no one forces someone to visit a web site. However there are some sites that are like a black-hole. They do their best to keep you there once you get there. Once I realize a site is one of those I avoid it like the plague. I (and many others) don't like this type of advertizing. Equating blocking ads to hacking or even shoplifting has got to be one of the biggest jokes I have ever heard of. First of all they ARE NOT HACKING your web site. I think you meant to use the term Cracking which is the hacking with a malicious intent. But that is a WHOLE different thread. They aredownloading the entire document and deciding that they only want to view certain pages. As far as your web server knows they viewed the entire document. This IS like going into a store to buy the news paper and not reading the comics or the ads for the latest sale at the local mall. So where in the entire act of visiting the web site and after the content has been downloaded from YOUR server to MY computer and then viewed the way I want shoplifting? Unless you charge people to download each and every page and they find a way to download it without paying then THAT would be stealing.
Matthew R. Hamilton Senior Associate ENS - Integration Engineer Convergys Corporation
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
Hi Jamie,
Obviously, the degree to which ads annoy someone determines how they deal with those ads. My point is that I defend the rights for people to choose their own way of dealing with ads.
And my point is that they don't have that right. Deciding to alter the way a program/web site works (unless it's open source and stated that you can alter or otherwise change the code) to your advantage, and the webmaster's disadvantage is like me coming over to you house and saying "I don't like the color of your house, I'm going to paint it something else." Would you stand for that? Of course not! So why should I have people painting over parts of my e-Realestate? Yes, perhaps that isn't the best example, but it all comes down to the fact that my web site is my property, and it should be none but my right to decide if I have ad banners on it. More importantly, every single hit costs me money, every single one. Did you realize that? So, for every visitor who doesn't view the ad banners, I end up paying his fare. If you owned a book store, you expect them to pay their dues; if you own a computer store, it's the same way. However, people get the wacky concept that it's there right to do what ever they want on the net. No one forces anybody to go to sites with ads, so if you don't like them, don't come. If you don't like ads (not referring to you, but just anybody), don't make me pay for that choice, you yourself should pay. It isn't a right, in my opinion it is a crime. Nearly as bad as hacking, and non less serious than shoplifting.
-Tim
----------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy R. Butler Universal Networks Information Tech. Consultant Christian Web Services Since 1996 ICQ #12495932 AIM: Uninettm An Authorized IPSwitch Reseller tbutler@uninetsolutions.com http://www.uninetsolutions.com ===================== "Solutions that Work" =====================
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
I seem to recall you originally said "application", but if you said "program" then it makes little difference. Without being pedantic about exact meanings of words, the concept that you differentiate between doing "something" on a computer that is running locally as opposed to something running on the network is interesting. What if the program is running on another computer but is being displayed (via X) on the machine on your desk? How does this differ to running the program locally?
I should be more specific. Here is what I'm using as definitions for my terms:
-Application: Local or Networked full fledged program with access to everything in your system. -Applet/Web site: Networked program/page that in theory shouldn't have full access.
I fail to see the relevance of "access to the system" here.
Seriously, on this point I'm not wanting to get into a stupid flame war, just think about it. It makes no difference where something is running. It also makes no difference how the "application" runs, be it a local program, remote X program, java program started via a web page, java program embedded in a web page or just even a HTML based app.
I personal think this all depends. And as I say, I have nothing against the exisitence of adware - I just wouldn't use it. Just like how I expect people who don't like sites with ads to not use those sites rather than find loop holes.
But my point here is to show you the inconsistencies in your approach - you hate ads in "programs that run on your computer and have full access to the system" yet you happily promote ads in "networked based applications that don't have full access to the system". Once you break down the (non-existent) barrier between local and network apps you will see that your arguments are contradictory - you promote what you hate and want people to put up with it or not use it.
shut down. You could say good bye to Matt's Script Archive & CGI-Resources.com, Stepweb.com, Selena Sol/Extropia, and many others
I'm sure these sites offer fine services. I don't actually propose anything. What I expect to happen is the market for web advertising will sort itself out anyway - and I wouldn't bet my commercial interests on things staying how they are. If web ads become obtrusive then more people will turn to ad blockers which will cause less web ads, pretty simple. You're right, this could cause some sites to stop functioning. I'm not saying this is a good thing. Hopefully web ads won't become too intrusive and so this won't happen.
Mine sure won't, and neither will most web sites. I surely hope that the ones that do don't ruin it for all.
Which is all fine and dandy, we agree here.
As I said before, I'm not advocating an ad free web, I just believe people should be allowed to run ad blockers. If you want to try to block ad blockers (!) in some way, you're free to do that too.
Isn't it funny that the webmaster gets to worry about other people's problems? Because some people don't want to see ads, I have to figure out how to avoid that ruining it for myself and everyone else.
I'm afraid that's just the way the cookie crumbles. Let's face it, there are much worse things you have to do - like make sure your site is secure from being hacked - the people who do this are mostly doing it illegally, in a perfect world you wouldn't have to worry about it.
If you think the open source movement is driven by money made from web adverts, then I would disagree with you. There are a great many other ways to be a professional open source developer, web ads is just one - and one I think is probably the least successful.
I don't think it is driven by it, although many parts of it are. And if you ask me, isn't it better than having that software move to the dreaded NDA's?
I wasn't saying it was. I was saying open source developments, in the vast majority of cases, are not funded by web ads.
As to the paying for software, where do you think the money comes from that you get from the ads? When a washing powder commercial is on TV, who do you think pays for that? Directly or indirectly the consumer ends up paying. The real people who make money in your case are the ad companies.
True, true. Well, actually, I make more than the ad company because I have an exculivity contract, but yes - the consumer does pay. Isn't that true
Ah, but they're making money from your hard work by just sitting on their asses.
with everything though? No matter what, there are only a few things that don't come with something that could be called a "price."
Exactly, you were originally claiming that using your site was free from cost.
Jamie -- __________________________________________________________________ _________ Jamie O'Shaughnessy e-mail: joshaugh@uk.oracle.com Oracle Interactive Television Division phone : +44 118 92 45052 ______________________________________________________ __ __ _ __ . __ Opinions are my own and not those of... (__)|-
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/