Well, you already have the HTML LINK element to go forward. For pages that include it (and browsers that support it, such as Mozilla and Opera).
And the new Opera 7.0 beta 2 has something called "Fast Forward" which looks for the LINK forward element, or, failing that, it analyzes the page and looks for a link which is likely to take you to the next page. Try it on the Google search result pages, it works great.
Also, if you are on a page with a login form and you have used the password manager in Opera (Wand) to store your login info, using Fast Forward on that page will simply log you in.
Maybe I am just a cynical bastard who is sick and tired of people who don't secure their systems, but some people could really use a wakeup call to see just how badly some exploits affect others even though they might not notice anything themselves. It's bad enough if they don't know about these problems and that they can fix it. What I've come to realize is that some people just don't care.
A few days ago, I found myself defending my choice of alternative software to a semi-computer literate person. I use Windows, but never MSIE or Outlook Express for example, because I've found software which better covers my needs.
I was asked why I preferred this software, and among things like features, usability etc., I of course had to touch the subject of security. He got quite aggressive (yes, aggressive, like "why the f*** do you people think you are better than others for using alternative software?"), asking why I even bothered to use alternative software when it all came with Windows already and worked "perfectly". Well, I said that it didn't work "perfectly" for me, and most people should look for alternatives because of the many security problems.
His retort was basically that he didn't care. He simply didn't give a damn, because he had not experienced any problems.
He said that he scanned his system once and found 60-70 different viruses, but it didn't bother him at all because he didn't notice them.
I tried to explain that it might do damage behind his back, and it will certainly cause problems for others if he spreads viruses like Klez and other similar ones. Again, he didn't care. Why should he bother with other people's problems when he didn't have any himself?
I am not joking here, this guy just didn't give a damn. And in addition, he started ranting about how users of alternative software/operating systems all did so just to prove that they are better than others. And the problems caused by viruses is overrated and I was full of crap. (Let's see how many sysadmins agree with him on that...) He didn't even believe me when I told him that, no, my choice of software is based on what I prefer to use - what I find to be good software, and it is not an attempt to be "cool".
He is not the only one with that attitude.
So I find myself thinking that it is too bad that viruses and backdoors aren't more destructive to regular users. No, I know it's not very politically correct, but when they know that they cause problems for others and simply don't care because they don't notice it, I feel that they need to be faced with the realities of being connected to a network where your actions might affect others.
They need a wakeup call. The "I don't care because it doesn't to affect me" attitude is dangerous.
I was so offended by this person that I simply left - I couldn't even be bothered to try and set him straight because he had already labeled me as an elitist asshole, and anything I said would just prove to him that I was.
The only thing that helps get the point across seems to be massive destruction, showing that not giving a damn is a bad idea...
Should Microsoft be able to take and use any information just because they are big enough to get away with it? Should they be able to do it when they want all information to belong to them, and not be free?
The "information wants to be free" people will accept free information for Microsoft the day Microsoft agree to share their information.
Of course one shouldn't let Microsoft get away with this when they are in a situation where they basically dominate the desktop market and are trying to use this to take over other markets as well.
So who is the hypocrite? The ones that want everyone to have the same possibilities, or the one who is wondering why the "information wants to be free" people aren't supporting the convicted monopolist who is using this for their own gain - as usual? The one who wants information to be made free for Microsoft so they can continue to screw over others?
The "information wants to be free folks" support people who work to the best interest of everyone, sharing information. Of course they won't support a monopolist which tries to screw others to strengthen its own position in as many markets as possible.
Not quite. What has happened is that your face is no longer your face. That is, you have a face, but it's not what everyone thinks is your face. You may have thought that having the Microsoft version of your face removed as the default background was good enough, but it wasn't. People still get it wrong, and it becomes apparent that the damage is much greater than you perhaps thought.
You want your name to be connected with your face again, and you want them to correct their wrongdoing against you, because simply removing your face wasn't enough in the first place.
Microsoft agreed to drop their Java. But that didn't clean up the mess they made - far from it.
I bet you wouldn't feel very good either if they agreed to use your face as the default Windows background and you were excited to become famous, only to find that they had photoshopped your face into something else. And everyone thought the Windows background was the real you.
You see, Microsoft did not agree to distribute your pretty face, and then change it completely but still calling it "your pretty face". The result being that everyone recognizing Microsoft's "your pretty face" rather than your pretty face.
If they had, I am sure you would have had a case, and the courts would agree that Microsoft should undo their wrongdoing and re-instate your pretty face as the proper "your pretty face."
Because what Microsoft called "your pretty face" wasn't your pretty face in the first place, and that damaged you because people stopped recognizing you on the streed, you lost your job, girlfriend, home etc.
Ah, so a company which makes a profit does so because it has brainwashed its customers? I'm glad you sorted that out, I always wondered how people were able to turn a profit.
Sigh. I can understand why you dare not log yourself in.
Opera have a history of documenting their support for various standards, and anyone with the least bit of knowledge can check their claims. Have you? Rather than whining and spewing out outright lies about Opera, why don't you do what normal people would do? Check their documentation and report the bugs if something isn't right.
You obviously don't know what kind of company Opera is and are guessing that they are as bad as, say Microsoft or AOL. Well, consider yourself corrected, AC.
But I know you aren't interesed in facts, because you haven't even looked at the document. Guess what, it clearly states that:
"Modifying the document structure is not possible in Opera 6 (ie. you cannot add or remove HTML elements)"
The security problems were fixed within days. Beta 2 is out now, and they are definitely fixed there. They only affected the first release of beta 1. Opera 7.0 beats any other browser, hands down. Until 7.0 I used both Opera and Mozilla, but Mozilla and Phoenix are slowly rotting away on my disk now, unused.
Look at Opera's feature list. Now look at the Phoenix forums and how they constantly discuss using Opera features to improve Phoenix. Opera is smaller and faster - more responsive than Phoenix. Yet it has more features. Just go to opera.com and look at the features and changelogs.
Opera is the browser pioneering all the neat features like mouse gestures and similar. Next, Phoenix will be ripping off Opera's Fast Forward feature as well.
Why make this a big deal? Use a browser which lets you open links in the background. In Opera, hold down Ctrl+Shift when clicking a link. Don't rely on web sites to do the window handling for you.
I hope they do not listen to (IMHO) useless ideas.
That's exactly the problem. My situation is not special at all. And my point is that I have to spend my time getting rid of spam. I am also frequently on a dialup connection, and have to download the spam, which means that a client-side filtering solution only helps to hide the spam from me. It still takes up time and resources. It can help to a certain extent, but it only hides the real problem. Until they find a way to get around it again.
So you see, spam does prevent me from using e-mail as efficiently as I would want, and I have the right to "whine" about it, because I shouldn't have to go this far to use e-mail properly.
It's so easy when you are an AC, isn't it? Just get a filter. Just spend your time setting up a filter and then updating and tweaking the filter as necessary. Just spend money and resources on trying to fix the problem on the client level or even on the server level where it still wastes bandwidth.
Just accept things the way they are and keep quiet about it. Right?
Wrong. I do not accept the situation as it is now, and it will only become worse. I will not have anyone trivialize this problem, because it is a very serious problem to many. Me included.
Until you have a bullet-proof solution to avoid spam which does not take up our network admin's time, please don't give me any more "helpful" suggestions. Until you do, we do have to deal with spam. I still have to set up filters or delete them manually. Our network admin still has to maintain the spam filter and also make sure that it doesn't filter out valid e-mail.
In theory, it is very easy. In practice, it takes time and resources. It costs me money to filter it on the client side because I still have to download it over a dialup connection. My ISP does not have free spam filtering (if at all). Dropping the e-mail address is not an option. I shouldn't have to drop an e-mail address because of spam. If I do, it will just have proven my point that spam is indeed a problem which affects us severely. Having to change an e-mail address because of spam is quite severe, wouldn't you say?
The problem is still there. It doesn't go away just because you ignore it. It becomes even worse.
I have the right to "whine", and will continue to do so as long as people who either have unlimited free bandwidth or get no spam at all continue to claim that it is "not really a problem". What do you know? Are you me?
It isn't a problem to you? Good for you! But you really should read the message you replied to, where I said that:
Spam doesn't bother you? Fine, but don't pretend that it is not a problem to others. Don't try to blow it off like that.
That's just arrogance and a failure to understand other people's situation, which is likely to be completely different from yours.
Don't get me started on HTML e-mail please. The HTML e-mail I receive is either spam, or plain text e-mail wrapped in a HTML container. The HTML e-mail I see is rarely used for anything. They don't even use text formatting! They might as well have sent a text/plain mail.
I agree with you that it is necessary to be careful and that spam forces us to take measures against it, such as using different e-mail addresses or obfuscating public addresses and so on. My point is that this shouldn't be necessary, but since we do this as a result of spam, spam makes e-mail less accessible to a certain extent. While e-mail won't disappear completely as a useful medium (my current work address is only used internally in the company and I do not receive any spam there), spam certainly makes it somewhat of a hassle to use sometimes. Especially since I have at least one address which I've had for several years - since before spam really became a serious issue to me. Back then I didn't consider it to be necessary to protect my e-mail address, being a newcomer to the net and perhaps somewhat naive.
I sorely regret that today. The sad thing is that I don't really want to drop this e-mail address either, since it's the one I've been giving out to friends for several years now.
Spam simply makes it more difficult to use e-mail since you have to, in a way, watch your back all the time. And even if you do, there's no guaranteeing that some fool (stronger language deleted) won't quote a mail from you in a public forum or similar and include your e-mail address. That has happened too, which is why I dropped my previous e-mail address at work. If you don't foul up yourself, you can be sure that someone else will do it for you...
You said it yourself: Spam makes your Hotmail account unusable. That is why people complain. Spam takes up network resources and disk space. it wastes people's time. It sometimes makes an e-mail account unusuable - especially if you don't have the time to set up filtering etc.
People shouldn't have to spend their time dealing with spam. Why should I have to? Why should I have to get multiple e-mail addresses because of spam? Why should my employer have to spend lots of money and resources on fighting spam, when it could have been spent elsewhere to improve performance rather than trying to prevent performance from deteriorating because of spam?
How does spam cripple e-mail communication, you ask? Again, you said it yourself. People have to start hiding their e-mail address. It will be harder to find a contact address to get in touch with them.
You are talking about spreading FUD. At the same time, you kind of contradict yourself by showing that yes, e-mail addresses can become unusable because of spam and yes, spam can cripple e-mail communication.
So where's the FUD? Spam is a serious problem to many, and you, as someone else I responded to, don't seem to understand this. You only seem to be able to see it from your own point of view. Maybe spam doesn't bother you. Well, I can inform you that it does bother me, my friends and my employer. A lot. It costs us money. It costs us time. This is not "gloom and FUD", it is reality.
E-mail has never been anonymous. Your ISP has your IP address in its logs. You leave traces everywhere.
But more importantly: How does laws against unsolicited bulk e-mail prevent you from e-mailing your representative or anyone else? What "basic cyber-rights" are being infringed on?
Anti-spam laws would be about strengthening the consumer's rights, not about taking them away.
Anti-spam laws would be about preventing people from sending commercial bulk e-mail to people who didn't ask for it.
So what exactly has this got to do with "the two-pronged threat anti-spam forces pose both to free speech and to email anonymity"?
This sounds more like a carefully crafted troll than anything else. Anti-spam poses no threat to free speech. Spam isn't free speech. Spam is forcing commercial "speech" down our throats.
Unfortunately, you confirm my suspicion that you simply don't understand how serious spam can be to a lot of people, and that you think everyone is in the same position as yourself. You have a fast connection. You have the time to do your filtering manually, or you simply don't receive a lot of spam.
Not everyone is in your position. It is not about mental capacity, but about time and money. When I check my mail on a dialup connection, and if I haven't checked it for a day or two, I have to download large amounts of spam. So much, in fact, that it drowns the e-mails I actually want to read.
The address I'm talking about now is not a very active one. It's mostly for friends and relatives. So rather than deleting the occasional spam amongst a number of valid e-mails, I have to spot the occasional valid e-mail in-between lots of spam mails. So I'll just point you back to the example with an old friend who tries to get in touch through e-mail, but never gets a reply because it was accidentally deleted, being hidden in tons of spam.
Snail mail? Sure, I'll just write a letter, take 50 dead tree copies of it and send it through snail mail to the 50 or so people on a private mailing list we run. That's sure to save me both time and money, right? Sigh.
I've already explained how spam is a serious problem to me personally as well as my employer. I forgot to mention how ISPs also have to deal with spam. If I am on a large ISP, you can guess how much spam they have to cope with. The spam wastes their bandwidth and disk space. The result is that running the ISP becomes more expensive, which again might lead to a lesser quality service or increased subscription fees.
How serious it is depends on the person, but you cannot deny the fact that it is a very serious and very valid concern to a lot of people, me and my employer included (I don't know about my ISP). People have all the right in the world to "whine" about spam. Why? Because spam is a serious problem to them.
(And your comment about dead-tree-mail is obviously nonsense. I don't even know why you bothered to try that one.)
Slashdot Mirror
And the new Opera 7.0 beta 2 has something called "Fast Forward" which looks for the LINK forward element, or, failing that, it analyzes the page and looks for a link which is likely to take you to the next page. Try it on the Google search result pages, it works great.
Also, if you are on a page with a login form and you have used the password manager in Opera (Wand) to store your login info, using Fast Forward on that page will simply log you in.
A few days ago, I found myself defending my choice of alternative software to a semi-computer literate person. I use Windows, but never MSIE or Outlook Express for example, because I've found software which better covers my needs.
I was asked why I preferred this software, and among things like features, usability etc., I of course had to touch the subject of security. He got quite aggressive (yes, aggressive, like "why the f*** do you people think you are better than others for using alternative software?"), asking why I even bothered to use alternative software when it all came with Windows already and worked "perfectly". Well, I said that it didn't work "perfectly" for me, and most people should look for alternatives because of the many security problems.
His retort was basically that he didn't care. He simply didn't give a damn, because he had not experienced any problems.
He said that he scanned his system once and found 60-70 different viruses, but it didn't bother him at all because he didn't notice them.
I tried to explain that it might do damage behind his back, and it will certainly cause problems for others if he spreads viruses like Klez and other similar ones. Again, he didn't care. Why should he bother with other people's problems when he didn't have any himself?
I am not joking here, this guy just didn't give a damn. And in addition, he started ranting about how users of alternative software/operating systems all did so just to prove that they are better than others. And the problems caused by viruses is overrated and I was full of crap. (Let's see how many sysadmins agree with him on that...) He didn't even believe me when I told him that, no, my choice of software is based on what I prefer to use - what I find to be good software, and it is not an attempt to be "cool".
He is not the only one with that attitude.
So I find myself thinking that it is too bad that viruses and backdoors aren't more destructive to regular users. No, I know it's not very politically correct, but when they know that they cause problems for others and simply don't care because they don't notice it, I feel that they need to be faced with the realities of being connected to a network where your actions might affect others.
They need a wakeup call. The "I don't care because it doesn't to affect me" attitude is dangerous.
I was so offended by this person that I simply left - I couldn't even be bothered to try and set him straight because he had already labeled me as an elitist asshole, and anything I said would just prove to him that I was.
The only thing that helps get the point across seems to be massive destruction, showing that not giving a damn is a bad idea...
Should Microsoft be able to take and use any information just because they are big enough to get away with it? Should they be able to do it when they want all information to belong to them, and not be free?
The "information wants to be free" people will accept free information for Microsoft the day Microsoft agree to share their information.
Of course one shouldn't let Microsoft get away with this when they are in a situation where they basically dominate the desktop market and are trying to use this to take over other markets as well.
So who is the hypocrite? The ones that want everyone to have the same possibilities, or the one who is wondering why the "information wants to be free" people aren't supporting the convicted monopolist who is using this for their own gain - as usual? The one who wants information to be made free for Microsoft so they can continue to screw over others?
The "information wants to be free folks" support people who work to the best interest of everyone, sharing information. Of course they won't support a monopolist which tries to screw others to strengthen its own position in as many markets as possible.
You want your name to be connected with your face again, and you want them to correct their wrongdoing against you, because simply removing your face wasn't enough in the first place.
Perfectly acceptable and understandable.
I bet you wouldn't feel very good either if they agreed to use your face as the default Windows background and you were excited to become famous, only to find that they had photoshopped your face into something else. And everyone thought the Windows background was the real you.
You see, Microsoft did not agree to distribute your pretty face, and then change it completely but still calling it "your pretty face". The result being that everyone recognizing Microsoft's "your pretty face" rather than your pretty face.
If they had, I am sure you would have had a case, and the courts would agree that Microsoft should undo their wrongdoing and re-instate your pretty face as the proper "your pretty face."
Because what Microsoft called "your pretty face" wasn't your pretty face in the first place, and that damaged you because people stopped recognizing you on the streed, you lost your job, girlfriend, home etc.
But your pretty face is still "your pretty face".
Thanks!
If only ACs could take the time to read before they shoot their mouths off.
Please read before shooting your mouth off. Thanks.
Opera have a history of documenting their support for various standards, and anyone with the least bit of knowledge can check their claims. Have you? Rather than whining and spewing out outright lies about Opera, why don't you do what normal people would do? Check their documentation and report the bugs if something isn't right.
You obviously don't know what kind of company Opera is and are guessing that they are as bad as, say Microsoft or AOL. Well, consider yourself corrected, AC.
But I know you aren't interesed in facts, because you haven't even looked at the document. Guess what, it clearly states that:
"Modifying the document structure is not possible in Opera 6 (ie. you cannot add or remove HTML elements)"
So, what were you saying again?
Before shooting your mouth off, at least try to check on the facts for yourself. Have you actually tested it?
Sigh. RTFS.
RTFS
Anyone can check Opera's specs pages and see that you are lying through your teeth about Opera 7 not being very standards compliant.
The security problems were fixed within days. Beta 2 is out now, and they are definitely fixed there. They only affected the first release of beta 1. Opera 7.0 beats any other browser, hands down. Until 7.0 I used both Opera and Mozilla, but Mozilla and Phoenix are slowly rotting away on my disk now, unused.
I do know that Mozilla supporters really bitched at Opera because "they could do it better". They better prove it then.
Opera is the browser pioneering all the neat features like mouse gestures and similar. Next, Phoenix will be ripping off Opera's Fast Forward feature as well.
I hope they do not listen to (IMHO) useless ideas.
I happen to be a Windows user, so I am hardly a Linux zealot :)
So you see, spam does prevent me from using e-mail as efficiently as I would want, and I have the right to "whine" about it, because I shouldn't have to go this far to use e-mail properly.
Just accept things the way they are and keep quiet about it. Right?
Wrong. I do not accept the situation as it is now, and it will only become worse. I will not have anyone trivialize this problem, because it is a very serious problem to many. Me included.
Until you have a bullet-proof solution to avoid spam which does not take up our network admin's time, please don't give me any more "helpful" suggestions. Until you do, we do have to deal with spam. I still have to set up filters or delete them manually. Our network admin still has to maintain the spam filter and also make sure that it doesn't filter out valid e-mail.
In theory, it is very easy. In practice, it takes time and resources. It costs me money to filter it on the client side because I still have to download it over a dialup connection. My ISP does not have free spam filtering (if at all). Dropping the e-mail address is not an option. I shouldn't have to drop an e-mail address because of spam. If I do, it will just have proven my point that spam is indeed a problem which affects us severely. Having to change an e-mail address because of spam is quite severe, wouldn't you say?
The problem is still there. It doesn't go away just because you ignore it. It becomes even worse.
I have the right to "whine", and will continue to do so as long as people who either have unlimited free bandwidth or get no spam at all continue to claim that it is "not really a problem". What do you know? Are you me?
It isn't a problem to you? Good for you! But you really should read the message you replied to, where I said that:
Spam doesn't bother you? Fine, but don't pretend that it is not a problem to others. Don't try to blow it off like that.
That's just arrogance and a failure to understand other people's situation, which is likely to be completely different from yours.
Don't get me started on HTML e-mail please. The HTML e-mail I receive is either spam, or plain text e-mail wrapped in a HTML container. The HTML e-mail I see is rarely used for anything. They don't even use text formatting! They might as well have sent a text/plain mail.
I agree with you that it is necessary to be careful and that spam forces us to take measures against it, such as using different e-mail addresses or obfuscating public addresses and so on. My point is that this shouldn't be necessary, but since we do this as a result of spam, spam makes e-mail less accessible to a certain extent. While e-mail won't disappear completely as a useful medium (my current work address is only used internally in the company and I do not receive any spam there), spam certainly makes it somewhat of a hassle to use sometimes. Especially since I have at least one address which I've had for several years - since before spam really became a serious issue to me. Back then I didn't consider it to be necessary to protect my e-mail address, being a newcomer to the net and perhaps somewhat naive.
I sorely regret that today. The sad thing is that I don't really want to drop this e-mail address either, since it's the one I've been giving out to friends for several years now.
Spam simply makes it more difficult to use e-mail since you have to, in a way, watch your back all the time. And even if you do, there's no guaranteeing that some fool (stronger language deleted) won't quote a mail from you in a public forum or similar and include your e-mail address. That has happened too, which is why I dropped my previous e-mail address at work. If you don't foul up yourself, you can be sure that someone else will do it for you...
People shouldn't have to spend their time dealing with spam. Why should I have to? Why should I have to get multiple e-mail addresses because of spam? Why should my employer have to spend lots of money and resources on fighting spam, when it could have been spent elsewhere to improve performance rather than trying to prevent performance from deteriorating because of spam?
How does spam cripple e-mail communication, you ask? Again, you said it yourself. People have to start hiding their e-mail address. It will be harder to find a contact address to get in touch with them.
You are talking about spreading FUD. At the same time, you kind of contradict yourself by showing that yes, e-mail addresses can become unusable because of spam and yes, spam can cripple e-mail communication.
So where's the FUD? Spam is a serious problem to many, and you, as someone else I responded to, don't seem to understand this. You only seem to be able to see it from your own point of view. Maybe spam doesn't bother you. Well, I can inform you that it does bother me, my friends and my employer. A lot. It costs us money. It costs us time. This is not "gloom and FUD", it is reality.
But more importantly: How does laws against unsolicited bulk e-mail prevent you from e-mailing your representative or anyone else? What "basic cyber-rights" are being infringed on?
Anti-spam laws would be about strengthening the consumer's rights, not about taking them away.
Anti-spam laws would be about preventing people from sending commercial bulk e-mail to people who didn't ask for it.
So what exactly has this got to do with "the two-pronged threat anti-spam forces pose both to free speech and to email anonymity"?
This sounds more like a carefully crafted troll than anything else. Anti-spam poses no threat to free speech. Spam isn't free speech. Spam is forcing commercial "speech" down our throats.
Not everyone is in your position. It is not about mental capacity, but about time and money. When I check my mail on a dialup connection, and if I haven't checked it for a day or two, I have to download large amounts of spam. So much, in fact, that it drowns the e-mails I actually want to read.
The address I'm talking about now is not a very active one. It's mostly for friends and relatives. So rather than deleting the occasional spam amongst a number of valid e-mails, I have to spot the occasional valid e-mail in-between lots of spam mails. So I'll just point you back to the example with an old friend who tries to get in touch through e-mail, but never gets a reply because it was accidentally deleted, being hidden in tons of spam.
Snail mail? Sure, I'll just write a letter, take 50 dead tree copies of it and send it through snail mail to the 50 or so people on a private mailing list we run. That's sure to save me both time and money, right? Sigh.
I've already explained how spam is a serious problem to me personally as well as my employer. I forgot to mention how ISPs also have to deal with spam. If I am on a large ISP, you can guess how much spam they have to cope with. The spam wastes their bandwidth and disk space. The result is that running the ISP becomes more expensive, which again might lead to a lesser quality service or increased subscription fees.
How serious it is depends on the person, but you cannot deny the fact that it is a very serious and very valid concern to a lot of people, me and my employer included (I don't know about my ISP). People have all the right in the world to "whine" about spam. Why? Because spam is a serious problem to them.
(And your comment about dead-tree-mail is obviously nonsense. I don't even know why you bothered to try that one.)