Everyone who didn't write the virus should send SCO an email, to eliminate themselves from the enquiry.
Send them a mugshot for identification purposes. Of someone else, of course (otherwise they'll bust your ugly ass for running Linux) and best zip it up a few times, to give their antivirus something to do.
If you don't get a response, best send it again in case they had a problem. Luckily, we stole cron(8) from them so it's easy to automate this.
I hate banner ads as much as the next guy. Sometimes, what I want is out of sync with how it's funded. Tough. I would also like no ads on tv, no big ugly posters on huge boards by the roadside, etc. etc. That's tough too - the world isn't like that.
All out-of-site link blockers will achieve is to make the web advertisers change their, er, 'technology' slightly. In the end, who gains from that? Chances are the new methods will be more insidious, and much harder to avoid. The last thing the web needs is an advertising arms race.
If offsite images are blocked, all advertisers have to do is have the images come from the main site. It's easy to have a server-based script fetch the image, and return it to the browser. All that does is burn CPU on the content site, slowing its response time for everyone. Even worse, the advertising could come in great big ugly Shockwave format. Worse still, it could be embedded in the site graphics, in turn part of the user interface so you can't use the site wthout it. That just clutters the UI, to say nothing of further excluding Lynx users.
Often the people who put up banner ads do their sites for free, and if they want to make a little money from that, perhaps to pay for the web hosting, that's their choice. Trying to stop it with this primitive technique achieves very little IMO.
BTW I'm appalled by the number of 'why is this here' and 'the article poster is a fool' messages on this topic. I thought it was a good post, and it's nice to get a little more than the usual paragraph-and-link.
BT have always offered the minimum they can get away with to home users. They've kept prices artificially high for, well, ever, and they only respond at all to direct competition - I can't remember the last BT innovation. Oh, except the dialling code changes, London's third in recent times, serial organised stupidity that you wouldn't find *anywhere* else.
For business, BT is better. My company spends a *lot* of cash with BT, and I suspect that solely for that reason they're pretty good. We get good pricing, reasonable sales service, the obligatory crap helplines - I've never had good support from a telco, in any country - but they're at least as good as the competition. They even offer unique services occasionally.
For me this is one of the worst side effects of the pisspoor semi-regulation in the UK telco industry. There's some choice, though not as much as I'd like, for business users, and BT are OK in that arena. For home users, often whose only choice is between 'BT' and 'bugger off', it's "take what you get and like it, chump."
Compared to UK ISDN costs, 40ukp or even 100ukp isn't that bad. Compared to the most of the western world, I agree it's still very high.
Let's see the EC help out for once, and slap Busby down! (Busby was a BT mascot from way back, a stupid yellow bird that sat on telephone wires and laughed at home users for being so stupid. I may have made the last bit up.)
Well, I know that you've just wasted my time with your content-free posting. And, alas, I'm wasting someone else's time with this response. You see how destructive this kind of thing is? If you have nothing to say, consider shutting up.
It doesn't take a genius to look up IETF working group names.
BTW, there is only one 'Internet protocol' in the TCP/IP suite, I don't know of any 'supporting Internet protocols.' Perhaps you could enlighten us.
Recommendation: Don't be so smug. If you don't like it, move on.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone who didn't write the virus should send SCO an email, to eliminate themselves from the enquiry.
Send them a mugshot for identification purposes. Of someone else, of course (otherwise they'll bust your ugly ass for running Linux) and best zip it up a few times, to give their antivirus something to do.
If you don't get a response, best send it again in case they had a problem. Luckily, we stole cron(8) from them so it's easy to automate this.
I hate banner ads as much as the next guy. Sometimes, what I want is out of sync with how it's funded. Tough. I would also like no ads on tv, no big ugly posters on huge boards by the roadside, etc. etc. That's tough too - the world isn't like that.
All out-of-site link blockers will achieve is to make the web advertisers change their, er, 'technology' slightly. In the end, who gains from that? Chances are the new methods will be more insidious, and much harder to avoid. The last thing the web needs is an advertising arms race.
If offsite images are blocked, all advertisers have to do is have the images come from the main site. It's easy to have a server-based script fetch the image, and return it to the browser. All that does is burn CPU on the content site, slowing its response time for everyone. Even worse, the advertising could come in great big ugly Shockwave format. Worse still, it could be embedded in the site graphics, in turn part of the user interface so you can't use the site wthout it. That just clutters the UI, to say nothing of further excluding Lynx users.
Often the people who put up banner ads do their sites for free, and if they want to make a little money from that, perhaps to pay for the web hosting, that's their choice. Trying to stop it with this primitive technique achieves very little IMO.
BTW I'm appalled by the number of 'why is this here' and 'the article poster is a fool' messages on this topic. I thought it was a good post, and it's nice to get a little more than the usual paragraph-and-link.
BT have always offered the minimum they can get away with to home users. They've kept prices artificially high for, well, ever, and they only respond at all to direct competition - I can't remember the last BT innovation. Oh, except the dialling code changes, London's third in recent times, serial organised stupidity that you wouldn't find *anywhere* else.
For business, BT is better. My company spends a *lot* of cash with BT, and I suspect that solely for that reason they're pretty good. We get good pricing, reasonable sales service, the obligatory crap helplines - I've never had good support from a telco, in any country - but they're at least as good as the competition. They even offer unique services occasionally.
For me this is one of the worst side effects of the pisspoor semi-regulation in the UK telco industry. There's some choice, though not as much as I'd like, for business users, and BT are OK in that arena. For home users, often whose only choice is between 'BT' and 'bugger off', it's "take what you get and like it, chump."
Compared to UK ISDN costs, 40ukp or even 100ukp isn't that bad. Compared to the most of the western world, I agree it's still very high.
Let's see the EC help out for once, and slap Busby down! (Busby was a BT mascot from way back, a stupid yellow bird that sat on telephone wires and laughed at home users for being so stupid. I may have made the last bit up.)
-Andre'
Well, I know that you've just wasted my time with your content-free posting. And, alas, I'm wasting someone else's time with this response. You see how destructive this kind of thing is? If you have nothing to say, consider shutting up.
It doesn't take a genius to look up IETF working group names.
BTW, there is only one 'Internet protocol' in the TCP/IP suite, I don't know of any 'supporting Internet protocols.' Perhaps you could enlighten us.
Recommendation: Don't be so smug. If you don't like it, move on.