I'd really like a list of servers I could manually update, whose cookies would always be rejected. *.doubleclick.net, *.adforce.com... you get the picture.
iCab 2.1 (get it now at versiontracker.com!), a browser for the Mac OS, does exactly that.
>>tens of thousands of people who hang on their every word.
If you read the material on this site (or material from any other source for that matter) with the kind of mentality where you hang on the words of relative strangers, then you must have a horribly skewed concept of the real world. To loosely paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, in such an instance I'd rather hang separately than hang together with the rest of y'all.
Slashdot at least (usually) posts its sources. What more do you need to draw your own conclusions?
For those web designers out there, ask yourself this question: is there enough text on the page to understand the content without images? Computers can now be set up with special software (why do I have to explain this to the smart people who should be able to figure this out?) that can speak text for those who can't necessarily see the screen, including the text on websites--especially if the data can be saved out as a text file if need be. If a company as large as AOL is unable to provide this service to a group of diabled customers in its proprietary gateway software, then that's what the ADA is for. The deaf community has empowered itself a great deal by the growth of the online society--finally a way for the deaf and hearing-impaired to communicate without being ridiculed. Why then should the blind and vision-impaired be discriminated against because AOL thinks pictures are better than words?::muttering:: not everyone is white, male, employed, and gifted with multiple computers
You're not kidding. The idea that both MCI and Sprint began as competitors (given a great deal of help under the antitrust hoops that ATT had to go through early on, btw) to the monopoly that was Ma Bell seems now scarily ironic.
Slashdot Mirror
iCab 2.1 (get it now at versiontracker.com!), a browser for the Mac OS, does exactly that.
If you read the material on this site (or material from any other source for that matter) with the kind of mentality where you hang on the words of relative strangers, then you must have a horribly skewed concept of the real world. To loosely paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, in such an instance I'd rather hang separately than hang together with the rest of y'all.
Slashdot at least (usually) posts its sources. What more do you need to draw your own conclusions?
For those web designers out there, ask yourself this question: is there enough text on the page to understand the content without images? Computers can now be set up with special software (why do I have to explain this to the smart people who should be able to figure this out?) that can speak text for those who can't necessarily see the screen, including the text on websites--especially if the data can be saved out as a text file if need be. If a company as large as AOL is unable to provide this service to a group of diabled customers in its proprietary gateway software, then that's what the ADA is for. The deaf community has empowered itself a great deal by the growth of the online society--finally a way for the deaf and hearing-impaired to communicate without being ridiculed. Why then should the blind and vision-impaired be discriminated against because AOL thinks pictures are better than words? ::muttering:: not everyone is white, male, employed, and gifted with multiple computers
You're not kidding. The idea that both MCI and Sprint began as competitors (given a great deal of help under the antitrust hoops that ATT had to go through early on, btw) to the monopoly that was Ma Bell seems now scarily ironic.