Re: Ok...
FF22:
One question, if I may: How would you recommend people browsing the web protect themselves from maladvertising?
1327 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Apr 2010
FF22. I am speaking as a potential viewer of a site and I have a monthly broadband limit (due to living on the road and feed my internet usage via SIMS in dongles) so I have to consider the bandwidth that I consume.
I pay for this bandwidth and I see it as theft, not fraud (I can't work out how you come to this particular conclusion) when an advertiser throws a massive advert at me that is not needed. Now if I agreed to receive, via the post office, a letter from an advertiser the next morning and pay on delivery for the advertisement in return for browsing the site then that's one thing. It's another when the doorbell rings and the postman shows me a large parcel which took days to deliver and weights as much as a small racehorse and is going to cost me considerably more for delivery.
Yes, you're right. That is fraud.
Not too many years ago the web was full of pages with no adverts. Or if they were then they were just simple jpeg files dished up by the host's server with a simple URL behind it. And even these came in well after the web was up and running.
Now you are telling me that there's an implied Terms of Service which says that we have to receive this data whether we want them or not. And that we have to have installed any malware because you say so.
When I pop into a newsagents and buy a magazine I walk three steps outside to the nearest bin and, holding the outside cover pages together I give the thing a bloody great shake and all the blow in advertising crap goes straight into the bin. I will read the proper adverts in the magazine as a rule (usually they are the most interesting bits in there) but never the add ins because they are an annoyance particularly as I have to dispose of them because living on a motorhome exploring the country that I live in I don't particularly want badly targeted adverts which offer a stair lift, or a Parker biro if I sign up for some funeral insurance.
These advertisers have ruined it for themselves and there was no ToS that I agreed to when buying the magazine saying that I had to accept these blow-ins.
No-one here is wanting no advertising.
We are just wanting proportional advertising which:
- doesn't sling adverts that autoplay,
- have sound,
- block the page one's reading,
- potentially serve malware, and
- doesn't report back with our reader profile to anyone.
If you wish to bang on about a ToS then that list is what we expect to see in a site's ToS because as a server of a web site and you wish to deal with me then, equally, you have implied agreement to these terms. None of those items in that list above are excessive and all are reasonable.
So,
And I'm sure you will happily pay for *all* of the content you consume without charge to you? Glad you can afford that.
Let's kill this myth for once and for all, shall we?
If one subscribes to the financial forum, ADVFN, http://uk.advfn.com , which isn't cheap then one is blasted by adverts. In fact, most of the screen is filled up with adverts.
AdBlock is essential for sites like this because most of the bandwidth is taken up by adverts slung at the user. Now, if you believe in the mantra that to have no adverts then one should pay for the site then the reverse ought to apply: if you pay for the site then there should be no adverts.
I run a web site which is accessible by subscription only. Guess how many adverts there are on the site... That's right, none.
There are three ways to look at this issue, from the viewpoints of the user, the site owner and the advertising agencies.
The user tends to accept that a fee paid will remove adverts. That's fair according the user.
The web site owner requires income from the site and could either do this from advertising or subscription. As I have declared there's no adverts on my site and I think that's fair.
Then we come to the advertising industry. This is where fair play seems to break down. Looking at this from the viewpoint of a browser and web site owner I get the impression that they want more, more and more adverts served even if they are of dubious quality. They don't care what they serve and they appear to have little in the way of integrity.
So when I read that AdBlock has been prevented from attending the conference it doesn't surprise me in the least.
We hear a lot from advertising agency types here with their "accept adverts or pay for it" mantra and we hear from users who would happily pay for their often visited sites to stop advertising. But the funny thing is that we don't hear from the site owners much at all and the only voices we hear are from the advertising sector telling us that they know what the owners want. Which is something I don't believe.
On the whole the advertising industry is out of step with what is needed and what is required and is here only to serve themselves first an foremost, the site owners a poor second and not even give a thought for the users.
If it were otherwise then we wouldn't have paid-for sites like ADVFN serving adverts like they do. The advertising company that they use would have advised them to rein in a little on the adverts but, no, it's sell, sell, sell all the way.
Would or should?
Because there's tens of millions of lines of code out there written on older Operating Systems using an older development platform (Visual Studio) which don't compile nor run properly on later operating systems.
All of these applications were written by Microsoft's tools on Microsoft's machines using Microsoft's guidelines and with Microsoft's assurances.
That's why.
How about something with two massive arms that can hold a very strong net which gathers the opponent up. Than then, like a bloody massive flail, bashes the netted robot into the ground repeatedly.
Using the other robot to bash itself is better than using a hammer on your own robot.
I see my comment "what if the code was written by someone else?" was downvoted. Without explanation as to why.
I have a client who is in the travel business. They deal with a lot of suppliers, i.e. people who supply things like airlines, railways and the like who are abroad.
They have to use these people because quite simply the state airline/railway/whatever runs the monopoly in that country. And one of these suppliers has their only interface via an ActiveX plug in which can only work on IE6.
My client doesn't have access to the code but they have requested many a time for an alternative but the foreign state run supplier isn't going to give an alternative any year soon for whatever reason they have that they're not sharing with my client. So my client is stuck with having to use IE6 because of this.
This is where the holier-than-thou attitude of people who say "you have had time to fix it" annoys me. My client has had zero time to fix it because they have had zero chance of replacing code written by someone else for someone else in another part of the globe.
And I ask again; why was my comment "What if the code were written by someone else?" downvoted?
For the last fifteen years or more I've never needed a doorbell or a knocker.
Either the door is open or someone stood outside of the cottage and shouted.
But now that I live in a motorhome touring around the idea of having a doorbell seems ludicrous. Though one of those ships bells hanging outside does appeal even though it may be a little noisy going up the M5.
For those who need help with an exam, let me start off with a few MS Certifiable questions for you here:
1. Windows 10 is the best operating system to date because:
a. It has a Start button
b. It doesn't have a Start button
c. We say so
d. It breaks all compatability with large Visual Studio 6 compiled applications
2. Windows as a Service is good because:
a. It means that your machine will always be updated and always working.
b. We can then start to charge for it.
c. Your sysadmin can't stop our Search implementation being loaded
d. Any bugs are instantly fixed by our quality control department
I am sure that you can come up with others.
Any collection of stories concerning Motorhead cannot be complete without this contribution from yet another great frontman, Ian Gillan.
Black Sabbath and Motorhead were doing an open air show in Dublin. I watched the Motorhead show from start to finish, as usual, it felt as if I'd strapped a Boeing 747 to each ear.
Later in the dressing room the guitar player said to Lemmy "Here, we never done our new single".
Lemmy turns and says "I done it second".
Filthy says "I done it fifth".
Apple handcuffs?
Apple wedding rings*?
Apple slave shackles?
Apple Anne Summers' Dungeon collection?
(* not as ridiculous as it may seem given that the other week in a Radnorshire churchyard I saw a gravestone with the 'Animal' branding.**)
(** slightly less tacky, but not by much, than the infamous 'Kiss Kasket')
To be fair, one shouldn't keep production VBA in normal.dot -- the code should be in a separate template which should be held in Word's start-up folder.
Keeping code in normal.dot is not a clever thing to do at all. However, this doesn't change the issue in any way that Microsoft shouldn't be messing with the user's own data.
I am thinking of little old lady taking her repeat prescription down to the chemist. A bit of paper she can handle but ask her to bring her phone will only cause confusion as she snips the cord of her rotary telephone receiver* from the hall passage and brings that in.
And, yes, they still use them.
I don't know about America but there was a case in my own town about a woman who left some prime real estate to the town almost fifty years ago, on the condition it was used as a place for mothers to rest and look after their kids. About ten years ago the council tried to sell it, since the land and building were worth millions at that point, being right in the middle of town, and they almost got away with it until a local lawyer stepped in and had a court look at the original will.
I wish that they did that with the London Olympics. The allotments were given to the people as a thank you for their efforts in the war and were promised to be left so for eternity.
Then some mega-corp waved a wedge of notes under the noses of the authorities. Of course, considering the government of the day all legal objections were overruled.
My point? Even if it's all set in stone and watertight the government can come in and change the rules at the last minute.
Alas, most folk don't. How many people do you hear complaining of cyclists on the road and that they don't pay the road tax? Or how many times do you hear of overseas drivers coming to the UK and using 'our roads which we paid road tax for'?
I would say that most people don't have a clue that there's no such thing as road tax these days.
Actually no. There are many things which aren't compatible.
For a start any version of Internet Explorer later than a certain version simply won't work with Visual Studio 6. So, if you use any of the controls that came with VS6 then it won't work. That issue is none of my doing.
Secondly, the code uses a lot of ADO because it works and that was the bees knees at the time. With XP I can blat out about twenty thousand queries and no end of operations on the resultant recordsets (each day's run may have over a couple of million iterations through all of the recordsets). All of the designs were the right design of the day and to MS' own approved methods.
Having said that; the quality of my code actually surpassed MS' own samples in the MSDN. This wasn't hard because, for example, MS were not very good at using data types in their examples.
On W7 machines and later this just chokes after lots of thousands of databases queries. The problem is, again, the lack of backward compatibility. Yes, I have tried to change the Connections and about everything else I can think of without going from the ADO.
But the point is. That the code that I wrote was to standard at the time. Not only that; I used Microsoft's own compilers, on their own operations systems against their own databases and to their requirements, specifications and standards and then along comes .Net and Windows 7 and what they've done is to ignore what was done in the past and made no real attempt at backward compatibility.
I know of other developers who have similar issues. On my main machine here I can at least load the application into Visual Studio because I have an old version of Internet Explorer. On my newer machines I can't even load the source code into the IDE because of the browser.
This last point. I fail to see how this is my fault. Anyway, myself and others all say the same thing: if we can load the code into the compiler then we can't compile it because that doesn't work for large Visual Studio applications. I don't know how large it has to be before it all breaks but I have an application with about 100 classes, dozens of modules, around fifty forms and the compiler breaks on Windows 7 machines.
Again, that isn't my doing.
That's why I need XP machines because MS have really buggered things up. And there's more than just the two of us with this problem: there must be billions of lines of code out there that works and was written well and to spec which still has to be supported.
Me. For lots of reasons.
1. A lot of applications run here that were written in Visual Studio 6 and being a one-man band I can't afford the time to take six months or a year out of my life to recode everything.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. My code ain't broke.
2. The XP Compatability feature: Quite simply doesn't work for heavy data usage.
3. Old crufty machines that run XP run just as fast as my modern W7 machines.
So why should I take a year out of business just to update something that already works? No thank you, it's XP all the way here.