TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)

Re: Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)
12 Jul 2006 08:26:01 -0700

mc wrote:

> I don't think it does. Has anyone made measurements? Text files and
> graphics don't have to be checked, only executable code.

I think the problem is that today's web developers like to put on many
bells and whisticles do the transmission consists of executable code,
not merely graphics and text. That's the reason we're forced to go to
DSL, the transmissions contain so much more bytes. Some sites won't
even allow old browsers to access them; they tell you to get a new one
and even let you download it on the spot.

Heaven forbid someone has to type something in instead of flipping the
mouse and automatically bringing up neat stuff (as done with Flash).

As an example, I tried to get on to the new CW TV network website (the
one replacing WB and UPN). My PC didn't have the latest Flash so I
couldn't get on. Why was that so important to them to require that?

* Does it really make a difference in convyeing information to the end
user? *

I submit the bells and whistles aren't necessary and a waste of
machine CPU cycles and bandwidth. But businesses and even government
agencies want super fancy screens and the industry wants to sell ever
more powerful CPUs, routers, servers, etc.

Gene S. Berkowitz wrote:

> I don't run a virus checker; I do run a software firewall, and my 5
> PCs are behind a router. I have zero infections on any of the PCs I
> have running at home. That said, I don't download from sites I don't
> trust, I don't use IE or Outlook, and I delete "Hey, Take a Look at
> This" emails. Basically, the precautions that anyone should take
> (don't eat found food, don't have unprotected sex with multiple
> partners, don't leave your keys in the ignition) metaphorically apply
> to the internet.

Thanks for the info.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's easier than to
transmit a virus because browsers today are sophisticated and execute
programs sent over from web site ("java applets"?). Several times
while merely surfing what should've been legitimate web sites -- not
downloading or "running" anything -- the virus alarm kicked in because
of an attempt to send over hostile code. Further, a subsequent run of
spyware software (ad-aware) detected manipulations.

In other words, merely looking at a website allowed it to send over
malicious code. Further, some malicious people intentionally use
common mispelling of common websites to trap people; others hijack
legitimate sites.

I'm angry at the Internet community for constantly demanding more and
more power in browsers. Web developers can't wait to use the latest
bells and whistles yet browsers of ten years ago (ie IE Vers 4) were
more than adequate to display information from a website. Developers
are so snobby about this they won't even allow users with old browsers
to get on.

I understood a future Microsoft release will not be as "automatic"; I
hope so. People blame M/S for this situation, but the community loves
that automation to make their websites so fancy.

For a lay user who is not a specialist, having an alternative browser
as suggested is difficult. As a lay user, I am frustrated that I have
to become a systems programmer to maintain my own machine, what
browsers, what settings, how to set the settings, what do they mean,
etc. It means buying books and learning new stuff OFTEN since the
stuff changes every few years. (I was quite happy with DOS 3 and text
based BBS browsers of that era, they fan quite fast on 14.4 modems).
I'm annoyed that I had to go out and learn Windows 95 and now that is
scrapped and I have to learn all new junk.

People with less technical knowledge than me are very vulnerable to
either slow machines or sabotage.

Of course the computer industry loves this state of affairs because
they get to sell people new machines every few years, just as GM's
planned obselescence got people to buy new cars every few years. GM
added worthless chrome, so does the computer industry. It amazes me
that no one objects to this, but I suppose everyone is riding the
gravy train as a system supporter or part of the sales/mfr chain.
(I'm not angry at you personally, sorry if I sound that way, I do
appreciate your response.)

> Go ahead, but make sure you know what to be offended by.

Actually, I don't know enough. The industry and its players keeps

> With that much money to be made from the fear of virii, is it any
> wonder that we're all being conditioned to be afraid of them?

My employer's anti-virus software has stopped attempts and new viruses
not as yet registered pass through do lots of damage. Given that, I
think the fear of of viruses is

> Save your outrage for the Credit Bureau Troika who continue to
> convince their pocket congressmen that we "want" 50 credit card
> applications to show up in our mail each month, that having to wait 24
> hours before issuing you a line of credit at BestBuy would be like
> burning the Flag, and that 24% interest for "universal default" isn't
> usary.


Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Gene S. Berkowitz: "Re: Wi-Fi Wars / Loiterers Can be a Drag on Businesses' Bottom Line"
Go to Previous message: "Re: Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)"
May be in reply to: "Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)"
Next in thread: Gene S. Berkowitz: "Re: Back to Being a Luddite (Oh Well)"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page