Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #4758 > unrolled thread

Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-09 10:34 +0000
    Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Rob <monst.oorzudo@ntlworld.com> - 2014-09-09 20:04 +0100
      Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2014-09-09 15:34 -0400
        Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Rob <monst.oorzudo@ntlworld.com> - 2014-09-16 21:09 +0100
    Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-09-09 19:27 +0000
    Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm +++ATH0 <usenet.20.sdr@spamgourmet.com> - 2014-09-09 19:39 +0000
      Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-09-09 16:09 -0400
        Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-09-10 18:12 +0000
          Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-10 18:40 +0000
            Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-09-11 11:25 +0000
              Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-11 16:21 +0000
          Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm scott@alfter.diespammersdie.us (Scott Alfter) - 2014-09-11 19:17 +0000
            Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-09-11 16:09 -0400
              Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-11 22:30 +0000
                Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-09-12 11:23 +0000
              Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-11 22:36 +0000
                Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-09-12 11:49 +0000
                Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-12 16:26 -0300
                  Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2014-09-12 17:07 -0400
                    Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-09-13 01:16 -0300
    Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> - 2014-09-10 08:02 +0100
      Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-10 09:53 +0200
        Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-10 09:44 +0000
        Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2014-09-10 19:59 +0100
          Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2014-09-10 19:15 +0000
      Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-09-10 09:40 +0000
        Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-09-10 17:09 +0100
    Re: Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-09-10 10:05 +0200

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#4758 — Blocking web ads is 'as bad as Napster', says data firm

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/09/blocking-adverts-napster-for-the-publishing-industry

   More internet users are blocking adverts than ever before, according to
   a new report, with the rate more than doubling over the course of last
   year.

   As of June 2014, almost 150 million browsers are using some form of ad
   blocker, the vast majority of whom are using plug-ins for either
   Google's Chrome or Mozilla's Firefox browser.

   Those figures are significantly larger than the authors had expected.
   ?We did a report last year, around the same time, and we had anticipated
   growth of about 43%,? said Sean Blanchfield of PageFair, which produced
   the report with Adobe. ?What really surprised us was that the actual
   growth was significantly higher.?

   ...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#4767

On 09/09/14 11:34, Rich wrote:

> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/09/blocking-adverts-napster-for-the-publishing-industry
>
>     More internet users are blocking adverts than ever before, according to
>     a new report, with the rate more than doubling over the course of last
>     year.
>
>     As of June 2014, almost 150 million browsers are using some form of ad
>     blocker, the vast majority of whom are using plug-ins for either
>     Google's Chrome or Mozilla's Firefox browser.

Well, I can wait half a second for a page to render or have it take a 
couple of minutes with ten pop-ups and three new windows! If the ads 
were not so intrusive then blocking may not be as rife.

Ta,
-- 
Rob
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational 
in order to prove that you care, or, indeed, why it should be necessary 
to prove it at all." - Avon, Blake's 7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4770

Rob <monst.oorzudo@ntlworld.com> writes:

> On 09/09/14 11:34, Rich wrote:
>
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/09/blocking-adverts-napster-for-the-publishing-industry
>>
>>     More internet users are blocking adverts than ever before, according to
>>     a new report, with the rate more than doubling over the course of last
>>     year.
>>
>>     As of June 2014, almost 150 million browsers are using some form of ad
>>     blocker, the vast majority of whom are using plug-ins for either
>>     Google's Chrome or Mozilla's Firefox browser.
>
> Well, I can wait half a second for a page to render or have it take a
> couple of minutes with ten pop-ups and three new windows! If the ads
> were not so intrusive then blocking may not be as rife.

Indeed.

A few sites complain when you run an ad blocker.

One is slashdot.org.  So, they complained, I said, lets give it a try.
So, I enabled ads on Slashdot, and the next thing I know, they've got an
autoplay flash ad.  That was the end of that.

The next site that complained was phys.org.
I go through the same exercise and I immediately encounter rollover ads.
As you are reading, if the mouse pointer reaches one of those double
underlined words, a box pops up blocking my reading.

I let both sites know why the ad blocker is back on, but there hasn't
been any change.

I know the situation is untenable.  These sites need some way of
making money, but the ad men just insist on going too far.

-- 
Dan Espen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4936

On 09/09/14 20:34, Dan Espen wrote:

> I know the situation is untenable.  These sites need some way of
> making money, but the ad men just insist on going too far.

Indeed. My wife was complaining about new windows (with Flash video) 
opening whenever she was using Facebook recently.

You couldn't actually read the FB pages due to the amount of crap that 
kept opening on every click.

I updated her ad-blocker and all was well again :-)

-- 
Rob
"I have never understood why it should be necessary to become irrational 
in order to prove that you care, or, indeed, why it should be necessary 
to prove it at all." - Avon, Blake's 7

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4769

On 2014-09-09, Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/09/blocking-adverts-napster-for-the-publishing-industry
>
>    More internet users are blocking adverts than ever before, according to
>    a new report, with the rate more than doubling over the course of last
>    year.

Ha, ha & what's more, ha.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4771

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/09/blocking-adverts-napster-for-the-publishing-industry

>   More internet users are blocking adverts than ever before, according to
>   a new report, with the rate more than doubling over the course of last
>   year.

I'm guilty: I often use lynx ...

-- 
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4772

On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, +++ATH0 wrote:

> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
>> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/09/blocking-adverts-napster-for-the-publishing-industry
>
>>   More internet users are blocking adverts than ever before, according to
>>   a new report, with the rate more than doubling over the course of last
>>   year.
>
> I'm guilty: I often use lynx ...
>
Until two years ago, when suddenly I got DSL (and wifi), most of my 
browsing was with lynx.  You really don't notice ads if all they can be is
text the same size as anything else, but I don't think many of the ads 
even show up.  The only time I'd use a graphic browser was for sites that 
needed it, which also tended to be sites I wanted to comment at.

With the DSL and wifi, I suddenly was using my tablet a lot more, and of 
course that's got a graphic browser.  I really had never seen that much 
advertising, suddenly it's following me around and I can't believe how 
deep it's gotten. The only good thing about it is that I am not waiting 
for all those ads to download (along with the generally bloated webpages), 
since there's DSL.

I still use lynx as my main browser on the desktop, but balanced against 
that is I do more browsing than I ever did, and that's from the tablet and 
the graphic browser.

Just think, 20 years ago, there was concern for making webpages that were 
readable by all.  Now nobody cares (unless you don't have a mainstream 
browser) and virtually nobody is talking about the bloat.  Nobody notices 
the slowness of webpages because most people now are paying for high speed 
internet, you really don't notice that a page might be bloated when it 
loads in an instance.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4802

On 2014-09-09, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, +++ATH0 wrote:
>
>> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:
> Just think, 20 years ago, there was concern for making webpages that
> were readable by all.  Now nobody cares (unless you don't have a
> mainstream browser) and virtually nobody is talking about the bloat.
> Nobody notices the slowness of webpages because most people now are
> paying for high speed internet, you really don't notice that a page
> might be bloated when it loads in an instance.
>
>    Michael

When I made my first web pages in 2000, a better-informed friend taught
me to keep them below 35kB including images, given the time it takes to
download them. 

I'm wondering if there are any webpages left that clock in at fewer than
35kb.  Not many, surely.  The 'big' news sites are horrendous, with
dozens of scripts, calls to 3rd party advert sites, trackers, and the
like.  Huffington Post has a code-to-content ratio of 100:1 for most
news articles.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4803

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:
> On 2014-09-09, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, +++ATH0 wrote:
> >
> > Just think, 20 years ago, there was concern for making webpages
> > that were readable by all.  Now nobody cares (unless you don't have
> > a mainstream browser) and virtually nobody is talking about the
> > bloat. Nobody notices the slowness of webpages because most people
> > now are paying for high speed internet, you really don't notice
> > that a page might be bloated when it loads in an instance.
> >
> >    Michael

> When I made my first web pages in 2000, a better-informed friend
> taught me to keep them below 35kB including images, given the time it
> takes to download them.

> I'm wondering if there are any webpages left that clock in at fewer
> than 35kb.  Not many, surely.  The 'big' news sites are horrendous,
> with dozens of scripts, calls to 3rd party advert sites, trackers,
> and the like.  Huffington Post has a code-to-content ratio of 100:1
> for most news articles.

https://news.ycombinator.com/

If I've caught all the external content:

22,598 main page html
 2,870 stylesheet
======
25,468 bytes total

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4820

>
>https://news.ycombinator.com/
>
>If I've caught all the external content:
>
>22,598 main page html
> 2,870 stylesheet
>======
>25,468 bytes total
>


Yet another reason I love that site.  Kudos to them.  Go check slashdot now
 - the new beta site is a heck of a lot heavier than that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4822

RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> wrote:

> >
> >https://news.ycombinator.com/
> >
> >If I've caught all the external content:
> >
> >22,598 main page html
> > 2,870 stylesheet
> >======
> >25,468 bytes total
> >

> Yet another reason I love that site.  Kudos to them.  Go check
>  - slashdot now the new beta site is a heck of a lot heavier than
>  - that.

  wget http://www.slashdot.org/

  119,120 index.html

  wget http://beta.slashdot.org/

  108,529 index.html

Excludes external content above, but both are significantly more
weighty just for the main index.html data.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4824

In article <c7bikjFe8beU2@mid.individual.net>,
RS Wood  <randy@therandymon.com> wrote:
>When I made my first web pages in 2000, a better-informed friend taught
>me to keep them below 35kB including images, given the time it takes to
>download them. 
>
>I'm wondering if there are any webpages left that clock in at fewer than
>35kb.  Not many, surely.  The 'big' news sites are horrendous, with
>dozens of scripts, calls to 3rd party advert sites, trackers, and the
>like.  Huffington Post has a code-to-content ratio of 100:1 for most
>news articles.

Craigslist is still pretty minimal, at least in appearance.  Let's see what
it pulls in:

$ curl http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/ | wc
    755    2677   50109
$ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/html5shiv.min.js | wc
      1      60    2397
$ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/json2.min.js | wc
      1      59    2979
$ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/general-concat.min.js | wc
      9    2915  262176
$ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/homepage-concat.min.js | wc
      1      56    4431

~315K for the local homepage, of which ~84% is scripts (and those are just
the ones I was able to identify with a grep).

Weighing a little bit in their favor, it looks like it's still navigable
with Lynx, which won't pull in the external scripts.

  _/_
 / v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/            Top-posting!
 \_^_/                              >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4825

On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Scott Alfter wrote:

> In article <c7bikjFe8beU2@mid.individual.net>,
> RS Wood  <randy@therandymon.com> wrote:
>> When I made my first web pages in 2000, a better-informed friend taught
>> me to keep them below 35kB including images, given the time it takes to
>> download them.
>>
>> I'm wondering if there are any webpages left that clock in at fewer than
>> 35kb.  Not many, surely.  The 'big' news sites are horrendous, with
>> dozens of scripts, calls to 3rd party advert sites, trackers, and the
>> like.  Huffington Post has a code-to-content ratio of 100:1 for most
>> news articles.
>
> Craigslist is still pretty minimal, at least in appearance.  Let's see what
> it pulls in:
>
> $ curl http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/ | wc
>    755    2677   50109
> $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/html5shiv.min.js | wc
>      1      60    2397
> $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/json2.min.js | wc
>      1      59    2979
> $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/general-concat.min.js | wc
>      9    2915  262176
> $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/homepage-concat.min.js | wc
>      1      56    4431
>
> ~315K for the local homepage, of which ~84% is scripts (and those are just
> the ones I was able to identify with a grep).
>
> Weighing a little bit in their favor, it looks like it's still navigable
> with Lynx, which won't pull in the external scripts.
>
Yes, I've used it with Lynx.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4827

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Scott Alfter wrote:

> > In article <c7bikjFe8beU2@mid.individual.net>,
> > RS Wood  <randy@therandymon.com> wrote:
> >> When I made my first web pages in 2000, a better-informed friend taught
> >> me to keep them below 35kB including images, given the time it takes to
> >> download them.
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if there are any webpages left that clock in at fewer than
> >> 35kb.  Not many, surely.  The 'big' news sites are horrendous, with
> >> dozens of scripts, calls to 3rd party advert sites, trackers, and the
> >> like.  Huffington Post has a code-to-content ratio of 100:1 for most
> >> news articles.
> >
> > Craigslist is still pretty minimal, at least in appearance.  Let's see what
> > it pulls in:
> >
> > $ curl http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/ | wc
> >    755    2677   50109
> > $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/html5shiv.min.js | wc
> >      1      60    2397
> > $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/json2.min.js | wc
> >      1      59    2979
> > $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/general-concat.min.js | wc
> >      9    2915  262176
> > $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/homepage-concat.min.js | wc
> >      1      56    4431
> >
> > ~315K for the local homepage, of which ~84% is scripts (and those are just
> > the ones I was able to identify with a grep).
> >
> > Weighing a little bit in their favor, it looks like it's still navigable
> > with Lynx, which won't pull in the external scripts.
> >
> Yes, I've used it with Lynx.

>    Michael

https://news.ycombinator.com/newest (using Firefox dev. tools):

5 requests: 33.37KB.

http://www.soylentnews.org/

17 requests: 121.97KB.

https://pipedot.org/

15 requests: 167.98KB.

https://www.yahoo.com/

75 requests: 1,771.55KB (ouch... this is with noscript on "deny"
                         everything and adblock turned on)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4838

> https://news.ycombinator.com/newest (using Firefox dev. tools):
> 
> 5 requests: 33.37KB.
> 
> http://www.soylentnews.org/
> 
> 17 requests: 121.97KB.
> 
> https://pipedot.org/
> 
> 15 requests: 167.98KB.
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/
> 
> 75 requests: 1,771.55KB (ouch... this is with noscript on "deny"
>                          everything and adblock turned on)
> 


I wonder what kind of scripts craigslist needs to produce such a simple/plain website?  What could it possibly be doing?  I can't be arsed to find out, but find it annoying.

I assume Pipedot has more requests and a heavier front page relative to soylent because of the images it permits.

Yahoo: you're fired.  WTF?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4828

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Scott Alfter wrote:

> > In article <c7bikjFe8beU2@mid.individual.net>,
> > RS Wood  <randy@therandymon.com> wrote:
> >> When I made my first web pages in 2000, a better-informed friend taught
> >> me to keep them below 35kB including images, given the time it takes to
> >> download them.
> >>
> >> I'm wondering if there are any webpages left that clock in at fewer than
> >> 35kb.  Not many, surely.  The 'big' news sites are horrendous, with
> >> dozens of scripts, calls to 3rd party advert sites, trackers, and the
> >> like.  Huffington Post has a code-to-content ratio of 100:1 for most
> >> news articles.
> >
> > Craigslist is still pretty minimal, at least in appearance.  Let's see what
> > it pulls in:
> >
> > $ curl http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/ | wc
> >    755    2677   50109
> > $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/html5shiv.min.js | wc
> >      1      60    2397
> > $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/json2.min.js | wc
> >      1      59    2979
> > $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/general-concat.min.js | wc
> >      9    2915  262176
> > $ curl http://www.craigslist.org/js/homepage-concat.min.js | wc
> >      1      56    4431
> >
> > ~315K for the local homepage, of which ~84% is scripts (and those are just
> > the ones I was able to identify with a grep).
> >
> > Weighing a little bit in their favor, it looks like it's still navigable
> > with Lynx, which won't pull in the external scripts.
> >
> Yes, I've used it with Lynx.

>    Michael

http://www.nytimes.com/

51 requests: 938.97KB.

http://www.latimes.com/

7 requests: 1,107.91KB.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

56 requests: 1,513.65KB.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4841

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/
> 56 requests: 1,513.65KB.


OK, so, just to be an ass and see if all that bandwidth is necessary:
I used Lynx to go to www.washingtonpost.com, and saved its text
contents to a text file. 

Total size of readable content: 24KB.

Use vim to trim off the lengthy menus and boilerplate, and it is
reduced to 12KB.

Screw you, WWW 2.0!  You suck!  That's a signal-to-noise ratio of 1.5%
with menus, 0.75% without, or 100-200 bytes of crap to get a single
letter of news/article text.

I was using dialup as recently as 2010, and in 2009 I wrote this piece:
http://therandymon.com/index.php?/archives/166-Life-in-56K.html

In it, I concluded using a batch RSS downloader, fetchmail, and
leafnode with some judicious filters, it was entirely possible to live
a decent life over a dialup connection.  I posit it's still
possible; you just have to filter out all the useless bits.  That
webpage is perfectly readable in lynx, by the way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4858

Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/
> 
> 56 requests: 1,513.65KB.

Javascript and images turned off: 350KB

And unlike some sites, the in-page links are plain URLs, not js calls.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4860

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Mike Spencer wrote:

>
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> writes:
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/
>>
>> 56 requests: 1,513.65KB.
>
> Javascript and images turned off: 350KB
>
> And unlike some sites, the in-page links are plain URLs, not js calls.
>
I'd forgotten, but yes, that factors in on what pages I can use lynx for.

I got full internet access in August of 1996, and from then until June 
2001 (when I got a fancier computer to install Linux), the only browser I 
could run at home was lynx.  Actually, I dialed up my ISP and used lynx 
from there.

So for those five years, if a webpage wasn't compatible with lynx, the 
webpage really didnt' exist.

Now that I can run a graphic browser, it's a little different, but I don't 
think that much of pages that don't work with lynx.  It's faster and I 
don't see all those ads.

On the other hand, in the old days, it was rare to hit a site that turned 
me away for using lynx (well except for sites that used Flash throughout).
Even when there was a warning page "go away until you get a decent 
browser", it often turned out you could bypass that warning page, and see 
the site, though sometimes not perfectly.

But in more recent times, I've hit pages that seem to reject lynx at the 
server software level, all those 406 errors.  I don't remember seeing them 
until that certain point, and I know with some sites I've tried lynx with 
different names in the user agent header (even gibberish) and didn't get 
the error.  That's discrimination.

Of course, there are pages that still say "go away, we don't like your 
browser" and some that seem to reject lynx because they think I'm a bot
shifting through their pages.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4863

Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:

> But in more recent times, I've hit pages that seem to reject lynx at the 
> server software level, all those 406 errors.  I don't remember seeing them 
> until that certain point, and I know with some sites I've tried lynx with 
> different names in the user agent header (even gibberish) and didn't get 
> the error.  That's discrimination.

Yeah, you can set the useragent string from the command line.  Just
tried it on localhost with useragent "Fluffy". :-)  My usual browser
(js and images off) tells sites that it's "Walled-city", a nod to
Gibson's Idoru.

Some sites send js that your browser has to react to in some way
before they'll talk to you.  And the NYT puts you through a series of
"303 See Other" and "302 Found" replies before they'll give you
content. I dunno if Lynx handles that or not.

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web