Re: Doubleclick wont go away

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Gerry Atrick wrote:

> I have the same thing. I LIKE IE. I like the way it works, and it
> rarely crashes. I often load as many as 20 websites all at once, and
> while that many does slow down my computer, IE still gets thru them.

Are those sites in 20 separate windows? <g>

> Probably 4 or 5 years ago I ran Opera for awhile, and it crashed
> continuously. I finally got rid of it. I cant live with crashing
> software. Maybe it' better now, but I hesitate to try it.

Five years ago, Opera was not quite ready for mainstream use. However,
they are up to version 9 now, and it is quite stable.

> Firefox is much more stable, and I like the tabs and other features,
> but like others said, it does not render all pages right. In fact I
> made a website, and it dont load properly. I guess I could live with

What tools did you use to make this website? If you used any Microsoft
product, the chances are good you have IE-only bits and pieces in there.
Microsoft FrontPage, Microsoft Word, and especially Microsoft Publisher
are well-known for using proprietary MS things. They also produce
seriously-bloated HTML (if you could call it HTML...). A few paragraphs
of simple text could end up being 80 Kilobytes, with Publisher.

My web sites work in any browser ... PDA ... mobile phone ...

> that, but the continually asking for plugins drove me nuts. I
> deleted it, but since I installed Firefox 0.9. It's old, but it was
> a good version that did not need too much tweaking.

Still using 0.9? Well, then. Uninstall that and get version 2.0

> Lately I have been running a browser called SLIMBROWSER.
> (www.flashpeak.com). I like it alot. It's a little more
> cpmplicated that what I am used to, but I am getting more familiar
> with it. It has tabs, just like FF, but looks and acts more like IE
> than any other software. The one ting, I noticed it places its cache
> in the same folder as IE and has many identical "tools". I wonder if
> it really IS IE with a different front end. If this is the case, I
> wonder if it has the same secirity holes?

Slimbrowser is a shell over IE. Of course it will have the same
underlying problems, security-wise, as IE. There are several other IE
shells out there, too. Be advised.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Ron Lopshire]

Michael J Kingston wrote:

> In message <ip0Ah.720$tD2.326@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Ron
> Lopshire <notron@ovbl.org> writes
>
>>louise wrote:
>>
>>>default wrote:
>>>
>>>>Its a jungle out there
>>>
>>>I usually use FF with noscript - but, more frequently than
>>>I would wish, FF can't render a page properly and I open
>>>that page in IE using the add-on IE view lite. Perhaps this
>>>is how double click makes it's way onto my system with such
>>>regularity.
>>>
>>>But I can't stop using IE - what's the next best alternative?
>>
>>1) I use IE for Microsoft Updates only, locked down the rest of the month.
>>
>>2) I use Firefox as my default browser, everything locked down. Always.
>
> Locked down??? I've not been following this thread. Please explain the
> term.

Locked down browser/client -> ActiveX, Java, Javascript, cookies,
popups, plugins - especially Flash & WMP, iFrames - I am finding this
to be necessary more and more -> all disabled.

Here is how Eric Howes described it when he developed Enough is
Enough! to lock down IE6/IE6.

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/resource6.htm

I still use Enough is Enough! for IE6 the second Tuesday of each month
after I visit Microsoft Updates. If and when I ever get IE7 installed
on my WinXP box, I will modify Eric's batch file to lock down IE7.
Unlike other browsers, IE (trident engine) is embedded in the OS.
Whether the GUI is launched or not, it needs to be locked down when
not being used.

As I said, I use Opera (much more stable and secure than the Mozilla
browsers) for trusted sites only -> Javascript and first-party cookies
enabled.

I agree with Marcus Ranum. Most of the insanity of using a Windows box
has to do with default permit (Bill Gates calls this /intuitive/). I
too find that default deny is a much better policy. Show me that you
are trustworthy and responsible, and I will let your site use
Javascript and some cookies on my Windows box.

http://www.ranum.com/security/comput...itorials/dumb/

http://www.ranum.com/security/comput...rus/index.html

And you damned well better have an overwhelming interest in not doing
_anything_ careless or stupid if you are even thinking about asking me
to run your ActiveX or Java controls on my system with a server-side
call. A financial institution or vendor of security products /might/
be such an entity.

And even then, probably not. As much as I hate ActiveX, I am really
beginning to think that Java/JRE is worse. I cannot imagine a scenario
where a company could generate as many screw-ups as much as Sun. Now
that Sun has won their lawsuit against MS, perhaps they again have
enough resources to do things like TESTING THEIR GARBAGE JRE before
releasing it on the public.

http://secunia.com/search/?search=java

As always, just my 0.02. YMMV.

Ron

[default]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:15:23 -0500, louise <louise@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>Yes - my most frequent problems are with the smaller
>purchasing sites. I can't think of one offhand to give as
>an example but I know it happens on a too frequent basis (I
>do a lot of online ordering).
>
>Is there an add-on for Opera so that I can right click and
>show this site in Opera the way I do with IE - in other
>words, a right click "view this page in Opera"?
>
>TIA
>
>Louise

Opera is my desperate last ditch attempt,so I don't know much about
what it can or can't do. alt.comp.freeware may have a guru or two
that would know.

Only site I have to use Opera on is "Lane Bryant" And my last
purchase from New Egg didn't go so well and I ended up getting the
memory chip I wanted from Amazon for less money. . .

Forgive me if I'm telling you how to do something you already know:

If you're having trouble with placing orders check the scripts in FF.
The little "S" on the bar in the right lower corner? Usually has a
red slash through it?

Right click on it and see what it says - it will show all the sites
that want to use scripts from the one you are visiting. Allow them or
temporarily allow them. The red slash goes away after the page
reloads (or all the tabs on that site reload).

If you have allowed scripts for one and more sites are requesting
scripts the little red slash is smaller and doesn't occlude the whole
"S."

The newsgroup alt.fan.mozilla will have a helpful guru that can assist
with FF problems.
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Erik]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty zei het volgende op 13-02-07 15
> louise wrote:
>
>> I know I should know this....but - how does one add something like
>> double click to the hosts file?
>
> You simply open the file in a text editor (like Notepad or better), and
> add the domain names. Sample:
>
> 127.0.0.1 ad.au.doubleclick.net
> 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
> 127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.com
> 127.0.0.1 ad.uk.doubleclick.com
> 127.0.0.1 ad.uk.doubleclick.net
>
>
> Get a copy of mine if you wish:
> http://k75s.home.att.net/tips.html#hosts <-- tips
> http://k75s.home.att.net/hostsfile.txt <-- the file
>

You could also look here:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Erik

[default]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:10:00 -0600, Gerry Atrick
<GerryAtrick@no-email.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:10:22 GMT, Ron Lopshire <notron@ovbl.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Locked down browser/client -> ActiveX, Java, Javascript, cookies,
>>popups, plugins - especially Flash & WMP, iFrames - I am finding this
>>to be necessary more and more -> all disabled.
>
>While you are correct about this. These days half the websites wont
>work without some or all of this stuff. Many sites these days do
>nothing at all without flash. Go to budweiser.com and you see nothing
>with flash disabled. I absolutely hate flash ads, but I love watching
>videos on youtube.com. So I am constantly switching flash on and off
>with "flash switch". I cant connect to any of the yahoo groups
>without cookies and java script (maybe activeX too). So all I do is
>switch things on and off, cus alot at all the hassles, and grin and
>bear it. I just removed Quicktime from my computer because it is so
>resource hogging and plays my .mov files really slow with "skips" in
>them. I downloaded "quicktime alternative", began the install, and ws
>told that I must upgrade my activex from 6.x to 9.x. Exactly what I
>DONT want, is MORE ActiveX garbage on my puter. I tossed quicktime
>alternative in the recycle bin and now I can not play my .MOV file
>collection. I honestly dont know how anyone can run without activex,
>hava script, flash, cookies and all of that. Some days I think using
>a computer is like playing russian roulet, and if you remove the
>"gun", nothing works....
>
>I do see a Macintosh in my future !!!!

I avoid all sites that need flash player to work. My feeling is, if
they can't respect my security they don't deserve my business. It
isn't like there's only one or two places on the 'net with the stuff I
want.

I've been using quick time alternative along with some super mega
codec package and it works fine. The rare problem I might see is
cause by someone posting a broken file. - it takes some arm waving
and head scratching to manage all the different video codecs.

ActiveX is just a sleazy way to load or modify programs on one's
computer. For the computer challenged it was intended to make life
easier. For the malevolent scam artists it is also a way to make life
easier, load and modify programs . . . Most of the time it just takes
a little more "arm waving and head scratching" to get the same codec
or progy without using ActiveX.

A useful program for Yahoo mail is "ePrompter" It is designed to
check Yahoo, Hotmail, MailCom and other web based email accounts. No
security risk - it checks your mail and jumps through the hoops (like
mail com diverting me to an ad site before I am allowed to check my
mail)

It downloads the stuff and allows me to read it, reply to it, or just
delete it. Only does text but passes along simple HTML links - While
ePrompter allows scripts, the scripts can't affect the computer - it
isn't a browser just a mail checking program. It is great for spam
catcher email addresses - scan the list, click "mark all read," click
"delete all" and you are done. You can unclick mail you wan to save.

Someday Linux . . . damned if MS will get another dime from me.

I'm pretty sure Slim Browser is an Internet Explorer "shell" - not a
real browser just an overlay for IE.
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Gerry Atrick wrote:

> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>Gerry Atrick wrote:
>>
>>> I have the same thing. I LIKE IE. I like the way it works, and it
>>> rarely crashes. I often load as many as 20 websites all at once,
>>> and while that many does slow down my computer, IE still gets thru
>>> them.
>>
>> Are those sites in 20 separate windows? <g>
>>
> Thats the only way.....

20 buttons on the taskbar too? Wouldn't you really prefer 20 tabs in
the one window, and one button on the taskbar?

>>> Probably 4 or 5 years ago I ran Opera for awhile, and it crashed
>>> continuously. I finally got rid of it. I cant live with crashing
>>> software. Maybe it' better now, but I hesitate to try it.
>>
>> Five years ago, Opera was not quite ready for mainstream use.
>> However, they are up to version 9 now, and it is quite stable.
>>
> Ok. maybe I will give it a try again. It was really bad (as far as
> crashing) when I tried it.

That's odd. I started using Opera 'round version 5 and never had
crashes. Still don't.

>>> Firefox is much more stable, and I like the tabs and other features,
>>> but like others said, it does not render all pages right. In fact
>>> I made a website, and it dont load properly. I guess I could live
>>> with
>>
>> What tools did you use to make this website? If you used any
>> Microsoft product, the chances are good you have IE-only bits and
>> pieces in there. Microsoft FrontPage, Microsoft Word, and especially
>> Microsoft Publisher are well-known for using proprietary MS things.
>> They also produce seriously-bloated HTML (if you could call it
>> HTML...). A few paragraphs of simple text could end up being 80
>> Kilobytes, with Publisher.
>
> The only program I use to make websites is Netscape Gold 3.04. (yah,

Try NVu. http://nvu.com/ It's a standalone version of the Mozilla
Composer.

> I know it's ancient, but it always worked well to create basic
> websites, which is all I use it for). Once the basic webpage is
> created, then I edit in notepad. It's just easier to create the
> basic site with NS than type it all manually. My pages do not
> contain any java scripts, flash, or any other special effects or
> software. The page is basic text and either jpg or gif pictures. I
> did put a .wav sound file and some scrolling text on the page.
> Neither the sound or the scrolling text will work in FF, but they
> work fine in IE.

<marquee>Scrolling text?</marquee> ? No, that won't work in other
browsers, and is annoying, too. :-)

There are IE-only ways to load sounds and movies as well, that no other
browser will recognize because they are proprietary to IE.

>> My web sites work in any browser ... PDA ... mobile phone ...
>>
>>> that, but the continually asking for plugins drove me nuts. I
>>> deleted it, but since I installed Firefox 0.9. It's old, but it
>>> was a good version that did not need too much tweaking.
>>
>> Still using 0.9? Well, then. Uninstall that and get version 2.0
>
> I upgraded from ver. 1.(something) to ver 2.0 about 2 months ago.
> Thats when FF really started causing problems. I should have left it
> as it was. I removed it entirely shortly after, and had no intention
> to use FF again. But I found that on occasion I needed something
> else besides IE. Particularly for those sites that wont let me right
> click on a picture to save it. FF always allows this when IE wont.
> Thats when I reinstalled FF 0.9 which was always the most troublefree
> version. Once they began 1.0 it went downhill.

Right-click to save picture can be disabled by the author using
JavaScript. Normally, you turn JavaScript off to save the picture, or
with Firefox, just look in the Page Information and copy it from there.
It is also already in your browser's cache.

>>> Lately I have been running a browser called SLIMBROWSER.<snip>
>>
>> Slimbrowser is a shell over IE. Of course it will have the same
>> underlying problems, security-wise, as IE. There are several other
>> IE shells out there, too. Be advised.
>
> Thats what I suspected. I do really like it though. There's only one
> thing I dont like, and thats the way the tabs are. Rather than
> listing all of them like FF, I need to press an up/down arrow, so I
> never know what pages are really there. I am still trying to figure
> out if that can be changed. (I only installed it a couple days ago).
> Other than that, it's great. I do suppose it has all the security
> issues ..... that sucks .....
>
> By the way, I am using Win98se, for whatever that matters..... I have
> no need to get XP and doubt this old 700mhz puter would run it. I

The amount of ram would be more critical than the processor speed.

Why not find a copy of Windows 2000 Sp4, which should do nicely on a
700mHz with 256MB of ram.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Erik wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty zei het volgende op 13-02-07 15
>> Get a copy of mine if you wish:
>> http://k75s.home.att.net/tips.html#hosts <-- tips
>> http://k75s.home.att.net/hostsfile.txt <-- the file
>
> You could also look here:
>
> http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

...which is mentioned, and linked to, on my tips page.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Slarty]

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:10:00 -0600, Gerry Atrick wrote:

> I downloaded "quicktime alternative", began the install, and ws
> told that I must upgrade my activex from 6.x to 9.x.

Then you either did something incorrectly, obtained a dud download, or your
set up is defective/corrupted in some way. That never happened here.
Quicktime alternative integrated smoothly into both my browsers, Firefox
and Opera. Did you remember to close your browser(s) before trying to
install it? Neither Real Alternatine nor Quicktime Alternative have any
need of or use for Activex, which is one major reason that people use them.

Cheers,

Roy

[Ron Lopshire]

Gerry Atrick wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 15:10:22 GMT, Ron Lopshire <notron@ovbl.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Locked down browser/client -> ActiveX, Java, Javascript, cookies,
>>popups, plugins - especially Flash & WMP, iFrames - I am finding this
>>to be necessary more and more -> all disabled.
>
> While you are correct about this. These days half the websites wont
> work without some or all of this stuff. Many sites these days do

None that I care to use.

> nothing at all without flash. Go to budweiser.com and you see nothing
> with flash disabled. I absolutely hate flash ads, but I love watching

Good. That means there is nothing on budweiser.com worth looking at.

> videos on youtube.com. So I am constantly switching flash on and off

YouTube took over where Napster left off. Number One trafficker of
pirated media content on the internet. YouTube cannot get sued out of
existence fast enough for me.

> with "flash switch". I cant connect to any of the yahoo groups
> without cookies and java script (maybe activeX too). So all I do is

I would rather have Herpes than anything from Yahoo!. Easier to get
rid of. And I won't be party to anyone who had anything to do with
this poor ******* breaking rocks for 10 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asi...ic/4221538.stm

Ten effing years. I haven't used my Yahoo! account since then. Screw
Yahoo!! YMMV.

> switch things on and off, cus alot at all the hassles, and grin and
> bear it. I just removed Quicktime from my computer because it is so
> resource hogging and plays my .mov files really slow with "skips" in
> them. I downloaded "quicktime alternative", began the install, and ws
> told that I must upgrade my activex from 6.x to 9.x. Exactly what I
> DONT want, is MORE ActiveX garbage on my puter. I tossed quicktime

The goal, of course, is _zero_ ActiveX garbage, not more or even less.

> alternative in the recycle bin and now I can not play my .MOV file

Another proprietary format that deserves a special place on the pile
of discarded garbage that we are all better off without.

> collection. I honestly dont know how anyone can run without activex,
> hava script, flash, cookies and all of that. Some days I think using
> a computer is like playing russian roulet, and if you remove the
> "gun", nothing works....

I bought my WinXP box 2 years ago. No Flashcrap. No ActiveX. No inline
media content. No WMP. No RealPlayer. No Quicktime. No
Adobe/Macromedia garbage. Not now. Not ever. Life is good.

Media Player Classic - No Spyware, No Adware, No DRM, No BS

http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/

If I cannot use MPC to view it or hear it, I don't want it.

> I do see a Macintosh in my future !!!!

Apple vs. MS? Just a matter of which group of a**holes one chooses to
get into bed with. [g]

Just say no to things like ActiveX and Flashcrap. You might be amazed
at how little you miss this crap, and how much better your life will
be without them. I saw this come down the KL RSS wire the other day.

Suspected virus writer detained in Ukraine

http://www.viruslist.com/en/news?id=208274037

Quote: "The 20-year-old suspected virus writer has no specific
academic qualifications apart from a high-school diploma. He started
writing the new virus in 2005 using the Delphi programming language,
according to a report by the Kommersant newspaper in Ukraine. In order
to spread the virus he embedded it into popular flash animations and
uploaded them to file exchange servers. The Trojan, called “Eye” by
its creator, took over a person’s computer when an infected file was
opened and played, leaving it open to access from the outside. After
that an attacker could freely access information stored on the machine
or hijack its Internet connection."

It's a jungle out there. But it really doesn't have to be. Life is
much better when the 14-year-olds and criminals who traffick in this
crap are no longer in charge of your computer and your life.

I have _never_ had any malware on my computer. Almost none of my
friends and family can say that. But then they do stupid things like
use ActiveX, Flashcrap, HTML-formatted email, etc. IMNSHO, they
deserve the misery that is heaped upon them. If you could not tell
which of the goblets did not contain the poison, would you drink out
of any of them?

It is time to grow up, folks. As always, just my 0.02. YMMV.

Ron

[Ron Lopshire]

someone@nowhere.com wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:24:00 GMT, Ron Lopshire <notron@ovbl.org>
> wrote:
>
>>YouTube took over where Napster left off. Number One trafficker of
>>pirated media content on the internet. YouTube cannot get sued out of
>>existence fast enough for me.
>
> Thats weird, I have never seen ANYTHING pirated on Youtube, unless you
> include some video clips from TV programs such as all the Superbowl
> commercials they have had since the game. Most of the time I just

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...ed&btnG=Search
Short Version: http://************/2poeta

Being a purveyor of pirated media content is a lot like being pregnant.
Either you are, or you are not. There is no grey area.

> look for funny home videos, and there are some really funny ones.
> Most of the stuff on there is in .FLV format and I can download them
> and play them offline with a tiny freeware player that I found, and

There is no such thing as free. Macromedia has been pedding their
Flashcrap and sleazy business model since the early 90s. And Adobe and
their /free/ PDF reader are no better. .FLV sucks.

> that player is is less than one meg in size. It works well. Comes
> from flvhosting. That sure beats those horrid .MOV files. I hope I
> can find a way to convert all my old .MOV files to .FLV or to .WMP.
> Either will do.

I agree. .MOV format sucks. But so do .FLV and .WMP. MS, and most of the
browser developers, are in bed with the clowns who peddle these formats.
That means that the second Tuesday of each month, when you visit
Microsoft Updates, Microsoft resets all of your Windows Media Player and
Flashcrap settings. That is why I got rid of both of them.

http://www.macromedia.com/support/do...manager02.html
Short Version: http://************/6fo7r

And the same thing happens every time that you update any of your
browsers. Check your Flash/Media Player settings everytime that you
update your OS and/or any of your internet clients/browsers. Sneaky
*******s.

If a video won't play in MPC, but will play in some proprietary
Adobe/Macromedia, Apple, MS, or Real Networks player, you should ask
yourself why. They don't give this crap away out of the goodness of
their hearts, after all.

As I said, if it won't render in MPC, I don't want it.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/

Media Player Classic -> No Adware, No Spyware, No DRM, No BS. Can you
say the same thing about that POS media player that you use?

Ron