Opera, opera... I've heard of that. It's one of those browsers that people without Windows and people with Windows grasping desperately for anything to rebel against like to use. I don't really know much about it. I think I read once (never a good sign) that it doesn't have image support, or something. Internet without images. Come on. So what's that prove? Is that supposed to be like a hunger strike, or what? I could easily find out if I'm just plain incorrect, I'm sure, but I'd rather not, because the more I know about something, the less valid my comments are. Have you any idea how many professional cartoonists would miss their deadlines if they actually used the internet once in a while, and realized that the week of strips they'd just made about it were completely non-poignant and inaccurate? None, because they still get paid whatever happens. So maybe it does have image support. In fact, I know it does. You want me to go back and delete all that? No, you want me to delete the whole thing, and I'm not going to, so you say nothing. But imageless internet... You might as well have trees without leaves. And I bet you would, too. I'm sure that would fit in very well with the ideals for the everlasting-winter-world-of-misery-goth-planet you wish you lived on. You make me sick. Er. |
I bring this whole browser issue to issue because I link to a lot of text files as if they were html files. I use text files because the tripod ad-code is just so obnoxious, and doing this stops it from being displayed. It started out innocently enough, rightchere, but I guess I got greedy. One big image is all fine and well, but this one displays not only a standard 486x60 monstrosity, but also four smaller images, which makes for painful loading times. If I just had words, this wouldn't be so bad. But I don't write that well, so I need to rely on pictures. Lots of pictures. You don't even need to read the words. You can just look at the pictures and read the captions to get a vague but adequate idea of what's going on. It's just like one of those Rupert books, complete with scary animal-head people. It's so similar, I don't even have a proper joke for that reference, which is just as well, because I don't know anyone else who's heard of Rupert.
So the advertising is obnoxious. Certainly, having my image up there as well doesn't help matters much, but the nothing critical of our advertisers, please plea in their web-shell was too pitiful to ignore. They aren't even pretending they could do something to stop it. They know as well as I do that even in the event of it being seen by anyone paid to care, they simply wouldn't. And with that in mind, I realized I'd do just as well to bypass the advertising altogether, which is what happens, that is, for Internet Explorer users. Netscape users just see plain text, as I found out last week. I know Netscape isn't Opera. I think the fact that I refer to them by different names establishes that. For the purposes of this page, it's easiest if I just assume everything I don't use operates the same way, like there's some kind of anti-establishment established protocol they're all programmed under. And it makes perfect sense for them to behave that way. IE didn't get it's reputation as the most exploitable browser by making sense, you know. It doesn't even make you type in file:/// when you want to look at local files! Microsoft is so lazy.
I tried using different extensions, I really did, but those would either get a page with an ad, or more fascinatingly an ad without a page, in Netscape. It's like AOL got mad that I wouldn't subscribe to them and Compuserve (seriously, they tried to make that sound like a good idea at one point) and specifically redesigned new Netscapes to do naught but annoy me. They even implemented some feature which lets multiple webpages be open in the same window, so that it operates more like the AOL/Compuserve browser, which goes against every reason I'm using a second browser in the first place. So now instead of clicking buttons on the taskbar to switch windows, I click a tab in the Netscape window. Precisely the same, except now I have less space and I have to learn a new hotkey to do it quickly.GENIUS.
They really should have stopped with 4.3, and let people speak of the legend that was. The ruined any chance of aquiring legendary status when they released version 6.0 (the ever-present mathematically superfluous .0 would be a great deal more bearable it didn't insist on being pronounced point-oh). If not for that, we could say stuff like man, I wish they still made netscape. I feel so corporately tainted now. We can say that, of course, but not without hearing in reply they do still make Netscape, and it's only kind of good. And corporate. I don't know if it's because of IE's barely-legal (I should put a saturn on this page, just to see if that ever turns up in my search engine referrals) integration into windows that it's superior, or because the mozilla.org toilers decided that the internet just didn't look enough like winamp. I once foolishly wondered hey, whatever happened to Netscape 5? I found a program purported to be the equivalent, and soon came to understand that the 5 just meant how many minutes I'd need to wait before it would do anything. And I mean real minutes, not those hour battle in 35 minutes Iron Chef kind of minutes. Had my system the resources necessary to update the clock while the thing was loading, I'm certain I would be certain of the figure I gave you. That was over a year ago, and I think I have, maybe, a gigahert processor now (which I was only able to afford through some particularly wicked deal which requires me to use, yes, Compuserve until 2005), but any and all programs with skin support still supremely retard it, not just unfinished betas that aren't meant to be used by anybody.
Skins aren't new, by the way. They've been around for a few years. They're one of those features that predated machines which could use them, so not everyone realizes just how long they've been around. Back then, there was a great worry that the new 56 kbps dial-up connections were just too fast, and that there ought to be browser plug-ins, or even better, browsers themselves that speed-impede, regardless of modem capability. Netscape really hit on something with their Smartdownload device, which would automatically download to an undisclosed location, which was not allowed to be changed, wherever it was. But this could be disabled too easily. Skins, however, are active from the start. Even if you find a way to turn them off, you've still been exposed to them, likely in multiple windows, as you desperately click in the vicinity of anything labeled options, preferences, and settings, in the hopes that your invisible mouse cursor might reappear upon it during one of the brief moments commands are being accepted.
So is there a point to all this? No. I'm going to keep trying to cheat the advertising, and alienating Netscape users. Ha ha, and I bet you read all that, too.