Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
RE: Communication
5/31/2016 2:50:26 AM
Not CERTAIN which ADMIN this is; however, thanks for fixing the 'jacked up' affiliate paid keyword BANNER ~~~ unconstipating my associate site ...

My 1st HUSBAND taught me how to play chess, I had just celebrated my 19th birthday,

the one thing I will NEVER FORGET during the training

"Never INSULT any Intelligence ~~ Not EVEN a ROACH"

I wanted to know why not the 'roach'
he said
... if you fall down and can not get up for days, you better hope a
roach crawls close enough to your lips for an opportunity
to 'consume hydration and protein'





Quote:
You should not blame anybody for actions which you have made yourself.
There is no ability for any admin to disable other members from contacting you.
You have blocked 5 other people including Patricia, which we have now cleared so you can interact with all of them.

Instead of making false accusations in the future, you should contact administration of this site to clear any of the misunderstandings or problems you might have.





Quote:
I BLAME a 'certain cut-off admin' ... whom, I will not NAME ~~~ My system can not be HACKED ... may as well stop wasting Your TIME!



Quote:
Speaking about communication, i can't respond to your Adland notes you've sent to my inbox Jan. You need to correct this if you want me to reply.



Pat
+2
RE: Communication
5/31/2016 2:53:02 AM
Copying and parking in same post, just in case it's the 'petty editor'
Guessing this is "Jim" ... he is BANNED from my Forums & BLOCKED
from sending me nasty community msgs .....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Quote:
You should not blame anybody for actions which you have made yourself.
There is no ability for any admin to disable other members from contacting you.
You have blocked 5 other people including Patricia, which we have now cleared so you can interact with all of them.

Instead of making false accusations in the future, you should contact administration of this site to clear any of the misunderstandings or problems you might have.





Quote:
I BLAME a 'certain cut-off admin' ... whom, I will not NAME ~~~ My system can not be HACKED ... may as well stop wasting Your TIME!



Quote:
Speaking about communication, i can't respond to your Adland notes you've sent to my inbox Jan. You need to correct this if you want me to reply.



Pat


Quote:
Not CERTAIN which ADMIN this is; however, thanks for fixing the 'jacked up' affiliate paid keyword BANNER ~~~ unconstipating my associate site ...

My 1st HUSBAND taught me how to play chess, I had just celebrated my 19th birthday,

the one thing I will NEVER FORGET during the training

"Never INSULT any Intelligence ~~ Not EVEN a ROACH"

I wanted to know why not the 'roach'
he said
... if you fall down and can not get up for days, you better hope a
roach crawls close enough to your lips for an opportunity
to 'consume hydration and protein'





Quote:
You should not blame anybody for actions which you have made yourself.
There is no ability for any admin to disable other members from contacting you.
You have blocked 5 other people including Patricia, which we have now cleared so you can interact with all of them.

Instead of making false accusations in the future, you should contact administration of this site to clear any of the misunderstandings or problems you might have.





Quote:
I BLAME a 'certain cut-off admin' ... whom, I will not NAME ~~~ My system can not be HACKED ... may as well stop wasting Your TIME!



Quote:
Speaking about communication, i can't respond to your Adland notes you've sent to my inbox Jan. You need to correct this if you want me to reply.



Pat
+0
RE: Communication
5/31/2016 4:01:28 AM
[Cookie Monster
Cookie Monster

The Cookie Monster from The Muppets. Many websites do not yet appreciate what the new rules on cookie consent require. Photograph: Ben Hider/Getty Images


Feeling bored and listless? Well, try this. In Firefox, open "preferences", click on the "privacy tab" and then click on the link that says "remove individual cookies". Up will pop a dialogue box labelled "cookies", which tells you that "the following cookies are stored in your computer". If you're an intensive user of the web, it will be a very long, scrolling list. On my laptop, for example, Amazon has deposited 29 cookies, YouTube nine and Google a whopping 53. (For instructions for how to inspect cookies in other browsers, see the NetLingo site.)

Cookies are small text files, typically of letters and numbers, downloaded on to a computer when its user accesses a website. The first thing to say about them is that they do not make for bedside reading. For example, one of my Amazon cookies begins with the phrase "%20s_dl%3D1%7C131818459" and goes on like that for four and a half lines. To Amazon's web server, however, this gibberish is riveting stuff because it provides useful information about how I use the site. Maybe it reveal details of my browsing history. Or provides information about what I bought recently. The point is that I can't tell how the cookie crumbles: that's something that only Amazon knows.

The idea that websites secretly deposit files on your computer – without your consent – will strike some people as creepy, and indeed in some ways it is. But it does have some positive benefits. For example, it makes the web more useable by enabling sites to bypass a lot of procedural stuff that would slow things up. Thus a cookie is what enables a site to recognise returning visitors so that they don't have to log in every time they show up. And in some cases cookies are essential – for example in online retail sites, as shoppers accumulate items in a shopping basket on their way to a virtual checkout.

So cookies are an important, and in some cases vital, component of web technology. But like any technology, they can be – and increasingly are – abused. For example, advertisers and websites use cookies to build detailed profiles of users and their browsing habits. Some time ago I went to the website of a leading British retail chain looking for information about digital cameras, and for ages afterwards ads from that chain kept popping up on other – unrelated – sites that I visited. This was almost certainly accomplished using cookies.

This kind of "tracking" behaviour eventually attracted the baleful attention of the EU, which since 2003 has required anyone using cookies to provide clear information about them. In May this year these rules were dramatically tightened: now, anyone depositing cookies is required not just to provide clear information about them but also to obtain consent from users to store a cookie on their device. The only exceptions are cases where cookies are essential for the provision of a service (as in an online shopping basket). So since May, anyone setting a cookie without obtaining the explicit consent of the user is technically breaking the law.

Needless to say, this intrusion of EU red tape into Britons' ancient right to do as they damn well please generated much heated commentary. The jackbooted thugs of Brussels were, we were told, going to "kill the internet". But the law is the law and, alarmed by the lack of preparedness of British industry, the government negotiated a year-long "lead-in period" to give businesses time to adapt to the new reality.

We're now midway through that period, and the information commissioner – the guy who will have to enforce the new rules – has just issued a half-term report on how things are going. His verdict, he writes, "can be summed up by the schoolteacher's favourite clichés: 'could do better' and 'must try harder'. A report that listed the URLs of sites that were perfectly compliant from day one would be very short indeed. This is not a surprise to anyone who recognises that redeveloping and redesigning is no easy task."

That's putting it mildly. A random survey of some prominent websites by this columnist suggests that their owners haven't yet appreciated what the new rules require. Mostly they bury information about cookies in a link labelled "privacy policy" in small type at the bottom of their home pages. The link explains that the company deposits cookies before going on to say that if the user declines said cookies, the company "cannot guarantee that your experience with the site will be as quick or responsive as if you do receive cookies". If this is what British companies regard as seeking the informed consent of users, then they have a nasty shock coming. And the information commissioner is going to be busy from next June onwards.


URL

+0
RE: Communication
5/31/2016 4:08:41 AM
Even ancient rural dial-up shouldn’t be this sluggish

Q: I have an HP Pavilion a600y with 1.5 gigabytes of memory running Windows XP Home at my mountain cabin. Unfortunately I only have 28 Kbps dial-up phone service available. The slow modem is annoying enough, but something has been happening lately to slow the computer to an intolerable level — especially when I’m trying to access a content-heavy site such as The Seattle Times!

Norton Internet Security is installed and up to date and informs me that I have only low-threat cookies appearing, which I promptly remove along with temporary Internet files, using Internet Options. Internet Security is set at medium-high. Task Manager doesn’t reveal any suspicious applications or processes (that I can identify).

The one clue that I have is that MSN Connection Center shows a steady transfer of data at a clip of about 2K per second, even when I’m idly reading a page. I’ve turned off anything that looks extraneous in the Startup folder and temporarily turned off Windows Update and Norton Live Update to see whether that addresses the problem. It doesn’t — the data just continues to transfer. I left the computer online overnight and found the next morning that 120 MB had transferred with only my nonchanging home page running.

What more can I do to understand this persistent background-data transfer that I suspect is the root cause of the slowness? Again, the 28K dial-up service has always been naturally but not intolerably slow. This problem has become much more pronounced in recent weeks.

Dave Reynolds, Redmond

A: I’m old enough to remember when 28Kbps seemed kind of fast. When I worked at the Oakland Tribune in the early 1980s, we sent stories via modem at 300 baud. Way slower.

Your slow performance may result from more than one thing. First, Web sites are being designed for higher-speed connections. So a site that may have performed OK at 28Kbps a couple of years ago may be dragging now because it’s trying to display a lot more bandwidth-chewing data.

Next, it’s always possible you have a virus not detected by your anti-virus program. That may account for slower Internet performance.

I’m not surprised, by the way, that you’re showing a data transfer rate of 2K per second even when you’re not downloading something. Web pages, anti-virus programs and other applications’ automatic-update features are often calling out to servers. Still, 120 megabytes of data transferred overnight is pretty high — unless there was a major automatic program update that took place.

I’ll assume that you’re using a firewall. It’s important to know that anti-virus programs protect only against viruses, not against hackers accessing your computer over the Internet. If you’re not using a firewall, you should install one.

You’ve already done most of the things I would recommend. Users with similar problems should be running up-to-date anti-virus software and should check Task Manager to see if any suspicious processes are running, though it can be difficult to tell what processes are suspicious, especially for inexperienced computer users.

The most likely cause of the problem, however, is an application that you may not be aware is using the Internet.

You’ve already determined that it isn’t your anti-virus program or Windows Update. But many other applications may be automatically accessing the Internet.

There are two ways to determine this. First, you can use a network sniffer program to see what traffic is actually moving between your computer and the Internet.


Some basic sniffer programs are available free on the Internet — and they show more information than Windows Task Manager — but they also require a good deal of expertise to use.

Second, you can use the trial-and-error method. That would require you to disable all applications loaded in the Startup folder and add them in one by one, noting the effect on your Internet performance as you go.

Finally — and this is the single most common cause of degraded dial-up Internet connection performance — it may be a problem with your phone line.



+0
RE: Communication
5/31/2016 12:21:49 PM
Woo Hoo Patricia ~ just HIT Talk SUSPENSION Lottery



jim Internet Troll just will NOT refrain from "abusing the button"

I still do not think it is FAIR for ADMINs to compete with Community Members

Thank GLORY he's not running for President of the United States of America, too



Am WONDERING Why my suspension does not look like yours
with the ADMIN post?????????????????????????????????????

That ADMIN post in my forum stated an 'unTruth' ~~~ I did not change community msg status for "Patricia"

I have ONLY BANNED one individual, since returning to networking here almost a year ago; and that was jim "dot dot dot"

Quote:
Speaking about communication, i can't respond to your Adland notes you've sent to my inbox Jan. You need to correct this if you want me to reply.



Pat
+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!