not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
> If the server software, or more likely a CGI program/script that's
> on your site, has a security vulnerability that will allow
> unauthenticated users to make your server do something malicious,
> then that will still be there whether the pages are sent over HTTP
> or HTTPS. All HTTPS will do from a server security perspective is
> make sure that nobody steals passwords for log-in pages which might
> allow access to less-secure parts of your site. If you don't have
> any such log-in pages, then it's not preventing anything.

That’s not true at all. It prevents tampering with the communication as
well as preventing interception.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:05:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> On 18/01/2022 11:01, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> On 17/01/2022 23:48, Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>> As for the "HTTPS everywhere" crowd, I concur that it may be overkill. So
>>>> long as you adequately control remote access, you don't/need/ HTTPS for
>>>> an information-only site.
>>>
>>> Except that many browsers will *no longer connect* to a non https
>>> site. For naive users.
>> Got an example of a such a browser in mind?
>>
> Firefox if 'enable https only' mode is selected.
>
> I have no idea if this is the default. I remember I had to switch it
> off some years back.

I recently installed a fresh Debian distribution and five browsers. With
all (including a vanilla Firefox) I visited my own HTTP-only domain and
all showed it.

I really should have a look at Let's Encrypt though, be it just for a
better search engine ranking.

> Also edge safari and shortly in chrome

Remains to be seen.

> In short the way the walled garden safe space kindergarten kids want
> things these days, that's likely to be a default in a few months

That reminds me on a "retro" video, showing footage from the 70s showing
children playing on these metal pipes and stuff. Not focusing on the
children but concrete floor (instead of sand or soft plastic), rusty and
broken pipes and possible spikes you could slit your arm - and neither
parents nor the city cared to make them safer.

Amazing many of us are still alive. Or how many more of us would there be,
*if* these places were made safer some 50 years ago already.
--
Andreas

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) writes:
>Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2022 23:48:45 -0000 (UTC), Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>
>>>> There are miscreants who like to use other people's internet-connected
>>>> computers for "evil" purposes (anything from spam-bombing to DDoS attacks,
>>>> and more). A system that has not been adequately secured may be compromised
>>>> in one manner or another, to permit (if not root) uncontrolled access.
>>>>
>>>> Even those sites operated by those who "cannot imagine why any third party
>>>> would ever be interested in compromising the site" can be compromised for
>>>> such tasks.
>>>
>>> OK. I am convinced. It is a simple matter, and not all that expensive,
>>> to convert.
>>>
>>> But it will take some time and effort.
>>>
>>> Before too long I will have my web site converted to HTTPS.
>>>
>>> I am an applications programmer and not a network programmer and thus
>>> and I am not aware of all the possibilities for compromise.
>
>> If the server software, or more likely a CGI program/script that's
>> on your site, has a security vulnerability that will allow
>> unauthenticated users to make your server do something malicious,
>> then that will still be there whether the pages are sent over HTTP
>> or HTTPS. All HTTPS will do from a server security perspective is
>> make sure that nobody steals passwords for log-in pages which might
>> allow access to less-secure parts of your site. If you don't have
>> any such log-in pages, then it's not preventing anything.
>
> That?s not true at all. It prevents tampering with the communication as
> well as preventing interception.

As per the quotes that I have reintroduced, Garcia is apparantly in
the process of converting his site to HTTPS in order to reduce the
risk of his server getting hyjacked and used for something like
spam-bombing or DDoS attacks. _This_ is in no way prevented by
switching his site to HTTPS, unless he happens to be connecting to
a web-based admin interface over HTTP. He's already stated that he
doesn't think his site's content warrants measures against
tampering with or intercepting its content, hence I'm only talking
from the server security perspective.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:05:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> In short the way the walled garden safe space kindergarten kids want
> things these days, that's likely to be a default in a few months
>

Well, that's the point. Is it not?

Why should Google, or Mozilla, or any other party dictate the
protocol for web access?

Only W3C or ICANN or other international body should determine
what protocol is mandatory.

Google, in particular, is arrogant to the extreme. They have unilaterally
eliminated MathML rendering in their browser and that action contravenes
all international standards.

Few users, I suppose, care about MathML but it is an extremely efficient
method of displaying math/scientific expressions.

Mozilla is the only browser remaining that supports MathML, and we know
that Mozilla is destined for failure.

The sheeple are responsible for this outrage to digital freedom.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On 20/01/2022 00:46, Diego Garcia wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2022 16:05:00 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>
>> In short the way the walled garden safe space kindergarten kids want
>> things these days, that's likely to be a default in a few months
>>
>
> Well, that's the point. Is it not?
>
> Why should Google, or Mozilla, or any other party dictate the
> protocol for web access?

Because they can.
>
> Only W3C or ICANN or other international body should determine
> what protocol is mandatory.
>
*should*?

"Should" is a word with moral implications - but who, absent of a Deity,
gets to dictate what is right and what is wrong?

> Google, in particular, is arrogant to the extreme. They have unilaterally
> eliminated MathML rendering in their browser and that action contravenes
> all international standards.
>
Tough shit baby.

> Few users, I suppose, care about MathML but it is an extremely efficient
> method of displaying math/scientific expressions.
>
> Mozilla is the only browser remaining that supports MathML, and we know
> that Mozilla is destined for failure.
>
Is it?

> The sheeple are responsible for this outrage to digital freedom.
>
Right on. Another beer?

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 2022-01-18, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> If you are running apache, on linux, its trivial and cost free with
> letsencrypt.

Ditto for nginx.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 Reasons I won't be vaccinated -- https://tinyurl.com/ebty2dx3
Covid vaccines: experimental biology -- https://tinyurl.com/57mncfm5
The fraud of "Climate Change" -- https://RealClimateScience.com
There is no "climate crisis" -- https://climatedepot.com
Don't talk to cops! -- https://DontTalkToCops.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-01-14, Johnny <johnny@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>> Why go to all that trouble when you could just use Waterfox?
>>
>> https://www.waterfox.net/
>>
>> If you use MX Linux, it's in the repository.
>
> Interesting. I left Firefox for Seamonkey as of release 29,
> when they changed the user interface in ways I didn't like.
> To this day, Seamonkey preserves the classic interface:
> a standard menu instead of that dreadful hamburger menu,
> and a tab bar configurable to disappear when you only have
> one tab open (as I usually do).
>
> The web page says, "you can use it with the interface of
> Firefox 27+, 56, and 68" - maybe I could bring it back to
> the classic interface. Looks like it's worth checking out.
>
> Any other Seamonkey users out there?

Yes, but I'm pondering about going over to Firefox (or Waterfox) :-)

More and more websites don't open properly in SM and many SM extensions
don't work anymore, often due to incompatibilities with FF and/or lack
of developer interest. There used to be the modifiedmisc site with FF
extensions ported over but these days I can't find it anymore.

Too bad, I still use SM a lot, also the mail/news program.

On 2022-01-23, Philip Nienhuis <nospam@spamcop.org> wrote:

> Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> Any other Seamonkey users out there?
>
> Yes, but I'm pondering about going over to Firefox (or Waterfox) :-)
>
> More and more websites don't open properly in SM and many SM extensions
> don't work anymore, often due to incompatibilities with FF and/or lack
> of developer interest. There used to be the modifiedmisc site with FF
> extensions ported over but these days I can't find it anymore.
>
> Too bad, I still use SM a lot, also the mail/news program.

My main problem is with JavaScript. I'm running NoScript, but
more and more I have to select "Temporarily allow all this site".
It appears that JavaScript is now so ubiquitous that it's almost
mandatory to give it free rein.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is a dictatorship.
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | Apple is a cult.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Linux is anarchy.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | Pick your poison.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 02:46:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> It appears that JavaScript is now so ubiquitous that it's almost
> mandatory to give it free rein.
>

Nope.

Any site that depends on javascript is simply not worth visiting.

I access the degenerate web using the graphical "links" browser,
"links -g," which ignores both javascript and CSS. Most web sites are
viewable in graphical links but the ones that are not viewable
are simply not worth the time and effort.

The link to the graphical "links" browser:

http://links.twibright.com/

Of course, my reason for accessing the web may be entirely
different than yours. You may wish to indulge in a bit of the
decadence, but I do not. Hence I use graphical "links."

HTML, CSS, and javascript are the most odious developments
of programming. The web was flawed from the very beginning
but instead of an immediate scrapping the world chose to shoehorn
idiotic solutions, i.e. CSS and javascript.

Many fine web sites now distribute their information via PDF
downloads rather than have to accommodate that CSS/javascript
morass.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On 24/01/2022 22:35, Diego Garcia wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 02:46:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>
>> It appears that JavaScript is now so ubiquitous that it's almost
>> mandatory to give it free rein.
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> Any site that depends on javascript is simply not worth visiting.

Absolute rubbish.

There are many engineering sites that allow you to enter data and have
results presented on the fly. Can't do that without JavaScript.

That's just one example.

Almost any site that presents an interactive face to the user will need
to use JavaScript - at least in ajax form - in order not to waste time
reloading.

Drop down menus rely on javascript.

--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
> There are many engineering sites that allow you to enter data and have
> results presented on the fly. Can't do that without JavaScript.
>
> That's just one example.
>
> Almost any site that presents an interactive face to the user will
> need to use JavaScript - at least in ajax form - in order not to
> waste time reloading.
>
> Drop down menus rely on javascript.

You can use the :hover selector to do dropdowns with no JS.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 25/01/2022 13:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> There are many engineering sites that allow you to enter data and have
>> results presented on the fly. Can't do that without JavaScript.
>>
>> That's just one example.
>>
>> Almost any site that presents an interactive face to the user will
>> need to use JavaScript - at least in ajax form - in order not to
>> waste time reloading.
>>
>> Drop down menus rely on javascript.
>
> You can use the :hover selector to do dropdowns with no JS.
>
I thought that *was* technically Javascript?

How do you hide/show an element without using javascript to set the DOM
property?

Oh. Set the hover: CSS property to 'block' and so on?

--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 25/01/2022 13:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> There are many engineering sites that allow you to enter data and have
>>> results presented on the fly. Can't do that without JavaScript.
>>>
>>> That's just one example.
>>>
>>> Almost any site that presents an interactive face to the user will
>>> need to use JavaScript - at least in ajax form - in order not to
>>> waste time reloading.
>>>
>>> Drop down menus rely on javascript.
>> You can use the :hover selector to do dropdowns with no JS.
>
> I thought that *was* technically Javascript?

It’s CSS.

> How do you hide/show an element without using javascript to set the
> DOM property?
>
> Oh. Set the hover: CSS property to 'block' and so on?

There’s an example in https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/sel_hover.asp

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

On 25/01/2022 14:02, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 25/01/2022 13:26, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>>> The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>>> There are many engineering sites that allow you to enter data and have
>>>> results presented on the fly. Can't do that without JavaScript.
>>>>
>>>> That's just one example.
>>>>
>>>> Almost any site that presents an interactive face to the user will
>>>> need to use JavaScript - at least in ajax form - in order not to
>>>> waste time reloading.
>>>>
>>>> Drop down menus rely on javascript.
>>> You can use the :hover selector to do dropdowns with no JS.
>>
>> I thought that *was* technically Javascript?
>
> It’s CSS.
>
>> How do you hide/show an element without using javascript to set the
>> DOM property?
>>
>> Oh. Set the hover: CSS property to 'block' and so on?
>
> There’s an example in https://www.w3schools.com/cssref/sel_hover.asp
>
Yes. Since the sites I design these days are very complex I tend too
start off assuming javaScript will be necessary anyway, and use it
instead of Css 'active' html

--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2022 02:46:59 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> It appears that JavaScript is now so ubiquitous that it's almost
>> mandatory to give it free rein.
>
> Nope.
>
> Any site that depends on javascript is simply not worth visiting.
>
> I access the degenerate web using the graphical "links" browser,
> "links -g," which ignores both javascript and CSS. Most web sites are
> viewable in graphical links but the ones that are not viewable
> are simply not worth the time and effort.

That's my approach, except using Dillo, for viewing informational
websites. Unfortunately it often falls apart as soon as I try to
research a physical product that I want to buy because I'm then at
the mercy of the manufacturer and their specific website, which is
often full of Javascript. Then if I want to actually order it then
no doubt I'll need JS for PayPal or a third party Credit Card
processor.

Then there are all the Australian government websites that are full
of flashy JS with the added annoyance that it breaks half of the
time and throws up meaningless error messages while you're trying
to fulfil your obligations.

If you actually get by without a Firefox or Chrome based browser
installed at all, then I admire your resolve.

> Many fine web sites now distribute their information via PDF
> downloads rather than have to accommodate that CSS/javascript
> morass.

I like DjVu better. I'm never happy.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:24:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

>
> There are many engineering sites that allow you to enter data and have
> results presented on the fly. Can't do that without JavaScript.
>

Yes it can. The fact that you say it can't indicates that you do not
understand.

Anything that javascript can accomplish can be accomplished
on the server -- but that is NOT the point.

Javascript can certainly be useful and can alleviate the burden on
the server, but for the purposes for which it is commonly employed
it is garbage.

For performing local (i.e. within the browser) javascipt may be preferable,
but that if far from its common purpose and I was addressing only its
common, commercial purpose.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 21:40:20 -0000 (UTC), Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

>
> That's my approach, except using Dillo, for viewing informational
> websites.
>

Dillo is another excellent choice, except that it cannot handle SSL
very well -- and evil Google, the self-proclaimed web authority, now
mandates that all web sites must be SSL.

>
> the mercy of the manufacturer and their specific website, which is
> often full of Javascript. Then if I want to actually order it then
> no doubt I'll need JS for PayPal or a third party Credit Card
> processor.
>

I have been paid ($$$) to write simple e-commerce web sites.
Javascript is NOT required. But business owners are often at
the mercy of developers who in turn are at the mercy of fashion
and the fashion is javascript.

A browser is nothing more than a GUI interface that is wrapped
around a rendering engine. Thus, there can, and should, be many,
many alternative browsers without all the junk.

A case in point was (unfortunately past tense) the Skipstone
browser:

http://www.muhri.net/skipstone/

Skipstone wrapped an early versionof the Moziila Gecko engine
with a very simple, no-frills interface.

Sadly, however, Skipstone is no longer compatible with recent
versions of Gecko.

But the concept remains valid . Someone needs to emulate Skipstone
with the recent HTML engines.

>
> I like DjVu better. I'm never happy.
>

That's also a possibility. Some web sites distribute PostScript.
One must be prepared for anything and everything, and GNU/Linux
is the best way to do that.

In my view, the web should be just a bulletin board with links
(URLs) to content in ODT, ODS, PostScript, DJVU, PDF, etc.

HTML/CSS/Javascript is just a useless intermediary.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On 25/01/2022 23:33, Diego Garcia wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 11:24:06 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>
>> There are many engineering sites that allow you to enter data and have
>> results presented on the fly. Can't do that without JavaScript.
>>
>
> Yes it can. The fact that you say it can't indicates that you do not
> understand.
>
> Anything that javascript can accomplish can be accomplished
> on the server -- but that is NOT the point.

But not without a page reload, network overhead and the rest.
>
> Javascript can certainly be useful and can alleviate the burden on
> the server, but for the purposes for which it is commonly employed
> it is garbage.
>
Wont argue with the dislike of the trend to build everything in a
JavaScript frameworks *for the sake of it*.

> For performing local (i.e. within the browser) javascipt may be preferable,
> but that if far from its common purpose and I was addressing only its
> common, commercial purpose.
>
I think there is no 'common commercial purpose'

It's used for all sorts of things.

--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 21:40:20 -0000 (UTC), Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>
>> That's my approach, except using Dillo, for viewing informational
>> websites.
>>
> Dillo is another excellent choice, except that it cannot handle SSL
> very well -- and evil Google, the self-proclaimed web authority, now
> mandates that all web sites must be SSL.

There are patches for the v. 3.1 development release which help.
Unfortunately 3.1 has some rendering bugs which turn me off so I
do just tend to use a HTTP - HTTPS proxy a lot with 3.0. There are
lots of forks on GitHub but as usual on GitHub the authors don't
bother summarising what their intentions and changes are so it's
hard to choose between them, or even to find the "real" forks
amongst all the non-forks (nothing changed) that GitHub always
seems to list. I'll have to dedicate a day to researching and
experimenting with them one day, but I'm about fed up with
researching and experimenting with web browsers after years of
similar stuff.

>> the mercy of the manufacturer and their specific website, which is
>> often full of Javascript. Then if I want to actually order it then
>> no doubt I'll need JS for PayPal or a third party Credit Card
>> processor.
>
> I have been paid ($$$) to write simple e-commerce web sites.
> Javascript is NOT required. But business owners are often at
> the mercy of developers who in turn are at the mercy of fashion
> and the fashion is javascript.

True, though if they wish to use PayPal or many CC processors it
is required at that stage because the payment processor designs
their own interface. Granted I do buy things from a few small
businesses by browsing their websites in Dillo and then placing
an order by email or phone.

> A browser is nothing more than a GUI interface that is wrapped
> around a rendering engine. Thus, there can, and should, be many,
> many alternative browsers without all the junk.
>
> A case in point was (unfortunately past tense) the Skipstone
> browser:
>
> http://www.muhri.net/skipstone/
>
> Skipstone wrapped an early versionof the Moziila Gecko engine
> with a very simple, no-frills interface.

I'm of the opinion that to achieve similar performance to Dillo
and Links, you need to deal with the efficiency of the rendering
engine itself, so simply wrapping the engine in a different skin
doesn't cut it. The problem with that is the modern web is only
designed for the Chrome and (with luck) Firefox rendering engines.
So I'm just resigned to using Firefox for things that don't work in
Dillo because looking for slight improvements around the UI side of
things is only a minimal gain.

I did mess about with Fifth browser a few years ago (last updated
in 2016, which wasn't so long ago then). It was a FLTK-based
wrapper for Chrome's WebKit engine, and the experience helped me
form the above opinion. I'm not comfortable about relying on
Google's code anyway, mind you.

--
__ __
#_ < |\| |< _#

On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 21:19:10 -0000 (UTC), Computer Nerd Kev wrote:

>> Dillo ... There are
> lots of forks on GitHub but as usual on GitHub the authors don't
> bother summarising what their intentions and changes
>

I am surprised that anyone is interested in forking Dillo at all.

Dillo has no chance of surviving amid the commercially
controlled development of browsers and of the web itself.

>
> The problem with that is the modern web is only
> designed for the Chrome and (with luck) Firefox rendering engines.
>

So I have observed.

Whatever happened to international standards?

Companies, including essential companies like banks, hire
developers to develop only for the latest Google Chrome.
It is a disgusting practice but there is no way to stop it.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
numbers.

Things have gotten so bad that there exist several projects
for alternative global networks.

Unfortunately, ATM I can't recall the name of these projects,
but again, I have serious doubts that any of these projects
will gain a significant following.

--
Scratch your technical itch:
https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/

On 2022-01-26, Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 21:19:10 -0000 (UTC), Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>
>> The problem with that is the modern web is only designed
>> for the Chrome and (with luck) Firefox rendering engines.
>
> So I have observed.
>
> Whatever happened to international standards?
>
> Companies, including essential companies like banks, hire
> developers to develop only for the latest Google Chrome.
> It is a disgusting practice but there is no way to stop it.
>
> Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
> numbers.

Ignorance is bliss - if you're exploiting the ignorant.
The people carrying out this plot, on the other hand,
are anything but stupid.

Never underestimate your enemy.

> Things have gotten so bad that there exist several projects
> for alternative global networks.
>
> Unfortunately, ATM I can't recall the name of these projects,
> but again, I have serious doubts that any of these projects
> will gain a significant following.

The sheeple are happy, even as they're being fleeced.
It's up to us to maintain pockets of freedom wherever we can.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Microsoft is not
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | a necessary evil.
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | Microsoft is not necessary.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Ted Nelson (paraphrased)

On 1/26/22 16:42, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2022-01-26, Diego Garcia <dg@chaos.info> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 21:19:10 -0000 (UTC), Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with that is the modern web is only designed
>>> for the Chrome and (with luck) Firefox rendering engines.
>>
>> So I have observed.
>>
>> Whatever happened to international standards?
>>
>> Companies, including essential companies like banks, hire
>> developers to develop only for the latest Google Chrome.
>> It is a disgusting practice but there is no way to stop it.
>>
>> Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
>> numbers.
>
> Ignorance is bliss - if you're exploiting the ignorant.
> The people carrying out this plot, on the other hand,
> are anything but stupid.
>
> Never underestimate your enemy.
>
>> Things have gotten so bad that there exist several projects
>> for alternative global networks.
>>
>> Unfortunately, ATM I can't recall the name of these projects,
>> but again, I have serious doubts that any of these projects
>> will gain a significant following.
>
> The sheeple are happy, even as they're being fleeced.
> It's up to us to maintain pockets of freedom wherever we can.
>
Bliss's ignorance is pain she feels acutely. But so far my
bank's web site is still compatible with Firefox. I would no sooner
defect to Chrome than I would shut off my computer travel to the nearest
bank to pay bills and reconcile my accounts.

bliss - brought to you by the power and ease of PCLinuxOS
and a minor case of hypergraphia

--
bliss dash SF 4 ever at dslextreme dot com