Lynx

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:

> and Ghostery allows trackers to be blocked.

Although I understand Ghostery is itself suspected of being spyware so
switched to Disconnect. Anyways, both also protect from the recently
mentioned tracking-without-cookies via canvas fingerprinting evilness.

On 2014-08-14, alb <al.basili@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi boB,
>
> In sci.electronics.design boB wrote:
> []
>> I sometimes use lynx  in a shell by calling up  "lynx ."  to browse
>> through files and directories.
>
> hey that rocks! and opening up file is much faster, you simply select it and 
> hit 'return'. I wonder which default application it is using... jee I should 
> stop reading and start working today!

"see" (aka run-mailcap)

-- 
umop apisdn


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

In article <lsjn64$1ce$2@speranza.aioe.org>, Don Y  <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
}Hi Charles,
}
}On 8/14/2014 5:54 PM, Charles Bryant wrote:
}> In article<lsduhe$s0t$2@speranza.aioe.org>, Don Y<this@is.not.me.com>  wrote:
}> ... web browsing ...
}> }(I still wish I had a button to disable images/graphics/animations
}> }on demand!)
}>
}> Then I suggest you try Opera.
}>
}> I (capital i) toggles the display of images.
}>
}> G toggles use of style (very useful for those pages which have dark
}> writing on a black background, or yellow text on white).
}>
}> F12 brings up a menu on which you can toggle animated images (E),
}> Javascript (a), and cookies (c), and others, as well as a dialog (d)
}> which allows you to save per-site preferences for some of these.
}
}Does it inhibit their *download*, as well?  I.e., if you can prevent
}them from being "fetched" by the browser, often the pages can
}display at lightning speed!

Yes. To see an individual image, right click on the space reserved for
it and select "reload image". Images which were previously downloaded
(e.g. cached from other pages or previous visits) are displayed.
Download of things like style and javascript can only be avoided if
they're separate files - on many pages they're inline in the HTML, so
no browser can avoid the bandwidth to fetch them.

Hi Charles,

On 8/16/2014 1:21 PM, Charles Bryant wrote:
> In article<lsjn64$1ce$2@speranza.aioe.org>, Don Y<this@is.not.me.com>  wrote:

> }>  ... web browsing ...
> }>  }(I still wish I had a button to disable images/graphics/animations
> }>  }on demand!)
> }>
> }>  Then I suggest you try Opera.
> }>
> }>  I (capital i) toggles the display of images.
> }>
> }>  G toggles use of style (very useful for those pages which have dark
> }>  writing on a black background, or yellow text on white).
> }>
> }>  F12 brings up a menu on which you can toggle animated images (E),
> }>  Javascript (a), and cookies (c), and others, as well as a dialog (d)
> }>  which allows you to save per-site preferences for some of these.
> }
> }Does it inhibit their *download*, as well?  I.e., if you can prevent
> }them from being "fetched" by the browser, often the pages can
> }display at lightning speed!
>
> Yes. To see an individual image, right click on the space reserved for
> it and select "reload image". Images which were previously downloaded
> (e.g. cached from other pages or previous visits) are displayed.

OK.  That's similar to what Netscape (?) did years ago.  I.e., the
only cost/inconvenience I bore was for those images that I decided I
*wanted* to see (and, I had to expressly indicate that).

> Download of things like style and javascript can only be avoided if
> they're separate files - on many pages they're inline in the HTML, so
> no browser can avoid the bandwidth to fetch them.

Understood.

I'll look into installing Opera when I rebuild/replace this machine
(I keep waiting/hoping for it to die so I will be forced to undertake
that effort.  But, of course, a watched pot never boils...)

"josephkk"  wrote in message 
news:lamou9l9te5v7d5g5au6irp26l7d3lbmhh@4ax.com...

On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 19:55:43 +0200, Piergiorgio Sartor
<piergiorgio.sartor.this.should.not.be.used@nexgo.REMOVETHIS.de> wrote:

>On 2014-08-13 16:32, alb wrote:
>[...]
>>> Because real programmers don't use Pascal... :-)
>>
>> And why would that be so?
>>
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Programmers_Don%27t_Use_Pascal
>
>:-)
>
>bye,

Piker.  BTDT.  Then i got smarter and learned more directly powerful
languages that saved me typing time.  ByBy machine code.  I still find toy
languages disgusting.  Pascal used to be such, then wiser heads took over.
Tough toenails.

?-)


http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/bwk-on-pascal.html