Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] suppression of graphics in Netscape

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

I like the fact that Mozilla lets you click an ad and tell it to block
images from that site. So you may see the ads once but over time you
gradually just hide all the bastards. I'd still like to see something like
DOM transformations (XSLT?) that'd allow you to change the web pages you
were sucking in even as far as rewriting IMG links to add sites as any
clip of HTML you wanted.. or non at all.. on a per site and per page
basis. That'd rock. They said they shouldn't do that cus it'd hurt ad
banner revenue which would make web sites start charging but I think ad
banners don't work well anyway so it'd just make the web prettier. :)

*^*^*^*
Have the courage to take your own thoughts seriously, for they will shape
you. -- Albert Einstein

On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Igor Izyumin Jr. wrote:

> > A couple of years ago, I was running Netscape over a slow connection.  To
> > speed things up a little, I selected an option that suppressed the
> > transmission of graphics.  I was able to click on individual graphics and
> > see them, if I wanted to see them.  That definitely happened.
> By the way, there's a really neat piece of software called adzapper.  It 
> blocks banners, replacing them with transparent gifs.  It runs as an HTTP 
> proxy, and has a web-based interface.  I use it all the time, partially 
> because ads are incredibly annoying, and partially because the servers are 
> usually very slow.  http://www.zaplet.org
> -- 
> -- Igor
> --
> To manage your subscription, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php
> 
> Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/
> 

--
To manage your subscription, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/