disable copy paste

[oldwetdog]

in post <oldwetdog said:




very. over two years old, its ancient.

2? (yr saying 2, as in two?) being ancient? dude <roflol> i passed 60 at
a hard run! I chased a bus four blocks wearing combat boots with my
girlfriend on my back and caught that sob! Ancient? (O.K., I was kidding
about my girlfriend) (not that I'm defending MS, [death to MS], i'm not,
i just choke on "2" being ancient.) LOL

BTW, where do you have your balls posted?

 

[brucie]

in post <oldwetdog said:

2? (yr saying 2, as in two?) being ancient?

in internet time 2 years is a very long time. the oldest of the other
"big three" is a little less than 6 months old (NS7.1) and is already
out of date.

dude <roflol> i passed 60 at a hard run!

old people smell funny

BTW, where do you have your balls posted?

http://balls.bruciesusenetshit.info/

 

[Nico Schuyt]

oldwetdog may have written:

Unlikely. Turning off JavaScript may help (or at least some
people believe it does) if:

<list of reasons why people disable js>

Sounds reasonable, but it hardly explains the huge number of 40-60 million
people that has js disabled.
Especially when you realise that is easier to do something else to get
around the problems like using Google to block pop-ups, use a firewall or
apply other techniques to deal with blocking right mouse.
If someone's smart enough to find out how to disable js he probably knows
solutions to deal with the disadvantages.
Maybe it isn't an action of individuals but some huge companies with
paranoid network administrators.

Nico

 

[Blinky the Shark]

brucie wrote:

2? (yr saying 2, as in two?) being ancient? dude <roflol> i passed 60 at
a hard run! I chased a bus four blocks wearing combat boots with my
girlfriend on my back and caught that sob! Ancient? (O.K., I was kidding
about my girlfriend) (not that I'm defending MS, [death to MS], i'm not,
i just choke on "2" being ancient.) LOL

Context is everything. Has the human body been evolving as fast as the
Internet?

 

[brucie]

<list of reasons why people disable js>
Sounds reasonable, but it hardly explains the huge number of 40-60 million
people that has js disabled.

more like 60-100 million if you accept 10%-15% have it off (based on
2002 internet population)

Especially when you realise that is easier to do something else to get
around the problems like using Google to block pop-ups, use a firewall or
apply other techniques to deal with blocking right mouse.

its just easier to turn it off completely than stuff around with
filters. having JS off doesn't have any impact on my surfing, gazillions
of sites don't require it. the only effect my having JS off has is for
the owners of sites that do require it and i don't give a shit what they
may or may not want.

Maybe it isn't an action of individuals but some huge companies with
paranoid network administrators.

security companies recommend it be turned off if using IE. common sense
will tell you that, you don't need to be paranoid. IE has critical
security holes getting close to two years old.

but then again if you're brain dead enough to use IE you get what you
deserve.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Nico Schuyt said:

but then again if you're brain dead enough to use IE you get what you
deserve.

That means 589.983.127 brain dead internet visitors :0
Nico

 

[Chris Morris]

O.K., opera 7.23 installed, using thunderbird 0.3, cream in my extra
hot French roast espresso, with cream cheese danish.
And the question is: what percentage of the *ancient* browsers could
not use javascript, and how does that effect the stats concerning the
number of surfers who have javascript disabled?

Netscape 4, IE 4 supported Javascript. And they're both around 7-8
years old now. Their predecessor browsers didn't, but are now
incredibly rare.

There's a few modern browsers that don't support Javascript (lynx,
w3m, elinks, several handheld-based ones) but probably not enough to
get 10-15%.

 

[brucie]

That means 589.983.127 brain dead internet visitors :0

its very upsetting to come to the realization that there are so many
brain dead people out there. out of all the species in the universe
humans would have to be one of the stupidest. its embarrassing.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Nico Schuyt said:

its very upsetting to come to the realization that there are so many
brain dead people out there. out of all the species in the universe
humans would have to be one of the stupidest. its embarrassing.

It's a blessing other species haven't found us till now (or maybe they left
immidetiately)
Like you said: "never assume everyone is *as* stupid as you are"
It's likely they are even *more* stupid
Cheers, Nico

 

[oldwetdog]

Netscape 4, IE 4 supported Javascript. And they're both around 7-8
years old now. Their predecessor browsers didn't, but are now
incredibly rare.

There's a few modern browsers that don't support Javascript (lynx,
w3m, elinks, several handheld-based ones) but probably not enough to
get 10-15%.

thanks, and g-nite

 

[Eric Bohlman]

Not only by my own (limited) experience, but also by the fact that I
used to maintain a couple of sites in the past with a js-based menu
that were totally inaccessible with js disabled. Some of them had
hundreds of visitors a day and the number of complaints was
(practically) zero. The probably most frequently visited site in the

As Jakob Nielsen and others have repeatedly pointed out, the overwhelming
majority of people who discover that a site is unusable to them do *not*
complain to the site's author; they simply go somewhere else. The nature
of the Web makes it extremely easy to do the latter. The upshot of all
this is that there is *no* way to know exactly how many people you're
turning away, and the best you can do is avoid doing things that are known
to make people turn away in general.

 

[oldwetdog]

It's a blessing other species haven't found us till now (or maybe they left
immidetiately)
Like you said: "never assume everyone is *as* stupid as you are"
It's likely they are even *more* stupid
Cheers, Nico

Was it Calvin and Hobbs?
Calvin said, "Sometimes I think the surest evidence of intelligence in
the universe is that they have not contacted us."

Nope, nobody outthere. We are all there is.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Netscape 4, IE 4 supported Javascript. And they're both around 7-8
years old now. Their predecessor browsers didn't, but are now
incredibly rare.

Nonse-diddly-onsense.

Netscape 2 introduced Javascript. Internet Explorer and Opera both
jumped on the client-side scripting bandwagon with their version 3
browsers.

 

[Whitecrest]

The upshot of all
this is that there is *no* way to know exactly how many people you're
turning away, and the best you can do is avoid doing things that are known
to make people turn away in general.

Or to use technologies that attract the customers you are looking for.
It really does work both ways.

 

[oldwetdog]

As Jakob Nielsen and others have repeatedly pointed out, the overwhelming
majority of people who discover that a site is unusable to them do *not*
complain to the site's author; they simply go somewhere else. The nature
of the Web makes it extremely easy to do the latter. The upshot of all
this is that there is *no* way to know exactly how many people you're
turning away, and the best you can do is avoid doing things that are known
to make people turn away in general.

on the occasions I've hit a site which didn't work for me, contacting to
site admin was impossible. Usually the "contact us" link is a blind
alley and dead end. Why bother.
The "I'm outta here" button is so quick and easy.

but it would seem logical to assume, that if 10-15% of users have
javascript disabled, and you're basing your site navigation on it, then
10-15% of you're visitors will drop out.

 

[Nico Schuyt]

Nico Schuyt wrote in

As Jakob Nielsen and others have repeatedly pointed out, the
overwhelming majority of people who discover that a site is unusable
to them do *not* complain to the site's author; they simply go
somewhere else. The nature of the Web makes it extremely easy to do
the latter. The upshot of all this is that there is *no* way to know
exactly how many people you're turning away,

Not exactly of course, but if there's no complaint at all and it's easy to
inform the owner, it makes me uncertain about the statistics.

and the best you can do
is avoid doing things that are known to make people turn away in
general.

You're right. But maybe the OP doesn't mind that people leave when they find
out it's difficult to copy his pictures
Nico

 

[Wipkip]

While sitting in a puddle Eric Bohlman scribbled in the mud:

As Jakob Nielsen and others have repeatedly pointed out, the
overwhelming majority of people who discover that a site is unusable
to them do *not* complain to the site's author; they simply go
somewhere else. The nature of the Web makes it extremely easy to do
the latter. The upshot of all this is that there is *no* way to know
exactly how many people you're turning away, and the best you can do
is avoid doing things that are known to make people turn away in
general.

I emailed a complaint to a company about there web site once. They
offered to seng me a catalogue.

 

[Chuck]

Not exactly of course, but if there's no complaint at all and it's easy to
inform the owner, it makes me uncertain about the statistics.


You're right. But maybe the OP doesn't mind that people leave when they find
out it's difficult to copy his pictures
Nico

One simpler solution may be to just alter the images. I have taken images on
some of my sites that have been prone to people deciding to copy and
converted them to a transparent background and set the background to the
desired color. If the image is saved, it really doesn't look all that good.
I figure if a person really, really wants the image, they'll have to learn
how to use a graphics editor. If they are able to use a graphics program
well enough to restore the hijacked pics, they're probably good enough to
have created their own. So, using that logic, they'd probably not be out
looking for someone else's work to steal.

Chuck

 

[Whitecrest]

I emailed a complaint to a company about there web site once. They
offered to seng me a catalogue.

So they had a solution, you just did not like it.

 

[Wipkip]

While sitting in a puddle Whitecrest scribbled in the mud:

So they had a solution, you just did not like it.

I took it but I bet a lot of others just left.