1.04 is finally out.
www.mozilla.org

Thank you very much.

If you follow the link I posted a day ago to version 1.04 RC of Firefox as well, you will notice it has the new version as well and no longer says release candidate

I found 1,2,and 3 were still on here in a folder. I just dumped them.

That'll cause some confusion. Especially if you ever wanted to teach a kid numbers.

Shouse: 0456789
Kid: Where did 123 go?
Shouse: I deleted them.
Kid: You can do that?
Shouse: Yeah, now leave me alone..

I have to give this older puter a delete party sometime time. And it does help it.

Delete all you want, but always make sure to back it up before you delete it as you'll usally need it later if you don't back it up

Somebody remind me to update when I get home. I am at my Mother's for about a week. And they don't have dialup- I love this.

You'll miss it when you get back. Sorry about that.

Something new I ran across that seems to be getting more and more press as my rss feeds are really starting to mention it more.

http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/
Greasemonkey is a Firefox extension which lets you to add bits of DHTML ("user scripts") to any web page to change its behavior. In much the same way that user CSS lets you take control of a web page's style, user scripts let you easily control any aspect of a web page's design or interaction.

They even got a book all about it at http://diveintogreasemonkey.org/

Hey! I just started using Firefox... Let's take it slow!

more Greasemonkey news - here

It's awesome. I now have about eight scripts installed. Thanks for the heads up Trallyus.

I've only tried out a few of the so many. It really does change quite a bit. Especially with Slashdot and Fark, not having to see the side bars. We'll have to learn how to create a script for Harold's.

NoMiddleMan
Google Image Relinker
Secure Gmail
Hide Gmail Ads
Slashdot xSidebars
Hide Iframes
Fark Butler
PDF Warn

--
Note to exclude Gmail on "Hide Iframes" or else Gmail wont fully load.

grrrr. Blocking banner ads, google ads, and now iframes.... What about people like me that spend time developing sites that get paid via those things? Should I not get paid for my work? Should the Internet and it's content just be free?

I know, it's communist subterfuge at work..

Actually I think you are joking. But some people actually think like that and to them I say; If I, as a user of whatever site choose to get rid of ads for myself then as always the burden is placed on the owner to find another source of revenue, for it is not my job or purpose to provide them said revenue. Let them find another way to make money. If I should block that as well then so be it. I wont feel bad about it either way.

Actually Kris I am not joking...

No it is not your job to provide the revenue however when you visit a website you are using the owner's resources and it did take time to make. It would be as if you wrote a book and no one paid for it they just picked it up, read it, then put it back down. They walk away with the knowledge and you get nothing in return for your time and effort.

Do I block stuff? Hell yes pop ups for one. Those are intrusive what I am talking about is not. How does a small page banner like the one on http://www.yoursupportwebsite.com interfere with your browsing experience. How does an iframe? Check out the LOTGD box on the right hand side of the screen here http://www.osgn.org. That is done via an iframe. I have another project in the works that will be using an iframe for the main content of the site. What am I gonna do if no one sees it?

I'm not mad this is a good debate that I need to understand better.

What is an Iframe for us not so hip folk?

Trallyus, If I am correct in my thinking, a Iframe allows one to include/embed other webpages within one page. Thus as far as I've seen over 90% use it for ads and not much else. There are some who use it for other reasons, as showed by Jim, but it's rarity among many.

Actually Jim, both those sites work just as they would with or without the iframe blocker. Thus I'm guessing it only blocks sites that are evidently using iframes to show advertisements. The banner still works because that isn't blocked by default. One would have to right click on it and then add it to an adbock entry.

Plus it's not that no one will see it. One has to actively seek out this extension and then find the script. If it comes installed and turned on automatically then that's a different story. It's only a few, very few among many. So people will still see it, just the ones who wish not to see it right now wont.

Well, one is free to do that with a book. They can pick up a book at a library which they pay nothing to get and read it and walk away with the knowledge and the author gets no more money. They can sit in a Barns&Noble type book store all day reading a book and then place it back on the shelf without ever paying. Is this wrong? One can find information online for free ,some for subscriptions and some payed by advertisements, be it books, news articles or anything. Then again, if one were to rent movies from netflix and not from the local movie gallery, is that taking away from their money? Money which you may or may have not spent there. Is that also wrong? Then say if you abuse netflix and send movies back every other day, thus getting 20 or more movies while they only make enough money to cover 5 movies for you to rent a month. If they so seek to get money and or something back for their time and effort then I'm more than willing to pay for it up front. Not in some back alley way which are the way I think of ads. It is not my job to ensure they get a profit out of me. That is theirs.


And the best example, is it right of us to delete spam without actually looking at it? They spent their resources/time/internet bandwidth to send it to me, thus shouldn't I at least read it? Where does one think in this area? If I just block all spam or delete it all without looking am I taking from their bottom line? If I never buy from spam, aren't I hurting them because of a low return rate? Where does one draw the line with this..

Thus should we limit information for the sake of a dollar? Even in our overly capitalistic society people still for the most part have access to information be it inherently free or not. Thus is it stealing, in the matter of the sense to read a site without having it's ads? Say one picks up a magazine at the store counter and reads one article that caught their interest and then put it back and walked away without paying for it. Is it also wrong to read the front cover or glance at it thus gaining some information? What if I could not afford that magazine thus had to put it back? What if I could afford it, does that make it any more wrong? What if I use internet explorer, or firefox instead of opera? Isn't that taking away from their bottom line? So what I'm saying is that no one is entitled to my money unless I deem it so. I am not a constant and not a source money no matter what. If I choose to buy something else or use another service or even get it for free somewhere else or maybe even there, I am not really taking money away from them. One cannot expect every person to payback for the services. Thus is why a business calls it losses and that's the way business is done.

Should information cost money and recompensate the creator of said information? Or should it be free. What's the implications of such. The same predicament society going through right now. We are courting an ethical dilemma here. It's a very interesting and problematic debate we have. I am using your resources/gaining knowledge from you and not reimbursing you for that transference of knowledge in the medium you seek. Basically what it comes down to is what is best for each person. What we may do may be wrong for another, but what is in our own best interest is best for us and not necessarily for another. Blocking popups or any kind of reimbursement for someone may be morally wrong. But it's my prerogative to do so. Whatever is best for me. Doing other stuff may not be legal and not justifiable to any other than ourself, but to unto ourself it may be justifiable and thus deemed right for me. I am sorry for your so called loss of revenue but that is not my problem to deal with. It is yours, it is your content and it is your job to protect it and or gain money from it if you wish. If you expect money no matter what then have people subscribe or lock it up and have it password protected. Of course the information wouldn't be read by as many, but if it is worth it then it'll make up the cost. One can't have it both ways and expect everyone to reimburse them and as well have it so open. If I happen to get it without you getting anything in return then that is just the way it is. It may not be right as how you see it, but to me it is.