View Profile
View Forum Posts
Private Message
Am I to draw the conclusion that you do not agree to the idea of the IGF?
I mean, I did point to that particular project.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 91 to 105 of 105
-
Who will eventually be chosen to regulate the Internet?
-
Yahoo mail Did warn EVERYONE many, many years ago about what versions of browser they will commit to supporting.Originally Posted by ProJiJi
From https://www.tumblr.com/yahoomail/85155936276/an-update-to-yahoo-mails-supported-browser-policy
They fully indicated that they are narrowing the amount of browser versions that they will support/develop for.
[Attachment 91314 - Click to enlarge]
Kindly note the area I highlighted.
"As a result, beginning June 5, Yahoo Mail is updating its supported web browser policy to cover only the two most recent versions of Firefox, Internet Explorer, Chrome and Safari."
Also note worthy is that was issued 5 yrs AFTER IE 8 was fully sunsetted..
MS pulled the plug on IE 8 Oct 13, 2020..
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/internet-explorer-8
[Attachment 91315 - Click to enlarge]
My goodness, the "sky is falling"
. people have been warned, this isn't something that has "suddenly" happened. Browser technology advances on whether you or myself like it and as newer security protocols are developed and added to newer browser versions all Internet websites will be forced to move on and require more secure protocols to be uses that the older no longer developed browsers are not capable of using.
Have worked in many different IT roles over the years, change IS inevitable. -
The "data" and conclusions given above are incorrect.Originally Posted by ProJiJi
Going from the real source of data
https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide
There HAS been a DROP in Win7 usage to just barely 1.05% over Jan 2025 to Jan 2026..
[Attachment 91316 - Click to enlarge]
If you look at the actual chart, there HAS been a sharp DECREASE in Win7 usage from Dec 2025 to Jan2026 (yellow line), while there was a very small increase from Oct 2025 to Dec 2025, it may have been nothing more than rounding errors in the data. That increase was so small that it would be considered "statistically insignificant"..
[Attachment 91317 - Click to enlarge]
Something to also consider, "MOBILE" device OSs (iPhone/Android cellphone, tablet) market share are much greater (51.73% combined) than the "desktop/laptop" market share..
(32.52% all versions of Windows), (Mac OS 2.28%), (OS-X 3.38%), (Other/Unknown/Linux 7.38%) All combined 45.56% ..
[Attachment 91318 - Click to enlarge]
[Attachment 91319 - Click to enlarge]
What does this mean?
Well basically, MORE people are using their Cellphones (Iphone/Android) and tablets (Ipads/Android) devices to access Internet than traditional PC/Mac (desktop and laptops) now days. -
I'm pretty sure I answered your question with "I do not". I have internet at what I consider fairly reasonable price/speed as does most of the country, if I I have low income and was unable to afford it there is numerous ways to obtain it through government/ private partnerships here in the US. If you qualify you can get 75mbps plan for $15/month from my ISP. That's what it cost for 56K connection in the 90's. On the public side I can buy a hosting plan here in the US starting at $3 a month with generous limitations, that's less than what it cost in the 90's. Most important of all with the exception of direct threats and criminal activity I can say just about anything I want on the internet without having to worry about the police knocking at my door.. Note that an opinion no matter how vile it may be that will get you arrested in a lot of countries is not criminal activity here in the US.Originally Posted by ProJiJi
What possible benefit could a US citizen get allowing some international agency to dictate policy? The answer is none. -
Yes, thecoalman I also felt you had provided the idea you would not be a supporter of the IGF, but I just wanted to be sure on that point.
Sort of checking to be sure that your view is international cooperation and international agreements on matters related to your use of the Internet are of no concern to you. I think I understand that to be an accurate summery, yes?
And to address another member's thoughts: GAhere, are you familiar with the following numbers?
Why the UN’s Next Decision on Internet Governance Matters for EveryoneReaffirming their commitment to the multistakeholder model and making the Internet Governance Forum permanent is critical, because the model works. Imperfectly, yes. But remarkably well: In 2025, the number of people without Internet connectivity is 2.2 billion, down from over 3.2 billion people a decade ago. For those in our line of work, we know that number is significant. It represents a 32% decline in unconnected people, even as the global population grows by 83 million people a year.
That is over two billion fellow human beings. And maybe we could be super safe and just make that one billion human beings, because maybe that other one billion are les than 16 years of age. I'm just guessing.
And I am also guessing that when push comes to shove those that are engaging in discussion in this thread really could care less about those one billion other humans. Which is an attitude that I can understand, because I was also in the grasp of that sort of thought process when I was much younger. And there is no excuse for my being so narrow-minded during those days/years. I have, though, been trying to fix my brain's MO over the past decade or so. Not easy to do so, either, as I have such a slow functioning brain.
But when one sees that number of one billion, one ought to pay attention. Even idiots like me can realize that.
By the way, Ms. Wentworth was not the ISOC CEO I had that falling out with so many years ago and that I think I posted about around here in some thread. (Maybe on another tech site; so forgive my error, if it is such.)
In fact, I think I remember Ms. Wentworth was still working at the White House when I had my troubles with the ISOC.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
NOTE: And that reference to up to a billion people who have no Internet access connects the dots that was requested by another, who has yet to contribute publicly to this discussion. I would have connect that earlier if the Section 230 legal apparatus had not been brought forth.Who will eventually be chosen to regulate the Internet? -
GAhere, why is it you are pushing so hard the point of view that the individual customers/users on the Internet have no say in how that Internet should be governed?
I mean, I commend how you pull information out from years ago that support your point of view. I don't think I commend the "yelling" you use (that huge font stuff).
I commend that you make use of so much graphics.
But why don't you simply make the statement that you personally feel we little people have no rights on the Net and be done with this discussion?
Or do you feel some discomfort with such a final/bold statement?Who will eventually be chosen to regulate the Internet? -
I'm a firm believer in charity begins at home and I'm already contributing a significant amount through taxes. Fixing global issues is not on my radar. While any of these government run programs here in the US need significant more oversight to reduce fraud, waste, corruption and the enormous bureaucracy built around them sucking up the funding at the end of the day I still believe they can be beneficial.Originally Posted by ProJiJi
There is more than enough problems here in the US where my charity can benefit my fellow Americans. I'll choose to solve those problems because when my fellow Americans do well I do even better. -
Holy mackerel, that's gotta be the most off-topic topic in the history of topics...
I barely read 10% of the whole discussion (when I feel like a post may be a bit long winded, it has to be on the gigantic side of overlong for the vast majority of contemporary earthlings), but what I did read might finally convince me to move on from Windows 7... if only so that I don't end up writing (normally that's where I oughta add a pointless “no offense”) mind-numbingly meandering ramblings 17 years from now...
(But my own case may be just as bad as I'm still hanging on to Outlook Express and was foolish enough to ask on here about an astonishingly niche issue I had with that piece of antiquated abandonware... only to painstakingly solve it by myself... and then stop using the fixed feature anyway, now that I'm aware of the stupid design flaw which triggered said issue in the first place... It's like driving an old car that ya can't get rid of 'cuz you're so accustomed to the feel of the cushions and the size of the cupholder, with a quirky trunk that suddenly won't open once it's been opened exactly 499 times in a row – e.g. for putting a $300 hooker inside –, then managing to open it again by asking the leprechauns inside to wipe the registry of what was put inside the trunk each of those 499 times, then stop using the damn trunk altogether because it's so horrifying to do something when you know beforehand that you can do it no more than 499 times before the same stupid shit kicks in again, even though you now know the remedy, it only reminds you of your own mortality, and the fact that we normally never know exactly how many times we'll eventually get allotted to accomplish a particular action, however trivial or however glorious it may be... Reminds me of a magnificent quote I read long ago in the Wikipedia article on Brandon Lee, and which has been inscribed on his tombstone: “Because we don't know when we will die, we get to think of life as an inexhaustible well. And yet everything happens only a certain number of times, and a very small number really. How many more times will you remember a certain afternoon of your childhood, an afternoon that is so deeply a part of your being that you can't even conceive of your life without it? Perhaps four, or five times more? Perhaps not even that. How many more times will you watch the full moon rise? Perhaps twenty. And yet it all seems limitless...” ~ Paul Bowles, The Sheltering Sky)
Holy mackerel, I don't accomplish much these days, but I can still take even the most off-topic of topics and turn its off-topic-ness up to eleven... which is like my special super power...
And now I need to go the f**k to sleep... -
Thank you for your support, abolibibelot, and I am especially impressed that you are able to represent "the vast majority of contemporary Earthlings" but am I correct to conclude that includes those 2.2 billion Earthlings cited by Ms. Wentworth?
That quote from her article would fall within your 10% limit of patience.
... the number of people without Internet connectivity is 2.2 billion ...
BUT, it might be polite to members and guests to be sure they understand three or four of your links are to YouTube videos or shorts. I don't know which, as I only used "view-source" to see why there were so many links and where they took folks.
Personally, if a member puts a YouTube link into a bit of their writing/contribution, I view it as polite to be sure the members/guests are aware of that. I thought I saw some link to a wiki page of some sort, too. You do a lot of keyboard surfing, eh?
Anyway, I appreciate your vote of confidence. Thank you.Who will eventually be chosen to regulate the Internet? -
I had some experience with very bad internet myself, fortunately not for very long, but it was enough to understand how different things look in that situation. When the connection is slow or unstable and the hardware is old, advice like just upgrade the system, just install another browser or just buy a newer computer stops being as simple as it sounds.
Because of that I can understand part of what is being said here. Sometimes people are not refusing to move forward, they are simply trying to work with whatever they have available and get the most out of it.
At the same time the technical reality is also true. Old operating systems and old browsers gradually lose support and more and more websites stop working with them. That part cannot really be avoided.
From my point of view both sides are partly right. Technology moves on, but for people with weak internet or limited resources the transition is not always easy. In situations like that it probably helps more to share practical solutions or explain the limits calmly rather than assume people are just being stubborn. -
@“ProJiJi”
I re-read (a bit hastily perhaps) that particular post, which was among the ~10% I had read earlier (a bit hastily perhaps), and I re-read (a bit hastily perhaps) the article that was linked in that post, and as much as I'm willing to right now (but with a limited amount of “mental energy” as I mentioned elsewhere), I fail to see what the actual point was, or is. Furthermore, I'm not sure if humanity as a whole should be so proud of The Internet as a whole. Places like this, for sure, are overwhelmingly beneficial for all involved. But they're few and far between, relative to the gigantic amount of short-lived, vapid and mind-numbingly stupid crap that makes the bulk of The Internet as a whole. I'm not sure if providing access to The Internet for those who still don't have possibility is the number one priority in a world where so many people are still struggling to get access to the most basic necessities (you might be interested in the video I attached in that post – unfortunately it's no longer available on YouTube).Thank you for your support, abolibibelot, and I am especially impressed that you are able to represent "the vast majority of contemporary Earthlings" but am I correct to conclude that includes those 2.2 billion Earthlings cited by Ms. Wentworth?
That quote from her article would fall within your 10% limit of patience.
... the number of people without Internet connectivity is 2.2 billion ...
It's a bad habit of mine perhaps... It was merely meant to provide extra context for quotes or cultural allusions, in a mostly humorous spirit.BUT, it might be polite to members and guests to be sure they understand three or four of your links are to YouTube videos or shorts. I don't know which, as I only used "view-source" to see why there were so many links and where they took folks.
Normally the link should explicitly appear at the bottom of the browser when hovering over it, with no need to check the source code. At least Firefox does that, don't know about other browsers, but I would quickly stop using a browser which doesn't provide a simple way of checking what a link is without clicking on it.Personally, if a member puts a YouTube link into a bit of their writing/contribution, I view it as polite to be sure the members/guests are aware of that. I thought I saw some link to a wiki page of some sort, too. You do a lot of keyboard surfing, eh?
Regarding YouTube videos, I should be a bit ashamed, as I now very rarely visit the actual YouTube website anymore, in a vain effort to preserve what's left of my dwindling sanity. When I see a YouTube link, if it's not obvious based on the context I check what it is with a “yt-dlp -F” command, then if it seems ever-so-slightly interesting I download the video and watch it locally. I also download all comments (with the options --write-info-json and --write comments), so if I really want to risk being subjected to an onslaught of stupidity, I can check the comments too (using JSONViewer). But at least I won't be caught into the “rabbit hole” and spend hours on end watching increasingly asinine stuff that will slowly swallow my unwholesome soul. (My worst “YouTube Walk” ever was a three days ordeal where I started watching videos of cute kittens, then ended up watching interviews with serial killers and footage of electric chair executions... I recounted the experience in detail in that post.)
I also sometimes watch a video directly in SMPlayer, but it doesn't always work reliably. VLC Media Player used to work very poorly and now doesn't work at all with YouTube videos, although I've updated it recently, while I haven't updated SMPlayer since 2021.
Not sure if that's supposed to be ironic or not! Or perhaps you meant that in the sense that I, likewise, admitted to having stubbornly stuck to Windows 7 up until now, and, although I'm not struggling as much as what's been described when it comes to the hardware part of the equation (my CPU and motherboard are “only” about 10 years old, and were fairly high-end then), it's still getting increasingly difficult to keep up and get stuff done. I have been reluctant to move on from Windows XP (many things I still don't like with Windows 7 compared with the simple, logical and intuitive interface of Windows XP – a sentiment I've seen expressed in quite a few comments, like those I quoted in that post), finally did it in 2016/2017 (over the course of several months, with quite a bit of back-and-forth). That was 2 to 3 years past the end-of-support date for WinXP; now is over 5 years past EOS date for Win7, so it's getting tough indeed (even though at its core Win7 is closer to Win10/11 than WinXP was to Win7, as far as I know, and there are no major bottlenecks preventing Win7 from using current hardware to its full potential, as there was with WinXP which couldn't access more than 4GB or RAM or storage devices beyond 2TB).Anyway, I appreciate your vote of confidence. Thank you.
But, for what it's worth, I was much more interested by that other discussion – which I found right afterward the other day, unfortunately I was too tired by then and only properly read the very beginning (and haven't mustered the will and energy to go back to it since, as there seems to be a lot of worthy stuff to digest in those three pages).
For a few years now, I've had a habit of writing down my dreams as much as I remember them, whenever I do remember something that's halfway intelligible. It may not be of any practical use, but it's definitely... interesting... Perhaps one day it will provide some unexpected insight into something, or the basis of some brilliant idea... (James Cameron claimed that the core idea of The Terminator was based on a bad dream he had. Well, now the whole franchise has become a bad dream, sadly...)
French author Michel Houellebecq has a rare talent for writing dreams, or dream-like scenes. He was primarily inspired by his reading of H.P. Lovecraft (his first published book was an essay on Lovecraft, whom he read obsessively as an adolescent). His latest novel Anéantir (Annihilation in English translation) features numerous dream sequences, which oddly have no obvious relation with the plot(s) (so they're possibly lifted straight from his own dreams). Sadly, for the first time I couldn't finish that book, which becomes very bleak by the end, I mean, all his books are bleak, but in all the others, the bleakness comes primarily from within the main character(s)'s psychological shortcomings, it's tragic but one has the feeling that there's still some hope for solace, however fragile and however unlikely it may be in the world as it is; in this one, it's as brutal and absurd as life can be when it absolutely, positively does not want you to prevail (as a hint, it involves the C-word that you mentioned in that other thread – and since it's a ca. 700 pages book with an intricate plot, it's quite disheartening to see it all derailed in the last 100 pages or so, reduced to “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” as every human life reportedly is when all is said and done). So to this day I still don't know if there's any payoff to those dream sequences.
(A wise man said that this thread had quickly become a mix of “TL;DR” and “IDGAF”, so it couldn't get much worse at this point, might as well pull out all the stops and embrace the TL;DR/IDGAF-ness of it all... To someone, somewhere, someday, or perhaps gods if there's no one else out there, the whole history of humanity will be a mix of TL;DR and IDGAF... so we might as well enjoy the ride{*} when we can...)
{*} If you gotta watch a single YouTube video today, I highly recommend that one. It's only two minutes, but there's enough in there to blow many minds. -
Being that it would be most impolite of me to try and ignore such a lengthy post, which delves into particulars, let me do a quick acknowledgement here, abolibibelot; but not necessarily in the same order that you presented your thoughts.
Firstly, I appreciate that many have no willingness to give consideration to the peoples of the whole planet and such like the idea that many folks don't have Internet access. Folks are busy with their own problems, or activities. They are too busy.
I was in that same category for so many years/decades. In fact, it was as I saw that there were those Big Boys like that Twitter turned X platform and the Reddits/FaceBooks of the Net and the smaller forums, like right here, were fast going bye-bye --- it was around that time I started wondering how that affected overall usage and then that led to wondering just who even had access to the Net, and so on.
Being a member of the ISOC for many decades also gave me access to discussions about the Net over the entire planet and that helped with the overall thought process. But it is a difficult topic.
In addition, the Net has many benefits that relate to actual security of life, such as is outlined in this abstract related to medical benefits to having Net access: https://www.jmir.org/2021/5/e17917/
That is just a quick touch on that topic in this initial response. I'll need time to reread your post and dig into the particulars, please.
Secondly, my apology for that sarcastic part I posted about your "support".
Thirdly, this whole stuff about old software and updates and upgrades and . . . well, the whole frame of that is based upon information fed to us by the very folks that financially benefit from forcing so many changes and it is one of the biggest scams in human history. As I remember I posted in some online Community in recent days, have you ever downloaded the entire code of a given browser update to see what was actual code for security, and what was code for improving what sort of advert a commercial entity can place before an Internet customer? And that is just browsers. That doesn't touch upon other types of updates/upgrades.
That "scare the target" technique has been used throughout human history to screen the greed in a given project/enterprise/activity; but it has never been used on the scale we are now seeing. And it is working fantastically on this Internet. But more on that later, as well.
Fourth, that Dream Code project. That's a weird one. BUT it also made me realize an important possibility: As we age, if we keep up a heavy brain activity we are going to lengthen our lives. We can even "think" our way through medical trouble, even this one I am up against, cancer. BUT - and that is a BIG BUT; we have to take into account the physical limitations that come with age. Not being able to deal with those physical limits is a big problem for lots of older folks.
I got into a rather significant discussion in an online Community some years ago about the chemo and the dream situation that then seemed to arise from the chemo and it is a tough situation to discuss. We even tried to get into a discussion at the medical professional level on that at the hospital where my treatment is handled, but it is way too difficult a study.
I'm going to reread that part of your post, but then we'd best move that stuff over to that other thread.
And even though this is a very long post, it really is just a preliminary sort of "report" on that which you posted. I'll get back to this.
By the way, everyone, the new age verification law that the legislators in California are working on is a topic this Community had better pay attention to. But that should also be its own thread. We've been digging into that over in/at the Debian Community and it is not a pretty picture.Who will eventually be chosen to regulate the Internet? -
There is no technical difference between how content and adverts are delivered.As I remember I posted in some online Community in recent days, have you ever downloaded the entire code of a given browser update to see what was actual code for security, and what was code for improving what sort of advert a commercial entity can place before an Internet customer? And that is just browsers. That doesn't touch upon other types of updates/upgrades.
Just so it's clear open web standards are set by the World Wide Web Consortium a non profit organization originally formed in 1994.
Whether it's the web server like Apache(open source), PHP programming language(open source), web browsers(Partially or fully open source) or web developers they all build to support these web standards. -
I apologize, thecoalman, that I didn't properly communicate my thought process you quoted.
Let me copy a Google AI snippet from a search I just did:
A browser update is the process of downloading, installing, and running the latest version of your web browser (e.g., Chrome, Firefox, Edge, Safari) to enhance security, speed, and functionality. These updates fix security holes, patch vulnerabilities, and introduce new features to improve the user experience.
Three purposes for a given update are listed in that snippet: security, speed, functionality.
I believe most people view security as the sole reason for an update, because that is just about all that is communicated to customers. Security is the big highlight that is pushed and the benefit some company gains by the "functionality" change is not highlighted so much.
Now if an update helps increase speed, that may not be such a bad deal. But is that clearly outlined in a summary of what the purpose of a given update is for? Not often, that I have seen.
Back to functionality, which is very frequently meaning a new kind of advertisement can be used by a commercial entity.
Many sites will no longer allow a browser because that browser won't load a certain kind of commercial/advertisement. Not a thing to do with security. It is related to helping some company make money. That is that part up there that reads like this:
Are customers provided as much information about that purpose as they are informed about the security enhancements? More often than not, no. That "improve user experience" very often means it is easier to see advertisements. "Improve user experience" is corporate code for easier to sell you something. Money. Not security. Money.... and introduce new features to improve the user experience.
AND - - - this is not even getting into the real big deal in some updates: Data Mining! We want you to install this update so we can gather more data about what you are doing and then we can more easily sell you something.
That, thecoalman, was what I was trying to write in my post that got your attention and I wrote it poorly because you didn't understand my intent.
If you want some edu tagged documentation on this topic for deeper study, no problem. There are folks that take this quite seriously and have much better understanding of all this and have written it up. I think there are even gov tagged documents on the topic, too.Who will eventually be chosen to regulate the Internet? -
There is no specific functionality in browsers or web standards to deliver ads. There is literally no need. Those standards are always evolving to meet the needs of web developers.Originally Posted by ProJiJi
If for some reason you want to dig through the lengthy and detailed release notes of what has been added/removed/updated have a blast.Are customers provided as much information about that purpose as they are informed about the security enhancements?
https://developer.chrome.com/release-notes/145?hl=en&authuser=1
Quote
Similar Threads
-
How Can I Get My Money Back?
By Subtitles in forum Off topicReplies: 6Last Post: 17th Feb 2025, 19:54 -
Upgrade or waste of money ?
By Thermaltake in forum RestorationReplies: 4Last Post: 6th Dec 2024, 02:18 -
Video download from Bunny (b-cdn.net or mediadelivery.net)
By tadkozh in forum Video Streaming DownloadingReplies: 6Last Post: 27th Nov 2023, 17:01 -
Keys for money
By Khal1d in forum Video Streaming DownloadingReplies: 2Last Post: 23rd Jun 2021, 19:45 -
Is MakMKV.com Now MakeMKV.net or is .net Malicious?
By jdreffner in forum Blu-ray RippingReplies: 5Last Post: 25th Apr 2021, 15:05