Re: [Dorset] HTML/PHP script
On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:44:58 +0100, David Stanton davi...@ntlworld.com wrote: This hardly seems something a ethical web designer would do without at the very least explaining it to and discussing it with their clients (my friends), who not being IT aware, wouldn't look at the source code and know anything unexpected was there. I find it understandable that the web designer would want to track the site as it allows them to prove the work they are doing is beneficial etc. However there are much better ways of running analytics. I would also expect your friends to have access to the analytics information at any time. It is also possible your friend has been told but never realised what this meant. The Maverick Monkey sequence of websites lead me to a site which referred to something called Adsense. I gather this is an extension of the Google Adwords(?) (the pay per click advertising system which brings up a link to a website when a keyword is searched for). As I understood it Adsense is a system which lets a third party (as some sort of sponsor) cream off a commission. Something weird is definitely going on here. My advice would be for your friend to get the source code for the whole of the site, though being 'non IT aware' they might not know what everything is. It might even be worth getting someone 'web-aware' too look over the whole thing for them, though knowing who to trust may be difficult. Rob -- Using Opera M2: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wed 2010-04-07 20:00 http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2645413 Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.orgchannel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
Re: [Dorset] HTML/PHP script
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 13:28:28 +0100, David Stanton davi...@ntlworld.com wrote: The site is up and running. I've copied the html code using ctrl-U facility on Firefox. There doesn't seem to be anything else untoward on it and no other scripts - that is except for spelling and other sloppy mistakes, besides a mail to link pointing at a non-existant mailbox! Is it a static website or is there php code running in the background? If there is dynamic code running in the background you will NOT capture this from firefox. What they have to do is obtain control and ownership of the domain or abandon it hope it won't do too much harm and set up another one. If they have paid for the domain then they should request full control of the domain, specifically the login to the registrar. They will then need new hosting and point the DNS entry to this new server. -- Using Opera M2: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wed 2010-04-07 20:00 http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2645413 Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.orgchannel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
Re: [Dorset] OT: Sign up to oppose the Digital Economy Bill
On Tue, 2010-03-30 at 18:21 +0100, Terry Coles wrote: On Thursday 25 Mar 2010, Terry Coles wrote: Whatever the truth, here is what Annette Brooke (LibDem for Mid Dorset and Poole North) said to me in response to my letter through the 38 Degrees site: Thank you for your message calling for the Digital Economy Bill to receive proper parliamentary debate. Time is running out for the present Parliament and from today until Easter the Commons will be debating the Budget. I am watching the timetable for the Commons but at this stage it is not clear if the Bill will get a Second Reading in the Commons, although it is still possible.I am very concerned that the Bill should receive proper scrutiny and I will update you in due course.' I received that yesterday, presumably before the date for the debate was set. After the short note last week Annette Brooke sent a much much longer blanket message that the disclaimer in the footer said was confidential to the recipient (although it was BCCd to lots of people presumably). In essence is says that the LibDems are going to pass the bill pretty much as it is because there are lots of good things that are needed in it. To get the good; they are going to swallow the bad. What this means of course is that the bill has been framed to ensure that unpopular and unfair measures get forced through because no-one wants to railroad the good stuff. The message claimed that the LibDem amendments included some safeguards, including the following requirements: 1. copyright infringers are notified by letter, without any risk of their internet connection being affected, for at least a year 2. an evaluation of the effectiveness of such soft measures is undertaken 3. an evaluation of the need for, and likely effectiveness of, technical measures has been completed 4. further consultation has taken place 5. proposed legislation is brought before parliament for decision, and 6. any process to disconnect users explicitly assumes their innocence until they are proven guilty I suspect that on their own the LibDems can't achieve much anyway, so it remains to be seen how the bill works in practice. -- Terry Coles 64 bit computing with Kubuntu Linux http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/8357/digital-economy-bill-protests-spread-across-the-uk/ Peter M: -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wed 2010-04-07 20:00 http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2645413 Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.orgchannel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
Re: [Dorset] OT: Sign up to oppose the Digital Economy Bill
On Tuesday 30 Mar 2010, Peter Merchant wrote: http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/8357/digital-economy-bill-protest s-spread-across-the-uk/ Yes, but that report is nearly a week old, so the momentum has been lost. The LibDems were the only major party opposing the bill. Now they've decided to support it, it's a shoo-in, so it doesn't really matter how many protests there are. I just hope the LibDems are right and the process of kicking serial infringers will be fair and just. My worry is that we end up in the same situation as in the US where individuals get letters threatening legal action and have to decided between paying the money to the protection racketeers or facing years in court and the millions of $ that that entails, even if they win!. Even when the money for defence is provided pro bono (eg out of the coffers of some support organisation), the victim can get hammered (and that takes no account of the stress and time involved in the process). See http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticleart_aid=124929 for a couple of examples, where the defendants had help and were still hit for huge damage awards. There was also the woman who had never used a computer who got successfully sued (the computer belonged to her late husband) and the 12 year old girl who got the threatening letter. I realise that British justice is nowhere near as unjust as the US variety, but bad things do happen. This law needs debating to prevent those kind of situations ever being possible. -- Terry Coles 64 bit computing with Kubuntu Linux -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wed 2010-04-07 20:00 http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2645413 Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.orgchannel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
Re: [Dorset] OT: Sign up to oppose the Digital Economy Bill
Terry Coles wrote: On Tuesday 30 Mar 2010, Peter Merchant wrote: http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/8357/digital-economy-bill-protest s-spread-across-the-uk/ Yes, but that report is nearly a week old, so the momentum has been lost. The LibDems were the only major party opposing the bill. Now they've decided to support it, it's a shoo-in, so it doesn't really matter how many protests there are. I just hope the LibDems are right and the process of kicking serial infringers will be fair and just. My worry is that we end up in the same situation as in the US where individuals get letters threatening legal action and have to decided between paying the money to the protection racketeers or facing years in court and the millions of $ that that entails, even if they win!. Even when the money for defence is provided pro bono (eg out of the coffers of some support organisation), the victim can get hammered (and that takes no account of the stress and time involved in the process). See http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticleart_aid=124929 for a couple of examples, where the defendants had help and were still hit for huge damage awards. There was also the woman who had never used a computer who got successfully sued (the computer belonged to her late husband) and the 12 year old girl who got the threatening letter. I realise that British justice is nowhere near as unjust as the US variety, but bad things do happen. This law needs debating to prevent those kind of situations ever being possible. On that subject, here's something I read today: http://tinyurl.com/y8hwcfz A 19 year-old in the UK whose case was dropped. Sean -- music, film, comics, books, rants and drivel: www.funkygibbins.me.uk -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wed 2010-04-07 20:00 http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2645413 Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.orgchannel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
[Dorset] SCO Lost in front of a Jury
For all those who've occasionally watched the numerous SCO lawsuits against Linux unfold over the last 7 years, the jury has returned in the Novell suit and SCO has lost. Of course, they have no money left now, so the millions of dollars that they've cost Novell, IBM, Daimler-Chrysler, etc, by suing them, not to mention the companies that they conned into buying a licence for their protection racket (sorry IP) is all gone. Presumably their administrator will now wind them up, unless he is daft enough to appeal. If they do appeal, then maybe another mystery investor will creep out of the woodwork, just like they've done ever since this saga began, so that we can have another seven years of entertainment. -- Terry Coles 64 bit computing with Kubuntu Linux -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wed 2010-04-07 20:00 http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2645413 Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.orgchannel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
Re: [Dorset] SCO Lost in front of a Jury
On Tuesday 30 Mar 2010, Terry Coles wrote: For all those who've occasionally watched the numerous SCO lawsuits against Linux unfold over the last 7 years, the jury has returned in the Novell suit and SCO has lost. I meant to paste a link and forgot: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/03/sco-loses-again-jury-says- novell-owns-unix-svrx-copyrights.ars?comments=1#comments-bar Groklaw (http://www.groklaw.net) has a page up for the celebrants :-) -- Terry Coles 64 bit computing with Kubuntu Linux -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wed 2010-04-07 20:00 http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2645413 Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.orgchannel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
Re: [Dorset] SCO Lost in front of a Jury
Terry Coles wrote: What is it about the US legal system that makes litigious companies like SCO continue to the bitter end. BTW, their share price was down to $0.10 at the close having dropped from $0.46 after the verdict. It looks like the entertainment continues, but they're going to need more money. It's a shame that if a company bankrupts itself through spurious lawsuits and mismanagement, the board of directors don't become liable for jail time for their mischief. It might make some of these companies think a little harder before suing. Sean -- music, film, comics, books, rants and drivel: www.funkygibbins.me.uk -- Next meeting: Bournemouth, Wed 2010-04-07 20:00 http://dorset.lug.org.uk/ http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2645413 Chat: http://www.mibbit.com/?server=irc.blitzed.orgchannel=%23dorset List info: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/dorset
