New Ohio Map Scans
Sherman Cahal
completed but shown as proposed. Some of the more interesting notes:
*I-77 was routed onto what is now US 250 expressway near New Philadphia -
Dover.
*I-77 was "grandfathered" onto US 21 Willow Freeway.
*I-275 was the Circle Frwy.
*Two I-71's in Columbus.
*I-80S and the extension of I-277 in Akron.
This includes the entire map, including insets and advertisments from the
1966 era.
Plus the Highway Tip Turtle:
http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads/maps/ohio_aaa_1966/ad_3.jpg
"Slowpoke drivers and expressways don't mix. If you want a leisurely drive,
go another route. It's much safer that way."
Now, why don't Ohio drivers do that more often?
http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads/page.php3?page=maps_oh_ohio_aaa_1966
Enjoy! Comments/questions always welcome.
(PS: This scan job won't make your neck break either. :-)
--
--Sherman Cahal
http://www.cahaltech.com
http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Sherman Cahal
>
> Enjoy! Comments/questions always welcome.
> (PS: This scan job won't make your neck break either. :-)
Due to CSS stylesheets being used, Netscape 4.x users might find the down.
There is no way around this, as Netscape 4.x does not support very many
things, one of them being CSS stylesheets. Try Netscape 6.x or Internet
Explorer 4.x +.
zeno
Or one can use Mozilla..(which is really a subset of Netscape with the
ability to block out those awful pop-up windows). :)
In article <3de12...@corp.newsgroups.com>, Sherman Cahal
zeno
PS...I was refering to pop-up windows in general....not to the Ohio
site specifically.
In article <241120021538566208%zeno...@mindspring.com>, zeno
Adam Prince
"Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message
news:3de12...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Today I scanned in an Ohio map that dates to 1966. Many interstates are
not
> completed but shown as proposed. Some of the more interesting notes:
> *I-77 was routed onto what is now US 250 expressway near New Philadphia -
I compared your scans to my 1965 RM for Ohio...and the 2003 RM actually that
is still I-77 today. That segment that was open in 66 is the current 77/250
multiplex
> Dover.
> *I-77 was "grandfathered" onto US 21 Willow Freeway.
> *I-275 was the Circle Frwy.
> *Two I-71's in Columbus.
> *I-80S and the extension of I-277 in Akron.
Was I-75 built on top of US 25 from north of Lima to Bluffton?
>
> This includes the entire map, including insets and advertisments from the
> 1966 era.
Awesome! I can't wait to see the PA NC and VA related scans!
Brian Powell
news:h_aE9.138570$dn3.7...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message
> news:3de12...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > Today I scanned in an Ohio map that dates to 1966. Many interstates are
> not
> > completed but shown as proposed. Some of the more interesting notes:
> > *I-77 was routed onto what is now US 250 expressway near New
>
> I compared your scans to my 1965 RM for Ohio...and the 2003 RM actually
that
> is still I-77 today. That segment that was open in 66 is the current
77/250
> multiplex
Adam is correct. I-77 was never intended to run on the part of US 250 that
heads east from the current I-77 at New Philadelphia OH. I-77 south of here
follows the valley of Stone Creek south for several miles, while US 250
heads east along the Tuscarawas River. There wouldn't have been any good
way for I-77 to head south if it had first went east at New Philadelphia.
At the time of the photo, I-77 traffic would have exited at Exit 81 onto
present-day Tuscarawas CR 21 (Stonecreek Road), which was then US 21.
Also, I-77 is actually only about 2-2.5 miles west of downtown New
Philadelphia. (Sherman's website says it is 5-10 miles west.) The city
pretty well extended out to where I-77 is when the freeway was built.
Brian Powell
E. Central States Road Guide: http://ecsrg.n3.net/
E-mail: ohhw...@hotmail.com
Pete Jenior
http://www.dot.state.oh.us/techservsite/availpro/gis_mapping/mrsid/default.h
tm
--
-Pete Jenior - Cincinnati, Ohio
-Civil Engineering Major
Georgia Tech (downtown Atlanta)
John R Cambron
Sherman Cahal wrote:
>
> > http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads/page.php3?page=maps_oh_ohio_aaa_1966
> >
> > Enjoy! Comments/questions always welcome.
> > (PS: This scan job won't make your neck break either. :-)
>
> Due to CSS stylesheets being used, Netscape 4.x users might find the down.
> There is no way around this, as Netscape 4.x does not support very many
> things, one of them being CSS stylesheets. Try Netscape 6.x or Internet
> Explorer 4.x +.
Well I guess you don't want every body to see what you have worked
so hard to post on the web.
Creating a web site that uses source code that is not supported
by all web browses is self defeating in my view. It's basically
a form of discrimination based on what client software one is
using to access the web.
--
======================================================================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or North Beach MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
james
>
Can you talk more about the I-277 extension that was never built? I
looked at it on the map but I can't seem to figure out where it could
have gone/was going. It almost appears like it may have been (oh
gosh!) a spur highway.
Sherman Cahal
> > >
> > > Enjoy! Comments/questions always welcome.
> > > (PS: This scan job won't make your neck break either. :-)
> >
> > Due to CSS stylesheets being used, Netscape 4.x users might find the
down.
> > There is no way around this, as Netscape 4.x does not support very many
> > things, one of them being CSS stylesheets. Try Netscape 6.x or Internet
> > Explorer 4.x +.
>
> Well I guess you don't want every body to see what you have worked
> so hard to post on the web.
>
> Creating a web site that uses source code that is not supported
> by all web browses is self defeating in my view. It's basically
> a form of discrimination based on what client software one is
> using to access the web.
Actually, only 4.5% of my visitors as of Nov. 2002 use NS 4.x. The majority
have upgraded from the ancient bloated 4.x to 6.x, which supports both CSS
and layers. I use CSS intensely, and has been supported by ALL browsers
minus 4.x since 1995. Why hasn't Netscape upgraded its browsers to support
them, when Internet Explorer and Opera (Opera later) been using them since
95'? I only create code for the majority, not the minority, especially when
4.x is so outdated it doesn't support hardly anything. Upgrade to vers 6.x
or get Internet Explorer - its bundled with your computer more than likely.
Chris Lawrence
> Well I guess you don't want every body to see what you have worked
> so hard to post on the web.
>
> Creating a web site that uses source code that is not supported
> by all web browses is self defeating in my view. It's basically
> a form of discrimination based on what client software one is
> using to access the web.
I'd agree, except that CSS is a truly open standard that is available for
everyone to implement. It's one thing to fill your pages with Shockwave,
Java, and ActiveX controls; it's another thing to use standards that can
work without vendor-lockin.
The best approach is to build your HTML in a way that it's still usable
without CSS (or even without graphics), but so those whose browsers are
more modern can benefit.
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <ch...@lordsutch.com> - http://blog.lordsutch.com/
zeno
<she...@cahaltech.com> wrote:
> Actually, only 4.5% of my visitors as of Nov. 2002 use NS 4.x. The majority
> have upgraded from the ancient bloated 4.x to 6.x, which supports both CSS
> and layers. I use CSS intensely, and has been supported by ALL browsers
> minus 4.x since 1995. Why hasn't Netscape upgraded its browsers to support
> them, when Internet Explorer and Opera (Opera later) been using them since
> 95'? I only create code for the majority, not the minority, especially when
> 4.x is so outdated it doesn't support hardly anything. Upgrade to vers 6.x
> or get Internet Explorer - its bundled with your computer more than likely.
Netscape 4.7 does have some uses though...for example it has a
different Java Engine than the newer versions that a few websites with
Java work in NS 4.7 and not the newer versions. Just an example...
One should have a variety of web browsers anyway though so that if a
particular site does not work one can just pick a diferent browser. I
have 6 different browswers....and that does not include NS 7 since I
have not installed that one yet.
Brian Reynolds
this time and showed no at-grade intersections."
If this is a 1966 map, it doesn't square with the way I remember it.
I traveled I-280 several times between 1969 and 1972, and I remember quite a
number of dangerous and annoying at-grade intersections. My guess is that
AAA was publishing planned interchanges as though they were accomplished
fact, either to get ahead of the game or because they didn't know different.
--
Brian Reynolds
Hastings Michigan
Sherman Cahal
> > so hard to post on the web.
> >
> > Creating a web site that uses source code that is not supported
> > by all web browses is self defeating in my view. It's basically
> > a form of discrimination based on what client software one is
> > using to access the web.
>
> I'd agree, except that CSS is a truly open standard that is available for
> everyone to implement. It's one thing to fill your pages with Shockwave,
> Java, and ActiveX controls; it's another thing to use standards that can
> work without vendor-lockin.
>
> The best approach is to build your HTML in a way that it's still usable
> without CSS (or even without graphics), but so those whose browsers are
> more modern can benefit.
My site does work on NS 5.x and 6.x (havent tried it higher or lower). If a
CSS stylesheet is not found, then the pages should revert back to an ugly
look, where there are no table border colors or Verdana size 10 font. It
should never, never say that it does not exist, which is why I concluded
that NS is no longer viable.
John R Cambron
Sherman Cahal wrote:
>
> > > > http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads/page.php3?page=maps_oh_ohio_aaa_1966
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy! Comments/questions always welcome.
> > > > (PS: This scan job won't make your neck break either. :-)
> > >
> > > Due to CSS stylesheets being used, Netscape 4.x users might find the
> down.
> > > There is no way around this, as Netscape 4.x does not support very many
> > > things, one of them being CSS stylesheets. Try Netscape 6.x or Internet
> > > Explorer 4.x +.
> >
> > Well I guess you don't want every body to see what you have worked
> > so hard to post on the web.
> >
> > Creating a web site that uses source code that is not supported
> > by all web browses is self defeating in my view. It's basically
> > a form of discrimination based on what client software one is
> > using to access the web.
>
> Actually, only 4.5% of my visitors as of Nov. 2002 use NS 4.x. The majority
> have upgraded from the ancient bloated 4.x to 6.x, which supports both CSS
> and layers. I use CSS intensely, and has been supported by ALL browsers
> minus 4.x since 1995. Why hasn't Netscape upgraded its browsers to support
> them, when Internet Explorer and Opera (Opera later) been using them since
> 95'? I only create code for the majority, not the minority, especially when
> 4.x is so outdated it doesn't support hardly anything. Upgrade to vers 6.x
> or get Internet Explorer - its bundled with your computer more than likely.
Your site and http://www.dullestransit.com/ are the only sites I
have visited that choke on the implementation of the type of CSS
that you are using with the version of netscape that I am using.
These are not the only sites that CSS are used on that I visit,
and none of the others choke Netscape.
Like I summed it up in my post in your other thread "OT
Suggestions on Web-Site",
"Keep it simple as far as HTML coding goes."
Sandor G
not
> completed but shown as proposed. Some of the more interesting notes:
> *I-77 was routed onto what is now US 250 expressway near New Philadphia -
> Dover.
originally US 250, or is there something else there we're supposed to be
seeing. I have a 1962 map of Ohio showing I-77 as proposed going to the
west of Dover/New Philadelphia with no freeways being built as of yet.
> *I-77 was "grandfathered" onto US 21 Willow Freeway.
Yes, this is known
> *I-275 was the Circle Frwy.
Interesting
> *Two I-71's in Columbus.
Been discussed in MTR plenty of times
> *I-80S and the extension of I-277 in Akron.
The I-277 extension is the most interesting item from your Ohio map scans.
The map of Akron doesn't show where I-277 is heading, unless there was a
proposal to loop I-277 along I-77, US (now Oh) 21, and I-80s (now 76).
> This includes the entire map, including insets and advertisments from the
> 1966 era.
>
> Plus the Highway Tip Turtle:
> http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads/maps/ohio_aaa_1966/ad_3.jpg
> "Slowpoke drivers and expressways don't mix. If you want a leisurely
drive,
> go another route. It's much safer that way."
> Now, why don't Ohio drivers do that more often?
We hate out of state drivers and do all we can to discourage them from
bothering us.
> http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads/page.php3?page=maps_oh_ohio_aaa_1966
>
> Enjoy! Comments/questions always welcome.
> (PS: This scan job won't make your neck break either. :-)
But it does make you scratch your neck.
> --
> --Sherman Cahal
> http://www.cahaltech.com
> http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads
--
Sandor G
Graduate - Ohio State, March 02
www.roadfan.com
Sandor G
news:3de14...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Also, I-77 is actually only about 2-2.5 miles west of downtown New
> Philadelphia. (Sherman's website says it is 5-10 miles west.) The city
> pretty well extended out to where I-77 is when the freeway was built.
Chicken and the egg question.
City expansion begat I-77's placement, or did I-77's placement cause New
Philadelphia to expand westward (to I-77)?
> Brian Powell
> E. Central States Road Guide: http://ecsrg.n3.net/
> E-mail: ohhw...@hotmail.com
--
Sandor G
news:uu2tnnj...@corp.supernews.com...
Plus the fact, AAA has earned a reputation for shoddy cartography. They
could have overlooked the at-grades along I-280 near Toledo, misplaced the
I-277 shield along I-77's routing in the Akron inset, even give Oh 237 an
interstate shield (look at the Northeast Ohio scan near Cleveland-Hopkins
Airport http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads/maps/ohio_aaa_1966/3.jpg) all by
accident.
> --
>
> Brian Reynolds
> Hastings Michigan
--
zeno
<she...@cahaltech.com> wrote:
> My site does work on NS 5.x and 6.x (havent tried it higher or lower). If a
> CSS stylesheet is not found, then the pages should revert back to an ugly
> look, where there are no table border colors or Verdana size 10 font. It
> should never, never say that it does not exist, which is why I concluded
> that NS is no longer viable.
There was a NS 5?...I must have been sleeping :) Maybe I did miss it
coming out..there was a time thhere when i did not keep up with the
latest NS happenings...if there was a netscape 5 its news to me...Maybe
i need my head out of the sand ;) ;)
Pete Jenior
>
> > *I-275 was the Circle Frwy.
> Interesting
The Donald H. Rolf Circle Freeway (two signs saying tis were erected in the
mid-90's. One is in Ohio area the US 52 Coney Island exits, the otehr is up
near Colrain Ave (US 27 in Ohio) I think.
-Pete
SPUI
> "Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message
> news:3de12...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Interesting
>
--
Dan Moraseski - 15th grade at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/spui/www/ - FL NJ MA route logs and exit lists
Sherman Cahal
If a
> > CSS stylesheet is not found, then the pages should revert back to an
ugly
> > look, where there are no table border colors or Verdana size 10 font. It
> > should never, never say that it does not exist, which is why I concluded
> > that NS is no longer viable.
>
> There was a NS 5?...I must have been sleeping :) Maybe I did miss it
> coming out..there was a time thhere when i did not keep up with the
> latest NS happenings...if there was a netscape 5 its news to me...Maybe
> i need my head out of the sand ;) ;)
Sorry, I don't think there was a 5.x.
Sherman Cahal
majority
> > have upgraded from the ancient bloated 4.x to 6.x, which supports both
CSS
> > and layers. I use CSS intensely, and has been supported by ALL browsers
> > minus 4.x since 1995. Why hasn't Netscape upgraded its browsers to
support
> > them, when Internet Explorer and Opera (Opera later) been using them
since
> > 95'? I only create code for the majority, not the minority, especially
when
> > 4.x is so outdated it doesn't support hardly anything. Upgrade to vers
6.x
> > or get Internet Explorer - its bundled with your computer more than
likely.
>
> Your site and http://www.dullestransit.com/ are the only sites I
> have visited that choke on the implementation of the type of CSS
> that you are using with the version of netscape that I am using.
> These are not the only sites that CSS are used on that I visit,
> and none of the others choke Netscape.
>
> Like I summed it up in my post in your other thread "OT
> Suggestions on Web-Site",
>
> "Keep it simple as far as HTML coding goes."
If we all did that, there would be no Shockwave media pages, you can forget
about Active-X, PHP4 scripting, ASP...
I know of dozens upon dozens of sites that use CSS extensively. I've never
encountered any problems using IE 4.x+ and NS 6.x+. NS 4.x was designed many
years ago and is very outdated.
Tom Ketchum
abilities.................
Coupled with the spelling and grammatical errors, it doesn't sell me at all.
--
Tom Ketchum
Bronson MI
"Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message
news:3de15...@corp.newsgroups.com...
SPUI
>> Like I summed it up in my post in your other thread "OT
>> Suggestions on Web-Site",
>>
>> "Keep it simple as far as HTML coding goes."
>
> If we all did that, there would be no Shockwave media pages, you can
forget
> about Active-X, PHP4 scripting, ASP...
>
JTL
It's not in real good shape, but I will be happy to scan any info off
of it if anyone wants. I have hardly ever used it.
"Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message news:<3de12...@corp.newsgroups.com>...
Steve
>
> > > > http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads/page.php3?page=maps_oh_ohio_aaa_1966
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy! Comments/questions always welcome.
> > > > (PS: This scan job won't make your neck break either. :-)
> > >
> > > Due to CSS stylesheets being used, Netscape 4.x users might find the
> down.
> > > There is no way around this, as Netscape 4.x does not support very many
> > > things, one of them being CSS stylesheets. Try Netscape 6.x or Internet
> > > Explorer 4.x +.
> >
> > Well I guess you don't want every body to see what you have worked
> > so hard to post on the web.
> >
> > Creating a web site that uses source code that is not supported
> > by all web browses is self defeating in my view. It's basically
> > a form of discrimination based on what client software one is
> > using to access the web.
>
> Actually, only 4.5% of my visitors as of Nov. 2002 use NS 4.x. The majority
> have upgraded from the ancient bloated 4.x to 6.x, which supports both CSS
> and layers. I use CSS intensely, and has been supported by ALL browsers
> minus 4.x since 1995. Why hasn't Netscape upgraded its browsers to support
> them, when Internet Explorer and Opera (Opera later) been using them since
> 95'? I only create code for the majority, not the minority, especially when
> 4.x is so outdated it doesn't support hardly anything. Upgrade to vers 6.x
> or get Internet Explorer - its bundled with your computer more than likely.
>
to 4.7 (which was there the whole time). Took awhile to iron out the
damage, but I will NEVER use a higher version of Netscape.
Steve
There were other errors, like the dual 71's, or I-80 being routed up
current I-480. (I say this is an error because what would follow the OH
Tpk? And if you say 80N, then where would 80 have gone?)
Sherman Cahal
Not to offend anybody, but plain sites with nothing but text, a few images,
and a dull white background with no images is boring to me. And it is a
reflection of how lazy people are to upgrade browsers that are 4, going on 5
years old.
Sherman Cahal
majority
> > have upgraded from the ancient bloated 4.x to 6.x, which supports both
CSS
> > and layers. I use CSS intensely, and has been supported by ALL browsers
> > minus 4.x since 1995. Why hasn't Netscape upgraded its browsers to
support
> > them, when Internet Explorer and Opera (Opera later) been using them
since
> > 95'? I only create code for the majority, not the minority, especially
when
> > 4.x is so outdated it doesn't support hardly anything. Upgrade to vers
6.x
> > or get Internet Explorer - its bundled with your computer more than
likely.
> >
> Version 6.x pretty badly fucked with my computer, so I down-graded back
> to 4.7 (which was there the whole time). Took awhile to iron out the
> damage, but I will NEVER use a higher version of Netscape.
I use NS 6.x to check my web-site for validity and it works perfectly. No
problems whatsoever with NS 6.x except for the small faults that will kill
any browser.
I always thought any 4.x was too bloated and took too long to load anything.
Sherman Cahal
are
> > not
> > > completed but shown as proposed. Some of the more interesting notes:
> > > *I-77 was routed onto what is now US 250 expressway near New
> Philad[el]phia - [Dover].
> >
> > I compared your scans to my 1965 RM for Ohio...and the 2003 RM actually
> that
> > is still I-77 today. That segment that was open in 66 is the current
> 77/250
> > multiplex
>
> Adam is correct. I-77 was never intended to run on the part of US 250
that
> heads east from the current I-77 at New Philadelphia OH. I-77 south of
here
> follows the valley of Stone Creek south for several miles, while US 250
> heads east along the Tuscarawas River. There wouldn't have been any good
> way for I-77 to head south if it had first went east at New Philadelphia.
> At the time of the photo, I-77 traffic would have exited at Exit 81 onto
> present-day Tuscarawas CR 21 (Stonecreek Road), which was then US 21.
>
> Also, I-77 is actually only about 2-2.5 miles west of downtown New
> Philadelphia. (Sherman's website says it is 5-10 miles west.) The city
> pretty well extended out to where I-77 is when the freeway was built.
Thanks. I corrected this this morning.
Sherman Cahal
"james" <vam...@innocent.com> wrote in message
news:24d5fed3.02112...@posting.google.com...
You can't see it outside of the Akron inset. There are no dashed lines to
speak of.
Sherman Cahal
> abilities.................
>
> Coupled with the spelling and grammatical errors, it doesn't sell me at
all.
Minor speeling mikstakes thats all.
To obad it doesnt sell you At all.
Boo hoo.
Talk to the 10 clients I am currently maintaining right now and see their
satisfaction.
Sherman Cahal
> abilities.................
>
> Coupled with the spelling and grammatical errors, it doesn't sell me at
all.
>
> --
> Tom Ketchum
> Bronson MI
Also, when trying to flame, take your comments to a similar thread thats
below somewhere.
Pete Jenior
"Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message
news:3DE272D4...@mit.edu...
Maybe you shouldn't use Netscape anymore then...
-Pete
Sandor G
Actually there was to be a section of the Ohio Turnpike (near Cleveland)
that would of held no interstate designation on it.
Hopefully these two map scans of 1962 Rand McNally maps help
http://www.roadfan.com/62ohne.jpg (NE Ohio)
http://www.roadfan.com/62ohcle.jpg (Cleveland subset map)
The only two items from Sherman's original post I don't believe is the US
250 New Philadelphia bypass grandfathered into I-77 statement (also proven
wrong by other posters) and the "other routing" for I-277 in Akron (AAA's
fault, not Sherman)
Brian Polidoro
When you say Netscape 6.x which do you mean? There's quite a difference. 6.0 was a buggy piece of crap. I read about problems and
people saying wait until they get ironed out before installing it. 6.1 improved on that. I actually installed that one once. But
I've found no problems with 6.2. I haven't tried N7. But I use Mozilla 1.1 which is netscape 7 without the AOL crap. And it's
fine. But I mainly use those for site testing, not browsing. For browsing I use IE 6.
Netscape 4.7 does have some CSS support but it's not even fully CSS version 1 compliant. And it's very picky and unforgiving in
it's support. I've tried to bend over backward using a mix of HTML and CSS to get MDends to be 4.7 compliant. I even thought I had
it done. It worked when I opened the index file locally. But when I uploaded it and opened it on the web, the text showed up as
blocks instead of letters. I tried to figure out what was the problem but got tired of fighting N4.7.
Using strictly HTML is a real problem when you get to have 20+ pages that you want with the same style. Say you want to make a
small change to the style like change the background color on all of the pages. You have to edit each page with straight HTML. And
with CSS you only have to change ONE WORD! The reason to use CSS is not that it looks better. It is because it greatly reduces the
maintenance of websites with large number of pages.
So Goodnight for the last time Netscape 4.7 for me.
SIDE NOTE:
For the people who say not many people use Opera. Opera defaults to identifying itself as IE. So Opera users usually show up on
trackers as IE users.
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"Steve" <smal...@mit.edu> wrote in message news:3DE272D4...@mit.edu...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Sherman Cahal
6.0 was a buggy piece of crap. I read about problems and
> people saying wait until they get ironed out before installing it. 6.1
improved on that. I actually installed that one once. But
> I've found no problems with 6.2. I haven't tried N7. But I use Mozilla
1.1 which is netscape 7 without the AOL crap. And it's
> fine. But I mainly use those for site testing, not browsing. For
browsing I use IE 6.
6.0 was very buggy, but like you stated, 6.1 solved that.
> Netscape 4.7 does have some CSS support but it's not even fully CSS
version 1 compliant. And it's very picky and unforgiving in
> it's support. I've tried to bend over backward using a mix of HTML and
CSS to get MDends to be 4.7 compliant. I even thought I had
> it done. It worked when I opened the index file locally. But when I
uploaded it and opened it on the web, the text showed up as
> blocks instead of letters. I tried to figure out what was the problem but
got tired of fighting N4.7.
The same problem was occuring with any 4.x NS browser. I found that I could
not get around the problem and eventually gave up, since far superior
browsers were available.
> Using strictly HTML is a real problem when you get to have 20+ pages that
you want with the same style. Say you want to make a
> small change to the style like change the background color on all of the
pages. You have to edit each page with straight HTML. And
> with CSS you only have to change ONE WORD! The reason to use CSS is not
that it looks better. It is because it greatly reduces the
> maintenance of websites with large number of pages.
Since people want me to go simple (forgoing PHP4 pages), then that would
mean I wuold have to have on templete for each page. Currently, my PHP4
scripted site allows for one site design that can be changed very easily,
and sub sites that do not need to be updated look-wise. Very easy to update
and maintain.
> So Goodnight for the last time Netscape 4.7 for me.
Good riddens.
Sherman Cahal
not
> completed but shown as proposed. Some of the more interesting notes:
> Dover.
Corrected this information.
> *I-77 was "grandfathered" onto US 21 Willow Freeway.
> *I-275 was the Circle Frwy.
> *Two I-71's in Columbus.
> *I-80S and the extension of I-277 in Akron.
I don't personally think I-277 was to be extended northwestward. I have
another old Ohio map dating to the mid 1960's from another publisher and it
has no mention of I-277 going northwestward.
The Man Who Sold The World
>
> > >> Like I summed it up in my post in your other thread "OT
> > >> Suggestions on Web-Site",
> > >>
> > >> "Keep it simple as far as HTML coding goes."
> > >
> > > If we all did that, there would be no Shockwave media pages, you can
> > forget
> > > about Active-X, PHP4 scripting, ASP...
> > >
> > And the world would be a happier place :)
> >
> > --
> > Dan Moraseski - 15th grade at MIT
> > http://web.mit.edu/spui/www/ - FL NJ MA route logs and exit lists
>
> Not to offend anybody, but plain sites with nothing but text, a few images,
> and a dull white background with no images is boring to me. And it is a
> reflection of how lazy people are to upgrade browsers that are 4, going on 5
> years old.
To me, it's not an issue of being lazy. It's an issue of finally
getting a damn Windoze machine stable and reliable and not wanting to
risk futzing it up with some new software...I've found Opera to be quite
reliable and robust; IE barfs up page faults regularly; never tried a
Netscape over 3.04 but use 3.04 for my text news reader.
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni666 at mindspring dot com
Remove the Sign Of The Beast to reply!
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
Salve, socie. Pone mihi, sodes, alteram locustam marinam in caminello.
Chris Bessert
>>Someotherguy wrote:
>>>Sherman Cahal wrote:
>>>My site does work on NS 5.x and 6.x [...]
>>>
>>There was a NS 5? [...]
>
> Sorry, I don't think there was a 5.x.
Yeah, you should tell Sherman that!
Later,
Chris
--
Chris Bessert
Bess...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/Hwys/
John R Cambron
SPUI wrote:
>
> Sherman Cahal wrote:
> >> Like I summed it up in my post in your other thread "OT
> >> Suggestions on Web-Site",
> >>
> >> "Keep it simple as far as HTML coding goes."
> >
> > If we all did that, there would be no Shockwave media pages, you can
> forget
> > about Active-X, PHP4 scripting, ASP...
> >
> And the world would be a happier place :)
Thank you.
--
======================================================================
Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or North Beach MD USA
http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ camb...@chesapeake.net
======================================================================
Adam Prince
"Sandor G" <bt...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:1EwE9.1268$37.1...@cletus.bright.net...
I don't think that Sherman was reporting his finds as gospel. Plus, you got
the 'grandfathered' mixed-up, he stated that 77 was grandfathered onto the
21/Willow in Cleveland. He also willing made the changes once better
information was given. The kid is putting together a good idea and the maps
are a great bonus. He means well, yeah he has to refine some things, but I
doubt he was intentionally giving out mis-information.
Brian Powell
> "Brian Powell" <ohhw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3de14...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > Also, I-77 is actually only about 2-2.5 miles west of downtown New
> > Philadelphia. (Sherman's website says it is 5-10 miles west.) The city
> > pretty well extended out to where I-77 is when the freeway was built.
>
> City expansion begat I-77's placement, or did I-77's placement cause New
> Philadelphia to expand westward (to I-77)?
I should have been a little bit clearer. New Philadelphia extended most of
the way out to the site of present-day I-77 before the freeway was
constructed.
I don't necessarily think that the city itself had a significant impact on
I-77's location. I think that geographic factors primarily influenced
I-77's location. I-77 here sits in a valley. North of the US 250 freeway,
the Tuscarawas River runs just to the east of the freeway. By the time you
get to Exit 81, the river is only a couple of hundred feet east of the
freeway. Moving the highway further east would have required two additional
sets of river bridges. Also, I-77's present alignment lines up with the
eastern edge of Stone Creek valley south of Exit 81. If the freeway moved
further east, a lot more earthwork would have been required.
Brian Powell
E. Central States Road Guide: http://ecsrg.n3.net/
E-mail: ohhw...@hotmail.com
John David Galt
> Not to offend anybody, but plain sites with nothing but text, a few images,
> and a dull white background with no images is boring to me. And it is a
> reflection of how lazy people are to upgrade browsers that are 4, going on 5
> years old.
The whole point of a web site is to be accessible to the world. That includes
lots of people with old browsers -- even Lynx -- or slow connections or both.
My site is that way on purpose. www.anybrowser.org has good suggestions on
how to do the same.
Besides, the white background is a default you can change in your browser
settings if you get bored enough.
Brian Polidoro
It's not discrimination. It's the user's problem that they are using an obsolete web browser. The HTML 4.01 specification urges
users to use CSS because the previous elements are depreciated and may soon become obsolete themselves:
"This specification (HTML 4.01) includes examples that illustrate how to avoid using deprecated elements. In most cases these depend
on user agent support for style sheets. In general, authors should use style sheets to achieve stylistic and formatting effects
rather than HTML presentational attributes. HTML presentational attributes have been deprecated when style sheet alternatives exist
(see, for example, [CSS1]).This specification includes examples that illustrate how to avoid using deprecated elements. In most
cases these depend on user agent support for style sheets. In general, authors should use style sheets to achieve stylistic and
formatting effects rather than HTML presentational attributes. HTML presentational attributes have been deprecated when style sheet
alternatives exist (see, for example, [CSS1])."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html#deprecated
And as I said before it really helps with site maintenance:
"HTML has its roots in SGML which has always been a language for the specification of structural markup. As HTML matures, more and
more of its presentational elements and attributes are being replaced by other mechanisms, in particular style sheets. Experience
has shown that separating the structure of a document from its presentational aspects reduces the cost of serving a wide range of
platforms, media, etc., and facilitates document revisions."
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/intro.html
People say use HTML. Well the HTML 4.01 standard includes the CSS1 standard. So because Netscape 4.7 is not fully CSS1 compliant
it isn't fully HTML 4.01 compliant and therefore is obsolete.
I'd even like to use XML and XHTML. But because this standard is still new and has not solidified it would be unwise to use it yet.
Also the transition from HTML 3.2 to HTML 4.01 will be easy compared to XHTML because there are new restrictions that break backward
compatibility.
Standards are set so that everyone will be on the same page. Without them there would be no way to have cross browser capability.
People need to get onto the HTML 4.01 page quickly because that page is already starting to turn to the next page.
Also CSS1 became a standard in 1996. Even CSS2 became a standard in 1998. CSS3 is on the way. So asking someone to use a standard
that is 6 years old should not be too much to ask.
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"John R Cambron" <*camb...@Chesapeake.net*> wrote in message news:uu2l2s...@corp.supernews.com...
|
|
| Sherman Cahal wrote:
| >
| > > http://www.cahaltech.com/~roads/page.php3?page=maps_oh_ohio_aaa_1966
| > >
| > > Enjoy! Comments/questions always welcome.
| > > (PS: This scan job won't make your neck break either. :-)
| >
| > Due to CSS stylesheets being used, Netscape 4.x users might find the down.
| > There is no way around this, as Netscape 4.x does not support very many
| > things, one of them being CSS stylesheets. Try Netscape 6.x or Internet
| > Explorer 4.x +.
|
| Well I guess you don't want every body to see what you have worked
| so hard to post on the web.
|
| Creating a web site that uses source code that is not supported
| by all web browses is self defeating in my view. It's basically
| a form of discrimination based on what client software one is
| using to access the web.
|
| --
| ======================================================================
| Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
| http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or North Beach MD USA
| http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ camb...@chesapeake.net
| ======================================================================
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dan Garnell
> Not to offend anybody, but plain sites with nothing but text, a few
images,
> and a dull white background with no images is boring to me. And it is a
> reflection of how lazy people are to upgrade browsers that are 4, going on
5
> years old.
Agreed. Sites of that sort may have been more common 4 or 5 years ago, but
today, websites are much more. Ones that are such that Sherman described
seem too basic for today's continually growing World Wide Web.
Dan
Brian Polidoro
Well then try this one out:
These guys champion the Opera browser because it has the strictest standards compliance.
The only problem I have with Opera is that it isn't free.
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"John David Galt" <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message news:3DE3097B...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Froggie
No offense, Dan (and to Sherman), but some of us webmasters barely have the
time to update our sites, let alone add anything such as Active X controls,
Dynamic HTML, and other high-end items. If sticking with "simple HTML"
means I'll be able to get more updates done in a shorter amount of time,
then that's the route I'm staying with...(no pun intended)
Froggie | Who's back to the old-time-days of dial-up modem connections in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba | http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
John David Galt
> People say use HTML. Well the HTML 4.01 standard includes the CSS1 standard.
> So because Netscape 4.7 is not fully CSS1 compliant it isn't fully HTML 4.01
> compliant and therefore is obsolete.
Wrong attitude. No browser is obsolete; the too-"modern" websites just aren't
compatible with most end users. This certainly includes anyone using Java or
JS. If you insist on excluding people like me, then go ahead, but don't
pretend it's our fault.
Adam Prince
I will disagree. I have no problem with Brian or Sherman or any other web
designers using more modern standards and design concepts. I applaud them
for trying new techniques, many of which I have no knowledge of why and how
it's done. I also commend them in leading the way with these new designs.
I constantly look for ways I can tweak, modernize, improve etc the design of
my pages and many of those that I have implemented or are considering have
come from my own researching of those sites and what works well for them
that I can use for my own (Damn, my mind drew blank of the business term for
that).
Secondly, I personally do not know a single thin about CSS and other
programs...but as a result of reading this thread. I am going to look in at
the benefits and disadvantages of CSS and someday will make a decision on if
it is a worthwhile design concept to learn and then include.
Finally, as I previously stated in my opening, there is nothing wrong with
Sherman, Brian, and others having modern websites. They are not targeting
their audience for exclusively roadgeeks and road enthusiasts. Whether it
is in design and concept or topics covered and approach, they and a growing
number of others are looking at the appeal of roads to the general public
and encouraging their involvement, and I strongly applaud them for that.
Slo
>Guantanamo Bay, Cuba |
Geez, how's the winter weather?
Safe truckin' !
Slo
Chris Bessert
> He means well, yeah he has to refine some things, but I
> doubt he was intentionally giving out mis-information.
Wonder if it was a slight touch of Peacock's Disease... ;^)
Sherman Cahal
You don't call Internet Explorer 1.x obsolete? I don't attempt to bend over
backwards to serve the 3% of the site visitors who may use NS 4.x. That 3%
may also include other NS-releated browsers that do support HTML 4.01
standards, so I will go half and half here: 1.5% of my users use NS 4.x, and
the other 1.5% is unknown.
It's your fault for not upgrading your browsers. You know that time does not
stop just because you got a browser that does not function on many (and a
growing number) of sites. What Brian cited was correct: the standards are
set and my site is fully compliant with the standards set with HTML 4.01.
Internet Explorer 3.x, Opera, NS 6.x get this right. At least take 35
minutes to download NS 6.x; I'm sure you got the time.
It's time to get with the times John. People aren't going to stop improving
on technology just to wait on someone who can't upgrade. 35,000 visitors in
one year (when the counter was created) will tell you that my site is
popular, and I have not heard one complaint except through a few people,
such as SPUI, Tom, and yourself. I will not stop innovating my web-site
techniques and designs to wait for you to play catch up when you feel like
it. End of discussion.
Sherman Cahal
US
> > 250 New Philadelphia bypass grandfathered into I-77 statement (also
proven
> > wrong by other posters)
>
> I don't think that Sherman was reporting his finds as gospel. Plus, you
got
> the 'grandfathered' mixed-up, he stated that 77 was grandfathered onto the
> 21/Willow in Cleveland. He also willing made the changes once better
> information was given. The kid is putting together a good idea and the
maps
> are a great bonus. He means well, yeah he has to refine some things, but
I
> doubt he was intentionally giving out mis-information.
>
> and the "other routing" for I-277 in Akron (AAA's
> > fault, not Sherman)
Sandor, I corrected both days ago. Any other info. that you can supply me
since some have stated AAA is not exactly reliable would be appreciated.
Brian Polidoro
Most end users. Baloney. Like Sherman said it's very small minority of users that use the browser. My site trackers say the same
thing. Netscape 4.7 continues to lose more users as new browsers become available. So why should I have to worry about such a
small number of users when it adds significant time to site maintenance. I use CSS for that reason and updates can be produced much
faster with the time savings thanks to there being less coding to do.
Too modern? CSS1 is 6 years old!! Netscape 4.7's rendering engine is 8 years old.
No browser is obsolete? I found a place to download Netscape 2.0 gold and 3.0 gold. Both browsers couldn't even handle
http://home.netscape.com/ They both crashed. At their own home page, no less. Is that obsolete enough for you? Not even Netscape
is supporting 2.0 or 3.0.
Side Note: Even though Netscape 2.0 and 3.0 crashed trying to load their home page, Windows 2000 still had no problems with
stability afterward.
You can go ahead and continue seeing the web of 1994. I won't.
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"John David Galt" <j...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote in message news:3DE3AD11...@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Sandor G
news:3de3e...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> >> > The only two items from Sherman's original post I don't believe is
the
> US
> > > 250 New Philadelphia bypass grandfathered into I-77 statement (also
> proven
> > > wrong by other posters)
> >
> > I don't think that Sherman was reporting his finds as gospel. Plus, you
> got
> > the 'grandfathered' mixed-up, he stated that 77 was grandfathered onto
the
> > 21/Willow in Cleveland. He also willing made the changes once better
> > information was given. The kid is putting together a good idea and the
> maps
> > are a great bonus. He means well, yeah he has to refine some things,
but
> I
> > doubt he was intentionally giving out mis-information.
> >
> > and the "other routing" for I-277 in Akron (AAA's
> > > fault, not Sherman)
>
> Sandor, I corrected both days ago. Any other info. that you can supply me
> since some have stated AAA is not exactly reliable would be appreciated.
And I mentioned the errors days ago as well.
The only other thing I can provided that hasn't been mentioned is that the
I-277 shield in the Akron inset is probally a cartography error. There is
also a interstate shield for Oh 237 instead of a circle, near Hopkins
Airport (base map).
I wait to see your map showing "super 2s" in Columbus.
Sandor G
news:as04d1$n4f7k$1...@ID-151751.news.dfncis.de...
Sort of like ma' and pa' stores (and restaurants) being taken out by chain
stores (and fast food restaurants)?
> Dan
John R Cambron
Sherman Cahal wrote:
>
> > > People say use HTML. Well the HTML 4.01 standard includes the CSS1
> standard.
> > > So because Netscape 4.7 is not fully CSS1 compliant it isn't fully HTML
> 4.01
> > > compliant and therefore is obsolete.
> >
> > Wrong attitude. No browser is obsolete; the too-"modern" websites just
> aren't
> > compatible with most end users. This certainly includes anyone using Java
> or
> > JS. If you insist on excluding people like me, then go ahead, but don't
> > pretend it's our fault.
>
> You don't call Internet Explorer 1.x obsolete? I don't attempt to bend over
> backwards to serve the 3% of the site visitors who may use NS 4.x. That 3%
> may also include other NS-releated browsers that do support HTML 4.01
> standards, so I will go half and half here: 1.5% of my users use NS 4.x, and
> the other 1.5% is unknown.
>
> It's your fault for not upgrading your browsers.
It's not my fault, It's my choice ! ! !
> You know that time does not
> stop just because you got a browser that does not function on many (and a
> growing number) of sites. What Brian cited was correct: the standards are
> set and my site is fully compliant with the standards set with HTML 4.01.
> Internet Explorer 3.x, Opera, NS 6.x get this right. At least take 35
> minutes to download NS 6.x; I'm sure you got the time.
>
> It's time to get with the times John.
You provide the cash to do the hardware upgrades that support
the new bloted software I will "get with the times" I have better
thing to do with my time and money then trying to be the first kid
on the block with the latest and greatest technology that does
little from the client side view to improve the way information is
conveyed over the world wide web.
Oh and by the way I downloaded Netscape 7.0 last night, it took
over 2.5 hours to download 31.6 MB install files with my 56k dialup
connection. The installation ate up 58.3 MB of disk space (standard
installation). Besides eating up 58.3 MB of disk space I ended up with
a bunch of other crap bundled with Netscape that I will never use.
You will notice by looking at the massage header with full view
I am still using the news reader that comes with Netscape 4.75
> People aren't going to stop improving
> on technology just to wait on someone who can't upgrade. 35,000 visitors in
> one year (when the counter was created) will tell you that my site is
> popular, and I have not heard one complaint except through a few people,
> such as SPUI, Tom, and yourself. I will not stop innovating my web-site
> techniques and designs to wait for you to play catch up when you feel like
> it. End of discussion.
There is another poster in the forum that has a site that had
1,337,532 hits in the last 12 months. The information is clear
and easy to view and navigate with no fancy HTML coding.
Chris Aseltine
> "Dan Garnell" <michh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. Sites of that sort may have been more common 4 or 5 years ago, but
> > today, websites are much more. Ones that are such that Sherman described
> > seem too basic for today's continually growing World Wide Web.
>
> Sort of like ma' and pa' stores (and restaurants) being taken out by chain
> stores (and fast food restaurants)?
Bobby?
Sherman Cahal
>
> You provide the cash to do the hardware upgrades that support
> the new bloted software I will "get with the times" I have better
> thing to do with my time and money then trying to be the first kid
> on the block with the latest and greatest technology that does
> little from the client side view to improve the way information is
> conveyed over the world wide web.
Upgrading requires no hardware upgrades. Surely since that you can upgrade
from NS 4.x to NS 7.x you can upgrade from IE 4.x to 6.x (which is the same,
so I would recommend both IE versions). Upgrading browsers really doesn't
require any new hardware. For instance, if you don't have Windows XP, then
IE 6.x is out. Microsoft offers IE 5.x for that, and its a free and easy
download (although it will take about 1 1/2 hours). In fact, I use IE 5.x on
my old P200 machine and works perfectly.
> Oh and by the way I downloaded Netscape 7.0 last night, it took
> over 2.5 hours to download 31.6 MB install files with my 56k dialup
> connection. The installation ate up 58.3 MB of disk space (standard
> installation). Besides eating up 58.3 MB of disk space I ended up with
> a bunch of other crap bundled with Netscape that I will never use.
You can also download a standalone NS 7.x browser that does not include
other useless features such as AIM and the such.
> There is another poster in the forum that has a site that had
> 1,337,532 hits in the last 12 months. The information is clear
> and easy to view and navigate with no fancy HTML coding.
I'd like to see this.
Oscar Voss
> > Not to offend anybody, but plain sites with nothing but text, a few images,
> > and a dull white background with no images is boring to me. And it is a
> > reflection of how lazy people are to upgrade browsers that are 4, going on 5
> > years old.
>
> To me, it's not an issue of being lazy. It's an issue of finally
> getting a damn Windoze machine stable and reliable and not wanting to
> risk futzing it up with some new software...I've found Opera to be quite
> reliable and robust; IE barfs up page faults regularly; never tried a
> Netscape over 3.04 but use 3.04 for my text news reader.
Hear, hear. I use Netscape 3.01 for mail and news, and some browsing,
as primitive as it is. And I try to make my sites compatible all the
way back to Netscape 3. (However, when I try to browse in Netscape 3,
it chokes on so many sites that I'm resigned to having to cut-and-paste
URLs into Netscape 4.7, or lately IE 6.0.)
I might learn CSS someday, even if I have to yield on
backward-compatibility, to add style and make site maintenance easier.
But first, I have a huge backlog of substantive additions to my various
sites (some non-road-related). For me, more style will have to take a
back seat to more content, for awhile.
--
Oscar Voss - ov...@erols.com - Arlington, Virginia
my Hot Springs and Highways pages: http://users.erols.com/ovoss/
Froggie
> from NS 4.x to NS 7.x you can upgrade from IE 4.x to 6.x (which is the
same,
> so I would recommend both IE versions). Upgrading browsers really doesn't
> require any new hardware.
Bull. Newer browser versions tend to eat up RAM (due in large part to all
the applications attached to them) like it's candy. This problem is more
noticeable with Netscape, but I've seen some hidden applications with IE as
well. Also, newer browsers take up a lot more hard drive space than before,
which can be an issue for those with a full hard drive.
> > There is another poster in the forum that has a site that had
> > 1,337,532 hits in the last 12 months. The information is clear
> > and easy to view and navigate with no fancy HTML coding.
>
> I'd like to see this.
Well, Sherman...if you wanna be technical, my own website has seen over 2.1
million hits in the past 12 months, and I use no fancy HTML aside from one
page which Roaddog was kind enough to set up for me during my spring Med
trip.
Froggie | Now to see if CuteFTP will work out of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba |
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/
Sherman Cahal
> the applications attached to them) like it's candy. This problem is more
> noticeable with Netscape, but I've seen some hidden applications with IE
as
> well. Also, newer browsers take up a lot more hard drive space than
before,
> which can be an issue for those with a full hard drive.
I use Norton Utilities, which can remove a lot of the unncessary buildup.
Also, you might be interested in Ad-Aware, which removes annoying pop up ads
and crap that fills your computer and makes your browser chuggy.
> > > There is another poster in the forum that has a site that had
> > > 1,337,532 hits in the last 12 months. The information is clear
> > > and easy to view and navigate with no fancy HTML coding.
> >
> > I'd like to see this.
>
> Well, Sherman...if you wanna be technical, my own website has seen over
2.1
> million hits in the past 12 months, and I use no fancy HTML aside from one
> page which Roaddog was kind enough to set up for me during my spring Med
> trip.
Very nice!
M. Hale
> require any new hardware. For instance, if you don't have Windows XP, then
> IE 6.x is out.
Really, the I guess
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/evaluation/sysreqs/ie6.asp lies when it
says the OS requirements for IE 6 are:
Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6a (SP6a) and
higher, or Windows 2000
running on a 486/66 or better with 16 MB of RAM...
>
> > There is another poster in the forum that has a site that had
> > 1,337,532 hits in the last 12 months. The information is clear
> > and easy to view and navigate with no fancy HTML coding.
>
> I'd like to see this.
Try this:
Clean, clear, crisp and easy to get around... and award winning. See the
link at the bottom of the page. BTW, I should note that I'm the Curator of
the above page.
Mike
Oscar Voss
>
> "Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message
> news:3de41...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > require any new hardware. For instance, if you don't have Windows XP, then
> > IE 6.x is out.
>
> Really, the I guess
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/evaluation/sysreqs/ie6.asp lies when it
> says the OS requirements for IE 6 are:
>
> Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6a (SP6a) and
> higher, or Windows 2000
>
> running on a 486/66 or better with 16 MB of RAM...
I just installed IE 6.0 on my Windows 98 computer (not that I felt I
needed the upgrade from 5.0 for browsing, but I wanted a less-insecure
version of Outlook Express to try out as an alternative to Netscape 3.01
for mail/news). No problem so far.
John R Cambron
"M. Hale" wrote:
>
> "Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message
> news:3de41...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > require any new hardware. For instance, if you don't have Windows XP, then
> > IE 6.x is out.
>
> Really, the I guess
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/evaluation/sysreqs/ie6.asp lies when it
> says the OS requirements for IE 6 are:
>
> Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6a (SP6a) and
> higher, or Windows 2000
>
> running on a 486/66 or better with 16 MB of RAM...
>
> >
> > > There is another poster in the forum that has a site that had
> > > 1,337,532 hits in the last 12 months. The information is clear
> > > and easy to view and navigate with no fancy HTML coding.
> >
> > I'd like to see this.
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.fcps.edu/BullRunES
>
> Clean, clear, crisp and easy to get around... and award winning. See the
> link at the bottom of the page. BTW, I should note that I'm the Curator of
> the above page.
Nope, not the one I was thinking of but you fall in the same
catagory.
John R Cambron
Froggie wrote:
>
> > Upgrading requires no hardware upgrades. Surely since that you can upgrade
> > from NS 4.x to NS 7.x you can upgrade from IE 4.x to 6.x (which is the
> same,
> > so I would recommend both IE versions). Upgrading browsers really doesn't
> > require any new hardware.
>
> Bull. Newer browser versions tend to eat up RAM (due in large part to all
> the applications attached to them) like it's candy. This problem is more
> noticeable with Netscape, but I've seen some hidden applications with IE as
> well. Also, newer browsers take up a lot more hard drive space than before,
> which can be an issue for those with a full hard drive.
Thank you.
> > > There is another poster in the forum that has a site that had
> > > 1,337,532 hits in the last 12 months. The information is clear
> > > and easy to view and navigate with no fancy HTML coding.
> >
> > I'd like to see this.
>
> Well, Sherman...if you wanna be technical, my own website has seen over 2.1
> million hits in the past 12 months, and I use no fancy HTML aside from one
> page which Roaddog was kind enough to set up for me during my spring Med
> trip.
--
John R Cambron
Sherman Cahal wrote:
>
> > > It's time to get with the times John.
> >
> > You provide the cash to do the hardware upgrades that support
> > the new bloted software I will "get with the times" I have better
> > thing to do with my time and money then trying to be the first kid
> > on the block with the latest and greatest technology that does
> > little from the client side view to improve the way information is
> > conveyed over the world wide web.
>
> Upgrading requires no hardware upgrades. Surely since that you can upgrade
> from NS 4.x to NS 7.x you can upgrade from IE 4.x to 6.x (which is the same,
> so I would recommend both IE versions). Upgrading browsers really doesn't
> require any new hardware. For instance, if you don't have Windows XP, then
> IE 6.x is out. Microsoft offers IE 5.x for that, and its a free and easy
> download (although it will take about 1 1/2 hours). In fact, I use IE 5.x on
> my old P200 machine and works perfectly.
Netscape 7.0 minimum hardware requirement
*Windows
-Windows 95, 98, or 98SE, Windows Me, Windows NT
4.0, Windows 2000, or Windows XP
-Pentium 233 MHz (or faster) processor
-64 MB RAM
-26 MB of free hard disk space
I only own one such box that exceeds these specs.
If you bothered to check the massage header with full view you would
see I am running Win2k NT 5.0. Windows 2000 insulation distribution
shipped bundled with IE 5.00.2920.0000
> > Oh and by the way I downloaded Netscape 7.0 last night, it took
> > over 2.5 hours to download 31.6 MB install files with my 56k dialup
> > connection. The installation ate up 58.3 MB of disk space (standard
> > installation). Besides eating up 58.3 MB of disk space I ended up with
> > a bunch of other crap bundled with Netscape that I will never use.
>
> You can also download a standalone NS 7.x browser that does not include
> other useless features such as AIM and the such.
>
> > There is another poster in the forum that has a site that had
> > 1,337,532 hits in the last 12 months. The information is clear
> > and easy to view and navigate with no fancy HTML coding.
>
> I'd like to see this.
You probably already have but didn't know it. I have chosen not
to name the creator of said site because I don't wish to drag
him in the this discussion.
M. Hale
that it's the web site with the 1,000,000 plus hits as noted below. I *was*
posting the link to show an easy to navigate site that doesn't use any fancy
coding. Sorry for any confusion.
Mike
"John R Cambron" <*camb...@Chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
news:uu8fl4j...@corp.supernews.com...
Sherman Cahal
then
> > > IE 6.x is out.
> >
> > Really, the I guess
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/evaluation/sysreqs/ie6.asp lies when
it
> > says the OS requirements for IE 6 are:
> >
> > Windows 98, Windows Me, Windows NT 4.0 with Service Pack 6a (SP6a) and
> > higher, or Windows 2000
> >
> > running on a 486/66 or better with 16 MB of RAM...
>
> I just installed IE 6.0 on my Windows 98 computer (not that I felt I
> needed the upgrade from 5.0 for browsing, but I wanted a less-insecure
> version of Outlook Express to try out as an alternative to Netscape 3.01
> for mail/news). No problem so far.
I kept getting unwanted crashes every time I had a browser open with 6.x on
a Windows ME machine. I eventually "downgraded" back to 5.x.
Brian Polidoro
Hey guys here's a browser that has no extras like composers, email clients, or messengers and has low system requirements and is
fully standards compliant because it uses Mozilla's Gecko rendering engine.
System requirements from the website:
a.. Windows 95, 98, 98SE, Windows ME, Windows NT 4.0, Windows 2000 or Windows XP
b.. 32 MB RAM minimum
c.. 5 MB of free hard disk space for download. 11.0 MB of free hard disk space for installation.
See. Only 32 megs of ram, 11 megs of harddrive space and not even a processor requirement. And only 5 megs to download.
http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/
And it even has two of the best new browser features. A popup blocker and viewing multiple web pages with one browser using what it
calls layers. A popup blocker feature that I've only seen on this browser is blocking popus only on specific domains. Tripod.com
comes to mind for me.
It'll import both your IE and Netscape favorites. Not only that but it keep them separate.
It's ok with its load time. And you can improve on that if you use their "symbiotic" loader which just means parts of the browser
are loaded at startup.
It's skinnable. Which really just includes the menubar and toolbars.
available plugins:
Java, Flash, Adobe Acrobat, Real Player, QuickTime and more.
It's not Microsoft.
Like Opera you can specify it to identify itself as IE, Netscape, or your own custom client.
Oh and it is free. Like Mozilla it's released under the GNU General Public License.
Try it out guys and let me know what you think.
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"John R Cambron" <*camb...@Chesapeake.net*> wrote in message news:uu8fnm9...@corp.supernews.com...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Brian Polidoro
I think that says more about Windows ME than IE 6. It's worse than Windows 98 because 98 has had time to evolve into a second
edition. But Microsoft dropped ME faster than a hot potato because they knew it was crap. And wanted to work something more worth
while. (XP)
The big difference between IE 5.0/5.5 and 6.0 is improved standards support.
Actually you don't get total CSS1 support until IE 6.0. But 5.0/5.5 do have support for the CSS1 core features which W3C says is
all it asks.
From W3C:
A UA does not have to implement all the functionality of CSS1: it can conform to CSS1 by implementing the core functionality. The
core functionality consists of the whole CSS1 specification except those parts explicitly excluded
Netscape 4.7 doesn't even cover the core features. The worst part about is I don't it's too far off. But it misses important
pieces.
The advanced features of CSS1 covered in 6.0 are a bonus Plus they are things that need to be done get to CSS2.
IE 6.0 has full support for XML 1.0 (a separate XML parser update is needed to go from MSXML3 to MSXML4, MSXML3 does not use W3C
compliant XSLT or Schemas).
IE 5.5 added a stricter CSS parser over 5.0.
And IE 6.0 adds more Document Object Model (DOM) 1.0 support.
Other than that IE 6.0 additions are stuff like:
the image toolbar, the media bar (replaces the radio bar), automatic image resizing, improved print preview, new XP interface
support, and improved mouse wheel support
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"Sherman Cahal" <she...@cahaltech.com> wrote in message news:3de43...@corp.newsgroups.com...
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
SPUI
> http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/
>
> Try it out guys and let me know what you think.
>
problems.
--
Dan Moraseski - 15th grade at MIT
http://web.mit.edu/spui/www/ - FL NJ MA route logs and exit lists
ARMOURER ERIC
all his site stuff comes up just fine.
Eric
Sherman Cahal
Windows 98 because 98 has had time to evolve into a second
> edition. But Microsoft dropped ME faster than a hot potato because they
knew it was crap. And wanted to work something more worth
> while. (XP)
Tell me about it ...
Had so many problems with my Gateway 1.2 GHZ running Windows ME that it
crashed several times. In fact, it got so bad ALL parts of the computer had
to be replaced. Part of this w as due to Windows ME mismanaging everything.
I tried to "downgrade" to Win 98 but they refused saying it would void my
warranty (which the waranty was paying for all the new parts in my
comptuer).
> The big difference between IE 5.0/5.5 and 6.0 is improved standards
support.
>
> Actually you don't get total CSS1 support until IE 6.0. But 5.0/5.5 do
have support for the CSS1 core features which W3C says is
> all it asks.
True but 5.0 and even 4.0 did a good enough job of CSS stylesheet supports.
> Other than that IE 6.0 additions are stuff like:
>
> the image toolbar, the media bar (replaces the radio bar), automatic
image resizing, improved print preview, new XP interface
> support, and improved mouse wheel support
Not too hot about the mdia bar. It seems to waste considerable memory. I use
IE 6.0.26 and have had no problems on a XP machine so far.
John R Cambron
"M. Hale" wrote:
>
> I should say that when I posted the web link below, I was *not* implying
> that it's the web site with the 1,000,000 plus hits as noted below. I *was*
> posting the link to show an easy to navigate site that doesn't use any fancy
> coding. Sorry for any confusion.
No apologies necessary, You are just volunteering to help prove
my point, and I thank you.
John R Cambron
ARMOURER ERIC wrote:
>
> I don't get the problem, I'm here using a 7 year old, pentium 133 computer and
> all his site stuff comes up just fine.
Hardware has nothing to do with it, It's the client software web
browser version that is the point of the discussion and it's
compatibility / capability of rendering CSS that he uses on his
site.
Sandor G
I thought for a moment John might have been talking about Roadfan.com, but
our site has only garnered 1,310,000 hits since Dec. 1 of 2001.
http://www.roadfan.com/stats/ <shrugs>
Our site has had over 100,000 hits per month since May. The top pages in
hit generating are the Driver Manual collection, MTR's FAQ (even with some
posters' grumbling about it's regular appearance on here), the Ohio photo
collection, and the national maps of pre-interstate plans (aka Interregional
Highways & "Yellow Book").
Now, DON'T think for a moment that I think roadfan is one of the most
popular sites on the net, we're probally somewhere in the third quarter of
total sites (if you ranked everyone on raw hit generation), but I'm happy
with our place.
(To Sherman) Now what was it that you said about bland text on white
backgrounds couple of days ago elsewhere on this thread?
> --
> ======================================================================
> Ever wanted one of these John R Cambron
> http://205.130.220.18/~cambronj/wmata/ or North Beach MD USA
> http://www.chesapeake.net/~cambronj/wmata/ camb...@chesapeake.net
> ======================================================================
--
Adam Prince
"Sandor G" <bt...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:YCcF9.1491$37.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> "John R Cambron" <*camb...@Chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
> our site has only garnered 1,310,000 hits since Dec. 1 of 2001.
> http://www.roadfan.com/stats/ <shrugs>
> Our site has had over 100,000 hits per month since May. The top pages in
> hit generating are the Driver Manual collection, MTR's FAQ (even with some
> posters' grumbling about it's regular appearance on here), the Ohio photo
> collection, and the national maps of pre-interstate plans (aka
Interregional
> Highways & "Yellow Book").
Uh yeah, but what about all those porn sites listed in your Top 30
referrers.
Sandor G
news:HWcF9.10704$sj1.9...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
<shrugs>
They showed up after the last time you mentioned your girlfriend on here.
Either they (whoever "They" are) have found something fascinating with our
entry page, or someone in the roadgeek community knows waaaaay to much about
computer programming.
Until it either raises my website provider bill or infringes on how one
views our material, I can't get to excited over it.
Adam Prince
> "Adam Prince" <apri...@HISPAMMERScarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:HWcF9.10704$sj1.9...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > "Sandor G" <bt...@bright.net> wrote in message
> > news:YCcF9.1491$37.1...@cletus.bright.net...
> > > "John R Cambron" <*camb...@Chesapeake.net*> wrote in message
> > > I thought for a moment John might have been talking about Roadfan.com,
> but
> > > our site has only garnered 1,310,000 hits since Dec. 1 of 2001.
> > > http://www.roadfan.com/stats/ <shrugs>
> > > Our site has had over 100,000 hits per month since May. The top pages
> in
> > > hit generating are the Driver Manual collection, MTR's FAQ (even with
> some
> > > posters' grumbling about it's regular appearance on here), the Ohio
> photo
> > > collection, and the national maps of pre-interstate plans (aka
> > Interregional
> > > Highways & "Yellow Book").
> >
> > Uh yeah, but what about all those porn sites listed in your Top 30
> > referrers.
> >
> > http://www.roadfan.com/stats/usage_200211.html
>
> <shrugs>
> They showed up after the last time you mentioned your girlfriend on here.
Ok Sandor, since you brought up my girlfriend...Let's throw all the
posibilities out on the table. Is there something on your website that you
and/or marc are hiding from us?
> Either they (whoever "They" are) have found something fascinating with our
> entry page,
Extremely doubtful
or someone in the roadgeek community knows waaaaay to much about
> computer programming.
Extremely doubtful and just a bit paranoid don't ya think
> Until it either raises my website provider bill or infringes on how one
> views our material, I can't get to excited over it.
Run a virus check or contact websolo about the problem...It's probably a
trojan horse virus and it will continue to eat up your bandwidth until you
get it fixed...it occured probably via spam e-mail...it happened to aaroads
a few years ago. IIRC, what happened was that they were 'hosting' these
coverup sites or routing them without their knowledge.
I homestly have no clue what it could be but I'd do some checking up...it's
better to fix it now then get really burned and be out of commission
indefinitely.
Sherman Cahal
> > 1,337,532 hits in the last 12 months. The information is clear
> > and easy to view and navigate with no fancy HTML coding.
>
> I thought for a moment John might have been talking about Roadfan.com, but
> our site has only garnered 1,310,000 hits since Dec. 1 of 2001.
> http://www.roadfan.com/stats/ <shrugs>
> Our site has had over 100,000 hits per month since May. The top pages in
> hit generating are the Driver Manual collection, MTR's FAQ (even with some
> posters' grumbling about it's regular appearance on here), the Ohio photo
> collection, and the national maps of pre-interstate plans (aka
Interregional
> Highways & "Yellow Book").
>
> Now, DON'T think for a moment that I think roadfan is one of the most
> popular sites on the net, we're probally somewhere in the third quarter of
> total sites (if you ranked everyone on raw hit generation), but I'm happy
> with our place.
>
> (To Sherman) Now what was it that you said about bland text on white
> backgrounds couple of days ago elsewhere on this thread?
Let me explain something Sandor:
HITS are people who visit each and every page, image, etc... thats on your
page. HITS are counted as one HIT per item you view. Thus HITS are not an
accurate way of counting a sites statistics.
If you want accuracy, try PAGE files. They are the number of visits to your
main page ONLY.
VISITS are the number of visits that are counted per IP address for a given
12 hour (or 24 hour, depending on your settings) period.
So... "OH BOY 1,000,000,000,000 HITS!!" won't cut it.
Jeff Kitsko
don't ask, don't tell.
--
Jeff Kitsko
Pennsylvania Highways: http://www.pahighways.com/
Ohio Highways: http://www.ohhighways.com/
"Adam Prince" <apri...@HISPAMMERScarolina.rr.com> wrote in message
news:oTeF9.13352$sj1.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
David J. Greenberger
> Not to offend anybody, but plain sites with nothing but text, a few images,
> and a dull white background with no images is boring to me.
So put the content in the HTML and the presentation hints in the CSS.
Anyone using a browser that supports HTML will be able to access the
content. Anyone whose browser also supports CSS will get some or all
aspects of your preferred presentation, depending on how much of CSS is
supported and whether he has set his browser to override any
presentational issues.
> And it is a reflection of how lazy people are to upgrade browsers that
> are 4, going on 5 years old.
Perhaps they prefer those browsers, for whatever reasons. Perhaps they
don't like the newer browsers, for whatever reasons. Perhaps they're
using brand new browsers that you've never heard of but you assume are
old.
--
David J. Greenberger
New York, NY
David J. Greenberger
> It's your fault for not upgrading your browsers. You know that time does not
> stop just because you got a browser that does not function on many (and a
> growing number) of sites. What Brian cited was correct: the standards are
> set and my site is fully compliant with the standards set with HTML 4.01.
It is? Then you won't mind if I run it through a validator.
Oops! You forgot the DOCTYPE. I'll force the validator to use HTML
4.01 Transitional this time.
Oops again! The validator seems to have found 20 errors. Guess it's
not valid HTML 4.01 after all.
(Your CSS validates but generates 13 warnings.)
Sherman Cahal
I'll make the corrections tonight. Thanks.
CSS: I let Dreamweaver MX handle this. I hate going through CSS stylesheets
by hand.
Sandor G
<shrugs again>
bunch of old HTML code? Couple of New Jersey road pictures. Nothing to get
excited about, I'd hope.
> > Either they (whoever "They" are) have found something fascinating with
our
> > entry page,
>
> Extremely doubtful
>
> or someone in the roadgeek community knows waaaaay to much about
> > computer programming.
>
> Extremely doubtful and just a bit paranoid don't ya think
<bad singing voice>
Do you ever get the feeling in ya life
That someone is watching you
He's got no reason that is right,
but still he is watching you
</bad singing voice>
> > Until it either raises my website provider bill or infringes on how one
> > views our material, I can't get to excited over it.
>
> Run a virus check or contact websolo about the problem...It's probably a
> trojan horse virus and it will continue to eat up your bandwidth until you
> get it fixed...it occured probably via spam e-mail...it happened to
aaroads
> a few years ago. IIRC, what happened was that they were 'hosting' these
> coverup sites or routing them without their knowledge.
Serious question,
how does one run a virus check on a website?
Sherman Cahal
one
> > > views our material, I can't get to excited over it.
> >
> > Run a virus check or contact websolo about the problem...It's probably a
> > trojan horse virus and it will continue to eat up your bandwidth until
you
> > get it fixed...it occured probably via spam e-mail...it happened to
> aaroads
> > a few years ago. IIRC, what happened was that they were 'hosting' these
> > coverup sites or routing them without their knowledge.
>
> Serious question,
> how does one run a virus check on a website?
You really don't. Viruses infect the files on the web-sites through upload
from your comptuer (or others), and then people download those files and get
them on their computers.
Usually a server will run a periodic sweep and inform you. I don't maintain
my server but I had one e-mail mentioning that I had the JOKE_RUSS_A virus
on my site. They cleaned it.
Chris Lawrence
making sure all of your pages are standards-compliant. (It doesn't do
much for CSS, though.)
Chris
--
Chris Lawrence <ch...@lordsutch.com> - http://blog.lordsutch.com/
Brian Polidoro
I'd agree with Adam. Something fishy is going on there. I looked at some of those referrers (the non-porn ones) and they have no
links to roadfan.com. And I wouldn't wait for it to become a larger problem. I would do it just so the site can have valid
statistics. It's either a virus or some other fraudulent practice going on there. Time to test how well the site host's support
service is at handling these problems.
It seems to have started in September. And another thing is it seems to be affecting the referrers but not the number of hits.
That has stayed about the same after it started as before it started. (ie no spike or dramatic hit increase when it started)
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"Adam Prince" <apri...@HISPAMMERScarolina.rr.com> wrote in message news:oTeF9.13352$sj1.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Matthew Hunt
Adam Prince <apri...@HISPAMMERScarolina.rr.com> wrote:
> I homestly have no clue what it could be but I'd do some checking up...it's
> better to fix it now then get really burned and be out of commission
> indefinitely.
Here is my guess... some enterprising soul who owns or runs
adult-sex-toys-movies.com accesses web pages, sending a forged "Referer:"
header in the HTTP request which specifies his web site. He does this
over and over again (via automated methods) in the hope that you have
a public statistics page, and that people looking at your statistics
will be overcome with an urge to buy sex toys, Viagra, or kitchen
accessories. Or, he hopes that search engines will see the links on
your statistics page, and be fooled into thinking his sex toy site is
a popular and useful resource, since people are linking to it.
I've never heard of such an endeavor, but it seems plausible. It would
have a very low success rate, but also a very low cost--the same business
model as spamming. The results can be improved by only targeting sites
that have public statistics pages (you could find such sites either by
hand or automated techniques).
Brian Polidoro
I've found a way that I see as a good solution to this dilemma. I've changed the way that my style sheet is added to the HTML. The
common way to apply style sheets to html is the link tag. Well this is the HTML way of doing it. The CSS way of doing this is
putting an import statement inside a style tag in the head of the document. See MDends index for an example. Netscape 4.7 will
ignore this statement thus giving the site no style from that external stylesheet. While the browsers I've tested it on will use
that import statement and apply the style from the external stylesheet. The browsers I've tested it on and use the import statement
are: Netscape 6.2, IE 6, Mozilla 1.1, Kmeleon 0.7. I'd like to know what happens in IE 4, 5, and 5.5. CNET says it doesn't work in
IE 4.
I'm still trying to figure out what is causing the text to change to blocks in Netscape 4.7 when the content scrolls out of view and
it scrolls back into view for MDends index. I can rule out the style because the problem doesn't exist in my other pages that use
style. And it's not using external style because of what I did above.
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"David J. Greenberger" <davidgre...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:65ui9z...@myrealbox.com...
Sandor G
news:3ded03eb$1...@post.newsfeed.com...
> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>
> I'd agree with Adam. Something fishy is going on there. I looked at some
of those referrers (the non-porn ones) and they have no
> links to roadfan.com. And I wouldn't wait for it to become a larger
problem. I would do it just so the site can have valid
> statistics. It's either a virus or some other fraudulent practice going
on there. Time to test how well the site host's support
> service is at handling these problems.
>
> It seems to have started in September. And another thing is it seems to
be affecting the referrers but not the number of hits.
> That has stayed about the same after it started as before it started. (ie
no spike or dramatic hit increase when it started)
Other than SPUI's computer (and someone in Oklahoma City) has generated
5,000 hits to our site since this "problem" started.
BTW, first run in with A+net support Service was unproductive last night.
Some college kid who couldn't figure out how I knew my website's stats and
said "everything looked fine." I'm going to have to find some others to
help me look into the web programing (or whichever term I should use)
.
> --
> Brian Polidoro
> Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
>
--
Brian Polidoro
Well what Matthew Hunt wrote sounds plausible to me too. I'm familiar with conventional web programming and have no idea how that
would be done that way. So I'd call it hacking.
Tough luck with the support. But I think I see the culprit. From your November stats page:
# Hits Files KBytes Visits Hostname
1 18685 12.98% 18685 14.97% 109030 3.51% 58 0.33% ip68-103-114-7.ks.ok.cox.net
18000+ hits yeah right there's where the wackiness is from. No one else is over 1000.
But you can't really trust the hostname given there because any good hacker would spoof their id. (which is giving you a fake id or
someone else's id) And if they're a good enough hacker to do this they are sure to know how to spoof. I've had a small amount of
exposure to hacking from a friend of a friend. But that was IRC hacking.
But I could not find anything that sticks out like this for September or October. So I guess he was being more careful doing it at
first by using multiple spoof hostnames so they don't stick out. But in November he was either stupid, lazy or thought he could get
away with it because he hadn't got caught in the first 2 months.
And actually upon closer inspection I've found evidence of this happening in August as well. So he may have been doing this earlier
than September but was being careful to see how much he can get away with without being noticed.
--
Brian Polidoro
Index of My Road Related Sites - http://mahn0.tripod.com
"Sandor G" <bt...@bright.net> wrote in message news:Nd9H9.1972$37.2...@cletus.bright.net...
Sandor G
"Brian Polidoro" <seemyw...@mahn0.tripod.com> wrote in message
news:3ded2a73$1...@post.newsfeed.com...
Going through the last 5 months of stats, in August a Google crawlerbot
started showing up. Normally numbered 10, 11, or 12. They have a large
proportion of visits to the site as well.
Daniel Faigin
about a new form of web attack where p o r n providers repeatedly link
to a web site, in order to have their sites raise up in the ratings.
Take a look at
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/27/2136233&mode=thread&tid=111
geoffsmith writes "Wired News is reporting that spammers are using
referer logs as a cheap new way to spam small sites. Anyone running a
website has probably already seen this phenomenon; I'm thinking of
writing a script to remove these entries from my access_log by looking
for hits that don't grab my images. (sorry lynx users!)"
Daniel
W/H: fai...@pacificnet.net http://www.pacificnet.net/~faigin/
Mod., Mail.Liberal-Judaism (www.mljewish.org) Advisor, s.c.j.Parenting
Maintainer, S.C.J FAQ/RL (www.scjfaq.org) Daddy to Erin Shoshana
Maintainer, Calif. Highways List (www.cahighways.org)
Webmaven, Temple Beth Torah of Granada Hills (www.bethtorah-sfv.org)
Adam Prince
daily. I am very much a novice in programming or how to combat any such
hacks...but if I am able to catch a spike early trace it down and see what
the cause was..then learn if it is from a legitimate source or not...I can
then take what ever actions I need to do to stop things before they get out
of hand.
Classic examples, which Dan Chris, Brian and Doug can all attest to are
members of blackplanet.com and migente.com using the direct URL of images on
their homepages..which result in bandwidth being taken. Most of the time I
send an e-mail and the problem is fixed...other times we have changed the
image to point out what has occurred..all times the problem has been
changed..although there is one I need to readdress. Another problem was
photos from the PA 666 Ends page were being posted on various message
boards. Chris Jordan was able to add a script to the html code that
prohibited right clicks (to learn the image location) on that page...and the
use of the 666 photos have disappeared almost completely.
In the wake of Slater/Chessick and the aaroads.com bandwidth problems, I
have tried to be as proactive as possible in watchdogging the two sites, so
that the bandwidth is used for the right reasons and that both sites can
operate as long as possible without problems.
I still have a lot to learn but fortunately I'm gaining enough contacts and
knowledge from people in and outside the road community that I can ask them
what to do if a problem does arise.
I highly urge that any website using websolo to check their stats on a
regular basis so you will know what is going on and possibly be able to
combat a problem before it becomes too costly.
I can't catch them all...but if I can catch the large
"Sandor G" <bt...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:umaH9.1988$37.2...@cletus.bright.net...
Adam Prince
> Going through the last 5 months of stats, in August a Google crawlerbot
> started showing up. Normally numbered 10, 11, or 12. They have a large
> proportion of visits to the site as well.
Googlebot's are probably adding photos to the photo directory, and pages to
the internet searches etc. Those hits to my knowledge are almost
inevitable.
Adam Prince
"Daniel Faigin" <fai...@pacificnet.net> wrote in message
news:u9cquuc91milmu33i...@4ax.com...
> There was something reported on slashdot, quite a few months ago,
> about a new form of web attack where p o r n providers repeatedly link
> to a web site, in order to have their sites raise up in the ratings.
>
> Take a look at
>
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/27/2136233&mode=thread&tid=111
>
> geoffsmith writes "Wired News is reporting that spammers are using
> referer logs as a cheap new way to spam small sites. Anyone running a
> website has probably already seen this phenomenon; I'm thinking of
> writing a script to remove these entries from my access_log by looking
> for hits that don't grab my images. (sorry lynx users!)"
>
> Daniel
That of course begs the question...what is needed to be done to combat
and/or prevent such from occurring?