Charles on… anything that comes along

Just go there: Hotel Light Panel.

Then tell me what they actually meant to say.

(Via “HTML o’the Day” at Smallworks)

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• Oo. Cricket. Result. (7 August 2005; score: 27.66%)
• Minority Report, as it would be summed up for a broadsheet newspaper headline (26 December 2005; score: 26.92%)
• Oh god, The Apprentice is *so* compulsive (2 April 2008; score: 24.44%)

So the preview release of Firefox, the slimmed-down version of Mozilla, is out. So I tried out the Mac OSX version.

On the plus side:

• not as big a download as Mozilla. (8 MB or so. Try that on dialup.)
• has an Applescript dictionary. I like Applescript - automating is what computers are about and scripts help you do that.

On the negative side:

• processor hog. Took up about 15% of processor when it had about four pages open.
• memory hog. Took an amazing amount of RAM for something with only four pages open.
• slow, perhaps because it was shuffling everything about in memory.
• cache hog. taking far too much of my rather precious disk space
• not a very good Applescript dictionary (though it’s nice they tried). Only gives the ability basically to open a new window with a named URL. Basic, but not what you’d get from a browser designed for OSX.
• couldn’t get the much-vaunted RSS searching/feeds to work.

Anyway, I’ve already got one processor-RAM-cache hog browser, and it’s Safari. So I think I’ll remain with it.

Interesting though that the Mozilla family continues to eat into Explorer’s market share, now down to 93.6%. As Doc Searls said, seems trees don’t grow into the sky.

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• Firefox encroaches on IE.. slowly, slowly... (28 April 2005; score: 55.74%)
• More browser madness: is Google forcing me to use the .co.uk site? (31 May 2005; score: 37.68%)
• Firefox slows down, The Shining goes happy- plus Titanic as horror movie, and West Side Story recut trailers (1 October 2005; score: 36.42%)

Wow. If you’re taking the RSS comments feed from this site then you’ll have noticed the occasional one or two popping up - all nice and relevant to what’s going on. I get emailed though whenever someone posts a comment. And just noticed 27 in the queue for approval.

It’s just a blitz: 27 comments posted on that many different posts from 20 different IP addresses (some came from the same IP) in the space of three minutes (from Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:05:10 to Thu, 16 Sep 2004 12:07:44). OK, two and a half minutes.

All, of course, coming from compromised PCs running SODDING WINDOWS. Sorry, just had to get that off my chest.

This is clearly now an industry; anyone with sufficient Google juice is an instant target for something that the spam controllers do in no doubt the most bored fashion, like one of Tony Soprano’s under-under-under-underlings.

How do wikis prevent spam? Maybe that’s the answer. Anyway, to anyone who finds that they can read this but can’t comment because they get “Access Denied” - that’s the Spammer Tar Pit picking up on your IP address, which probably means (unless you’re on dialup) that your machine is compromised.

I suppose though this does demonstrate how good Wordpress is at preventing blog spam, once you’ve got a couple of the right plugins. (See my post of yesterday for the names.)

The other thing that blog spam, and any sort of spam does, is generate a remarkable feeling of rage. It’s because of the impotence it implies: you can’t stop these people, can’t see them, can’t reason with them. It’s like raging against clouds for raining on you.

These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
• Spam catcher updated, which I hope will solve problems with nice people being unable to pass comment (26 September 2005; score: 56.48%)
• Hyperactive comment blocking (2 December 2004; score: 52.95%)
• Spam attack? Tell Google, and wipe out online herpes (14 July 2005; score: 52.47%)