I am using a dead operating system, you see, I use Windows 3.x. I love it, it works fine, I can find all the software I need for it all over the net, but according to Jesse Berst, Editorial Director for ZDNet, it is a dead OS. Berst has decided it is dead, he's declared it dead while stating in the next breath there are still 16 million people using it - he doesn't explain what voodoo is keeping it operating for those 16 million people.
Though a more than premature burial, Berst believes those users have not downgraded (my correction to his piece - to make a system work less reliably and with more overall problems cannot be called an 'upgrade') to Win95/98 because we are either cheap, have old machines, or are "stuck in the mud".
Well he can plant a nice wet kiss on the outlet I use for my machine I had built a little over a year ago. I refused to let them load Win95 on my machine :

guy at computer store: "You don't want Win95 loaded?"
me: "No!"
him:"Are you sure, it's the newest system"
me: "I'm very sure, just put Dos on it to set it up, I'll have the rest taken care of."
him: "It wouldn't be extra."
me: "If you put it on, I'll just delete it"

"It says it can't detect my soundcard anymore."
"It says I don't have a CD driver anymore and I should use the Windows CD to load one."
"I deleted a file that was supposed to be temporary, now I can't boot."

I was going to respond in the 'Berst's Alerts' area, but you have to register and to register you have to agree to let ZDnet use your personal information for advertising/marketing. I imagine you get forms from Gates asking you to join the Win98 sales force, as Berst obviously has.

Here's some file sites for 3.x :

Simtelnet Files ~ WinSite Files ~ CWSApps ~ Windows 3.x Software Collection
Tucows 3.x ~ Help Desk 3.x ~ Completely Free - (games)

I decided it was time I give my thoughts on Linux. How experienced am I, that you should trust my opinion? Well, I'm on a computer aren't I, and Linux is an operating system for computers, right? I have a website which thousands of people see everyday, my friend MorJava has Linux on the laptop, and I know a tiny, tiny, (did I mention tiny?) bit about Unix, so you can trust me.

Do you believe me? If you're wise enough not to, go here for real information. Honestly, I know just about zip on Linux, but I'm making a point ....Celebrity.

I think Alec Baldwin pushed me over the edge with his little outburst on Conan O'Brien. No one in their right mind would trust my opinion/suggestions on Linux, yet anyone who's been on camera, even for a fleeting minute, believes someone cares what they think, especially when it comes to politics. I rarely pay attention to what the 'experts' they drag onto every news program say. Half the time I think they put the janitor in a suit and drag him in front of the camera, hoping we'll all decide we don't want Mr. Clinton to be removed from office (he hasn't the decency to resign), because some guy in a suit on the evening news said 'the American people' don't want it - I'm certainly not going to care what any -any- celebrity thinks and I use the term 'thinks' loosely.

Just because someone can go before a camera, or on a stage, and pretend really well to be someone else, does not mean they know anything about politics. All they have is their opinion. No, I won't go to the old opinion joke, because having an opinion is good, as long as there is one shred of thought/consideration/learning behind that opinion. Politics isn't like your favorite colour - it's more of a chess game, and everytime a 'celebrity' starts talking politics, it's more like the Saturday Night Live fake commercial for Chess For Girls - where they pretty-up the game to make it more accessible to girls - that's celebrity politics. It's all about what cause is the trendiest, what politician will support it, and whether they'll actually come to a fund raiser where the celebrity host will spend a few million dollars to have a blow-out bash to raise several thousand dollars and anyone who's anyone in attendance will show up in the papers and on tv for the next week. Chess and politics aren't for the shallow. Just because you can pretend to be someone really well, doesn't mean you have any idea who you are, or that the opinions you have weren't shaved off of someone else. No matter how many times you have a fund raiser, that doesn't mean you have any idea what the cause is really about. Proof of that is in how many celebrities support PETA. PETA is a celebrity organization. It sells celebrity, foolishly and well; it's like a Jerry Lewis movie about an animal rights group.

I was just getting over Netscape acquiring NewHoo! (formerly GnuHoo! - the directory that started as an alternative to/spoof of Yahoo!, but grew into a very useable, well-maintained directory) when I heard about the AOL/Netscape merger. My first thought was that NewHoo! (now a Mozilla search engine) will be channeled to death just like Yahoo!, the format it was trying to be a break from. I call it the AOLing of the internet. Every search engine trying to be a BBS - one stop shopping - channeling, channeling, channeling, with no real spirit.
My second thought was 'grab a spare copy of Netscape 3.04 incase this one crashes beyond repair', but MorJava pointed out that just about anything that has ever been on the internet can still be found somewhere. I believe it, because I lost a slew of tiny Windows games by the genius Charles Timmerman and though it took months of searching, MorJava found them for me. They don't make Windows games like these anymore. If you'd like to order them, write me and I'll send along the information.
What does the merger mean? Well, AOL users will finally have a real browser when AOL stops posturing and gives up Internet Explorer. Those with a tiny bit of computer knowledge were already downloading Netscape anyway. Once IE is off AOL it may start being seen as a legitimate browser itself - till you use it of course. Sadly, Netscape will drop in most minds as a 'real' browser, nothing connected with AOL can be considered 'real'. The Velveteen Rabbit's first lesson was to cancel his AOL account. Personally, I think more people might take a shine to an alternative, like Opera. I tested it out the other day at a friend's house and found it very comfortable, though it still needs a bit of tweaking.
Basically, the merger of Netscape and AOL means one decent company (Netscape) will be dragged into the muck, covered with bows and ribbons, and presented as a beauty queen. AOL is sure to give it a reverse face-lift. Imagine Puff Daddy doing Robert Johnson - don't think about it too long, you'll have nightmares.

Could be AOL is just jealous because it never was, and never will be anything close to the internet, so it's just going to buy up as much of it as it can. Someday, someone, somewhere, who isn't an AOL user, may actually mistake the two and no more disks will ever spew forth from Vienna again.
    I can dream, can't I?

"Hi, welcome to NetRants, mind if I take a little information on you?
I'd just like to get the page you came here from, your browser information, operating system, your internet server's address, and find out if you've been here before. I'd like to store all this information on your computer so next time you stop by I'll remember you.
You don't mind do you?"

Um, yes, yes I do mind. If I were trying to get through to some site, like MicroSoft, it would be bye-bye time. Cookies, that's what I'm talking about. MicroSoft won't let you on without them, other sites as well. No cookies, no site ...fine with me ...no Minor Sage going back to their site.
I'm not one of the people who think cookies tell the domain everything including your mother's maiden name, but I do know if they are storing form information they could have the maiden name and more as well, but you have to give it to them. But then, I saw a link from a webpage once that had the persons password to the link site right in the url. They just used their bookmarks as a link page and didn't even catch it, so you can't be too careful.
I know the basic information about any visitor to a site is all on the site's server anyway, but I've seen log files, I've seen log files over 10 megs in one month. That's small for some sites, but it's still alot to look through. Sure, they can sort them, but that's too much trouble, why not just store all the information they can gather on you in your own computer?
Even with a statistics program, a log file is alot of information to handle, but how much do sites really need to know about who visits them? Browser, IP, operating system - it's a bit like looking at the shoes of all the customers who come into a restaurant to determine how better to serve them coffee. And forget about figuring out what pages are getting the most hits, unless you're the type who would change the colour of a painting to match their couch.

Yes, I know, cookies are a wonderful tool for shopping carts. How many times can you read that without loosing your cookies? IF I'm on a site shopping, then ok, send me a cookie to keep track of my purchases in this session, but if I'm not 'cancel, cancel, cancel'. Alot of information sites tell you how wonderful and helpful cookies can be, but what they mean is "Please accept our cookies, they're attached to our annoying banner ads and that's how we determine how many people saw it, so we can get paid."
Personally, banner ads are right up there with cookies as major net annoyances and I don't want to get started about them. Put the two together and you have the reason, when I want information, I don't bother having graphics load. GeoCities should win an award for trying hardest to chase people away from their sites with that bad mix of cookies and window banner ads. I honestly have to decide if I really want to go to a GeoCities site bad enough when a link comes up for them.

I have a link to a great page that requires 53 cookie cancels just to read it. Every bit of information on that page has a cookie attached to it. I can just see the site owner :

"Oh, they saw the little image at the top, and the one on the right, and the one of the bottom left. Oh look! They read that one paragraph in the center, I'm so proud of that paragraph!"

Wondering if you have cookies hanging around your hard drive? If you're on Navigator look for 'cookie.txt' in the Netscape directory (Mac it's MagicCookie - sheah, like they'll disappear sometime soon - in the Netscape Preferences folder). If you have Explorer, you might have other problems to deal with, but the cookies are in the Windows Cookies directory. Yeah, Explorer gives them their own directory, isn't that sweet?
Once you find them, you have a few options, personally I try never to accept a cookie, I have Navigator set to warn me before accepting any, let them waste their hard drive space, not mine. If I do find I wasn't paying attention and hit 'enter' instead of 'tab-enter', I just delete the cookie.txt. You can also empty the file and mark it read-only, system, archive, then you'll only have the cookies for that session, hanging around in your cache.
Explorer does has the option of never accepting a cookie, something Lynx had quite a while ago, but hey it's Gates, he likes to borrow.

If you'd like to know more about cookies, I've found two sites that help :

Cookie Central and a site that has some fun with cookies Robert Brooks' Cookie Taste Test

For me, the only good cookie is a nice hazelnut by Bahlsen of Germany called Kipferl. You might find them in the cookie aisle, or the import section of your local grocer.

Right now, I'm wasting time. It's my time to waste and that's what I'm doing. But guess what? You're wasting time too. Why? Why you? How could I know? You're on the net aren't you? Wait, don't click away ...this isn't my thinking, this is the thinking of people I talk to almost every day.

"The Internet is just a waste of time, like TV"

"Fear is the mind killer"

So, I didn't get married today. I had a chance to, well, about as much of a chance as I do of winning that 2mil. from M&M. See I entered the David Weinlick wife hunt. Incase you hadn't heard about it, seems Weinlick grew tired of people asking him when he was getting married and just started giving a date - today's date - June 13, 1998. His webpage had a nomination area and his friends picked the now Mrs. Weinlick. It wasn't a lovematch website with married people looking for flings. It was the real deal and one lady had her life changed overnight, the rest of us got the jolt of taking a real chance.

I only heard about it yesterday, and filled out the form late last night. Strange as it may sound (insert sarcasm here), my mother was all for my entering, my sister too. Seeing as they are both married, misery loves company comes to mind, but I'll brush over that thought. MorJava had reservations. "What if he picks you?" ..."Well," I responded, "I'll be getting married and moving to Minnesota.".

The form on Weinlick's page had one basic question, why should the person you are nominating, and Weinlick be married? I'm sure there were follow-up questions if you had gotten there a bit earlier in the game, and a news report said women had 'campaigned' to be Weinlick's wife. I don't know how strongly they meant the word campaign. People seemed surprised that women were taking it quite serious.

Arranged marriages aren't that long past. Yes, they still exist, though most Americans find the idea ridiculous, it has its merits. It prevents down-breeding. Maybe that's a bit harsh, but look around you. How many people do you know who are mated below, sometimes well below, their own level of intelligence, creativity, social skills? Though we'd like to think we can choose our own mates, truth is they are chosen mostly on chemical reaction, and as we are seeing more and more each year, those chemicals don't have a long half-life. We've grown accustomed to the 'carriage' coming before the 'marriage' now, but to put the 'marriage' before the 'love' in that little rhyme not only throws off the metre, but sends some heads for a spin.

The local press thought the story belonged in the 'strange news' segment. I don't see why the idea is so bizarre to some people. Who knows you better than your friends? If you weren't choosing, who would you rather have pick a mate, your friends or your parents?
Instead of this being an "Oh, that crazy internet!" story, it should be taken as a breakthrough. Arranged marriages are usually done within a circle of acquaintances. Though science now says we are all actually within six degrees of separation, sometimes those connections aren't so obvious to us. With the net, we have the whole world to look through (most people are within two degrees of separation from the net, even if they don't have a computer). The old ideal of that 'special someone', becomes a viable goal.
With friends choosing the mate, those being chosen don't have to worry if the person is another unibomber looking for a techno-princess to sacrifice. You have to have friends to let friends choose for you.
Call me old-fashioned, but I like the idea.