Single file web pages?

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:31:28 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, John Doe wrote:
This poster just thinks it never sees an advertisement. That
is because they are very good at getting around ad blockers
and fooling the masses. It is their job.

It's not just advertisements themselfs, but data collection that does
not displays anything.... just collects data about you..

Which doesn't affect me whatsoever.

--
You can get a lot of STDs from loo seats,
but only if you sit down before the last guy's got up.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:07:24 +0100, John Doe wrote:

This poster just thinks it never sees an advertisement. That
is because they are very good at getting around ad blockers
and fooling the masses. It is their job.

Of course I know if I se an advert!

--
You can get a lot of STDs from loo seats,
but only if you sit down before the last guy's got up.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:09:03 +0100, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Melzzzzz wrote:
On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page
of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Because they don't just display images, they probably redirects you to
advert sites you haven't blocked probably. Also depends if server is
loaded and their bandwith.

Size Uncompressed Size
23 Documents 381 KB 2234 KB
93 Images 685 KB 685 KB
0 Objects
18 Scripts 400 KB 1181 KB
4 Style Sheets 41 KB 174 KB
138 Files 1507 KB 4274 KB

Scripts and includes dominate bandwidth over images. Also note scripts
don't just passively load, the execute which also adds time...

But presumably execution is done on the client side, and a decent desktop should do this rapidly.

--
A mistake is evidence that someone has tried to do something.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:30:12 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page
of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Because they don't just display images, they probably redirects you to
advert sites you haven't blocked probably. Also depends if server is
loaded and their bandwith.

I don't see the adverts. I don't know if they're downloaded or not. I guess they aren't, because some sites put up a pleading notice saying I've blocked their ad.

--
The chance of a piece of bread falling down on its buttered side is directly proportional to the cost of the carpet.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:33:47 +0100, Wolf K wrote:

On 2017-04-10 07:51, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Most likely because your local node is overloaded.

Local node? You mean at my ISP? If I download a large file I can always get full 44Mbit bandwidth, even on P2P.

--
"Click cancel to discontinue starting" - Mac OS 9

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:30:12 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page
of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Because they don't just display images, they probably redirects you to
advert sites you haven't blocked probably. Also depends if server is
loaded and their bandwith.

I don't see the adverts. I don't know if they're downloaded or not.
I guess they aren't, because some sites put up a pleading notice
saying I've blocked their ad.

Adverts are not problem but their data collection counterparts. They
hide by different domains so that adblock is not effective against
them...

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:50:40 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:30:12 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page
of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Because they don't just display images, they probably redirects you to
advert sites you haven't blocked probably. Also depends if server is
loaded and their bandwith.

I don't see the adverts. I don't know if they're downloaded or not.
I guess they aren't, because some sites put up a pleading notice
saying I've blocked their ad.

Adverts are not problem but their data collection counterparts. They
hide by different domains so that adblock is not effective against
them...

Data collection doesn't bother me, why does it bother you?

--
Keyboards used to be expensive and beer used to be cheap.
Now beer is expensive and keyboards are cheap.
Conclusion, it's still bad to spill beer on your keyboard.

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:50:40 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:30:12 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page
of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Because they don't just display images, they probably redirects you to
advert sites you haven't blocked probably. Also depends if server is
loaded and their bandwith.

I don't see the adverts. I don't know if they're downloaded or not.
I guess they aren't, because some sites put up a pleading notice
saying I've blocked their ad.

Adverts are not problem but their data collection counterparts. They
hide by different domains so that adblock is not effective against
them...

Data collection doesn't bother me, why does it bother you?

It makes sites slow...



--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:16:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:50:40 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:30:12 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page
of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Because they don't just display images, they probably redirects you to
advert sites you haven't blocked probably. Also depends if server is
loaded and their bandwith.

I don't see the adverts. I don't know if they're downloaded or not.
I guess they aren't, because some sites put up a pleading notice
saying I've blocked their ad.

Adverts are not problem but their data collection counterparts. They
hide by different domains so that adblock is not effective against
them...

Data collection doesn't bother me, why does it bother you?

It makes sites slow...

If an adblocker can spot ads, why can't it spot data collection? Or think of it the other way, if data collection can get by adblockers, why don't they do the same with the ads so we have to see them?

Does it really slow it down much? What's it sending? A few kB of text?

--
If the Pope goes #2, does that make it "Holy ****"?

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
But presumably execution is done on the client side, and a decent
desktop should do this rapidly.

Assuming they are written well and don't adversely interact with others.
Not uncommon for sites to load dozens of scripts all trying to determine
who you are, where you are on the page, and how long you stay there...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

Data collection doesn't bother me, why does it bother you?

Corporations just love you.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:16:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:50:40 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:30:12 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page
of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Because they don't just display images, they probably redirects you to
advert sites you haven't blocked probably. Also depends if server is
loaded and their bandwith.

I don't see the adverts. I don't know if they're downloaded or not.
I guess they aren't, because some sites put up a pleading notice
saying I've blocked their ad.

Adverts are not problem but their data collection counterparts. They
hide by different domains so that adblock is not effective against
them...

Data collection doesn't bother me, why does it bother you?

It makes sites slow...

If an adblocker can spot ads, why can't it spot data collection? Or
think of it the other way, if data collection can get by adblockers,
why don't they do the same with the ads so we have to see them?

Because ad blocker reacts on patterns on urls. Sites that serve adds are well
known, and ads themselfes have recognizable patterns, but sites that collect data
are sometime unknown.


Does it really slow it down much? What's it sending? A few kB of
text?
It does not sends anything, rather you send them data. Problem is that
those sites got hit from many other websites and just connecting and
sending data to them can take some time.

eg I blocked these recently just from civfanatics forum, add block plus
does not have them:
(from my /etc/hosts)
127.0.0.1 ml314.com
127.0.0.1 ce.lijit.com
127.0.0.1 ap.lijit.com
127.0.0.1 pixel-a.sitescout.com





--
press any key to continue or any other to quit...

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:41:02 +0100, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
But presumably execution is done on the client side, and a decent
desktop should do this rapidly.

Assuming they are written well and don't adversely interact with others.
Not uncommon for sites to load dozens of scripts all trying to determine
who you are, where you are on the page, and how long you stay there...

Some of those are helpful to avoid you having to type in the same details over and over again.

--
When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge than to let him keep her.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:52:04 +0100, Wolf K wrote:

On 2017-04-10 09:48, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:33:47 +0100, Wolf K wrote:

On 2017-04-10 07:51, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Most likely because your local node is overloaded.

Local node? You mean at my ISP? If I download a large file I can always get full 44Mbit bandwidth, even on P2P.

Should have said "... and local server ..."

AIUI, the measured bandwidth includes resends. Resends occur for many
reasons, among which is the local node.

AIUI, if the local node is overloaded, a fair amount of that bandwidth
may be wasted in pings (for reconnection), and resends of bad data
(especially if you're far from the node). FWIW, I have an excellent
local node connection. It's about 400m distant, there are very few
connections to it (most of my neighbours are on cable not DSL), no
serious source of interference either. Strong, clean signal. AIUI, that
means very little wasted bandwidth from the node.

The local server however is often overloaded, and there are times when
my machine is obviously waiting for a connection. This varies with time
of day, which suggests that my ISP should be upgrading the server (which
happens to be about 11 km away), but I'm not holding my breath.

Add to this that we sometimes have 6 devices on the network at the same
time time....

I'm not familiar with the terms you're using. Local node means the fibre cabinet? The phone exchange? Mine is far from overloaded, I've never seen less than full bandwidth on a speedtest or downloading a file.

What is "local server"?

--
A gang-member was holding his 8-month-old baby while his wife was in kitchen fixing lunch.
The baby murmured "mother".
The guy gets all excited and hollered to his wife "Hey, the baby just said half a word!"

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 16:02:19 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 15:16:16 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 14:50:40 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:30:12 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:19:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:37:42 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:48:26 +0100, Melzzzzz wrote:

On 2017-04-10, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Your browser can save a webpage as a single mhtml file. Why is this
not used on the web to speed things up? There would be no ping lag
between loading each image etc. I thought this was planned 10 years
ago, but it never seemed to happen.

Most lag nowadays is caused by web sites forwarding browsing info to
busy advert sites to collect browsing habits so that they can serve you
targetet ads.

But if you visit a page like Ebay with lots of pictures (say you're
looking through a list of things to buy in gallery mode), each image
is requested seperately. This must take time.

There is `Connection: Keep-Alive ` header for a reason... Besides that
browser caches pages, including images.

So my browser isn't getting one image, then asking for the next? It asks for many at once?

It asks many through one or more connections.

Then why does it take more than instantaneous to display an Ebay page
of 100 images, even though I have a 44Mbit connection?

Because they don't just display images, they probably redirects you to
advert sites you haven't blocked probably. Also depends if server is
loaded and their bandwith.

I don't see the adverts. I don't know if they're downloaded or not.
I guess they aren't, because some sites put up a pleading notice
saying I've blocked their ad.

Adverts are not problem but their data collection counterparts. They
hide by different domains so that adblock is not effective against
them...

Data collection doesn't bother me, why does it bother you?

It makes sites slow...

If an adblocker can spot ads, why can't it spot data collection? Or
think of it the other way, if data collection can get by adblockers,
why don't they do the same with the ads so we have to see them?

Because ad blocker reacts on patterns on urls. Sites that serve adds are well
known, and ads themselfes have recognizable patterns, but sites that collect data
are sometime unknown.

Why is it any harder for the adblocker software to know these?

Does it really slow it down much? What's it sending? A few kB of
text?
It does not sends anything, rather you send them data.

That's what I meant, although badly written :-) "It" was referring to my browser.

Problem is that
those sites got hit from many other websites and just connecting and
sending data to them can take some time.

eg I blocked these recently just from civfanatics forum,

I have that addiction too :-)

add block plus
does not have them:
(from my /etc/hosts)
127.0.0.1 ml314.com
127.0.0.1 ce.lijit.com
127.0.0.1 ap.lijit.com
127.0.0.1 pixel-a.sitescout.com

It should do.

--
"Always go to other peoples' funerals, otherwise they won't go to yours." -- Yogi Berra