Group: rec.travel.australia+nz
Travel Information for Australia and New Zealand.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
Going to New Zealand?
Check our new travel website about beautiful New Zealand and
Australia:
http :// www .triptouch,com /new-zealand/ni/auckland
Please give us feedback !
Going to New Zealand?
Check our new travel website about beautiful New Zealand and
Australia:
http :// www .triptouch,com /new-zealand/ni/auckland
Please give us feedback !
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:55:04 -0800 (PST), danharris76@gmail,com
wrote in
<86e06ba3-18b8-4669-b470-0c0f43245751@s8g2000prg.googlegroups,com >
:
>Going to New Zealand?
>
>Check our new travel website about beautiful New Zealand and
>Australia:
>
> http :// www .triptouch,com /new-zealand/ni/auckland
>
>Please give us feedback !
Sure, am pleased to offer some immediate feedback. Firstly, you
don't offer much information in your in your initial post to this
group.
Secondly, when your web site is accessed, you demand that
visitors
"register" and demand a "password" before any meaningful
information is offered.
You are trying to sell a service or a product.
Suppose I go down to a local supermarket or any other retail
store in Australia.
A security guard at the door demands a "password" or
"identification"
Do you think I would be willing to produce same? Not that I have
anything to hide, but would be highly irritated at the demand.
I would make a rude remark to him and go elsewhere.
My advice to you, if you are trying to sell any product or
service is that you don't even make an offer on the net.
Some of us don't want to "sign up" even to see what services you
are offering, as we know that if we do we will be bombarded by
junk email and postal advertising.
As have mentioned on other groups, perhaps even this group, if I
go to a local retailer of electronic goods and offer to pay with
a valid credit card, they demand a lot of additional information.
Here, a valid credit card just has my name, my credit card
number, and an expiry date, and on the back, a signature.
Most retailers simply run the card through a machine that checks
the validity and this is enough for them.
They don't bother to check the signature, nor should they.
The card is valid or it isn't.
Even at a major supermarket, if I was asked to "validate" my
signature, I would simply walk out and go elsewhere.
Why should I put up with such an invasion of my privacy?
Yet the retailer mentioned above tries to demand my home address,
my phone number, and so on.
Perhaps needless to say, I don't deal with them any more. Even
their web site advertising "specials" require that the potential
customer "signs in" and requires a "password".
If even their advertising requires a "password" I want nothing to
do with them.
So, as a matter of interest, just why do you require a name and
password to even view your Webster?
IMHO, a very poor sales technique. If you don't trust me to even
look at your advertising, why should I trust you?
Enough "feedback" for the moment?
Regards,
Kangaroo16
Sydney, 1:36 AM, Friday, 21 Dec. 2007
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:55:04 -0800 (PST), danharris76@gmail,com
wrote in
<86e06ba3-18b8-4669-b470-0c0f43245751@s8g2000prg.googlegroups,com >
:
>Going to New Zealand?
>
>Check our new travel website about beautiful New Zealand and
>Australia:
>
> http :// www .triptouch,com /new-zealand/ni/auckland
>
>Please give us feedback !
Sure, am pleased to offer some immediate feedback. Firstly, you
don't offer much information in your in your initial post to this
group.
Secondly, when your web site is accessed, you demand that
visitors
"register" and demand a "password" before any meaningful
information is offered.
You are trying to sell a service or a product.
Suppose I go down to a local supermarket or any other retail
store in Australia.
A security guard at the door demands a "password" or
"identification"
Do you think I would be willing to produce same? Not that I have
anything to hide, but would be highly irritated at the demand.
I would make a rude remark to him and go elsewhere.
My advice to you, if you are trying to sell any product or
service is that you don't even make an offer on the net.
Some of us don't want to "sign up" even to see what services you
are offering, as we know that if we do we will be bombarded by
junk email and postal advertising.
As have mentioned on other groups, perhaps even this group, if I
go to a local retailer of electronic goods and offer to pay with
a valid credit card, they demand a lot of additional information.
Here, a valid credit card just has my name, my credit card
number, and an expiry date, and on the back, a signature.
Most retailers simply run the card through a machine that checks
the validity and this is enough for them.
They don't bother to check the signature, nor should they.
The card is valid or it isn't.
Even at a major supermarket, if I was asked to "validate" my
signature, I would simply walk out and go elsewhere.
Why should I put up with such an invasion of my privacy?
Yet the retailer mentioned above tries to demand my home address,
my phone number, and so on.
Perhaps needless to say, I don't deal with them any more. Even
their web site advertising "specials" require that the potential
customer "signs in" and requires a "password".
If even their advertising requires a "password" I want nothing to
do with them.
So, as a matter of interest, just why do you require a name and
password to even view your Webster?
IMHO, a very poor sales technique. If you don't trust me to even
look at your advertising, why should I trust you?
Enough "feedback" for the moment?
Regards,
Kangaroo16
Sydney, 1:36 AM, Friday, 21 Dec. 2007
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:36:55 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com >
wrote:
[entire posting deleted]
Ignore the old fart.
Cath
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:36:55 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com >
wrote:
[entire posting deleted]
Ignore the old fart.
Cath
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:14:10 -0600,
texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom.. wrote in
<h6clm3tnghgd4tefbr1ptjqel7hgaeqdtc@4ax,com > :
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:36:55 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com >
>wrote:
> [entire posting deleted]
As mentioned in an earlier post today, I tend to ignore
those who delete or snip posts.:-)
>
>Ignore the old fart.
You would be happier if I was a young fart? :-) If you don't
like my posts you don't even have to read them, let alone reply
to them.
>
>
>Cath
Kangaroo16@example.invalid
Sydney, 12:50 PM Friday 29 Dec.
[GMT + 11 hrs]
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:14:10 -0600,
texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom.. wrote in
<h6clm3tnghgd4tefbr1ptjqel7hgaeqdtc@4ax,com > :
>On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:36:55 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com >
>wrote:
> [entire posting deleted]
As mentioned in an earlier post today, I tend to ignore
those who delete or snip posts.:-)
>
>Ignore the old fart.
You would be happier if I was a young fart? :-) If you don't
like my posts you don't even have to read them, let alone reply
to them.
>
>
>Cath
Kangaroo16@example.invalid
Sydney, 12:50 PM Friday 29 Dec.
[GMT + 11 hrs]
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
"kangaroo16" <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote in message >>Going to New
Zealand?
>>
>>Check our new travel website about beautiful New Zealand and
>>Australia:
>>
>> http :// www .triptouch,com /new-zealand/ni/auckland
>>
>>Please give us feedback !
>
> Sure, am pleased to offer some immediate feedback. Firstly, you
> don't offer much information in your in your initial post to this
> group.........................<shortened>
Kangaroo16, may I suggest that you set up a Gmail account. Something like
kangaroo16@gmail,com . Then you'll have a legit email address and you can
safely sign up to any web site and hand your gmail address out all over the
interent and not worry about spam. Google are experts in spam filtering.
Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
site is worthless.
I suggest you get yourself a free gMail address and start signing up for a
few of these web sites. You've nothing to loose, they don't ask for your
house address or anything else personal. The internet has changed, spam
isn't the problem it once was - thanks to our friends at Google.
Regards
Keith
"kangaroo16" <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote in message >>Going to New
Zealand?
>>
>>Check our new travel website about beautiful New Zealand and
>>Australia:
>>
>> http :// www .triptouch,com /new-zealand/ni/auckland
>>
>>Please give us feedback !
>
> Sure, am pleased to offer some immediate feedback. Firstly, you
> don't offer much information in your in your initial post to this
> group.........................<shortened>
Kangaroo16, may I suggest that you set up a Gmail account. Something like
kangaroo16@gmail,com . Then you'll have a legit email address and you can
safely sign up to any web site and hand your gmail address out all over the
interent and not worry about spam. Google are experts in spam filtering.
Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
site is worthless.
I suggest you get yourself a free gMail address and start signing up for a
few of these web sites. You've nothing to loose, they don't ask for your
house address or anything else personal. The internet has changed, spam
isn't the problem it once was - thanks to our friends at Google.
Regards
Keith
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
Incidently, ignore any of the stupid comments that certain people post
around here. Keep posting! You're my favourite poster in this newsgroup.
Keith
Incidently, ignore any of the stupid comments that certain people post
around here. Keep posting! You're my favourite poster in this newsgroup.
Keith
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:21:02 +1030, "Keith Manning"
<Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjhe$8o4$1@aioe.org>
:
>Incidently, ignore any of the stupid comments that certain people post
>around here. Keep posting! You're my favourite poster in this newsgroup.
>
>Keith
>
Thank you for the compliment, but you will probably be criticised
by others for posting it. :-)
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
Sydney, 3:22 PM Saturday, 22 Dec.
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:21:02 +1030, "Keith Manning"
<Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjhe$8o4$1@aioe.org>
:
>Incidently, ignore any of the stupid comments that certain people post
>around here. Keep posting! You're my favourite poster in this newsgroup.
>
>Keith
>
Thank you for the compliment, but you will probably be criticised
by others for posting it. :-)
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
Sydney, 3:22 PM Saturday, 22 Dec.
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 22 Dec 2007, 05:16
-- deleted messages --
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
[...]
> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
> >site is worthless.
>
> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid about a site which looks
perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
The mind boggles.
Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
you can upload files without authentication?
> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> been fairly quickly cracked.
I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
Boggle, boggle, ...
[...]
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
[...]
> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
> >site is worthless.
>
> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid about a site which looks
perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
The mind boggles.
Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
you can upload files without authentication?
> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> been fairly quickly cracked.
I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
Boggle, boggle, ...
[...]
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>[...]
>> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
>> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
>> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
>> >site is worthless.
>>
>> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>
> So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
"totally paranoid"? :-)
>about a site which looks
>perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
number and are traceable if necessary. How much do you claim to
know about computer and Internet security?
Historically, are you aware that the US Amateur Radio service was
highly restricted during both WW1 & WW2. If you don't, check the
history of amateur radio at:
http :// www .ac6v,com /history.htm
Now, Frank, do you follow the logic of this action in wartime?
Do you think that the U.S. Gov't was "Paranoid" to institute
these regulations?
Why do Governments allow the Internet if messages are not
traceable?
>The mind boggles.
Perhaps yours does.:-)
>
> Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
> So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
name actually "Frank Slootweg"? I note that you don't bother to
provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
> Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>you can upload files without authentication?
How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
>> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>> been fairly quickly cracked.
>
> I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
>
> Boggle, boggle, ...
If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
Internet banking, for example?
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
Sydney, 11:14 Sunday 23 Dec.
[GMT +11 hours]
On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
<this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
<476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>[...]
>> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
>> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
>> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
>> >site is worthless.
>>
>> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>
> So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
"totally paranoid"? :-)
>about a site which looks
>perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
number and are traceable if necessary. How much do you claim to
know about computer and Internet security?
Historically, are you aware that the US Amateur Radio service was
highly restricted during both WW1 & WW2. If you don't, check the
history of amateur radio at:
http :// www .ac6v,com /history.htm
Now, Frank, do you follow the logic of this action in wartime?
Do you think that the U.S. Gov't was "Paranoid" to institute
these regulations?
Why do Governments allow the Internet if messages are not
traceable?
>The mind boggles.
Perhaps yours does.:-)
>
> Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
> So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
name actually "Frank Slootweg"? I note that you don't bother to
provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
> Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>you can upload files without authentication?
How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
>> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>> been fairly quickly cracked.
>
> I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
>
> Boggle, boggle, ...
If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
Internet banking, for example?
Cheers,
Kangaroo16
Sydney, 11:14 Sunday 23 Dec.
[GMT +11 hours]
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:15:21 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com >
wrote:
>On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
><this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
><476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
>>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>>> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>>[...]
>>> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
>>> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
>>> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
>>> >site is worthless.
>>>
>>> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>>> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>>> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>>
>> So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
>How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
>"totally paranoid"? :-)
>
How about *you* give us your definition then?
How many times is it now you have used this term/word?
15 or so?
>>about a site which looks
>>perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
>It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
>number and are traceable if necessary. How much do you claim to
>know about computer and Internet security?
You would be very surprised compared to your knowledge.
>
>Historically, are you aware that the US Amateur Radio service was
>highly restricted during both WW1 & WW2. If you don't, check the
>history of amateur radio at:
>
> http :// www .ac6v,com /history.htm
>
>Now, Frank, do you follow the logic of this action in wartime?
>Do you think that the U.S. Gov't was "Paranoid" to institute
>these regulations?
>
>Why do Governments allow the Internet if messages are not
>traceable?
>
>>The mind boggles.
>
>Perhaps yours does.:-)
>>
>> Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>>let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
>Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>>
>> So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>>don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>>material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
>Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
>they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
>name actually "Frank Slootweg"? I note that you don't bother to
>provide an actual email address, incidentally.
Pot, kettle, black.
You not only do not provide your real name but also a valid email
address!
>>
>> Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>>you can upload files without authentication?
>
>How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>>
>>> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>>> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>>> been fairly quickly cracked.
>>
>> I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
>Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
LMAO. You are such a loser roo.
>
>>
>> Boggle, boggle, ...
>
>If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>
>Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
>your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
>Internet banking, for example?
Do you consider *your* bank/s computers 1001% secure?
>
>Cheers,
>Kangaroo16
Cath
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:15:21 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com >
wrote:
>On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
><this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
><476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
>>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>>> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>>[...]
>>> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
>>> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
>>> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
>>> >site is worthless.
>>>
>>> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>>> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>>> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>>
>> So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
>How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
>"totally paranoid"? :-)
>
How about *you* give us your definition then?
How many times is it now you have used this term/word?
15 or so?
>>about a site which looks
>>perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
>It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
>number and are traceable if necessary. How much do you claim to
>know about computer and Internet security?
You would be very surprised compared to your knowledge.
>
>Historically, are you aware that the US Amateur Radio service was
>highly restricted during both WW1 & WW2. If you don't, check the
>history of amateur radio at:
>
> http :// www .ac6v,com /history.htm
>
>Now, Frank, do you follow the logic of this action in wartime?
>Do you think that the U.S. Gov't was "Paranoid" to institute
>these regulations?
>
>Why do Governments allow the Internet if messages are not
>traceable?
>
>>The mind boggles.
>
>Perhaps yours does.:-)
>>
>> Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>>let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
>Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>>
>> So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>>don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>>material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
>Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
>they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
>name actually "Frank Slootweg"? I note that you don't bother to
>provide an actual email address, incidentally.
Pot, kettle, black.
You not only do not provide your real name but also a valid email
address!
>>
>> Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>>you can upload files without authentication?
>
>How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>>
>>> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>>> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>>> been fairly quickly cracked.
>>
>> I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
>Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
LMAO. You are such a loser roo.
>
>>
>> Boggle, boggle, ...
>
>If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>
>Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
>your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
>Internet banking, for example?
Do you consider *your* bank/s computers 1001% secure?
>
>Cheers,
>Kangaroo16
Cath
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:59:36 -0600,
texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom.. wrote in
<1ijrm3tdi2ccjccjnacbd5f84iga8el07n@4ax,com > :
>On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:15:21 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com >
>wrote:
>
>>On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>><this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>><476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>>
>>>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>>>> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>>>[...]
>>>> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
>>>> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
>>>> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
>>>> >site is worthless.
>>>>
>>>> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>>>> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>>>> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>>>
>>> So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>>
>>How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
>>"totally paranoid"? :-)
>>
>How about *you* give us your definition then?
>How many times is it now you have used this term/word?
>15 or so?
I dunno, offhand. Count them if you wish. :-)
>
>
>>>about a site which looks
>>>perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>>
>>It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>>As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
>>number and are traceable if necessary. How much do you claim to
>>know about computer and Internet security?
>
>You would be very surprised compared to your knowledge.
Possibly, possibly not.
>>
>>Historically, are you aware that the US Amateur Radio service was
>>highly restricted during both WW1 & WW2. If you don't, check the
>>history of amateur radio at:
>>
>> http :// www .ac6v,com /history.htm
>>
>>Now, Frank, do you follow the logic of this action in wartime?
>>Do you think that the U.S. Gov't was "Paranoid" to institute
>>these regulations?
>>
>>Why do Governments allow the Internet if messages are not
>>traceable?
>>
>>>The mind boggles.
>>
>>Perhaps yours does.:-)
>>>
>>> Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>>>let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>>
>>Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>>>
>>> So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>>>don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>>>material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>>
>>Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
>>they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
>>name actually "Frank Slootweg"? I note that you don't bother to
>>provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
>Pot, kettle, black.
>
>You not only do not provide your real name but also a valid email
>address!
>
I feel no need to provide either. I get enough spam as it is.
>
>>>
>>> Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>>>you can upload files without authentication?
>>
>>How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>>>> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>>>> been fairly quickly cracked.
>>>
>>> I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>>
>>Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
>
>LMAO. You are such a loser roo.
You have a right to your opinion. :-)
>>
>>>
>>> Boggle, boggle, ...
>>
>>If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>>
>>Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
>>your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
>>Internet banking, for example?
>
>Do you consider *your* bank/s computers 1001% secure?
No, I don't consider any computer as 100% secure, let alone 1001%
secure. :-) If governments cannot even keep their systems
secure, I certainly cannot expect banks or users of their
services to be able to manage this.
In my Dec.31 issue of "Time" there is an interesting on the
"Briefing" page:
Washington Memo
by Brian Bennet
Did GI's Sell Guns in Iraq?
Apparently they have "lost track" of 190,000 weapons. If the
military can lose track of that many physical weapons, why should
data be securable?
Kangaroo16@example.invalid
Sydney, 12:41 PM Friday 29 Dec.
[GMT + 11 hrs]
>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Kangaroo16
>
>Cath
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:59:36 -0600,
texan....usenet@texas...removethisbit.usacom.. wrote in
<1ijrm3tdi2ccjccjnacbd5f84iga8el07n@4ax,com > :
>On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:15:21 GMT, kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com >
>wrote:
>
>>On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>><this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
>><476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>>
>>>kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>>>> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
>>>[...]
>>>> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
>>>> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
>>>> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
>>>> >site is worthless.
>>>>
>>>> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>>>> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>>>> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>>>
>>> So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>>
>>How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
>>"totally paranoid"? :-)
>>
>How about *you* give us your definition then?
>How many times is it now you have used this term/word?
>15 or so?
I dunno, offhand. Count them if you wish. :-)
>
>
>>>about a site which looks
>>>perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>>
>>It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>>As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
>>number and are traceable if necessary. How much do you claim to
>>know about computer and Internet security?
>
>You would be very surprised compared to your knowledge.
Possibly, possibly not.
>>
>>Historically, are you aware that the US Amateur Radio service was
>>highly restricted during both WW1 & WW2. If you don't, check the
>>history of amateur radio at:
>>
>> http :// www .ac6v,com /history.htm
>>
>>Now, Frank, do you follow the logic of this action in wartime?
>>Do you think that the U.S. Gov't was "Paranoid" to institute
>>these regulations?
>>
>>Why do Governments allow the Internet if messages are not
>>traceable?
>>
>>>The mind boggles.
>>
>>Perhaps yours does.:-)
>>>
>>> Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>>>let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>>
>>Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>>>
>>> So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>>>don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>>>material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>>
>>Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
>>they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
>>name actually "Frank Slootweg"? I note that you don't bother to
>>provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
>Pot, kettle, black.
>
>You not only do not provide your real name but also a valid email
>address!
>
I feel no need to provide either. I get enough spam as it is.
>
>>>
>>> Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>>>you can upload files without authentication?
>>
>>How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>>>> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>>>> been fairly quickly cracked.
>>>
>>> I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>>
>>Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
>
>LMAO. You are such a loser roo.
You have a right to your opinion. :-)
>>
>>>
>>> Boggle, boggle, ...
>>
>>If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>>
>>Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
>>your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
>>Internet banking, for example?
>
>Do you consider *your* bank/s computers 1001% secure?
No, I don't consider any computer as 100% secure, let alone 1001%
secure. :-) If governments cannot even keep their systems
secure, I certainly cannot expect banks or users of their
services to be able to manage this.
In my Dec.31 issue of "Time" there is an interesting on the
"Briefing" page:
Washington Memo
by Brian Bennet
Did GI's Sell Guns in Iraq?
Apparently they have "lost track" of 190,000 weapons. If the
military can lose track of that many physical weapons, why should
data be securable?
Kangaroo16@example.invalid
Sydney, 12:41 PM Friday 29 Dec.
[GMT + 11 hrs]
>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Kangaroo16
>
>Cath
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> >kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> >> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
> >[...]
> >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
> >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
> >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
> >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
> >>
> >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
> >
> > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
> How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
> "totally paranoid"? :-)
I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
area.
> >about a site which looks
> >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
> It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
> As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
> number and are traceable if necessary.
Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
traceable (to a responsible person).
> How much do you claim to
> know about computer and Internet security?
Compared to you? Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
[irrelevant babble deleted]
> >The mind boggles.
>
> Perhaps yours does.:-)
> >
> > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
> >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
> Yes, I've already pointed this out.
*And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
> > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
> >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
> >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
> Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
> they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
> name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
> How much do you claim to
> know about computer and Internet security?
QED.
> I note that you don't bother to
> provide an actual email address, incidentally.
We note that you continue to abuse the invalid,com domain, which is an
*existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.
> How much do you claim to
> know about computer and Internet security?
QED.
> > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
> >you can upload files without authentication?
>
> How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
< http :// dictionary.reference,com >
Knock yourself out!
> >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> >> been fairly quickly cracked.
> >
> > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
> Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?
> > Boggle, boggle, ...
>
> If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>
> Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
> your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
> Internet banking, for example?
No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).
And your *point* is?
kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> >kangaroo16 <kangaroo16@invalid,com > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> >> <Keith.Manning@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$863$1@aioe.org>
> >[...]
> >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
> >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
> >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
> >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
> >>
> >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
> >
> > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
> How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
> "totally paranoid"? :-)
I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
area.
> >about a site which looks
> >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
> It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
> As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
> number and are traceable if necessary.
Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
traceable (to a responsible person).
> How much do you claim to
> know about computer and Internet security?
Compared to you? Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
[irrelevant babble deleted]
> >The mind boggles.
>
> Perhaps yours does.:-)
> >
> > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
> >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
> Yes, I've already pointed this out.
*And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
> > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
> >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
> >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
> Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
> they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
> name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
> How much do you claim to
> know about computer and Internet security?
QED.
> I note that you don't bother to
> provide an actual email address, incidentally.
We note that you continue to abuse the invalid,com domain, which is an
*existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.
> How much do you claim to
> know about computer and Internet security?
QED.
> > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
> >you can upload files without authentication?
>
> How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
< http :// dictionary.reference,com >
Knock yourself out!
> >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> >> been fairly quickly cracked.
> >
> > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
> Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?
> > Boggle, boggle, ...
>
> If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>
> Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
> your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
> Internet banking, for example?
No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).
And your *point* is?
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
On Dec 23, 6:02 am, Frank Slootweg <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> kangaroo16 <kangaro...@invalid,com > wrote:
> > On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> > <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> > <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43...@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> > >kangaroo16 <kangaro...@invalid,com > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> > >> <Keith.Mann...@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$86...@aioe.org>
> > >[...]
> > >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
> > >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
> > >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
> > >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
>
> > >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> > >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> > >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>
> > > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
> > How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
> > "totally paranoid"? :-)
>
> I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
> area.
>
> > >about a site which looks
> > >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
> > It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>
> It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
>
> > As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
> > number and are traceable if necessary.
>
> Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
> is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
> traceable (to a responsible person).
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> Compared to you? Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
> because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
>
> [irrelevant babble deleted]
>
> > >The mind boggles.
>
> > Perhaps yours does.:-)
>
> > > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
> > >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
> > Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
> *And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
>
> > > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
> > >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
> > >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
> > Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
> > they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
> > name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > I note that you don't bother to
> > provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
> We note that you continue to abuse the invalid,com domain, which is an
> *existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
> to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
> > >you can upload files without authentication?
>
> > How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
> < http :// dictionary.reference,com >
>
> Knock yourself out!
>
> > >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> > >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> > >> been fairly quickly cracked.
>
> > > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
> > Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
>
> Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
> Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?
>
> > > Boggle, boggle, ...
>
> > If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>
> > Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
> > your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
> > Internet banking, for example?
>
> No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).
>
> And your *point* is?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The original poster asked for feedback on his new travel website. So
why this interminable gobbledygook on almost anything else?
I went to the site, and registering is NOT REQUIRED to see what is
there, so what is the complaint?
What I want to know is: Is this a travel site? or is it an attempt to
create yet another Web 2.0 social networking mess? A travel site
imparts information, and maybe offers advertisements about items
usefully related to the topic. It does not need to introduce the
notion of "friends", or of a "my travel". Surely you don't want to
become the next My Space or Facebook. (In my opinion both blights on
the universe.)
On Dec 23, 6:02 am, Frank Slootweg <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> kangaroo16 <kangaro...@invalid,com > wrote:
> > On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> > <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> > <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43...@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> > >kangaroo16 <kangaro...@invalid,com > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> > >> <Keith.Mann...@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$86...@aioe.org>
> > >[...]
> > >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
> > >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
> > >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
> > >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
>
> > >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> > >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> > >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>
> > > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
> > How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
> > "totally paranoid"? :-)
>
> I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
> area.
>
> > >about a site which looks
> > >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
> > It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>
> It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
>
> > As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
> > number and are traceable if necessary.
>
> Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
> is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
> traceable (to a responsible person).
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> Compared to you? Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
> because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
>
> [irrelevant babble deleted]
>
> > >The mind boggles.
>
> > Perhaps yours does.:-)
>
> > > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
> > >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
> > Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
> *And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
>
> > > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
> > >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
> > >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
> > Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
> > they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
> > name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > I note that you don't bother to
> > provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
> We note that you continue to abuse the invalid,com domain, which is an
> *existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
> to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
> > >you can upload files without authentication?
>
> > How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
> < http :// dictionary.reference,com >
>
> Knock yourself out!
>
> > >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> > >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> > >> been fairly quickly cracked.
>
> > > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
> > Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
>
> Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
> Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?
>
> > > Boggle, boggle, ...
>
> > If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>
> > Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
> > your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
> > Internet banking, for example?
>
> No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).
>
> And your *point* is?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The original poster asked for feedback on his new travel website. So
why this interminable gobbledygook on almost anything else?
I went to the site, and registering is NOT REQUIRED to see what is
there, so what is the complaint?
What I want to know is: Is this a travel site? or is it an attempt to
create yet another Web 2.0 social networking mess? A travel site
imparts information, and maybe offers advertisements about items
usefully related to the topic. It does not need to introduce the
notion of "friends", or of a "my travel". Surely you don't want to
become the next My Space or Facebook. (In my opinion both blights on
the universe.)
Re: New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!
"ustoparadise" <Mike.Greenawalt@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:e7ce3319-f910-4bf7-8b91-d24590604c40@s19g2000prg.googlegroups,com ...
On Dec 23, 6:02 am, Frank Slootweg <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> kangaroo16 <kangaro...@invalid,com > wrote:
> > On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> > <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> > <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43...@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> > >kangaroo16 <kangaro...@invalid,com > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> > >> <Keith.Mann...@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$86...@aioe.org>
> > >[...]
> > >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
> > >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
> > >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
> > >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
>
> > >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> > >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> > >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>
> > > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
> > How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
> > "totally paranoid"? :-)
>
> I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
> area.
>
> > >about a site which looks
> > >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
> > It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>
> It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
>
> > As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
> > number and are traceable if necessary.
>
> Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
> is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
> traceable (to a responsible person).
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> Compared to you? Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
> because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
>
> [irrelevant babble deleted]
>
> > >The mind boggles.
>
> > Perhaps yours does.:-)
>
> > > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
> > >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
> > Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
> *And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
>
> > > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
> > >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
> > >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
> > Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
> > they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
> > name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > I note that you don't bother to
> > provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
> We note that you continue to abuse the invalid,com domain, which is an
> *existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
> to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
> > >you can upload files without authentication?
>
> > How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
> < http :// dictionary.reference,com >
>
> Knock yourself out!
>
> > >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> > >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> > >> been fairly quickly cracked.
>
> > > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
> > Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
>
> Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
> Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?
>
> > > Boggle, boggle, ...
>
> > If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>
> > Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
> > your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
> > Internet banking, for example?
>
> No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).
>
> And your *point* is?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The original poster asked for feedback on his new travel website. So
why this interminable gobbledygook on almost anything else?
I went to the site, and registering is NOT REQUIRED to see what is
there, so what is the complaint?
What I want to know is: Is this a travel site? or is it an attempt to
create yet another Web 2.0 social networking mess? A travel site
imparts information, and maybe offers advertisements about items
usefully related to the topic. It does not need to introduce the
notion of "friends", or of a "my travel". Surely you don't want to
become the next My Space or Facebook. (In my opinion both blights on
the universe.)
>>>>>>Keiths rave begins,<<<<<<<<<
They should have called the site something like MyTravel or TravelFace. It's
basically a travel portal with links to other sites. The hope is someone
will book a flight or book some accom. and the site owners will recieve a
commission.
By users registering, they offer you a place to put your pics and travel
stories, but your pics and stories actually help to build content for the
site. This content helps attract users who could book a trip or click on
the Google advert at the bottom of the page - more commissions for the site
owners.
When the site has millions of members/users the owners will then sell it to
Google or MySpace or someone like that for a few million bucks
It all sounds like a good businness plan. The only problem is there are
thousands of sites just like this one that appear on the internet everyday.
K
"ustoparadise" <Mike.Greenawalt@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:e7ce3319-f910-4bf7-8b91-d24590604c40@s19g2000prg.googlegroups,com ...
On Dec 23, 6:02 am, Frank Slootweg <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote:
> kangaroo16 <kangaro...@invalid,com > wrote:
> > On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
> > <t...@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in
> > <476d1fb2$0$35884$dbd43...@news.wanadoo.nl> :
>
> > >kangaroo16 <kangaro...@invalid,com > wrote:
> > >> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
> > >> <Keith.Mann...@bigpond,net .au> wrote in <fkhjc3$86...@aioe.org>
> > >[...]
> > >> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload
> > >> >pictures and post to their forums. Without names, a forum can
> > >> >quickly be destroyed by spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the
> > >> >picture section and pretty soon the site is worthless.
>
> > >> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
> > >> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
> > >> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>
> > > So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>
> > How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
> > "totally paranoid"? :-)
>
> I'll leave that to the self-appointed ... ahum ... specialist in that
> area.
>
> > >about a site which looks
> > >perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>
> > It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>
> It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.
>
> > As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
> > number and are traceable if necessary.
>
> Which "post" and which "messages" are you babbling about? The *point*
> is that without authentication the "messages" to the site are *not*
> traceable (to a responsible person).
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> Compared to you? Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
> because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.
>
> [irrelevant babble deleted]
>
> > >The mind boggles.
>
> > Perhaps yours does.:-)
>
> > > Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
> > >let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>
> > Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>
> *And* the *exact opposite*. *That*'s why the mind boggles.
>
> > > So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
> > >don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
> > >material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>
> > Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
> > they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
> > name actually "Frank Slootweg"?
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > I note that you don't bother to
> > provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
> We note that you continue to abuse the invalid,com domain, which is an
> *existing* and *valid* domain (despite its name), which is not yours
> to use. 'whois' is your friend######enemy.
>
> > How much do you claim to
> > know about computer and Internet security?
>
> QED.
>
> > > Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
> > >you can upload files without authentication?
>
> > How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>
> < http :// dictionary.reference,com >
>
> Knock yourself out!
>
> > >> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
> > >> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
> > >> been fairly quickly cracked.
>
> > > I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>
> > Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent" :-)
>
> Because, you say *that* *and* the *exact opposite*! May I suggest
> Logic 101 (and Reading 101, Comprehension 101, GAL 101, etc.)?
>
> > > Boggle, boggle, ...
>
> > If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.:-)
>
> > Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
> > your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
> > Internet banking, for example?
>
> No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).
>
> And your *point* is?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The original poster asked for feedback on his new travel website. So
why this interminable gobbledygook on almost anything else?
I went to the site, and registering is NOT REQUIRED to see what is
there, so what is the complaint?
What I want to know is: Is this a travel site? or is it an attempt to
create yet another Web 2.0 social networking mess? A travel site
imparts information, and maybe offers advertisements about items
usefully related to the topic. It does not need to introduce the
notion of "friends", or of a "my travel". Surely you don't want to
become the next My Space or Facebook. (In my opinion both blights on
the universe.)
>>>>>>Keiths rave begins,<<<<<<<<<
They should have called the site something like MyTravel or TravelFace. It's
basically a travel portal with links to other sites. The hope is someone
will book a flight or book some accom. and the site owners will recieve a
commission.
By users registering, they offer you a place to put your pics and travel
stories, but your pics and stories actually help to build content for the
site. This content helps attract users who could book a trip or click on
the Google advert at the bottom of the page - more commissions for the site
owners.
When the site has millions of members/users the owners will then sell it to
Google or MySpace or someone like that for a few million bucks
It all sounds like a good businness plan. The only problem is there are
thousands of sites just like this one that appear on the internet everyday.
K
