New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!

On Dec 23, 6:02*am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
kangaroo16 wrote:
On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
wrote in
[...]
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.)

"ustoparadise" wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 6:02 am, Frank Slootweg wrote:
kangaroo16 wrote:
On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
wrote in
[...]
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

On 23 Dec 2007 11:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
wrote in
[...]
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.

In other words, you cannot define _your_ definition, as
requested? Not that this surprises me, considering that you
would be hard pressed to come up with a known definition of the
"word" _ahum_.

You wouldn't mean _ahem_ by any chance? Can you find any
English definition of the word? Or do you intend _ahum_ as
acronym? If so, it should be _AHUM_.

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.

Logically, you cannot determine this. I doubt that you can do it
statistically either. All I would have to do is find one other
human who doesn't consider the site as "perfectly fine". :-)

Do you consider your reply to my post as "perfectly fine"? Your
misspelling of "ahem" proves that it isn't.

It would be interesting to readers just what you would
define as "perfectly fine". Yourself, perhaps? The human race?
Our world in general? The known universe?

In passing, would you consider the statement that
"All crows are black" as being "true"?

It isn't, and all that is needed to refute it is the existence of
a single white crow. To save you worrying about it, albino crows
do exist. :-)

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).

Your reply to this post will do as an example. Are you going to
try to convince us that the following message number is not
traceable? I hope that you wouldn't want to bet any reader much
money on that statement.


I'm not claiming that I could trace it down to you, but
Interpol certainly could.


How much do you claim to
know about computer and Internet security?

Compared to you?

This is answering a question with another question, but the
answer is that neither of us is in a position to assess the
knowledge and expertise of the other.

Can you even establish that I am a fellow human being?
Computer programs have passed the "Turing Test" before,
after all. :-)

Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.

You couldn't say with any reasonable precision if it
had greater capacity.:-)


[irrelevant babble deleted]

Whether or not it is "irrelevant" babble is a value
judgment on your part, not a verifiable fact.

Actually, am more interested as to why you feel the need to
delete portions of any post you reply to.

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.

Where do you see the "opposition"?

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.

Sorry about that, just checked. Changing.

How much do you claim to
know about computer and Internet security?

QED.

Not demonstrated to me.

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

Nope. Requires a log in. In any case, didn't ask for their
definition, I asked for your definition.

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.)?

Quote where I "said" or "wrote" any such thing. Do always get
upset when someone disagrees with you?

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?

No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).

I assume you are trying to say here that you don't consider your
computer as absolutely secure, but that you do use Internet
banking with HTTPS and a crypto device.

If I'm correct here, then I would still point out that if you
don't consider your computer is "absolutely secure", why
do you consider Internet banking as "secure"?

Of course, I don't know the nature of your "crypto device". A
"crypto device" can be a password, fingerprint reader, etc.

If so, do you consider these as sufficient security? I wouldn't,
and, like others, don't consider the advantages of Internet
banking to be worth the risk.

Nor, for that matter, do I really understand the motivations
of my bank in urging customers to use Internet banking.
Obviously, it is cheaper for them, but it also makes it very easy
for customers to switch to any other bank on the net.

Cheers,
lid






And your *point* is?

"Kangaroo16" wrote in message
...
On 23 Dec 2007 11:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
wrote in
[...]
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.

In other words, you cannot define _your_ definition, as
requested? Not that this surprises me, considering that you
would be hard pressed to come up with a known definition of the
"word" _ahum_.

You wouldn't mean _ahem_ by any chance? Can you find any
English definition of the word? Or do you intend _ahum_ as
acronym? If so, it should be _AHUM_.

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.

Logically, you cannot determine this. I doubt that you can do it
statistically either. All I would have to do is find one other
human who doesn't consider the site as "perfectly fine". :-)

Do you consider your reply to my post as "perfectly fine"? Your
misspelling of "ahem" proves that it isn't.

It would be interesting to readers just what you would
define as "perfectly fine". Yourself, perhaps? The human race?
Our world in general? The known universe?

In passing, would you consider the statement that
"All crows are black" as being "true"?

It isn't, and all that is needed to refute it is the existence of
a single white crow. To save you worrying about it, albino crows
do exist. :-)

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).

Your reply to this post will do as an example. Are you going to
try to convince us that the following message number is not
traceable? I hope that you wouldn't want to bet any reader much
money on that statement.


I'm not claiming that I could trace it down to you, but
Interpol certainly could.


How much do you claim to
know about computer and Internet security?

Compared to you?

This is answering a question with another question, but the
answer is that neither of us is in a position to assess the
knowledge and expertise of the other.

Can you even establish that I am a fellow human being?
Computer programs have passed the "Turing Test" before,
after all. :-)

Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.

You couldn't say with any reasonable precision if it
had greater capacity.:-)


[irrelevant babble deleted]

Whether or not it is "irrelevant" babble is a value
judgment on your part, not a verifiable fact.

Actually, am more interested as to why you feel the need to
delete portions of any post you reply to.

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.

Where do you see the "opposition"?

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.

Sorry about that, just checked. Changing.

How much do you claim to
know about computer and Internet security?

QED.

Not demonstrated to me.

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

Nope. Requires a log in. In any case, didn't ask for their
definition, I asked for your definition.

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.)?

Quote where I "said" or "wrote" any such thing. Do always get
upset when someone disagrees with you?

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?

No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).

I assume you are trying to say here that you don't consider your
computer as absolutely secure, but that you do use Internet
banking with HTTPS and a crypto device.

If I'm correct here, then I would still point out that if you
don't consider your computer is "absolutely secure", why
do you consider Internet banking as "secure"?

Of course, I don't know the nature of your "crypto device". A
"crypto device" can be a password, fingerprint reader, etc.

If so, do you consider these as sufficient security? I wouldn't,
and, like others, don't consider the advantages of Internet
banking to be worth the risk.

Nor, for that matter, do I really understand the motivations
of my bank in urging customers to use Internet banking.
Obviously, it is cheaper for them, but it also makes it very easy
for customers to switch to any other bank on the net.

Cheers,
lid

What a boring, boring, self-centred person you are.

On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 03:19:54 GMT, "Julie"
wrote in :


"Kangaroo16" wrote in message
.. .
On 23 Dec 2007 11:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
wrote in
[...]
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.

In other words, you cannot define _your_ definition, as
requested? Not that this surprises me, considering that you
would be hard pressed to come up with a known definition of the
"word" _ahum_.

You wouldn't mean _ahem_ by any chance? Can you find any
English definition of the word? Or do you intend _ahum_ as
acronym? If so, it should be _AHUM_.

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.

Logically, you cannot determine this. I doubt that you can do it
statistically either. All I would have to do is find one other
human who doesn't consider the site as "perfectly fine". :-)

Do you consider your reply to my post as "perfectly fine"? Your
misspelling of "ahem" proves that it isn't.

It would be interesting to readers just what you would
define as "perfectly fine". Yourself, perhaps? The human race?
Our world in general? The known universe?

In passing, would you consider the statement that
"All crows are black" as being "true"?

It isn't, and all that is needed to refute it is the existence of
a single white crow. To save you worrying about it, albino crows
do exist. :-)

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).

Your reply to this post will do as an example. Are you going to
try to convince us that the following message number is not
traceable? I hope that you wouldn't want to bet any reader much
money on that statement.


I'm not claiming that I could trace it down to you, but
Interpol certainly could.


How much do you claim to
know about computer and Internet security?

Compared to you?

This is answering a question with another question, but the
answer is that neither of us is in a position to assess the
knowledge and expertise of the other.

Can you even establish that I am a fellow human being?
Computer programs have passed the "Turing Test" before,
after all. :-)

Sorry, can't say with any reasonable precision,
because my computer does only 64-bit floating-point.

You couldn't say with any reasonable precision if it
had greater capacity.:-)


[irrelevant babble deleted]

Whether or not it is "irrelevant" babble is a value
judgment on your part, not a verifiable fact.

Actually, am more interested as to why you feel the need to
delete portions of any post you reply to.

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.

Where do you see the "opposition"?

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.

Sorry about that, just checked. Changing.

How much do you claim to
know about computer and Internet security?

QED.

Not demonstrated to me.

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

Nope. Requires a log in. In any case, didn't ask for their
definition, I asked for your definition.

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.)?

Quote where I "said" or "wrote" any such thing. Do always get
upset when someone disagrees with you?

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?

No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).

I assume you are trying to say here that you don't consider your
computer as absolutely secure, but that you do use Internet
banking with HTTPS and a crypto device.

If I'm correct here, then I would still point out that if you
don't consider your computer is "absolutely secure", why
do you consider Internet banking as "secure"?

Of course, I don't know the nature of your "crypto device". A
"crypto device" can be a password, fingerprint reader, etc.

If so, do you consider these as sufficient security? I wouldn't,
and, like others, don't consider the advantages of Internet
banking to be worth the risk.

Nor, for that matter, do I really understand the motivations
of my bank in urging customers to use Internet banking.
Obviously, it is cheaper for them, but it also makes it very easy
for customers to switch to any other bank on the net.

Cheers,
lid

What a boring, boring, self-centred person you are.

Your opinion, of course, and everyone on Usenet has a basic right
to express their opinion.

Even you, Julie, and you strike me as being young enough to be a
daughter or even grand-daughter.

Perish the thought, of course, as my wife and I have had sense
enough not to reproduce.

Whatever your age or marital status, do you really think that I
would be impressed at such a mild comment as "boring, boring"?

I would suggest that you study "Cath" and other critics posts to
me.

Many decades ago when I was a teenager, in the USA, I have no
doubt that many of my classmates considered me as "very boring"

Perhaps I was, to them. Perhaps they were to me.

So why should I consider your rather mild criticism of me as
being even remotely significant?

I, of course, have no idea of your actual age, but suspect that
you are younger than I am if your scatological vocabulary is so
limited.

If you really want to be "inventive", I would suggest that you
consult the "Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English" by
Eric Partridge.

A study of this book should greatly expand you vocabulary of
"insults". Far beyond "boring", of course!

I suggest that you check your local library reference section for
a copy. If you cannot find it, ask the librarian to get you a
copy on interlibrary loan.

No, I don't have a copy at hand. But if you are reasonably
intelligent, a copy should allow you to properly insult any
member of this group. Or most groups, for that matter.

Lets face it: "boring" is an elementary school level insult.

You should be able to do much better than that! Even "Cath"
should be able to be do better than she does, although that might
be expecting a bit too much from her, or "Slootweg" for that
matter.

However, that is their problem, not mine or yours.

Cheers,
lid
7:32 PM, Monday, 24 Dec. 2007
[GMT + 11 hrs]

.. wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 00:55:04 -0800 (PST), wrote:

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 !

Your spiel is a little confusing i.e. you say 'NZ & Aus' however when
you open your link, it is only Auckland. Noted you are not posting
from within NZ, but if you do happen to do so, you could be 'done'
under NZ's truth in advertising laws!

It's been several years since doing advertising/marketing as part of a
travel/tourism course but I would suggest if you can find a course et
al related to this, to go ahead and do it.

One thing sprung to mind - what age group are you targeting if any?
It can be helpful to target a particular age group, or, set the site
up to cater for various groups i.e. age/backpackers/disabilities etc.

Over the years, there has been many forums started and I can't find
one that is still going. So don't become dishearted if there are
no postings for long periods on end.

Circa 1997 through to around 2000, there was a multitude of sites and
forums in existence as the internet blossomed. Sadly way too
many were repetitive i.e. they contained basically many of the same
links etc. There was a very interesting Masters paper done by a New
Zealander regarding this. Unfortunately I don't know what happened
to my copy of the final paper - it today would still be very relevant!

There is a couple of comments I would personally like to contribute:
The '

News - maybe just links to online media such as : stuff, granny
herald, tvone etc rather than 'news' itself. I for one, would not
want to open up the site and read a headline about x convicted of
raping a tourist!

Kayak - are their rates in NZ$ or ?? From looking at it, I believe
they are in US$. People do want to know upfront what currency they
are being presented in at a glance.

''Who Viewed My Profile" - this could well be a downer!

Links to sites - are you 100% sure that the links you are using you
are able to do so?

Link to 'hospitals' - misleading!
No mention of people are not covered by NZ's health system and are
required to pay 100% of their medical bills i.e. travel insurance is
needed.

Also as in one recent court case, a visitor can be fined severely for
causing an accident involving death and injury.

Also persons who need SAR may well finish paying for those services.

YOu need to brush up on what needs Caps at the start of a word etc.

My opinion at this stage, a mish mash of links to other sites.
Definitely seen this many a time in the past!

Overall aim for an interesting, informed site that makes one 'want'
to join!

Cath


Wow Cath, that's a real Kangaroo16 style rave. It went on for yonks.

Regards

Newbie (Keith)

Kangaroo16 wrote:
On 23 Dec 2007 11:02:16 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:

[...]

It looks perfectly fine to anyone but yourself. QED.

Logically, you cannot determine this. I doubt that you can do it
statistically either. All I would have to do is find one other
human who doesn't consider the site as "perfectly fine". :-)

"Logically"? Perhaps you shouldn't use words whose meaning is totally
alien to you.

But to spoon feed it to you: I'm *obviously* talking about the
*respondents* in *this* thread. Not exactly rocket science, is it?

And no, "the silent majority" doesn't cut it and neither does "They
support me in e-mail!" (because they can't).

[...]

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).

Your reply to this post will do as an example. Are you going to
try to convince us that the following message number is not
traceable? I hope that you wouldn't want to bet any reader much
money on that statement.


I'm not claiming that I could trace it down to you, but
Interpol certainly could.

Web-site 'messages' (if there actually would be such a thing) do not
have a message-id (like News and e-mail articles/messages). So *without*
authentication there *is* nothing to trace. So much for what you "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.

Sorry about that, just checked. Changing.

Wow! A beverage alert would have been nice! You actually *accepted*
someone elses information on something? A sheer miracle! But, THANKS!

[...]

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

Nope. Requires a log in.

Are you nuts? *Where*/*how*/whatever does that site "require a log
in"? You just fill in a word and click "Search".

As with the site in the OP, you *can* register/log in, but you *don't*
*have* to. Just type the word "Premium" in the box and click Search! :-(

In any case, didn't ask for their
definition, I asked for your definition.

No, you asked for the obvious. If you think that anyone is impressed
by such childish games, you'd better think again.

Knock yourself out!

?????

QED.

[...]

Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
your computer as absolutely secure?

No. Yes (and I actually *do*, with HTTPS and a crypto device).

I assume you are trying to say here that you don't consider your
computer as absolutely secure, but that you do use Internet
banking with HTTPS and a crypto device.

I'm not trying to say that, I said that. Your actual text (and hence
my quote of your text) was:

Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for Internet
banking, for example?

I.e. you asked two questions and (hence) I gave two answers.

If I'm correct here, then I would still point out that if you
don't consider your computer is "absolutely secure", why
do you consider Internet banking as "secure"?

Of course, I don't know the nature of your "crypto device". A
"crypto device" can be a password, fingerprint reader, etc.

If so, do you consider these as sufficient security? I wouldn't,
and, like others, don't consider the advantages of Internet
banking to be worth the risk.

The crypto device is unbreakable with today's means, so it's
sufficiently secure.

Also, if I would not use Internet banking, there are *also* security
risks. That people such as yourself do not *realize* these risks, does
not mean that they don't *exist*.

Nor, for that matter, do I really understand the motivations
of my bank in urging customers to use Internet banking.
Obviously, it is cheaper for them, but it also makes it very easy
for customers to switch to any other bank on the net.

Of course it doesn't (make it easier to switch). Switching is only
easy if you can transfer the bank account *number* to another bank,
i.e. as is possible with telephone numbers in most civilized countries.

And your *point* is?

That question still remains.

Thanks for all the comments made about TripTouch. Many of them were
not really relavant to the subject, but from those who were, we
learned a lot and we will use them.

Just few answers:

You do not to register in order to see all the content in the website.
Only if you want to join the community, upload picutres, create a trip
etc.. than you can register (only 3 questions- user, password,
email) .So basically the website can be used as a regular travel
website, and if you wish you can join the travellers community


"One thing sprung to mind - what age group are you targeting if any?
It can be helpful to target a particular age group, or, set the site
up to cater for various groups i.e. age/backpackers/disabilities etc.
"

We do not target ages, but a community: people before during and
after their trips.
The site is very useful for people during their trip because it
provides them with handy info(weather, currency exchange, travel
info..)





"Kayak - are their rates in NZ$ or ?? From looking at it, I believe
they are in US$. People do want to know upfront what currency they
are being presented in at a glance".


About Kayak: the prices are in US$

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:59:36 -0600,
.. wrote in
:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:15:21 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
wrote in
[...]
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?

lid
Sydney, 12:41 PM Friday 29 Dec.
[GMT + 11 hrs]







Cheers,
Kangaroo16

Cath

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:14:10 -0600,
.. wrote in
:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:36:55 GMT, kangaroo16
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


lid
Sydney, 12:50 PM Friday 29 Dec.
[GMT + 11 hrs]