Comment on Optus website (ugh!)

[Ext User(B J Foster)]

will kemp wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:11:11 +1000, B J Foster wrote:
>
>
>>BlueTongue wrote:
>>
>>>Using the newest Firefox browser, I find that the Optus website
>>>(www.optus.com.au) is broken on many pages. I get pages with missing
>>>graphics (refreshing the page does not help), I get "wizards" that ask
>>>you if you want a business or personal plan, but send you to a business
>>>plan page even if you chose personal, etc.
>>>
>>>The site seems to be totally neglected and not engineered for any
>>>browser other than M$ IE.
>>>
>>>On these scores alone, Optus will never get my business.
>>
>>Both browsers consume too much bandwidth
>
>
> are you tripping?
>
> how do *browsers* consume bandwidth? except when you download the
> browser software, of course. but i don't think that's what you mean.
>
> apart from that, they can only "consume" what "bandwidth" it requires to
> load the web site - and that's the responsibility of the web site
> designer.

The bandwidth of aus.comms is consumed by this thread

[Ext User(BlueTongue)]

Kwyjibo. wrote:

> BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> said
>> Kwyjibo. wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/557948
>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/534710
>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/973309
>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/648758
>>>
>>
>> You cite a few examples of security flaws in Firefox that have
>> *ALL* been resolved.
>
> Yeah and the recommended fix for the javascript security hole in 1.03
> was to disable javascript. Say goodbye to half of the web. Great
> solution!!

Now you've moved from ill-advised Micro$oft advocacy to outright lies.
The JavaScript issues have all been RESOLVED and do not require
workarounds like JavaScript disabling. Can you read, or are you simply
terminally stupid?

>> What's you point, you total moron?
>
> The point, that I have already made and you were too stupid to
> notice, is that *all* software of this complexity is susceptible to
> bugs and security flaws. Your assertion that Firefox or any other
> browser is more secure is absolute bullshit.

OF COURSE Firefox is more secure! There is an enormous army of Micro$hit
hating hackers out there trying, often successfully, to compromise IE.
These same people usually support Firefox. I wonder why ... hmmmm ...
maybe it's because Firefox is not the evil spawn of a malevolently
self-serving corporation?

> Have a look at Secunia. They provide monthly stats for each browser
> showing that Firefox has had double the number of security advisory
> notices than IE for the last 4 months.
>
> IE: http://secunia.com/graph/?type=adv&period=all&prod=11 Firefox:
> http://secunia.com/graph/?type=adv&period=all&prod=4227

Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.

Not only are you comparing a *new* browser to a borked and broken one
that is a decade old, but you conveniently fail to mention that Secunia
currently rate MSIE as vulnerable to a HIGHLY CRITICAL flaw, but not
Firefox!!

Compare:
http://secunia.com/product/11/
http://secunia.com/product/4227/

You sniveling, stupid wanker. You have a nasty speech impediment....your
foot.

> Firefox released version 1.0 in November last year. They are now at
> version 1.06. Thats 6 minor releases over a period of 8 months. They
> are updated at about the same rate.

LOL! Apart from patching holes, MSIE has not been properly updated in
terms of functionality for nearly 5 years. Everyone knows that. You're
as sharp as a beach ball.

> You also forgot to mention that Mozilla keep their security holes
> secret - so the total number of bugs is much higher. You more than
> likely have quite a few now that you are oblivious to.

Oh pah-leeze! I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate
yourself in public. Mozilla has a much more open bug reporting process
than M$ has ever or will ever have! I cannot believe how dumb you are,
cobber! To teach you something, perhaps you should start here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

> In addition to this, Microsoft provide a seemless and simple, fully
> automated mechanism for updating the software. Not the clunky (and
> hardly used) piss-poor excuse for an update service provided by
> Firefox.

You're killing me; this laughter is making my sides hurt! Micro$haft do
not even allow you to update *anything* without downloading spyware onto
your computer to check on your software first. The newest eff-up from
them along these lines is called "Windows Genuine Advantage" (read:
"Microsoft Takes Advantage"), and as usual it's a piece of shite that's
been cracked already:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/29/wga_cracked/

>> It's the buggiest piece of software I have EVER used, bar none. It
>> is also written with a lot of PROPRIETARY
>
> You say that like it's a bad thing.

You think it's a good thing? OMFG, what an imbecile.

> Typical idiotic babble you'd expect from a web-site coding drone. The
> internet is made up of a *lot* more than the shit on port 80, stupid.
> Stick to putting crappy websites together, stupid. You obviously
> know fuck- all about application development.

I spent 20 years writing programs before I moved to website design. I've
worked for corporations all over the world, designing and coding
mainframe and mid-range systems in 3rd, 4th and OO languages. My
programs still process millions of dollars for numerous companies and
Government departments. Jerk. But I don't want to make a monkey out of
you. Why should I take all the credit for the one thing you've done
yourself?

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote
> Kwyjibo. wrote

>> Yeah and the recommended fix for the javascript
>> security hole in 1.03 was to disable javascript.
>> Say goodbye to half of the web. Great solution!!

> um, kinda like SP2 for XP meant lots of users had to say
> goodbye to half their previously working software, you mean?

Lie.

>> Have a look at Secunia. They provide monthly stats for each
>> browser showing that Firefox has had double the number of
>> security advisory notices than IE for the last 4 months.

> and who the fuck are secunia??? a
> microsoft subsidiary by any chance???

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

>>> even CRITICAL flaws! It's the buggiest piece of software I have
>>> EVER used, bar none. It is also written with a lot of PROPRIETARY

>> You say that like it's a bad thing.

> that's because it *is* a bad thing.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> wrote:
> Kwyjibo. wrote:
>
>> BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> said
>>> Kwyjibo. wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/557948
>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/534710
>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/973309
>>>> http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/648758
>>>>
>>>
>>> You cite a few examples of security flaws in Firefox that have
>>> *ALL* been resolved.
>>
>> Yeah and the recommended fix for the javascript security hole in 1.03
>> was to disable javascript. Say goodbye to half of the web. Great
>> solution!!
>
> Now you've moved from ill-advised Micro$oft advocacy to outright lies.
> The JavaScript issues have all been RESOLVED and do not require
> workarounds like JavaScript disabling. Can you read, or are you simply
> terminally stupid?
>
>>> What's you point, you total moron?
>>
>> The point, that I have already made and you were too stupid to
>> notice, is that *all* software of this complexity is susceptible to
>> bugs and security flaws. Your assertion that Firefox or any other
>> browser is more secure is absolute bullshit.
>
> OF COURSE Firefox is more secure! There is an enormous army of
> Micro$hit hating hackers out there trying, often successfully, to
> compromise IE. These same people usually support Firefox. I wonder
> why ... hmmmm ... maybe it's because Firefox is not the evil spawn of
> a malevolently self-serving corporation?
>
>> Have a look at Secunia. They provide monthly stats for each browser
>> showing that Firefox has had double the number of security advisory
>> notices than IE for the last 4 months.
>>
>> IE: http://secunia.com/graph/?type=adv&period=all&prod=11 Firefox:
>> http://secunia.com/graph/?type=adv&period=all&prod=4227
>
> Everyone is entitled to be stupid but you're abusing the privilege.
>
> Not only are you comparing a *new* browser to a borked and broken one
> that is a decade old, but you conveniently fail to mention that
> Secunia currently rate MSIE as vulnerable to a HIGHLY CRITICAL flaw,
> but not Firefox!!
>
> Compare:
> http://secunia.com/product/11/
> http://secunia.com/product/4227/
>
> You sniveling, stupid wanker. You have a nasty speech
> impediment....your foot.
>
>> Firefox released version 1.0 in November last year. They are now at
>> version 1.06. Thats 6 minor releases over a period of 8 months. They
>> are updated at about the same rate.
>
> LOL! Apart from patching holes, MSIE has not been properly updated in
> terms of functionality for nearly 5 years. Everyone knows that. You're
> as sharp as a beach ball.
>
>> You also forgot to mention that Mozilla keep their security holes
>> secret - so the total number of bugs is much higher. You more than
>> likely have quite a few now that you are oblivious to.
>
> Oh pah-leeze! I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate
> yourself in public. Mozilla has a much more open bug reporting process
> than M$ has ever or will ever have! I cannot believe how dumb you are,
> cobber! To teach you something, perhaps you should start here:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/
>
>> In addition to this, Microsoft provide a seemless and simple, fully
>> automated mechanism for updating the software. Not the clunky (and
>> hardly used) piss-poor excuse for an update service provided by
>> Firefox.
>
> You're killing me; this laughter is making my sides hurt! Micro$haft
> do not even allow you to update *anything* without downloading
> spyware onto your computer to check on your software first. The
> newest eff-up from them along these lines is called "Windows Genuine
> Advantage" (read: "Microsoft Takes Advantage"), and as usual it's a
> piece of shite that's been cracked already:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/29/wga_cracked/
>
>>> It's the buggiest piece of software I have EVER used, bar none. It
>>> is also written with a lot of PROPRIETARY
>>
>> You say that like it's a bad thing.
>
> You think it's a good thing? OMFG, what an imbecile.
>
>> Typical idiotic babble you'd expect from a web-site coding drone. The
>> internet is made up of a *lot* more than the shit on port 80, stupid.
>> Stick to putting crappy websites together, stupid. You obviously
>> know fuck- all about application development.
>
> I spent 20 years writing programs before I moved to website design.
> I've worked for corporations all over the world, designing and coding
> mainframe and mid-range systems in 3rd, 4th and OO languages. My
> programs still process millions of dollars for numerous companies and
> Government departments. Jerk. But I don't want to make a monkey out of
> you. Why should I take all the credit for the one thing you've done
> yourself?

Guess which posturing fuckwit has just got egg all over its pathetic little face
?

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> will kemp <will@xxxx.swaggie.net> wrote
>>> Michael wrote

>>>> gee, what a cock you are. "because i use a
>>>> non-standard browser, i wont go with Optus"

>>> that's a reasonable basis for making a decision, i'd say.

>> More fool you.

>>> if they can't even get their web interface together
>>> (look at telstra's abortion of a web site, for example)
>>> there's not much hope they'll have anything else together!

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
>> that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

>>> a company's web site is generally a very good
>>> indication of what they're like to deal with.

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
>> that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

>>> telstra's web site, for example, is slow and ponderous,
>>> insanely complex, and takes forever to load - yes, even
>>> over 512kbps connection - and it's almost impossible
>>> to find certain key bits of information.

>> Irrelevant to whether say adsl is viable, cretin.

>>> optus's web site is much simpler, doesn't work properly
>>> with all browsers, and isn't really a lot of use. i suppose
>>> i should have realised, when i bought a cdma camera phone
>>> from them, that i wouldn't be able to send photos with it! ;-)

>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
>> that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

>> Maybe you would care to list a telco web site that is much good.

>> Funny that.

> my point exactly.

Another lie. That was nothing like your point, you pathological liar.

> telcos in general are crap.

How odd that so many of us manage to use them fine.

> and their websites indicate that by also being crap.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

> but the web site test doesn't just apply to telcos

Pity thats the most obvious terminal stupidity of yours.

Using that stupid criteria on the choice of a telco,
there aint a viable telco worth using around.

Pathetic, really.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> wrote
>>> Michael wrote

>>>> Use a decent browser.

>>>> gee, what a cock you are. "because i use a non-standard browser, i wont go
>>>> with Optus"

>>> No, you've got it wrong, ament. Because Optus have a shit website
>>> that they don't keep current and can't be bothered with 10-15% of
>>> visitors using non-M$ browsers, I won't go with Optus.

>> Bet that will have the Optus suits pouring from their
>> windows like lemmings as soon as they find out.

>> And have fun finding a telco web site that doesnt
>> have problems with your fucked browser.

> Hmmm....let's try http://validator.w3.org/

> Errors Page
> 248 http://telstra.com/homepage/index.html?SMSESSION=NO
> 246 http://www.vodafone.com.au/
> 187 http://www.optus.com.au/portal/site/WOCA/
> 91 http://www.powertel.com.au/html1/home_page.htm
> 41 http://www.primus.com.au/

> I'd say that *any* browser would be challenged by all of these sites

More fool you.

How odd that so many of us manage to use them fine with IE.

There might just be a reason for that, cretin.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote
> BlueTongue wrote

>> Using the newest Firefox browser, I find that the Optus website
>> (www.optus.com.au) is broken on many pages. I get pages with missing graphics
>> (refreshing the page does not help), I get "wizards" that ask you if you want
>> a business or personal plan, but send you to a business plan page even if you
>> chose personal, etc.

>> The site seems to be totally neglected and not engineered for any browser
>> other than M$ IE.

>> On these scores alone, Optus will never get my business.

> Both browsers consume too much bandwidth

Most of us have bandwidth to burn, cretin.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
> will kemp wrote:
>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:11:11 +1000, B J Foster wrote:
>>
>>
>>> BlueTongue wrote:
>>>
>>>> Using the newest Firefox browser, I find that the Optus website
>>>> (www.optus.com.au) is broken on many pages. I get pages with
>>>> missing graphics (refreshing the page does not help), I get
>>>> "wizards" that ask you if you want a business or personal plan,
>>>> but send you to a business plan page even if you chose personal,
>>>> etc. The site seems to be totally neglected and not engineered for any
>>>> browser other than M$ IE.
>>>>
>>>> On these scores alone, Optus will never get my business.
>>>
>>> Both browsers consume too much bandwidth
>>
>>
>> are you tripping?
>>
>> how do *browsers* consume bandwidth? except when you download the
>> browser software, of course. but i don't think that's what you mean.
>>
>> apart from that, they can only "consume" what "bandwidth" it
>> requires to load the web site - and that's the responsibility of the
>> web site designer.
>
> The bandwidth of aus.comms is consumed by this thread

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
that you've never actually had a fucking clue.

[Ext User(B J Foster)]

Rod Speed wrote:

> B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> wrote
>>>
>>>>Michael wrote
>
>
>>>>>Use a decent browser.
>
>
>>>>>gee, what a cock you are. "because i use a non-standard browser, i wont go
>>>>>with Optus"
>
>
>>>>No, you've got it wrong, ament. Because Optus have a shit website
>>>>that they don't keep current and can't be bothered with 10-15% of
>>>>visitors using non-M$ browsers, I won't go with Optus.
>
>
>>>Bet that will have the Optus suits pouring from their
>>>windows like lemmings as soon as they find out.
>
>
>>>And have fun finding a telco web site that doesnt
>>>have problems with your fucked browser.
>
>
>>Hmmm....let's try http://validator.w3.org/
>
>
>>Errors Page
>>248 http://telstra.com/homepage/index.html?SMSESSION=NO
>>246 http://www.vodafone.com.au/
>>187 http://www.optus.com.au/portal/site/WOCA/
>> 91 http://www.powertel.com.au/html1/home_page.htm
>> 41 http://www.primus.com.au/
>
>
>>I'd say that *any* browser would be challenged by all of these sites
>
>
> More fool you.
>
> How odd that so many of us manage to use them fine with IE.
>
> There might just be a reason for that, cretin.
>
>

Yeah, the reason these sites fail the validation so comprehensively is
that they have to work with IE

[Ext User(B J Foster)]

Rod Speed wrote:

> B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>will kemp wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:11:11 +1000, B J Foster wrote:
>>>
....
>>>>
>>>>Both browsers consume too much bandwidth
>>>
>>>
>>>are you tripping?
>>>
>>>how do *browsers* consume bandwidth? except when you download the
>>>browser software, of course. but i don't think that's what you mean.
>>>
>>>apart from that, they can only "consume" what "bandwidth" it
>>>requires to load the web site - and that's the responsibility of the
>>>web site designer.
>>
>>The bandwidth of aus.comms is consumed by this thread
>
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
> that you've never actually had a fucking clue.
>
>

And of course Rod Speed also happens the be the most prolific poster

[Ext User(Lance Lyon)]

"Kwyjibo." <Kwyjibo@YourFingerFromThatDykeozdebate.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96A3899BB31EDdddddd@203.26.24.228...
> BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> said
>
>> Kwyjibo. wrote:
>>> BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> said
>>>>
>>>> Works fine like a VW beetle works fine, but I prefer a BMW.
>>>
>>> So why are you driving an insecure heap of shit that was put together
>>> by a bunch of backyard mechanics?
>>
>> I think you misunderstood me.
>
> Nope.
>
>> I am using FIREFOX,
>
> So I'll ask again.
> Why are you driving an insecure heap of shit that was put together by a
> bunch
> of backyard mechanics?

He's already told you he's not using IE - you finding that a little
difficult to understand ?

cheers,

Lance


--
// http://landover.no-ip.com
Historical Sydney ferries webpages
http://landover.no-ip.com/bbs.html
Classic 8 & 16 bit BBS //

[Ext User(Lance Lyon)]

>> Kwyjibo. wrote:

> Have a look at Secunia. They provide monthly stats for each browser
> showing
> that Firefox has had double the number of security advisory notices than
> IE
> for the last 4 months.

Errrr... Firefox has 21 advisories at this site, IE has 83. 3 Firefox ones
are unpatched, 20 IE ones are unpatched........

Lance


--
// http://landover.no-ip.com
Historical Sydney ferries webpages
http://landover.no-ip.com/bbs.html
Classic 8 & 16 bit BBS //

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>
>>>> BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Michael wrote
>>
>>
>>>>>> Use a decent browser.
>>
>>
>>>>>> gee, what a cock you are. "because i use a non-standard browser,
>>>>>> i wont go with Optus"
>>
>>
>>>>> No, you've got it wrong, ament. Because Optus have a shit website
>>>>> that they don't keep current and can't be bothered with 10-15% of
>>>>> visitors using non-M$ browsers, I won't go with Optus.
>>
>>
>>>> Bet that will have the Optus suits pouring from their
>>>> windows like lemmings as soon as they find out.
>>
>>
>>>> And have fun finding a telco web site that doesnt
>>>> have problems with your fucked browser.
>>
>>
>>> Hmmm....let's try http://validator.w3.org/
>>
>>
>>> Errors Page
>>> 248 http://telstra.com/homepage/index.html?SMSESSION=NO
>>> 246 http://www.vodafone.com.au/
>>> 187 http://www.optus.com.au/portal/site/WOCA/
>>> 91 http://www.powertel.com.au/html1/home_page.htm
>>> 41 http://www.primus.com.au/
>>
>>
>>> I'd say that *any* browser would be challenged by all of these sites
>>
>>
>> More fool you.
>>
>> How odd that so many of us manage to use them fine with IE.
>>
>> There might just be a reason for that, cretin.

> Yeah, the reason these sites fail the validation so comprehensively is that
> they have to work with IE

Not a fucking clue, as always.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>
>> B J Foster <bjfoster@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> will kemp wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:11:11 +1000, B J Foster wrote:
>>>>
> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Both browsers consume too much bandwidth
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> are you tripping?
>>>>
>>>> how do *browsers* consume bandwidth? except when you download the
>>>> browser software, of course. but i don't think that's what you
>>>> mean. apart from that, they can only "consume" what "bandwidth" it
>>>> requires to load the web site - and that's the responsibility of
>>>> the web site designer.
>>>
>>> The bandwidth of aus.comms is consumed by this thread
>>
>>
>> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
>> that you've never actually had a fucking clue.
>>
>>
>
> And of course Rod Speed also happens the be the most prolific poster

Jealousy is one hell of a curse, eh child ?

[Ext User(BlueTongue)]

Rod Speed wrote:
>>>Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
>>>that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

Mr Speed, breathe the other way, please. Your opinions are bleaching my
hair.

[Ext User(BlueTongue)]

Rod Speed wrote:

> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
> that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

Thank god for killfiles. Plonk.

[Ext User(Rod Speed)]

Some posturing gutless fuckwit that has just got
booted out of the US, desperately cowering behind
BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> wrote
just what you'd expect from a desperately cowering gutless
posturing fuckwit that has just got booted out of the US.

[Ext User(wqq)]

Some posturing gutless fuckwit that has just got
booted out of the US, desperately cowering behind
BlueTongue <bluetongue@cox.net> wrote
just what you'd expect from a desperately cowering gutless
posturing fuckwit that has just got booted out of the US.

[Ext User(will kemp)]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 13:00:47 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> How odd that so many of us manage to use them fine with IE.
>
> There might just be a reason for that, cretin.

probably because you're such cretins that you wouldn't know whether they
were working or not!

[Ext User(will kemp)]

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:52:55 +1000, Rod Speed wrote:

> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof
> that you've never ever had a fucking clue.

if it's superfluous, why are you thanking me for it?