Can You Answer These Twelve Internet Security Questions?

[Dustin]

FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jpqlli$bei$1@dont-email.me:

> Dustin wrote:
>> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:jpp7lu$pgk$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other browsers
>>>>> I have installed here.
>>>>
>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>
>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source and see
>>>> if you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>
>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>
>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>
>>> or
>>>
>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL"></scri
>>> pt
>>>>
>>>
>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> firefox v12 opened it with no hassle. Noscript blocking by default.
>
> I'm not all that familiar with FF's capabilities. Do you know if,
> even with Noscript blocking by default, any pre-fetching is still
> attempted? After all - it still appears as a link in the HTML even
> though the script itself won't be allowed to execute.

Firefox by default does attempt to prefetch. NoScript doesn't seem
hassled by it.

> Most of the links (mostly graphics) are relative links, except the
> analytics one.

Yep.
I get the NoScript signature where an advertisement or graphic or
something should be. [g]




--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by,
and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[FromTheRafters]

Aardvark wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:30:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:21:15 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other browsers I
>>>>>> have installed here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source and see if
>>>>> you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>>
>>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Possible but unlikely IMO, FTR. I enter sites with NoScript running, so
>>> that shouldn't hold up loading.
>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL"></
> script>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> NS would take care of that too, Shirley. I remember when aweber sold
>>> autoresponders.
>>>
>>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Somewhat of a mystery, thus far.
>>>
>> I run with scripting enabled, and sometimes those larger scripts (Fake
>> AV come-ons) take a long time to load and execute - selectors take even
>> longer.
>
> The thirty or so seconds I allowed should be enough, don't you think? I
> actually went off to the kitchen to make a cuppa tea after clicking the
> link once. Still hadn't loaded when I got back.
>
That's more time than I gave it. D

I don't have a clue as to what might be causing you to not get that
page. I only tried it in IE that once - maybe I'll try again and go for
a cuppa coffee.

[Dustin]

FromTheRafters <erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jpqt74$m5e$1@dont-email.me:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:30:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:21:15 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other
>>>>>>> browsers I have installed here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source and
>>>>>> see if you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>>>
>>>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Possible but unlikely IMO, FTR. I enter sites with NoScript
>>>> running, so that shouldn't hold up loading.
>>>>
>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL"></
>> script>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> NS would take care of that too, Shirley. I remember when aweber
>>>> sold autoresponders.
>>>>
>>>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. Somewhat of a mystery, thus far.
>>>>
>>> I run with scripting enabled, and sometimes those larger scripts
>>> (Fake AV come-ons) take a long time to load and execute - selectors
>>> take even longer.
>>
>> The thirty or so seconds I allowed should be enough, don't you
>> think? I actually went off to the kitchen to make a cuppa tea after
>> clicking the link once. Still hadn't loaded when I got back.
>>
> That's more time than I gave it. D
>
> I don't have a clue as to what might be causing you to not get that
> page. I only tried it in IE that once - maybe I'll try again and go
> for a cuppa coffee.
>

I just clicked the link again. It came up in under 10 seconds; whole
page. And this was done on a dual p3/800mhz (coppermine mated
processors). It's the slowest machine that's still online here.

I'm not a gamer tho, so it still meets my needs.. Albeit a bit slow
these days. [g]


--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[FromTheRafters]

Aardvark wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:26:06 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>> news:jpp7lu$pgk$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other browsers I
>>>>>> have installed here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source and see if
>>>>> you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>>
>>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL"></script
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> firefox v12 opened it with no hassle. Noscript blocking by default.
>>
>> I'm not all that familiar with FF's capabilities. Do you know if, even
>> with Noscript blocking by default, any pre-fetching is still attempted?
>> After all - it still appears as a link in the HTML even though the
>> script itself won't be allowed to execute.
>>
>
> Wouldn't the simplest method of operation for something like NS be
> running the source through NS first, then every time it encounters a pair
> of<script> </script> tags either ignoring them or rewriting the source
> without them, then sending the edited or reformed HTML to the rendering
> engine?

I suppose, but the simplest way isn't always the way things are actually
done. )

Browsers want to do stuff in the background while the user is reading
what is already displayed so that it can appear to be faster at loading
the next page the user might navigate to. If NS runs as you say, like a
proxy (the old proxomitron comes to mind) then FF would never know that
those links existed - but as a plug-in I'm not sure what parses the page
first.

BTW, that page loads in a snap now in IE - even a refresh. It might be
cached by my ISP though.

> Either way, by the time the code actually gets to FF itself,
> there are no script tags. Might that affect the source code subsequent to
> the script introduction,causing some kind of lock-up in the loading?

I don't think so, it's a mystery.

>> Most of the links (mostly graphics) are relative links, except the
>> analytics one.
>
> See above. If NS runs as I have described above, relativity or otherwise
> of the script links is purely academic, isn't it?

Yes, it would never be fetched if all of the script containers and their
contents were removed before the browser got the page.

> Unless, of course, some
> of the script subsequent to one of the tags is dependent in some way on
> the script?

Then we're back to lousy web design, IMO there should be any reliance on
JS being enabled. I didn't see anything like that on that page, and I
didn't download and look at the scripts themselves when I read the HTML
page, just noticed that they were there.

[FromTheRafters]

Dustin wrote:
> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
> news:jpqt74$m5e$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:30:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>
>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:21:15 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other
>>>>>>>> browsers I have installed here.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source and
>>>>>>> see if you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Possible but unlikely IMO, FTR. I enter sites with NoScript
>>>>> running, so that shouldn't hold up loading.
>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>>>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL"></
>>> script>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> NS would take care of that too, Shirley. I remember when aweber
>>>>> sold autoresponders.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed. Somewhat of a mystery, thus far.
>>>>>
>>>> I run with scripting enabled, and sometimes those larger scripts
>>>> (Fake AV come-ons) take a long time to load and execute - selectors
>>>> take even longer.
>>>
>>> The thirty or so seconds I allowed should be enough, don't you
>>> think? I actually went off to the kitchen to make a cuppa tea after
>>> clicking the link once. Still hadn't loaded when I got back.
>>>
>> That's more time than I gave it. D
>>
>> I don't have a clue as to what might be causing you to not get that
>> page. I only tried it in IE that once - maybe I'll try again and go
>> for a cuppa coffee.
>>
>
> I just clicked the link again. It came up in under 10 seconds; whole
> page. And this was done on a dual p3/800mhz (coppermine mated
> processors). It's the slowest machine that's still online here.
>
> I'm not a gamer tho, so it still meets my needs.. Albeit a bit slow
> these days. [g]
>
I tried it again with IE - in less than a second it was loaded.

[Aardvark]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:09:14 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:

> Dustin wrote:
>> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>> news:jpqt74$m5e$1@dont-email.me:
>>
>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:30:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:21:15 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other
>>>>>>>>> browsers I have installed here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source and
>>>>>>>> see if you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Possible but unlikely IMO, FTR. I enter sites with NoScript
>>>>>> running, so that shouldn't hold up loading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>>>>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL"></
>>>> script>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> NS would take care of that too, Shirley. I remember when aweber
>>>>>> sold autoresponders.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Indeed. Somewhat of a mystery, thus far.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I run with scripting enabled, and sometimes those larger scripts
>>>>> (Fake AV come-ons) take a long time to load and execute - selectors
>>>>> take even longer.
>>>>
>>>> The thirty or so seconds I allowed should be enough, don't you think?
>>>> I actually went off to the kitchen to make a cuppa tea after clicking
>>>> the link once. Still hadn't loaded when I got back.
>>>>
>>> That's more time than I gave it. D
>>>
>>> I don't have a clue as to what might be causing you to not get that
>>> page. I only tried it in IE that once - maybe I'll try again and go
>>> for a cuppa coffee.
>>>
>>>
>> I just clicked the link again. It came up in under 10 seconds; whole
>> page. And this was done on a dual p3/800mhz (coppermine mated
>> processors). It's the slowest machine that's still online here.
>>
>> I'm not a gamer tho, so it still meets my needs.. Albeit a bit slow
>> these days. [g]
>>
> I tried it again with IE - in less than a second it was loaded.

Just clicked the link again. Rolled a ciggie, sparked it up. Looked at my
browser. Nothing.



--
"Tell me, truthfully, do *you* download music from The Pirate Bay for
your personal use and listening pleasure?"
Clever guy BD in post <gLidnTjP2tgGPy7SnZ2dnUVZ7qKdnZ2d@bt.com>

[David_B]

Aardvark wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:09:14 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>
>> Dustin wrote:
>>> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>> news:jpqt74$m5e$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:30:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:21:15 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other
>>>>>>>>>> browsers I have installed here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source and
>>>>>>>>> see if you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Possible but unlikely IMO, FTR. I enter sites with NoScript
>>>>>>> running, so that shouldn't hold up loading.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>>>>>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL"></
>>>>> script>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NS would take care of that too, Shirley. I remember when aweber
>>>>>>> sold autoresponders.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Indeed. Somewhat of a mystery, thus far.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I run with scripting enabled, and sometimes those larger scripts
>>>>>> (Fake AV come-ons) take a long time to load and execute - selectors
>>>>>> take even longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> The thirty or so seconds I allowed should be enough, don't you think?
>>>>> I actually went off to the kitchen to make a cuppa tea after clicking
>>>>> the link once. Still hadn't loaded when I got back.
>>>>>
>>>> That's more time than I gave it. D
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a clue as to what might be causing you to not get that
>>>> page. I only tried it in IE that once - maybe I'll try again and go
>>>> for a cuppa coffee.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I just clicked the link again. It came up in under 10 seconds; whole
>>> page. And this was done on a dual p3/800mhz (coppermine mated
>>> processors). It's the slowest machine that's still online here.
>>>
>>> I'm not a gamer tho, so it still meets my needs.. Albeit a bit slow
>>> these days. [g]
>>>
>> I tried it again with IE - in less than a second it was loaded.
>
> Just clicked the link again. Rolled a ciggie, sparked it up. Looked at my
> browser. Nothing.

Someting wrong with your computer, eh?

Yet you purport to be a guru. <shakes head>

Nope! :-)

[Dustin]

David_B <David_B@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
news:jpr1h9$dou$2@dont-email.me:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:09:14 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>>> news:jpqt74$m5e$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:30:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:21:15 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other
>>>>>>>>>>> browsers I have installed here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source
>>>>>>>>>> and see if you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Possible but unlikely IMO, FTR. I enter sites with NoScript
>>>>>>>> running, so that shouldn't hold up loading.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>>>>>>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL">
>>>>>>>>> </
>>>>>> script>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NS would take care of that too, Shirley. I remember when
>>>>>>>> aweber sold autoresponders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed. Somewhat of a mystery, thus far.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I run with scripting enabled, and sometimes those larger
>>>>>>> scripts (Fake AV come-ons) take a long time to load and execute
>>>>>>> - selectors take even longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thirty or so seconds I allowed should be enough, don't you
>>>>>> think? I actually went off to the kitchen to make a cuppa tea
>>>>>> after clicking the link once. Still hadn't loaded when I got
>>>>>> back.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's more time than I gave it. D
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a clue as to what might be causing you to not get
>>>>> that page. I only tried it in IE that once - maybe I'll try again
>>>>> and go for a cuppa coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I just clicked the link again. It came up in under 10 seconds;
>>>> whole page. And this was done on a dual p3/800mhz (coppermine
>>>> mated processors). It's the slowest machine that's still online
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a gamer tho, so it still meets my needs.. Albeit a bit
>>>> slow these days. [g]
>>>>
>>> I tried it again with IE - in less than a second it was loaded.
>>
>> Just clicked the link again. Rolled a ciggie, sparked it up. Looked
>> at my browser. Nothing.
>
> Someting wrong with your computer, eh?

Nope. It has something to do with routing. I provided you many details
about how the internet works. Obviously, I wasted my time. You clearly
didn't read the material. If you had, you wouldn't be making assinine
comments such as that.

Your troubleshooting skills seem to be on par with your bad guy hunting
abilities. As in, zero. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Nothing.

> Nope! :-)

Ignorance is indeed bliss Right? That's why your smiling. yes?




--
Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too
many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and
the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. - J.C. Watts

[Aardvark]

On Sat, 26 May 2012 17:48:52 +0100, David_B wrote:

> Aardvark wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 12:09:14 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>
>>> Dustin wrote:
>>>> FromTheRafters<erratic@nomail.afraid.org> wrote in
>>>> news:jpqt74$m5e$1@dont-email.me:
>>>>
>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 26 May 2012 09:30:08 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 20:21:15 -0400, FromTheRafters wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 25 May 2012 21:26:44 +0000, Aardvark wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps SM does pre-rendering in newsgroups?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Possibly. I might try it in Konqueror and whatever other
>>>>>>>>>>> browsers I have installed here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just tried it in both Konq and SM. Nothing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you can still open the page, could you check the source and
>>>>>>>>>> see if you can divine what might be amiss?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe it's something in:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript" src="setcookie.js"></script>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Possible but unlikely IMO, FTR. I enter sites with NoScript
>>>>>>>> running, so that shouldn't hold up loading.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <script type="text/javascript"
>>>>>>>>> src="http://analytics.aweber.com/js/awt_analytics.js?id=6HSL"></
>>>>>> script>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> NS would take care of that too, Shirley. I remember when aweber
>>>>>>>> sold autoresponders.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It uses style sheets too, but that's pretty common practice.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed. Somewhat of a mystery, thus far.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I run with scripting enabled, and sometimes those larger scripts
>>>>>>> (Fake AV come-ons) take a long time to load and execute -
>>>>>>> selectors take even longer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The thirty or so seconds I allowed should be enough, don't you
>>>>>> think?
>>>>>> I actually went off to the kitchen to make a cuppa tea after
>>>>>> clicking the link once. Still hadn't loaded when I got back.
>>>>>>
>>>>> That's more time than I gave it. D
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a clue as to what might be causing you to not get that
>>>>> page. I only tried it in IE that once - maybe I'll try again and go
>>>>> for a cuppa coffee.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I just clicked the link again. It came up in under 10 seconds; whole
>>>> page. And this was done on a dual p3/800mhz (coppermine mated
>>>> processors). It's the slowest machine that's still online here.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a gamer tho, so it still meets my needs.. Albeit a bit slow
>>>> these days. [g]
>>>>
>>> I tried it again with IE - in less than a second it was loaded.
>>
>> Just clicked the link again. Rolled a ciggie, sparked it up. Looked at
>> my browser. Nothing.
>
> Someting wrong with your computer, eh?
>

LOL, you sto0pid ****. There's something wrong with that sto0pid site.
That's why we're discussing it.

> Yet you purport to be a guru.

When was this, ****? When did I ever say anything of the sort?

Then again, compared to you a ****ing five-year-old would be a computer
'guru'.

> Nope!

MID of the post where I purported to be a ****ing 'guru', you lying ****.



--
"Tell me, truthfully, do *you* download music from The Pirate Bay for
your personal use and listening pleasure?"
Clever guy BD in post <gLidnTjP2tgGPy7SnZ2dnUVZ7qKdnZ2d@bt.com>

[Aardvark]

On Sun, 27 May 2012 00:34:31 +0000, Dustin wrote:

> It has something to do with routing.

Could you expand on that, Dustin? FTR and I would seem to have been
fixated on HTML and javascript calls within it.



--
"Tell me, truthfully, do *you* download music from The Pirate Bay for
your personal use and listening pleasure?"
Clever guy BD in post <gLidnTjP2tgGPy7SnZ2dnUVZ7qKdnZ2d@bt.com>