Throw away your camera. Tests on Smartphones Shown to Outperform DSLR's!

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:28:55 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

--- snip ---

Please, please, please check what you are posting out before you spread the
disease.

[1] At the time of posting I saw no sign of a disease. I still don't.

This type of web site is problematic ant should not be spread.

The web is full of rubbish. That site is better than some.

[2] In my original post I wrote " the reader of the linked article
should read the fine print at the bottom". You seem to have overlooked
that.

...and that alone should have been enough to restrain you from clicking on
that send button.

Oh dear. I should not post a link to anything ridiculous.

[3] I as a PC user, armed and equipped with protective software have
seen none of the signs that you and nospam have reported. Bill W has
reported some problems but was still able to read the article.

Fortunately as a Mac user my OS provided a degree of shielding, which I was
eventually able to work around to see the POS you shared. You should be
alarmed that you didn’t see the behaviour nospam and I reported. That
behaviour was a solid sign that the URL led to a toxic,sneaky, SPAM site.

Rather than smugly relying on the reputed invulnerability of my OS to
viruses, spam and malware, I have for years taken active prophylactic
steps to protect my machine. McAfee, Malware Bytes and
SuperAntispyware rode through the trauma of linking to that site
without a hiccup. I certainly had no cause for a panic attack such as
the one you are currently having. I am sure there is a moral
somewhere.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:28:55 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Fortunately as a Mac user my OS provided a degree of shielding, which I was
eventually able to work around to see the POS you shared. You should be
alarmed that you didn’t see the behaviour nospam and I reported. That
behaviour was a solid sign that the URL led to a toxic,sneaky, SPAM site.

I would think that everyone here has landed on hundreds of troublesome
sites by now. Everyone on this group is pretty smart, and I would
think that everyone here knows how to recognize the bad sites, and how
to deal with them, mainly by not clicking any links. With this
particular site, I think it's far more likely that it's broken than
toxic. For me, it would land on the proper page, and then redirect to
a blank page after about 5 seconds. But it would also stay on the
proper page other times.

I'm sure we all have virus/malware software, and Chrome & IE are
sandboxed. I don't worry too much about this sort of thing. In 25
years, I have never had a computer go down from a virus. I don't think
anyone should be too concerned.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

[3] I as a PC user, armed and equipped with protective software have
seen none of the signs that you and nospam have reported. Bill W has
reported some problems but was still able to read the article.

there's little need for protective software when spam sites are blocked
outright.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I don't know what is really going on. I opened that site with one of
my working links and copied the line of text "We set our design goals
to make these lenses the finest in the world, bar none". I entered
this in the Google search engine and came up with the web address
"https://hdfx360.com/pre/us/index.html which when I opened it took me
straight to the web site I intended. I would be interested to know
what happens when you try it.

that results in the same blank page.

Not to me. If Savageduck reports the same then it suggests the problem
is inherent in Apple.

it has nothing to do with apple.

If he can see it while you still can't then it
suggests the problem is something more subtle.

there is no problem in not seeing a spam site.

On 2016-03-12 08:02:50 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:31:14 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:00:21 -0800, Bill
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

Well, yes, but in the OP he wrote that the reader should check the
fine print at the bottom. He posted it as a joke, as far as I could
tell. I laughed...

Thank you. That was my intention.

...but it wasnÂ’t funny, stupid, but not funny.

I'm sorry 'duck, but I'm not going to vet links for compatability with
your news reader and ISP before I post them. I could load the referred
site without any sign of problems and if you can't it's your problem
not mine. So please don't take your problems out on me.

I use ADBlocker in my browsers so that sites such as the one you posted
don't bother me. I don't have a problem, the problem is your insistance
to share a questionable SPAM site with no credibility at all.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 03/11/2016 09:26 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:02:04 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:59:59 -0500,
wrote:

In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

While the author of http://tinyurl.com/gobdx94 should watch his use of
apostrophes, the reader of the linked article should read the fine
print at the bottom.

that's a perfect reason to *not* use a url shortener.

I could have given you

http://savinghomeownerstips.com/hdfx...867-4163-8000-


000000000000__vpid..127cd000-e7b3-11e5-8a7b-00d7011a844c__caid..fde875f8-c7f8-


4632-8b86-f43367148810__rt..R__lid..a629195e-eb97-4f2e-a80f-
c752f23ed8bc__oid1

..09271f50-c98c-4792-b467-
c37aac5aba51__var1..hdfx1__rd..news\.\yahoo\.\com_ _a
id..__sid..&s4=hdfx1

you link redirects to a page at the following site:
http://savinghomeownerstips.com/

That's strange. Both the TinyURL and the full address that I have just
given you take me directly to where I intended you to go. I think the
problem is at your end.

Nope! The problem is you are posting a URL to a spam, and email harvesting
site, using bots. Safe browsers and search sites such as Google will use the
“Robots exclusion protocol” and not permit the crawler injected by your
site to access vulnerable date on the computer of the individual attempting
to open the URL.

I get the same result as nospam, a blank, and so does Google who has this to
say:
"A description for this result is not available because of this
site'srobots.txt(http://lifestylesresearchinfo.com/robots.txt)”
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6062608?hl=en&rd=1


the link came up blank but that's probably due to spam-blocking at my
end.

the main page at that site has *nothing* to do with photography.

As you will see, it's not the main page we are after.

As you will see we want nothing to do with that site, main page or any other.

I don't know what is really going on. I opened that site with one of
my working links and copied the line of text "We set our design goals
to make these lenses the finest in the world, bar none". I entered
this in the Google search engine and came up with the web address
"https://hdfx360.com/pre/us/index.html which when I opened it took me
straight to the web site I intended. I would be interested to know
what happens when you try it.

When I click on the link in the paragraph above, it takes me to the same
site I got when I clicked on your tiny URL at the top of the post. Don't
know what the problem everyone is having- maybe it is something caused
by Windows? I solved a lot of my computer problems when I switched to
Linux (Lubuntu)!

Since everyone is bitching about the URL, and no one has mentioned the
content of the page itself...
The page is a sales pitch for a company that makes a set of add-on lens
for cell phones. They sell a wide, a fisheye, and a macro. The page is
very thinly disguised as a news article about how cell phones will
replace high-end DSLR's. The fine print at the bottom makes it clear
that the page is an advertisement and the people depicted are
compensated. It all sounds to me like a product aimed at people who have
advanced beyond their Holga.

--
Ken Hart

rOn Sat, 12 Mar 2016 07:09:43 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-03-12 08:02:50 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:31:14 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:00:21 -0800, Bill
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

Well, yes, but in the OP he wrote that the reader should check the
fine print at the bottom. He posted it as a joke, as far as I could
tell. I laughed...

Thank you. That was my intention.

...but it wasn?t funny, stupid, but not funny.

I'm sorry 'duck, but I'm not going to vet links for compatability with
your news reader and ISP before I post them. I could load the referred
site without any sign of problems and if you can't it's your problem
not mine. So please don't take your problems out on me.

I use ADBlocker in my browsers so that sites such as the one you posted
don't bother me. I don't have a problem, the problem is your insistance
to share a questionable SPAM site with no credibility at all.

I am not insisting at all. You are using loaded language.

I put up the site just once and then assisted both you and nospam when
you reported you couldn't see it. I could have ignored you.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 08:03:40 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

[3] I as a PC user, armed and equipped with protective software have
seen none of the signs that you and nospam have reported. Bill W has
reported some problems but was still able to read the article.

there's little need for protective software when spam sites are blocked
outright.

But they aren't.

When I first installed Malwarebytes it found over a hundred net lice
in my system. Since then, and since I at the same time installed SUPER
Antispyware I have found that only two or three have penetrated my
borders and those were ejected almost immediately.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

[3] I as a PC user, armed and equipped with protective software have
seen none of the signs that you and nospam have reported. Bill W has
reported some problems but was still able to read the article.

there's little need for protective software when spam sites are blocked
outright.

But they aren't.

they are here.

When I first installed Malwarebytes it found over a hundred net lice
in my system. Since then, and since I at the same time installed SUPER
Antispyware I have found that only two or three have penetrated my
borders and those were ejected almost immediately.

that has nothing to do with what is blocked at my end.

my hosts file has roughly 20k entries and my main browser has
additional blocks.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


I put up the site just once and then assisted both you and nospam when
you reported you couldn't see it. I could have ignored you.

any site that makes someone jump through hoops to see it is not one
worth visiting.

there are zillions of sites that are more than happy to show content
*without* any bull****.