Prev: Web page problem
Next: cured my sluggish 3G iPhone
From: Peter Ceresole on 19 Jan 2010 04:25 Dorian Gray <D.Gray(a)picture.invalid> wrote: > > Not the same as that, no. I was going by the '5 pages wide' bit. And it > > certainly does that in Safari 4.0.4, but not in Firefox. > > Hey Peter, I've just worked out that you're confusing this thread with > another thread where someone else was talking about a badly written web > site with frames giving '5 pages wide' on Safari... I never said > anything like that... True. I looked for it and couldn't find it. <www.tidi.biz> That's the one. -- Peter
From: Woody on 19 Jan 2010 06:29 James Taylor <usenet(a)oakseed.demon.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > Woody wrote: > > I get loads of those, and have for ages (not from amazon, I don't do > > business with them). It is quite common in my mail to get a 'your > > order with <blah> - check the attachment' emails. > > Presumably they fail to convince you because they come from companies > that you don't have a business relationship with at all. Partly becasue of that, partly due to coming to the wrong email address, partly due to not expecting something and partly due to their odd use of english. > But what if > they came from someone you do communicate with? For instance, someone > might compromise one of your friends' email accounts and send an email > in their style telling you that when they saw the attached PDF they > immediately knew you'd find it interesting, and to please tell them what > you're going to do about it. Ignoring that it is unlikely that they would be able to write in their style (ie, just the right level of oddness to their english), and if I was expecting it, yes, I would open a PDF as I wouldn't see it as harmfull as an exe -- Woody
From: Dorian Gray on 19 Jan 2010 08:34 In article <1jck7b1.1nmyr3m1gl7yunN%peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk>, peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk (Peter Ceresole) wrote: > Dorian Gray <D.Gray(a)picture.invalid> wrote: > > > > Not the same as that, no. I was going by the '5 pages wide' bit. And it > > > certainly does that in Safari 4.0.4, but not in Firefox. > > > > Hey Peter, I've just worked out that you're confusing this thread with > > another thread where someone else was talking about a badly written web > > site with frames giving '5 pages wide' on Safari... I never said > > anything like that... > > True. I looked for it and couldn't find it. > > <www.tidi.biz> That's the one. You're looking for Saturday's thread "Web page problem" started by SteveH. I didn't post to it.
From: Dorian Gray on 19 Jan 2010 17:54 Getting back to the point, can someone confirm that <http://www.real.com/mac/realplayer> hangs Safari 4.0.4 on OS X 10.4.11 (PPC G4). If it doesn't hang it on 10.4.11 on an Intel machine, why not? If it doesn't hang it on 10.5 or 10.6, why not?
From: zoara on 19 Jan 2010 18:03
Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > In article <D.Gray-ECF0CD.14130318012010(a)nntp-serv.cam.ac.uk>, > Dorian Gray <D.Gray(a)picture.invalid> wrote: > > >No, I meant the opposite of "Good work Real". Real is offering a > > player > >to Mac OS X users. You would think they would make sure their > > download > >page doesn't hang the standard browser on OS X. > > It shouldn't be *possible* to hang the browser. Given the circumstances, I think it's easier for Real to discover that their site hangs Safari (and to fix the problem) than it is for Apple to discover that their browser hangs on the Real site (and to fix the problem). In one case the scenario is at the very top of your list of test cases. In the other it's a *lot* lower down. -z- -- email: nettid1 at fastmail dot fm |