• (cs)

    For those using Firefox: http://ietab.mozdev.org/


    Lets you 'render' a tab using IE, and so strictly speaking, you dont degrade yourself to using IE...

  • Ryan Fox (unregistered)

    Using my 1337 h4x0r skillz (copying and pasting the URL from the source), I got into the actual site. The first thing I see is: "Get mail you want. Coupons, information, special offers" I've always wanted to get daily tobacco propoganda.

  • (cs) in reply to seymore15074
    seymore15074:

    A person smokes out of stupidity?  ...And all this time I thought cigarettes were addictive!  Ha!

    <font size="5">A</font> person starts smoking out of stupidity and then it's addictive.
     

  • (cs) in reply to marvin_rabbit
    marvin_rabbit:
    cooldudman:

    Incredible!!

    Follow the example of the tobacco company. 

    Only allow your website to be viewed in the BEST BROWSER EVER!


    ... by volume.

    . . . and weight

  • (cs) in reply to Siebz

    Anonymous:
    <FONT size=1>* Who can respect a person who lets a stupid substance have control over them?  Its a sign of weakness!</FONT>

    That's right!  Why, I can stop eating chocolate anytime!!  REALLY!!!

    **OK, just give me the chocolate and nobody gets hurt**

     

  • Smurf (unregistered) in reply to oncogenesis
    Anonymous:
    <body onload="javascript:redirect();">

    This line is wrong. The value of the onload attribute is supposed to be a script, not a URL. I'm surprised this crap works in any browser.


    So? Given the heap of fucked-up heuristics IE uses to work around crappy HTML and HTTP coding, are you really surprised that it manages to ignore the first ten characters?

    Captcha: batman. Huh.
  • deltreme (unregistered)

    Actually I used to work in a company targetting IE browsers only. The reason for this was because we never asked people to navigate to our site, and in the TV shows promoting the website, only IE was used, giving the right example.

    Is it really the fault of the web designer? Is it really the fault of Microsoft? I'd say it's the user screwing up using CounterStrike to connect to a Quake3 server...

  • Dwayne (unregistered)

    So, in other words, the web developers were smoking more than cigarettes.

  • deltreme (unregistered)

    And isn't Firefox having an IE tab another WTF? I mean, Microsoft is listed as W3C contributer while they're using different standards, but Firefox building an addon to support them?

  • (cs) in reply to AndrewVos
    Anonymous:
    Who cares? IE is better than FireFux. Wake up ;)


    Tobacco Executives: "Internet Explorer is not addictive"

  • Rob (unregistered) in reply to WeatherGod

    <worse_joke>
    WTF? That's invalid xml...
    </worse_joke>

  • 604 (unregistered) in reply to deltreme
    Anonymous:
    Actually I used to work in a company targetting IE browsers only. The reason for this was because we never asked people to navigate to our site, and in the TV shows promoting the website, only IE was used, giving the right example.

    Is it really the fault of the web designer? Is it really the fault of Microsoft? I'd say it's the user screwing up using CounterStrike to connect to a Quake3 server...


    Run billy goat run.  You must be trolling.   In the same sentence you say "we never ask people to navigate to our page"  then you say "in the TV shows promoting the site."  Seriously, wtf?  It is in no way shape or form like using  CS to connect to a quake3 server.  It's exactly like trying to use a web browser to connect to a web page.   Microsoft doesn't own the html standard.  They haven't even created/authored  their own version,  they've just abused the existing one.
  • Miral (unregistered) in reply to PumaCub
    PumaCub:
    Here is the code on Cingular.com:
    <form name="frmCingIdx" action="/index_b2b_orange" method="post"> 
    <input type="hidden" name="ClientIP" value="192.55.52.3" />	
    </form>
    <script>
    document.frmCingIdx.ClientIP.value = "192.55.52.3";			
    document.frmCingIdx.submit();
    </script>
    It renders a similar blank page in FireFox.

    That's just retarded.  If they wanted the client's IP so badly, they could just look in their server logs, or in the information the server passes to any CGI or script as a matter of course.
  • (cs) in reply to Tim
    Anonymous:
    Well the real website might be JSP, but the forwarding page has this tell 
    tale marker:

    <meta name="GENERATOR" Content="Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 7.1">

    Is this the way microsoft generates links, or is this a custom link component?

    Nope, they managed to write that pile of crap by hand.  Dot Net lets you do this properly with:

    <FONT face="Courier New">Response.Redirect("xyz");</FONT>

    and/or

    <FONT face="Courier New">Page.RegisterStartupScript("Redirector", "<script>window.location.href='xyz'</script>");</FONT>

     

  • (cs)

    Anonymous:
    Raven:
    So what?

    The porpose might that the links should still have the same color after they have been clicked (btw; is this what they call AJAX??).

    You can watch it here.


    That's a much better way to keep links the same color than...let's say...writing two lines of CSS. :-/

    Which, of course, is much better than simply using the vlink attribute that has worked since 1996.

  • (cs)

    Around here schools use a global online system for schedules and grades. The web app works great in pretty much any browser and use of PDF allows for very decent portability (no flame war for PDF, it is a format that has an undeniable  user base). The only problem is that the selection menu (a very, very, simple popup menu) works only in Windows. Even Firefox on mac doesn't work (albeit it works in Windows). How good is compatibility if you can't access the site ;)

    If you're currious... http://www.bleumanitou.com/

  • (cs)

    Hehe, I wonder if that was done by an inhouse design team or the boss's uncles brothers cousins son who does IT at the local community center on fridays after school...

  • (cs)

    Dinna work on Safari, either.

  • Solonix (unregistered)

    I worked with a guy who upon clicking a button to trigger a server side event in a web-application, proceeded to have that event build a tailored chunk of JavaScript and store the JavaScript line into the button's Page class as a public variable (Java), which upon reloading of the page, the JSP explicitly cast the Page into memory and rewrote the BODY tag upon re-rendering the initial JSP page that caused the click to have an "onload=" which set itself to the value of the public variable of the button's Page class that was written by the aforementioned server side event that caused a client side javascript Jump to another page by rewriting the browser's URL.

    To top it all off, this was almost necessary because the fellow only knew how to use frames to provide a simple div-overflow concept. Oh god. It makes me want to START smoking.

    Here I come, Philip Morris!

     

     

  • Maserati (unregistered) in reply to Solonix

    I worked with a guy who upon clicking a button to trigger a server side event in a web-application, proceeded to...

    Oh god. Oh god no.

    It just goes to show you, hard-working clueless people can wreak havok. I much prefer lazy and clueless, they do less damage.

  • Henryk Plötz (unregistered) in reply to oncogenesis

    Moin,

    well, by pure coincidence they happened to have correct (though pointless) code here. Here you have the little known and even less used 'labelled statement' (see ECMA-262 section 12.12). These are known from C and Assembler and assign a label ('javascript' in this case) to the statement. The label can then be used with break and continue. (C/Assembler also use these for goto, but ECMAScript has no goto).

    -- Henryk Plötz Grüße aus Berlin

  • John-Boy (unregistered) in reply to 604
    Anonymous:
    You must be trolling.
    Nope, he wasn't trolling. But I am.
  • (cs) in reply to mlathe

    run for your lives!
    they are everywhere!

  • Dazed (unregistered) in reply to jsmith
    jsmith:
    Anonymous:
    Raven:
    The porpose might that the links should still have the same color after they have been clicked
    That's a much better way to keep links the same color than...let's say...writing two lines of CSS. :-/

    Which, of course, is much better than simply using the vlink attribute that has worked since 1996.

    Much better would of course be to not keep the links the same colour. The colour change is there to help the reader, but all too many web dezyners like kicking their readers in the teeth.

  • golmer (unregistered)

    Maybe it actually was an intelligent and nice developer. He wanted to spare non-IE users from
    getting lung-cancer. IE users was allready beyond hope anyway.

  • (cs) in reply to Randyd

    The real WTF is that I am thinking about switching off Adblock to see Hairpulling girl or whether fossball or beanbag girl have made their triumphant return yet.

    No, seriously, the real WTF is that it took us 2000 years after Jesus Christ to have companies that make a fortune out of selling death and still are to stingy to pay a good web developer.

    Edit: Yes, I admit having turned off Adblock right after posting this.

  • (cs) in reply to golmer

    It still smacks of ASP.NET to me, as perpetrated by someone who hasn't gotten very far into the documentation and who doesn't quite get the whole client-side/server-side thing.

    Don't get me wrong, I like ASP.NET, it's been very good to me, but in the last 6 months I have interviewed so many people who sell themselves as ASP.NET developers but who really have no idea how http and html/javascript actually work.  They know how to drag some controls onto a form, press F5 and go "Woohoo, I just made a web page". 

    I now always include "What is the difference between Response.Redirect and Server.Transfer?" as one of the first interview questions.  I reckon at least 25% of applicants can't give a satisfactory answer (and yes, it's very depressing).

    I reckon he's one of those guys who thought "hmmm, a Hyperlink control can make it go to another page, I'll use one of those!".

  • deltreme (unregistered) in reply to 604

    I forgot the smilies, here they are:

    :) :D :P :S ^^; :Þ

  • (cs)

    And now we wait for the 'The-Daily-WTF-effect' to take them out ;)

  • Monty (unregistered) in reply to Kenji
    Anonymous:
    Yeah, I figured this was just a cleaver campaign to kill off IE users by giving them cancer. 


    Surely in a cleaver campaign, you'd just kill them with a cleaver?
  • jim (unregistered) in reply to Siebz
    Anonymous:

    * Who can respect a person who lets a stupid substance have control over them?  Its a sign of weakness!



    Damn straight!

    (hmm. Time for another coffee before I head down the pub, I think.)

  • Fluffy (unregistered) in reply to seymore15074
    seymore15074:
    snoofle:

    Maybe, but I don't think the marketing folks at the Tobacco co's are stupid. Surely they've long figured out that nobody reads warning labels (or at least, nobody takes them seriously, or even cares). It seems to follow that anyone who even bothers to click through to the site isn't going to change their habit because of the text on some web page.

    Face it, if someone at work offered you some home cooked brew, and SERIOUSLY told you that it could cause you to die, how quickly would you drink it? Smokers know all the risks, but don't care (I was one of them - it took my second kid to wake me up - yes, I was just that stupid).

    A person smokes out of stupidity?  ...And all this time I thought cigarettes were addictive!  Ha!



    Wow. Guess being addicted before ever having smoked before is possible then?

  • Fluffy (unregistered) in reply to actionscripted
    Anonymous:
    A paralelle WTF is that someone suggested smokers smoke because they're stupid...

    ... the fact that they're addictive and delicious (yes, delicious) obviously have nothing to do with it.



    I find that they taste kind of like an ashtray, and well, I for one am not very fond of that taste. Though after having convinced yourself in your early teens that it really tasted good to inhale toxins (to appear cool to your peers) that are not even allowed in factories in several countries tastes good and having smoked for a bunch of years, had plenty of time to get decently addicted to previously named toxins, I bet you actually believe that it tastes good.

  • Bjorn R. (unregistered) in reply to cooldudman
    cooldudman:

    Incredible!!

    Follow the example of the tobacco company. 

    Only allow your website to be viewed in the BEST BROWSER EVER!



    I hope that was meant sarcastic
  • 4tehwin!!! (unregistered)

    god, would you firefox users just stop being so lazy? it's obvious, just view the source and copy and paste the redirect target into your address bar.  do you not understand the fundamentals of the manual redirect?  c'mon...

  • (cs) in reply to Raven
    Raven:
    So what?

    A leading IT recruitment company uses javascript for their links in the menu. To display a simple 'log in' link (in norwegian 'Logg inn') it looks like this. 

    <font face="Courier New"><snip></font>
    The porpose might that the links should still have the same color after they have been clicked (btw; is this what they call AJAX??). The drawback is that mozilla/firefox won't show the pointing hand cursor to show that this is a link.

    You can watch it here.


    That page is incredibly defective. The login form does things that a lot of browsers would do automatically...

    var bSubmitted = false;
    function CACLogin() {
    	if (!bSubmitted)
    	{
    	document.forms['CACLogin'].submit();
    	bSubmitted = true;
    	}
    }
    	
    function keyPressed()
    {	
    if (event.keyCode == 13)
    		CACLogin();
    }

  • (cs) in reply to Kikoz
    Anonymous:
    Actually, if you need a permanent redirection from site B to site A (and I believe that's what PM needs here), just point domain A to the IP address of the site B. Why do you need any kind of server- or client- redirection? DNS server should work here. WTF????


    Wrong. The "correct" way is to point domain B to domain A (using a CNAME), so if the ip address of A changes, only the entries for domain A need to change.

    And this isn't desirable anyway, since it doesn't change the address in the address bar (I'm STILL waiting for a way to change the displayed location without doing an actual redirect, which is another roundtrip).
  • (cs) in reply to Fluffy
    Anonymous:
    I find that they taste kind of like an ashtray, and well, I for one am not very fond of that taste. Though after having convinced yourself in your early teens that it really tasted good to inhale toxins (to appear cool to your peers) that are not even allowed in factories in several countries tastes good and having smoked for a bunch of years, had plenty of time to get decently addicted to previously named toxins, I bet you actually believe that it tastes good.


    Reminds me of our college forums, when a smoker didn't like the implication that smokers "smell like death". While I've never tasted ashtray myself, I know cigarettes don't taste good, and after hip-hop nights the whole place tastes like a shisha.

    As for the WTF, this kind of stuff happens because of people who read "learn xyz in 21 days" books, which are aimed for poeple who know how to use Word and are completely useless as a reference. I can imagine how "learn javascript in 21 days", with the click function described before "how to redirect", would lead to this.

    Because the very sad truth is that half of the people "in the field" don't know what they're doing, and don't know to google/look up references/etc. And they don't care if the code is ugly, or think "There must be a better way of doing this...".

    (all books mentioned above are fictional)
  • Matthew (unregistered)

    I found a bug earlier in the code...

    <meta name="GENERATOR" Content="Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 7.1">

    This is likely the sole reason that there is a click() implemented in the site ;-)

  • panzi (unregistered)

    I've seen even worse things: A site, which would be Mozilla/Firefox compatible, except it uses VBScript to open a popup window, in which the real site is displayed. It's quite a while ago, when I discovered that page, so maybe they fixed it now. Well, I've forgotten the url anyways.

  • (cs) in reply to deltreme
    Anonymous:

    And isn't Firefox having an IE tab another WTF? I mean, Microsoft is listed as W3C contributer while they're using different standards, but Firefox building an addon to support them?

    Works great for testing web designs...

  • Blah (unregistered) in reply to TeeSee
    TeeSee:
    Anonymous:
    Actually, if you need a permanent redirection from site B to site A (and I believe that's what PM needs here), just point domain A to the IP address of the site B. Why do you need any kind of server- or client- redirection? DNS server should work here. WTF????


    Wrong. The "correct" way is to point domain B to domain A (using a CNAME), so if the ip address of A changes, only the entries for domain A need to change.

    And this isn't desirable anyway, since it doesn't change the address in the address bar (I'm STILL waiting for a way to change the displayed location without doing an actual redirect, which is another roundtrip).


    Either would only work if the webserver for A served one website to all incoming requests for unknown hosts, because the CNAME would still be unknown. That's what host headers are for.
  • dsmorse (unregistered) in reply to mlathe

        The reason is simple.  After the governement spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on research it has been showd that only people dumb enough to still be using IE, are stupid enough to smoke.  Thus in an effort not to offend the smarter firefox comunity, they choose to show us a blank page.  

  • Bradlegar the Hobbit (unregistered) in reply to Siebz
    Anonymous:
    Why the hell would you dynamically create a link on page load and simulate a click on it?  What a dumb-ass work around-around-around.

    That's just stooopid. (Just like smokers)*

    Yet another example which proves that the simplist solution is usually the best solution.

    <font size="1">* Who can respect a person who lets a stupid substance have control over them?  Its a sign of weakness!</font>

    Well, I'm type 1 diabetic. Let me tell you, type N insulin and NovoRapid (and their associated injection pens) have a very stong control over me:
    * I rarely go anywhere without them
    * I'm always ensuring I have enough
    * I never travel without a personal supply
    * I get extremely anxious when I don't know where they are
    * I spent about 1/2 hour per day pandering to this necessity
  • Marc Gravell (unregistered)

    Anonymous:
    Here's one in a similar style - put arguably worse (I'll explain why)...

    Forgot to say - to see it whine in IE you need to click on the articles.

    Marc

  • Looce (unregistered) in reply to Bradlegar the Hobbit
    Anonymous:
    Anonymous:
    <snip ~Looce>

    <font size="1">* Who can respect a person who lets a stupid substance have control over them?  Its a sign of weakness!</font>

    Well, I'm type 1 diabetic. Let me tell you, type N insulin and NovoRapid (and their associated injection pens) have a very stong control over me:
    * I rarely go anywhere without them
    * I'm always ensuring I have enough
    * I never travel without a personal supply
    * I get extremely anxious when I don't know where they are
    * I spent about 1/2 hour per day pandering to this necessity

    Well, insulin is not a stupid substance, in and of itself. You require it only to treat a disease.

    Whereas nicotine makes you addicted.

    captcha: billgates (IE-only, anyone?)
  • (cs)
    Anonymous:

    http://www.webtropy.com

    <snip>

    Second WTF: OK, now you're in Firefox. Click on "Contact Us"... WTF????



    Hoo boy... Maybe I have a counterfeit version of firefox installed!
  • (cs)

    All I can say here is WOW.  The interwebs is just chock full of unintentional Rube Goldbergs. the only difference being that Goldberg knew what the frag he was doing.

    I do think, however, the REAL WTF here are the people who frequent this site who actually got the appropriate content.  Why the hell are you people still using Explorer?  Aren't you nerds?

  • (cs) in reply to Fluffy
    Anonymous:
    seymore15074:
    snoofle:

    Maybe, but I don't think the marketing folks at the Tobacco co's are stupid. Surely they've long figured out that nobody reads warning labels (or at least, nobody takes them seriously, or even cares). It seems to follow that anyone who even bothers to click through to the site isn't going to change their habit because of the text on some web page.

    Face it, if someone at work offered you some home cooked brew, and SERIOUSLY told you that it could cause you to die, how quickly would you drink it? Smokers know all the risks, but don't care (I was one of them - it took my second kid to wake me up - yes, I was just that stupid).

    A person smokes out of stupidity?  ...And all this time I thought cigarettes were addictive!  Ha!



    Wow. Guess being addicted before ever having smoked before is possible then?

    Why not...I was addicted to sex before I ever tried it...

  • (cs) in reply to TeeSee
    TeeSee:
    Anonymous:
    Actually, if you need a permanent redirection from site B to site A (and I believe that's what PM needs here), just point domain A to the IP address of the site B. Why do you need any kind of server- or client- redirection? DNS server should work here. WTF????


    Wrong. The "correct" way is to point domain B to domain A (using a CNAME), so if the ip address of A changes, only the entries for domain A need to change.

    And this isn't desirable anyway, since it doesn't change the address in the address bar (I'm STILL waiting for a way to change the displayed location without doing an actual redirect, which is another roundtrip).

    If memory serves me correctly, there's some obscure technical reason why you're not supposed to put a CNAME on your top-level domain (i.e. it's fine on www.example.com, but not on example.com) - IIRC, any hostname that has a CNAME record isn't allowed to have any other DNS record (including the NS record you need to direct DNS requests for your domain to your nameserver)

Leave a comment on “Redirection with Smoke And ... Smoking?”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article