Topic: STARFIRE TOR

[Camazotz Automat]

After perusing Starfire Tor's website - taking note of the (female?) warrior mounted on a winged horse, lurching above a twinkling starry background - I fetched my Advanced Dungeons & Dragons dice and feel I am now ready to listen to tonight's show.
 
 http://www.starfiretor.com/MainTableOfContents.htm

[toxicmop]

As far as bad websites that look to be from 1997 (which is almost a pre-requite to get on the show), I think this takes the cake. I am not sure about the quality of the guest as I haven't heard her before, but that website is not a good sign.

[HAL 9000]

As far as bad websites that look to be from 1997 (which is almost a pre-requite to get on the show), I think this takes the cake. I am not sure about the quality of the guest as I haven't heard her before, but that website is not a good sign.

I think I'll have to respectfully disagree on this one - I found Coast to Coast's "expert" on the Internet and Internet Security, Lauren Weinstein,  to maybe be the worst website, ESPECIALLY considering his expertise... who would purchase his services with a site like this? Looks like it was made with Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold Edition.

http://www.vortex.com/

[toxicmop]

I take that back. Wow.

[Camazotz Automat]

I am trying to decide if I should send a sales lead to Starfire Tor's webmaster, "Reverend Sharri Lorraine," about Lauren Weinstein's site needing an upgrade.

Perhaps a little divination is in order.

(rolling twelve-sided die)

Oh! Starfire Tor's site was just attacked by a black pudding monster.   

The flying horse is being sucked into the muck like  . . . like a lurid scene from a Guy N. Smith crab novel.

Black pudding is being flicked everywhere by the horse's majestic though now helpless wings. The horse's rider has fallen into the pudding and the lifeless corpse is frightening the already terrified animal.

Oh, the humanity of Starfire Tor's fallen winged equine! The sadness of a blinking star background! The cold Lovecraftian detachment of an "other" intelligence which remains eternally behind the stars, doing NOTHING to hinder the black pudding onslaught . . .

Wait.

I rolled the wrong type of die. (Blazes!) I should have used a D20, not a D12.

Hang on.


http://www.starfiretor.com/SharriLorraineWebmaster.htm

[MV]

I think I'll have to respectfully disagree on this one - I found Coast to Coast's "expert" on the Internet and Internet Security, Lauren Weinstein,  to maybe be the worst website, ESPECIALLY considering his expertise... who would purchase his services with a site like this? Looks like it was made with Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold Edition.

http://www.vortex.com/

what a logo.

[EvB]

MY EYES!!! MY EYES!!

[Do you think it was angels?]

http://www.vortex.com/

<meta content="MSHTML 6.00.6002.18071" name="GENERATOR">

[Silent]

Neither are pretty but at least the vortex site is functional.  Websites like that Starfire one bother me because it's just a lot of scrolling down and down and down some more with nothing organized.  Sort of like http://www.enterprisemission.com/   That's got both of the previous ones beat in my book.  Also any sites with animations like the sparkling stars bug me.  All it needs is sounds or a song to play when it loads up to top it off. 

[Do you think it was angels?]

I am trying to decide if I should send a sales lead to Starfire Tor's webmaster, "Reverend Sharri Lorraine," about Lauren Weinstein's site needing an upgrade.

Wait.

I rolled the wrong type of die. (Blazes!) I should have used a D20, not a D12.

Hang on.

Reverend Sharri Lorraine casts a magic missile at you. Roll for saving throw!

[Do you think it was angels?]

  Also any sites with animations like the sparkling stars bug me.

[Lauren Weinstein]

And in fact, functionality is by far the primary goal of the http://www.vortex.com site, along with the fastest possible loading.  No JavaScript, no Java, very few images.  Find what you want and move on to it.

On the other hand, my sites that feature frequently updated data, such as my blog ( http://lauren.vortex.com ), and the GCTIP Forums ( http://www.gctip.org ), are much "fancier" by comparison, and "heavier" as a result (JS, Java, images, embedded video, etc.) -- but only because that's *needed* in those contexts.

Ultimately though, I choose to devote the lion's share of my efforts to the information itself.  That's my preference, and of course other folks, and other sites, may have completely different priorities and prefer different styles.  (Personally, I find gray text on black, as is the style of coastgab, to be pretty tough on the eyes.  But your mileage may vary.)

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com

[Silent]

I think I'll have to respectfully disagree on this one - I found Coast to Coast's "expert" on the Internet and Internet Security, Lauren Weinstein,  to maybe be the worst website, ESPECIALLY considering his expertise... who would purchase his services with a site like this? Looks like it was made with Netscape Navigator 3.0 Gold Edition.

http://www.vortex.com/

Well it looks like he's at least smart enough to see where incoming traffic to his sites is coming from

[Evil Twin Of Zen]

Well it looks like he's at least smart enough to see where incoming traffic to his sites is coming from

ya think? LOL!
 
While I do not know a lot about site design and such, I browsed the vortex content. I did find much of it not too "right" and not too "left". It did seem to be a pretty good site for information on some of the controls government and other agencies wish to impose where it concerns the Internet. I found other areas of interest to me.
As far as "cyber security" goes, I think it would make it much easier for anyone to gain access to personal information. When you consider that online banking is no more secure than any other online transaction, I just don't see it as a solution. I also see it as more of a danger to the online user when the government will have the power to gather any and all info that such a system will have and be able to tie it directly to the user.
I'd say more, but that would be five cents worth. I'll keep it at three and a half. . . this time.