Internet Explorer users 'have below-average IQ'

On Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:48:25 +0100, BillW50 wrote:

In ,
Franc Zabkar wrote:
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:40:52 -0500, "BillW50" put
finger to keyboard and composed:

In ,
thanatoid wrote:
Interesting. I posted the same info in 24hr a few days ago,
since I found it quite amusing, but MY source says Opera users
are the smartest by far. That seems to be missing from your
version.

Which sounds strange, since Opera displays incorrectly more so than
other browsers.

That's because those web sites use broken code created by other
Microsoft products. ;-)

- Franc Zabkar

Then why does Chrome and Firefox work with them too? One website that
annoyed me the most was titantv.com under Opera. And Opera has had lots
of problems with forms and drop down menus too.


Seems to work here (load of **** on but that's the the way it is)

--
[dash dash space newline sig]

"Nuns! NUNS! Reverse! Reverse!"

On 8/1/2011 10:49, 98 Guy wrote:
Internet Explorer users 'have below-average IQ'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...verage-IQ.html

"Internet Explorer story was bogus"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14389430

Bill Blanton wrote in
ng.com:

On 8/1/2011 10:49, 98 Guy wrote:
Internet Explorer users 'have below-average IQ'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...t/8674678/Inte
rnet-Explorer-users-have-below-average-IQ.html

"Internet Explorer story was bogus"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14389430

The story may be bogus, but that does not change the fact most
IE users are morons.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/hea...4000/7874798.s
tm

I wonder how many of the 200,000 that went for THIS one were IE
users.

In ,
thanatoid wrote:
Bill Blanton wrote in
ng.com:

On 8/1/2011 10:49, 98 Guy wrote:
Internet Explorer users 'have below-average IQ'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...t/8674678/Inte
rnet-Explorer-users-have-below-average-IQ.html

"Internet Explorer story was bogus"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14389430

The story may be bogus, but that does not change the fact most
IE users are morons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/hea...4000/7874798.s
tm

I wonder how many of the 200,000 that went for THIS one were IE
users.

Most Firefox users are dumber IMHO. Luckily I don't use either very
much. But most Firefox users somehow believe they are protected and they
leave themselves wide open. And if you check out the infection rate, FF
and IE is going neck and neck. And I can't believe Mozilla leaves DCOM
wide open (like ActiveX under IE). They should know better, but they
never had done nothing about it. If Microsoft acted so stupid, we would
never hear the end of it. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo 1.83G - 2GB - Windows XP SP3

"BillW50" wrote in :

In ,
thanatoid wrote:
Bill Blanton wrote in
ng.com:

On 8/1/2011 10:49, 98 Guy wrote:
Internet Explorer users 'have below-average IQ'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...t/8674678/Inte
rnet-Explorer-users-have-below-average-IQ.html

"Internet Explorer story was bogus"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14389430

The story may be bogus, but that does not change the fact most
IE users are morons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/hea...4000/7874798.s
tm

I wonder how many of the 200,000 that went for THIS one were IE
users.

Most Firefox users are dumber IMHO. Luckily I don't use either very
much. But most Firefox users somehow believe they are protected and they
leave themselves wide open. And if you check out the infection rate, FF
and IE is going neck and neck. And I can't believe Mozilla leaves DCOM
wide open (like ActiveX under IE). They should know better, but they
never had done nothing about it. If Microsoft acted so stupid, we would
never hear the end of it. ;-)


You know what's REALLY dumb? We scorn the age of medicine where getting your
bumps felt seemed like a really neat idea, but now we're supposed to get our
browsers felt?
Cue Shirley Bassey and a nice dose of Propellerheads: It's all just a little
bit of history repeating!

"BillW50" wrote in
:

In ,
thanatoid wrote:
Bill Blanton wrote in
ng.com:

Most Firefox users are dumber IMHO.

In a way. They're dumber because they don't realize FF is just
as unsafe unless you install a whole batch of add-ons. In the
early days of FFox's rise, after trying it and being TOTALLY
disgusted, I called it "IE for people who like to say they are
too smart to use IE" for a while.

Luckily I don't use
either very much. But most Firefox users somehow believe
they are protected and they leave themselves wide open. And
if you check out the infection rate, FF and IE is going
neck and neck. And I can't believe Mozilla leaves DCOM wide
open (like ActiveX under IE). They should know better, but
they never had done nothing about it. If Microsoft acted so
stupid, we would never hear the end of it. ;-)

Yeah, like with Linux, there's a strange silence surrounding ANY
problems in the FFox camps.

I have stuck by Opera since I discovered it, at ver. 5.x, and it
is just reassuring to always see data about it being the best-
maintained and safest browser. It has been this way consistently
since the beginning. While also the most innovative browser, it
always had Flash problems, but it's not the only browser that
did, and they have fixed it with 10. Also, it was always the
fastest, now 3 are about the same and one trails behind a bit.

I agree there is a much steeper learning curve with Opera, while
other browsers are "use out of the box", and it took SOME time
to find out how to set it up the way I wanted, but it was worth
it.

A major release always tends to have some VERY irritating new
features (whose value I sometimes see later, and after the
initial annoyance, I actually consider putting them back in),
but I know of no other fully functional browser which is as
customizable and which writes ONE line to the registry (on my
system, anyway) and which behaves exactly as you want it. I have
NOT tried Chrome, but I distrust Google more than MS at this
point.

OffByOne remains the fastest and safest, but it has a few
limitations (which I see as assets) which most people seem
unable to tolerate. But for me, the less "page design" and
pointless graphics I see, the better. And NOTHING beats no
script and no popups and no Flash by design.
:-)

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

snip

You know what's REALLY dumb? We scorn the age of medicine
where getting your bumps felt seemed like a really neat
idea, but now we're supposed to get our browsers felt?

Can you explain what you mean? Duh... (Where my IE?)

Cue Shirley Bassey and a nice dose of Propellerheads: It's
all just a little bit of history repeating!

That is a great song. Some genius manager got the good lyrics,
got Bassey (great as ever) and had a minor super-hit ready to
go. I am surprised you even remember the "band's" name!

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:33:58 -0400, webster72n wrote:

OTOH, maybe I grew up with IE has something to do with it? g.

Perhaps. I recall a YUPPIE asking to look at my copy of コミクアフタヌーン. I handed
it to him properly oriented. He grasped the open pages and attempted to flip
the binding. Realizing he was grasping the comic the "wrong" way, he turned
it over, bring the binding under his left hand. Now he could flip the pages,
but realized (from the advertisements) that he was looking at the back
cover. So he flipped it again, top for bottom. Now the binding was
"properly" in his left hand, and the front cover facing up; but he realized
that the image was inverted. So he inverted the book again, bringing it back
to the original orientation, as I had handed it to him. Once again, he
unsuccessfully attempted to flip the pages from the bound side. Shaking his
head, he handed the comic back to me, saying as he did, "I will never
understand this". I am fairly certain he was referring to the fact that it
was bound the "wrong" way, not that it was printed in Japanese.

Also, some of the earliest attempts at translation of Japanese comics
preserved the Japanese orientation, and met resistance to sales from
Yankees, who were positive that there was only one way to publish a book,
and those were bound "backwards".

So, yes, familiarity will have a lot to do with it; more than technical
superiority.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

"N. Miller" wrote in
:

On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 13:33:58 -0400, webster72n wrote:

OTOH, maybe I grew up with IE has something to do with it?
g.

snip

So, yes, familiarity will have a lot to do with it; more
than technical superiority.

Like most people who didn't get into computers until about 1990,
I started with IE3 as well. It ALWAYS sucked. I suffered with it
for a few years, and then discovered Opera. It had tabs at
version 5 from , IIRC.

BTW, I find it astonishing that no one has managed to write a
really good browser for Windows. There IS good software for
Windows (NOT written by MS), so it SHOULD be possible.

Never mind a decent OS. The current Apple OSs and Linux being
based on Unix are almost hard to believe. But I guess that's how
technically advanced we really are.

thanatoid wrote in
:

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

snip

You know what's REALLY dumb? We scorn the age of medicine
where getting your bumps felt seemed like a really neat
idea, but now we're supposed to get our browsers felt?

Can you explain what you mean? Duh... (Where my IE?)


Bumps = phrenology.

Cue Shirley Bassey and a nice dose of Propellerheads: It's
all just a little bit of history repeating!

That is a great song. Some genius manager got the good lyrics,
got Bassey (great as ever) and had a minor super-hit ready to
go. I am surprised you even remember the "band's" name!


I had to. It's all so good it didn't seem right not to. Their OHMSS is
great too. And the tritone-heavy bit of Matriculation that accompanies a lot
of seriously shot-up corporate hallway.