New travel website about Australia and NZ. Feedback needed!

Thanks for all the comments made about TripTouch. Many of them were
not really relavant to the subject, but from those who were, we
learned a lot and we will use them.

Just few answers:

You do not to register in order to see all the content in the website.
Only if you want to join the community, upload picutres, create a trip
etc.. than you can register (only 3 questions- user, password,
email) .So basically the website can be used as a regular travel
website, and if you wish you can join the travellers community


"One thing sprung to mind - what age group are you targeting if any?
It can be helpful to target a particular age group, or, set the site
up to cater for various groups i.e. age/backpackers/disabilities etc.
"

We do not target ages, but a community: people before during and
after their trips.
The site is very useful for people during their trip because it
provides them with handy info(weather, currency exchange, travel
info..)





"Kayak - are their rates in NZ$ or ?? From looking at it, I believe
they are in US$. People do want to know upfront what currency they
are being presented in at a glance".


About Kayak: the prices are in US$

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 20:59:36 -0600,
texan....usenet.TakeThisOut@texas...removethisbit.usacom.. wrote in
:

>On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:15:21 GMT, kangaroo16
>wrote:
>
>>On 22 Dec 2007 14:31:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
>> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>>kangaroo16 wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:18:13 +1030, "Keith Manning"
>>>> wrote in
>>>[...]
>>>> >Also sites ask you to register because many allow you to upload pictures and
>>>> >post to their forums. Without names, a forum can quickly be destroyed by
>>>> >spammers. Porn can get uploaded into the picture section and pretty soon the
>>>> >site is worthless.
>>>>
>>>> If their internal programs for filtering "spam", "porn" etc.
>>>> aren't good enough to prevent these problems on their own
>>>> sites, how trustworthy can the site be?
>>>
>>> So it's OK for you to be totally paranoid
>>
>>How about you give us your definition of "paranoid", let alone
>>"totally paranoid"?
>>
>How about *you* give us your definition then?
>How many times is it now you have used this term/word?
>15 or so?

I dunno, offhand. Count them if you wish.
>
>
>>>about a site which looks
>>>perfectly fine, but they should trust everybody, no questions asked?
>>
>>It may look "perfectly fine" to you, but it doesn't to everyone.
>>As I indicated in the post, all messages have a unique message
>>number and are traceable if necessary. How much do you claim to
>>know about computer and Internet security?
>
>You would be very surprised compared to your knowledge.

Possibly, possibly not.
>>
>>Historically, are you aware that the US Amateur Radio service was
>>highly restricted during both WW1 & WW2. If you don't, check the
>>history of amateur radio at:
>>
>>http://www.ac6v.com/history.htm
>>
>>Now, Frank, do you follow the logic of this action in wartime?
>>Do you think that the U.S. Gov't was "Paranoid" to institute
>>these regulations?
>>
>>Why do Governments allow the Internet if messages are not
>>traceable?
>>
>>>The mind boggles.
>>
>>Perhaps yours does.
>>>
>>> Anyway, it's *impossible* to 'filter' "porn" (whatever *that* is) -
>>>let alone "spam" - with 100% accuracy.
>>
>>Yes, I've already pointed this out.
>>>
>>> So any site with any clue *must* require login/password. If they
>>>don't, *they* will be held legally responsible for any inappropriate
>>>material - i.e. also copyright violations, etc. - on their site.
>>
>>Unlikely, and too hard to enforce anyway. Firstly, how would
>>they know that the name and address is correct anyway. Is your
>>name actually "Frank Slootweg"? I note that you don't bother to
>>provide an actual email address, incidentally.
>
>Pot, kettle, black.
>
>You not only do not provide your real name but also a valid email
>address!
>
I feel no need to provide either. I get enough spam as it is.
>
>>>
>>> Just think about it: Is there *any* company with any sense to which
>>>you can upload files without authentication?
>>
>>How do you define "company", "any sense", "files" ?
>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't worry about porn filters as have no kids
>>>> to try to protect, but I have yet to heard of any that haven't
>>>> been fairly quickly cracked.
>>>
>>> I hope you realize how inconsistent that statement is!
>>
>>Feel free to explain why you think it "inconsistent"
>
>LMAO. You are such a loser roo.

You have a right to your opinion.
>>
>>>
>>> Boggle, boggle, ...
>>
>>If your mind "boggles" easily, I cannot help that.
>>
>>Incidentally, just as an idle question, do you consider
>>your computer as absolutely secure? Would you use it for
>>Internet banking, for example?
>
>Do you consider *your* bank/s computers 1001% secure?

No, I don't consider any computer as 100% secure, let alone 1001%
secure. If governments cannot even keep their systems
secure, I certainly cannot expect banks or users of their
services to be able to manage this.

In my Dec.31 issue of "Time" there is an interesting on the
"Briefing" page:

Washington Memo
by Brian Bennet

Did GI's Sell Guns in Iraq?

Apparently they have "lost track" of 190,000 weapons. If the
military can lose track of that many physical weapons, why should
data be securable?

Kangaroo16.TakeThisOut@example.invalid
Sydney, 12:41 PM Friday 29 Dec.
[GMT + 11 hrs]





>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>Kangaroo16
>
>Cath