Only my ISP sees all my traffic, not some random 3rd party site I know nothing of. Given the choice, I'd stick with my ISP.
And no, it doesn't really bother me. But then again, cookies don't bother me either. I was just pointing out that banning cookies doesn't really improve anything regarding your on-line privacy.
Also, I have no idea how setting up a proxy improves anything regarding my traceability. They'll just use the proxy's IP address instead. The only solution would be to have a large pool of proxy servers, and pick a random one every time. But that means that all these proxies get a chance to see my traffic, instead of just my ISP.
You're confusing scientists with policy makers. The science for AGW is pretty solid. That doesn't mean that alternative explanations aren't welcome. It just means that there are no alternative explanations that make much scientific sense.
As far as the policy change, that's an area that scientific publications don't usually deal with. They just observe the facts, and provide an explanation. It's up to the politicians and the general public to determine what to do next.
If you want to do nothing, that's a perfectly fine choice, but it's silly to deny the science, just because you don't want to change.
Also, a database file is usually not a text-file, because it contains data that is not human-readable.
There is little conceptual difference between a database and a file system. For the sake of the discussion it doesn't matter if cookies are stored in little individual files on a file system, or if they are combined in a small database implemented as a single file.
There's little difference in providing browser headers/IP, and providing a cookie, when you visit a web site. With the right tools, they can be used in exactly the same way.
The only difference is that I can delete a cookie, but I have no influence over what the server does with my browser headers, or IP address.
The whole point of setting a preference is that it will be remembered for next time. Obviously it needs to be stored somewhere. Anybody who wants to set a preference and understands what they are doing is going to allow the cookie.
Or, perhaps you want to include 2 pages of legalese explaining all the conditions that are attached to the use of the cookie, that people aren't going to read anyway.
You also need them to store simple preferences, such as language settings. If you go to CNN, it lets you choose between international or US news, which is very convenient for people. A lot of sites have something similar. If you don't have cookies enabled, these things often break silently.
Don't kill the messenger. The graphs from that website are properly referenced. If you have problems with the data shown in the graphs, explain why the source has it wrong, and show better data.
And if it's more complex, please show your complex calculations how 40 years stable cosmic rays can cause 40 years of warming.
It's not very scientific to say: "we don't know, therefore it is unlikely to be CO2". In fact, based on all the measurements and understanding, it's very likely to be CO2. Maybe there's a 5% chance it's something else.
If you visit 20 specialists, and 19 of them are saying you have lung cancer, and 1 says you don't, do you just keep smoking ?
The typical user just clicks on a web site, and has no idea what cookies are, and that they are getting stored on their computer. In most cases, there's no 'choosing' involved, since they are enabled by default. For those cases, saying that the text just gets stored on your computer is accurate enough.
I was referring to the need to 'reset the connection'. Sure, interference can lower the throughput, or make it impossible to stream at a sufficient rate, but if anything can be fixed by resetting, it indicates a bad implementation.
so including type information in the identifier did protect against a certain class of errors.
And introducing another class of errors, whereby the type is changed, without updating the name (e.g. WPARAM which has changed from 16 bit to 32 bit, without a name change).
You can't even power it through the USB hub. It works as a USB host, and the host port of a USB hub doesn't provide any power (it may actually draw some)
Slashdot Mirror
Only my ISP sees all my traffic, not some random 3rd party site I know nothing of. Given the choice, I'd stick with my ISP.
And no, it doesn't really bother me. But then again, cookies don't bother me either. I was just pointing out that banning cookies doesn't really improve anything regarding your on-line privacy.
Also, I have no idea how setting up a proxy improves anything regarding my traceability. They'll just use the proxy's IP address instead. The only solution would be to have a large pool of proxy servers, and pick a random one every time. But that means that all these proxies get a chance to see my traffic, instead of just my ISP.
A proxy ? And let them see all my traffic ? That's worse than what I've got now.
You're confusing scientists with policy makers. The science for AGW is pretty solid. That doesn't mean that alternative explanations aren't welcome. It just means that there are no alternative explanations that make much scientific sense.
As far as the policy change, that's an area that scientific publications don't usually deal with. They just observe the facts, and provide an explanation. It's up to the politicians and the general public to determine what to do next.
If you want to do nothing, that's a perfectly fine choice, but it's silly to deny the science, just because you don't want to change.
There is little conceptual difference between a database and a file system. For the sake of the discussion it doesn't matter if cookies are stored in little individual files on a file system, or if they are combined in a small database implemented as a single file.
Authenticated mail won't work as long as there is still malware that can steal your credentials.
There's little difference in providing browser headers/IP, and providing a cookie, when you visit a web site. With the right tools, they can be used in exactly the same way.
The only difference is that I can delete a cookie, but I have no influence over what the server does with my browser headers, or IP address.
If they can't have the cookies, the advertisers will just track you based on browser headers and/or IP address.
The whole point of setting a preference is that it will be remembered for next time. Obviously it needs to be stored somewhere. Anybody who wants to set a preference and understands what they are doing is going to allow the cookie.
Or, perhaps you want to include 2 pages of legalese explaining all the conditions that are attached to the use of the cookie, that people aren't going to read anyway.
What about 3rd party cookies attached to ads ? There may be several different ones on a single page.
You also need them to store simple preferences, such as language settings. If you go to CNN, it lets you choose between international or US news, which is very convenient for people. A lot of sites have something similar. If you don't have cookies enabled, these things often break silently.
Don't kill the messenger. The graphs from that website are properly referenced. If you have problems with the data shown in the graphs, explain why the source has it wrong, and show better data.
And if it's more complex, please show your complex calculations how 40 years stable cosmic rays can cause 40 years of warming.
It's not very scientific to say: "we don't know, therefore it is unlikely to be CO2". In fact, based on all the measurements and understanding, it's very likely to be CO2. Maybe there's a 5% chance it's something else.
If you visit 20 specialists, and 19 of them are saying you have lung cancer, and 1 says you don't, do you just keep smoking ?
The typical user just clicks on a web site, and has no idea what cookies are, and that they are getting stored on their computer. In most cases, there's no 'choosing' involved, since they are enabled by default. For those cases, saying that the text just gets stored on your computer is accurate enough.
It's close enough. Cookies are small pieces of text, and they are stored on your computer.
We don't have to wait for the CLOUD experiment to see that correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature is poor after 1970:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm
There's no correlation. The sun has been getting weaker since the 1980's, while global temperature has gone up.
Compare black line here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/Sunspot_Numbers.png/800px-Sunspot_Numbers.png
With this: http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.gif
Simple, a long term global temperature trend that doesn't go up despite predictions would falsify the theory.
But it doesn't look like there's much chance of that:
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/dTs_60+132mons.gif
Such as South Africa ?
You don't have to push the Mercedes to the garage, but you can carry a can of fuel back to the car.
I was referring to the need to 'reset the connection'. Sure, interference can lower the throughput, or make it impossible to stream at a sufficient rate, but if anything can be fixed by resetting, it indicates a bad implementation.
There's nothing wrong with the protocols, you just have bad equipment.
And introducing another class of errors, whereby the type is changed, without updating the name (e.g. WPARAM which has changed from 16 bit to 32 bit, without a name change).
No, you can't. You can't falsify something you can't predict. And God's ways are unpredictable.
If you've got speciation, you already have evolution.
You can't even power it through the USB hub. It works as a USB host, and the host port of a USB hub doesn't provide any power (it may actually draw some)
If it's only 7 out of 100-200 b, then what are we talking about ? Just raise the prices a few %, and the problem is solved.