It's the other way around. Logged in user has to be tracked just to maintain his logged in status (this still doesn't mean, site should report those things to advertisers). However when user is not logged in, there should not be any cookies that identify the user when he will look at the same site later, or (especially) cookies for completely unrelated advertisers' hosts that have nothing to do with functionality of the site.
Ad networks and tracking behavior of users between unrelated visits. Things can get seriously creepy if, say, news site will always first display the stories similar to the topic user looked at before, even if the user does not have an account and did not want the site to choose those things for him.
Google requiring log-in = people start using bing (have they renamed it again yet?) / yahoo / altavista. Really... this is what would happen.
The whole point of a law is that everyone must obey it.
There is also a matter of Google benefiting from any laws that make things harder for all search engines and ad networks -- it will hurt its competitors more than will hurt Google because Google still has more data and more sophisticated analysis, so it can afford to base its ads on data available without tracking. Google gets plenty of information from overall statistics, searches and association of ads with pages where ads are displayed. Persistent tracking is a bonus for them, however nothing will be broken if ads won't be able to set cookies all by themselves.
But then they should charge additional $5/mo for it, maybe $6 if they are greedy, but not require a $300-$1000 "business" connection (and only if you are lucky to have that option available).
Somewhat lucky and partial guess does not make a scientific theory. Stars are indeed far enough that instruments available to ancient Greek astronomers (or Copernicus, or Galileo, or Kepler) can not detect any parallax. The hypothesis that stars are very far away from our Solar system would be sufficiently extraordinary claim at the time, so movement of Earth had to be confirmed by means other than "it looks better". The problem was not that theories of Copernicus and Galileo were not immediately accepted, it was that research into that direction was prevented by religious bigots. If by any chance Ptolemy would be right, further research would support his theory or lead to a more precise geocentric model. However the idea of astronomers performing measurements and calculations based on "heretical" model was so offensive to Catholic church, they could not bear it happening.
Not really different from how pro-robber-barons Conservatives are trying to prevent study of climate change, except, of course, some of them realize that it may expose them as being wrong.
See my reply to the GP below. Then please tell me, why do you believe in evolution?
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention -- one is presented as plausible explanation with evidence, and another is "believe in what I said, or my imaginary friend will tell my imaginary enemy to burn you in hell after you die!".
If I was a biologist, I would be qualified to analyze the evidence deeper and in more details, however being merely an educated person capable of thinking, I have to do with this.
For what it's worth, string theory is firmly in "hypothesis" range, and even string theorists acknowledge that. The question, if it is a complete mental masturbation or not, is kind of undecided, but judging by the number of people involved and effect on anything practical, it's not important at this point.
The problem is not that someone is ignorant, it's that people who are ignorant and unqualified to make any decisions, make those decisions based entirely on ideology, and present their ideologically-inspired beliefs as "truth".
What, I guess, is a step up from doing the same with religion instead of political ideology (hi, "pro-lifers" and evolution deniers), but not by much.
Re:That's not what some Nokia folks say...
on
Nokia Sells Qt
·
· Score: 1
There is nothing to discuss, it was already discussed to death, and result of those discussions was sovereignty of nations. If Libyans will replace their current government with another one, their choice will have to be respected. If by any chance they will fail to do so, current government will remain in power this result will still have to be respected. US is already hostile toward Libya, so at worst it won't have to change its policy at all.
The Great Depression is being "analyzed" by every political whore to mean whatever his masters want it to mean. For everyone else, it's obvious that it was created by rampant speculation and abuse of stock market that amplified ordinary problems in US economy to extraordinary, unfixable level.
Social Security's current model is doomed even without the kind of additional burden you suggest (unless we have huge unexpected population growth to re-inflate that Ponzi scheme). Its impending problem is one of long-term balances, not of liquidity. The banks that got loans recently were mostly suffering from liquidity problems, which you can address with loans. There is no reasonable prospect of loan repayment by an entity with long-term balance problems.
So at very least you admit that the only thing anyone may want to save, would be not any worse because it's doomed anyway.
Ask state employees and retirees in CalPERS if they would like it if CalPERS had to liquidate and they had to retire based on a fire-sale valuation of its assets. Is it "good riddance" for them to starve?
Enron employees, or victims of Bernie Madoff scheme already went through this. Following your logic, those things should've been allowed to continue, too.
Your "fuck them, destroy their money, the government can magically give me mine" attitude is repulsive.
Government created money, it's government's job to clean up when it failed to govern their use. "Property rights" of crooks and fraudsters are very low on my list of priorities.
That attitude clearly shows that you either ignored the failure of communism last century or that you are too stupid to have learned its lesson.
I was there, I know exactly how it worked, why and how it was destroyed. The "lessons" your friendly Social Conservatives are trumpeting about, are less related to reality than Madoff's accounting, so please find something less idiotic.
What caused the Great Depression: The 1929 stock market crash, or the government's attempts to reverse its effects? You seem to think it would have been better for the government to sit by and conduct business as usual in the aftermath.
I am not talking about government trying to "fix" market crash. It's what financial companies themselves are trying to do to support themselves, damages the value of real companies.
That kind of dollar loss also leaves grandmothers struggling to pay for food,
If government can prop two real estate loan companies so Federal Reserve will constantly loan them nonexistent money, it can do the same for Social Security when such "emergency" happens. The rest can go fuck themselves. Consumer spending and reselling imported goods can wait until real industry (that suddenly becomes a much better investment than Ponzi schemes) is back.
and pension funds struggling to pay benefits to retirees.
Then those funds will have to liquidate, and pay whatever is left, just like many did before. Good riddance.
What, no "militia" crap? I thought, every redneck in the South still fantasizes about fighting federal government to abolish taxes and reinstate slavery!
If stock market tanks and stays that way, and everyone will know that it will stay that way, for most it would merely reverse few years of inflation. It's not the fall of perceived value that kills the economy, it's attempts to bounce it.
Slashdot Mirror
What??
It has two layer selectors -- you only need modal layer manager when you add layers or change layers' parameters.
It's Qt, you dumbass!
(same toolkit as QCad).
It's the other way around. Logged in user has to be tracked just to maintain his logged in status (this still doesn't mean, site should report those things to advertisers). However when user is not logged in, there should not be any cookies that identify the user when he will look at the same site later, or (especially) cookies for completely unrelated advertisers' hosts that have nothing to do with functionality of the site.
lol
Hi, Christian Weston Chandler!
Ad networks and tracking behavior of users between unrelated visits. Things can get seriously creepy if, say, news site will always first display the stories similar to the topic user looked at before, even if the user does not have an account and did not want the site to choose those things for him.
Google requiring log-in = people start using bing (have they renamed it again yet?) / yahoo / altavista.
Really... this is what would happen.
The whole point of a law is that everyone must obey it.
There is also a matter of Google benefiting from any laws that make things harder for all search engines and ad networks -- it will hurt its competitors more than will hurt Google because Google still has more data and more sophisticated analysis, so it can afford to base its ads on data available without tracking. Google gets plenty of information from overall statistics, searches and association of ads with pages where ads are displayed. Persistent tracking is a bonus for them, however nothing will be broken if ads won't be able to set cookies all by themselves.
But then they should charge additional $5/mo for it, maybe $6 if they are greedy, but not require a $300-$1000 "business" connection (and only if you are lucky to have that option available).
In a "free-market capitalism" politicians are all for sale, too. There is no mechanism to make it otherwise.
You mean, to the place to where all stolen wealth flows?
Hi, Microsoft marketing department, we almost missed you guys here.
Somewhat lucky and partial guess does not make a scientific theory. Stars are indeed far enough that instruments available to ancient Greek astronomers (or Copernicus, or Galileo, or Kepler) can not detect any parallax. The hypothesis that stars are very far away from our Solar system would be sufficiently extraordinary claim at the time, so movement of Earth had to be confirmed by means other than "it looks better". The problem was not that theories of Copernicus and Galileo were not immediately accepted, it was that research into that direction was prevented by religious bigots. If by any chance Ptolemy would be right, further research would support his theory or lead to a more precise geocentric model. However the idea of astronomers performing measurements and calculations based on "heretical" model was so offensive to Catholic church, they could not bear it happening.
Not really different from how pro-robber-barons Conservatives are trying to prevent study of climate change, except, of course, some of them realize that it may expose them as being wrong.
And why do you assume there are only two available explanations?
For a person who is not actively performing research in a related area of knowledge -- absolutely!
See my reply to the GP below. Then please tell me, why do you believe in evolution?
Because of the only two available explanation -- evolutions and divine intervention -- one is presented as plausible explanation with evidence, and another is "believe in what I said, or my imaginary friend will tell my imaginary enemy to burn you in hell after you die!".
If I was a biologist, I would be qualified to analyze the evidence deeper and in more details, however being merely an educated person capable of thinking, I have to do with this.
For what it's worth, string theory is firmly in "hypothesis" range, and even string theorists acknowledge that. The question, if it is a complete mental masturbation or not, is kind of undecided, but judging by the number of people involved and effect on anything practical, it's not important at this point.
"This is stupid, and you are stupid" is not an ad hominem attack.
The problem is not that someone is ignorant, it's that people who are ignorant and unqualified to make any decisions, make those decisions based entirely on ideology, and present their ideologically-inspired beliefs as "truth".
What, I guess, is a step up from doing the same with religion instead of political ideology (hi, "pro-lifers" and evolution deniers), but not by much.
Yeah right.
You can wait them out, in democracies eventually they will go away.
Wait out Republican/Democrat coalition (what those two parties really are by now)? When do you think, that is going to end?
There is nothing to discuss, it was already discussed to death, and result of those discussions was sovereignty of nations. If Libyans will replace their current government with another one, their choice will have to be respected. If by any chance they will fail to do so, current government will remain in power this result will still have to be respected. US is already hostile toward Libya, so at worst it won't have to change its policy at all.
The Great Depression is being "analyzed" by every political whore to mean whatever his masters want it to mean. For everyone else, it's obvious that it was created by rampant speculation and abuse of stock market that amplified ordinary problems in US economy to extraordinary, unfixable level.
Social Security's current model is doomed even without the kind of additional burden you suggest (unless we have huge unexpected population growth to re-inflate that Ponzi scheme). Its impending problem is one of long-term balances, not of liquidity. The banks that got loans recently were mostly suffering from liquidity problems, which you can address with loans. There is no reasonable prospect of loan repayment by an entity with long-term balance problems.
So at very least you admit that the only thing anyone may want to save, would be not any worse because it's doomed anyway.
Ask state employees and retirees in CalPERS if they would like it if CalPERS had to liquidate and they had to retire based on a fire-sale valuation of its assets. Is it "good riddance" for them to starve?
Enron employees, or victims of Bernie Madoff scheme already went through this. Following your logic, those things should've been allowed to continue, too.
Your "fuck them, destroy their money, the government can magically give me mine" attitude is repulsive.
Government created money, it's government's job to clean up when it failed to govern their use. "Property rights" of crooks and fraudsters are very low on my list of priorities.
That attitude clearly shows that you either ignored the failure of communism last century or that you are too stupid to have learned its lesson.
I was there, I know exactly how it worked, why and how it was destroyed. The "lessons" your friendly Social Conservatives are trumpeting about, are less related to reality than Madoff's accounting, so please find something less idiotic.
How about Bush, Obama, or whatever fuckhead will be next?
What caused the Great Depression: The 1929 stock market crash, or the government's attempts to reverse its effects? You seem to think it would have been better for the government to sit by and conduct business as usual in the aftermath.
I am not talking about government trying to "fix" market crash. It's what financial companies themselves are trying to do to support themselves, damages the value of real companies.
That kind of dollar loss also leaves grandmothers struggling to pay for food,
If government can prop two real estate loan companies so Federal Reserve will constantly loan them nonexistent money, it can do the same for Social Security when such "emergency" happens. The rest can go fuck themselves. Consumer spending and reselling imported goods can wait until real industry (that suddenly becomes a much better investment than Ponzi schemes) is back.
and pension funds struggling to pay benefits to retirees.
Then those funds will have to liquidate, and pay whatever is left, just like many did before. Good riddance.
What, no "militia" crap? I thought, every redneck in the South still fantasizes about fighting federal government to abolish taxes and reinstate slavery!
If stock market tanks and stays that way, and everyone will know that it will stay that way , for most it would merely reverse few years of inflation. It's not the fall of perceived value that kills the economy, it's attempts to bounce it.