This reminds me of superheated water in microwaves. If you can increase the temperature of water past the boiling point but prevent bubbles from forming, you will have super-heated water. However, it may suddenly decide to change into a gas, at which point you have a problem.
The way this is done in a microwave is by boiling the water twice. The first boil is supposed to remove any impurities around which bubbles will form. The second boil will super-heat the water past the boiling point. At this point, doing something like tapping on the glass can cause the water to suddenly change into a gas, spraying boiling water and steam everywhere.
Personally, I lost count at 175 hours in the current game, Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind. Think about that for a second: that's 2 hours after work every day for 3 full months.
Apparently this guy has never talked to an Evercrack fiend.
I grew up and still live in Kansas, so this decision is especially disheartening to me. But at the same time, I really don't think it will affect me. I will take part in my son's education, and he won't fall for this nonsense. All this does is legitimize and make known to the world the idiocy of the Kansas BOE. It will further divide the opinions of people here -- the smarter ones will have more desire and motivation to leave, lowering the state average. They're advancing their agenda, but it's going to cost the state in ways they don't perceive or understand.
What's the real reason for getting the FBI involved?
Watching too many shows like CSI and Special Victims Unit, and other BS shows that associate murderers and rapists with "deviant porn". Those shows are so chock full of shit -- but I guess their ads should provide ample warning.
Smart people will use technology to augment their intelligence. Dumb people will use it to become lazier. And in between there will be mixes of augmentation and lazy reliance. I don't think there's a single answer to this question. I think this has always been true, but technology amplifies this gap.
Cookies do not leak my personal information. Doubleclick does not have my personal information. The only way they could get it is if some website which had it directly gave it to them, in which it would have nothing to do with cookies. Cookies don't put you in danger of having your identity stolen, bad sites do, and it has nothing to do with cookies.
All Doubleclick has is some number like "6156A238F7652D78601A", which corresponds to a session in their database, possibly linking to other ads I've looked at on other sites. That is all. Giving them cookies does not suddenly give them access to my personal information. If you have been told otherwise, you have been misinformed.
It was likely just session cookies then. I develop JSP pages and Java backend, and I never have to mess with cookies in code to maintain state. But the cookies are there (JSESSIONID I believe), and I dealt with them when I wrote a custom session manager for the webserver. If you still have access to the application, check out the tools in my other reply, and you'll be able to see what exactly is being sent to and from the server.
I'm not sure what exactly defines a cookie as a "session cookie", but I do know that browsers are more tolerant of them, and many browsers just flush them when the browser is closed. This is not the sort of cookie that you're likely to have when you revisit a site the next week, and for many sites, this is just fine.
If you really want to see what IE is up to, check out ieHTTPHeaders. It's great for dev work, when you need to see exactly what your browser and the server are saying to each other. For Mozilla based browsers, use LiveHTTPHeaders.
However, unlike yourself, I also see that they probably do not have my best interests in mind when they are trying to "sell me stuff".
Admittedly I got off on more of a tangent than I had intended, but you seemed concerned about cookies related to selling you stuff, which to me implied advertising.
Either you were using session cookies, or your session id was encoded in the URL or the forms for you. If you look in IE's options, you'll notice that session cookies are a separate checkbox from all other cookies. If you are running a stateful application, then you have to have some kind of unique identifier to maintain a persistent state.
Plenty, considering that many homes have multiple computers behind a firewall. Plus, many people do this shit from work, where NAT is pretty much guaranteed. But I guess you wouldn't know about that.
This doesn't make any sense. As long as the browser sends the cookie, then the site can track you (that's how you get the customizations). The only thing affected is that the expiration date doesn't get updated, and if the site only uses things like 6-hour cookies that are purged server-side every day, you probably won't be able to get a new cookie. Your browser will say "I'm session 1234", and the server says, "I don't know who you are, you are now session 5678", but since you can't write cookies, it won't be updated (or it will only be updated while the browser is open). There really isn't much use in constantly updating a cookie, the utility is in creating the cookie, and then seeing that static value returned upon every page hit.
Marketeers have to get over characterizing customers as consumers.
. . .
If companies can't remember the adage, the customer is always right, they may lose all contact with their consumers.
This is not in your best interests. It is in your best interests to let them think they are influencing your purchasing decisions, in order to continue to get a free lunch from all the sites providing free content.
I would hope that whether they show you an ad or not really doesn't affect you. It's like not listening to an opposing argument because you're afraid that you might actually agree, because your argument/mind is too weak. Your argument implies that if they show you an ad, it might convince you to buy stuff you don't want. If that's true, well, I guess all I can do is laugh. It's like an overweight person complaining that they're being made fat by advertisements for food -- they kept showing them food, they had to eat!
Maybe it could even be argued that all the ads train us to be more callous to them, and their effectiveness will decline. Hell, think of when ads on the internet were around 10 years ago. The novelty may have actually worked. But then they had to get flashier and flashier to get people's attention. But that trend is reversing because in some cases it probably has a negative effect on sales (e.g., not buying from someone solely because of how irritating their ads were).
This is a stupid analogy. Putting a cookie on your computer is not like getting a sticker on your back. It's like saying that every time you go to the store, a bunch of advertisements for the store's products appear in a pile at your house. That's what the browser does when it caches the site's content every time you visit -- the ads and pictures of products are stored on your computer. But it's a flawed analogy, because they're really nothing alike.
1. IPs don't have to stay the same through a session. AOL is an example of this.
2. Multiple people can come from one IP. NAT is an example of this
3. Page flow is not always linear, especially if people use Open-in-new-window or the Back button.
Either your application was very insecure/unreliable or you were using cookies. Without at least session cookies, you have to rely on unreliable methods or encoding the session id in the URL, which is bullshitty way of handling sessions.
Seems like a high price to pay to say you didn't use cookies. Or maybe you did and just didn't realize it.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe that was one of the conclusions of the study -- the Windows admins didn't have to do as much. This is a real-world concern.
This reminds me of superheated water in microwaves. If you can increase the temperature of water past the boiling point but prevent bubbles from forming, you will have super-heated water. However, it may suddenly decide to change into a gas, at which point you have a problem.
The way this is done in a microwave is by boiling the water twice. The first boil is supposed to remove any impurities around which bubbles will form. The second boil will super-heat the water past the boiling point. At this point, doing something like tapping on the glass can cause the water to suddenly change into a gas, spraying boiling water and steam everywhere.
YOMANK!
I hope they rotate frequencies on their lasers; otherwise the Borg will adapt and wear sunglasses to block that frequency.
I grew up and still live in Kansas, so this decision is especially disheartening to me. But at the same time, I really don't think it will affect me. I will take part in my son's education, and he won't fall for this nonsense. All this does is legitimize and make known to the world the idiocy of the Kansas BOE. It will further divide the opinions of people here -- the smarter ones will have more desire and motivation to leave, lowering the state average. They're advancing their agenda, but it's going to cost the state in ways they don't perceive or understand.
I think SSNs are recycled, so they wouldn't make a very good primary key...
"His work is very important"
Hmmm...
A full body blood pressure cuff :-]
Parent should be modded insightful... idiots are turning the country into the very things they claim to hate. Perhaps it's the competition they hate.
I really wonder what browser and OS Peter Norton uses, and how he feels about Symantec now...
Smart people will use technology to augment their intelligence. Dumb people will use it to become lazier. And in between there will be mixes of augmentation and lazy reliance. I don't think there's a single answer to this question. I think this has always been true, but technology amplifies this gap.
True, but this doesn't help if you still have the same total quantity of heat -- the "density" of the heat is increasing.
Cookies do not leak my personal information. Doubleclick does not have my personal information. The only way they could get it is if some website which had it directly gave it to them, in which it would have nothing to do with cookies. Cookies don't put you in danger of having your identity stolen, bad sites do, and it has nothing to do with cookies.
All Doubleclick has is some number like "6156A238F7652D78601A", which corresponds to a session in their database, possibly linking to other ads I've looked at on other sites. That is all. Giving them cookies does not suddenly give them access to my personal information. If you have been told otherwise, you have been misinformed.
It was likely just session cookies then. I develop JSP pages and Java backend, and I never have to mess with cookies in code to maintain state. But the cookies are there (JSESSIONID I believe), and I dealt with them when I wrote a custom session manager for the webserver. If you still have access to the application, check out the tools in my other reply, and you'll be able to see what exactly is being sent to and from the server.
I'm not sure what exactly defines a cookie as a "session cookie", but I do know that browsers are more tolerant of them, and many browsers just flush them when the browser is closed. This is not the sort of cookie that you're likely to have when you revisit a site the next week, and for many sites, this is just fine.
If you really want to see what IE is up to, check out ieHTTPHeaders. It's great for dev work, when you need to see exactly what your browser and the server are saying to each other. For Mozilla based browsers, use LiveHTTPHeaders.
Either you were using session cookies, or your session id was encoded in the URL or the forms for you. If you look in IE's options, you'll notice that session cookies are a separate checkbox from all other cookies. If you are running a stateful application, then you have to have some kind of unique identifier to maintain a persistent state.
Plenty, considering that many homes have multiple computers behind a firewall. Plus, many people do this shit from work, where NAT is pretty much guaranteed. But I guess you wouldn't know about that.
This doesn't make any sense. As long as the browser sends the cookie, then the site can track you (that's how you get the customizations). The only thing affected is that the expiration date doesn't get updated, and if the site only uses things like 6-hour cookies that are purged server-side every day, you probably won't be able to get a new cookie. Your browser will say "I'm session 1234", and the server says, "I don't know who you are, you are now session 5678", but since you can't write cookies, it won't be updated (or it will only be updated while the browser is open). There really isn't much use in constantly updating a cookie, the utility is in creating the cookie, and then seeing that static value returned upon every page hit.
This is not in your best interests. It is in your best interests to let them think they are influencing your purchasing decisions, in order to continue to get a free lunch from all the sites providing free content.
I would hope that whether they show you an ad or not really doesn't affect you. It's like not listening to an opposing argument because you're afraid that you might actually agree, because your argument/mind is too weak. Your argument implies that if they show you an ad, it might convince you to buy stuff you don't want. If that's true, well, I guess all I can do is laugh. It's like an overweight person complaining that they're being made fat by advertisements for food -- they kept showing them food, they had to eat!
Maybe it could even be argued that all the ads train us to be more callous to them, and their effectiveness will decline. Hell, think of when ads on the internet were around 10 years ago. The novelty may have actually worked. But then they had to get flashier and flashier to get people's attention. But that trend is reversing because in some cases it probably has a negative effect on sales (e.g., not buying from someone solely because of how irritating their ads were).
This is a stupid analogy. Putting a cookie on your computer is not like getting a sticker on your back. It's like saying that every time you go to the store, a bunch of advertisements for the store's products appear in a pile at your house. That's what the browser does when it caches the site's content every time you visit -- the ads and pictures of products are stored on your computer. But it's a flawed analogy, because they're really nothing alike.
1. IPs don't have to stay the same through a session. AOL is an example of this.
2. Multiple people can come from one IP. NAT is an example of this
3. Page flow is not always linear, especially if people use Open-in-new-window or the Back button.
Either your application was very insecure/unreliable or you were using cookies. Without at least session cookies, you have to rely on unreliable methods or encoding the session id in the URL, which is bullshitty way of handling sessions.
Seems like a high price to pay to say you didn't use cookies. Or maybe you did and just didn't realize it.