It wasn't even *just* drinking in public that was the problem.
No, this genius is on medication for bipolar disorder and has been specifically disallowed alcohol because it would have "adverse effects" on the medication.
If it had been just the drinking photo that would be horrible. Everyone's entitled to go to the pub once in a while, parent or otherwise.
I had a similar thing with a few versions of Ubuntu about two years or so back. Had to compile ALSA from source to get it to recognise the headphone jack on my laptop. And recompile every time I updated.
After a couple of cycles I switched back to debian (which I first used in 1995!) and all has been well ever since.
Well, mostly. As much as any computer ever is. Right now my hackintosh is having boot problems and Win 7 is infected with god knows what so debian Linux is currently getting the 'just works' award from me.
Scamming is nasty business at the best of times, but (imagining I were a scammer) I could see people in places like Nigeria justifying it to themselves as getting their share from the rich west.
But this is just out and out profiting from human misery and death.
This is where my understanding of all the protest over this breaks down. To just read a site, what use is it to me to have a cookie?
Sure, for buying stuff, or for logging in or whatever else, I see how they're used. But for just reading a site (or loading an ad) why should I have to maintain a cookie?
If you fail then they haven't got one. You don't try to write one until you actually need one (shopping basket, account signup or login etc), at that point you ask permission with it spelled out that they can't go any further without it.
If they decline then you send them back to your front page or to google or something.
If you're a forum or something then sure, you need cookies for pretty much anything (other than random drop-in people just looking). If you're something like an online newspaper, that's not behind a subscriber/pay wall, you don't bother with cookies at all.
Seriously, if I wasn't coming here to comment, can you think of a reason slashdot would *need* to set cookies?
Under EU law you would likely be prohibited from doing some of those things without consent also.
The web is perfectly functional with a very limited set of allowed cookies and adblock set to not load most javascript or advertising.
I don't have java enabled. Flash is default blocked, flash cookies are removed on browser exit. ActiveX isn't an issue.
Most 'idiots' don't want to be tracked. The less tech savvy 'idiots' don't knwo that there are good and bad sides to cookies so they just disable them all. This wouldn't be a problem if they weren't abused heinously.
You've got me on the browser size and position stuff though. I would warrant that if you have to resort to these sorts of tactics you already know you're evil.
Sure, they will, but there are things that can be achieved simply by blocking some cookies.
For instance - why should facebook be able to track people across every site with a "like this on facebook" button, regardless of whether they have a facebook account?
This can be worked around by switching off third party cookies (and perhaps blocking any content loaded from fb when not actually visiting FB), which IMHO aren't useful for anything BUT tracking.
I can't say it would bother me to see all the "affiliates" on the net die off.
"We all know that this won't happen anyway because what website in its right mind make itself too hard to use? If it becomes a case of accept our policy or don't use our site, perhaps the EU will evolve the regulations."
Or you could say -
We all know that this won't happen anyway because what website in its right mind make itself too hard to use? If it becomes a case of accept our policy or don't use our site, perhaps websites will stop using so many damned unnecessary and unwanted cookies.
Seriously, have you looked at how many thousands of cookies the average browser holds these days? Jaysus. Given the tiny number of sites I actually require to hold account details for me, it's nuts.
Session cookies I have less of an issue with when they're used for actual useful stuff (shopping baskets) and are not third party.
"Ever tried turning those warnings on in the past ten years? You can't possibly browse the web like that."
Yup, it's crazy the number of cookies now being set/read when you visit modern sites. This is a very strong positive for the legislation though.
Me, I use "Cookie Monster" in firefox. It allows me to deny all third party cookies outright, and default-deny the rest. It has a neat little menu to allow cookies from a specific site on temporary basis (Let it set cookies until the browser is restarted), allows session cookies only or allow full access.
Coupled with ABP it makes me much happier about the net, and makes the net a much happier, quicker place.
A real, actual (and retired) intelligence official, in private and off the record?
Sure, why not, he probably took an interest in the material they were releasing and realised there wasn't much that was actually a threat to national security. He's not interested in information control for its own sake and he's not a blowhard politician that interprets (or spins) everything as an attack.
For a start you need a huge amount of capital to get started in HFT and then you need to be one of the favoured few. Look what happens when the little people start to figure out how they can join in the fun and predict the behaviour of other actors - they get charged with fraud (happened recently in sweden).
Something doesn't have to be easy to be worthless. Nor does it have to be worthwhile to humanity for it to be of utility to those speculating on it.
Slashdot Mirror
It wasn't even *just* drinking in public that was the problem.
No, this genius is on medication for bipolar disorder and has been specifically disallowed alcohol because it would have "adverse effects" on the medication.
If it had been just the drinking photo that would be horrible. Everyone's entitled to go to the pub once in a while, parent or otherwise.
Can I suggest debian?
Similar enough to ubuntu and I find it's even more prone to working correctly.
I had a similar thing with a few versions of Ubuntu about two years or so back. Had to compile ALSA from source to get it to recognise the headphone jack on my laptop. And recompile every time I updated.
After a couple of cycles I switched back to debian (which I first used in 1995!) and all has been well ever since.
Well, mostly. As much as any computer ever is. Right now my hackintosh is having boot problems and Win 7 is infected with god knows what so debian Linux is currently getting the 'just works' award from me.
I've been watching the ReactOS project since the first announcements on here, probably almost ten years.
Is it even in beta yet?
I like the idea, always have, but AFAICT it's never really even been ready for the hobbyist, let alone the mainstream.
Seriously.
Scamming is nasty business at the best of times, but (imagining I were a scammer) I could see people in places like Nigeria justifying it to themselves as getting their share from the rich west.
But this is just out and out profiting from human misery and death.
Why would I need a cookie to read things?
This is where my understanding of all the protest over this breaks down. To just read a site, what use is it to me to have a cookie?
Sure, for buying stuff, or for logging in or whatever else, I see how they're used. But for just reading a site (or loading an ad) why should I have to maintain a cookie?
You try to read the cookie.
If you fail then they haven't got one. You don't try to write one until you actually need one (shopping basket, account signup or login etc), at that point you ask permission with it spelled out that they can't go any further without it.
If they decline then you send them back to your front page or to google or something.
If you're a forum or something then sure, you need cookies for pretty much anything (other than random drop-in people just looking). If you're something like an online newspaper, that's not behind a subscriber/pay wall, you don't bother with cookies at all.
Seriously, if I wasn't coming here to comment, can you think of a reason slashdot would *need* to set cookies?
Under EU law you would likely be prohibited from doing some of those things without consent also.
The web is perfectly functional with a very limited set of allowed cookies and adblock set to not load most javascript or advertising.
I don't have java enabled. Flash is default blocked, flash cookies are removed on browser exit. ActiveX isn't an issue.
Most 'idiots' don't want to be tracked. The less tech savvy 'idiots' don't knwo that there are good and bad sides to cookies so they just disable them all. This wouldn't be a problem if they weren't abused heinously.
You've got me on the browser size and position stuff though. I would warrant that if you have to resort to these sorts of tactics you already know you're evil.
Find a FF extension called "Cookie Monster" and then revel in th granular control you have once again :)
Sure, they will, but there are things that can be achieved simply by blocking some cookies.
For instance - why should facebook be able to track people across every site with a "like this on facebook" button, regardless of whether they have a facebook account?
This can be worked around by switching off third party cookies (and perhaps blocking any content loaded from fb when not actually visiting FB), which IMHO aren't useful for anything BUT tracking.
I can't say it would bother me to see all the "affiliates" on the net die off.
"We all know that this won't happen anyway because what website in its right mind make itself too hard to use? If it becomes a case of accept our policy or don't use our site, perhaps the EU will evolve the regulations."
Or you could say -
We all know that this won't happen anyway because what website in its right mind make itself too hard to use? If it becomes a case of accept our policy or don't use our site, perhaps websites will stop using so many damned unnecessary and unwanted cookies.
Seriously, have you looked at how many thousands of cookies the average browser holds these days? Jaysus. Given the tiny number of sites I actually require to hold account details for me, it's nuts.
Session cookies I have less of an issue with when they're used for actual useful stuff (shopping baskets) and are not third party.
They should build the "Cookie Monster" addon into FF by default, with a sensible set of defaults (like auto-deny third party cookies).
That would cover it.
"Ever tried turning those warnings on in the past ten years? You can't possibly browse the web like that."
Yup, it's crazy the number of cookies now being set/read when you visit modern sites. This is a very strong positive for the legislation though.
Me, I use "Cookie Monster" in firefox. It allows me to deny all third party cookies outright, and default-deny the rest. It has a neat little menu to allow cookies from a specific site on temporary basis (Let it set cookies until the browser is restarted), allows session cookies only or allow full access.
Coupled with ABP it makes me much happier about the net, and makes the net a much happier, quicker place.
Make it harder for people to track other people for financial gain?
Sure.
Protecting the privacy of EU citizens seems more important to me than your transient concerns about having to do a bit more work.
Wait, so you expect one distro to make good use of modern hardware and be installable on something ten years old and you have trouble?
Colour me surprised.
FWIW I've had debian squeeze running happily enough on a 266MHz machine with 32MB RAM. But then that's headless and running on ARM.
Fair enough.
Point still stands though - a retired head spook is far less likely to go full retard about the wikileaks stuff than a serving politician.
I'm not a nurse at all. Or female.
A real, actual (and retired) intelligence official, in private and off the record?
Sure, why not, he probably took an interest in the material they were releasing and realised there wasn't much that was actually a threat to national security. He's not interested in information control for its own sake and he's not a blowhard politician that interprets (or spins) everything as an attack.
"it creates an incentive for "entrepreneurs" to buy in third-world countries and resell in first-world countries"
You mean like the company making these things does with labour?
Remember kids, globalised markets are only for your corporate overlords, not insignificant little consumers like you!
In the name of atheism?
"I do this for no reason at all! I am killing you for lack of evidence!"
The soviet union suffered from a different kind of dogma, but dogma it still was and dogma should be challenged and removed wherever possible.
Window manager != theme
Otherwise a very witty and true post.
Could be, but I think it's that everyone who has the same name agrees with each other!
It is an interesting question, but moot in this case because the forum operators were involved in credit card fraud and money laundering.
The people who put up the initial capital, and who sold when the company had achieved real value?
Sure.
The parasites that suck money out of the system by interposing themselves between other trades at the millisecond scale?
Not so much.
Who says it's easy?
For a start you need a huge amount of capital to get started in HFT and then you need to be one of the favoured few. Look what happens when the little people start to figure out how they can join in the fun and predict the behaviour of other actors - they get charged with fraud (happened recently in sweden).
Something doesn't have to be easy to be worthless. Nor does it have to be worthwhile to humanity for it to be of utility to those speculating on it.