Sorry but don't try to sound like you know this for certain. I hate to sound like a creationist or something, God forbid;-), but you really can't be sure and you could've just left it alone.
Whether you presume the process evolved or was intelligently designed doesn't actually change the nature of the GP's argument in the least, does it?
Guess what - cookies don't just reside on your machine. They're transmitted with every page request, same as all the POST and GET data.
No they don't. Obviously you misunderstand how browsers handle cookies entirely and need to go do some reading.
Cookies are only sent to the server whose prefix is in the cookie, unless the cookie is explicitly set as global (which is rare, check your cookies file). If I set a cookie from my domain, and you browse a Slashdot article, there is no method for Slashdot to read the cookie I set. If there is, your browser is faulty and has security problems.
As for the informed consent comment, it would ruin the interface on any site depending on cookies, which as you can see above, are not evil nor a security risk in most uses.
First, have a look at Folding @Home on the PS3 for some numbers on its computational abilities.
Now, have a quick glance at the exlusives, some of which are simply incredible games. If you want to believe the hype though, just ignore it and miss out.
This is something that Phil Zimmerman did an excellent job ranting about, as did many others, on mostly deaf ears.
Arguably a passage of text (including spaces and punctuation) from a piece of literature will do you very well. That same quote typed backward or with the words sorted into alphabetical or length order is even better.
I have/var/cache and/var/lib as separate LVM partitions, don't you?
Secondly, Fedora is not RedHat. Stop that FUD.
Third, I dare say most users running Fedora are not running multi-user servers with remote clients but rather essentially single-user systems. If you are in fact using Fedora for the former, you'll find SELinux lets you lock down privileges in a way that even PackageKit can't get around.
Enlightenment has more features than either of the desktops in popular use, when you consider its login manager and file manager as well as support libraries. The major concern I can see would be making it interoperate well with newer Linux desktop standards that have been established since 0.17 started.
To misquote you... "If someone were to take BSD code and re-license it as commercial, then the BSD-ness of the code would not be in jeopardy in a way that actually releasing the code but under the GPL would cause it to be."
It makes no sense either way you say it.
If "Jerk Option A" is to take the BSD code in question and never release it, how can "Jerk Option B", release it at all but under a more stringent license be worse? In neither case is the licensing of the original code changed of course. The question here is about derived work.
Its your web browser lying to Flash, not the web server. Your web browser is accepting the content-type advertised in the HTML and passing the contents on to its plugin handler.
As an employee of an advertising company, your usage knowledge is biased in that direction. As a long-time web designer who does not try to monetize most of my offerings, I use tracking cookies to simplify site design and to understand how users navigate and help them save preferences on those sites without asking them stupid questions like Windows Vista.
And when am I supposed to ask you? Every time you visit my website? Since if you don't have a tracking cookie on your browser I can't tell you've been there before and prevent myself from asking again.
Ironic, isn't it, that the very tool that would keep me from asking you every time you visit is the one being blocked?
We'll have a whole bunch of irritating click-through pages on websites saying "you arrived here without cookies, without them... blah blah... click here to see the page you were looking for." Oh yay.
Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means, such as embedding a code in the URL, are available.
Embedding codes in URLs is easily abused by affiliates wanting fake rankings. What you really want is a dynamically generated cookie that gets saved with the loading of (for example) a banner ad, and then a check for that specific cookie when the user has purportedly clicked-through onto the website in question.
Rhetorical device or not, you made up a claim with no backing.
I can just as easily say that men are bad drivers and 90% of them admit it, or that 63% of fish are orange. That is to say, you made something up and then tried to make an argument based on that fake data.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry but don't try to sound like you know this for certain. I hate to sound like a creationist or something, God forbid ;-), but you really can't be sure and you could've just left it alone.
Whether you presume the process evolved or was intelligently designed doesn't actually change the nature of the GP's argument in the least, does it?
No they don't. Obviously you misunderstand how browsers handle cookies entirely and need to go do some reading.
Cookies are only sent to the server whose prefix is in the cookie, unless the cookie is explicitly set as global (which is rare, check your cookies file). If I set a cookie from my domain, and you browse a Slashdot article, there is no method for Slashdot to read the cookie I set. If there is, your browser is faulty and has security problems.
As for the informed consent comment, it would ruin the interface on any site depending on cookies, which as you can see above, are not evil nor a security risk in most uses.
None whatsoever, but as I understood the article, I also have to allow them to opt out, which would disrupt normal page handling.
It was part of the changes made to lower costs on the new slim PS3s.
Way to troll, but I'll bite.
First, have a look at Folding @Home on the PS3 for some numbers on its computational abilities.
Now, have a quick glance at the exlusives, some of which are simply incredible games. If you want to believe the hype though, just ignore it and miss out.
As opposed to the perverts who get caught with kiddy porn printouts in their bedrooms.
This is something that Phil Zimmerman did an excellent job ranting about, as did many others, on mostly deaf ears.
Arguably a passage of text (including spaces and punctuation) from a piece of literature will do you very well. That same quote typed backward or with the words sorted into alphabetical or length order is even better.
Of course, nearly random passwords generated from /dev/random are really hard to memorize :)
I have /var/cache and /var/lib as separate LVM partitions, don't you?
Secondly, Fedora is not RedHat. Stop that FUD.
Third, I dare say most users running Fedora are not running multi-user servers with remote clients but rather essentially single-user systems. If you are in fact using Fedora for the former, you'll find SELinux lets you lock down privileges in a way that even PackageKit can't get around.
So ... sudo gives me fine-grained controls over administrative privileges and UAC doesn't. I see that as a major win for sudo.
Enlightenment has more features than either of the desktops in popular use, when you consider its login manager and file manager as well as support libraries. The major concern I can see would be making it interoperate well with newer Linux desktop standards that have been established since 0.17 started.
To misquote you ... "If someone were to take BSD code and re-license it as commercial, then the BSD-ness of the code would not be in jeopardy in a way that actually releasing the code but under the GPL would cause it to be."
It makes no sense either way you say it.
If "Jerk Option A" is to take the BSD code in question and never release it, how can "Jerk Option B", release it at all but under a more stringent license be worse? In neither case is the licensing of the original code changed of course. The question here is about derived work.
Ditto for the Simpsons, and Family Guy and several other shows that are ridiculously more insightful into the human condition than The Office.
Its your web browser lying to Flash, not the web server. Your web browser is accepting the content-type advertised in the HTML and passing the contents on to its plugin handler.
The browser should be acting based on the plugin's advertised MIME types.
For example, my mplayer plugin handles myriad types, and Flash supposedly only handles application/futuresplash and application/x-shockwave-flash
My job is to secure access to my PC.
If you don't have access to my login on my PC, that cookie isn't a security risk to me at all.
Even sites like Yahoo and Hotmail have a nice anti-cookie button that says "I'm on a public computer" to avoid this.
Isn't that three words? :-)
Proxy servers are a horrible pain that way too (and I use them a lot).
I love websites that think I'm another user because we both use the same site from behind the same proxy.
Feel free to cite me how to use third party tracking without cookies without giving up user security by sending everything in the URI.
As an employee of an advertising company, your usage knowledge is biased in that direction. As a long-time web designer who does not try to monetize most of my offerings, I use tracking cookies to simplify site design and to understand how users navigate and help them save preferences on those sites without asking them stupid questions like Windows Vista.
And when am I supposed to ask you? Every time you visit my website? Since if you don't have a tracking cookie on your browser I can't tell you've been there before and prevent myself from asking again.
Ironic, isn't it, that the very tool that would keep me from asking you every time you visit is the one being blocked?
We'll have a whole bunch of irritating click-through pages on websites saying "you arrived here without cookies, without them ... blah blah ... click here to see the page you were looking for." Oh yay.
I use a couple text browsers that have always done this.
Konqueror has always done this to my knowledge.
Firefox can be easily configured to do this.
Embedding codes in URLs is easily abused by affiliates wanting fake rankings.
What you really want is a dynamically generated cookie that gets saved with the loading of (for example) a banner ad, and then a check for that specific cookie when the user has purportedly clicked-through onto the website in question.
But if you don't like cookies, you can already disable them in your browser. I fail to see how this should be mandated on the server side.
Rhetorical device or not, you made up a claim with no backing.
I can just as easily say that men are bad drivers and 90% of them admit it, or that 63% of fish are orange. That is to say, you made something up and then tried to make an argument based on that fake data.
You obviously need a logic course. I made no counter-argument.
You're debating nothing.
I don't need to provide any evidence as I took no position on the argument except that his is invalid.
Logic dictates that he has no point until he does in fact cite evidence for his point.