No...not at all...they sell the system at a loss. So, they've lost money and you've stolen from them. It is people that buy the system and then pirate all their games that make it such a problem and almost make tighter copyright controls seem justifiable.
And that explains why Dib is always said to have such a big head and can turn around and chart the course of a wormhole (that is he flying through on a jet propelled bus on his way to a ROOM WITH A MOOSE that Zim has prepared for him) with his laptop.
I understand that sometimes cookies are necessary, especially when setting up online stores, but those aren't really the cookies the marketing execs are worried about.
I am sick of the cookies that serve NO PURPOSE other than tracking users on the Internet...ya know...the ones that are really getting set by the one pixel JPGs in your e-mails and/or the dozen or so ads the page loads as it starts up. Those cookies serve NO legitimate purpose from my point of view. For instance, loading up NYTimes.com results in two cookies trying to be set by NYTimes.com itself and THREE for ads: ad.doubleclick.net (ALWAYS evil), altfarm.mediaplex.com, and s0b.bluestreak.com.
Remember that these are MARKETING companies and there is nothing they love better than feature creep. Remember that DoubleClick is intensely interested in finding a way to merge its ever-growing web-tracking databases with personally identifiable information. Remember that that there are few laws effectively governing this OR THE PROTECTION OF ANY COMMERCIAL DATA for that matter.
I use Firefox with cookies generally set to "Ask me every time", and I deny ALL cookies that do not cause things to break. Try it for awhile. The absolute glut of cookies trying to be set by some sites is staggering. I even sometimes boycott sites (such as BestBuy.com) that require cookies just to enter the site at all.
My other major problem with cookies is the number of sites that are BADLY programmed so that they don't do an actual test for cookies. When you have cookies disabled some of these sites do things like tell you your username/password are invalid, but others FAIL in really annoying ways. For instance, if you don't have the right cookies enabled and try to login into BankOfAmerica.com homelink it actually logs your account in but doesn't bring you to the page to view it, and you then have no way of getting into the account except enabling the cookies and WAITING EIGHT MINUTES for the account to log out so you can log in again. THAT IS DUMB.
Lastly, cookies are a security hazard that should be used sparingly. For many services if somebody can grab the cookies off your machine they can use them to log into your accounts as you without any need to authenticate (since the cookie handles that).
When used properly cookies address a shortcoming in the HTTP protocol. But in my experience that makes up a very small portion of general usage.
The advantage is not to the voters, but to the company supplying the new systems. There is a ridiculous amount of money to be made by reoutfitting the entire United States with new voting technologies.
Hell...look at Diebold. They made their voting machines without a confirmable printout. Why? Just about everything else they make (from ATMs to cash registers) has a confirmable printout. But hey...look at that...now they can get paid AGAIN to go "upgrade" all the faulty machines they've already deployed. And then they can get paid again to fix the "bugs" in the machines.
Even if that is a little too cynical for you, the fact remains that the companies bringing out the voting machines are making a lot of money.
It is up to those companies to convince the public that they need and want new voting machines. It doesn't matter whether the existing technology works - they'll focus on its flaws and potential abuses and tote their shiny new products as if they are sleek and bugfree.
Create a sense of fear and then offer a remedy that appears to address it. Works in business. Works in politics. Works in just about anything really.
Slashdot Mirror
No...not at all...they sell the system at a loss. So, they've lost money and you've stolen from them. It is people that buy the system and then pirate all their games that make it such a problem and almost make tighter copyright controls seem justifiable.
*sigh*
And that explains why Dib is always said to have such a big head and can turn around and chart the course of a wormhole (that is he flying through on a jet propelled bus on his way to a ROOM WITH A MOOSE that Zim has prepared for him) with his laptop.
I understand that sometimes cookies are necessary, especially when setting up online stores, but those aren't really the cookies the marketing execs are worried about.
I am sick of the cookies that serve NO PURPOSE other than tracking users on the Internet...ya know...the ones that are really getting set by the one pixel JPGs in your e-mails and/or the dozen or so ads the page loads as it starts up. Those cookies serve NO legitimate purpose from my point of view. For instance, loading up NYTimes.com results in two cookies trying to be set by NYTimes.com itself and THREE for ads: ad.doubleclick.net (ALWAYS evil), altfarm.mediaplex.com, and s0b.bluestreak.com.
Remember that these are MARKETING companies and there is nothing they love better than feature creep. Remember that DoubleClick is intensely interested in finding a way to merge its ever-growing web-tracking databases with personally identifiable information. Remember that that there are few laws effectively governing this OR THE PROTECTION OF ANY COMMERCIAL DATA for that matter.
I use Firefox with cookies generally set to "Ask me every time", and I deny ALL cookies that do not cause things to break. Try it for awhile. The absolute glut of cookies trying to be set by some sites is staggering. I even sometimes boycott sites (such as BestBuy.com) that require cookies just to enter the site at all.
My other major problem with cookies is the number of sites that are BADLY programmed so that they don't do an actual test for cookies. When you have cookies disabled some of these sites do things like tell you your username/password are invalid, but others FAIL in really annoying ways. For instance, if you don't have the right cookies enabled and try to login into BankOfAmerica.com homelink it actually logs your account in but doesn't bring you to the page to view it, and you then have no way of getting into the account except enabling the cookies and WAITING EIGHT MINUTES for the account to log out so you can log in again. THAT IS DUMB.
Lastly, cookies are a security hazard that should be used sparingly. For many services if somebody can grab the cookies off your machine they can use them to log into your accounts as you without any need to authenticate (since the cookie handles that).
When used properly cookies address a shortcoming in the HTTP protocol. But in my experience that makes up a very small portion of general usage.
The advantage is not to the voters, but to the company supplying the new systems. There is a ridiculous amount of money to be made by reoutfitting the entire United States with new voting technologies.
Hell...look at Diebold. They made their voting machines without a confirmable printout. Why? Just about everything else they make (from ATMs to cash registers) has a confirmable printout. But hey...look at that...now they can get paid AGAIN to go "upgrade" all the faulty machines they've already deployed. And then they can get paid again to fix the "bugs" in the machines.
Even if that is a little too cynical for you, the fact remains that the companies bringing out the voting machines are making a lot of money.
It is up to those companies to convince the public that they need and want new voting machines. It doesn't matter whether the existing technology works - they'll focus on its flaws and potential abuses and tote their shiny new products as if they are sleek and bugfree.
Create a sense of fear and then offer a remedy that appears to address it. Works in business. Works in politics. Works in just about anything really.