Hah, no kidding. If I were at a black hat conference, I know I would be tunneling ALL my traffic somewhere safe first, in addition to using HTTPS. Also, gmail only uses https if you tell it to. Last time I checked, it uses http by default. And lastly, I don't think facebook has any info on there that I wouldn't want made public anyways, so it's probably not necessary for them.
I fail to see how the average person, as usual, being lax about their security is in any way Google's fault. This was something I found immediately, just because I won't check my email without a secure connection.
A lot of people wouldn't know about this or even look for it and you know it. Google could make https the default or even mandatory, and it would completely kill this entire issue.
I suppose they could be, but aren't in my experience. I never have to log into my gmail account, and my ip address changes often as I take my laptop to work and back. Of course, I use https, but the cookie doesn't seem to care about my ip address.
I go to NCSU and read this in the paper today. The article explains that $1.50 goes to ind-music.com, where it's hosted, and he only gets $1.00 per sale. Seems like not a bad price for covering his time/effort of recording each lecture and uploading them every class. Of course, most professors put their lecture notes online for free, which isn't too far off from an mp3 file in terms of what you get out of it, so maybe it's not that great of a deal. Personally, I'd just go to class.
Exactly. It would be great if all hardware manufacturers would let anyone put custom software on their platforms, but putting these restrictions on the GPL isn't going to suddenly cause all the manufacturers to migrate en masse to GPL software...if anything they would avoid it. The only way to encourage companies to do this is by supporting companies that already do this.
I thought it would be an audio search where you upload a clip and it tells you where it's from. I've got some unlabled clips that I want to know more about. THAT would be amazing, I think a service like that was/is offered for cell-phones to identify a song in the background...or something.
If I may answer my own question: from http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14. html#sec14.43 [The User-Agent header] is for statistical purposes, the tracing of protocol violations, and automated recognition of user agents for the sake of tailoring responses to avoid particular user agent limitations. So there you have it, it should be used to tailor a page for a specific browser, but I think a lot of sites have taken that too far. Blocking out a web page because they think it doesn't work isn't right, and most of the time it works fine anyways.
I've often wondered that if so many people are against using the user-agent to serve different content, what is the user-agent useful for? I agree with the standards, and am a big fan of making web pages render in all browsers equally, but then why have a user-agent header at all? For usage stats? Where can we draw the line? Can we serve a different page to a moble phone? Everyone didn't agree with opening the.mobi tld, so that's not a solution...user-agent checking is apparently out. As the parent points out, we are going to have browsers that support differnet features, like it or not. If every browser supports the exact same set of features, why have any more than one browser? I believe we should be able to use the user-agent string to determine if the browser supports optional features, and enable them, not disable the entire page for browsers that don't support them (cvs.com).
Maybe if advertisers would stop setting ridiculous expiration dates. The thought that advertisers think they can have a small peice of my hard drive until 2069 sickens me.
Mozilla (and firefox) makes it easy, set network.cookie.lifetimePolicy to 3 and then set network.cookie.lifetime.days to the maximum number of days a cookie can stay.
I have mine set to 2, if I visit a site and don't come back within 2 days, I think it's safe I won't miss anything by having them remember me.
I think parent has a point. Microsoft makes and sells operating systems, game consoles, and some other software. Google provides a search engine. It's not easy to see the part where they are directly competing for the same money.
Seems like all the services they provide in the same field, use of the search engines, web mail, are given away for free anyways. The only money being thrown around is for ads.
I don't mind cookies so much as I mind sites setting the expiration to 30 years in the future. It just bugs me that they think they own a small peice of my hard drive for that long, are they really going to get anything useful out of it if I visit the site once and then come back in 30 years? Firefox is helpful with this, you can set the maximum lifetime of a cookie with the network.cookie.lifetime.* settings, see http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/cookies/coo kie-prefs.html I have mine set to two days. If I visit a site and don't come back in that long, I don't want the cookie hanging around.
I've wondered the same thing myself. How is google taking money away from microsoft? Google doesn't make an operating system...seems to me that microsoft is just jealous of google's success and wants to give them a hard time or something.
Additionally, Bittorrent is a protocol, not a network. There's no central network ready to 'steal' movies as soon as they come out, it's a protocol that lets people download it from other people.
I'd say a more apt analogy would be a highway having a high-speed 'emergency' lane. Sure it can be used for firetrucks or for pregnant women speeding to the hospital, but more often than not it gets used for high speed chases.
Slashdot Mirror
Or as a former Comp Sci teacher would have said:
huh-tt-pah intestine virgule virgule...
Hah, no kidding. If I were at a black hat conference, I know I would be tunneling ALL my traffic somewhere safe first, in addition to using HTTPS.
Also, gmail only uses https if you tell it to. Last time I checked, it uses http by default.
And lastly, I don't think facebook has any info on there that I wouldn't want made public anyways, so it's probably not necessary for them.
I suppose they could be, but aren't in my experience. I never have to log into my gmail account, and my ip address changes often as I take my laptop to work and back. Of course, I use https, but the cookie doesn't seem to care about my ip address.
Perhaps his bumper sticker that said "Powered by 100% vegetable oil"?
I go to NCSU and read this in the paper today. The article explains that $1.50 goes to ind-music.com, where it's hosted, and he only gets $1.00 per sale. Seems like not a bad price for covering his time/effort of recording each lecture and uploading them every class.
Of course, most professors put their lecture notes online for free, which isn't too far off from an mp3 file in terms of what you get out of it, so maybe it's not that great of a deal. Personally, I'd just go to class.
Exactly. It would be great if all hardware manufacturers would let anyone put custom software on their platforms, but putting these restrictions on the GPL isn't going to suddenly cause all the manufacturers to migrate en masse to GPL software...if anything they would avoid it.
The only way to encourage companies to do this is by supporting companies that already do this.
"Did you know the hole's only natural enemy is the pile?"
You knew it was comming!
now I can detect which porn stars have cancer
For some reason, I had to re-read this several times before I came up with a non-astronomy explination for this phrase.
I just tried it and it wouldn't even let me send it.
Perhaps you typed it wrong, or sent it in the body of the message as opposed to an attachment?
dialpad.com I believe used to be free a while back. Haven't looked at them in a long time, but I believe they charge for the service now.
I thought it would be an audio search where you upload a clip and it tells you where it's from. I've got some unlabled clips that I want to know more about.
THAT would be amazing, I think a service like that was/is offered for cell-phones to identify a song in the background...or something.
If I may answer my own question:. html#sec14.43
from http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14
[The User-Agent header] is for statistical purposes, the tracing of protocol violations, and automated recognition of user agents for the sake of tailoring responses to avoid particular user agent limitations.
So there you have it, it should be used to tailor a page for a specific browser, but I think a lot of sites have taken that too far. Blocking out a web page because they think it doesn't work isn't right, and most of the time it works fine anyways.
I've often wondered that if so many people are against using the user-agent to serve different content, what is the user-agent useful for? I agree with the standards, and am a big fan of making web pages render in all browsers equally, but then why have a user-agent header at all? For usage stats? .mobi tld, so that's not a solution...user-agent checking is apparently out.
Where can we draw the line? Can we serve a different page to a moble phone? Everyone didn't agree with opening the
As the parent points out, we are going to have browsers that support differnet features, like it or not. If every browser supports the exact same set of features, why have any more than one browser?
I believe we should be able to use the user-agent string to determine if the browser supports optional features, and enable them, not disable the entire page for browsers that don't support them (cvs.com).
If you just want protection for your eyes, try tinfoil contacts!
In both cases it's obviously something automated, look at these links:6 665%7C-79.131897&style=h&lvl=16&v=1 7 6&spn=0.011717,0.020792&t=k&hl=en
A person would have caught these
http://virtualearth.msn.com/default.aspx?cp=36.05
http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=36.054650,-79.1323
I think they're funny
Maybe if advertisers would stop setting ridiculous expiration dates. The thought that advertisers think they can have a small peice of my hard drive until 2069 sickens me.
Mozilla (and firefox) makes it easy, set network.cookie.lifetimePolicy to 3 and then set network.cookie.lifetime.days to the maximum number of days a cookie can stay.
I have mine set to 2, if I visit a site and don't come back within 2 days, I think it's safe I won't miss anything by having them remember me.
I think parent has a point. Microsoft makes and sells operating systems, game consoles, and some other software. Google provides a search engine. It's not easy to see the part where they are directly competing for the same money.
Seems like all the services they provide in the same field, use of the search engines, web mail, are given away for free anyways. The only money being thrown around is for ads.
everybody knows a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of brains.
What? They both weigh a pound! How can muscle be heavier?
"Give us McNeal or we will lay waste to your cities with our anti-monument laser."
This should have been a poll
I don't mind cookies so much as I mind sites setting the expiration to 30 years in the future. It just bugs me that they think they own a small peice of my hard drive for that long, are they really going to get anything useful out of it if I visit the site once and then come back in 30 years?o kie-prefs.html
Firefox is helpful with this, you can set the maximum lifetime of a cookie with the network.cookie.lifetime.* settings, see http://www.mozilla.org/projects/netlib/cookies/co
I have mine set to two days. If I visit a site and don't come back in that long, I don't want the cookie hanging around.
My cheating unit malfunctioned! You gotta give me a do-over!
Sorry, the house limit is three do-overs.
I've wondered the same thing myself. How is google taking money away from microsoft? Google doesn't make an operating system...seems to me that microsoft is just jealous of google's success and wants to give them a hard time or something.
Additionally, Bittorrent is a protocol, not a network. There's no central network ready to 'steal' movies as soon as they come out, it's a protocol that lets people download it from other people.
I'd say a more apt analogy would be a highway having a high-speed 'emergency' lane. Sure it can be used for firetrucks or for pregnant women speeding to the hospital, but more often than not it gets used for high speed chases.