But even so, I don't see how that is any different from just putting the full text on one long scrollable page and have all the ads lined up beside it, plus sprinkled among the text if you must. Rather than having it split up like they do. You could still get the same number of ads in this way without requiring 29 separate pages for it.
Unless of course it is the same set of ads that appear on each page. In that case, I imagine that is a large waste of bandwidth anyway. (i.e. if I didn't care about the ad on page 2 I probably won't care for it again on page 29).
I noticed that there were twenty some odd pages in the linked article, and closed it. What is wrong with these people that make web pages anymore? Why can't they put the whole damned article in one piece? There are scrollbars on my browser for a reason, ya'know.
(Yes, I do know why they do it, but it doesn't make me dislike it any less)
Another thing you could do is to enable temporary cookies only. Persistent cookies will be converted to temporary cookies, and will be automatically discarded when the browser is closed.
This is a good compromise in cookie security, in that you can still have all the benefits of being able to use websites that rely on storing cookies to function (way too fucking many of them), but the info will have expired after you're done and close the browser, and won't be available when you go back to the site in the future.
This way, shopping carts and such things will still work, but you don't have to worry about login info or tracking bugs being stored permanently.
If your browser doesn't support this, then again, a decent HTTP proxy should be able to do this.
You are looking at it wrong. Of course by denying cookies (or at least persistent cookies) you virtually disable website's ability to track you across visits. This is generally a good thing (Aside from them being able to record your IP address and other info, that is)
If a web service sees that cookies are disabled and switches to putting personally identifying info (session ID's in the case you mentioned) in the URL, then that is a flaw in the service. I would say it is just an inherent limitation in PHP, and presumably other dynamic scripting services.
NOT disabling cookies, for the sake of overcoming this limitation in the web service, is not the solution. And it is not right to say that disabling cookies decreases your security because of the service's limitation.
If you are worried about using insecure web services that might leak identifying info in HTTP referers, then by all means use a HTTP proxy that will strip out these referers. Privoxy is able to do this.
Disable cookies, use Privoxy and strip out referers, problem solved.
"You don't know how much bandwidth costs do you. $500 a month for 1.5Mbps. Normally, that can work find for about 100 customers."
You mean it costs the ISP $500/month per 1.5Mbps of bandwidth they use?? Holy hell then why are they selling it at $12.99 around here for? They must be losing a hell of a lot of money that way....
Also, 100 customers sharing a 1.5Mbps line? You've got to be kidding me.
Oh wait, unless you're talking about running your own WISP or somesuch. In that case, good luck to you, and to your customers.
"expecting that they should all get 1.5Mbps"
Now if you have one 1.5Mbps line and are selling 100 customers 1.5Mbps connections, you have much greater problems that has very little to do with P2P.
On second thought, encrypting a message >1 times may not make it any more secure than encrypting it once. Depending on the encryption scheme, you may just be adding keys together.
Encrypting a message twice with 64-bit encryption only makes the message twice as hard to crack.
Encrypting a message with 128-bit encryption instead makes it 2^64 times as hard to crack.
So your friend's conclusion is off by a large factor.
Slashdot Mirror
And I just finished compiling 2.6.22.9 :( Fuck!
They may have a patent to convert DNA into music, but if they try to do it to MY DNA, they'll be suffering from a copyright lawsuit!
You mean, wikipedia is finally starting to gain some intelligence?
*whoosh*
the victim is already blind?
that this will never get into the wrong hands. Oh, wait.
Yes
That's ok. We can just sandbox the sandbox and still be safe.
I could care less what you do with your ten foot pole!
That's what the EULA and the "I Agree" button are for.
First MS decided to start distributing spyware with the OS when they created WGA. And now they want to top that off by including adware as well?
"Why not provide customer with an anti virus/malware/spyware of bank's choosing before letting customers make transactions ?"
Because that means the bank would be responsible if something went wrong. And the banks don't want that responsibility, hence this whole deal.
"the wikipedia"
Is that like the Google and the Internets?
Yawn. I'll just continue using my local DNS recursor/resolver. That way I don't even have to think what my ISP is doing with their DNS servers.
Who else is running BIND 9 on their home network?
Yes, I was actually aware of that.
/rant
But even so, I don't see how that is any different from just putting the full text on one long scrollable page and have all the ads lined up beside it, plus sprinkled among the text if you must. Rather than having it split up like they do. You could still get the same number of ads in this way without requiring 29 separate pages for it.
Unless of course it is the same set of ads that appear on each page. In that case, I imagine that is a large waste of bandwidth anyway. (i.e. if I didn't care about the ad on page 2 I probably won't care for it again on page 29).
Ah....
I noticed that there were twenty some odd pages in the linked article, and closed it. What is wrong with these people that make web pages anymore? Why can't they put the whole damned article in one piece? There are scrollbars on my browser for a reason, ya'know.
(Yes, I do know why they do it, but it doesn't make me dislike it any less)
...my hard drive turns 10,000!
(now we await the inevitable "my hard drive turns 15,000" post)
Another thing you could do is to enable temporary cookies only. Persistent cookies will be converted to temporary cookies, and will be automatically discarded when the browser is closed.
This is a good compromise in cookie security, in that you can still have all the benefits of being able to use websites that rely on storing cookies to function (way too fucking many of them), but the info will have expired after you're done and close the browser, and won't be available when you go back to the site in the future.
This way, shopping carts and such things will still work, but you don't have to worry about login info or tracking bugs being stored permanently.
If your browser doesn't support this, then again, a decent HTTP proxy should be able to do this.
You are looking at it wrong. Of course by denying cookies (or at least persistent cookies) you virtually disable website's ability to track you across visits. This is generally a good thing (Aside from them being able to record your IP address and other info, that is)
If a web service sees that cookies are disabled and switches to putting personally identifying info (session ID's in the case you mentioned) in the URL, then that is a flaw in the service. I would say it is just an inherent limitation in PHP, and presumably other dynamic scripting services.
NOT disabling cookies, for the sake of overcoming this limitation in the web service, is not the solution. And it is not right to say that disabling cookies decreases your security because of the service's limitation.
If you are worried about using insecure web services that might leak identifying info in HTTP referers, then by all means use a HTTP proxy that will strip out these referers. Privoxy is able to do this.
Disable cookies, use Privoxy and strip out referers, problem solved.
"You don't know how much bandwidth costs do you. $500 a month for 1.5Mbps. Normally, that can work find for about 100 customers."
You mean it costs the ISP $500/month per 1.5Mbps of bandwidth they use?? Holy hell then why are they selling it at $12.99 around here for? They must be losing a hell of a lot of money that way....
Also, 100 customers sharing a 1.5Mbps line? You've got to be kidding me.
Oh wait, unless you're talking about running your own WISP or somesuch. In that case, good luck to you, and to your customers.
"expecting that they should all get 1.5Mbps"
Now if you have one 1.5Mbps line and are selling 100 customers 1.5Mbps connections, you have much greater problems that has very little to do with P2P.
Solution: Quit selling things you don't have.
On second thought, encrypting a message >1 times may not make it any more secure than encrypting it once. Depending on the encryption scheme, you may just be adding keys together.
I wonder if he goes through the trouble of making up two different keys or just uses the same key twice.
Encrypting a message twice with 64-bit encryption only makes the message twice as hard to crack. Encrypting a message with 128-bit encryption instead makes it 2^64 times as hard to crack. So your friend's conclusion is off by a large factor.