Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Arantor
3091
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 20th, 2012, 03:04 PM »
Quote
How is asking users if its okay to store a cookie a stepping stone to limiting free speech? I don't follow the logic. It is in no way limiting you, about all it does is maybe add a small amount of work.
The argument being made is that forcing a little regulation on site owners is the tip of the iceberg and unless it's fought back against, it'll be the start of an avalanche of regulation, which will ultimately limit what you can publish online. Not that there aren't already some restrictions.
Quote
Do you really trust browser makers to implement a standard that works worth a darn.
Given that the only other method is DNT, the second most popular browser still hasn't implemented it (and probably won't unless forced to) and the W3C are trying to mandate that DNT is turned OFF by default... no, no I don't trust them one iota.
Quote
You can still do whatever you want with your site, this law and others like it in no way limit what you as a site owner can do.
Yup. But it is mandating taking some responsibility for what goes on.
Posted: June 20th, 2012, 02:21 PM

Also note that XenForo has now introduced such measures into the forum core but they seem to be disabled by default - I'll experiment with this later on today.
3092
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 19th, 2012, 08:14 PM »
You realise that that is essentially what the law is mandating, right? Just that the responsibility is being put on the developer, not the browser, because the ICO is well aware of the browser manufacturers not having such flexibility in them.

Is it really so bad that site owners are being made to take responsibility for what their site is doing? This is what pisses me off so much, that site developers are holding their hands up and saying 'it's not our responsibility to protect the user' but they're the ones who have the power not to issue cookies in the first place...
3093
Plugins / Re: Edit History
« on June 19th, 2012, 06:38 PM »
Quote
(Also, I don't understand what the radio buttons are for in the popup. There isn't any Wiki-like diff available anyway...?)
There isn't because I didn't finish it. There was supposed to be.

No idea why it's failing otherwise :/
3094
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 19th, 2012, 06:37 PM »
Quote
LOL, don't get upset I am just pointing out my views like we are all allowed to do.
Except I've put this question to you several times and each time you've ignored me. That is, ultimately, one of the key things behind this law, to make web site owners take some responsibility for what they do. Your entire attitude says to me 'I don't give a shit about my users as long as I can make something out of them'.
Quote
IMHO anything in the body tags should be the sole decision of the webmaster.
What about the head tags? What about the response headers? It's still content related.
Quote
This is sort of similar to DNT however it is on a consent basis.
And yet, DNT requires the site owner to adhere to it. Different side of the same coin.
3095
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 19th, 2012, 06:09 PM »
Quote
It is a stepping stone, that will soon lead to site content. The publisher should not be responsible for security concerns around cookies.
Why? You're responsible for the content on the site, why should that not include cookies?
Quote
it should be the sole responsibility of the browser to handle these things.
No, it shouldn't. You have the choice of software to run on the server and you can take some responsibility for what your site does.
Quote
. It is the same like loading a text document, the text editor is responsible for all security concerns, not the document.
No it isn't. The operating system is, i.e. the system offering the file. Every single operating system that allows for multi-user handling (i.e. where security is any kind of issue, even going right back to Multics) is responsible for securing the file at the user level and it is up to the operating system whether a given file can be accessed, not by the user-land program the user is using.

Analoguously, the software that offers content to users is also responsible for dealing with security matters.

If your site doesn't need to send a cookie, don't send a damn cookie. The point of this law, as mentioned in the wording of the law and not the hyperbole the media has spun, is to make site owners review their sites and make a judgement as to whether cookies are necessary or not and if they're not absolutely required, to allow the user to make informed consent.

What I want to know is why are you so reluctant to be a fucking responsible web developer and take some damn responsibility for what your site does?
3096
Other software / Re: Opera 12 (release) breaks Nao's Footnotes Mod in SMF
« on June 18th, 2012, 07:30 PM »
Quote from Nao on June 18th, 2012, 06:50 PM
Google doesn't read gmail e-mails apart from computing/analyzing contents to provide targeted advertisements... (Can live with that -- a single line of text...)
That's what they tell you. Given their other activities, eg all the wi-fi slurping that went on with Street View, I'm not sure I believe a word of it.

@markham: I have never observed any issues with Webkit being unable to scroll horizontally in any fashion you throw at it.
3097
Other software / Re: Opera 12 (release) breaks Nao's Footnotes Mod in SMF
« on June 18th, 2012, 05:57 PM »
That fact doesn't seem to stop GMail...
3098
Other software / Re: Opera 12 (release) breaks Nao's Footnotes Mod in SMF
« on June 18th, 2012, 04:06 PM »
Sorry, did you seriously mean that Facebook would honour a privacy policy?

FACEBOOK? PRIVACY? :lol:
3099
Other software / Re: Opera 12 (release) breaks Nao's Footnotes Mod in SMF
« on June 18th, 2012, 04:00 PM »
Quote
@Lorenzo> I don't really care whether FB buys Opera or Opera buys FB or Opera stays alone or whatever... What matters to me is the quality of the software.
I care, because I do not want to remain with FastMail if FB takes it over ;)
3100
Features / Re: Plugin revs
« on June 17th, 2012, 02:54 AM »
Awesome, thanks :)

* Arantor is still a bit new to OS X and tends to spend his time on Windows where all his better games are :P
3101
Features / Re: Plugin revs
« on June 17th, 2012, 01:12 AM »
Um, I don't have a Prt Sc key on this keyboard because it's the MacBook Pro keyboard, so there's no numeric keypad either... Prt Sc on Windows is carried out with Shift-Fn-F11 but I don't think it works on OS X and I can't remember how to do screenshots otherwise, heh.
3102
Features / Re: Proposed change to add_linktree()
« on June 17th, 2012, 01:11 AM »
On the one hand I can see the benefit of that, on the other do we really need a helper function? It's not like it's actually saving much code...
3103
Features / Re: Proposed change to add_linktree()
« on June 17th, 2012, 12:43 AM »
There was a function for this?! I wasn't aware there was ever a function for it, that it was always done by just adding to $context['linktree'].

If there is a function, $name should be first and $url optional, for that exact reason, so +1 from me.
3104
The Pub / Re: Improvement to drafts (and posting, actually) I need to do
« on June 16th, 2012, 11:05 PM »
I'm not offended at all :)

On the contrary, I think it's great that people are beginning to understand that - Nao and I sometimes make coding look easy but it really isn't, and I do think people forget just how much we've done in order to be where we are, e.g. how much time we've spent learning the language and then the specific implementation.
3105
Features / Re: Plugin revs
« on June 16th, 2012, 10:57 PM »
Well, that's interesting. I'm sat here on OS X, with Chrome and like always I have the window narrow enough to have the sidebar at the foot of the page rather than the side.

The consequence of all this is that the Like / +1 buttons cause an interesting misalignment. Quick Access is then floated to the right, crossing between the first two columns, and the latest posts feed block is aligned to that.

Then the skin selector is below that. I'd do a screenshot but not sure how best to achieve it in OS X yet...