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 - nend
46
The Pub / Re: When can I download Wedge? / Where can I download Wedge?
« on July 18th, 2012, 06:16 PM »
No need to download, just go to the hardware store, buy a block of wood and cut it diagonally. If you don't want to put any work into it then you can search to see if they have those wooden door stoppers.
However it doesn't need to be made out of wood. Go to your local supermarket and they may already carry a Wedge of cheese. If not buy a block and cut it diagonally to obtain your very own Wedge.
Now you have Wedge enjoy.
Your computer mouse will love, just look at the pic below.
However it doesn't need to be made out of wood. Go to your local supermarket and they may already carry a Wedge of cheese. If not buy a block and cut it diagonally to obtain your very own Wedge.
Now you have Wedge enjoy.
Your computer mouse will love, just look at the pic below.
47
Off-topic / Getting Old
« on July 18th, 2012, 05:51 PM »
Hi,
I am not too old yet but starting to feel like it every month or so. Last year I had to have two molars pulled due to abscesses.
This year I was diagnosed with de-quervain disease which is curable but in my case may come back. The disease was caused to extra flexibility in my joints, which may sometimes strain tendons. So now on I have to take precautions to prevent any strains.
Lately have been feeling more tired than usual and I guess I hit my mid life crisis at 29, early though. I am constantly thinking if the career path I have chosen is the right one. Lately I have been thinking about getting into politics to at least try to make a difference in the wrong I see in the world today.
I don't know, I see my age is young but I just don't feel like I used to. I have to limit my activities in fear of hurting myself. -_-
I am not too old yet but starting to feel like it every month or so. Last year I had to have two molars pulled due to abscesses.
This year I was diagnosed with de-quervain disease which is curable but in my case may come back. The disease was caused to extra flexibility in my joints, which may sometimes strain tendons. So now on I have to take precautions to prevent any strains.
Lately have been feeling more tired than usual and I guess I hit my mid life crisis at 29, early though. I am constantly thinking if the career path I have chosen is the right one. Lately I have been thinking about getting into politics to at least try to make a difference in the wrong I see in the world today.
I don't know, I see my age is young but I just don't feel like I used to. I have to limit my activities in fear of hurting myself. -_-
48
Off-topic / Re: Smf out of the game?
« on July 18th, 2012, 12:06 AM »
No problems here, haven't notice anything problems in the past few days. Maybe you have a bad cache, clear it and try again.
49
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 22nd, 2012, 07:12 PM »
The easiest thing maybe is to block all user embedded content via BBC until consent is made. However you may want to check what user has embedded the content, say like a admin may be able to bypass this rule. There are allot of files though you can set a cookie with, so it isn't limited to images only. SMF however as far as I know only supports images and flash embedded via BBC and the rest are attachments, you shouldn't have to worry about attachments though.
In order for SMF to accommodate this the permission system will have to get more advance and BBC added into it. So you can deny image and flash BBC to guest unless posted by a allowed member group.
So I shouldn't have to worry about the news ticker, that's good. I was basically stumped how to add a consent page with it. The only thing that I could do is probably add something on the redirect but by that time the cookie has been set.
In order for SMF to accommodate this the permission system will have to get more advance and BBC added into it. So you can deny image and flash BBC to guest unless posted by a allowed member group.
So I shouldn't have to worry about the news ticker, that's good. I was basically stumped how to add a consent page with it. The only thing that I could do is probably add something on the redirect but by that time the cookie has been set.
50
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 22nd, 2012, 06:27 AM »@nend: Yes but you know what cookies could be set, it's simply a case of displaying a page with their names, persistency, content and use :). You can use this page as a model if you wish.
I'm pretty sure I'm correct in saying that you would be responsible for all the cookies Coppermine sets as that software is on your server and is serving pictures etc., to people on your site.
What we are talking about though is cookies set by another website without the forum owners knowledge and/or consent.
I hate to do another example, but here is a image above. It is a SMF attachment from another site. If you look at your cookies now there will be some new cookies in there that are not from wedge.org or authorized and/or have proper consent from wedge.org but in the browser they are associated with wedge.org and this page. If you notice there will be a few cookies from sicomm.us in the site wedge.org.
However this could be a honest user who doesn't know the image comes with a cookie. This however from what I hear is not condone.
The thing I want to know is if the news ticker is condone because I know there is no way to display a consent due to security and without the cookie the news ticker will not work.
51
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 22nd, 2012, 05:24 AM »
I was thinking there is nothing I can do about that news ticker to make it compliant. If I remove the cookie then the ticker doesn't work anymore.
As you can tell I quit using the ticker for quite a while ago since it doesn't work in Chrome due to APNG support. It is a nice script though, I may convert it to GIF so it will work in all browsers, but maybe there will be a law soon that will make this code illegal. I wouldn't consider the cookie harmful either, it is really a shame. :sob:
As you can tell I quit using the ticker for quite a while ago since it doesn't work in Chrome due to APNG support. It is a nice script though, I may convert it to GIF so it will work in all browsers, but maybe there will be a law soon that will make this code illegal. I wouldn't consider the cookie harmful either, it is really a shame. :sob:
52
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 22nd, 2012, 05:02 AM »
Do you have to explain all cookies on the site even external ones? How about the cookies you don't know about, the ones that could possibly be set by images or other files that the user embedded in a post? Is the site owner responsible for these cookies?
A good example of this can be Coppermine, when a image is linked it sets a cookie in the browser from the site the image is linked from. If the site the image is linked from is responsible then how would they comply since they have no interface to talk to the user?
Another example can be my news ticker script I made for forum signatures which can be embedded into a forum signature with simple BBC. It sets a cookie from the image with the time the image was loaded. When the user clicks the link which is directed at another script it loads the cookie, computes the time difference, figures what message was displayed on the news ticker and redirects.
This can be a complicated matter when looking at it, however I am sure judges can give some sites some slack if there is no way for the site to display a message to the user or the owner of the site is unaware of the cookies being set.
A good example of this can be Coppermine, when a image is linked it sets a cookie in the browser from the site the image is linked from. If the site the image is linked from is responsible then how would they comply since they have no interface to talk to the user?
Another example can be my news ticker script I made for forum signatures which can be embedded into a forum signature with simple BBC. It sets a cookie from the image with the time the image was loaded. When the user clicks the link which is directed at another script it loads the cookie, computes the time difference, figures what message was displayed on the news ticker and redirects.
This can be a complicated matter when looking at it, however I am sure judges can give some sites some slack if there is no way for the site to display a message to the user or the owner of the site is unaware of the cookies being set.
53
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 20th, 2012, 06:23 PM »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.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If there was a standard though this would be allot better. If the site owner chooses to ask the question the better for them, this would be the route I would go if a better browser method isn't available when a similar law hits the US. So that being stated I would be happy to explain to my users the use of cookies on my websites. However if a site owner, which is not myself, doesn't choose to ask that is honoring there freedom not to do so and somewhere the slack needs to be taken up, this IMHO should be done by the browser to protect the best interest of the user.
Like I said I believe the slack should be taken up elsewhere if the webmaster doesn't comply. Browser based compliance does not violate this amendment since it is a technology. HTML is text based and should be treated like a publication. Via the press or the internet the government does not have any say what goes into a document or publication.
This doesn't mean that I am against webmasters making things perfectly clear to the user. I really like the idea and if anything I would like a similar law but putting the regulations heavier on the browser. However with how things work this will certainly be a nightmare unless mandated, which will be another nightmare within itself.
54
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 19th, 2012, 08:57 PM »
Both need to take responsibility, sorry if I might of came across any other way. My point is the method is not all that great but it will take some time before any real nice method is implemented in any browser. Browser makers should be made accountable for adding a solution in their system for the web developers use. If the developer is not willing to follow through then browser should be able to take over and display all the necessary permission options.
Also I would like to point out I am not putting any user in danger of how I am doing things right now. I don't need a silly message to show I am protecting their best interest. So the assumption that I am not protecting my users by not following this law right now is incorrect.
I am probably going to upset people here but the law is flawed when aimed to the ones that this law is for. If they plan to break the law and abuse cookies then they are not going to announce that they are doing so or say they are doing something less threatening like keeping you logged in. From there they can encrypt the data in that cookie and no one will ever know what the data in it is truly for.
I would rather have it done right though and not the wrong way and IMHO this law still needs time. I understand though your country is allowing this time and that is great, but I feel there is allot more that can be done with a better implementation. This is my main reason for going against it because as of right now it isn't well thought out. However there is no problem with giving it a try, I don't like loose ends but at least they tried to do something.
Also I would like to point out I am not putting any user in danger of how I am doing things right now. I don't need a silly message to show I am protecting their best interest. So the assumption that I am not protecting my users by not following this law right now is incorrect.
I am probably going to upset people here but the law is flawed when aimed to the ones that this law is for. If they plan to break the law and abuse cookies then they are not going to announce that they are doing so or say they are doing something less threatening like keeping you logged in. From there they can encrypt the data in that cookie and no one will ever know what the data in it is truly for.
I would rather have it done right though and not the wrong way and IMHO this law still needs time. I understand though your country is allowing this time and that is great, but I feel there is allot more that can be done with a better implementation. This is my main reason for going against it because as of right now it isn't well thought out. However there is no problem with giving it a try, I don't like loose ends but at least they tried to do something.
55
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 19th, 2012, 07:50 PM »
You know what would be nice though, far from implementation though is something similar to the permission system of Android when you go to install a app. It tells you everything the app will have access to before you install it so you can make a decision of whether or not to install it.
This information is stored in a xml file in the compiled application and the OS handles it upon installation. If you forget to add a permission in there and your app needs it then you will not be allowed access to that resource. Any resource access has to be defined in this document, if not then the app is out of luck.
I haven't been studying HTML lately but as I understand HTML5 can store some actual files on the system. Does anyone know if these require consent or are they just like cookies are right now, transparent to the user.
However on to my point when you browse to a page, before you are allowed to view the site.Quote That would be nice, but far off from now. Right now have to stick with the primitive methods.
This information is stored in a xml file in the compiled application and the OS handles it upon installation. If you forget to add a permission in there and your app needs it then you will not be allowed access to that resource. Any resource access has to be defined in this document, if not then the app is out of luck.
I haven't been studying HTML lately but as I understand HTML5 can store some actual files on the system. Does anyone know if these require consent or are they just like cookies are right now, transparent to the user.
However on to my point when you browse to a page, before you are allowed to view the site.
The Web Site is Requesting Permissions
Store a cookie on your device.
Site reason for this here.
Store temporarily files to your device.
Site reason for this here.
56
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 19th, 2012, 07:08 PM »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'.
I am not casting judgement on you and would respect that you do the same. I honor your opinion and your right to it and I am not making judgment on you. I am not mad but wish you just stop with the unkind and untruthful remarks. I know life has been serving you up some hard ones lately, no reason to take it out on somebody else. Get out have some fun, you don't need all this stress and lingering here is not doing any good.
I however will follow but would prefer if a better system is put into place, there is nothing wrong with that. I would like that eventually all browser makers would provide this alternative for us. Sorry that I am not all filled with excitement over the current ways of implementation.
I have explain my ideas, nothing else left to say. I don't want to get into this any deeper.
57
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 19th, 2012, 06:21 PM »
LOL, don't get upset I am just pointing out my views like we are all allowed to do.
My main concern is they are forcing content into the actual document when this should be handled at the browser level. If a message is to be displayed maybe the site can send it in the headers somehow and the browser displays it in a message window. If the site owner doesn't supply a message the browser should still display a message saying the site didn't explain its use of cookies do you still want to continue?
Implementation is all wrong and by bad implementation it does affect the freedom of speech. IMHO anything in the body tags should be the sole decision of the webmaster. If any other content needs to be sent, should it be ratings or cookies consents, it should be done in the head of the document or the headers. This is sort of similar to DNT however it is on a consent basis.
My main concern is they are forcing content into the actual document when this should be handled at the browser level. If a message is to be displayed maybe the site can send it in the headers somehow and the browser displays it in a message window. If the site owner doesn't supply a message the browser should still display a message saying the site didn't explain its use of cookies do you still want to continue?
Implementation is all wrong and by bad implementation it does affect the freedom of speech. IMHO anything in the body tags should be the sole decision of the webmaster. If any other content needs to be sent, should it be ratings or cookies consents, it should be done in the head of the document or the headers. This is sort of similar to DNT however it is on a consent basis.
58
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 19th, 2012, 05:55 PM »Just how is the Cookie Law a threat to freedom of speech, nend?Quote My argument stands IMHO, this is still a threat to freedom of speech ...
If you don't like what is on TV you change the channel, same on internet, if you don't like the site go to another one. If anything the content provider should be reliable for some sort of rating system and content/technological description that should be transparent and handled by the browsing mechanism as it chooses. Even though a browser is perfectly capable of denying cookies on a site basis already.
The site is not the driving software, the browser is and it should be the sole responsibility of the browser to handle these things. It is the same like loading a text document, the text editor is responsible for all security concerns, not the document. All the document is for is to tell the program what it contains, how to render it, etc. It is up to the program to decipher these things and adjust on user settings.
A web page is the same, it is a document, no different then any other document you may find on your computer. Just because it is sometimes generated by another computer makes no difference, it is what it is.
59
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 15th, 2012, 04:30 PM »
My argument stands IMHO, this is still a threat to freedom of speech and should be placed on the arms of the browser creators and not the content creators. My argument is any noob isn't going to know how cookies work and download or use some old software that violates the law. They may even think that their site uses no cookies.
This would be a good reason for the government to take a site offline or fine a site owner for something they may have not known they where doing. In the respect of freedom of speech these complications are just going to make things harder for new content creators and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
All these new laws and legislation are just going to mute out freedom of speech and make it more difficult for noobs to set up a website. Like I said this is just the tip of the iceberg and the cookie law isn't that bad if you know what your doing. But somebody out there is going to break this law with no idea they did so.
This would be a good reason for the government to take a site offline or fine a site owner for something they may have not known they where doing. In the respect of freedom of speech these complications are just going to make things harder for new content creators and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
All these new laws and legislation are just going to mute out freedom of speech and make it more difficult for noobs to set up a website. Like I said this is just the tip of the iceberg and the cookie law isn't that bad if you know what your doing. But somebody out there is going to break this law with no idea they did so.
60
The Pub / Re: The Cookie Law (in the UK at least)
« on June 14th, 2012, 06:31 PM »
You know its little stuff like this that get these movement groups going. The governments only have themselves to blame and if the US does try to implement this law I hope these groups take my government down. I love my country but I hate how its being run into the ground when we have more important issues at hand then the internet.
It's not the entire government but quite a lot in there that don't know anything about the internet or computers. There the old ones that believe change can break things, when it only makes things better. They rather listen to their own uneducated opinions then listen to the ones that know.
You know I am tired of it, if a revolution ever did break out I will be one of the ones dismantling this countries sorry government.
It's not the entire government but quite a lot in there that don't know anything about the internet or computers. There the old ones that believe change can break things, when it only makes things better. They rather listen to their own uneducated opinions then listen to the ones that know.
You know I am tired of it, if a revolution ever did break out I will be one of the ones dismantling this countries sorry government.