|
At my employer, here in the Midwest U.S. we can't even get a junior level position filled, because there isn't anyone applying.
|
|
|
|
|
The new proposal, announced on Tuesday, would require companies to get explicit consent from a user before being allowed to track their online activities. But what if I want a cookie?
"Experts also warned that the change may potentially make it more annoying for consumers as well." Yeah.
|
|
|
|
|
So what, exactly, are the EU trying to do?
If they are trying to posture and show everyone They Mean Business then they are doing it the wrong way.
If they are trying to genuinely safeguard users against the rapacious advertising industry mercilessly tracking their Facebook posts and Instagram viewing habits then they are doing it the wrong way.
Why don't they just ask websites and webservices to expose the info they store on users in cookies? Hang on - isn't that already available[^]? Of course sites may store a single cookie that's an identifier into a database of more nefarious information, such as which pages you've viewed, so stopping that tracking would totally solve the problem. Except it won't[^].
They are attacking symptoms. Focus on the "why" and make the onus on transparency and user options. Stop trying to fight the "how".
Once we have that in place then everyone can go back to broadcasting everything about themselves, ever, to everyone on the planet indiscriminately on social media.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: So what, exactly, are the EU trying to do?
Create a dense net of regulations under which they are always right and you are always wrong.
..and we could use the money 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Part of that plan would be to remove website banners that provide disclaimers on cookie policies and have the user’s browser preferences automatically apply to each site they visit.
...
But for those who want cookies impermanently placed (say, signed-in accounts on a temporary device) they may have to manually change preference settings for each time they visit a new webpage.
If I'm reading that right, they're saying we should remove the annoying "we use cookies, get over it" banners from every site, and rely on the user setting the browser's cookie preferences.
Which is exactly what we had before they made us add those banners in the first place! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
No, they still want users to be able to opt out (which should be the default from then on), and not to show a banner.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Which is exactly what we had before they made us add those banners in the first place!
No, because the opt-out option must still be available, as defined by a perfectly reasonable law.
What happened was that webmasters decided to be smart-@rsed sh1theads, and respond to a perfectly reasonable law by sticking up annoying banners.
The law is now slapping them down for it.
Expect much stronger reprisals if they decide to continue to be smart-@rsed sh1theads.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: respond to a perfectly reasonable law by sticking up annoying banners
OK, explain how you think it should work then.
- You can't set a cookie without getting explicit consent from the user;
- The only way to get consent is to show something to the user asking for consent;
- If they don't consent, you can't set a cookie to remember that, so you have to ask them every time;
How do you think you could solve that problem without showing the "annoying banners"?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Just show banners, not annoying ones.
Or don't bother with cookies until the user does something that deserves being saved locally, and then ask if they want to store it on their machine; it's a vastly overused technology, anyway.
i.e. Don't take the p1ss, especially when lawmakers tell you not to.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mark_Wallace wrote: Just show banners, not annoying ones.
Because everyone has the same definition of "annoying", right? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
When the difference is bleeding obvious, yes.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Part of the problem is the massive gap that lies between those lawmakers and their understanding of technology. People sitting in political assemblies are almost always under-worked and overpaid.
Put this and their desire to appear relevant (technologically or otherwise), and kaboom! They'd come up with inane laws involving technology that they don't understand the head or tail of.
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh R Subramanian wrote: Part of the problem is the massive gap that lies between those lawmakers and their understanding of technology.
That's the facile assumption that everyone with a blinkered view always makes.
"Everyone but us is stoopid!" doesn't wash, because it generally means "We're too stoopid to realise how clever everyone else is!"
Now, had you been talking about employment agents or marketing morons...
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
How effective and useful is cookie tracking anyway?
Honestly, google does far more tracking than anyone by virtue of users logging into their Google accounts and doing stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
Join our livestreamed event on February 8, 2017 to see what’s new for developers in the Windows 10 Creators Update, what it means for your apps and games, and more about Microsoft’s latest developer products. Find out about all the new technologies you won't be using soon
|
|
|
|
|
Could flashing the "peace" sign in photos lead to fingerprint data being stolen? What about photos where I'm one finger shy of a peace sign?
Kowai!
|
|
|
|
|
That's just burei. Kowai is two fingers short 
|
|
|
|
|
That's why you flip the bird with your fingerprint facing toward you.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: What about photos where I'm one finger shy of a peace sign?Kowai!
Or you are calling them your older brother, "ani."
|
|
|
|
|
It's because the nerds doing the research (from their mothers' basements) want pretty little Japanese girls to flash their knickers, not their fingertips.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Lattner will become the VP of Tesla's AutoPilot self-driving software. That should help their cars go... you know. Autonomously.
Or fast, or some word like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone can create a language. It's compilers that are dificult.
|
|
|
|
|
He's also Quote(from the article) Lattner is also the author of LLVM
. That count?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Haha, you thought people would actually *read* the article before posting "clever" replies?
modified 11-Jan-17 2:10am.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: LLVM
Strictly speaking, it's just a compiler back-end. Anybody can do it, right? Right? Ehm... 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
