|
(For reference, this is using Firefox.)
I was just surfing the Washington Post website - one that seems to have a strict policy of only allowing one article to be read before popping up a screen demanding a subscription. To get around this, I had been simply deleting the cookies via the toolbox icon in the URL textbox, but sometimes it doesn't seem to work. I also have the Cookie Remover add-on, which gives a message of how many cookies have been deleted. Sometimes consecutive actuations of the Cookie Remover show *more* cookies being removed, which seems to me to indicate that the website is responding to my deleting the cookies by loading more. 
|
|
|
|
|
No, it's just that cookies are breeding on your system. Strange, they don't normally do that unless the site is coded in Spring.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
What is the technical term for "breeding cookies". I did a search, and nothing useful came up.
|
|
|
|
|
"Baking" 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Brilliant !
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, many sites have got wise to this and have found a better way of stopping you from abusing their system.
|
|
|
|
|
...which is why Google is trying to get rid of cookies. They put themselves in a positive light to those who believe them when they say it's to "protect their privacy", while in reality Google has plenty of other means for more thorough tracking.
|
|
|
|
|
Try using a Private Window. That often works, though I can't vouch for this particular fish wrapper.
|
|
|
|
|
They know your IP address; they can count; they can back their cookies for however long they want on their servers. They can therefore also tell who tries to game them. (As anyone who reads your post can tell).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
They may be checking your IP address as well.
Another thing to try is to wait till most of the content has loaded (but before it loads fully) then hit F9 to go into Reader View.
Cheers,
विक्रम
"We have already been through this, I am not going to repeat myself." - fat_boy, in a global warming thread 
|
|
|
|
|
var still_alive = true;
while( still_alive ) {
wearMask();
stay6ftApart();
washHands();
getTested();
}
|
|
|
|
|
*golden cheesy award*, congrats ! 
|
|
|
|
|
takeBulletPointList();
removeSpaces();
camelCaseItAll();
addParensAndSemicolon();
pretendItsCode();
Not that clever or original.
|
|
|
|
|
getTested() creates a conundrum without an if (i.e. "If I suspect ...")
For a "voluntary" test to be effective, one should isolate until the results are known (which is usually impractical).
If one doesn't isolate, the implication is that one suspected one was sick (and therefore got tested), but did not isolate and therefore was careless. Some have been fired over this (testing positive later).
My sense is, unless you suspect you're sick, getting tested is pointless unless you are part of a large scale screening process (which I agree with).
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
Or you're going to travel to another location that requires either a clean test or a quarantine.
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't write it, but ... the author thinks this is a good idea that should be allowed in C# code:
getSeries()
{
if (flag == pass) goto ep;
for i1 ...
...
for i2 ...
...
for i3 ...
...
for i4 ...
.
.
.
for ...
{
...
return;
ep;
}
}
}
}
}Me? I'm not a fan.
Your thoughts - and remember this is the Lounge? 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
You need to tell the author he's in the wrong job. He needs to find something where logic and common sense isn't required. Management, maybe? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
He would probably ace politics...
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what it does, especially goto part. But reminds of person who skipped recursion class...
|
|
|
|
|
Without knowing the range of the for loops, and how many there are, I wouldn't recommend recursion, because it might overflow the stack.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Are you being ironic? Or do you actually think it's better to use nested fors explicitly, instead of passing a depth limit as a parameter of a recursive function?
To alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems - Homer Simpson
Our heads are round so our thoughts can change direction - Francis Picabia
|
|
|
|
|
0) If you need to specify a depth limit, you have problems elsewhere in the implementation.
1) It's impossible for us to properly evaluate the code without knowing much more about it. Right now, everyone's just throwing darts...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: code review
Sorry, what does that mean? 
|
|
|
|
|
Did you mean
ep: return; to assuage those who believe a function should only return in one place?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
