What about hypocrisy ?
-
Hello, I received by mail a link to an article called "Microsoft apparently removing ‘Offline Accounts’ settings for international Windows 10 users", that links via codeproject.com. This article alerts that Microsoft puts more and more pressure to create a Microsoft account to be able to start a Windows 10 session, outside complicated procedures. So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix. Well, OK, I already observed that, by being unable to read the taskbar tooltips above the age of 50. But ... It is impossible to read that article without disabling all scripts, otherwise it is hidden by a panel asking your agreement for "all cookies". So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none, and considering the number of options, reject all would take at least one hour. Well, the article is interesting, but not to the point of spending one hour before beginning to read it. And you cannot write to onmsft.com, as this would need scripts, and relaunch the problem on top. So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
-
Hello, I received by mail a link to an article called "Microsoft apparently removing ‘Offline Accounts’ settings for international Windows 10 users", that links via codeproject.com. This article alerts that Microsoft puts more and more pressure to create a Microsoft account to be able to start a Windows 10 session, outside complicated procedures. So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix. Well, OK, I already observed that, by being unable to read the taskbar tooltips above the age of 50. But ... It is impossible to read that article without disabling all scripts, otherwise it is hidden by a panel asking your agreement for "all cookies". So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none, and considering the number of options, reject all would take at least one hour. Well, the article is interesting, but not to the point of spending one hour before beginning to read it. And you cannot write to onmsft.com, as this would need scripts, and relaunch the problem on top. So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
It's incredibly common, as too many site owners believe that they are above the law, and more important than their visitors. It's what I use my hosts file for.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
It's incredibly common, as too many site owners believe that they are above the law, and more important than their visitors. It's what I use my hosts file for.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
Oh, is it ? I often see sites that invite to accept cookies, but generally with an interface that takes into consideration users who do not want to accept cookies, even if this is clearly not the default selection. I sometimes saw sites where I have to click four buttons for categories of cookies, another to go to "partners" list, and there a button to "reject all", but it is the first time I see it would be so long to reject all and I renounce. A hosts file can be a solution, but then I first have to compile the list "partners" to verify they all are on my hosts file, not sure it would really be quicker, particularly in this case. And in fact, they are not very smart indeed. The classical way to manage this until a law invites to clearly request the user's agreement, was to have a panel down the page, that did not take more than a centimeter height, that you could thus pretty ignore, and anyway there was a button to close it. If they did it that way I should have accepted, and I realize I should have accepted much more than I should have thought.
-
Oh, is it ? I often see sites that invite to accept cookies, but generally with an interface that takes into consideration users who do not want to accept cookies, even if this is clearly not the default selection. I sometimes saw sites where I have to click four buttons for categories of cookies, another to go to "partners" list, and there a button to "reject all", but it is the first time I see it would be so long to reject all and I renounce. A hosts file can be a solution, but then I first have to compile the list "partners" to verify they all are on my hosts file, not sure it would really be quicker, particularly in this case. And in fact, they are not very smart indeed. The classical way to manage this until a law invites to clearly request the user's agreement, was to have a panel down the page, that did not take more than a centimeter height, that you could thus pretty ignore, and anyway there was a button to close it. If they did it that way I should have accepted, and I realize I should have accepted much more than I should have thought.
Try a different browser - with some decent cookie management? I use WaterFox - a fork of FireFox that has a lot of the older features that I prefer - like cookie management that's good for humans. Also allows a lot of the nice plug-ins that became unavailable. My particular settings are Allow cookies from the primary site - erase at end of session (i.e., when I close the browser). Reject all 3rd party cookies. Cookies don't have to be evil - though often they are. Try a cookie manager.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
-
Try a different browser - with some decent cookie management? I use WaterFox - a fork of FireFox that has a lot of the older features that I prefer - like cookie management that's good for humans. Also allows a lot of the nice plug-ins that became unavailable. My particular settings are Allow cookies from the primary site - erase at end of session (i.e., when I close the browser). Reject all 3rd party cookies. Cookies don't have to be evil - though often they are. Try a cookie manager.
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010
Well I have got Cookie Quick Manager, that also deletes cookies when opening Firefox. But I had to install it and parameterize it -although Firefox sometimes appeared to be deceiving on this. And this does not prevent a panel to hide the page, if the site conceiver had this idea. For this I have NoScript, thanks to the fact that the site conceiver did not push the absurdity further- but I should find it more normal that websites avoid to attack readers, rather than these adopt arms to defend themselves. More specifically if the aim of the page is to denounce Microsoft's practices on the topic. After solving a few problems on my machine, maybe I shall have a look at Waterfox, at least to be informed, thanks for this.
-
Oh, is it ? I often see sites that invite to accept cookies, but generally with an interface that takes into consideration users who do not want to accept cookies, even if this is clearly not the default selection. I sometimes saw sites where I have to click four buttons for categories of cookies, another to go to "partners" list, and there a button to "reject all", but it is the first time I see it would be so long to reject all and I renounce. A hosts file can be a solution, but then I first have to compile the list "partners" to verify they all are on my hosts file, not sure it would really be quicker, particularly in this case. And in fact, they are not very smart indeed. The classical way to manage this until a law invites to clearly request the user's agreement, was to have a panel down the page, that did not take more than a centimeter height, that you could thus pretty ignore, and anyway there was a button to close it. If they did it that way I should have accepted, and I realize I should have accepted much more than I should have thought.
Actually, I am much more pissed off by those sites pretending to accept that I reject cookies, but when I check after I have left the site, there is a whole bunch of new cookies, both from the site I visited and from a bunch of companies advertising on that site.
-
Oh, is it ? I often see sites that invite to accept cookies, but generally with an interface that takes into consideration users who do not want to accept cookies, even if this is clearly not the default selection. I sometimes saw sites where I have to click four buttons for categories of cookies, another to go to "partners" list, and there a button to "reject all", but it is the first time I see it would be so long to reject all and I renounce. A hosts file can be a solution, but then I first have to compile the list "partners" to verify they all are on my hosts file, not sure it would really be quicker, particularly in this case. And in fact, they are not very smart indeed. The classical way to manage this until a law invites to clearly request the user's agreement, was to have a panel down the page, that did not take more than a centimeter height, that you could thus pretty ignore, and anyway there was a button to close it. If they did it that way I should have accepted, and I realize I should have accepted much more than I should have thought.
Gluups wrote:
it is the first time I see it would be so long to reject all and I renounce.
Oh, there are several, many of which are very popular sites in the tech field.
Gluups wrote:
A hosts file can be a solution, but then I first have to compile the list "partners" to verify they all are on my hosts file
I don't bother with that; I 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 the sites that make me go to multiple sites to block their cookies (even though I've probably already blocked most of the third-party cookies). What these sites don't seem to realise is that they need us more than we need them. For every site on the Interwebs, there are dozens of alternatives we can visit instead, but the number of people willing to visit each site is finite. Every site you block, every clickbait link you don't click, is a lesson to them. I even have this line in my hosts file:
0.0.0.0 google.com www.google.com subdomain1.google.com
And you know what? The Internet works just fine, for me -- and is really fast, without all their ubiquitous "analytics".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Well I have got Cookie Quick Manager, that also deletes cookies when opening Firefox. But I had to install it and parameterize it -although Firefox sometimes appeared to be deceiving on this. And this does not prevent a panel to hide the page, if the site conceiver had this idea. For this I have NoScript, thanks to the fact that the site conceiver did not push the absurdity further- but I should find it more normal that websites avoid to attack readers, rather than these adopt arms to defend themselves. More specifically if the aim of the page is to denounce Microsoft's practices on the topic. After solving a few problems on my machine, maybe I shall have a look at Waterfox, at least to be informed, thanks for this.
Gluups wrote:
this does not prevent a panel to hide the page
Have you seen this FF extension[^]?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
It's incredibly common, as too many site owners believe that they are above the law, and more important than their visitors. It's what I use my hosts file for.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Hello, I received by mail a link to an article called "Microsoft apparently removing ‘Offline Accounts’ settings for international Windows 10 users", that links via codeproject.com. This article alerts that Microsoft puts more and more pressure to create a Microsoft account to be able to start a Windows 10 session, outside complicated procedures. So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix. Well, OK, I already observed that, by being unable to read the taskbar tooltips above the age of 50. But ... It is impossible to read that article without disabling all scripts, otherwise it is hidden by a panel asking your agreement for "all cookies". So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none, and considering the number of options, reject all would take at least one hour. Well, the article is interesting, but not to the point of spending one hour before beginning to read it. And you cannot write to onmsft.com, as this would need scripts, and relaunch the problem on top. So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
Gluups wrote:
So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix.
Will this be the year of Linux on the desktop? :laugh:
Gluups wrote:
So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none
There is; I used it. And checked in Private mode to be sure, and yes, there is; at the top of the list. Want a screenshot?
Gluups wrote:
So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
So are you using Linux or Windows to write this post and reply to it? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Gluups wrote:
it is the first time I see it would be so long to reject all and I renounce.
Oh, there are several, many of which are very popular sites in the tech field.
Gluups wrote:
A hosts file can be a solution, but then I first have to compile the list "partners" to verify they all are on my hosts file
I don't bother with that; I 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 the sites that make me go to multiple sites to block their cookies (even though I've probably already blocked most of the third-party cookies). What these sites don't seem to realise is that they need us more than we need them. For every site on the Interwebs, there are dozens of alternatives we can visit instead, but the number of people willing to visit each site is finite. Every site you block, every clickbait link you don't click, is a lesson to them. I even have this line in my hosts file:
0.0.0.0 google.com www.google.com subdomain1.google.com
And you know what? The Internet works just fine, for me -- and is really fast, without all their ubiquitous "analytics".
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Gluups wrote:
So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix.
Will this be the year of Linux on the desktop? :laugh:
Gluups wrote:
So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none
There is; I used it. And checked in Private mode to be sure, and yes, there is; at the top of the list. Want a screenshot?
Gluups wrote:
So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
So are you using Linux or Windows to write this post and reply to it? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Gluups wrote:
So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix.
Will this be the year of Linux on the desktop? :laugh:
Gluups wrote:
So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none
There is; I used it. And checked in Private mode to be sure, and yes, there is; at the top of the list. Want a screenshot?
Gluups wrote:
So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
So are you using Linux or Windows to write this post and reply to it? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Gluups wrote:
So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix.
Will this be the year of Linux on the desktop? :laugh:
Gluups wrote:
So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none
There is; I used it. And checked in Private mode to be sure, and yes, there is; at the top of the list. Want a screenshot?
Gluups wrote:
So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
So are you using Linux or Windows to write this post and reply to it? :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Will this be the year of Linux on the desktop?
Quite possible : we have to listen to Microsoft's messages. Any difficulty to use Visual Studio on it ?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There is; I used it. And checked in Private mode to be sure, and yes, there is; at the top of the list. Want a screenshot?
Well, why not, I do not see it ... How do I send a screen copy, do I host it on cjoint.com ?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
So are you using Linux or Windows to write this post and reply to it?
I use Windows 10. I have next to see the vendor about a few problems, and then make some place for a Unix partition.
-
It's incredibly common, as too many site owners believe that they are above the law, and more important than their visitors. It's what I use my hosts file for.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Will this be the year of Linux on the desktop?
Quite possible : we have to listen to Microsoft's messages. Any difficulty to use Visual Studio on it ?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There is; I used it. And checked in Private mode to be sure, and yes, there is; at the top of the list. Want a screenshot?
Well, why not, I do not see it ... How do I send a screen copy, do I host it on cjoint.com ?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
So are you using Linux or Windows to write this post and reply to it?
I use Windows 10. I have next to see the vendor about a few problems, and then make some place for a Unix partition.
It was fun; didn't seem to make sense to get a mail with "quote selected text", and could almost feel your frustration after.
Gluups
Quite possible : we have to listen Microsoft's messages.
If you work with their product, you'd better.
Gluups wrote:
Well, why not, I do not see it ... How do I send a screen copy, do I host it on cjoint.com ?
Host is anywhere and include a link here.
Gluups wrote:
I use Windows 10. I have next to see the vendor about a few problems, and then make some place for a Unix partition.
You don't have to; install any pendrivelinux-supported distribution on a USB stick and give it a try. As for MS forcing you to login to use your OS; it is their product. If you don't like it, then don't use it. Won't make major companies suddenly switch to Linux; your own choice.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
A hosts file doesn't stop cookies; it just blocks the URL from loading.
... And stops your computer downloading any files from that domain. If a site is blocked, you can't get any cookies from that site, and that site can't access your machine to read any cookies.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
It was fun; didn't seem to make sense to get a mail with "quote selected text", and could almost feel your frustration after.
Gluups
Quite possible : we have to listen Microsoft's messages.
If you work with their product, you'd better.
Gluups wrote:
Well, why not, I do not see it ... How do I send a screen copy, do I host it on cjoint.com ?
Host is anywhere and include a link here.
Gluups wrote:
I use Windows 10. I have next to see the vendor about a few problems, and then make some place for a Unix partition.
You don't have to; install any pendrivelinux-supported distribution on a USB stick and give it a try. As for MS forcing you to login to use your OS; it is their product. If you don't like it, then don't use it. Won't make major companies suddenly switch to Linux; your own choice.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
If you work with their product, you'd better.
For sure. And if their message is "hurry up to install another system", it is somewhat destabilizing.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Host is anywhere and include a link here.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You don't have to; install any pendrivelinux-supported distribution on a USB stick and give it a try.
That is also a possibility. But maybe I have to change my machine next, and so that is the occasion to reserve some place on the disk.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
As for MS forcing you to login to use your OS; it is their product. If you don't like it, then don't use it. Won't make major companies suddenly switch to Linux; your own choice.
Sure. I also have a magnifying glass I bought by the optician, but I feel this is not a normal way to access a key part of the system.
-
Hello, I received by mail a link to an article called "Microsoft apparently removing ‘Offline Accounts’ settings for international Windows 10 users", that links via codeproject.com. This article alerts that Microsoft puts more and more pressure to create a Microsoft account to be able to start a Windows 10 session, outside complicated procedures. So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix. Well, OK, I already observed that, by being unable to read the taskbar tooltips above the age of 50. But ... It is impossible to read that article without disabling all scripts, otherwise it is hidden by a panel asking your agreement for "all cookies". So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none, and considering the number of options, reject all would take at least one hour. Well, the article is interesting, but not to the point of spending one hour before beginning to read it. And you cannot write to onmsft.com, as this would need scripts, and relaunch the problem on top. So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
Who cares about cookies? Why all the crying over cookies? :doh:
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Hello, I received by mail a link to an article called "Microsoft apparently removing ‘Offline Accounts’ settings for international Windows 10 users", that links via codeproject.com. This article alerts that Microsoft puts more and more pressure to create a Microsoft account to be able to start a Windows 10 session, outside complicated procedures. So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix. Well, OK, I already observed that, by being unable to read the taskbar tooltips above the age of 50. But ... It is impossible to read that article without disabling all scripts, otherwise it is hidden by a panel asking your agreement for "all cookies". So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none, and considering the number of options, reject all would take at least one hour. Well, the article is interesting, but not to the point of spending one hour before beginning to read it. And you cannot write to onmsft.com, as this would need scripts, and relaunch the problem on top. So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
Only today he himself got on this article and is indignant! Of course, a Microsoft account is convenient, but there are computers where you do not need it at all! For example, I have a PC that is like a multimedia center, why is MS accounting there ?? I understand the payforessay account that saved me more than once, they write professional essays and it is vital! But here ... I think Microsoft should give up this idea!
