> You are, however, completely right that it is stupid beyond ridicule that you technically can't store the fact that a user doesn't want cookies on the browser.
Yes you can, it's pretty simple to do. Add a timestamped entry into your database to not show that notification to the IP address the user comes from, then run a script every minute that clears out entries older than an hour. Granted, if you go back to the website an hour later, it would still pop up the request to access cookies but it certainly beats having it pop up on every page load.
Nobody said it's a 'lease to own' situation with the system. Never mind that it includes computing time and server-side calculations and database access so chances are it is a system that is simply being 'leased' to the police at the cost of 25% added value to all transactions made possible through it.
The privacy issue isn't about you being identified as someone who has an outstanding fine to pay. The privacy issue is that the readers are collecting and storing data about EVERY vehicle on the road. That data is then used not only by the police, but also by a third party private company that can do with it as they will. As the article clearly states it is entirely possible to extrapolate where a person goes to the dentist/doctor/work/sleep/etc from this data. And, to top it all off, the private company that receives the data reserves the right to keep the data for as long as it is 'commercially viable' to do so... i.e. as long as there's someone else out there willing to pay them for it.
That's like hoping people will not talk on the phone/watch TV or eat soup (using both hands) while driving.
I think the worst thing I saw ever was this woman who was having cereal while going 75+ MPH on the highway. She was holding the bowl in her left hand, she'd move her right hand off the wheel, reach down (assuming to the cup holder), grab a spoon, lift it, dip in the bowl, move to her mouth and then return the spoon back to its position before reaching up to grab the wheel again. The whole procedure takes somewhere north of 5 seconds to accomplish. Add to that the fact that she was going at least 20 over the limit and that at any point in time, her eyes are shifting to look into the bowl to see if she's scooped enough, down to the cup holder to check and make sure she's picked up/dropped the spoon properly and you're in trouble.
They want people paying more money to them. If Netflix paid $1M (This is just an example, I have no idea what actual costs are) to offer House MD to their US customers that's all fine and great, but the content owners want them to pay another $1M to offer the same show to Canada, then another $3M for India, etc, etc as opposed to them just handing it out for the same price for the whole world.
The other option would be asking for $20M to offer the content to the world which in turn would mean rising Netflix monthly fees. Either case it is the customer that suffers in the process.
While true, I have also noticed that a Netflix exclusive show (I think Making a Murderer) is going to soon become unavailable to watch on Netflix in US. Now, it could be an unrelated issue there... i.e. the show was banned or some-such, but I couldn't find anything like that mentioned anywhere. That sort of makes me confused as to how it is an exclusive to Netflix in the first place.
Some Netflix shows are just not shown in the US on Networks and often they get branded Netflix – like a lot of British Shows. I imagine the rights are worked out as timed rather than for all eternity on Netflix. If Netflix "created" the content it would be on there in perpetuity.
Why would you request, beg or plead when it is your personal car that is coming to you? Call maybe... but summon kind of rolls off the tongue better... never mind when you consider how gaming is developing and how you'd run into that particular word in pretty much any game that involves magic and 'calling' things to you.
HN makes me sad sometimes. It was less than 24 hours ago that we criticized India for talking about applying the new law concerning crimes committed by minors on a high profile case.
Now, not even a day later we are talking about doing something just as insane. :(
This is the first time I hear of this discussion. That said, are we talking of applying a new law to a situation that has yet to pass sentencing? Then sure, a new law can be applied. If they have already passed sentencing then too little too late.
No, it is too late and thankfully the justice system has not entirely failed. However, I am still appalled by the court's statement:
> On Monday, India's Supreme Court dismissed an appeal to stop his release, saying it "shared" the concern of most citizens but its hands were "tied" by the law.
It is incredibly wobbly considering it is not being used as an alternative to life imprisonment, but as an addition to sentence already being served or already finished.
The argument is that they already served their sentence. They are free to do as they will. This is effectively in addition to their sentence, retroactively changing the laws. Imagine if suddenly there was a law that said you were to have your tongue cut out if you lied, and that it applied to lies told in the past. How would you feel about that?
The point is, punishments can only be applied to sentences pronounced from this point on, not ones that have already been served or are in the process of being served.
This argument seems based much more in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the original text of the constitution. Quoth: "No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Yes you can, it's pretty simple to do. Add a timestamped entry into your database to not show that notification to the IP address the user comes from, then run a script every minute that clears out entries older than an hour. Granted, if you go back to the website an hour later, it would still pop up the request to access cookies but it certainly beats having it pop up on every page load.