|
From my Android phone using "Browser", user agent is reported as:
Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 5.1;...) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2883.87 Mobile Safari/537.36
From my desktop, the chrome user agent is reported as:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/55.0.2883.87 Safari/537.36
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, good point, if the user agent is what is used to compile the numbers.
I don't use chrome at all (and will not install it on my machines), but I use a version of it as my primary user agent, because it's good security practice -- don't ask how, why, or which version -- so I'm actually contributing several to the chrome figure.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
A new report out by enterprise software company 1E, however, finds that half of Windows 10 business migrations could be leaving machines at risk So says a company that would be glad to help you fix it
|
|
|
|
|
With the power to drive technology, comes great responsibility. What should developers do when faced with ethical dilemmas? With great power comes great fun
|
|
|
|
|
First, do no harm.
So, does that mean we can get stop using Ruby and Javascript?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
and perl
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
and awk
#SupportHeForShe
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
|
|
|
|
|
And VB
I went there. Come at me.
|
|
|
|
|
and PHP, especially PHP
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
I refuse. I won't submit to them until management gets a code of ethics punishable by life in prison if they violate it. Then we won't need one!
|
|
|
|
|
I thought we did have ethics!
|
|
|
|
|
Thou shalt not covet thy cubicle mate's energy drink.
|
|
|
|
|
Thou shall not get caught!
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Since when did software developers have any say in what they make?
That's all driven by salesmen and marketing morons, so let's just not bother with any discussion about ethics and morality, shall we, because there aren't any to discuss.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
The C++ standard guarantees that the members of a class or struct appear in memory in the same order as they are declared. Included as I'm juvenile, and it made me giggle
But useful info (that really should be known)
|
|
|
|
|
There's a lot going on in the .NET space so I though it would be nice to update with a gentler list that could be used as a study guide and glossary. What's this .NET thing?
|
|
|
|
|
These days most of the jobs in .NET space require you to have "Excellent" understanding of HTML, Javascript and CSS,AngularJS,SQL etc. ect. along with .NET technologies. Knowing one framework is days of the past.
Zen and the art of software maintenance : rm -rf *
Maths is like love : a simple idea but it can get complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|