Sweet, sweet irony

[filburt1]

CNet is so lame now, check it out. Good ol' IE6:

[SkuZZy]

Mind explaining what i'm looking at? It looks like it's just trying to add cookies?

[Paul J]

Dude, websites use cookies.

Welcome to Earth.

[ccd1]

Originally posted by Paul J
Dude, websites use cookies.

Welcome to Earth.

Take me to your leader.

[orca]

Well, heard about download.com now charging for authors wanting to add software?

[filburt1]

Originally posted by Paul J
Dude, websites use cookies.

Welcome to Earth.

IE blocked them because it thought they were malicious.

[Paul J]

No, your settings in IE say to block all cookies and to notify you when a cookie is tryring to be set.

There is no setting in IE's cookie handling procedures to block "malicious" cookies.

[Menno]

Originally posted by Paul J
No, your settings in IE say to block all cookies and to notify you when a cookie is tryring to be set.

There is no setting in IE's cookie handling procedures to block "malicious" cookies.

exactly. IE can't tell the difference between cookies.

[George L]

Originally posted by orca
Well, heard about download.com now charging for authors wanting to add software?

really ?

[Freddie Bingham]

Originally posted by orca
Well, heard about download.com now charging for authors wanting to add software?

Please tell me if you find something offensive about that. Can you imagine the amount of bandwidth they must use every month?

[Mutant Lobster]

What does a mutant cookie look like?

[Paul J]

Maybe we'll start to get some decent software on there as opposed to the blatant spam that people put up there now.

Why do people want their cake and eat it to? What's wrong with a company trying to make money? How dare they charge to use their service.

[filburt1]

Originally posted by Paul J
No, your settings in IE say to block all cookies and to notify you when a cookie is tryring to be set.

There is no setting in IE's cookie handling procedures to block "malicious" cookies.

Here's what it thinks is malicious.

I think it's arrogant of CNet simply because they already have so much advertising and "sponsored" downloads on their site. People know that download.com is the most popular shareware/freeware/demo download site and people who make a small but useful piece of shareware will now have to pay to list it.

[Tolitz]

so you're saying arrogant = malicious?

A site has to make money, one way or the other ... if you don't like that particular business practice, you can always refrain from visiting them

[Chen]

You have the most boring job ever, don't you fliburt...