"and how do you mandate that to a company that isn't in the UK?"

How do you mandate what sites do if they aren't in the UK?

The answer in both cases is: you do not, and that is by design.

It was also arguably made to be transferred over telephone lines and used by 16 bit computers.

"the EU directive isn't nonsense. its not the ultimate answer to everything, but its at least a step in the right direction towards adressing some level of online privacy."

If breaking the vast majority of technology on the market to accomplish absolutely nothing is a "step in the right direction," then please, let us slide far in the wrong direction.

I will again say: it's about feel-good-fuzzy-warm-cuddlies, as you just proved. Not technology. This does zilch to protect your privacy, and if you were concerned about this aspect of your privacy, it was already a browser option. The directive breaks things to give people a useless protection they could have had in approximately 30 seconds if they cared. That's not the right direction. That is not even stupidity. That is a shameful waste of government time and money, and every European should feel ashamed their collective government would undertake it.

If you took the 10 seconds it takes to put a username into the address bar (it's that one at the top of your browser), you'd see that I am indeed a real user, with the same writing style, who has the same opinion of idiots, as that "anonymous coward."

I am not disputing anything further with you. You're either a raw troll, or an abject fanatic with zero ability to see how stupid they appear to others. In either case, there is really not much point in actually discussing your talking points further. I already did, and you told me to kill myself when you noticed you had no idea what the words contained in my post meant.

Again, my entire purpose for citing anything of my experience was to counter the statement that I must know nothing because I disagreed with the second-to-original retard poster. I am sorry it makes you feel inferior somehow that I do so. What you said is pretty obviously self-contradictory, and summarizing the exchange as I see it:

Me: "Well, I'm going to be an engineer."
You: "I am an engineer! A better one!"
You: "But qualifications don't matter!"

It's kind of self-contradictory and I am not sure what you hoped to gain. I was countering an ad homenin. Why you felt the need to make the discussion a dick sizing contest I am not sure. Perhaps because I am indeed the one quoting actual facts and you are just ranting about things?

I'm not personally worried about online marketing. I'm worried about massive online databases of the sites I access. Cookies are not the primary method by which those are constructed, nor is getting rid of cookies a feasible goal, nor is it sensible when so many other, bigger problems exist. The EU directive is nonsense written by idiots, and people like you are eating it up because it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to be "protected" from Google.

Didn't you just finish ranting to us about how we SHOULDN'T use cookies, and SHOULD use your kludge, which results in the aforementioned massive forms?

It is obvious to anyone with a clue that abusing GET/POST that was was not intended, which is ironic, since you were in your other post going on about what HTTP/HTML was somehow intended to be. Every "bad" kind of tracking is just as easily possible on the server side, if not more so. Cookies are enforced per-domain. Access-based tracking is effectively cross-domain. Embed an image linked from Facebook in your website? There is a VERY good chance Facebook is recording the views, IPs, and domains from which they come, and comparing that against login data. All serverside: Facebook knows which porns sites you go to, with no cookie involved.

If you had sense, you would be worried about THAT, not bitching about cookies and spewing nonsense about what you think would be somehow better, despite numerous actual programmers pointing out the problems your ideas would cause.

Well, hello there.

I'm not going to bother pointing out which posts made here under my name were not really me. I think only one was. It's probably pretty obvious anyway.

That said, I suspected you were a troll, and now you proved it. I will be quoting your fine post here in my signature to inform others of your nature.

Have a nice day.

"Yes, its the climate change, mass starvation, disease, revolutions, warfare, rise of plutocracies, and the collapse of civilization as we know it that we should be paying more attention to."

Or as I like to call it, 'business as usual.'

If I had a clone, a lot more interesting things would be going on than THAT.

Reading that list... I'm seeing a lot of "twitter"/"tweet," a lot of things that are much more along the lines of people taking offense at something... and not really a whole lot of actual harassment.

Really, if this list is the worst that feminists can come up with, taking the whole of the vaguely defined "geek culture" into account, we're fucking saints.

'Nothing is more douchebaggish than "I won't buy XYZ any more because of blah blah emotional decision" posts on the Internet."

Let me guess. You're one of those "vote with your feet" free-marketers, too.

*checks posts*

"People with felony convictions have some protections, but you can stop buying Microsoft for any reason you desire."

Not quite what I was hoping for, but it does well enough to make my point.

I said it for years... Apple only looked better because they were small. I was modded down and called ignorant and a Linux neckbeard.

And now we see who was right all along, while facing an actual threat of Apple dominance in several markets (either by way if clueless users who think lock-in is a good thing, or legal force destroying competition). Given every Apple system is either built on an Apple-controlled "appstore" already or is one update away from it, that prospect should scare the shit out of every person on this site.

Microsoft was mostly evil in their methods, primarily EEE. Apple is evil in their methods and goal. Just say no.

It is less clueless to stay on a ship that might sink, than jump into ice cold water with no land in sight. Obama might be a complete failure (not that the president has much power, but what he does have, he has misused), but Mittens and Rand's Wife are arguably a whole classification scheme worse.

Its purpose is to make people feel they are having an effect, when they are not doing a damned thing. Basically the same as other petition sites, but official. Same scam the British have been running for a few years now.

It's kind of ironic they don't realize that censoring the thing actually makes it a net negative to them. The best policy is to just keep paying some English major to write meaningless, feel-good responses to anything that gets enough votes. The moment they start monkeying with the system is the moment people become extremely angry.