Hmm.

You don't necessarily have to load the cookie on the index page, do you? This is not a technically challenging issue. Yes, changes to existing websites will be necessary, but it's not like they're saying we have to dump all of the html for structured reverse polish haiku.

I've not coded a website (I always used php over straight html) in quite a while, and I may be rusty, but I still don't see the problem here.

This is a good step forward, I think.

From one of the linked articles:

Here's what's coming. The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".

An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user – so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent. Other cookies will require prior consent, though.

~The Out Law Blog

So- some websites will have an EULA page. Big deal. Actually, that's not at all a bad idea now is it? So why all the hoopla?


(Note: The originally linked slashdot post linked a Yahoo News article that's no longer valid).

Sounds like you're complicating things a bit.

What you're not saying here is if you want to run multiple instances of the game at the same time. What kind of PC are you using now? It had better have a LOT of horsepower. 9/10 times, the simpler solution (a second gaming PC) is the smarter answer.

Keep in mind, Windows was not designed as a 'time sharing' system - at least not in the way you're thinking.

Depending on where you're from, I guess. Here in Canada, I have roads that have a posted limit of 50kph that I can easily manage at 110kph. (Eg, the Smith-Triller Viaduct). We have highway systems here that have a posted limit of 100kph, but speeds of over 160kph are easily managed by a skilled driver. The road conditions have nothing to do with the speed, nor does the traffic.

As to how many people 'speed in street road'- the 'street racing' problem has gotten so bad that Ontario, Canada now has a law that says if you exceed the speed limit by 50kph (and are caught) then you immediately lose your license and the vehicle you are driving (even if it isn't yours) is impounded.

It many not be a problem where you are but it's a problem elsewhere

We seem to live in a world where "technology" is the solution to all of our problems. Too bad. Everyone seems to want the instant solution, and in a defeatist sort of way goes about implementing the WRONG solution to a multitude of problems.

For example: The solution here? Driver Training. Speeding doesn't kill, it's irresponsibility. it's inability. A Bad Driver decides do do 90 through a school zone and kills someone - and "speeding" is to blame? No: It's an irresponsible idiot who thinks it's appropriate to drive at excessive speed in risk-sensitive areas. It's an irresponsible idiot without the SKILLS to drive at those speeds even where the road and conditions could possibly allow it.

I have seen, daily, drivers who don't exceed the limit that are more dangerous than the fastest drivers. Distracted, disinterested, and while licensed not qualified to drive a vehicle. Is there technology to save us from THESE people? Um... yes... how about lowering the 'standards' for dangerous driving (so that that asshole that was shaving as he changed lanes into me yesterday would be properly charged with reckless) and then trhowing the book at them. If you want to throw some high tech at the problem- how implementing technology (proper black box / telemetry recorders) to support the conviction of these drivers.

It's not how fast you go, it's what you do with the fast.

... or you can just switch the damn thing off. It has an off switch for cryin' out loud.

Because on some roads, the limit's 50. On others, it's 70. Some roads have 100kph limits. The idea is clear- gps will give you the speed limit of the road you're on (through a map lookup).

Trying to learn what we don't know is how we grow.

I found the missing link a little while ago though- I had a conversation over coffee a couple of weeks ago with someone who turned out to be a creationist. We ended up having the dreaded creationism-vs-darwinism "discussion". The gentleman in question was extremely stubborn, and his coffin-nail-arguement against darwinism, believe it or not, was that there was "no proof of evolution". I spewed trying to contain my laughter. Needless to say, the conversation ended at that point quite abruptly.

A fascinating discovery though.