|
|
As far as I know, this problem is not intrinsic to the design of OpenID itself. It is designed to use redirections to basically pass data back and forth between the OpenID provider and the web site. I don't think other OpenID implementations have this problem. I don't know enough details about OpenID to describe exactly how, but I think the answer comes down to "follow the specification" and "do what other sites do."
There is one very large product that relies on 3rd-party cookies: Disqus. It is used by a lot of popular sites such as Thingiverse and StackOverflow. Disqus simply needs to fix the problem. There is actually a discussion on StackOverflow about this: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/126764/why-does-registration-require-third-party-cookies-to-be-enabled
The last time I looked at it it claimed the problem was fixed, but I just now tried to register and it says this:
Third Party Cookies Appear To Be Disabled
This site depends on third-party cookies, please add an exception for https://openid.stackexchange.com/.
Those sites just aren't doing it properly. By comparison, OpenID works fine without 3rd-party cookies. So do other commercial Single Sign On (SSO) solutions.
I wasn't presenting evidence that Klingon is any less complete than any other language. That is a simple matter of fact. I was merely demonstrating the consequences of said fact.
The Klingon language isn't actually complete, so if it encounters a word that has no translation it just makes-up something by adding unpronounceable letters in place of real ones. Unless it starts with a capital letter at which point it knows it was a proper name. Examples:
Microsoft --> microsoft
microsoft --> mIchroSotlht
what stinks is that it isn't smart enough to reverse the process:
mIchroSotlht --> michrosokt
They are not at all similar
They are similar in that both are cases of misunderstood statistics. The chapter is about statistics, so that is the only similarity that is required.
Humorously, you are committing the very fallacy that the author is trying to point out. You jumped right to the consequences, and skipped the statistical likelihood of them happening.
That's not junk: Those are comments!
23 hours of summer sunlight isn't enough to grow crops?
No.
Good point though: it isn't the # of hours, it is the angle. The arctic may get 24 hours of sun on some days, but the actual amount of sunlight that reaches the ground is minimal because the sun is so low in the sky.
I was wondering why Monsanto didnt sue the elevator instead
Because they didn't do anything wrong. They were completely within their rights to sell the seed. That is even stated in Monsanto's contract.
I just cant wrap my head around the concept that you can purchase something not under contract, that someone else can then come along and sue you for having purchased under incorrect terms.
That's how patents work. They go even further than your example does: If you independently re-invent that something, you still can't sell it without violating the patent.
If the Arctic Circle rises in temperatures by 8C again - or even 16C - then Mankind gets more arable land and living space, not less, because polar temps increase disproportionately to equatorial temps. Plants and animals move north quite rapidly. The vast Alaskan, Canadian and Russian permafrost becomes cropland.
I was under this impression too until recently, but it doesn't actually work that way. If you increase the temperature without increasing the amount of sunlight, plants won't move north. Ex: Even if you increase the temperature, Palm trees will not grow in Canada because it doesn't receive enough winter sunlight. Similarly, you can't grow significant crops in the Arctic circle for the same reason.
Actually, the article says the exact opposite of the title. The title should say
Spoiler Alert: *SUCCESSFUL* Kids Become Successful Adults
because the article says:
These findings imply that basic childhood skills, independent of how smart you are, how long you stay in school, or the social class you started off in, will be important throughout your life," say Ritchie and Bates.
...show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they're not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail."
That implies that Obama really is trying to keep his promise about transparency, but he is fighting his own organization. The article doesn't mention Obama at all though.
You almost got it right: The OED itself is the copy! The creates of the OED must have stolen information from some other, older source, who put fake references in to detect it. The OED is a fraud!
So now you can't report security holes you find to the news because the FBI will arrest you for hacking.
If the news outlet is your first disclosure, that's pretty irresponsible. That is too often the case - people looking for fame or fortune or publicity instead of doing the right thing. It is a different matter if the company blows you off.
We need a law that says all software companies must have a hotline for reporting security violations, and must respond within some period of time.
If the ends don't justify the means, then what does? -- Robert Moses