Honestly, the entire concept of being Pardoned in this case would be yet another insult.
What they should issue is an Apology.
Mod parent up. Pardon implies that the action was wrong, but excusable. An apology would imply that Turing (+others) did nothing wrong and that it was in fact the law that was wrong.
At home my main PC is windows - but I have linux running on a NAS box that I use for backups and web dev environment.
So I haven't migrated per se. I just use a mixture of windows and linux depending on what the best tool for the job is.
So while I'm thankful of the learning opportunity - I realise there's a lot more PHP jobs out there than there are Perl jobs. I'd rather be really good at PHP that really good at Perl. I'm aware that the longer time I spend at my current company, the less transferable my programming skills will be. Which isn't necessarily an issue - I could always go down the management route.
Just for the record; I'm one of those who maintain there's nothing particularly wrong with PHP as a language, the issue is how people use it.
Point is, companies have had their own currencies for years. While some people might disagree with those practises - company-specific currency isn't intrinsically bad
Parent has hit the nail right on the head. I used to work on Facebook games for an indie games company and now I'm in charge of 'doing Facebook' for another company and so cross domain Iframe cookie problems are something I come across a lot. Maintaining user sessions inside iframes isn't straightforward.
Facebook have yet to implement a trick to make ie accept 3rd party cookies and so the widely used work around is use either a genuine or dud p3p header.
Yes, these hacks and workarounds are nasty and yes they're bad for standards - but if browser vendors insist on such privacy controls they need to make it much more user friendly for users to whitelist sites. Most of users we get through Facebook don't know what cookies are - they just want our apps to work. Blocking cookies without even prompting the user is not the way forward.
Say what you want about Facebook - but I like how their adverts quite often for something I'm genuinely interested in. IMO, that's what ALL advertising should be like. No matter how many times I see the Always adverts on TV - I'm never going to buy sanitary pads.
This isn't advertising, it's reporting the news.
Facebook/Myspace/etc are used much more widely than AIM ever was.
A much better way to implement this unnecessary cookie law would be to put the responsibility on browser vendors instead of website owners. Something along the lines of "This website wants to set cookies which may be necessary for it to work correctly, do you want to allow this? yay/nay". Someone/"they" could even make a standard that allows websites to explain to browsers the reasoning behind each cookie set. Of course, this has the problem that too many people don't update their browsers - but those people bring it on themselves and should therefore not be "protected" by this law.