I realize, it's a hard problem, but maybe a government can help in general with clamping down on bots, it seems they cause a lot of problems, not just in ticket markets.
Maybe governments could issue bot licences, then when they see an unlicensed bot, or a bot doing something outside the scope of its license they can at least try to remedy, either technical or legal (or military !)
Why do the websites have the authority in the first place to tell your browser what cookies to store? This is 100% on browsers to restrict what websites can do with cookies.
Firefox has offered this ability for, like, 20 years. And, 20 years later, it is still the only significant browser to do so.
Safari does block third-party cookies by default - which is certainly a good thing, but still not quite there.
There are already http headers for do not track and it is a standard. Just force websites to respect that under threat of enormous penalties, that is all that is needed!
Of course, they can make that as annoying as heck too. In fact, during the past few weeks I've visited multiple websites that have apparently decided it's a good idea for them to tell me (via a raised notification I have to manually dismiss) that they are honoring my browser's enabled "do not track" setting.
I do consider taxation theft, there is no purpose to it except for controlling the population. The fact that people accept different *levels* of theft depending on how much money they make just proves how much of theft it is, because they more money someone makes, the fewer people there are in that category of people, given that, it is easier to structure theft in such a way as to convince the majority that they don't suffer as much as the other people, who are hit with a much bigger crime.
Yeah. The potential new Mrs Gui had better check out how large a freezer he bought.
Shouldn't that be Mr Gui?
and that such services are properly regulated.
Shame Ted Stevens isn't around to oversee that effort.
Probably written by some clueless kid
CompSci 101, Lesson 1, Day 1: Never check for an error condition you don't know how to handle.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by a segmentation fault.
Okay, but - has he "entered" her... um, heart?
One goes better with tartar sauce.
Although, admittedly, some people do like tartar sauce with their fish too...
But that's just a bunch of asterisks?
Somehow, we'll find something to charge you for.
If you are a programmer and you are given clear instructions on what is expected, then yes. If you are a programmer and you are not given clear instructions, then no. However if you are technical lead/architect then you really should be responsible for it.
OTOH if you are a programmer and you raise these concerns then you are on your way to become a technical lead/architect.
In my systems I insist we keep a database table of various common passwords (tens of thousands of these) and we do not allow people using them as well.
Clicking through a few levels, it appears this is based on an analysis of stolen password dumps. It does not say whether they took steps to limit their analysis just to passwords grabbed in bulk as part of data breaches - so, if brute-forced passwords make up a meaningful percentage of the total, it's possible their overall counts are biased and inflated.
A bug in the hand is better than one as yet undetected.
