Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

how do you like my photos?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:42:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910

More about : photos

Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:42:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I don't know how I like you shots...

....Because I had to turn down no less than ELEVEN COOKIES that your web-site
tried to put on my computer before it would even open the page!

After I turned down the eleventh one, I gave up and closed my browser.
That's just too much.

"Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
> http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:42:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:1vrye.7429$Eo.2360@fed1read04...
>I don't know how I like you shots...
>
> ...Because I had to turn down no less than ELEVEN COOKIES that your
> web-site tried to put on my computer before it would even open the page!
>
> After I turned down the eleventh one, I gave up and closed my browser.
> That's just too much.

I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean you
no disrespect.
It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look at
photos.
I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.

> "Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
> news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>> http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:42:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>Mark Morgan wrote
>
>To anyone reading here who does NOT have your browser set to alert you to
>each cookie, I would simply suggest that you TRY IT for a day. You will be
>amazed how many sites want to write to your hard drive!!

If you don't know how to do this and you're using IE then on the menu
bar click Tools > Internet Options > Privacy and move the slider ...
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 2:42:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Hilton" <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1120566107.754096.101900@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >Mark Morgan wrote
>>
>>To anyone reading here who does NOT have your browser set to alert you to
>>each cookie, I would simply suggest that you TRY IT for a day. You will
>>be
>>amazed how many sites want to write to your hard drive!!
>
> If you don't know how to do this and you're using IE then on the menu
> bar click Tools > Internet Options > Privacy and move the slider ...

Ah. Thanks Bill. I should have included that.

You can also do this without the slider (which makes other adjustments one
might not want) by instead hitting the "Advanced" button on the Privacy Tab.
This lets you directly deal with JUST cookie handling.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 3:05:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for the
few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over the
browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the browser
kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and it
reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
check....then a registry check!
..
>
> I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean you
> no disrespect.
> It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look at
> photos.
> I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>
> > "Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
> > news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
> >> http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>
>
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 3:05:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:qQtye.2313$gD5.1995@trndny06...
>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...
<snip>

>I am running a adware check now....then a virus
> check....then a registry check!

I'd recommend a shot of Penecillin while you're at it...
....That site had a bad case of the nasties...
:) 

So many sites have become obnoxious that I've now got my browser set to
alert me to every single cookie.
Most of the time I not only tell it to disallow teh cookie, but also any
future requests from that site for cookies.
VERY few cookies are really to one's benefit. Legitimate sites that I know
need cookies--I can tell it to always accept those. Sites like weather
checks, and some merchant or banking sites have legitimate and helpful
reasons for them, but it's amazing how many site want to slam you with
stuff.

**To anyone reading here who does NOT have your browser set to alert you to
each cookie, I would simply suggest that you TRY IT for a day. You will be
amazed how many sites want to write to your hard drive!!
-Mark

>>
>> I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean
>> you
>> no disrespect.
>> It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look
>> at
>> photos.
>> I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>
>> > "Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>> > news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>> >> http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>
>>
>
>
July 5, 2005 3:05:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:05:58 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
<palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for the
>few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over the
>browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the browser
>kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and it
>reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>check....then a registry check!
>.
>>
>> I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean you
>> no disrespect.
>> It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look at
>> photos.
>> I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>
>> > "Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>> > news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>> >> http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>
>>
>


why do I get the feeling the OP was trying to harvest email addresses
and not really interested in our opinions by baiting us to visit his
site???
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 3:06:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<Rob> wrote in message news:1brkc1heda6l1j8317lhisavhpds9et2g1@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 11:05:58 GMT, "Gene Palmiter"
> <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for the
>>few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over
>>the
>>browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the browser
>>kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and it
>>reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>check....then a registry check!
>>.
>>>
>>> I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean
>>> you
>>> no disrespect.
>>> It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look
>>> at
>>> photos.
>>> I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>>
>>> > "Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>>> > news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>>> >> http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> why do I get the feeling the OP was trying to harvest email addresses
> and not really interested in our opinions by baiting us to visit his
> site???

That's possible, but I really think in this case he just used a free
photo-posting site...likely without any realization that it had all the junk
attached to it. Many "free" sites do this. They use th elure of "free" to
throw all sorts of crud at people...and because people who post photos to
free sites always point friends and family TO THOSE SITE to see their
pictures...the site owners especially like offering "free" photo
ites. -That's just my personal theory, but I'm pretty sure it's correct.
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 8:19:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 01:26:48 -0700, Mark² wrote:

> I don't know how I like you shots...
>
> ...Because I had to turn down no less than ELEVEN COOKIES that your web-site
> tried to put on my computer before it would even open the page!
>
> After I turned down the eleventh one, I gave up and closed my browser.
> That's just too much.
>
> "Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
> news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>> http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>
>>
I found it was just a jumble of mainly cyryllic characters.
--
neil
delete delete to reply
Anonymous
July 5, 2005 9:11:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

very nice, tovarich.

--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician
FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker
dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr
Ï "Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
> http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>
>
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:31:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter wrote:
> I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for the
> few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over the
> browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the browser
> kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and it
> reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
> check....then a registry check!
> .
>
>>I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean you
>>no disrespect.
>>It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look at
>>photos.
>>I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>
>>
>>>"Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>>>news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>>>
>>>>http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>
>>
>
>
Perhaps the problem is with your browser. I use Firefox and no strange
things happened when I went to the page. Just the pictures...


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:31:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:IvGye.8973$394.7342@fe07.lga...
> Gene Palmiter wrote:
>> I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for
>> the
>> few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over
>> the
>> browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the
>> browser
>> kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and
>> it
>> reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>> check....then a registry check!
>> .
>>
>>>I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean
>>>you
>>>no disrespect.
>>>It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look
>>>at
>>>photos.
>>>I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>>>>news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> Perhaps the problem is with your browser. I use Firefox and no strange
> things happened when I went to the page. Just the pictures...

Nothing strange happened to me...save for all the alerts of cookies.
I don't care now "useful" you claim cookies to be. No site has legitimate
purposes for 11+ cookies to open a single page.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:34:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:qQtye.2313$gD5.1995@trndny06...
>
>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...
>
> <snip>
>
>>I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>check....then a registry check!
>
>
> I'd recommend a shot of Penecillin while you're at it...
> ...That site had a bad case of the nasties...
> :) 
>
> So many sites have become obnoxious that I've now got my browser set to
> alert me to every single cookie.
> Most of the time I not only tell it to disallow teh cookie, but also any
> future requests from that site for cookies.
> VERY few cookies are really to one's benefit. Legitimate sites that I know
> need cookies--I can tell it to always accept those. Sites like weather
> checks, and some merchant or banking sites have legitimate and helpful
> reasons for them, but it's amazing how many site want to slam you with
> stuff.
>
> **To anyone reading here who does NOT have your browser set to alert you to
> each cookie, I would simply suggest that you TRY IT for a day. You will be
> amazed how many sites want to write to your hard drive!!
> -Mark
>

Cookies are to YOUR advantage, as they help you with setup of a site to
your preferences, but they keep the data on YOUR computer. Would you
rather each site have a list of your information? In some cases,
cookies actually prevent you seeing popups as they can record that you
have already seen one. They aren't some insidious method of spying on
you, and they include ONLY that information about you that YOU provide.
If you wish to examine each one, then you have a lot more free time than
I do.



--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 12:34:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:WyGye.8975$394.3879@fe07.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:qQtye.2313$gD5.1995@trndny06...
>>
>>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>>check....then a registry check!
>>
>>
>> I'd recommend a shot of Penecillin while you're at it...
>> ...That site had a bad case of the nasties...
>> :) 
>>
>> So many sites have become obnoxious that I've now got my browser set to
>> alert me to every single cookie.
>> Most of the time I not only tell it to disallow teh cookie, but also any
>> future requests from that site for cookies.
>> VERY few cookies are really to one's benefit. Legitimate sites that I
>> know need cookies--I can tell it to always accept those. Sites like
>> weather checks, and some merchant or banking sites have legitimate and
>> helpful reasons for them, but it's amazing how many site want to slam you
>> with stuff.
>>
>> **To anyone reading here who does NOT have your browser set to alert you
>> to each cookie, I would simply suggest that you TRY IT for a day. You
>> will be amazed how many sites want to write to your hard drive!!
>> -Mark
>>
>
> Cookies are to YOUR advantage, as they help you with setup of a site to
> your preferences, but they keep the data on YOUR computer. Would you
> rather each site have a list of your information? In some cases, cookies
> actually prevent you seeing popups as they can record that you have
> already seen one. They aren't some insidious method of spying on you, and
> they include ONLY that information about you that YOU provide.
> If you wish to examine each one, then you have a lot more free time than I
> do.

SOME cookies are that way, yet.
Others aren't so innocent.
If you read my full post, you'd see that I noted examples of helpful
cookies.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 2:48:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

After reading about the cookies I WILL NEVER>>>NEVER go to that site.
I go to my cookie folder and delete ALL cookies that I do not recognize and
still when going to a site as posted on this thread THEY ARE JUST ANOYING.
So.... when I hear that the original poster has changed isps and can afford
his/her own domain name, then I will visit.
Yours,
Tom
"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:UEGye.7532$Eo.4846@fed1read04...
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:IvGye.8973$394.7342@fe07.lga...
> > Gene Palmiter wrote:
> >> I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for
> >> the
> >> few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over
> >> the
> >> browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the
> >> browser
> >> kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and
> >> it
> >> reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
> >> check....then a registry check!
> >> .
> >>
> >>>I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean
> >>>you
> >>>no disrespect.
> >>>It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look
> >>>at
> >>>photos.
> >>>I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
> >>>>news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
> >>>>
> >>>>>http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> > Perhaps the problem is with your browser. I use Firefox and no strange
> > things happened when I went to the page. Just the pictures...
>
> Nothing strange happened to me...save for all the alerts of cookies.
> I don't care now "useful" you claim cookies to be. No site has legitimate
> purposes for 11+ cookies to open a single page.
>
>
July 6, 2005 4:46:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gene Palmiter wrote:

> I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for the
> few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over
> the browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the
> browser kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger
> salute and it reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a
> virus check....then a registry check!
> .


Isn't windows great!

--

Stacey, who hasn't connected a windows machine to the net in years...
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:22:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:WyGye.8975$394.3879@fe07.lga...
>
>>Mark² wrote:
>>
>>>"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>news:qQtye.2313$gD5.1995@trndny06...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>>I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>>>check....then a registry check!
>>>
>>>
>>>I'd recommend a shot of Penecillin while you're at it...
>>>...That site had a bad case of the nasties...
>>>:) 
>>>
>>>So many sites have become obnoxious that I've now got my browser set to
>>>alert me to every single cookie.
>>>Most of the time I not only tell it to disallow teh cookie, but also any
>>>future requests from that site for cookies.
>>>VERY few cookies are really to one's benefit. Legitimate sites that I
>>>know need cookies--I can tell it to always accept those. Sites like
>>>weather checks, and some merchant or banking sites have legitimate and
>>>helpful reasons for them, but it's amazing how many site want to slam you
>>>with stuff.
>>>
>>>**To anyone reading here who does NOT have your browser set to alert you
>>>to each cookie, I would simply suggest that you TRY IT for a day. You
>>>will be amazed how many sites want to write to your hard drive!!
>>>-Mark
>>>
>>
>>Cookies are to YOUR advantage, as they help you with setup of a site to
>>your preferences, but they keep the data on YOUR computer. Would you
>>rather each site have a list of your information? In some cases, cookies
>>actually prevent you seeing popups as they can record that you have
>>already seen one. They aren't some insidious method of spying on you, and
>>they include ONLY that information about you that YOU provide.
>>If you wish to examine each one, then you have a lot more free time than I
>>do.
>
>
> SOME cookies are that way, yet.
> Others aren't so innocent.
> If you read my full post, you'd see that I noted examples of helpful
> cookies.
>
>
Other than cookies that can let sites tell where you got there from, I
have never seen a cookie that was in any way dangerous. If your browser
is properly written (that is will not pass any cookie information to any
site but the one that wrote it), then cookies are beneficial. If you
use someone else's machine, then it is possible you will leave a cookie
behind that could contain some of your information. That is the extent
of the security compromise represented by cookies.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:22:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:sxMye.24394$B_3.1862@fe05.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:WyGye.8975$394.3879@fe07.lga...
>>
>>>Mark² wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:qQtye.2313$gD5.1995@trndny06...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>>>>check....then a registry check!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I'd recommend a shot of Penecillin while you're at it...
>>>>...That site had a bad case of the nasties...
>>>>:) 
>>>>
>>>>So many sites have become obnoxious that I've now got my browser set to
>>>>alert me to every single cookie.
>>>>Most of the time I not only tell it to disallow teh cookie, but also any
>>>>future requests from that site for cookies.
>>>>VERY few cookies are really to one's benefit. Legitimate sites that I
>>>>know need cookies--I can tell it to always accept those. Sites like
>>>>weather checks, and some merchant or banking sites have legitimate and
>>>>helpful reasons for them, but it's amazing how many site want to slam
>>>>you with stuff.
>>>>
>>>>**To anyone reading here who does NOT have your browser set to alert you
>>>>to each cookie, I would simply suggest that you TRY IT for a day. You
>>>>will be amazed how many sites want to write to your hard drive!!
>>>>-Mark
>>>>
>>>
>>>Cookies are to YOUR advantage, as they help you with setup of a site to
>>>your preferences, but they keep the data on YOUR computer. Would you
>>>rather each site have a list of your information? In some cases, cookies
>>>actually prevent you seeing popups as they can record that you have
>>>already seen one. They aren't some insidious method of spying on you,
>>>and they include ONLY that information about you that YOU provide.
>>>If you wish to examine each one, then you have a lot more free time than
>>>I do.
>>
>>
>> SOME cookies are that way, yet.
>> Others aren't so innocent.
>> If you read my full post, you'd see that I noted examples of helpful
>> cookies.
> Other than cookies that can let sites tell where you got there from, I
> have never seen a cookie that was in any way dangerous. If your browser
> is properly written (that is will not pass any cookie information to any
> site but the one that wrote it), then cookies are beneficial. If you use
> someone else's machine, then it is possible you will leave a cookie behind
> that could contain some of your information. That is the extent of the
> security compromise represented by cookies.

I'm not talking so much about security as I am about ads, pop-ups, and
directing you to portions of a site that you wouldn't otherwise be bothered
with. Just as a cookie can tell a site to show your home-town's local
weather forecast...it can tell web-site to display other things...ads ads
ads.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:24:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:IvGye.8973$394.7342@fe07.lga...
>
>>Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>
>>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for
>>>the
>>>few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over
>>>the
>>>browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the
>>>browser
>>>kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and
>>>it
>>>reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>>check....then a registry check!
>>>.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean
>>>>you
>>>>no disrespect.
>>>>It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look
>>>>at
>>>>photos.
>>>>I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>>>>>news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>Perhaps the problem is with your browser. I use Firefox and no strange
>>things happened when I went to the page. Just the pictures...
>
>
> Nothing strange happened to me...save for all the alerts of cookies.
> I don't care now "useful" you claim cookies to be. No site has legitimate
> purposes for 11+ cookies to open a single page.
>
>
Silly statement. Yahoo probably has more than that just to define the
page layout, color, etc. If you don't consider that 'legitimate', then
feel free to reject cookies, and settle for an internet experience that
is somewhat less than convenient.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:24:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:QyMye.24395$B_3.3419@fe05.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:IvGye.8973$394.7342@fe07.lga...
>>
>>>Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>>
>>>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for
>>>>the
>>>>few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over
>>>>the
>>>>browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the
>>>>browser
>>>>kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and
>>>>it
>>>>reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>>>check....then a registry check!
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean
>>>>>you
>>>>>no disrespect.
>>>>>It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look
>>>>>at
>>>>>photos.
>>>>>I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>Perhaps the problem is with your browser. I use Firefox and no strange
>>>things happened when I went to the page. Just the pictures...
>>
>>
>> Nothing strange happened to me...save for all the alerts of cookies.
>> I don't care now "useful" you claim cookies to be. No site has
>> legitimate purposes for 11+ cookies to open a single page.
>>
>>
> Silly statement. Yahoo probably has more than that just to define the
> page layout, color, etc. If you don't consider that 'legitimate', then
> feel free to reject cookies, and settle for an internet experience that is
> somewhat less than convenient.

Really, Ron, you don't seem to know what I'm referring to here.
I can tell you this... My pop-up blocker keeps a running total of blocked
pop-ups.
The number of pop-ups it's had to block has **dramatically** decreased since
I've been rejecting most cookies.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 7:26:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Tom Ellliott wrote:
> After reading about the cookies I WILL NEVER>>>NEVER go to that site.
> I go to my cookie folder and delete ALL cookies that I do not recognize and
> still when going to a site as posted on this thread THEY ARE JUST ANOYING.
> So.... when I hear that the original poster has changed isps and can afford
> his/her own domain name, then I will visit.
> Yours,
> Tom
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
> news:UEGye.7532$Eo.4846@fed1read04...
>
>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:IvGye.8973$394.7342@fe07.lga...
>>
>>>Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>>
>>>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for
>>>>the
>>>>few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over
>>>>the
>>>>browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the
>>>>browser
>>>>kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and
>>>>it
>>>>reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>>>check....then a registry check!
>>>>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean
>>>>>you
>>>>>no disrespect.
>>>>>It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look
>>>>>at
>>>>>photos.
>>>>>I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>Perhaps the problem is with your browser. I use Firefox and no strange
>>>things happened when I went to the page. Just the pictures...
>>
>>Nothing strange happened to me...save for all the alerts of cookies.
>>I don't care now "useful" you claim cookies to be. No site has legitimate
>>purposes for 11+ cookies to open a single page.
>>
>>
>
>
>
NOte that the site referenced wrote NO COOKIES on my system. Perhaps
the code which made the popups mentioned by some is what wrote the
cookies, probably to indicate you had seen the ads. Suppress the
cookies, and you will get the ads every time you visit the site!
Suppress the popups with a good browser, and you get neither the ads,
nor the cookies....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
July 6, 2005 10:17:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> If you don't know how to do this and you're using IE then on the menu
> bar click Tools > Internet Options > Privacy and move the slider ...

If you're worried about privacy and security, then you shouldn't be
using IE.
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 6:20:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fred wrote:
>> If you don't know how to do this and you're using IE then on the menu
>> bar click Tools > Internet Options > Privacy and move the slider ...
>
> If you're worried about privacy and security, then you shouldn't be
> using IE.

... nor should you be using the Internet!
July 6, 2005 8:52:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:

>
> Really, Ron, you don't seem to know what I'm referring to here.
> I can tell you this... My pop-up blocker keeps a running total of blocked
> pop-ups.

Why would anyone care?

> The number of pop-ups it's had to block has **dramatically** decreased
> since I've been rejecting most cookies.

And the number of times you've had to click that nag screen increased at
this same rate.. Why not just use a real OS or at least a real web browser?
IE is a frikin joke.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 8:52:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3j2uk7Fmpbn7U4@individual.net...
> Mark² wrote:
>
>>
>> Really, Ron, you don't seem to know what I'm referring to here.
>> I can tell you this... My pop-up blocker keeps a running total of
>> blocked
>> pop-ups.
>
> Why would anyone care?

Why is that important to you?
You will clearly aregue anything I say.
Try to stay a little objective.

>> The number of pop-ups it's had to block has **dramatically** decreased
>> since I've been rejecting most cookies.
>
> And the number of times you've had to click that nag screen increased at
> this same rate..

No... it hasn't.
With sites that I regularly access, I simply tell my browser (with one
click) to ALWAYS accept cookies from that site, and it never nags me EVER
again.

Why not just use a real OS or at least a real web browser?
> IE is a frikin joke.
July 6, 2005 8:56:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fred wrote:

>> If you don't know how to do this and you're using IE then on the menu
>> bar click Tools > Internet Options > Privacy and move the slider ...
>
> If you're worried about privacy and security, then you shouldn't be
> using IE.

I didn't think you could use windows, security and IE in the same
sentence!
--

Stacey
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 11:34:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:sxMye.24394$B_3.1862@fe05.lga...
>
>>Mark² wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:WyGye.8975$394.3879@fe07.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark² wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:qQtye.2313$gD5.1995@trndny06...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...
>>>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>>>>>check....then a registry check!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd recommend a shot of Penecillin while you're at it...
>>>>>...That site had a bad case of the nasties...
>>>>>:) 
>>>>>
>>>>>So many sites have become obnoxious that I've now got my browser set to
>>>>>alert me to every single cookie.
>>>>>Most of the time I not only tell it to disallow teh cookie, but also any
>>>>>future requests from that site for cookies.
>>>>>VERY few cookies are really to one's benefit. Legitimate sites that I
>>>>>know need cookies--I can tell it to always accept those. Sites like
>>>>>weather checks, and some merchant or banking sites have legitimate and
>>>>>helpful reasons for them, but it's amazing how many site want to slam
>>>>>you with stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>>**To anyone reading here who does NOT have your browser set to alert you
>>>>>to each cookie, I would simply suggest that you TRY IT for a day. You
>>>>>will be amazed how many sites want to write to your hard drive!!
>>>>>-Mark
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Cookies are to YOUR advantage, as they help you with setup of a site to
>>>>your preferences, but they keep the data on YOUR computer. Would you
>>>>rather each site have a list of your information? In some cases, cookies
>>>>actually prevent you seeing popups as they can record that you have
>>>>already seen one. They aren't some insidious method of spying on you,
>>>>and they include ONLY that information about you that YOU provide.
>>>>If you wish to examine each one, then you have a lot more free time than
>>>>I do.
>>>
>>>
>>>SOME cookies are that way, yet.
>>>Others aren't so innocent.
>>>If you read my full post, you'd see that I noted examples of helpful
>>>cookies.
>>
>>Other than cookies that can let sites tell where you got there from, I
>>have never seen a cookie that was in any way dangerous. If your browser
>>is properly written (that is will not pass any cookie information to any
>>site but the one that wrote it), then cookies are beneficial. If you use
>>someone else's machine, then it is possible you will leave a cookie behind
>>that could contain some of your information. That is the extent of the
>>security compromise represented by cookies.
>
>
> I'm not talking so much about security as I am about ads, pop-ups, and
> directing you to portions of a site that you wouldn't otherwise be bothered
> with. Just as a cookie can tell a site to show your home-town's local
> weather forecast...it can tell web-site to display other things...ads ads
> ads.
>
>
I have never restricted cookies, and I don't see all those ads you
mention, probably because I have ad blockers active all the time.
Cookies can also indicate you have already SEEN an ad, decreasing the
probability you will see it again. It cuts both ways. Just about
anything designed for the user's convenience can be perverted by the greedy.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 11:35:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:QyMye.24395$B_3.3419@fe05.lga...
>
>>Mark² wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:IvGye.8973$394.7342@fe07.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for
>>>>>the
>>>>>few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control over
>>>>>the
>>>>>browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the
>>>>>browser
>>>>>kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute and
>>>>>it
>>>>>reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>>>>check....then a registry check!
>>>>>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I mean
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>no disrespect.
>>>>>>It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to look
>>>>>>at
>>>>>>photos.
>>>>>>I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>Perhaps the problem is with your browser. I use Firefox and no strange
>>>>things happened when I went to the page. Just the pictures...
>>>
>>>
>>>Nothing strange happened to me...save for all the alerts of cookies.
>>>I don't care now "useful" you claim cookies to be. No site has
>>>legitimate purposes for 11+ cookies to open a single page.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Silly statement. Yahoo probably has more than that just to define the
>>page layout, color, etc. If you don't consider that 'legitimate', then
>>feel free to reject cookies, and settle for an internet experience that is
>>somewhat less than convenient.
>
>
> Really, Ron, you don't seem to know what I'm referring to here.
> I can tell you this... My pop-up blocker keeps a running total of blocked
> pop-ups.
> The number of pop-ups it's had to block has **dramatically** decreased since
> I've been rejecting most cookies.
>
>
I see no popups, and accept all cookies. Perhaps you should consider a
different browser....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 11:35:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:qN_ye.251$zA.45@fe04.lga...
> Mark² wrote:
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:QyMye.24395$B_3.3419@fe05.lga...
>>
>>>Mark² wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:IvGye.8973$394.7342@fe07.lga...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Gene Palmiter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I loaded his page and all kinds of things happened...all bad...but for
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>few photos I saw...there are some nice ones. I was loosing control
>>>>>>over the
>>>>>>browser. I wanted to go back and read mail while it loaded and the
>>>>>>browser
>>>>>>kept forcing itself to the front. I gave it the three finger salute
>>>>>>and it
>>>>>>reloaded itself! I am running a adware check now....then a virus
>>>>>>check....then a registry check!
>>>>>>.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I suspect that the cookie attack is not your personal doing, so I
>>>>>>>mean you
>>>>>>>no disrespect.
>>>>>>>It's just that no site should ask for that many intrusions just to
>>>>>>>look at
>>>>>>>photos.
>>>>>>>I have enough pop-ups and spam as it is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:D ad6sp$1333$1@berg.samara.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps the problem is with your browser. I use Firefox and no strange
>>>>>things happened when I went to the page. Just the pictures...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nothing strange happened to me...save for all the alerts of cookies.
>>>>I don't care now "useful" you claim cookies to be. No site has
>>>>legitimate purposes for 11+ cookies to open a single page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Silly statement. Yahoo probably has more than that just to define the
>>>page layout, color, etc. If you don't consider that 'legitimate', then
>>>feel free to reject cookies, and settle for an internet experience that
>>>is somewhat less than convenient.
>>
>>
>> Really, Ron, you don't seem to know what I'm referring to here.
>> I can tell you this... My pop-up blocker keeps a running total of
>> blocked pop-ups.
>> The number of pop-ups it's had to block has **dramatically** decreased
>> since I've been rejecting most cookies.
> I see no popups, and accept all cookies. Perhaps you should consider a
> different browser....

Perhaps.
I've tried Firefox (is that what it's called?), but stopped due to a lack of
plug-ins for some types of content display.
Perhaps it's better now...
Any suggestions?
Anonymous
July 6, 2005 11:37:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Fred wrote:
>
>>>If you don't know how to do this and you're using IE then on the menu
>>>bar click Tools > Internet Options > Privacy and move the slider ...
>>
>>If you're worried about privacy and security, then you shouldn't be
>>using IE.
>
>
> .. nor should you be using the Internet!
>
>
It is quite possible to use the internet without resort to IE, and its
security problems, or worse, OE, and its encouragement of security
violations.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 12:29:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1] wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, "Basilevs" <basilevs2002@mail.ru> wrote:
>
>
>>http://www.photosight.ru/ownpage.php?authorid=56910
>>
>>
>
>
>This one is downright dangerous in many countries.!!
>
>http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=880529&ref=a...
>
>Now running every defence on my machine.
>
>Grumpy
>
>~~~
>This PGP signature only certifies the sender and date of the message.
>It implies no approval from the administrators of hod.aarg.net.
>Date: Wed Jul 6 17:17:34 2005 GMT
>From: grumpy@hod.aarg.net
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>iD8DBQFCzBIv795fGjAugpQRAt68AKCCYWui0FtrqNKUbtwf6xZTkpLsqwCdGBgA
>YxzHBcb3YhQNRqBgeWAwHxY=
>=GzF3
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
No problems here... but then again, I don't run Windows.
Great images by the way.

A
Anonymous
July 7, 2005 3:51:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:qN_ye.251$zA.45@fe04.lga...
>
>>Mark² wrote:
>>>
>>>Really, Ron, you don't seem to know what I'm referring to here.
>>>I can tell you this... My pop-up blocker keeps a running total of
>>>blocked pop-ups.
>>>The number of pop-ups it's had to block has **dramatically** decreased
>>>since I've been rejecting most cookies.
>>
>>I see no popups, and accept all cookies. Perhaps you should consider a
>>different browser....
>
>
> Perhaps.
> I've tried Firefox (is that what it's called?), but stopped due to a lack of
> plug-ins for some types of content display.
> Perhaps it's better now...
> Any suggestions?
>
Yes, Virginia, there is a Firefox. Works a treat. All normal plugins are
loaded and locked, but it's so nice on OS X onna Mac, as there's but one
Plugin folder, and all my browsers know where it is, and how to use 'em.
As I use 3-4 browsers frequently, and update often, it's a real
convenience.

--

John McWilliams

When asked why he still lives in the UK despite working so much in the
US, John Cleese had this to say:
Number one, we speak English and you don't.
Number two, when we hold a world championship for a particular
sport, we invite teams from other countries.
Number three, when one meets the Head of State in England, one has
to go down on one knee only.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 12:55:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:20:23 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>Fred wrote:
>>> If you don't know how to do this and you're using IE then on the menu
>>> bar click Tools > Internet Options > Privacy and move the slider ...
>>
>> If you're worried about privacy and security, then you shouldn't be
>> using IE.
>
>.. nor should you be using the Internet!
>

... unless you're a non-moron.
Anonymous
July 15, 2005 12:57:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 20:34:29 -0500, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net>
wrote:


>
>Cookies are to YOUR advantage, as they help you with setup of a site to
>your preferences, but they keep the data on YOUR computer. Would you
>rather each site have a list of your information? In some cases,
>cookies actually prevent you seeing popups as they can record that you
>have already seen one.

How unbelievably naive.


> They aren't some insidious method of spying on
>you, and they include ONLY that information about you that YOU provide.
>If you wish to examine each one, then you have a lot more free time than
>I do.
!