Whilst the claim is for your privacy the actual reality is that websites earn their keep from adverts that use 3rd party cookies. As is, maybe DNT makes many websites financially unviable. I'm not that sure on this.
I suspect IE will stop cashback websites working too.
This would not be popular with the people who use them. I have over the last year or so managed to get some cash back, so will have to try to test IE 10 to make sure that I can still benefit.
Could be very popular with the cashback site owners though, depending on how the click through works.
:eek:
But surely the whole purpose of the cashback sites is to pay cash back as easily as possible? If those sites suddenly get a lot of grief because cashback has not been automatically given when expected, they will have to spend a lot of time and effort chasing up the missing cash.
Whilst the claim is for your privacy the actual reality is that websites earn their keep from adverts that use 3rd party cookies.
Firefox understands this dilemma as as thus decided to hold back from introducing the same.
The thought being that everyone will get forced into using apps instead thus harming actual Firefox use and income.
As is, maybe DNT makes many websites financially unviable. I'm not that sure on this.
There might be a halfway house somewhere that is actually good everyone. 'Do not tracks' seems as much to be about targeting Google. You can't even get IE 10 on Vista or XP so it is certainly not that important.
I suspect IE will stop cashback websites working too.
i don't use the Do not track that comes with browsers as for them to work websites got to honour it and Yahoo said they are not going to if Microsoft makes do not track on by default.
i use do not track me by abine, what that does is put a cookies on the computer that is set to zero, so these cookies are saying to advertising networks,, do not track, a better system I think
Why bother blocking all these lethal, deadly, MI5/government funded 'tracking' means lol, they ain't going to actually track you and won't hurt you.
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance"
Why bother blocking all these lethal, deadly, MI5/government funded 'tracking' means lol, they ain't going to actually track you and won't hurt you.
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance"
Source: Franklin D Roosevelt
Oh you are funny, or you think you are.
while I do believe that MI5 and the government can and do track people, I doubt very much if they are interested in me. i am blocking advertisers from tracking.
Fear? you got it wrong, I got no fear, just prefer not to allow google and the rest of them to know what sites I go to, nothing to do with them.
while I do believe that MI5 and the government can and do track people, I doubt very much if they are interested in me. i am blocking advertisers from tracking.
Fear? you got it wrong, I got no fear, just prefer not to allow google and the rest of them to know what sites I go to, nothing to do with them.
fear
/fi(ə)r/
Noun
An unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.
Verb
Be afraid of (someone or something) as likely to be dangerous, painful, or threatening: "farmers fear that they will lose business".
Synonyms
noun. dread - fright - apprehension - funk - awe - alarm
verb. be afraid - dread - apprehend - funk - be afraid of
I rest my case lol Your thoughts on tracking though are certainly OTT to the point of irrational really.
But surely the whole purpose of the cashback sites is to pay cash back as easily as possible? ..
I thought it getting a small cut of total cashback+commission.
If inadvertently yours has not tracked, just maybe they get windfalls that make up most of their profits.
What is still certain is that the purpose of the web is not to provide everything free but to make advertising income.
Cookies are 99.9% used to target advertising better to ensure web site survival.
A main problem to me about the 'privacy agenda' is that it is orchestrated by kingpins with a more non web agenda.
Monopolies on mobile platforms simply means a profitable web is a hindrance.
I treat the privacy issue as I would in any other sphere. If I walk into a shop and buy something I wouldn't expect someone to follow me to the next shop to see what I was buying.
I have no doubt that you can't be 100% safe from covert tracking, but, I try to minimise any attempts to follow me around. This is purely out of principal and not paranoia, if that were the case I'd stay off the internet....
I use FF with ABP, Ghostery, and DNT and clear all cookies on closing the browser......I wouldn't object to adverts as they are in other medium like magazines and I can choose to just glance at them or study them at will. The problem with the internet is advertising has become too intrusive.
I treat the privacy issue as I would in any other sphere. If I walk into a shop and buy something I wouldn't expect someone to follow me to the next shop to see what I was buying.
I have no doubt that you can't be 100% safe from covert tracking, but, I try to minimise any attempts to follow me around. This is purely out of principal and not paranoia, if that were the case I'd stay off the internet....
I use FF with ABP, Ghostery, and DNT and clear all cookies on closing the browser......I wouldn't object to adverts as they are in other medium like magazines and I can choose to just glance at them or study them at will. The problem with the internet is advertising has become too intrusive.
Correct and if there was not a issue then software like ghostery, DNT, click and clean would not be around.
...I wouldn't expect someone to follow me to the next shop to see what I was buying.
Web sites don't specifically need Google. But they do need enough fees from the one or two prime ads shown to have enough pay their way.
Loads of competing ad agencies will help. It ain't that good that one agent earns 100s, 1000s or even 10s of thousands of times more than their sites or apps.
If you have those types of issues I'd suggest using Firefox or Opera.
They have the most vested and most independent interest in keeping the web 'open for business'.
IE has spent the vast majority of its life forcing web designers and other browsers jump through the hoops of non compliant code.
It's a great browser, which anyone who doesn't auto-hate Microsoft will agree.
So what is great about it?
For years MS have been non-standard, oh no tell a lie they did have a standard, Ms standard. it is only recently that they decided to follow the others. That is why so many sites only worked with IE for so many years, because of IE dominance.
I stuck with Netscape and went to firefox eventually even before it was renamed firefox. I remember when I had to use IE on some sites as they would not work on any other browsers. but if I had no need for the site i would avoid them.
That had nothing to do about IE being good or bad, it had everything to do with choice.
Thankfully, things are a lot better now and I have not had to use IE for at least 4 years. that is not to say I don't, I do have a look when a new one is launched, but still I have not found IE to offer me anything any different than my current browser.
IE has been following CSS compliance since version 8. These days the only nuances is in their JavaScript, but then most developers use JQuery to mitigate any cross browser quirks.
IE has been following CSS compliance since version 8. These days the only nuances is in their JavaScript, but then most developers use JQuery to mitigate any cross browser quirks.
Yes, it is more compliant. We have Apple and their adoption of open source KHTML into Webkit for Safari etc see to that.
What's the scientific opinion of Google now forking webkit?
Was it necessity, greed or a mix? Apparently the majority of recent webkit changes were written by Google.
Little has been spoken about it so you all missed it if you Blink-ed. Puzzling with webkit having the 80% market share.
Comments
This would not be popular with the people who use them. I have over the last year or so managed to get some cash back, so will have to try to test IE 10 to make sure that I can still benefit.
:eek:
But surely the whole purpose of the cashback sites is to pay cash back as easily as possible? If those sites suddenly get a lot of grief because cashback has not been automatically given when expected, they will have to spend a lot of time and effort chasing up the missing cash.
It's not my default browser but it's still useful for me to keep it up-to-date, especially as I'm a Microsoft-centric software developer.
IE 10 does seem a bit better than IE 9, from the brief amount of time I've spent with it recently.
i don't use the Do not track that comes with browsers as for them to work websites got to honour it and Yahoo said they are not going to if Microsoft makes do not track on by default.
i use do not track me by abine, what that does is put a cookies on the computer that is set to zero, so these cookies are saying to advertising networks,, do not track, a better system I think
"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance"
Source: Franklin D Roosevelt
Oh you are funny, or you think you are.
while I do believe that MI5 and the government can and do track people, I doubt very much if they are interested in me. i am blocking advertisers from tracking.
Fear? you got it wrong, I got no fear, just prefer not to allow google and the rest of them to know what sites I go to, nothing to do with them.
fear
/fi(ə)r/
Noun
An unpleasant emotion caused by the belief that someone or something is dangerous, likely to cause pain, or a threat.
Verb
Be afraid of (someone or something) as likely to be dangerous, painful, or threatening: "farmers fear that they will lose business".
Synonyms
noun. dread - fright - apprehension - funk - awe - alarm
verb. be afraid - dread - apprehend - funk - be afraid of
I rest my case lol Your thoughts on tracking though are certainly OTT to the point of irrational really.
Take a look at Google privacy policy. They promise 'not to use your data for any purpose other than what they collect it for.'
Makes you feel secure doesn't it?
Then use a clone, there are a few of them around.
Iron
coolnovo
Torch
Comodo Dragon
Rockmelt
All based on Chromium, which is what chrome is based on,.
I am using coolNovo at the moment, i have a change around now and again.
Far better than IE in my opinion.
I thought it getting a small cut of total cashback+commission.
If inadvertently yours has not tracked, just maybe they get windfalls that make up most of their profits.
What is still certain is that the purpose of the web is not to provide everything free but to make advertising income.
Cookies are 99.9% used to target advertising better to ensure web site survival.
A main problem to me about the 'privacy agenda' is that it is orchestrated by kingpins with a more non web agenda.
Monopolies on mobile platforms simply means a profitable web is a hindrance.
I have no doubt that you can't be 100% safe from covert tracking, but, I try to minimise any attempts to follow me around. This is purely out of principal and not paranoia, if that were the case I'd stay off the internet....
I use FF with ABP, Ghostery, and DNT and clear all cookies on closing the browser......I wouldn't object to adverts as they are in other medium like magazines and I can choose to just glance at them or study them at will. The problem with the internet is advertising has become too intrusive.
Correct and if there was not a issue then software like ghostery, DNT, click and clean would not be around.
Loads of competing ad agencies will help. It ain't that good that one agent earns 100s, 1000s or even 10s of thousands of times more than their sites or apps.
I refuse to use any Google products. They have a history of privacy issues so I don't trust them.
And Microsoft don't?
They have the most vested and most independent interest in keeping the web 'open for business'.
IE has spent the vast majority of its life forcing web designers and other browsers jump through the hoops of non compliant code.
So what is great about it?
For years MS have been non-standard, oh no tell a lie they did have a standard, Ms standard. it is only recently that they decided to follow the others. That is why so many sites only worked with IE for so many years, because of IE dominance.
I stuck with Netscape and went to firefox eventually even before it was renamed firefox. I remember when I had to use IE on some sites as they would not work on any other browsers. but if I had no need for the site i would avoid them.
That had nothing to do about IE being good or bad, it had everything to do with choice.
Thankfully, things are a lot better now and I have not had to use IE for at least 4 years. that is not to say I don't, I do have a look when a new one is launched, but still I have not found IE to offer me anything any different than my current browser.
Yes, it is more compliant. We have Apple and their adoption of open source KHTML into Webkit for Safari etc see to that.
What's the scientific opinion of Google now forking webkit?
Was it necessity, greed or a mix? Apparently the majority of recent webkit changes were written by Google.
Little has been spoken about it so you all missed it if you Blink-ed. Puzzling with webkit having the 80% market share.