The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
1. The lounge is for the CodeProject community to discuss things of interest to the community, and as a place for the whole community to participate. It is, first and foremost, a respectful meeting and discussion area for those wishing to discuss the life of a Software developer.
The #1 rule is: Be respectful of others, of the site, and of the community as a whole.
2. Technical discussions are welcome, but if you need specific programming question answered please use Quick Answers[^], or to discussion your programming problem in depth use the programming forums[^]. We encourage technical discussion, but this is a general discussion forum, not a programming Q&A forum. Posts will be moved or deleted if they fit better elsewhere.
4. No politics (including enviro-politics[^]), no sex, no religion. This is a community for software development. There are plenty of other sites that are far more appropriate for these discussions.
5. Nothing Not Safe For Work, nothing you would not want your wife/husband, your girlfriend/boyfriend, your mother or your kid sister seeing on your screen.
6. Any personal attacks, any spam, any advertising, any trolling, or any abuse of the rules will result in your account being removed.
7. Not everyone's first language is English. Be understanding.
Please respect the community and respect each other. We are of many cultures so remember that. Don't assume others understand you are joking, don't belittle anyone for taking offense or being thin skinned.
We are a community for software developers. Leave the egos at the door.
I received by mail a link to an article called "Microsoft apparently removing ‘Offline Accounts’ settings for international Windows 10 users", that links via codeproject.com.
This article alerts that Microsoft puts more and more pressure to create a Microsoft account to be able to start a Windows 10 session, outside complicated procedures.
So, the logical conclusion should be we all have to install Unix.
Well, OK, I already observed that, by being unable to read the taskbar tooltips above the age of 50.
But ... It is impossible to read that article without disabling all scripts, otherwise it is hidden by a panel asking your agreement for "all cookies".
So, I search for the usual button to "reject all", but there is none, and considering the number of options, reject all would take at least one hour. Well, the article is interesting, but not to the point of spending one hour before beginning to read it.
And you cannot write to onmsft.com, as this would need scripts, and relaunch the problem on top.
So, what is your idea : is not the sum up of this article "hypocrisy" ?
Oh, is it ?
I often see sites that invite to accept cookies, but generally with an interface that takes into consideration users who do not want to accept cookies, even if this is clearly not the default selection.
I sometimes saw sites where I have to click four buttons for categories of cookies, another to go to "partners" list, and there a button to "reject all", but it is the first time I see it would be so long to reject all and I renounce.
A hosts file can be a solution, but then I first have to compile the list "partners" to verify they all are on my hosts file, not sure it would really be quicker, particularly in this case.
And in fact, they are not very smart indeed.
The classical way to manage this until a law invites to clearly request the user's agreement, was to have a panel down the page, that did not take more than a centimeter height, that you could thus pretty ignore, and anyway there was a button to close it.
If they did it that way I should have accepted, and I realize I should have accepted much more than I should have thought.
Well I have got Cookie Quick Manager, that also deletes cookies when opening Firefox. But I had to install it and parameterize it -although Firefox sometimes appeared to be deceiving on this.
And this does not prevent a panel to hide the page, if the site conceiver had this idea. For this I have NoScript, thanks to the fact that the site conceiver did not push the absurdity further- but I should find it more normal that websites avoid to attack readers, rather than these adopt arms to defend themselves. More specifically if the aim of the page is to denounce Microsoft's practices on the topic.
After solving a few problems on my machine, maybe I shall have a look at Waterfox, at least to be informed, thanks for this.
Actually, I am much more pissed off by those sites pretending to accept that I reject cookies, but when I check after I have left the site, there is a whole bunch of new cookies, both from the site I visited and from a bunch of companies advertising on that site.
it is the first time I see it would be so long to reject all and I renounce.
Oh, there are several, many of which are very popular sites in the tech field.
A hosts file can be a solution, but then I first have to compile the list "partners" to verify they all are on my hosts file
I don't bother with that; I 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 the sites that make me go to multiple sites to block their cookies (even though I've probably already blocked most of the third-party cookies).
What these sites don't seem to realise is that they need us more than we need them. For every site on the Interwebs, there are dozens of alternatives we can visit instead, but the number of people willing to visit each site is finite.
Every site you block, every clickbait link you don't click, is a lesson to them.
A movie from 1929 that shows the launch of a three stage rocket to fly to the moon. Earlier in the movie they even showed the flight path of the rocket through the Lagrangian point[^]. And the movie uses a countdown for the first time.
One of my childhood books was the 1963 vintage "The NEW Junior Book" from the Readers Diggable. It might be something published by the Norwegian publishers of the Diggable, but I assume that it was published all over the US dominated world, in different translations (like most books in this class were, in those days).
One of the digests in this book is "Summary of 'First Men to the Moon', (c) Werner von Braun 1958, 1959, 1960", filling no less than 14 large-format pages. I was immensely disappointed when I first discovered that this was a made up history - noone had ever been on the moon! And then, people did land on the moon, but it wasn't at all like the story from Readers Diggable! ...
Then, with Apollo 13, history took revenge! The Werner von Braun story of the meteorite punctuatinhg the space ship created a drama not that different from Apollo 13!
The Diggable book says nothing about where the Werner von Braun story had been published earlier. Maybe it was created for this book alone, 3-5 years earlier, and never published anywhere else.