Post #20,869
12/9/01 11:31:51 PM
|
Help!!! (re Cookies)
I am trying to find where to delete cookies from in both MS 5 & NS 4.7
I had used my computer to create a quicken.com portfolio but realised that I
already had one & of course want to log on to that one. From computer A I can log on to the preferred (old) account but computer B obviously has a cookie for the new unwanted account as each time I log in to quicken.com & select portfolio it goes to the unwanted one.
I have forgotten where the software hides these durned cookies - I figure if I delete the Quicken cookie on computer B, I can get it accessing the correct portfolio account.
Any pointers ?
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #20,872
12/10/01 12:14:50 AM
|
On Netscape default installation...
\\C:\\Program Files\\Netscape\\Users\\userid\\cookies.txt
userid will vary of course. It's a text file, so use notepad or your favorite editor.
Alex
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
|
Post #20,874
12/10/01 1:09:45 AM
|
Re: On Netscape default installation...
Thanks,
Was also wondering if you know where MS5 also puts its cookies ?
Cheers & Tks
Doug
|
Post #20,875
12/10/01 1:14:22 AM
|
Re: S'ok - found em as well ..
Again - thanks
Re the Netscape cookies.txt file, it says not to change it as it is generated.
I will try removing the file as I am happy to dunk all the cookies it shows.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #20,883
12/10/01 9:35:59 AM
|
Logout?
I don't visit quicken.com, but most sites provide some sort of "log out" feature. If Quicken does, you should be able to use that to at least get back to where you can input your old username/password.
-YendorMike
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by the skeptics or the cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy
|
Post #20,953
12/10/01 8:24:58 PM
|
Re: Quicken is odd
I solved the problem by removing cookies.txt from Netscape for me as user. Boy was that thing *full* of mouldie cookies.
I am now going to set my Netscape to reject cookies, those things tell people about every major & minor site you visit. The
worrying thing was all the *xxx* *sex* cookies that I found there Hmmmmmm
Was an interesting exercise lookin at the file.
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #20,996
12/11/01 9:49:40 AM
|
Aye, indeed
Going through cookies files is an interesting exercise.
Is there something you're not telling us about your browsing habits with all those *xxx* and *sex* cookies in there? Hmmm?
Mozilla also has a neat feature that allows you to let some cookies stay on your machine, yet block others. It requires manually looking at the cookies your mozilla has stored (Tasks | Privacy & Security | Cookie Manager). Click the "Don't allow removed cookies to be reaccepted later" checkbox.
-YendorMike
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by the skeptics or the cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy
|
Post #21,365
12/13/01 2:10:37 PM
|
xxx
Naw.
Most of those get set by banner ads.
I've picked up a few of those, and pretty much all I visit is here, news, gaming, and hardware sites. My wife used to freak until I was able to demonstrate it to her in action...
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #21,414
12/13/01 9:40:14 PM
12/13/01 9:43:50 PM
|
Really?
At work, I have no xxx or sex cookies.
At home, I'm trying to find the damn cookie settings in Mozilla 0.96. "Documentation" (hah hah puke) is a bit lacking.
If you are visiting a site that has banner ads setting xxx or sex cookies, you are visiting a site that sucks. IMO. No reputable site would accept ads from sex sites (and you'd be crazy to accept cookies from such such sites, obviously.)
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
Edited by wharris2
Dec. 13, 2001, 09:43:50 PM EST
|
Post #21,468
12/14/01 9:25:19 AM
|
Why not?
As a business decision, if I've got The Register wanting to pay $50 a month for my ad space, or Danni's Hard Drive willing to pay $150 a month for the same space....Why would I want to turn down Danni's Hard Drive?
-YendorMike
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by the skeptics or the cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy
|
Post #21,485
12/14/01 10:29:19 AM
12/14/01 10:29:51 AM
|
Re: Why not?
For the same business reasons. If The Reputable Web Site displays a banner ad for a sex site, it'll presumably either be innocuous (so you don't know where you're going and might click on it thinking it was something else) or it's going to be lurid (so you do know where you're going but then its presence on that page probably violates many/most company web usage policies.) In either case, the likelihood of me visiting The Reputable Web Site's page decreases.
And that's even without setting a xxx or sex cookie.
With that said, no doubt you'll be able to show me where some reputable site such as Tom's Hardware Guide or The Register or Blue's News does this and I've never noticed. :=)
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
Edited by wharris2
Dec. 14, 2001, 10:29:51 AM EST
|
Post #21,697
12/17/01 10:11:53 AM
|
Nah.
Just playing Devil's Advocate.
-YendorMike
"The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by the skeptics or the cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need people who dream of things that never were." - John F. Kennedy
|
Post #21,737
12/17/01 2:21:51 PM
|
Bows to Mr. Devil :=)
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #21,009
12/11/01 12:15:24 PM
|
Oblig cookie rant
Why do so many sites get the itch to set cookies? When you turn cookie notification on in Mozilla, I got a shock at how many sites want to infest your hard drive. My cookperm.txt file has over 4000 entries, for Pete's sake. (Mostly to deny cookies.) I can understand (without liking it very much) cookies set by banner ads, and I completely understand sites where you save personal preferences, but there are some cookies I Just Don't Get.
Then there are the cookie-Nazi sites, those that *require* a cookie for no good reason. For example, at [link|http://www.law.com|www.law.com], you can get to the first page, but any selection you make off that page wants and NEEDS you to allow them to set cookies. "Sorry. You must have cookies enabled to enjoy this site."
I visit the site usually via a reference from [link|http://www.overlawyered.com|www.overlawyered.com]. I have no desire or need to have them provide "better and more personalized service" to me. I don't want them to provide personalized service. Now, likely they aren't doing anything nefarious with stuff stored in their cooky(ies), but the thought of providing lawyers any more information about me than they absolutely need is a bit chilling, as well.
(That site also does the (in)famous "back arrow takeover" on its "you have to have cookies enabled" page, which doesn't do much to impove my attitude toward the site.)
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it."
-- Donald Knuth
|
Post #21,048
12/11/01 4:27:27 PM
|
Back-arrow &$&%#* disabling -
Other than manual selection of previous, from history file - is there any neat trick for evading this idiocy (aside from e-mailing the mouth-breather admin, to no effect) ?
A.
|
Post #21,049
12/11/01 4:34:00 PM
|
Disable javascript
Unless there's another way to do it with IE, you need javascript to "disable" the back button. Really what you're doing is replacing the previous element in the history list with the current page. So "history.go(-1)" takes you "back" to where you already are. Actually, I believe there's a few other tricks to do it with javascript, but that's usually how I see it.
The annoying thing is that the ability is there for a very real need. If you're doing a redirect, you need to purge the redirect page from the history so you don't get in a back-and-forth loop.
We have to fight the terrorists as if there were no rules and preserve our open society as if there were no terrorists. -- [link|http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/05/opinion/BIO-FRIEDMAN.html|Thomas Friedman]
|
Post #21,089
12/11/01 7:12:03 PM
|
Not IE. Also - JS is on only rarely. Tryin K-meleon next :-)
|
Post #21,079
12/11/01 6:13:35 PM
|
Bad lawyer, no cookie
Law.com is one of the more consistently fucked up websites I've encountered, from basic usability and legibility. It seems to be getting slightly better -- I can read three of the last four pages I've looked at -- but there are still some screwed up elements -- a search button that appears directly over text.
The problem is gross abuse of the DIV tag. The page is forcing absolute placement of elements, which simply doesn't work if screen element proportions aren't identical to those used by the site's designer. I've used tidy to convert the div statements to CSS stylesheet elements, and modified attributes of the DIV element to modify placement of page elements.
The problem is that the page commits the sin of absolute page layout. While CSS can resolve some similar issues, there's no general rule which can fix this particular page. Various attempts -- changing positional handling, disabling 'top/bottom/left/right' attributes, etc., don't help display this page any better.
Fundamentally, it looks like a (poor-quality) lawyer's mentality's come to play: an attempt to dictate terms too rigidly has resulted in something which neither fits the original intent nor the needs of the reader.
--
Karsten M. Self [link|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com|kmself@ix.netcom.com]
What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?
|
