Reply to: Forum feature request

[northernladuk]

Or that hilarious March 31st joke when RH banned the other moderators.

I miss Reality Hack....

[TheFaQQer]

Watching NAT trying to ban admin makes me think of Roadrunner for some reason.

Or that hilarious March 31st joke when RH banned the other moderators.

[Contreras]

In Firefox it used to be possible to disable images (just had a look and can't see the option in current version), as well as disabling custom fonts, coloured links, etc. which did a pretty good job of dumbing things down.

Or you could always use lynx or suchlike.

[northernladuk]

Has NAT tried to ban Admin yet, or just himself?

Watching NAT trying to ban admin makes me think of Roadrunner for some reason.

[SimonMac]

Two day ban. - Advocating the use of sockies.

Has NAT tried to ban Admin yet, or just himself?

[northernladuk]

Yeah not an easy one to implement in terms of the images. Proper PITA. You could always use a sockie

Two day ban. - Advocating the use of sockies.

[Unix]

I can't be arsed. You could always use a sockie

FTFY

[administrator]

Yeah not an easy one to implement in terms of the images. Proper PITA. You could always use a sockie

[NickFitz]

I would imagine most sites have the warning to stop messages from users saying "why don't you have the warning, you are breaking the law"

In my experience, most sites have it because some manager with no legal knowledge who hadn't read anything but a vague misinformed story about it on a news website said "Something must be done", so some web developer searched for a jQuery plugin that did the needful and stuck the first one they found on the site

[NickFitz]

Ah ok didn't know that. Im suprised any site has a warning then as they could just say it's essential (to provide you with better targeted ads :-) ).

The user has to actively want the service and take steps specifically to obtain it. I don't think anybody has ever actively wanted or sought out the ads on any website

[SimonMac]

Ah ok didn't know that. Im suprised any site has a warning then as they could just say it's essential (to provide you with better targeted ads :-) ).

I would imagine most sites have the warning to stop messages from users saying "why don't you have the warning, you are breaking the law"

[Unix]

BZZZZT! Wrong

According to the ICO, "There is an exception for cookies that are essential to provide an online service at someone’s request (eg to remember what’s in their online basket, or to ensure security in online banking)." By logging in to CUK you are requesting the provision of those aspects of the service that are unavailable to non-logged-in users, therefore the cookie that supports that is exempt.

N.B. IANAL and this does not constitute legal advice

Ah ok didn't know that. Im suprised any site has a warning then as they could just say it's essential (to provide you with better targeted ads :-) ).

[NickFitz]

You are required to tell users if you are using cookies AFAIK, doesn't CUK do that?

BZZZZT! Wrong

According to the ICO, "There is an exception for cookies that are essential to provide an online service at someone’s request (eg to remember what’s in their online basket, or to ensure security in online banking)." By logging in to CUK you are requesting the provision of those aspects of the service that are unavailable to non-logged-in users, therefore the cookie that supports that is exempt.

N.B. IANAL and this does not constitute legal advice

[NickFitz]

Dear Mr admin

Is it possible to have machine specific settings for images/avatars/sigs? I spend half my life turning off and on depending whether I'm in the office or at home.

Ta muchly
mudskipper x

I suspect a custom vBulletin plugin would be able to support that, but it would be non-trivial to implement.

[Unix]

It uses a cookie to identify you, and thereby access your account settings on the server. As the cookie is required for the correct operation of the site, there's no legal requirement to notify users of it and obtain consent

If only more sites would realise that's the case. In fact, according to the ICO advice, there are hardly any circumstances under which a cookie warning is needed

You are required to tell users if you are using cookies AFAIK, doesn't CUK do that?