Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:19:23 03/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2004 at 04:36:31, Mike S. wrote:
>On March 20, 2004 at 01:53:31, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>
>>On March 20, 2004 at 01:38:38, Kurt Utzinger wrote:
>>
>>>(...)
>
>>> "The server tried to set an illegal cookie. The combination of
>>> the server's hostname and the domain attribute for this cookie is not
>>> acceptable, and the cookie has therefore been rejected. You might want to
>>> ask the site's Webmaster to set legal cookies."
>>>
>>> No idea what's wrong with this site as I have the browser set to
>>> "cookies enabled".
>
>Nothing, except that it has a code monster for the navigation where a few simple
>links would be sufficient. That menu code requires a *Java* runtime software on
>the visitor's computer (not just javascript obviously). The error message above
>must come from wrong diagnosis, or isn't related to the access problem itself. I
>could always access these pages and I have cookies *disabled* in MSIE.
>
>The Java runtime software is not included in WinXP anymore (AFAIK since SP1a),
>which means that people with newer Windows XP installations won't be able to use
>that menu when they don't have installed a Java support themselves additionally
>(like I did as mentioned in the other posting).
>
>(I discoverd this Java issue recently when using XP for the first time, and i.e.
>the MyChessViewer which requires the same software, didn't run and I didn't find
>the Java runtime among the installable Windows components...)
>
>mfg.
>Michael
Microsoft has removed Java support from recent versions of Windows with
-probably- the idea to hurt Sun, as Java is definitely a competitor to their
.NET stuff.
There has been a lot of buzz around this a few months ago. A judge was about to
order Microsoft to put Java back in Windows, but it has not happened yet.
In the IT area, a delay of a few weeks is enough to change completely the
landscape and to put companies out of business. Decisions of "Justice" take
several years to come. Microsoft knows this and knows that they can act
illegally: by the time the ruling against them arrives, all they have to pay for
is the coffin of their dead competitor.
Ordinary people like you and me have a naive view of ethics: I would not kill
anybody because it's a bad thing to do. Some "superiorly intelligent" people
have another way of looking at this: they simply ask themselves how much it will
cost them to murder somebody, and how much they will gain from the murder.
But hey, everything I'm talking about here is naturally done in the interest of
"innovation" and in the deepest interest of the consumer.
I'm soooooo glad somebody out there is taking care of me and of the stuff I'm
allowed to run on my computer.
Christophe
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.