<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_13_1348222</id>
	<title>"Breathtakingly Stupid" EU Cookie Law Passes</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1258123860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Reader whencanistop writes with some details on an upcoming EU law that slipped under the radar as it was part of the package containing the "three strikes" provision, which attracted all the attention and criticism. <i>"A couple of weeks ago we discussed <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/01/10/31/1538258/EU-May-Outlaw-Cookies?art\_pos=1">the EU cookie proposal</a>, which has now been passed into law. While the original story broke on <a href="http://www.out-law.com/page-10510">the Out-law blog from a law perspective</a> ('so breathtakingly stupid that the normally law-abiding business may be tempted to bend the rules to breaking point'), there has now been followup from a couple of industry insiders. Aurelie Pols of the Web Analytics Association has blogged on <a href="http://aurelie.webanalyticsdemystified.com/2009/11/10/eu-cookie-law-interpretation-is-breathtakingly-stupid/">how this will affect websites</a> that want to monitor what people are looking at on their sites, while eConsultancy has blogged on <a href="http://econsultancy.com/blog/4964-eu-no-cookies-without-consent-will-eu-affiliate-programs-be-killed">how this will impact the affiliate industry</a>. In all of this the general public is being ignored &mdash; the people who, if the law is actually implemented, will have to proceed through ridiculous screens of text every time they access a website. I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reader whencanistop writes with some details on an upcoming EU law that slipped under the radar as it was part of the package containing the " three strikes " provision , which attracted all the attention and criticism .
" A couple of weeks ago we discussed the EU cookie proposal , which has now been passed into law .
While the original story broke on the Out-law blog from a law perspective ( 'so breathtakingly stupid that the normally law-abiding business may be tempted to bend the rules to breaking point ' ) , there has now been followup from a couple of industry insiders .
Aurelie Pols of the Web Analytics Association has blogged on how this will affect websites that want to monitor what people are looking at on their sites , while eConsultancy has blogged on how this will impact the affiliate industry .
In all of this the general public is being ignored    the people who , if the law is actually implemented , will have to proceed through ridiculous screens of text every time they access a website .
I know most of you guys hate cookies in general , but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reader whencanistop writes with some details on an upcoming EU law that slipped under the radar as it was part of the package containing the "three strikes" provision, which attracted all the attention and criticism.
"A couple of weeks ago we discussed the EU cookie proposal, which has now been passed into law.
While the original story broke on the Out-law blog from a law perspective ('so breathtakingly stupid that the normally law-abiding business may be tempted to bend the rules to breaking point'), there has now been followup from a couple of industry insiders.
Aurelie Pols of the Web Analytics Association has blogged on how this will affect websites that want to monitor what people are looking at on their sites, while eConsultancy has blogged on how this will impact the affiliate industry.
In all of this the general public is being ignored — the people who, if the law is actually implemented, will have to proceed through ridiculous screens of text every time they access a website.
I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087488</id>
	<title>its the euro choice, no need to complain</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its is not stupid,just a choice made by the EU, who the fuck get elected the companies strategic dpt or the politics ? The EU assembly.<br>Everybody knows that there is a tradoff between privacy (eventually security) and usability</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its is not stupid,just a choice made by the EU , who the fuck get elected the companies strategic dpt or the politics ?
The EU assembly.Everybody knows that there is a tradoff between privacy ( eventually security ) and usability</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its is not stupid,just a choice made by the EU, who the fuck get elected the companies strategic dpt or the politics ?
The EU assembly.Everybody knows that there is a tradoff between privacy (eventually security) and usability</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087418</id>
	<title>Re:Do We Really Need Cookies?</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258130940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Regulating tools doesn't work.  Regulating behaviors does.  When governments try to regulate technologies, they usually focus on the tool instead of behavior with asinine results. It would be much easier to simple:</p><p>Outlaw the practice of collecting marketing information without the express permission of the person being collected, at the time the data is collected.  Make it clear there is no "blanket" opt-in possible under the law.</p><p>Make it a civil tort with a big statutory fine (say something around $10,000) to skirt this so lawyers would go after abuse on contingency.</p><p>It's not that hard, but we have to help lawmakers better understand the difference between tools and behaviors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Regulating tools does n't work .
Regulating behaviors does .
When governments try to regulate technologies , they usually focus on the tool instead of behavior with asinine results .
It would be much easier to simple : Outlaw the practice of collecting marketing information without the express permission of the person being collected , at the time the data is collected .
Make it clear there is no " blanket " opt-in possible under the law.Make it a civil tort with a big statutory fine ( say something around $ 10,000 ) to skirt this so lawyers would go after abuse on contingency.It 's not that hard , but we have to help lawmakers better understand the difference between tools and behaviors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regulating tools doesn't work.
Regulating behaviors does.
When governments try to regulate technologies, they usually focus on the tool instead of behavior with asinine results.
It would be much easier to simple:Outlaw the practice of collecting marketing information without the express permission of the person being collected, at the time the data is collected.
Make it clear there is no "blanket" opt-in possible under the law.Make it a civil tort with a big statutory fine (say something around $10,000) to skirt this so lawyers would go after abuse on contingency.It's not that hard, but we have to help lawmakers better understand the difference between tools and behaviors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087348</id>
	<title>Hey Government: LAWS ARE NOT FOR FIXING TECH</title>
	<author>salesgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258130580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do government people think that passing laws like this can fix a problem that is fundamentally a technology problem?  The problem is that when lawmakers focus on tech, they often focus on <b>regulating the tool</b> instead of <b>regulating behavior</b>. So you get situation like this:</p><p>Trigger: People are killed with a hammer.<br>Response: Ban Hammers.<br>Unintended consequence: Entire construction industry out of business, everything falls to disrepair, screw industry explodes, scarcity of hammers lead murders to switch to using rolling pins.</p><p>In this case, the issue is user privacy. Regulating cookies does little other than break the web which is in many ways cookie dependent for many different dynamic interactions between applications on servers and browsers.  So, you break the internet, reduce security, and move advertisers to using something that's not a cookie to tag visitors with (lots of ways to accomplish this).</p><p>It's that old guns don't kill people, people kill people thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do government people think that passing laws like this can fix a problem that is fundamentally a technology problem ?
The problem is that when lawmakers focus on tech , they often focus on regulating the tool instead of regulating behavior .
So you get situation like this : Trigger : People are killed with a hammer.Response : Ban Hammers.Unintended consequence : Entire construction industry out of business , everything falls to disrepair , screw industry explodes , scarcity of hammers lead murders to switch to using rolling pins.In this case , the issue is user privacy .
Regulating cookies does little other than break the web which is in many ways cookie dependent for many different dynamic interactions between applications on servers and browsers .
So , you break the internet , reduce security , and move advertisers to using something that 's not a cookie to tag visitors with ( lots of ways to accomplish this ) .It 's that old guns do n't kill people , people kill people thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do government people think that passing laws like this can fix a problem that is fundamentally a technology problem?
The problem is that when lawmakers focus on tech, they often focus on regulating the tool instead of regulating behavior.
So you get situation like this:Trigger: People are killed with a hammer.Response: Ban Hammers.Unintended consequence: Entire construction industry out of business, everything falls to disrepair, screw industry explodes, scarcity of hammers lead murders to switch to using rolling pins.In this case, the issue is user privacy.
Regulating cookies does little other than break the web which is in many ways cookie dependent for many different dynamic interactions between applications on servers and browsers.
So, you break the internet, reduce security, and move advertisers to using something that's not a cookie to tag visitors with (lots of ways to accomplish this).It's that old guns don't kill people, people kill people thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086918</id>
	<title>Cookie consent at browser level?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258128420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
Couldn't browsers be made "EU-compatible" and give users a settings checkbox that says (more or less) "I either don't care about cookies or I'm perfectly comfortable dealing with them on my own (either with plugins like CookieCuller or manually.) Bring 'em on!"? Or doesn't the new law allow that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could n't browsers be made " EU-compatible " and give users a settings checkbox that says ( more or less ) " I either do n't care about cookies or I 'm perfectly comfortable dealing with them on my own ( either with plugins like CookieCuller or manually .
) Bring 'em on ! " ?
Or does n't the new law allow that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Couldn't browsers be made "EU-compatible" and give users a settings checkbox that says (more or less) "I either don't care about cookies or I'm perfectly comfortable dealing with them on my own (either with plugins like CookieCuller or manually.
) Bring 'em on!"?
Or doesn't the new law allow that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086810</id>
	<title>[sic]</title>
	<author>BigBadBus</author>
	<datestamp>1258127940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>"they is"??</htmltext>
<tokenext>" they is " ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"they is"?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096510</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1258203360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are HEB and Foodtown closer to a Super-Walmart or something?</p><p>The store I shop at doesn't have an affinity card, but I'm sure they track me by my credit card, and I also have this paranoid fantasy that the store coupons (that the register prints) are individually numbered (allowing them to associate purchases across cards and such).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are HEB and Foodtown closer to a Super-Walmart or something ? The store I shop at does n't have an affinity card , but I 'm sure they track me by my credit card , and I also have this paranoid fantasy that the store coupons ( that the register prints ) are individually numbered ( allowing them to associate purchases across cards and such ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are HEB and Foodtown closer to a Super-Walmart or something?The store I shop at doesn't have an affinity card, but I'm sure they track me by my credit card, and I also have this paranoid fantasy that the store coupons (that the register prints) are individually numbered (allowing them to associate purchases across cards and such).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087086</id>
	<title>This will be bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So to get around cookies people will just make their website a giant piece of flash</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So to get around cookies people will just make their website a giant piece of flash</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So to get around cookies people will just make their website a giant piece of flash</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087390</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>jaypifer</author>
	<datestamp>1258130820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>+1<br> <br>

I was about to write the same thing.  Tracking will not be as accurate, but there will still be tracking.</htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 I was about to write the same thing .
Tracking will not be as accurate , but there will still be tracking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 

I was about to write the same thing.
Tracking will not be as accurate, but there will still be tracking.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087320</id>
	<title>This is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258130460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, no cookies.  Poor me.  You're just making it more difficult, but there are ways around it.</p><p>1. The malware and other scrupulous sites you hate so much... They wont obey your rules.<br>2. I hope you enjoy long query strings, because everything is going to be passed from page to page.<br>3. If you don't, expect every link to become a javascript POST.<br>4. You'll be required to create an account a lot more often so we can store everything server side and restore to SESSION variables when you return.<br>5. And expect a lot of free content sites to go belly up.  No cookie, no revenue.<br>6. What percentage of sites these EU customers visit are hosted outside the jurisdiction?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , no cookies .
Poor me .
You 're just making it more difficult , but there are ways around it.1 .
The malware and other scrupulous sites you hate so much... They wont obey your rules.2 .
I hope you enjoy long query strings , because everything is going to be passed from page to page.3 .
If you do n't , expect every link to become a javascript POST.4 .
You 'll be required to create an account a lot more often so we can store everything server side and restore to SESSION variables when you return.5 .
And expect a lot of free content sites to go belly up .
No cookie , no revenue.6 .
What percentage of sites these EU customers visit are hosted outside the jurisdiction ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, no cookies.
Poor me.
You're just making it more difficult, but there are ways around it.1.
The malware and other scrupulous sites you hate so much... They wont obey your rules.2.
I hope you enjoy long query strings, because everything is going to be passed from page to page.3.
If you don't, expect every link to become a javascript POST.4.
You'll be required to create an account a lot more often so we can store everything server side and restore to SESSION variables when you return.5.
And expect a lot of free content sites to go belly up.
No cookie, no revenue.6.
What percentage of sites these EU customers visit are hosted outside the jurisdiction?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091242</id>
	<title>Re:Do We Really Need Cookies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258104000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who uses Cookies for sessions these days anyway ? Every other browser with 'privacy' button will disable them. I actually welcome this, because it will feed the policing trolls and give the users false guise of privacy, but sure will not stop the user identification.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who uses Cookies for sessions these days anyway ?
Every other browser with 'privacy ' button will disable them .
I actually welcome this , because it will feed the policing trolls and give the users false guise of privacy , but sure will not stop the user identification .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who uses Cookies for sessions these days anyway ?
Every other browser with 'privacy' button will disable them.
I actually welcome this, because it will feed the policing trolls and give the users false guise of privacy, but sure will not stop the user identification.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088960</id>
	<title>The sky isn't falling, but this wont solve much.</title>
	<author>tcampb01</author>
	<datestamp>1258138140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed the article paints a picture as though this law will effectively break the functionality of the web and/or make it so annoying that nobody will want to put up with it.  I think that's completely wrong.  The conclusion that this is "Breathtakingly Stupid" is correct, but not for the reasons stated in the article.</p><p>From the article:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Here's what's coming. The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".</p><p>An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user &ndash; so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent. Other cookies will require prior consent, though.</p></div><p>Ok.... so you wont be barraged with consent requests every time you visit any web site that needs to maintain session state between two or more pages or track the fact that you've logged in.</p><p>So it would seem that the <em>good</em> news in all of this is that this really only pertains to those cookies used for annoying things like advertising and market analytics &amp; profiling; those things that invade your privacy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...or does it?</p><p>What's in a cookie?  That all depends on the cookie.  Some cookies store all the data being tracked by the cookie.  But other cookies are essentially an index -- they store no real data, but merely help the server identify you to the server where the real data is kept.  This is where things go gray and the law becomes "breathtakingly stupid."</p><p>The law assumes that websites intent on "violating your privacy" (whatever that means) actually need to use cookies in order to do it.  This is like wanting to outlaw murder and in order to so, just pass a law that bans handguns (as if handguns are the <em>only</em> way someone might commit the crime.)</p><p>Rather than create a separate cookie which exists for the exclusive purpose of marketing analytics (or whatever other violation of a user's privacy the website or it's partners want to perform), now the website just needs to create a 'meta cookie', if you will.  They have carte blanche to create a session cookie for maintaing your login or user session (essential the operation of the website) without your consent.  They can create what you could think of as 'server side meta-cookies' -- where instead of storing a cookie in <em>your</em> web browser, they store the cookie and it's value as an attribute of your session profile information which is stored <em>only</em> on the server.  The only cookie <em>you</em> actually have is your login / session cookie.</p><p>Under this scenario, the law only drives the activities of user tracking deeper into the shadows.  Before you knew they were tracking you... you had a cookie.  But you could delete those and know that they were gone.  NOW they'll track you based on session attributes <em>you</em> cannot delete because it's on someone else's server.</p><p>There's a huge gray-area around the "strictly necessary" clause.  If your website is entirely ad-revenue-funded, and without tracking you wouldn't be able to provide a service to your users at all, is this "strictly necessary"?  Google is ad-revenue funded.    Then there are sites like Amazon which performs tracking for cross-sell / up-sell purposes (e.g. "Do you want this USB printer cable that goes with that printer you just put in your cart that 98\% of the <em>other</em> people that bought that same product discovered they needed because no printer actually comes with a cable?")  After all the data needed to track those buying habits isn't essential in order to track your user session or maintain your shopping cart, but it sure is useful to the end-consumer and they're not necessarily collecting it to invade your privacy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed the article paints a picture as though this law will effectively break the functionality of the web and/or make it so annoying that nobody will want to put up with it .
I think that 's completely wrong .
The conclusion that this is " Breathtakingly Stupid " is correct , but not for the reasons stated in the article.From the article : Here 's what 's coming .
The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user 's computer , or accessed from that computer , only if the user " has given his or her consent , having been provided with clear and comprehensive information " .An exception exists where the cookie is " strictly necessary " for the provision of a service " explicitly requested " by the user    so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent .
Other cookies will require prior consent , though.Ok.... so you wont be barraged with consent requests every time you visit any web site that needs to maintain session state between two or more pages or track the fact that you 've logged in.So it would seem that the good news in all of this is that this really only pertains to those cookies used for annoying things like advertising and market analytics &amp; profiling ; those things that invade your privacy .
...or does it ? What 's in a cookie ?
That all depends on the cookie .
Some cookies store all the data being tracked by the cookie .
But other cookies are essentially an index -- they store no real data , but merely help the server identify you to the server where the real data is kept .
This is where things go gray and the law becomes " breathtakingly stupid .
" The law assumes that websites intent on " violating your privacy " ( whatever that means ) actually need to use cookies in order to do it .
This is like wanting to outlaw murder and in order to so , just pass a law that bans handguns ( as if handguns are the only way someone might commit the crime .
) Rather than create a separate cookie which exists for the exclusive purpose of marketing analytics ( or whatever other violation of a user 's privacy the website or it 's partners want to perform ) , now the website just needs to create a 'meta cookie ' , if you will .
They have carte blanche to create a session cookie for maintaing your login or user session ( essential the operation of the website ) without your consent .
They can create what you could think of as 'server side meta-cookies ' -- where instead of storing a cookie in your web browser , they store the cookie and it 's value as an attribute of your session profile information which is stored only on the server .
The only cookie you actually have is your login / session cookie.Under this scenario , the law only drives the activities of user tracking deeper into the shadows .
Before you knew they were tracking you... you had a cookie .
But you could delete those and know that they were gone .
NOW they 'll track you based on session attributes you can not delete because it 's on someone else 's server.There 's a huge gray-area around the " strictly necessary " clause .
If your website is entirely ad-revenue-funded , and without tracking you would n't be able to provide a service to your users at all , is this " strictly necessary " ?
Google is ad-revenue funded .
Then there are sites like Amazon which performs tracking for cross-sell / up-sell purposes ( e.g .
" Do you want this USB printer cable that goes with that printer you just put in your cart that 98 \ % of the other people that bought that same product discovered they needed because no printer actually comes with a cable ?
" ) After all the data needed to track those buying habits is n't essential in order to track your user session or maintain your shopping cart , but it sure is useful to the end-consumer and they 're not necessarily collecting it to invade your privacy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed the article paints a picture as though this law will effectively break the functionality of the web and/or make it so annoying that nobody will want to put up with it.
I think that's completely wrong.
The conclusion that this is "Breathtakingly Stupid" is correct, but not for the reasons stated in the article.From the article:Here's what's coming.
The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user – so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent.
Other cookies will require prior consent, though.Ok.... so you wont be barraged with consent requests every time you visit any web site that needs to maintain session state between two or more pages or track the fact that you've logged in.So it would seem that the good news in all of this is that this really only pertains to those cookies used for annoying things like advertising and market analytics &amp; profiling; those things that invade your privacy.
...or does it?What's in a cookie?
That all depends on the cookie.
Some cookies store all the data being tracked by the cookie.
But other cookies are essentially an index -- they store no real data, but merely help the server identify you to the server where the real data is kept.
This is where things go gray and the law becomes "breathtakingly stupid.
"The law assumes that websites intent on "violating your privacy" (whatever that means) actually need to use cookies in order to do it.
This is like wanting to outlaw murder and in order to so, just pass a law that bans handguns (as if handguns are the only way someone might commit the crime.
)Rather than create a separate cookie which exists for the exclusive purpose of marketing analytics (or whatever other violation of a user's privacy the website or it's partners want to perform), now the website just needs to create a 'meta cookie', if you will.
They have carte blanche to create a session cookie for maintaing your login or user session (essential the operation of the website) without your consent.
They can create what you could think of as 'server side meta-cookies' -- where instead of storing a cookie in your web browser, they store the cookie and it's value as an attribute of your session profile information which is stored only on the server.
The only cookie you actually have is your login / session cookie.Under this scenario, the law only drives the activities of user tracking deeper into the shadows.
Before you knew they were tracking you... you had a cookie.
But you could delete those and know that they were gone.
NOW they'll track you based on session attributes you cannot delete because it's on someone else's server.There's a huge gray-area around the "strictly necessary" clause.
If your website is entirely ad-revenue-funded, and without tracking you wouldn't be able to provide a service to your users at all, is this "strictly necessary"?
Google is ad-revenue funded.
Then there are sites like Amazon which performs tracking for cross-sell / up-sell purposes (e.g.
"Do you want this USB printer cable that goes with that printer you just put in your cart that 98\% of the other people that bought that same product discovered they needed because no printer actually comes with a cable?
")  After all the data needed to track those buying habits isn't essential in order to track your user session or maintain your shopping cart, but it sure is useful to the end-consumer and they're not necessarily collecting it to invade your privacy.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087676</id>
	<title>Crackers and croutons to the rescue!</title>
	<author>marciot</author>
	<datestamp>1258132140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well then, I propose web masters everywhere boycott cookies and instead track their users using crackers and croutons!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then , I propose web masters everywhere boycott cookies and instead track their users using crackers and croutons !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then, I propose web masters everywhere boycott cookies and instead track their users using crackers and croutons!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088640</id>
	<title>The only breathtakingly stupid thing</title>
	<author>theolein</author>
	<datestamp>1258136880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the only breathtakingly stupid things here are Kdawson and Timothy, who both seem to have never read Slashdot before, despite being editors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the only breathtakingly stupid things here are Kdawson and Timothy , who both seem to have never read Slashdot before , despite being editors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the only breathtakingly stupid things here are Kdawson and Timothy, who both seem to have never read Slashdot before, despite being editors.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089898</id>
	<title>Re:Cookies to store user variables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258141560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cookies are *vital* for session id that is then used to fetch your session on the server. If you use URLs for this, you are dumb (security wise).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cookies are * vital * for session id that is then used to fetch your session on the server .
If you use URLs for this , you are dumb ( security wise ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cookies are *vital* for session id that is then used to fetch your session on the server.
If you use URLs for this, you are dumb (security wise).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088030</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Mr. Slippery</author>
	<datestamp>1258133820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I know this isn't going to be looked on well here, but here are my pro cookie, pro marketing comments...</p></div></blockquote><p>The late great Bill Hicks suggested that everyone in marketing should kill themselves immediately.

</p><p>Your post only re-enforces my belief that he was right.</p><blockquote><div><p>Guess what, every company that collects demographics about customers (grocery stores by example, the only way to not get tracked it to pay by cash. You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile) and then sells them.</p></div></blockquote><p>Pretty sure my local organic market isn't doing this. But I still pay in cash.</p><blockquote><div><p>How many useful websites on the internet are driven by 1. Selling demographics, 2.) Ad revenue. Making cookies opt-in kills both of those things.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Hooray for the death of selling demographics. And you don't need to set a cookie on my browser to show me an ad. (Of course, if you want to show me an ad, make it a simple text link, because I'll block your gorram banners.)</p><blockquote><div><p>Affiliate marketing... There are a lot of other sites with good information (a book review site comes to mind) that I enjoy. They all keep the site running by giving affiliate links to the products, say to a book on amazon. Kill that for them, and you kill their revenue.</p></div></blockquote><p>Pass affiliate information in the URL original, then a session id in the URL during their visit. No need to keep a longer term record, ergo no need for cookies.</p><blockquote><div><p>AND btw, affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer</p></div></blockquote><p>No, you don't need to identify the computer. You need to identify the affiliate that originally referred the visitor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is n't going to be looked on well here , but here are my pro cookie , pro marketing comments...The late great Bill Hicks suggested that everyone in marketing should kill themselves immediately .
Your post only re-enforces my belief that he was right.Guess what , every company that collects demographics about customers ( grocery stores by example , the only way to not get tracked it to pay by cash .
You do n't need one of their store cards because they 'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile ) and then sells them.Pretty sure my local organic market is n't doing this .
But I still pay in cash.How many useful websites on the internet are driven by 1 .
Selling demographics , 2 .
) Ad revenue .
Making cookies opt-in kills both of those things .
Hooray for the death of selling demographics .
And you do n't need to set a cookie on my browser to show me an ad .
( Of course , if you want to show me an ad , make it a simple text link , because I 'll block your gorram banners .
) Affiliate marketing... There are a lot of other sites with good information ( a book review site comes to mind ) that I enjoy .
They all keep the site running by giving affiliate links to the products , say to a book on amazon .
Kill that for them , and you kill their revenue.Pass affiliate information in the URL original , then a session id in the URL during their visit .
No need to keep a longer term record , ergo no need for cookies.AND btw , affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computerNo , you do n't need to identify the computer .
You need to identify the affiliate that originally referred the visitor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this isn't going to be looked on well here, but here are my pro cookie, pro marketing comments...The late great Bill Hicks suggested that everyone in marketing should kill themselves immediately.
Your post only re-enforces my belief that he was right.Guess what, every company that collects demographics about customers (grocery stores by example, the only way to not get tracked it to pay by cash.
You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile) and then sells them.Pretty sure my local organic market isn't doing this.
But I still pay in cash.How many useful websites on the internet are driven by 1.
Selling demographics, 2.
) Ad revenue.
Making cookies opt-in kills both of those things.
Hooray for the death of selling demographics.
And you don't need to set a cookie on my browser to show me an ad.
(Of course, if you want to show me an ad, make it a simple text link, because I'll block your gorram banners.
)Affiliate marketing... There are a lot of other sites with good information (a book review site comes to mind) that I enjoy.
They all keep the site running by giving affiliate links to the products, say to a book on amazon.
Kill that for them, and you kill their revenue.Pass affiliate information in the URL original, then a session id in the URL during their visit.
No need to keep a longer term record, ergo no need for cookies.AND btw, affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computerNo, you don't need to identify the computer.
You need to identify the affiliate that originally referred the visitor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086948</id>
	<title>Re:[sic]</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258128600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IZ COZ E IZ BLACK INNIT?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IZ COZ E IZ BLACK INNIT ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IZ COZ E IZ BLACK INNIT?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096038</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1258194600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Except you can already block all that with your web browser, if you don't like it.</i></p><p><i>Why put undue burden on site owners when cookie blocking features *already exist* in every browser out there? That's why this law is retarded-- not because of the intention (which I also kind of agree with, to an extent).</i></p><p>Actually, <a href="http://www.out-law.com/page-10021" title="out-law.com">RTF directive</a> [out-law.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application.</p></div></blockquote><p>So the entire thing is pointless and inaffective; anyone ever sues under it, you just argue that the settings of their browser that control acceptance of cookies were set to accept them, and therefore the user had implicitly consented to receiving them, point the court at this paragraph of the recital (which is an explanation of the intent of the directive) and that should be it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you can already block all that with your web browser , if you do n't like it.Why put undue burden on site owners when cookie blocking features * already exist * in every browser out there ?
That 's why this law is retarded-- not because of the intention ( which I also kind of agree with , to an extent ) .Actually , RTF directive [ out-law.com ] : Where it is technically possible and effective , in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC , the user 's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application.So the entire thing is pointless and inaffective ; anyone ever sues under it , you just argue that the settings of their browser that control acceptance of cookies were set to accept them , and therefore the user had implicitly consented to receiving them , point the court at this paragraph of the recital ( which is an explanation of the intent of the directive ) and that should be it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you can already block all that with your web browser, if you don't like it.Why put undue burden on site owners when cookie blocking features *already exist* in every browser out there?
That's why this law is retarded-- not because of the intention (which I also kind of agree with, to an extent).Actually, RTF directive [out-law.com]:Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application.So the entire thing is pointless and inaffective; anyone ever sues under it, you just argue that the settings of their browser that control acceptance of cookies were set to accept them, and therefore the user had implicitly consented to receiving them, point the court at this paragraph of the recital (which is an explanation of the intent of the directive) and that should be it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090050</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089904</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258141560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey, buddy, just so you know:</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I won't hire you.  I won't visit your web sites.  I won't buy your products.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I hire programmers smart enough to not use cookies for anything but personal prefs &amp; shopping cart content.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I don't use web sites that use cookies to do anything else.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I don't even see the products for sale when you have to visit a poorly engineered web site to get them.</p><p>But I don't mean this as criticism, you go ahead and keep doing your low-budget work for your low-end customers.  There's a place for the less talented in the world, and it sounds like you've already found it.  Smart coders don't trust local storage mechanisms they can't control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , buddy , just so you know :     I wo n't hire you .
I wo n't visit your web sites .
I wo n't buy your products .
    I hire programmers smart enough to not use cookies for anything but personal prefs &amp; shopping cart content .
    I do n't use web sites that use cookies to do anything else .
    I do n't even see the products for sale when you have to visit a poorly engineered web site to get them.But I do n't mean this as criticism , you go ahead and keep doing your low-budget work for your low-end customers .
There 's a place for the less talented in the world , and it sounds like you 've already found it .
Smart coders do n't trust local storage mechanisms they ca n't control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, buddy, just so you know:
    I won't hire you.
I won't visit your web sites.
I won't buy your products.
    I hire programmers smart enough to not use cookies for anything but personal prefs &amp; shopping cart content.
    I don't use web sites that use cookies to do anything else.
    I don't even see the products for sale when you have to visit a poorly engineered web site to get them.But I don't mean this as criticism, you go ahead and keep doing your low-budget work for your low-end customers.
There's a place for the less talented in the world, and it sounds like you've already found it.
Smart coders don't trust local storage mechanisms they can't control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089094</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258138560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reason 1: Delayed purchase via Affiliate link while still crediting the affiliate.</p><p>Affiliate programs \_want\_ their affiliates to get credited with the sales (that cost is already well factored into profitability calculations) - this keeps them sending to you rather than your competitors in a cutthroat marketplace.</p><p>If the person follows an affiliate link, doesn't buy at that point, but revisits a few days later and purchases, cookies allow you to still credit the affiliate even if the customer typed in your domain.  This makes your program more valuable to affiliates, and increases your traffic and sales.</p><p>That's why they're critical to advertising. And for what it's worth, as an exec of a large porn company, we don't do any 'evil' tracking using them - it's purely affiliate. The time and effort to dig through that sort of data has no benefit:cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reason 1 : Delayed purchase via Affiliate link while still crediting the affiliate.Affiliate programs \ _want \ _ their affiliates to get credited with the sales ( that cost is already well factored into profitability calculations ) - this keeps them sending to you rather than your competitors in a cutthroat marketplace.If the person follows an affiliate link , does n't buy at that point , but revisits a few days later and purchases , cookies allow you to still credit the affiliate even if the customer typed in your domain .
This makes your program more valuable to affiliates , and increases your traffic and sales.That 's why they 're critical to advertising .
And for what it 's worth , as an exec of a large porn company , we do n't do any 'evil ' tracking using them - it 's purely affiliate .
The time and effort to dig through that sort of data has no benefit : cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reason 1: Delayed purchase via Affiliate link while still crediting the affiliate.Affiliate programs \_want\_ their affiliates to get credited with the sales (that cost is already well factored into profitability calculations) - this keeps them sending to you rather than your competitors in a cutthroat marketplace.If the person follows an affiliate link, doesn't buy at that point, but revisits a few days later and purchases, cookies allow you to still credit the affiliate even if the customer typed in your domain.
This makes your program more valuable to affiliates, and increases your traffic and sales.That's why they're critical to advertising.
And for what it's worth, as an exec of a large porn company, we don't do any 'evil' tracking using them - it's purely affiliate.
The time and effort to dig through that sort of data has no benefit:cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090050</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1258142160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except you can already block all that with your web browser, if you don't like it.</p><p>Why put undue burden on site owners when cookie blocking features *already exist* in every browser out there? That's why this law is retarded-- not because of the intention (which I also kind of agree with, to an extent).</p><p>If the EU is really concerned, they could pass a law against third-party cookies. This would remove most of their concern, without unduely affecting site owners. (Most, if not all, ad networks and analytics packages already allow for this usage.) Or they could pass a law saying that cookies must contain *only* references to a secured database, and no personal information in plain-text. That would also make sense.</p><p>What they have here? Makes no sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except you can already block all that with your web browser , if you do n't like it.Why put undue burden on site owners when cookie blocking features * already exist * in every browser out there ?
That 's why this law is retarded-- not because of the intention ( which I also kind of agree with , to an extent ) .If the EU is really concerned , they could pass a law against third-party cookies .
This would remove most of their concern , without unduely affecting site owners .
( Most , if not all , ad networks and analytics packages already allow for this usage .
) Or they could pass a law saying that cookies must contain * only * references to a secured database , and no personal information in plain-text .
That would also make sense.What they have here ?
Makes no sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except you can already block all that with your web browser, if you don't like it.Why put undue burden on site owners when cookie blocking features *already exist* in every browser out there?
That's why this law is retarded-- not because of the intention (which I also kind of agree with, to an extent).If the EU is really concerned, they could pass a law against third-party cookies.
This would remove most of their concern, without unduely affecting site owners.
(Most, if not all, ad networks and analytics packages already allow for this usage.
) Or they could pass a law saying that cookies must contain *only* references to a secured database, and no personal information in plain-text.
That would also make sense.What they have here?
Makes no sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086930</id>
	<title>Hey I'm an American...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258128480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have no intention of following this law.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have no intention of following this law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have no intention of following this law.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087386</id>
	<title>Hang On Europe!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258130820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our Congress and President are trying as hard as they can to turn us into a bloated, inefficient and ineffective nanny state just like you!</p><p>Signed,</p><p>The U.S. of A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our Congress and President are trying as hard as they can to turn us into a bloated , inefficient and ineffective nanny state just like you ! Signed,The U.S. of A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our Congress and President are trying as hard as they can to turn us into a bloated, inefficient and ineffective nanny state just like you!Signed,The U.S. of A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087876</id>
	<title>Re:reasonable</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1258133100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Actually, the <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2965" title="ietf.org">cookie spec</a> [ietf.org] says that web sites have to do what the Europeans propose:
</p><blockquote><div><p>6. PRIVACY
</p><p>

   Informed consent should guide the design of systems that use cookies.
<br>
   A user should be able to find out how a web site plans to use
<br>
   information in a cookie and should be able to choose whether or not
<br>
   those policies are acceptable.  Both the user agent and the origin
<br>
   server must assist informed consent.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Note the wording: "Both the user agent and the original server <b>must</b> assist informed consent."
</p><p>
Its not optional <i>(it says "must", not "may")</i>, and it's not something that the web server can simply delegate to the user agent <i>(browser)</i>.  If your web site doesn't do this, your site is broken according to the RFC.  the Europeans want to bring web sites into conformity with the spec.  How is that a bad thing?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the cookie spec [ ietf.org ] says that web sites have to do what the Europeans propose : 6 .
PRIVACY Informed consent should guide the design of systems that use cookies .
A user should be able to find out how a web site plans to use information in a cookie and should be able to choose whether or not those policies are acceptable .
Both the user agent and the origin server must assist informed consent .
Note the wording : " Both the user agent and the original server must assist informed consent .
" Its not optional ( it says " must " , not " may " ) , and it 's not something that the web server can simply delegate to the user agent ( browser ) .
If your web site does n't do this , your site is broken according to the RFC .
the Europeans want to bring web sites into conformity with the spec .
How is that a bad thing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Actually, the cookie spec [ietf.org] says that web sites have to do what the Europeans propose:
6.
PRIVACY


   Informed consent should guide the design of systems that use cookies.
A user should be able to find out how a web site plans to use

   information in a cookie and should be able to choose whether or not

   those policies are acceptable.
Both the user agent and the origin

   server must assist informed consent.
Note the wording: "Both the user agent and the original server must assist informed consent.
"

Its not optional (it says "must", not "may"), and it's not something that the web server can simply delegate to the user agent (browser).
If your web site doesn't do this, your site is broken according to the RFC.
the Europeans want to bring web sites into conformity with the spec.
How is that a bad thing?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087442</id>
	<title>TROLLkORE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>election to the year Contract.</htmltext>
<tokenext>election to the year Contract .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>election to the year Contract.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089352</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1258139520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You said it better that me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)<br>That was exactly what made me go WTF too.</p><p>It's like those "back" links *on the site*. While the browser's *own button* sits 50 px above it, and is much bigger and easier to click. It's just 100\% retarded. (And no, those redirecting back-breaking pages don't count. There are HTTP codes to redirect while keeping navigation working!)</p><p>(Ok, in my case, there are no buttons. Because there is no point is indirect control, when you have direct control, by having buttons for those functions mapped to mouse and keyboard buttons and gestures.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You said it better that me .
: ) That was exactly what made me go WTF too.It 's like those " back " links * on the site * .
While the browser 's * own button * sits 50 px above it , and is much bigger and easier to click .
It 's just 100 \ % retarded .
( And no , those redirecting back-breaking pages do n't count .
There are HTTP codes to redirect while keeping navigation working !
) ( Ok , in my case , there are no buttons .
Because there is no point is indirect control , when you have direct control , by having buttons for those functions mapped to mouse and keyboard buttons and gestures .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You said it better that me.
:)That was exactly what made me go WTF too.It's like those "back" links *on the site*.
While the browser's *own button* sits 50 px above it, and is much bigger and easier to click.
It's just 100\% retarded.
(And no, those redirecting back-breaking pages don't count.
There are HTTP codes to redirect while keeping navigation working!
)(Ok, in my case, there are no buttons.
Because there is no point is indirect control, when you have direct control, by having buttons for those functions mapped to mouse and keyboard buttons and gestures.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30099406</id>
	<title>are browsers without cookie managers now illegal?</title>
	<author>Gunstick</author>
	<datestamp>1258227000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are browsers without cookie managers now illegal?<br>No probably not</p><p>but the text says that "consent" is implicitly given by the user if he uses a cookie manager.</p><p>"the user's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are browsers without cookie managers now illegal ? No probably notbut the text says that " consent " is implicitly given by the user if he uses a cookie manager .
" the user 's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are browsers without cookie managers now illegal?No probably notbut the text says that "consent" is implicitly given by the user if he uses a cookie manager.
"the user's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087292</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258130340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know the funny thing about companies that collect and sell my personal data?</p><p>Their prices are higher than companies who do not.</p><p>Krogers and Randalls both do this.</p><p>HEB &amp; Foodtown don't.</p><p>Yet the same product at randalls and krogers *with the affinity card discount* is more expensive than the same product at HEB and foodtown.  Sometimes dramatically so (25\% or more- example, whipcream $5.29 with discount card vs $3.99 every day without card).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know the funny thing about companies that collect and sell my personal data ? Their prices are higher than companies who do not.Krogers and Randalls both do this.HEB &amp; Foodtown do n't.Yet the same product at randalls and krogers * with the affinity card discount * is more expensive than the same product at HEB and foodtown .
Sometimes dramatically so ( 25 \ % or more- example , whipcream $ 5.29 with discount card vs $ 3.99 every day without card ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know the funny thing about companies that collect and sell my personal data?Their prices are higher than companies who do not.Krogers and Randalls both do this.HEB &amp; Foodtown don't.Yet the same product at randalls and krogers *with the affinity card discount* is more expensive than the same product at HEB and foodtown.
Sometimes dramatically so (25\% or more- example, whipcream $5.29 with discount card vs $3.99 every day without card).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087396</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1258130880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When browsers ask the user for the consent upon receipt of each new cookie, then I will believe you.  So, should the law have addressed browser makers, to prohibit them from passing cookies to web sites without the consent of the user?  Perhaps so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When browsers ask the user for the consent upon receipt of each new cookie , then I will believe you .
So , should the law have addressed browser makers , to prohibit them from passing cookies to web sites without the consent of the user ?
Perhaps so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When browsers ask the user for the consent upon receipt of each new cookie, then I will believe you.
So, should the law have addressed browser makers, to prohibit them from passing cookies to web sites without the consent of the user?
Perhaps so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087326</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>spike2131</author>
	<datestamp>1258130460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is the attitude that makes Murdoch think he can get away with putting all his content behind pay walls.</i></p><p>This move undermines the whole model free content supported by advertising.... so its a wet-dream for Murdoch and his pay wall.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is the attitude that makes Murdoch think he can get away with putting all his content behind pay walls.This move undermines the whole model free content supported by advertising.... so its a wet-dream for Murdoch and his pay wall .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is the attitude that makes Murdoch think he can get away with putting all his content behind pay walls.This move undermines the whole model free content supported by advertising.... so its a wet-dream for Murdoch and his pay wall.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090830</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>alta</author>
	<datestamp>1258145400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally, someone 'gets it.'</p><p>In an economy like we have now, there are few impulse buys.  Everything depends on you having a good product at a good price, and even then, EVERYONE wants to think about it.  The chance that they get back to the product listing the same way the found it the first time is slim.  They're going to start at the site they were on and search, maybe look at their history.  They may bookmark the product itself, but it's not a given that that's going to have the affiliateID</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , someone 'gets it .
'In an economy like we have now , there are few impulse buys .
Everything depends on you having a good product at a good price , and even then , EVERYONE wants to think about it .
The chance that they get back to the product listing the same way the found it the first time is slim .
They 're going to start at the site they were on and search , maybe look at their history .
They may bookmark the product itself , but it 's not a given that that 's going to have the affiliateID</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, someone 'gets it.
'In an economy like we have now, there are few impulse buys.
Everything depends on you having a good product at a good price, and even then, EVERYONE wants to think about it.
The chance that they get back to the product listing the same way the found it the first time is slim.
They're going to start at the site they were on and search, maybe look at their history.
They may bookmark the product itself, but it's not a given that that's going to have the affiliateID</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087210</id>
	<title>Re:Cookies to store user variables</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1258129920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Server-side variables are primarily more work for the server, which has to re-run the script instead of informing the content didn't change and can be retrieved from the browser cache (and modified client-side according to the cookie).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Server-side variables are primarily more work for the server , which has to re-run the script instead of informing the content did n't change and can be retrieved from the browser cache ( and modified client-side according to the cookie ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Server-side variables are primarily more work for the server, which has to re-run the script instead of informing the content didn't change and can be retrieved from the browser cache (and modified client-side according to the cookie).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30094134</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258122660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Opera-USB 9.62 with cookies turned off<br>Tools-&gt;Preferences-&gt;Advanced-&gt;Cookies-&gt;"Never accept cookies"<br>and I have very little problem using many websites including this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Opera-USB 9.62 with cookies turned offTools- &gt; Preferences- &gt; Advanced- &gt; Cookies- &gt; " Never accept cookies " and I have very little problem using many websites including this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Opera-USB 9.62 with cookies turned offTools-&gt;Preferences-&gt;Advanced-&gt;Cookies-&gt;"Never accept cookies"and I have very little problem using many websites including this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087968</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090704</id>
	<title>How the EU could have been less stupid</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1258144740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They should have said this only applies to cookies that are stored between browser sessions. That way, sites that are just using cookies to hold a session ID between pages could set those cookies to be just kept for that browser session.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They should have said this only applies to cookies that are stored between browser sessions .
That way , sites that are just using cookies to hold a session ID between pages could set those cookies to be just kept for that browser session .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should have said this only applies to cookies that are stored between browser sessions.
That way, sites that are just using cookies to hold a session ID between pages could set those cookies to be just kept for that browser session.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30108704</id>
	<title>EU f$\%#ed up this time</title>
	<author>cllaudiu</author>
	<datestamp>1258278360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many of you have ever been a victim of a cookie privacy issue? How many cases in the whole world do you know? How many of them are related to non porn websites?</p><p>I see 2 issues here. The biggest one is that there are a lot of website owners that don't even now their websites are placing cookies as adding the Google Analytics tracking code to his website will do just that. And by the way, that is not Google collecting data about you but the website owner. The cookie is a first party cookie and legally Google has no write to use that data.</p><p>The next issue is that without cookies people will not be able to optimize their websites anymore. Simple tasks like a/b testing which is the most affordable way of improving a website won't happen anymore... cause yes, they are based on cookies. Not all websites have money to invest in user testing which anyway proove to be much less efficient than a/b testing or multivariate testing for that matter.</p><p>And all of you smart ass devs or admins, tell me, can your server log files point me out how often I've visited your website last month, which referrer I used for each visit and how much revenue I brought you? Than after you get me this data please apply the revenue to the first referrer and build me a report on which referrer works best for my website so I know where to put my marketing money for the next month. Yes, a cookie can do all that.</p><p>As for privacy, done right, a cookie can't tell nothing about a certain visitor that will affect his privacy concerns. But yes, I guess it is too expensive for EU to fight the criminals who exploit cookies so, hell, lock'em all down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many of you have ever been a victim of a cookie privacy issue ?
How many cases in the whole world do you know ?
How many of them are related to non porn websites ? I see 2 issues here .
The biggest one is that there are a lot of website owners that do n't even now their websites are placing cookies as adding the Google Analytics tracking code to his website will do just that .
And by the way , that is not Google collecting data about you but the website owner .
The cookie is a first party cookie and legally Google has no write to use that data.The next issue is that without cookies people will not be able to optimize their websites anymore .
Simple tasks like a/b testing which is the most affordable way of improving a website wo n't happen anymore... cause yes , they are based on cookies .
Not all websites have money to invest in user testing which anyway proove to be much less efficient than a/b testing or multivariate testing for that matter.And all of you smart ass devs or admins , tell me , can your server log files point me out how often I 've visited your website last month , which referrer I used for each visit and how much revenue I brought you ?
Than after you get me this data please apply the revenue to the first referrer and build me a report on which referrer works best for my website so I know where to put my marketing money for the next month .
Yes , a cookie can do all that.As for privacy , done right , a cookie ca n't tell nothing about a certain visitor that will affect his privacy concerns .
But yes , I guess it is too expensive for EU to fight the criminals who exploit cookies so , hell , lock'em all down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many of you have ever been a victim of a cookie privacy issue?
How many cases in the whole world do you know?
How many of them are related to non porn websites?I see 2 issues here.
The biggest one is that there are a lot of website owners that don't even now their websites are placing cookies as adding the Google Analytics tracking code to his website will do just that.
And by the way, that is not Google collecting data about you but the website owner.
The cookie is a first party cookie and legally Google has no write to use that data.The next issue is that without cookies people will not be able to optimize their websites anymore.
Simple tasks like a/b testing which is the most affordable way of improving a website won't happen anymore... cause yes, they are based on cookies.
Not all websites have money to invest in user testing which anyway proove to be much less efficient than a/b testing or multivariate testing for that matter.And all of you smart ass devs or admins, tell me, can your server log files point me out how often I've visited your website last month, which referrer I used for each visit and how much revenue I brought you?
Than after you get me this data please apply the revenue to the first referrer and build me a report on which referrer works best for my website so I know where to put my marketing money for the next month.
Yes, a cookie can do all that.As for privacy, done right, a cookie can't tell nothing about a certain visitor that will affect his privacy concerns.
But yes, I guess it is too expensive for EU to fight the criminals who exploit cookies so, hell, lock'em all down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087658</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1258132080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe we need to implement a new cookie system, identical to the old except the header they're offered under. Instead of "Set-Cookie:", it could be "Dont-Set-Cookie:". So if you accept it, you can't go complaining to the government to stop sites from sending this header.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe we need to implement a new cookie system , identical to the old except the header they 're offered under .
Instead of " Set-Cookie : " , it could be " Dont-Set-Cookie : " .
So if you accept it , you ca n't go complaining to the government to stop sites from sending this header .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe we need to implement a new cookie system, identical to the old except the header they're offered under.
Instead of "Set-Cookie:", it could be "Dont-Set-Cookie:".
So if you accept it, you can't go complaining to the government to stop sites from sending this header.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086960</id>
	<title>reasonable</title>
	<author>J-1000</author>
	<datestamp>1258128660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This doesn't sound "breathtakingly stupid" to me. It's debatable. Maybe it's "breathtakingly stupid" that it slipped through without notice, but if we are talking about what's right and what's wrong, it can be argued (and often is, I'm sure) that one should expect to have privacy in regards to their browsing habits*. The fact that it negatively impacts businesses should be irrelevant, if we are talking about protections for the individual.</p><p>* Yes, you can turn off cookies from the user end, but laws are sometimes there to protect people who don't know any better, and there are a *lot* of them in this case.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This does n't sound " breathtakingly stupid " to me .
It 's debatable .
Maybe it 's " breathtakingly stupid " that it slipped through without notice , but if we are talking about what 's right and what 's wrong , it can be argued ( and often is , I 'm sure ) that one should expect to have privacy in regards to their browsing habits * .
The fact that it negatively impacts businesses should be irrelevant , if we are talking about protections for the individual .
* Yes , you can turn off cookies from the user end , but laws are sometimes there to protect people who do n't know any better , and there are a * lot * of them in this case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This doesn't sound "breathtakingly stupid" to me.
It's debatable.
Maybe it's "breathtakingly stupid" that it slipped through without notice, but if we are talking about what's right and what's wrong, it can be argued (and often is, I'm sure) that one should expect to have privacy in regards to their browsing habits*.
The fact that it negatively impacts businesses should be irrelevant, if we are talking about protections for the individual.
* Yes, you can turn off cookies from the user end, but laws are sometimes there to protect people who don't know any better, and there are a *lot* of them in this case.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052</id>
	<title>All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Now, what else are cookies used for, that consent should not need to be given for?</p></div></blockquote><p>This is an irrelevant and distracting question, because cookies are always used with consent.</p><p>A web server replies, in response to a request initiated by the user, with a header that says, "Here's a little piece of information and I hope you pass this back to me on subsequent requests."</p><p>The user's agent -- software chosen by the user to do whatever it is that they're trying to do -- sees this completely advisory information and decides, perhaps even with a confirmation dialog with the user (or not, if the user has decided that they usually want the same behavior every time without getting bothered), to store this information.  And then it decides to pass this information with the next request.</p><p>The entity the user is communication with, ultimately has no choice about whether or not the user really does this.  It's all up to the person who is using the browser.  Or, in very old browsers that don't have dialog preferences for cookies, it's all up to the browser's author, to whom the user decided to defer to when they install the software.</p><p>Cookies don't <em>do</em> things.  <em>Users</em> do things with cookies.  Servers reward users for deciding to send the cookie.</p><p>If you have chosen to transmit cookies, take responsibility for your decision, instead of crying to the government and demanding that cookies never be offered to you.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Now , what else are cookies used for , that consent should not need to be given for ? This is an irrelevant and distracting question , because cookies are always used with consent.A web server replies , in response to a request initiated by the user , with a header that says , " Here 's a little piece of information and I hope you pass this back to me on subsequent requests .
" The user 's agent -- software chosen by the user to do whatever it is that they 're trying to do -- sees this completely advisory information and decides , perhaps even with a confirmation dialog with the user ( or not , if the user has decided that they usually want the same behavior every time without getting bothered ) , to store this information .
And then it decides to pass this information with the next request.The entity the user is communication with , ultimately has no choice about whether or not the user really does this .
It 's all up to the person who is using the browser .
Or , in very old browsers that do n't have dialog preferences for cookies , it 's all up to the browser 's author , to whom the user decided to defer to when they install the software.Cookies do n't do things .
Users do things with cookies .
Servers reward users for deciding to send the cookie.If you have chosen to transmit cookies , take responsibility for your decision , instead of crying to the government and demanding that cookies never be offered to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now, what else are cookies used for, that consent should not need to be given for?This is an irrelevant and distracting question, because cookies are always used with consent.A web server replies, in response to a request initiated by the user, with a header that says, "Here's a little piece of information and I hope you pass this back to me on subsequent requests.
"The user's agent -- software chosen by the user to do whatever it is that they're trying to do -- sees this completely advisory information and decides, perhaps even with a confirmation dialog with the user (or not, if the user has decided that they usually want the same behavior every time without getting bothered), to store this information.
And then it decides to pass this information with the next request.The entity the user is communication with, ultimately has no choice about whether or not the user really does this.
It's all up to the person who is using the browser.
Or, in very old browsers that don't have dialog preferences for cookies, it's all up to the browser's author, to whom the user decided to defer to when they install the software.Cookies don't do things.
Users do things with cookies.
Servers reward users for deciding to send the cookie.If you have chosen to transmit cookies, take responsibility for your decision, instead of crying to the government and demanding that cookies never be offered to you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092018</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any paranoids in the audience tonight</title>
	<author>DavidTC</author>
	<datestamp>1258107840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Sure, I could use buttons that trigger a php script and store the preference in a session variable.</i> </p><p>
Except that session variables <b>use cookies</b>.</p><p>
Seriously, I see the weirdest comments here about people that are just inexplicably silly. It's like people are missing how this works.</p><p>
'Sessions' has nothing to do with this. A session just means the server remember the variables, and just wants the ID of the session for each page load...but someone still has to remember the session between page loads, so it's exactly the same thing.</p><p>
The web is stateless. There is <b>one</b> good way to remember <b>anything</b> between page loads: Cookies.</p><p>
There are half a dozen of bad ways, from guessing based on IP and User Agent (Fails horribly on NAT), to embedding information in the URLs (Extremely dangerous as URLs get passed around), to other ways that I can't even think of because it's stupid to use them instead of the actual thing designed for this purpose.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , I could use buttons that trigger a php script and store the preference in a session variable .
Except that session variables use cookies .
Seriously , I see the weirdest comments here about people that are just inexplicably silly .
It 's like people are missing how this works .
'Sessions ' has nothing to do with this .
A session just means the server remember the variables , and just wants the ID of the session for each page load...but someone still has to remember the session between page loads , so it 's exactly the same thing .
The web is stateless .
There is one good way to remember anything between page loads : Cookies .
There are half a dozen of bad ways , from guessing based on IP and User Agent ( Fails horribly on NAT ) , to embedding information in the URLs ( Extremely dangerous as URLs get passed around ) , to other ways that I ca n't even think of because it 's stupid to use them instead of the actual thing designed for this purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sure, I could use buttons that trigger a php script and store the preference in a session variable.
Except that session variables use cookies.
Seriously, I see the weirdest comments here about people that are just inexplicably silly.
It's like people are missing how this works.
'Sessions' has nothing to do with this.
A session just means the server remember the variables, and just wants the ID of the session for each page load...but someone still has to remember the session between page loads, so it's exactly the same thing.
The web is stateless.
There is one good way to remember anything between page loads: Cookies.
There are half a dozen of bad ways, from guessing based on IP and User Agent (Fails horribly on NAT), to embedding information in the URLs (Extremely dangerous as URLs get passed around), to other ways that I can't even think of because it's stupid to use them instead of the actual thing designed for this purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087406</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087814</id>
	<title>A Return To Common Sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"...improve the user experience..."</p><p>This canned and automatic expression is used as the justification for every type of intrusive behavior that is practiced by commercial web operators.  I say: "Bull!"</p><p>Improving the user experience is very simple to accomplish without intrusion.  You need only to pretend that you are the average user and proceed to navigate the web site in question.  Any astute designer will immediatley discern where improvement is needed and where it is not needed.  People are basically the same.  If some aspect aspect of the design will irritate or please one, it will irritate or please all.</p><p>In fact, in the web sites that I create, this is the exact process I employ to analyze the user experience.  I do not badger innocent bystanders for their opinions.  I simply ask myself if the web site feels good to me.  If I can honestly answer in the affirmative then I can be reasonably confident that it will feel good to most others.</p><p>Intrusive practices need not replace tried-and-true, good-old-fashioned common sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ...improve the user experience... " This canned and automatic expression is used as the justification for every type of intrusive behavior that is practiced by commercial web operators .
I say : " Bull !
" Improving the user experience is very simple to accomplish without intrusion .
You need only to pretend that you are the average user and proceed to navigate the web site in question .
Any astute designer will immediatley discern where improvement is needed and where it is not needed .
People are basically the same .
If some aspect aspect of the design will irritate or please one , it will irritate or please all.In fact , in the web sites that I create , this is the exact process I employ to analyze the user experience .
I do not badger innocent bystanders for their opinions .
I simply ask myself if the web site feels good to me .
If I can honestly answer in the affirmative then I can be reasonably confident that it will feel good to most others.Intrusive practices need not replace tried-and-true , good-old-fashioned common sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"...improve the user experience..."This canned and automatic expression is used as the justification for every type of intrusive behavior that is practiced by commercial web operators.
I say: "Bull!
"Improving the user experience is very simple to accomplish without intrusion.
You need only to pretend that you are the average user and proceed to navigate the web site in question.
Any astute designer will immediatley discern where improvement is needed and where it is not needed.
People are basically the same.
If some aspect aspect of the design will irritate or please one, it will irritate or please all.In fact, in the web sites that I create, this is the exact process I employ to analyze the user experience.
I do not badger innocent bystanders for their opinions.
I simply ask myself if the web site feels good to me.
If I can honestly answer in the affirmative then I can be reasonably confident that it will feel good to most others.Intrusive practices need not replace tried-and-true, good-old-fashioned common sense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30101560</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258199160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most affiliate sites will credit you for a lead if a purchase comes through within 14 - 30 days, and it will be credited to the last affiliate to send a specific customer to the merchant site.<br>How do you propose the merchant track the anonymous would-be shopper without cookies?</p><p>Yes, I've worked with affiliate marketing for a couple of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most affiliate sites will credit you for a lead if a purchase comes through within 14 - 30 days , and it will be credited to the last affiliate to send a specific customer to the merchant site.How do you propose the merchant track the anonymous would-be shopper without cookies ? Yes , I 've worked with affiliate marketing for a couple of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most affiliate sites will credit you for a lead if a purchase comes through within 14 - 30 days, and it will be credited to the last affiliate to send a specific customer to the merchant site.How do you propose the merchant track the anonymous would-be shopper without cookies?Yes, I've worked with affiliate marketing for a couple of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087244</id>
	<title>They are a sometimes food.</title>
	<author>AP31R0N</author>
	<datestamp>1258130040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Om nom nom nom nom nom nom nom!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Om nom nom nom nom nom nom nom !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Om nom nom nom nom nom nom nom!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087460</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>AND btw, affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer, we do not need to identify the individual.</i></p><p>No, affiliate links want to identify the individual, they just dont know how to do it yet.  Computers dont click affiliate links, people do.<br>They want to know what makes one person click a link and another person not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>AND btw , affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer , we do not need to identify the individual.No , affiliate links want to identify the individual , they just dont know how to do it yet .
Computers dont click affiliate links , people do.They want to know what makes one person click a link and another person not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AND btw, affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer, we do not need to identify the individual.No, affiliate links want to identify the individual, they just dont know how to do it yet.
Computers dont click affiliate links, people do.They want to know what makes one person click a link and another person not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096062</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>julesh</author>
	<datestamp>1258195020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means, such as embedding a code in the URL, are available.</i></p><p>There are two problems with embedding codes in URLs for affiliate marketing.</p><p>1.  People copy links and send them to other people.  Search engines pull links out of web sites and index them.  If you only use a code in your URLs to identify origin of visitors, you can suddenly find you are paying an affiliate for customers that did not come directly from them, but only indirectly.</p><p>2.  Many affiliate schemes offer to pay the affiliate even if the customer goes away after clicking the link and then returns up to (e.g.) 30 days later.  This can only be implemented using cookies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means , such as embedding a code in the URL , are available.There are two problems with embedding codes in URLs for affiliate marketing.1 .
People copy links and send them to other people .
Search engines pull links out of web sites and index them .
If you only use a code in your URLs to identify origin of visitors , you can suddenly find you are paying an affiliate for customers that did not come directly from them , but only indirectly.2 .
Many affiliate schemes offer to pay the affiliate even if the customer goes away after clicking the link and then returns up to ( e.g .
) 30 days later .
This can only be implemented using cookies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means, such as embedding a code in the URL, are available.There are two problems with embedding codes in URLs for affiliate marketing.1.
People copy links and send them to other people.
Search engines pull links out of web sites and index them.
If you only use a code in your URLs to identify origin of visitors, you can suddenly find you are paying an affiliate for customers that did not come directly from them, but only indirectly.2.
Many affiliate schemes offer to pay the affiliate even if the customer goes away after clicking the link and then returns up to (e.g.
) 30 days later.
This can only be implemented using cookies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087766</id>
	<title>Nothing needs to change?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article goes on to quote the law, "Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application."</p><p>I take that to mean that if a user has chosen to accept cookies in their browser, the owner of the site can assume consent has been given and doesn't need to ask permission.  No additional text required?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The article goes on to quote the law , " Where it is technically possible and effective , in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC , the user 's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application .
" I take that to mean that if a user has chosen to accept cookies in their browser , the owner of the site can assume consent has been given and does n't need to ask permission .
No additional text required ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article goes on to quote the law, "Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application.
"I take that to mean that if a user has chosen to accept cookies in their browser, the owner of the site can assume consent has been given and doesn't need to ask permission.
No additional text required?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know this isn't going to be looked on well here, but here are my pro cookie, pro marketing comments...</p><p>1. Someone above complained about companies selling the data that they collect.  As though it's the most terrible thing in the world to do.  Guess what, every company that collects demographics about customers (grocery stores by example, the only way to not get tracked it to pay by cash.  You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile) and then sells them.  How many useful websites on the internet are driven by 1. Selling demographics, 2.) Ad revenue.  Making cookies opt-in kills both of those things.  How much is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. charging you guys?  Ask them what'll happen to their ad revenue if cookies are suddenly opt-in.  Yeah, they can still technically serve the ads, but they will no longer be as accurate to the viewer, nor will they be tracked as well... meaning less profitable for the ad agency and the publisher.</p><p>2. Affiliate marketing... There are a lot of other sites with good information (a book review site comes to mind) that I enjoy.  They all keep the site running by giving affiliate links to the products, say to a book on amazon.  Kill that for them, and you kill their revenue.</p><p>So, would you propose that the people running these sites force the customer to consent before they allow them to use their services?? No, that won't work because they can only make them accept to their cookie, not the one downstream they actually get paid on.  People have been so scared from cookie FUD that they will deny \%90 of the time, and STILL kill many sites because their revenue has dried up.</p><p>I think this law, if they have to make one, should be more specific and say what you CAN'T use cookies for.</p><p>AND btw, affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer, we do not need to identify the individual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know this is n't going to be looked on well here , but here are my pro cookie , pro marketing comments...1 .
Someone above complained about companies selling the data that they collect .
As though it 's the most terrible thing in the world to do .
Guess what , every company that collects demographics about customers ( grocery stores by example , the only way to not get tracked it to pay by cash .
You do n't need one of their store cards because they 'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile ) and then sells them .
How many useful websites on the internet are driven by 1 .
Selling demographics , 2 .
) Ad revenue .
Making cookies opt-in kills both of those things .
How much is / .
charging you guys ?
Ask them what 'll happen to their ad revenue if cookies are suddenly opt-in .
Yeah , they can still technically serve the ads , but they will no longer be as accurate to the viewer , nor will they be tracked as well... meaning less profitable for the ad agency and the publisher.2 .
Affiliate marketing... There are a lot of other sites with good information ( a book review site comes to mind ) that I enjoy .
They all keep the site running by giving affiliate links to the products , say to a book on amazon .
Kill that for them , and you kill their revenue.So , would you propose that the people running these sites force the customer to consent before they allow them to use their services ? ?
No , that wo n't work because they can only make them accept to their cookie , not the one downstream they actually get paid on .
People have been so scared from cookie FUD that they will deny \ % 90 of the time , and STILL kill many sites because their revenue has dried up.I think this law , if they have to make one , should be more specific and say what you CA N'T use cookies for.AND btw , affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer , we do not need to identify the individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know this isn't going to be looked on well here, but here are my pro cookie, pro marketing comments...1.
Someone above complained about companies selling the data that they collect.
As though it's the most terrible thing in the world to do.
Guess what, every company that collects demographics about customers (grocery stores by example, the only way to not get tracked it to pay by cash.
You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile) and then sells them.
How many useful websites on the internet are driven by 1.
Selling demographics, 2.
) Ad revenue.
Making cookies opt-in kills both of those things.
How much is /.
charging you guys?
Ask them what'll happen to their ad revenue if cookies are suddenly opt-in.
Yeah, they can still technically serve the ads, but they will no longer be as accurate to the viewer, nor will they be tracked as well... meaning less profitable for the ad agency and the publisher.2.
Affiliate marketing... There are a lot of other sites with good information (a book review site comes to mind) that I enjoy.
They all keep the site running by giving affiliate links to the products, say to a book on amazon.
Kill that for them, and you kill their revenue.So, would you propose that the people running these sites force the customer to consent before they allow them to use their services??
No, that won't work because they can only make them accept to their cookie, not the one downstream they actually get paid on.
People have been so scared from cookie FUD that they will deny \%90 of the time, and STILL kill many sites because their revenue has dried up.I think this law, if they have to make one, should be more specific and say what you CAN'T use cookies for.AND btw, affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer, we do not need to identify the individual.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087752</id>
	<title>Horrible summary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Submitter apparently is counting on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers to not follow links but merely form opniions from TFS.  This is presented as though it were a list of blogs bashing the new law from all angles... but in reality:</p><p>- The first link is to an old<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. entry.  TFS from that entry has an update acknowledging that the summary write-up is wrong and encouraging readers to RTFA, but its article link is broken.</p><p>- The 2nd link is to a blog hostile to the law.  Its writing style clearly shows bias.  It is light on facts or citations to authoritative references, and heavy on assumptions about how to interpret the law.</p><p>- The 3rd link is to another blog <i>disagreeing with the interpretation from the blog in the 2nd link</i>, and saying that the law doesn't really look that bad.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...and at that point I gave up.  This information just isn't important enough to me personally to justify continuing to navigate a dishonest compilation.</p><p>Here's an idea for future attempts: how about a link to the damned law?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Submitter apparently is counting on / .
readers to not follow links but merely form opniions from TFS .
This is presented as though it were a list of blogs bashing the new law from all angles... but in reality : - The first link is to an old / .
entry. TFS from that entry has an update acknowledging that the summary write-up is wrong and encouraging readers to RTFA , but its article link is broken.- The 2nd link is to a blog hostile to the law .
Its writing style clearly shows bias .
It is light on facts or citations to authoritative references , and heavy on assumptions about how to interpret the law.- The 3rd link is to another blog disagreeing with the interpretation from the blog in the 2nd link , and saying that the law does n't really look that bad .
...and at that point I gave up .
This information just is n't important enough to me personally to justify continuing to navigate a dishonest compilation.Here 's an idea for future attempts : how about a link to the damned law ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Submitter apparently is counting on /.
readers to not follow links but merely form opniions from TFS.
This is presented as though it were a list of blogs bashing the new law from all angles... but in reality:- The first link is to an old /.
entry.  TFS from that entry has an update acknowledging that the summary write-up is wrong and encouraging readers to RTFA, but its article link is broken.- The 2nd link is to a blog hostile to the law.
Its writing style clearly shows bias.
It is light on facts or citations to authoritative references, and heavy on assumptions about how to interpret the law.- The 3rd link is to another blog disagreeing with the interpretation from the blog in the 2nd link, and saying that the law doesn't really look that bad.
...and at that point I gave up.
This information just isn't important enough to me personally to justify continuing to navigate a dishonest compilation.Here's an idea for future attempts: how about a link to the damned law?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091426</id>
	<title>Re:This is pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258104780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I hope you enjoy long query strings, because everything is going to be passed from page to page.</i></p><p>
&nbsp; The only thing you need to pass is a session ID.  You get IP:port for free.  Store sessions in an SQL database and pass things you need to pass from page to page internally.  Only amateur-hour web sites use cookies or pass tons of crap in URLs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope you enjoy long query strings , because everything is going to be passed from page to page .
  The only thing you need to pass is a session ID .
You get IP : port for free .
Store sessions in an SQL database and pass things you need to pass from page to page internally .
Only amateur-hour web sites use cookies or pass tons of crap in URLs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope you enjoy long query strings, because everything is going to be passed from page to page.
  The only thing you need to pass is a session ID.
You get IP:port for free.
Store sessions in an SQL database and pass things you need to pass from page to page internally.
Only amateur-hour web sites use cookies or pass tons of crap in URLs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092428</id>
	<title>Incorrect Interpretation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258110060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think the interpretation of this poster or the article it links is correct.</p><p>The law says:<br>"Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application."</p><p>I think this means that if the user has cookies turned on in Firefox (or other browser)... the website can assume that the user has consented to the use of cookies. The user can auto decline by turning off cookie accepting.</p><p>This is normal and expected.</p><p>What I think the law is trying to do. Is to make sure that all browsers contain the ability to turn off/on cookies or perhaps allow the user to be prompted before accepting a new one.</p><p>I am saying that this law is about: MAKING SURE THE BROWSERS GIVE THE USER THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT/DECLINE COOKIES. Not the websites.</p><p>This is normal as configuration options in standard browsers. But not neccessarily for the non-standard ones... like poker clients and such.</p><p>I suspect that it is these companies who are concerned about this and trying to raise feathers.</p><p>My Opinion: Having the ability to turn on/off cookies in your software is a good thing. This is really looking out for the citizen. Good on you EU.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think the interpretation of this poster or the article it links is correct.The law says : " Where it is technically possible and effective , in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC , the user 's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application .
" I think this means that if the user has cookies turned on in Firefox ( or other browser ) ... the website can assume that the user has consented to the use of cookies .
The user can auto decline by turning off cookie accepting.This is normal and expected.What I think the law is trying to do .
Is to make sure that all browsers contain the ability to turn off/on cookies or perhaps allow the user to be prompted before accepting a new one.I am saying that this law is about : MAKING SURE THE BROWSERS GIVE THE USER THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT/DECLINE COOKIES .
Not the websites.This is normal as configuration options in standard browsers .
But not neccessarily for the non-standard ones... like poker clients and such.I suspect that it is these companies who are concerned about this and trying to raise feathers.My Opinion : Having the ability to turn on/off cookies in your software is a good thing .
This is really looking out for the citizen .
Good on you EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think the interpretation of this poster or the article it links is correct.The law says:"Where it is technically possible and effective, in accordance with the relevant provisions of Directive 95/46/EC, the user's consent to processing may be expressed by using the appropriate settings of a browser or other application.
"I think this means that if the user has cookies turned on in Firefox (or other browser)... the website can assume that the user has consented to the use of cookies.
The user can auto decline by turning off cookie accepting.This is normal and expected.What I think the law is trying to do.
Is to make sure that all browsers contain the ability to turn off/on cookies or perhaps allow the user to be prompted before accepting a new one.I am saying that this law is about: MAKING SURE THE BROWSERS GIVE THE USER THE ABILITY TO ACCEPT/DECLINE COOKIES.
Not the websites.This is normal as configuration options in standard browsers.
But not neccessarily for the non-standard ones... like poker clients and such.I suspect that it is these companies who are concerned about this and trying to raise feathers.My Opinion: Having the ability to turn on/off cookies in your software is a good thing.
This is really looking out for the citizen.
Good on you EU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088374</id>
	<title>Date?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258135680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since when is October 31 2001 considered a couple of weeks ago?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since when is October 31 2001 considered a couple of weeks ago ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since when is October 31 2001 considered a couple of weeks ago?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30095326</id>
	<title>Fuck THAT</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1258137960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you don't want to have your information collected about a visit, then don't visit.  You are essentially asking the government to pass a law that requires owners to lie and say you were not at their store, when you were.  Frankly, I'm about 90\% tempted to organize a strike on purchasing US Gov't bonds and bankrupt the Feds, just because its way more abused than any fucking cookie is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't want to have your information collected about a visit , then do n't visit .
You are essentially asking the government to pass a law that requires owners to lie and say you were not at their store , when you were .
Frankly , I 'm about 90 \ % tempted to organize a strike on purchasing US Gov't bonds and bankrupt the Feds , just because its way more abused than any fucking cookie is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't want to have your information collected about a visit, then don't visit.
You are essentially asking the government to pass a law that requires owners to lie and say you were not at their store, when you were.
Frankly, I'm about 90\% tempted to organize a strike on purchasing US Gov't bonds and bankrupt the Feds, just because its way more abused than any fucking cookie is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087418</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087216</id>
	<title>Are there any paranoids in the audience tonight?</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1258129920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> I know most of you guys hate cookies in general,</p></div></blockquote><p>To quote Roger Waters: "Are there any paranoids in the audience tonight? Is there anybody who worries about things? Pathetic. "</p><p>Seriously. Not "most of us" hate cookies. A paranoid few do.</p><p>If it weren't for cookies, this site wouldn't remember my login. Google apps wouldn't work well. The browser would not retain my per-site preferences.</p><p>I rarely ever clear cookies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know most of you guys hate cookies in general,To quote Roger Waters : " Are there any paranoids in the audience tonight ?
Is there anybody who worries about things ?
Pathetic. " Seriously .
Not " most of us " hate cookies .
A paranoid few do.If it were n't for cookies , this site would n't remember my login .
Google apps would n't work well .
The browser would not retain my per-site preferences.I rarely ever clear cookies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I know most of you guys hate cookies in general,To quote Roger Waters: "Are there any paranoids in the audience tonight?
Is there anybody who worries about things?
Pathetic. "Seriously.
Not "most of us" hate cookies.
A paranoid few do.If it weren't for cookies, this site wouldn't remember my login.
Google apps wouldn't work well.
The browser would not retain my per-site preferences.I rarely ever clear cookies.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087110</id>
	<title>Cookies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well then, I guess I won't be going to europe for a while... Banning cookies... how can people enjoy chocolate chip or macadamia nut now??<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Worst. Joke. Ever. Sorry Folks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then , I guess I wo n't be going to europe for a while... Banning cookies... how can people enjoy chocolate chip or macadamia nut now ? ?
... Worst .
Joke. Ever .
Sorry Folks : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then, I guess I won't be going to europe for a while... Banning cookies... how can people enjoy chocolate chip or macadamia nut now??
... Worst.
Joke. Ever.
Sorry Folks :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089184</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>alexborges</author>
	<datestamp>1258139040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bro. Forget that. This cripples the net for the euros. Id be making a revolution just about now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bro .
Forget that .
This cripples the net for the euros .
Id be making a revolution just about now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bro.
Forget that.
This cripples the net for the euros.
Id be making a revolution just about now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086958</id>
	<title>Come on</title>
	<author>gbarules2999</author>
	<datestamp>1258128660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey, Mr. Summary, enough with the fair and balanced. Make up my mind for me on this issue! Where does this law stand?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey , Mr. Summary , enough with the fair and balanced .
Make up my mind for me on this issue !
Where does this law stand ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey, Mr. Summary, enough with the fair and balanced.
Make up my mind for me on this issue!
Where does this law stand?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088380</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258135680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fallacious argument on several levels, and easily seen, too: Most people using the software don't know the details about cookies. It's the server that asks the client software to store-and-pass-back a bit of info, and most such client software does this silently by default. Thus: It was the programmer or packager of the software that gave the consent, not the user. Then, the cookies are opaque and otherwise incomprehensible to, amortized, everyone. That is no basis to give consent on. And then there are servers that force users to accept cookies <b>or else</b> they (claim they) won't work right or refuse access at all, means that there is often no real choice.</p><p>Basically you say that it's perfectly alright and you're not allowed to complain about being forced to sign away your first born and/or your soul through contracts written in Swahili every time you go to a shop, go to a movie, whatnot. ``You're the one signing, bud.'' Syeah right.</p><p>If the law says this should be changed, I'm all for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fallacious argument on several levels , and easily seen , too : Most people using the software do n't know the details about cookies .
It 's the server that asks the client software to store-and-pass-back a bit of info , and most such client software does this silently by default .
Thus : It was the programmer or packager of the software that gave the consent , not the user .
Then , the cookies are opaque and otherwise incomprehensible to , amortized , everyone .
That is no basis to give consent on .
And then there are servers that force users to accept cookies or else they ( claim they ) wo n't work right or refuse access at all , means that there is often no real choice.Basically you say that it 's perfectly alright and you 're not allowed to complain about being forced to sign away your first born and/or your soul through contracts written in Swahili every time you go to a shop , go to a movie , whatnot .
` ` You 're the one signing , bud .
' ' Syeah right.If the law says this should be changed , I 'm all for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fallacious argument on several levels, and easily seen, too: Most people using the software don't know the details about cookies.
It's the server that asks the client software to store-and-pass-back a bit of info, and most such client software does this silently by default.
Thus: It was the programmer or packager of the software that gave the consent, not the user.
Then, the cookies are opaque and otherwise incomprehensible to, amortized, everyone.
That is no basis to give consent on.
And then there are servers that force users to accept cookies or else they (claim they) won't work right or refuse access at all, means that there is often no real choice.Basically you say that it's perfectly alright and you're not allowed to complain about being forced to sign away your first born and/or your soul through contracts written in Swahili every time you go to a shop, go to a movie, whatnot.
``You're the one signing, bud.
'' Syeah right.If the law says this should be changed, I'm all for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087020</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1258129080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Polls.<br>On sites with thousands of clicks per second.<br>The cookie is fast and dirty method of determining whether given user has already voted in the poll or not.<br>To keep the results honest, the site keeps a database of IP numbers and ignores repeated votes of bots that ignore cookies or users who delete them, but for 99.9\% of visitors the cookie is a perfectly adequate method and allows zero server-side intervention to distinguish between the content to be displayed (questions/results) and preliminary allowing of the vote.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Polls.On sites with thousands of clicks per second.The cookie is fast and dirty method of determining whether given user has already voted in the poll or not.To keep the results honest , the site keeps a database of IP numbers and ignores repeated votes of bots that ignore cookies or users who delete them , but for 99.9 \ % of visitors the cookie is a perfectly adequate method and allows zero server-side intervention to distinguish between the content to be displayed ( questions/results ) and preliminary allowing of the vote .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polls.On sites with thousands of clicks per second.The cookie is fast and dirty method of determining whether given user has already voted in the poll or not.To keep the results honest, the site keeps a database of IP numbers and ignores repeated votes of bots that ignore cookies or users who delete them, but for 99.9\% of visitors the cookie is a perfectly adequate method and allows zero server-side intervention to distinguish between the content to be displayed (questions/results) and preliminary allowing of the vote.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087638</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258131960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Opera can all be configured to do this. I suspect that Safari can as well, with maybe Chrome not doing this (because it has so few features.)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Firefox , Internet Explorer , and Opera can all be configured to do this .
I suspect that Safari can as well , with maybe Chrome not doing this ( because it has so few features .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Firefox, Internet Explorer, and Opera can all be configured to do this.
I suspect that Safari can as well, with maybe Chrome not doing this (because it has so few features.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088420</id>
	<title>Re:reasonable</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258135980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, so if people don't know any better, how is the consent going to be considered "informed" in any way?</p><p>I understand your point, but problem cannot be solved through consent if the users don't understand what they are consenting to.  And if they understood what they were consenting to, they'd know they ALREADY HAVE the tools to block cookies if they want to.</p><p>You can easily simulate the effectiveness and impact of this new law.</p><p>Pick 100 people who call their desktop computer case "the hard drive".   Ask all of them if they know what a third-party cookie is and eliminate anyone who doesn't say something about frosting.  I mean no insult to inexperienced computer users here - but you need to find people "who don't know any better".</p><p>Put them in front of a fresh install of {Firefox, Opera, IE} with "ask about every cookie" turned on.</p><p>After two hours, you'll experience one of four behaviors:</p><p>1.  The cleverest will simply find a way to turn the prompts off and leave cookies on.  You'll get a lot more of these if you leave a 10-year-old kid in the room.<br>2.  Some will say "no" every time, and will complain that the Internet has a lot of problems, can't seem to remember things, and why are they being asked about dessert all the time?<br>3.  Some will say "yes" every time and simply gripe about all the stupid boxes asking permission for cookies all the time.  But at least the Internet remembers things.<br>4.  Some will see their first prompt and get educated.  Again, see the point about having a 10-year-old in the room.  Those who gain an understanding about the various uses for cookies will make an informed choice on every cookie for every site.  Am I at yro.slashdot and I'm getting a cookie for login.slashdot?  That's probably good.  Am I getting a cookie for ads.thetrackingcompany?  Probably not so good, depending on your personal feelings on tracking.  They will make a nuanced, informed decisions about each cookie.</p><p>#4 will last, depending on the perseverance of the user, for anywhere between 1 minute and several days.  Then they'll revert to #1, because it's a shitload of work for little actual security benefit.  Some might only prompt for third-party cookies, that'll last for a week or two.  Then they'll revert to #1 as well.</p><p>Oh, wait, #1 would be made illegal under EU law.</p><p>Now imagine, instead of a consistent per-cookie prompt, tens of thousands of companies having to implement this in HTML with no consistent wording, no consistent way to say yes or no, no consistent way of tracking that permission has in fact been given, no way to change permission on the user end once it's been given or denied (or conflicting/inconsistent ways to do so).</p><p>Your educated, informed users are going to be horribly inconvenienced and deeply regret the passage of this law, because they've already made their decision in their browser settings.  Your least educated, least informed users are going to either piss and moan about the new thingies they have to click on to access every single site they visit and be no better educated than they are today, or they'll quickly become a more informed user and piss and moan, but with an understanding of what is annoying them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , so if people do n't know any better , how is the consent going to be considered " informed " in any way ? I understand your point , but problem can not be solved through consent if the users do n't understand what they are consenting to .
And if they understood what they were consenting to , they 'd know they ALREADY HAVE the tools to block cookies if they want to.You can easily simulate the effectiveness and impact of this new law.Pick 100 people who call their desktop computer case " the hard drive " .
Ask all of them if they know what a third-party cookie is and eliminate anyone who does n't say something about frosting .
I mean no insult to inexperienced computer users here - but you need to find people " who do n't know any better " .Put them in front of a fresh install of { Firefox , Opera , IE } with " ask about every cookie " turned on.After two hours , you 'll experience one of four behaviors : 1 .
The cleverest will simply find a way to turn the prompts off and leave cookies on .
You 'll get a lot more of these if you leave a 10-year-old kid in the room.2 .
Some will say " no " every time , and will complain that the Internet has a lot of problems , ca n't seem to remember things , and why are they being asked about dessert all the time ? 3 .
Some will say " yes " every time and simply gripe about all the stupid boxes asking permission for cookies all the time .
But at least the Internet remembers things.4 .
Some will see their first prompt and get educated .
Again , see the point about having a 10-year-old in the room .
Those who gain an understanding about the various uses for cookies will make an informed choice on every cookie for every site .
Am I at yro.slashdot and I 'm getting a cookie for login.slashdot ?
That 's probably good .
Am I getting a cookie for ads.thetrackingcompany ?
Probably not so good , depending on your personal feelings on tracking .
They will make a nuanced , informed decisions about each cookie. # 4 will last , depending on the perseverance of the user , for anywhere between 1 minute and several days .
Then they 'll revert to # 1 , because it 's a shitload of work for little actual security benefit .
Some might only prompt for third-party cookies , that 'll last for a week or two .
Then they 'll revert to # 1 as well.Oh , wait , # 1 would be made illegal under EU law.Now imagine , instead of a consistent per-cookie prompt , tens of thousands of companies having to implement this in HTML with no consistent wording , no consistent way to say yes or no , no consistent way of tracking that permission has in fact been given , no way to change permission on the user end once it 's been given or denied ( or conflicting/inconsistent ways to do so ) .Your educated , informed users are going to be horribly inconvenienced and deeply regret the passage of this law , because they 've already made their decision in their browser settings .
Your least educated , least informed users are going to either piss and moan about the new thingies they have to click on to access every single site they visit and be no better educated than they are today , or they 'll quickly become a more informed user and piss and moan , but with an understanding of what is annoying them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, so if people don't know any better, how is the consent going to be considered "informed" in any way?I understand your point, but problem cannot be solved through consent if the users don't understand what they are consenting to.
And if they understood what they were consenting to, they'd know they ALREADY HAVE the tools to block cookies if they want to.You can easily simulate the effectiveness and impact of this new law.Pick 100 people who call their desktop computer case "the hard drive".
Ask all of them if they know what a third-party cookie is and eliminate anyone who doesn't say something about frosting.
I mean no insult to inexperienced computer users here - but you need to find people "who don't know any better".Put them in front of a fresh install of {Firefox, Opera, IE} with "ask about every cookie" turned on.After two hours, you'll experience one of four behaviors:1.
The cleverest will simply find a way to turn the prompts off and leave cookies on.
You'll get a lot more of these if you leave a 10-year-old kid in the room.2.
Some will say "no" every time, and will complain that the Internet has a lot of problems, can't seem to remember things, and why are they being asked about dessert all the time?3.
Some will say "yes" every time and simply gripe about all the stupid boxes asking permission for cookies all the time.
But at least the Internet remembers things.4.
Some will see their first prompt and get educated.
Again, see the point about having a 10-year-old in the room.
Those who gain an understanding about the various uses for cookies will make an informed choice on every cookie for every site.
Am I at yro.slashdot and I'm getting a cookie for login.slashdot?
That's probably good.
Am I getting a cookie for ads.thetrackingcompany?
Probably not so good, depending on your personal feelings on tracking.
They will make a nuanced, informed decisions about each cookie.#4 will last, depending on the perseverance of the user, for anywhere between 1 minute and several days.
Then they'll revert to #1, because it's a shitload of work for little actual security benefit.
Some might only prompt for third-party cookies, that'll last for a week or two.
Then they'll revert to #1 as well.Oh, wait, #1 would be made illegal under EU law.Now imagine, instead of a consistent per-cookie prompt, tens of thousands of companies having to implement this in HTML with no consistent wording, no consistent way to say yes or no, no consistent way of tracking that permission has in fact been given, no way to change permission on the user end once it's been given or denied (or conflicting/inconsistent ways to do so).Your educated, informed users are going to be horribly inconvenienced and deeply regret the passage of this law, because they've already made their decision in their browser settings.
Your least educated, least informed users are going to either piss and moan about the new thingies they have to click on to access every single site they visit and be no better educated than they are today, or they'll quickly become a more informed user and piss and moan, but with an understanding of what is annoying them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089286</id>
	<title>Re:Transparency is the name of the game</title>
	<author>ducomputergeek</author>
	<datestamp>1258139340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you read the privacy policy of every single web page you visit?</p><p>We use cookies as part of our shopping cart.  All the cookie does is keep track of what products are currently in your cart.  I'd much rather use a cookie to do this than have every page or every button send a call to the database to check the contents of your cart.  By having the cookie do this, it saves a lot of database resources when the site is busy.</p><p>Your user id and log in info are tracked via a session.  They don't get linked until you click "submit order" and the order is saved in the database.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you read the privacy policy of every single web page you visit ? We use cookies as part of our shopping cart .
All the cookie does is keep track of what products are currently in your cart .
I 'd much rather use a cookie to do this than have every page or every button send a call to the database to check the contents of your cart .
By having the cookie do this , it saves a lot of database resources when the site is busy.Your user id and log in info are tracked via a session .
They do n't get linked until you click " submit order " and the order is saved in the database .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you read the privacy policy of every single web page you visit?We use cookies as part of our shopping cart.
All the cookie does is keep track of what products are currently in your cart.
I'd much rather use a cookie to do this than have every page or every button send a call to the database to check the contents of your cart.
By having the cookie do this, it saves a lot of database resources when the site is busy.Your user id and log in info are tracked via a session.
They don't get linked until you click "submit order" and the order is saved in the database.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087700</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>Idaho</author>
	<datestamp>1258132320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.</p><blockquote><div><p>I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to <b>shove more targeted ads in the face of</b> the user."</p></div></blockquote><p>There, fixed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly.I know most of you guys hate cookies in general , but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to shove more targeted ads in the face of the user .
" There , fixed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to shove more targeted ads in the face of the user.
"There, fixed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30107016</id>
	<title>Re:Cookies?</title>
	<author>metaforest</author>
	<datestamp>1258312200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Well then, I guess I won't be going to europe for a while... Banning cookies... how can people enjoy chocolate chip or macadamia nut now??<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... Worst. Joke. Ever. Sorry Folks<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div><p>Don't quit your day job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well then , I guess I wo n't be going to europe for a while... Banning cookies... how can people enjoy chocolate chip or macadamia nut now ? ?
... Worst .
Joke. Ever .
Sorry Folks : ) Do n't quit your day job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well then, I guess I won't be going to europe for a while... Banning cookies... how can people enjoy chocolate chip or macadamia nut now??
... Worst.
Joke. Ever.
Sorry Folks :)Don't quit your day job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30097916</id>
	<title>so as i understand it..</title>
	<author>lenswipe</author>
	<datestamp>1258217880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...The EU wants to outright ban cookies altogether?

So for example websites will have no way of tracking logins, meaning you will have to login on every single page?


Becuase if so, to me thats just nothing short of retarded.....having said that...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...This is the EU, so i cant say im really surprised...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....Just disgusted as ever with them

-L</htmltext>
<tokenext>...The EU wants to outright ban cookies altogether ?
So for example websites will have no way of tracking logins , meaning you will have to login on every single page ?
Becuase if so , to me thats just nothing short of retarded.....having said that... ...This is the EU , so i cant say im really surprised... ....Just disgusted as ever with them -L</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...The EU wants to outright ban cookies altogether?
So for example websites will have no way of tracking logins, meaning you will have to login on every single page?
Becuase if so, to me thats just nothing short of retarded.....having said that... ...This is the EU, so i cant say im really surprised... ....Just disgusted as ever with them

-L</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091122</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>alta</author>
	<datestamp>1258103400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How can you practically identify the affiliate of a returning visitor 3 days after they initially used that link, considering that they have NOT created a login, to log back into?</p><p>You must realize that most sales are NOT from the first visit, but average around the 3rd.  The higher ticket the item, the more touches it takes.</p><p>Keep in mind that referrer tracking is unreliable because a link from an email either has no referrer or it's from the webmail provider.</p><p>The situation I describe covers the majority of internet sales, a workable alternative would be great.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you practically identify the affiliate of a returning visitor 3 days after they initially used that link , considering that they have NOT created a login , to log back into ? You must realize that most sales are NOT from the first visit , but average around the 3rd .
The higher ticket the item , the more touches it takes.Keep in mind that referrer tracking is unreliable because a link from an email either has no referrer or it 's from the webmail provider.The situation I describe covers the majority of internet sales , a workable alternative would be great .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you practically identify the affiliate of a returning visitor 3 days after they initially used that link, considering that they have NOT created a login, to log back into?You must realize that most sales are NOT from the first visit, but average around the 3rd.
The higher ticket the item, the more touches it takes.Keep in mind that referrer tracking is unreliable because a link from an email either has no referrer or it's from the webmail provider.The situation I describe covers the majority of internet sales, a workable alternative would be great.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087792</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1258132740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if you don't like cookies, you can already disable them in your browser.  I fail to see how this should be mandated on the server side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if you do n't like cookies , you can already disable them in your browser .
I fail to see how this should be mandated on the server side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if you don't like cookies, you can already disable them in your browser.
I fail to see how this should be mandated on the server side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087406</id>
	<title>Re:Are there any paranoids in the audience tonight</title>
	<author>vitriolum</author>
	<datestamp>1258130880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm with you on this one.  For instance, I run a site that allows users to adjust the text size with handy javascript buttons.  Cookies are what lets the site remember what text size a user prefers when they come back.

Sure, I could use buttons that trigger a php script and store the preference in a session variable. But, then their preference is only saved for the duration of the session, and they have to reload the page just to change text size one notch... why bother?

If we need cookie legislation, it should be crafted to target the problematic areas of the technology -- not the entire concept.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you on this one .
For instance , I run a site that allows users to adjust the text size with handy javascript buttons .
Cookies are what lets the site remember what text size a user prefers when they come back .
Sure , I could use buttons that trigger a php script and store the preference in a session variable .
But , then their preference is only saved for the duration of the session , and they have to reload the page just to change text size one notch... why bother ?
If we need cookie legislation , it should be crafted to target the problematic areas of the technology -- not the entire concept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you on this one.
For instance, I run a site that allows users to adjust the text size with handy javascript buttons.
Cookies are what lets the site remember what text size a user prefers when they come back.
Sure, I could use buttons that trigger a php script and store the preference in a session variable.
But, then their preference is only saved for the duration of the session, and they have to reload the page just to change text size one notch... why bother?
If we need cookie legislation, it should be crafted to target the problematic areas of the technology -- not the entire concept.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087216</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087734</id>
	<title>Re:Do We Really Need Cookies?</title>
	<author>unix1</author>
	<datestamp>1258132560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ask yourself; what can be accomplished with a cookie that can't be accomplished using alternative mechanisms. Try thinking outside the box you've been in for the last 15 years.</p></div><p>So, what are you saying - all flash sites? SPDY protocol? AJAX apps? Because that's a very vague statement that means absolutely nothing.</p><p>Cookies are used to perform session management within a stateless protocol that is HTTP. Since the browser automatically passes headers with every request (cookies are part of those headers) that is how the server knows which user is returning from one page to the next. Sure there are other ways - embed session identifiers with every GET/POST request - i.e. you'll need to store those identifiers with your links and HTML form elements. However, that's a <b>horrible</b> idea - think of security/privacy implications when saving and sending web page content, or saving and sending links that contain an authenticated session identifiers embedded in them. It's just really stupid.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask yourself ; what can be accomplished with a cookie that ca n't be accomplished using alternative mechanisms .
Try thinking outside the box you 've been in for the last 15 years.So , what are you saying - all flash sites ?
SPDY protocol ?
AJAX apps ?
Because that 's a very vague statement that means absolutely nothing.Cookies are used to perform session management within a stateless protocol that is HTTP .
Since the browser automatically passes headers with every request ( cookies are part of those headers ) that is how the server knows which user is returning from one page to the next .
Sure there are other ways - embed session identifiers with every GET/POST request - i.e .
you 'll need to store those identifiers with your links and HTML form elements .
However , that 's a horrible idea - think of security/privacy implications when saving and sending web page content , or saving and sending links that contain an authenticated session identifiers embedded in them .
It 's just really stupid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask yourself; what can be accomplished with a cookie that can't be accomplished using alternative mechanisms.
Try thinking outside the box you've been in for the last 15 years.So, what are you saying - all flash sites?
SPDY protocol?
AJAX apps?
Because that's a very vague statement that means absolutely nothing.Cookies are used to perform session management within a stateless protocol that is HTTP.
Since the browser automatically passes headers with every request (cookies are part of those headers) that is how the server knows which user is returning from one page to the next.
Sure there are other ways - embed session identifiers with every GET/POST request - i.e.
you'll need to store those identifiers with your links and HTML form elements.
However, that's a horrible idea - think of security/privacy implications when saving and sending web page content, or saving and sending links that contain an authenticated session identifiers embedded in them.
It's just really stupid.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086768</id>
	<title>1st</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258127760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First Cookie!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First Cookie !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First Cookie!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088082</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>OzRoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258134000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think you understand how modern affiliate marketing works.</p><p>These days a lot of affiliates get paid a commission based on sales, not on leads. So if you click on a banner ad and don't buy anything the affiliate gets paid nothing. This means every individual customer needs to be identified along with which affiliate they came from etc etc. Now you could do all that by dropping a unique click reference into the url, but that limits the purchase window to a single session. In other words, if the customer bookmarks the site, closes the browser and then makes a purchase a few days later the affiliate gets nothing.</p><p>The only way to track the customer effectively and in a way that is fair for the affiliate is to use some form of persistent data packet like a cookie.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think you understand how modern affiliate marketing works.These days a lot of affiliates get paid a commission based on sales , not on leads .
So if you click on a banner ad and do n't buy anything the affiliate gets paid nothing .
This means every individual customer needs to be identified along with which affiliate they came from etc etc .
Now you could do all that by dropping a unique click reference into the url , but that limits the purchase window to a single session .
In other words , if the customer bookmarks the site , closes the browser and then makes a purchase a few days later the affiliate gets nothing.The only way to track the customer effectively and in a way that is fair for the affiliate is to use some form of persistent data packet like a cookie .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think you understand how modern affiliate marketing works.These days a lot of affiliates get paid a commission based on sales, not on leads.
So if you click on a banner ad and don't buy anything the affiliate gets paid nothing.
This means every individual customer needs to be identified along with which affiliate they came from etc etc.
Now you could do all that by dropping a unique click reference into the url, but that limits the purchase window to a single session.
In other words, if the customer bookmarks the site, closes the browser and then makes a purchase a few days later the affiliate gets nothing.The only way to track the customer effectively and in a way that is fair for the affiliate is to use some form of persistent data packet like a cookie.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087562</id>
	<title>If you need cookies for that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user."</p><p>If you need cookies to work out that, you need to think what the FECK you're writing there.</p><p>Your website should be simple to get around (so ACCESS logs are sufficient) and present the information needed (so you'll want people's feedback or test subjects). But nowhere do you need a cookie to find out how to "improve the experience".</p><p>PS How would cookies help in improving the eXPerience here?</p><p>"It's been 56 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"</p><p>?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I know most of you guys hate cookies in general , but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user .
" If you need cookies to work out that , you need to think what the FECK you 're writing there.Your website should be simple to get around ( so ACCESS logs are sufficient ) and present the information needed ( so you 'll want people 's feedback or test subjects ) .
But nowhere do you need a cookie to find out how to " improve the experience " .PS How would cookies help in improving the eXPerience here ?
" It 's been 56 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.
"If you need cookies to work out that, you need to think what the FECK you're writing there.Your website should be simple to get around (so ACCESS logs are sufficient) and present the information needed (so you'll want people's feedback or test subjects).
But nowhere do you need a cookie to find out how to "improve the experience".PS How would cookies help in improving the eXPerience here?
"It's been 56 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090738</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree with the EU legislation.</title>
	<author>harlows\_monkeys</author>
	<datestamp>1258144920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> firstly, its not all cookies, just those that are not directly related to the operation of the site the user went to</p></div><p>That's not correct. The exception is for cookies that are <b>strictly</b> necessary. That effectively means almost all cookies, since almost all uses of cookies can be eliminated, albeit painfully and expensively.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>firstly , its not all cookies , just those that are not directly related to the operation of the site the user went toThat 's not correct .
The exception is for cookies that are strictly necessary .
That effectively means almost all cookies , since almost all uses of cookies can be eliminated , albeit painfully and expensively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> firstly, its not all cookies, just those that are not directly related to the operation of the site the user went toThat's not correct.
The exception is for cookies that are strictly necessary.
That effectively means almost all cookies, since almost all uses of cookies can be eliminated, albeit painfully and expensively.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092634</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258111440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a tit - "does NOT" implies that absolutely everyone uses the exact same solutions for everything. Don't be a dink.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a tit - " does NOT " implies that absolutely everyone uses the exact same solutions for everything .
Do n't be a dink .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a tit - "does NOT" implies that absolutely everyone uses the exact same solutions for everything.
Don't be a dink.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30129800</id>
	<title>legislate the effect, not the tool</title>
	<author>feepcreature</author>
	<datestamp>1258477260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But (given the speed technology moves at, and the slowness of laws "catching up"), it makes more sense to legislate what people can and cannot do, rather than the technology they use.</p><p>So if the problem is tracking users without warning them, ban that - and make the ban apply whether they use cookies, flash cookies, or magic spy-rays from their monitors. Just like the law forbids murder, without a special law for murder with guns, murder with hammers, murder with rolling pins.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But ( given the speed technology moves at , and the slowness of laws " catching up " ) , it makes more sense to legislate what people can and can not do , rather than the technology they use.So if the problem is tracking users without warning them , ban that - and make the ban apply whether they use cookies , flash cookies , or magic spy-rays from their monitors .
Just like the law forbids murder , without a special law for murder with guns , murder with hammers , murder with rolling pins .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But (given the speed technology moves at, and the slowness of laws "catching up"), it makes more sense to legislate what people can and cannot do, rather than the technology they use.So if the problem is tracking users without warning them, ban that - and make the ban apply whether they use cookies, flash cookies, or magic spy-rays from their monitors.
Just like the law forbids murder, without a special law for murder with guns, murder with hammers, murder with rolling pins.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092516</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088988</id>
	<title>Re:A few bad uses = all bad?</title>
	<author>Dumnezeu</author>
	<datestamp>1258138260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is not the web site, but the browser. Web browsers shouldn't just accept cookies from anyone, they should ask for permission first. If I remember correctly, there was at least some version of IE or Netscape that used to do this and I always just clicked yes and found it extremely annoying. Everyone else did as well. Maybe the W3C or something similar should use something like "any application that could accept cookies should always ask permission from the user unless otherwise specifically chosen by the user" as a standard (the way lynx does it). I'm sure Firefox would jump in immediately, Chrome, Safari and Opera would also follow and eventually IE.<br><br>The web sites are not the problem, they only ask the browser to store a cookie and the browser does this blindly. The web site does not store any tracking information on the user's computer, the browser does.<br><br>The web browsers should be regulated instead of the web sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is not the web site , but the browser .
Web browsers should n't just accept cookies from anyone , they should ask for permission first .
If I remember correctly , there was at least some version of IE or Netscape that used to do this and I always just clicked yes and found it extremely annoying .
Everyone else did as well .
Maybe the W3C or something similar should use something like " any application that could accept cookies should always ask permission from the user unless otherwise specifically chosen by the user " as a standard ( the way lynx does it ) .
I 'm sure Firefox would jump in immediately , Chrome , Safari and Opera would also follow and eventually IE.The web sites are not the problem , they only ask the browser to store a cookie and the browser does this blindly .
The web site does not store any tracking information on the user 's computer , the browser does.The web browsers should be regulated instead of the web sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is not the web site, but the browser.
Web browsers shouldn't just accept cookies from anyone, they should ask for permission first.
If I remember correctly, there was at least some version of IE or Netscape that used to do this and I always just clicked yes and found it extremely annoying.
Everyone else did as well.
Maybe the W3C or something similar should use something like "any application that could accept cookies should always ask permission from the user unless otherwise specifically chosen by the user" as a standard (the way lynx does it).
I'm sure Firefox would jump in immediately, Chrome, Safari and Opera would also follow and eventually IE.The web sites are not the problem, they only ask the browser to store a cookie and the browser does this blindly.
The web site does not store any tracking information on the user's computer, the browser does.The web browsers should be regulated instead of the web sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087254</id>
	<title>Really badly written...</title>
	<author>interval1066</author>
	<datestamp>1258130100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who wrote this piece? English must be their second language...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who wrote this piece ?
English must be their second language.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who wrote this piece?
English must be their second language...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093812</id>
	<title>I'm all for it</title>
	<author>phoenix182</author>
	<datestamp>1258120020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm more or less opposed to marketing and advertising, unless it's opt-in and directed. I'm 100\% pro-privacy. I'm mostly anti-corporate and anti-government. Given all that, I'm pretty much behind the law. I'd like to see far wider and more impacting laws like this all over the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm more or less opposed to marketing and advertising , unless it 's opt-in and directed .
I 'm 100 \ % pro-privacy .
I 'm mostly anti-corporate and anti-government .
Given all that , I 'm pretty much behind the law .
I 'd like to see far wider and more impacting laws like this all over the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm more or less opposed to marketing and advertising, unless it's opt-in and directed.
I'm 100\% pro-privacy.
I'm mostly anti-corporate and anti-government.
Given all that, I'm pretty much behind the law.
I'd like to see far wider and more impacting laws like this all over the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088036</id>
	<title>Honorable Free Market Transaction?</title>
	<author>Bob9113</author>
	<datestamp>1258133820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.</i></p><p>First a disclaimer, or a proclaimer if you prefer: I am in the affiliate marketing business, and a big chunk of my earnings come from writing behavioral analysis code (linear algebra, massive matrix calculations).</p><p><i>Here's what's coming. The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".</i></p><p><i>An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user - so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent. Other cookies will require prior consent, though.</i></p><p>I've got to say, that sounds right to me. This seems to be saying that things which are an explicit part of the user's intent are fair game (shopping, site configuration, etc). While the surreptitious stuff that a user is unlikely to be aware of is not -- the user must be informed.</p><p>One of the fundamental principles of free market economics is that the parties to a transaction must be informed. If I am going to take a person's behavioral information I need to inform them that I am doing so. Frankly, if I'm going to use the information I have taken from them to make a profit, I would hope that the user would want a piece of the action. The information was created by them, it has value, it only seems right that they should have the option of asking me for a cut or denying me the information.</p><p>I'm not questioning the fact that this will sharply hinder the behavioral analytics business. It will. It will cost a lot of companies a lot of money. But here's the question for a true lover of the free market: Is that information yours by virtue of a just transaction, or is it that the creator of the information does not know it is being taken and you can get away with it? If the latter, is that really in accord with the noblest principles of Western economics?</p><p>Moreover, note that this is talking specifically about cookies, which are data stored on the user's computer. So even if you are still uncomfortable with the idea, answer this: What gives you the right to write to the user's hard drive without their express or implied consent? If it were the case that most web users understood what cookies were or what they are used for, you might be able to say that not turning cookies off is implied consent. But is that the case? Ask the average idiot about their cookies. Then show them what they are really doing, and watch the look on their face. I've done it, it is enlightening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.First a disclaimer , or a proclaimer if you prefer : I am in the affiliate marketing business , and a big chunk of my earnings come from writing behavioral analysis code ( linear algebra , massive matrix calculations ) .Here 's what 's coming .
The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user 's computer , or accessed from that computer , only if the user " has given his or her consent , having been provided with clear and comprehensive information " .An exception exists where the cookie is " strictly necessary " for the provision of a service " explicitly requested " by the user - so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent .
Other cookies will require prior consent , though.I 've got to say , that sounds right to me .
This seems to be saying that things which are an explicit part of the user 's intent are fair game ( shopping , site configuration , etc ) .
While the surreptitious stuff that a user is unlikely to be aware of is not -- the user must be informed.One of the fundamental principles of free market economics is that the parties to a transaction must be informed .
If I am going to take a person 's behavioral information I need to inform them that I am doing so .
Frankly , if I 'm going to use the information I have taken from them to make a profit , I would hope that the user would want a piece of the action .
The information was created by them , it has value , it only seems right that they should have the option of asking me for a cut or denying me the information.I 'm not questioning the fact that this will sharply hinder the behavioral analytics business .
It will .
It will cost a lot of companies a lot of money .
But here 's the question for a true lover of the free market : Is that information yours by virtue of a just transaction , or is it that the creator of the information does not know it is being taken and you can get away with it ?
If the latter , is that really in accord with the noblest principles of Western economics ? Moreover , note that this is talking specifically about cookies , which are data stored on the user 's computer .
So even if you are still uncomfortable with the idea , answer this : What gives you the right to write to the user 's hard drive without their express or implied consent ?
If it were the case that most web users understood what cookies were or what they are used for , you might be able to say that not turning cookies off is implied consent .
But is that the case ?
Ask the average idiot about their cookies .
Then show them what they are really doing , and watch the look on their face .
I 've done it , it is enlightening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.First a disclaimer, or a proclaimer if you prefer: I am in the affiliate marketing business, and a big chunk of my earnings come from writing behavioral analysis code (linear algebra, massive matrix calculations).Here's what's coming.
The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user - so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent.
Other cookies will require prior consent, though.I've got to say, that sounds right to me.
This seems to be saying that things which are an explicit part of the user's intent are fair game (shopping, site configuration, etc).
While the surreptitious stuff that a user is unlikely to be aware of is not -- the user must be informed.One of the fundamental principles of free market economics is that the parties to a transaction must be informed.
If I am going to take a person's behavioral information I need to inform them that I am doing so.
Frankly, if I'm going to use the information I have taken from them to make a profit, I would hope that the user would want a piece of the action.
The information was created by them, it has value, it only seems right that they should have the option of asking me for a cut or denying me the information.I'm not questioning the fact that this will sharply hinder the behavioral analytics business.
It will.
It will cost a lot of companies a lot of money.
But here's the question for a true lover of the free market: Is that information yours by virtue of a just transaction, or is it that the creator of the information does not know it is being taken and you can get away with it?
If the latter, is that really in accord with the noblest principles of Western economics?Moreover, note that this is talking specifically about cookies, which are data stored on the user's computer.
So even if you are still uncomfortable with the idea, answer this: What gives you the right to write to the user's hard drive without their express or implied consent?
If it were the case that most web users understood what cookies were or what they are used for, you might be able to say that not turning cookies off is implied consent.
But is that the case?
Ask the average idiot about their cookies.
Then show them what they are really doing, and watch the look on their face.
I've done it, it is enlightening.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091082</id>
	<title>Cookies are Completely Unnecessary - NOT "vital"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258103280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user."</p><p>You are a liar, but I'll give you the benefit of the the doubt and assume it's through ignorance.</p><p>Cookies are completely and totally unnecessary.  In fact, they are a very poor way of implementing tracking by IP, which should be done entirely on the server.  Nothing needs to be stored on the client to handle shopping carts, authentication, or working out how to "improve the experience for the the user".  If you want to improve user's experiences, you can start out by not making your web site implementation dependent on receiving cookies back from browsers that don't return them to you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I know most of you guys hate cookies in general , but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user .
" You are a liar , but I 'll give you the benefit of the the doubt and assume it 's through ignorance.Cookies are completely and totally unnecessary .
In fact , they are a very poor way of implementing tracking by IP , which should be done entirely on the server .
Nothing needs to be stored on the client to handle shopping carts , authentication , or working out how to " improve the experience for the the user " .
If you want to improve user 's experiences , you can start out by not making your web site implementation dependent on receiving cookies back from browsers that do n't return them to you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.
"You are a liar, but I'll give you the benefit of the the doubt and assume it's through ignorance.Cookies are completely and totally unnecessary.
In fact, they are a very poor way of implementing tracking by IP, which should be done entirely on the server.
Nothing needs to be stored on the client to handle shopping carts, authentication, or working out how to "improve the experience for the the user".
If you want to improve user's experiences, you can start out by not making your web site implementation dependent on receiving cookies back from browsers that don't return them to you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412</id>
	<title>I totally agree with the EU legislation.</title>
	<author>JustNiz</author>
	<datestamp>1258135920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>firstly, its not all cookies, just those that are not directly related to the operation of the site the user went to.</p><p>That means this regulation is mostly attacking tracking cookies.</p><p>When I went to my favorite site, I never gave anyone called "fastclick" (or whoever)permission to store their stuff on my PC. Nor would I ever give them or anyone else permission to track my surfing habits, yet they are doing it without ever having asked or even informed me. This is a privacy issue.<br>I totally agree with the EU legislation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>firstly , its not all cookies , just those that are not directly related to the operation of the site the user went to.That means this regulation is mostly attacking tracking cookies.When I went to my favorite site , I never gave anyone called " fastclick " ( or whoever ) permission to store their stuff on my PC .
Nor would I ever give them or anyone else permission to track my surfing habits , yet they are doing it without ever having asked or even informed me .
This is a privacy issue.I totally agree with the EU legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>firstly, its not all cookies, just those that are not directly related to the operation of the site the user went to.That means this regulation is mostly attacking tracking cookies.When I went to my favorite site, I never gave anyone called "fastclick" (or whoever)permission to store their stuff on my PC.
Nor would I ever give them or anyone else permission to track my surfing habits, yet they are doing it without ever having asked or even informed me.
This is a privacy issue.I totally agree with the EU legislation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772</id>
	<title>Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>gorfie</author>
	<datestamp>1258127760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've seen examples where third parties require cookies to analyze the usage patterns of users on client sites but I don't require logs to understand usage trends on sites where I have easy access to log files.  In fact, I think usability testing would reveal more than analysis of usage data.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen examples where third parties require cookies to analyze the usage patterns of users on client sites but I do n't require logs to understand usage trends on sites where I have easy access to log files .
In fact , I think usability testing would reveal more than analysis of usage data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen examples where third parties require cookies to analyze the usage patterns of users on client sites but I don't require logs to understand usage trends on sites where I have easy access to log files.
In fact, I think usability testing would reveal more than analysis of usage data.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087364</id>
	<title>Transparency is the name of the game</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258130700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The reason this has come to the extreme is simple.  If a website / web app uses cookies, it should clearly state so in it's disclaimer / privacy policy in such a way that people who visit the site should be able to know exactly what information is being taken from their visit by the website.  If this was done upfront and in an honest fashion, this issue simply wouldn't be.  As it is, many websites either keep this info in a generic way or just plain omit it.  Now I'm not talking about fishing/scam websites, of course.  These make the issue even worse. So now, cookies are being managed through legislation.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason this has come to the extreme is simple .
If a website / web app uses cookies , it should clearly state so in it 's disclaimer / privacy policy in such a way that people who visit the site should be able to know exactly what information is being taken from their visit by the website .
If this was done upfront and in an honest fashion , this issue simply would n't be .
As it is , many websites either keep this info in a generic way or just plain omit it .
Now I 'm not talking about fishing/scam websites , of course .
These make the issue even worse .
So now , cookies are being managed through legislation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason this has come to the extreme is simple.
If a website / web app uses cookies, it should clearly state so in it's disclaimer / privacy policy in such a way that people who visit the site should be able to know exactly what information is being taken from their visit by the website.
If this was done upfront and in an honest fashion, this issue simply wouldn't be.
As it is, many websites either keep this info in a generic way or just plain omit it.
Now I'm not talking about fishing/scam websites, of course.
These make the issue even worse.
So now, cookies are being managed through legislation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088146</id>
	<title>I'm starving...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258134360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we got any cookies back there Earl?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we got any cookies back there Earl ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we got any cookies back there Earl?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086888</id>
	<title>Re:[sic]</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258128360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Breathtakingly Stupid" Slashdot Editor's Typo Passes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Breathtakingly Stupid " Slashdot Editor 's Typo Passes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Breathtakingly Stupid" Slashdot Editor's Typo Passes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090812</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>Pieroxy</author>
	<datestamp>1258145280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't need cookies to make a fully functioning web site.</p></div><p>How do you link a cart with an HTTP request then? And please, no url rewriting nonsense that blows caches away and exposes your security policy to every website you link to with the referer field.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need cookies to make a fully functioning web site.How do you link a cart with an HTTP request then ?
And please , no url rewriting nonsense that blows caches away and exposes your security policy to every website you link to with the referer field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need cookies to make a fully functioning web site.How do you link a cart with an HTTP request then?
And please, no url rewriting nonsense that blows caches away and exposes your security policy to every website you link to with the referer field.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090424</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258143480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;???</p><p>
&nbsp; Sorry Id rather you didnt know either of those things about me.</p><p>
&nbsp; if you force me to disclose who i am to take part in on-line debate then fair enough though when the ISP and others are forced to record this any how I dont really see a point.  ( I MIGHT allow cookies from this site for example provided they were time limited and I had some sort of reassurance over their purpose and operation), When Im looking up my next laptop - I really dont want amazon filling my screen with junk ill never buy from them because of stuff i looked at six months ago or on a frefering site.</p><p>
&nbsp; certainly I dont want them knowing it was me or my machine.</p><p>
&nbsp; There is no good reason to make my online presence identifiable to third parties - least ways no good reason from the perspective of me the user.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ? ? ?
  Sorry Id rather you didnt know either of those things about me .
  if you force me to disclose who i am to take part in on-line debate then fair enough though when the ISP and others are forced to record this any how I dont really see a point .
( I MIGHT allow cookies from this site for example provided they were time limited and I had some sort of reassurance over their purpose and operation ) , When Im looking up my next laptop - I really dont want amazon filling my screen with junk ill never buy from them because of stuff i looked at six months ago or on a frefering site .
  certainly I dont want them knowing it was me or my machine .
  There is no good reason to make my online presence identifiable to third parties - least ways no good reason from the perspective of me the user .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;???
  Sorry Id rather you didnt know either of those things about me.
  if you force me to disclose who i am to take part in on-line debate then fair enough though when the ISP and others are forced to record this any how I dont really see a point.
( I MIGHT allow cookies from this site for example provided they were time limited and I had some sort of reassurance over their purpose and operation), When Im looking up my next laptop - I really dont want amazon filling my screen with junk ill never buy from them because of stuff i looked at six months ago or on a frefering site.
  certainly I dont want them knowing it was me or my machine.
  There is no good reason to make my online presence identifiable to third parties - least ways no good reason from the perspective of me the user.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087304</id>
	<title>When you outlaw cookies...</title>
	<author>d474</author>
	<datestamp>1258130400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...only outlaws will have cookies.<br> <br>Cookie Monster, yeah I'm talkin' about you dawg.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...only outlaws will have cookies .
Cookie Monster , yeah I 'm talkin ' about you dawg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...only outlaws will have cookies.
Cookie Monster, yeah I'm talkin' about you dawg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089354</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>AtomicJake</author>
	<datestamp>1258139520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile) and then sells them.</p></div><p>Illegal in the EU.  You see the pattern?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need one of their store cards because they 'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile ) and then sells them.Illegal in the EU .
You see the pattern ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers and STILL build a profile) and then sells them.Illegal in the EU.
You see the pattern?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087718</id>
	<title>Seat belts on the sidewalk</title>
	<author>redkazuo</author>
	<datestamp>1258132440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We want to implement seat belts for every citizen. Should we:<br>
<br>
a. mandate every business and residence to keep a stash of belts on their walks; or<br>
b. mandate every car to have seat belts built in?<br>
<br>
The browser should ask the user if they want to keep the cookie or not. Much easier to regulate and implement.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want to implement seat belts for every citizen .
Should we : a. mandate every business and residence to keep a stash of belts on their walks ; or b. mandate every car to have seat belts built in ?
The browser should ask the user if they want to keep the cookie or not .
Much easier to regulate and implement .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want to implement seat belts for every citizen.
Should we:

a. mandate every business and residence to keep a stash of belts on their walks; or
b. mandate every car to have seat belts built in?
The browser should ask the user if they want to keep the cookie or not.
Much easier to regulate and implement.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1258130280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lack of cookies does NOT prevent ads.  Lack of cookies does not prevent ads from being linked to an alternate site.  Lack of cookies does not prevent your userid from being included in the URL that takes you to the other site if you click on the cookie.  Lack of cookies does not prevent your userid from being included in the URL that fetches the ad image from the other site.  So ads are not really hindered.  What is hindered is weak minded developers that only learned one way to do things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lack of cookies does NOT prevent ads .
Lack of cookies does not prevent ads from being linked to an alternate site .
Lack of cookies does not prevent your userid from being included in the URL that takes you to the other site if you click on the cookie .
Lack of cookies does not prevent your userid from being included in the URL that fetches the ad image from the other site .
So ads are not really hindered .
What is hindered is weak minded developers that only learned one way to do things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lack of cookies does NOT prevent ads.
Lack of cookies does not prevent ads from being linked to an alternate site.
Lack of cookies does not prevent your userid from being included in the URL that takes you to the other site if you click on the cookie.
Lack of cookies does not prevent your userid from being included in the URL that fetches the ad image from the other site.
So ads are not really hindered.
What is hindered is weak minded developers that only learned one way to do things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089900</id>
	<title>Re:Why exactly is an issue?</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1258141560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".</p></div>
</blockquote><p>The web server says "hey, here's a cookie you can store for me, if you like, and send it back later to assist me. Do with it as you please." The user's browser either ignores it, or later sends a copy. If this isn't consent, I don't know what the hell is. So the HTTP protocol itself already ensures that all websites are compliant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user 's computer , or accessed from that computer , only if the user " has given his or her consent , having been provided with clear and comprehensive information " .
The web server says " hey , here 's a cookie you can store for me , if you like , and send it back later to assist me .
Do with it as you please .
" The user 's browser either ignores it , or later sends a copy .
If this is n't consent , I do n't know what the hell is .
So the HTTP protocol itself already ensures that all websites are compliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".
The web server says "hey, here's a cookie you can store for me, if you like, and send it back later to assist me.
Do with it as you please.
" The user's browser either ignores it, or later sends a copy.
If this isn't consent, I don't know what the hell is.
So the HTTP protocol itself already ensures that all websites are compliant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086916</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942</id>
	<title>Do We Really Need Cookies?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1258128540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are in fact still people who refuse to allow cookies, and there are still browsers like lynx that require explicit confirmation from the user before they accept them(In fact, the directive does not ban cookies. It simply mandates the default behavior of lynx.). Ask yourself; what can be accomplished with a cookie that can't be accomplished using alternative mechanisms. Try thinking outside the box you've been in for the last 15 years.</p><p>Let us be frank. Cookies have been abused. Horrendously abused. Private companies have tagged, tracked, and stalked billions of people. We have allowed terabytes of data on the lives of everyday people to fall into the hands of completely unscrupulous entities. The information held by even smaller marketing outfits would 20 years ago have seemed like a treasure trove to organizations like the Stazi and the KGB. Does the fact that such information is akin to that desired by secret services mean that the collection and indexing of this information is inherently wrong? No; but it is a big hint that it probably is.</p><p>The EU may have blundered here, throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But I think their basic motivations were very admirable. As out lives move more and more onto the net, we cannot accept the current status quo of companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and the rest being allowed to do as they please with data on other people. The Despite the unworkable nature of the law, the EU is moving in the right direction on this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are in fact still people who refuse to allow cookies , and there are still browsers like lynx that require explicit confirmation from the user before they accept them ( In fact , the directive does not ban cookies .
It simply mandates the default behavior of lynx. ) .
Ask yourself ; what can be accomplished with a cookie that ca n't be accomplished using alternative mechanisms .
Try thinking outside the box you 've been in for the last 15 years.Let us be frank .
Cookies have been abused .
Horrendously abused .
Private companies have tagged , tracked , and stalked billions of people .
We have allowed terabytes of data on the lives of everyday people to fall into the hands of completely unscrupulous entities .
The information held by even smaller marketing outfits would 20 years ago have seemed like a treasure trove to organizations like the Stazi and the KGB .
Does the fact that such information is akin to that desired by secret services mean that the collection and indexing of this information is inherently wrong ?
No ; but it is a big hint that it probably is.The EU may have blundered here , throwing the baby out with the bathwater .
But I think their basic motivations were very admirable .
As out lives move more and more onto the net , we can not accept the current status quo of companies like Google , Yahoo , Microsoft and the rest being allowed to do as they please with data on other people .
The Despite the unworkable nature of the law , the EU is moving in the right direction on this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are in fact still people who refuse to allow cookies, and there are still browsers like lynx that require explicit confirmation from the user before they accept them(In fact, the directive does not ban cookies.
It simply mandates the default behavior of lynx.).
Ask yourself; what can be accomplished with a cookie that can't be accomplished using alternative mechanisms.
Try thinking outside the box you've been in for the last 15 years.Let us be frank.
Cookies have been abused.
Horrendously abused.
Private companies have tagged, tracked, and stalked billions of people.
We have allowed terabytes of data on the lives of everyday people to fall into the hands of completely unscrupulous entities.
The information held by even smaller marketing outfits would 20 years ago have seemed like a treasure trove to organizations like the Stazi and the KGB.
Does the fact that such information is akin to that desired by secret services mean that the collection and indexing of this information is inherently wrong?
No; but it is a big hint that it probably is.The EU may have blundered here, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
But I think their basic motivations were very admirable.
As out lives move more and more onto the net, we cannot accept the current status quo of companies like Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and the rest being allowed to do as they please with data on other people.
The Despite the unworkable nature of the law, the EU is moving in the right direction on this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093788</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree with the EU legislation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258119780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When I went to my favorite site, I never gave anyone called "fastclick" (or whoever)permission to store their stuff on my PC.</p></div><p>Like hell you didn't.</p><p>Go find your browser's "Accept 3rd party cookies" checkbox and uncheck it.</p><p>You can claim you never gave anyone called "fastclick" permission after you do that, but if your browser thinks you want to accept 3rd party cookies then guess what? You gave permission.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I went to my favorite site , I never gave anyone called " fastclick " ( or whoever ) permission to store their stuff on my PC.Like hell you did n't.Go find your browser 's " Accept 3rd party cookies " checkbox and uncheck it.You can claim you never gave anyone called " fastclick " permission after you do that , but if your browser thinks you want to accept 3rd party cookies then guess what ?
You gave permission .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I went to my favorite site, I never gave anyone called "fastclick" (or whoever)permission to store their stuff on my PC.Like hell you didn't.Go find your browser's "Accept 3rd party cookies" checkbox and uncheck it.You can claim you never gave anyone called "fastclick" permission after you do that, but if your browser thinks you want to accept 3rd party cookies then guess what?
You gave permission.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091682</id>
	<title>Yeesh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258106160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wince every time I hear something's supposed to "improve the experience for the user".</p><p>"Improved user experience" seems to be the phrase of choice for people wanting to screw you over these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wince every time I hear something 's supposed to " improve the experience for the user " .
" Improved user experience " seems to be the phrase of choice for people wanting to screw you over these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wince every time I hear something's supposed to "improve the experience for the user".
"Improved user experience" seems to be the phrase of choice for people wanting to screw you over these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088394</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1258135740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How much is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. charging you guys? Ask them what'll happen to their ad revenue if cookies are suddenly opt-in.</p></div></blockquote><p>There are ads on the Internets?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How much is / .
charging you guys ?
Ask them what 'll happen to their ad revenue if cookies are suddenly opt-in.There are ads on the Internets ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much is /.
charging you guys?
Ask them what'll happen to their ad revenue if cookies are suddenly opt-in.There are ads on the Internets?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087212</id>
	<title>A few bad uses = all bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There seems to be an assumption that cookies are almost entirely used for evil tracking of website visitors. People have brought up shopping carts and logins, but there are many, many other relatively minor uses for which cookies are useful. Are we to provide you with a disclaimer every time we want to make sure some little setting that you have clicked "sticks" as you jump between pages? Yes, there are other tools to do this job, but cookies are also a specific tool for a specific job.</p><p>I find it interesting to hear many people claim the evils of cookies are so bad that they need to be outlawed, when in the end, it is the user's choice if they want to accept them. Isn't this akin to saying that we need to ban content on television or the internet because sometimes it could be used for evil? If you can use the argument of "just turn the channel" or "just don't go to those websites" in those cases, then why isn't the same argument good for people to just turn off cookies? If enough people do that, then the web developers will use a different tool to get the job done, and cookies will fall by the wayside. You have an "off" button on your cookies. If you don't like them, then use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems to be an assumption that cookies are almost entirely used for evil tracking of website visitors .
People have brought up shopping carts and logins , but there are many , many other relatively minor uses for which cookies are useful .
Are we to provide you with a disclaimer every time we want to make sure some little setting that you have clicked " sticks " as you jump between pages ?
Yes , there are other tools to do this job , but cookies are also a specific tool for a specific job.I find it interesting to hear many people claim the evils of cookies are so bad that they need to be outlawed , when in the end , it is the user 's choice if they want to accept them .
Is n't this akin to saying that we need to ban content on television or the internet because sometimes it could be used for evil ?
If you can use the argument of " just turn the channel " or " just do n't go to those websites " in those cases , then why is n't the same argument good for people to just turn off cookies ?
If enough people do that , then the web developers will use a different tool to get the job done , and cookies will fall by the wayside .
You have an " off " button on your cookies .
If you do n't like them , then use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems to be an assumption that cookies are almost entirely used for evil tracking of website visitors.
People have brought up shopping carts and logins, but there are many, many other relatively minor uses for which cookies are useful.
Are we to provide you with a disclaimer every time we want to make sure some little setting that you have clicked "sticks" as you jump between pages?
Yes, there are other tools to do this job, but cookies are also a specific tool for a specific job.I find it interesting to hear many people claim the evils of cookies are so bad that they need to be outlawed, when in the end, it is the user's choice if they want to accept them.
Isn't this akin to saying that we need to ban content on television or the internet because sometimes it could be used for evil?
If you can use the argument of "just turn the channel" or "just don't go to those websites" in those cases, then why isn't the same argument good for people to just turn off cookies?
If enough people do that, then the web developers will use a different tool to get the job done, and cookies will fall by the wayside.
You have an "off" button on your cookies.
If you don't like them, then use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091212</id>
	<title>This is how I can tell Slashdot jumped the shark</title>
	<author>Plugh</author>
	<datestamp>1258103880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Government does something STOOPID" is hardly <i>news</i>, don't you think?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Government does something STOOPID " is hardly news , do n't you think ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Government does something STOOPID" is hardly news, don't you think?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30097826</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree with the EU legislation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258216980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You implicitly did, though. If you didn't want "fastclick" to store stuff on your PC, you could just disable cookies. It's an option under your control. No evil tracking companies can force you to send your cookie if you don't want to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You implicitly did , though .
If you did n't want " fastclick " to store stuff on your PC , you could just disable cookies .
It 's an option under your control .
No evil tracking companies can force you to send your cookie if you do n't want to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You implicitly did, though.
If you didn't want "fastclick" to store stuff on your PC, you could just disable cookies.
It's an option under your control.
No evil tracking companies can force you to send your cookie if you don't want to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087646</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cookies aren't needed to improve the user experience. Better content is needed to improve the user experience.</p><p>Tracking is used to learn the best way to get people the point of sale in the least amount of time. It's the internet version of department store layout design, where everything is displayed to maximize sales.</p><p>I wish here was as much discussion about improving content as there is about tracking and clicks. 99.999999 percent of the internet is crap, and it's been designed that way by marketing departments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cookies are n't needed to improve the user experience .
Better content is needed to improve the user experience.Tracking is used to learn the best way to get people the point of sale in the least amount of time .
It 's the internet version of department store layout design , where everything is displayed to maximize sales.I wish here was as much discussion about improving content as there is about tracking and clicks .
99.999999 percent of the internet is crap , and it 's been designed that way by marketing departments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cookies aren't needed to improve the user experience.
Better content is needed to improve the user experience.Tracking is used to learn the best way to get people the point of sale in the least amount of time.
It's the internet version of department store layout design, where everything is displayed to maximize sales.I wish here was as much discussion about improving content as there is about tracking and clicks.
99.999999 percent of the internet is crap, and it's been designed that way by marketing departments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093264</id>
	<title>Re:I totally agree with the EU legislation.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258115700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think there is a clean divide between European Union and United States here.</p><p>In United States people are used to companies that dictate the rules. EU does not bend over for those companies.</p><p>Similarly, the whole web advertising business is very much US weighted. Most of web ads are for US citizens only. I live in Finland and 99\% of web ads are not applicable for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there is a clean divide between European Union and United States here.In United States people are used to companies that dictate the rules .
EU does not bend over for those companies.Similarly , the whole web advertising business is very much US weighted .
Most of web ads are for US citizens only .
I live in Finland and 99 \ % of web ads are not applicable for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think there is a clean divide between European Union and United States here.In United States people are used to companies that dictate the rules.
EU does not bend over for those companies.Similarly, the whole web advertising business is very much US weighted.
Most of web ads are for US citizens only.
I live in Finland and 99\% of web ads are not applicable for me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087828</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1258132920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means, such as embedding a code in the URL, are available.</p></div></blockquote><p>Embedding codes in URLs is easily abused by affiliates wanting fake rankings.<br>What you really want is a dynamically generated cookie that gets saved with the loading of (for example) a banner ad, and then a check for that specific cookie when the user has purportedly clicked-through onto the website in question.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means , such as embedding a code in the URL , are available.Embedding codes in URLs is easily abused by affiliates wanting fake rankings.What you really want is a dynamically generated cookie that gets saved with the loading of ( for example ) a banner ad , and then a check for that specific cookie when the user has purportedly clicked-through onto the website in question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means, such as embedding a code in the URL, are available.Embedding codes in URLs is easily abused by affiliates wanting fake rankings.What you really want is a dynamically generated cookie that gets saved with the loading of (for example) a banner ad, and then a check for that specific cookie when the user has purportedly clicked-through onto the website in question.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087508</id>
	<title>Session Cookies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this apply also to session cookies? I don't cry for doubleclick not able to track me, really, but session cookies are needed for core functionality of most websites (99\% of those that require some sort of login).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this apply also to session cookies ?
I do n't cry for doubleclick not able to track me , really , but session cookies are needed for core functionality of most websites ( 99 \ % of those that require some sort of login ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this apply also to session cookies?
I don't cry for doubleclick not able to track me, really, but session cookies are needed for core functionality of most websites (99\% of those that require some sort of login).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088734</id>
	<title>Re:Cookie consent at browser level?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1258137180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hm, you mean like "Disable all cookies"? And "Disallow third party cookies"?  I'll bet no one ever thought of that...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hm , you mean like " Disable all cookies " ?
And " Disallow third party cookies " ?
I 'll bet no one ever thought of that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hm, you mean like "Disable all cookies"?
And "Disallow third party cookies"?
I'll bet no one ever thought of that...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086916</id>
	<title>Why exactly is an issue?</title>
	<author>DavidChristopher</author>
	<datestamp>1258128420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>
From one of the linked articles: <br> <br>
<i>Here's what's coming. The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".
<br> <br>
An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user &ndash; so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent. Other cookies will require prior consent, though.<br>
</i>
<br>
~The Out Law Blog
<br> <br>
So- some websites will have an EULA page. Big deal. Actually, that's not at all a bad idea now is it? So why all the hoopla?
<br> <br> <br>(Note: The originally linked slashdot post linked a Yahoo News article that's no longer valid).</htmltext>
<tokenext>From one of the linked articles : Here 's what 's coming .
The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user 's computer , or accessed from that computer , only if the user " has given his or her consent , having been provided with clear and comprehensive information " .
An exception exists where the cookie is " strictly necessary " for the provision of a service " explicitly requested " by the user    so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent .
Other cookies will require prior consent , though .
~ The Out Law Blog So- some websites will have an EULA page .
Big deal .
Actually , that 's not at all a bad idea now is it ?
So why all the hoopla ?
( Note : The originally linked slashdot post linked a Yahoo News article that 's no longer valid ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
From one of the linked articles:  
Here's what's coming.
The now-finalised text says that a cookie can be stored on a user's computer, or accessed from that computer, only if the user "has given his or her consent, having been provided with clear and comprehensive information".
An exception exists where the cookie is "strictly necessary" for the provision of a service "explicitly requested" by the user – so cookies can take a user from a product page to a checkout without the need for consent.
Other cookies will require prior consent, though.
~The Out Law Blog
 
So- some websites will have an EULA page.
Big deal.
Actually, that's not at all a bad idea now is it?
So why all the hoopla?
(Note: The originally linked slashdot post linked a Yahoo News article that's no longer valid).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087084</id>
	<title>Re:[sic]</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258129320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Summary was written by the swampling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Summary was written by the swampling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Summary was written by the swampling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091924</id>
	<title>Re:Do We Really Need Cookies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258107240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And doing proper loadbalancing without having to do sticky sessions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And doing proper loadbalancing without having to do sticky sessions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And doing proper loadbalancing without having to do sticky sessions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832</id>
	<title>I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258128120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe it's a bit harsh.  But so are the abuses of cookies.</p><p>Cookies are used to keep a shopping cart.  That out-law.com article spells that out.  Cookies are used to track logins on forum sites.  There might be an implied consent, there.  But to be sure, just ask for consent when users register.  Previously registered users would be directed to the consent request page once the next time they try to login.  Explain that the consent is for the cookie used keep their login state.  Explain that without consent, the login process cannot be completed and the user would be limited to the access level of a non-logged-in user.</p><p>Now, what else are cookies used for, that consent should not need to be given for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe it 's a bit harsh .
But so are the abuses of cookies.Cookies are used to keep a shopping cart .
That out-law.com article spells that out .
Cookies are used to track logins on forum sites .
There might be an implied consent , there .
But to be sure , just ask for consent when users register .
Previously registered users would be directed to the consent request page once the next time they try to login .
Explain that the consent is for the cookie used keep their login state .
Explain that without consent , the login process can not be completed and the user would be limited to the access level of a non-logged-in user.Now , what else are cookies used for , that consent should not need to be given for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe it's a bit harsh.
But so are the abuses of cookies.Cookies are used to keep a shopping cart.
That out-law.com article spells that out.
Cookies are used to track logins on forum sites.
There might be an implied consent, there.
But to be sure, just ask for consent when users register.
Previously registered users would be directed to the consent request page once the next time they try to login.
Explain that the consent is for the cookie used keep their login state.
Explain that without consent, the login process cannot be completed and the user would be limited to the access level of a non-logged-in user.Now, what else are cookies used for, that consent should not need to be given for?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30178602</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>1110110001</author>
	<datestamp>1258716300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers</p> </div><p>Even if you use your debit card instead of just paying cash they only get one piece of information: "has paid EUR XXX". There's nothing you can track.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need one of their store cards because they 'll match your banking account numbers Even if you use your debit card instead of just paying cash they only get one piece of information : " has paid EUR XXX " .
There 's nothing you can track .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't need one of their store cards because they'll match your banking account numbers Even if you use your debit card instead of just paying cash they only get one piece of information: "has paid EUR XXX".
There's nothing you can track.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087596</id>
	<title>But who's responsible?</title>
	<author>earthloop</author>
	<datestamp>1258131720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ignoring the pro/cons of this issue....</p><p>If I manage a web site that uses Google AdSense, for example, is it not Google that serve up those cookies?</p><p>So, is it not my problem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ignoring the pro/cons of this issue....If I manage a web site that uses Google AdSense , for example , is it not Google that serve up those cookies ? So , is it not my problem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ignoring the pro/cons of this issue....If I manage a web site that uses Google AdSense, for example, is it not Google that serve up those cookies?So, is it not my problem?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093362</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Patch86</author>
	<datestamp>1258116540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are ways around this law quite happily- if you aren't using cookies nefariously, you shouldn't have a problem.</p><p>When your customer clicks on an ad, present them with a dialogue box saying "Your details will be blahdy blah if you continue, click here [link] for our full privacy policy. Continue [y/n]", or whatever it is you'd be legally obligated to do. If your cookie use is legit, the customer will happily click onward (and I'm sure it'd become something that web users become used to before very long at all). If  you're trying to sneakily gather data without the user knowing about it, they're given ample warning to give you the boot.</p><p>And incidentally, I don't care how useful it might be to marketing firms: gathering personal data about a user without their knowledge or consent it downright wrong. Big-brother style home surveillance might be pretty useful to marketing too, but no-one suggests that be allowed so as to make for better targeted ads.</p><p>I challenge you to suggest one example of cookie use where it'd be unfeasible to request consent, as is required by the new EU law. Bonus points if it's actually common.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are ways around this law quite happily- if you are n't using cookies nefariously , you should n't have a problem.When your customer clicks on an ad , present them with a dialogue box saying " Your details will be blahdy blah if you continue , click here [ link ] for our full privacy policy .
Continue [ y/n ] " , or whatever it is you 'd be legally obligated to do .
If your cookie use is legit , the customer will happily click onward ( and I 'm sure it 'd become something that web users become used to before very long at all ) .
If you 're trying to sneakily gather data without the user knowing about it , they 're given ample warning to give you the boot.And incidentally , I do n't care how useful it might be to marketing firms : gathering personal data about a user without their knowledge or consent it downright wrong .
Big-brother style home surveillance might be pretty useful to marketing too , but no-one suggests that be allowed so as to make for better targeted ads.I challenge you to suggest one example of cookie use where it 'd be unfeasible to request consent , as is required by the new EU law .
Bonus points if it 's actually common .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are ways around this law quite happily- if you aren't using cookies nefariously, you shouldn't have a problem.When your customer clicks on an ad, present them with a dialogue box saying "Your details will be blahdy blah if you continue, click here [link] for our full privacy policy.
Continue [y/n]", or whatever it is you'd be legally obligated to do.
If your cookie use is legit, the customer will happily click onward (and I'm sure it'd become something that web users become used to before very long at all).
If  you're trying to sneakily gather data without the user knowing about it, they're given ample warning to give you the boot.And incidentally, I don't care how useful it might be to marketing firms: gathering personal data about a user without their knowledge or consent it downright wrong.
Big-brother style home surveillance might be pretty useful to marketing too, but no-one suggests that be allowed so as to make for better targeted ads.I challenge you to suggest one example of cookie use where it'd be unfeasible to request consent, as is required by the new EU law.
Bonus points if it's actually common.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096278</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258199400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe in the US stores sell customer profile data without the customer's explicit consent, but that would be illegal in Europe.</p><p>Personally, I'd be very happy for "affiliate" marketing to be stamped on very hard as it seems mainly to be a way in which companies in a jurisdiction which prevents unsolicited direct marketing getting round the law by having "affiliates" outside that jurisdiction and nominally beyond their control to do their spamming for them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe in the US stores sell customer profile data without the customer 's explicit consent , but that would be illegal in Europe.Personally , I 'd be very happy for " affiliate " marketing to be stamped on very hard as it seems mainly to be a way in which companies in a jurisdiction which prevents unsolicited direct marketing getting round the law by having " affiliates " outside that jurisdiction and nominally beyond their control to do their spamming for them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe in the US stores sell customer profile data without the customer's explicit consent, but that would be illegal in Europe.Personally, I'd be very happy for "affiliate" marketing to be stamped on very hard as it seems mainly to be a way in which companies in a jurisdiction which prevents unsolicited direct marketing getting round the law by having "affiliates" outside that jurisdiction and nominally beyond their control to do their spamming for them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092516</id>
	<title>Re:Hey Government: LAWS ARE NOT FOR FIXING TECH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258110720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; It's that old guns don't kill people, people kill people thing.<br>Still, a gun is a pretty quick, easy and sure way to kill someone. Imagine: you're really pissed off, and only a trigger away from "instant satisfaction". It's<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... a bit too easy !<br>Maybe if you have no gun, you're not gonna kill the guy ? Maybe just punch him in the face ? Or maybe not even that, knowing that a non-dead, non-dying person can probably retaliate ?</p><p>So yeah, right, people kill people, but more people kill more people when lethal tools are readily available.</p><p>Back to the point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... cookies don't track people, people track people... which is *wrong* in some cases, and this law basically creates a way to go after the people abusing the system. There's absolutely zero chance of an entire industry going out of business here.</p><p>And come on, ban hammers ? How old are you, 5 ?</p><p>Insightful ? My sweet, crispy, BBQ-flavored ass !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; It 's that old guns do n't kill people , people kill people thing.Still , a gun is a pretty quick , easy and sure way to kill someone .
Imagine : you 're really pissed off , and only a trigger away from " instant satisfaction " .
It 's ... a bit too easy ! Maybe if you have no gun , you 're not gon na kill the guy ?
Maybe just punch him in the face ?
Or maybe not even that , knowing that a non-dead , non-dying person can probably retaliate ? So yeah , right , people kill people , but more people kill more people when lethal tools are readily available.Back to the point ... cookies do n't track people , people track people... which is * wrong * in some cases , and this law basically creates a way to go after the people abusing the system .
There 's absolutely zero chance of an entire industry going out of business here.And come on , ban hammers ?
How old are you , 5 ? Insightful ?
My sweet , crispy , BBQ-flavored ass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; It's that old guns don't kill people, people kill people thing.Still, a gun is a pretty quick, easy and sure way to kill someone.
Imagine: you're really pissed off, and only a trigger away from "instant satisfaction".
It's ... a bit too easy !Maybe if you have no gun, you're not gonna kill the guy ?
Maybe just punch him in the face ?
Or maybe not even that, knowing that a non-dead, non-dying person can probably retaliate ?So yeah, right, people kill people, but more people kill more people when lethal tools are readily available.Back to the point ... cookies don't track people, people track people... which is *wrong* in some cases, and this law basically creates a way to go after the people abusing the system.
There's absolutely zero chance of an entire industry going out of business here.And come on, ban hammers ?
How old are you, 5 ?Insightful ?
My sweet, crispy, BBQ-flavored ass !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087968</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258133580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What browser do you use?  IE, Firefox, and Opera all have a very simple user setting that you can turn on.  It's off by default, but is really easy to turn on.</p><p>The instant you do, you'll be asked every time a site wants to set or use a cookie.  With most of them you can even differentiate between first- and third-party cookies (so cookies that originate from the site you are visiting can be tracked differently from cookies that originate from other sites).  Once a site has been asked about, most browsers allow you to choose between four functional options (they are presented differently in each browser):</p><p>1.  Yes, and always allow cookies from this site or domain without asking.<br>2.  Yes, just this once.<br>3.  No, just this once.  Ask me again next time.<br>4.  No, and never allow cookies from this site or domain again, and never ask me again.</p><p>Actually, you owe it to yourself to turn this feature on, if only for a short time before the popup warnings drive you insane.  It's a real eye-opener as to how much cookies are used on the Web today.</p><p>Ideally, all browsers would come with this set on in the beginning, with a large prominent button that said "never ask me this again - by pressing this I give my browser permission to gobble down all the delicious delicacies it wants".  EU happy, users happy, trackers happy.  And for those who really, REALLY care about tracking cookies, well, don't push the button.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What browser do you use ?
IE , Firefox , and Opera all have a very simple user setting that you can turn on .
It 's off by default , but is really easy to turn on.The instant you do , you 'll be asked every time a site wants to set or use a cookie .
With most of them you can even differentiate between first- and third-party cookies ( so cookies that originate from the site you are visiting can be tracked differently from cookies that originate from other sites ) .
Once a site has been asked about , most browsers allow you to choose between four functional options ( they are presented differently in each browser ) : 1 .
Yes , and always allow cookies from this site or domain without asking.2 .
Yes , just this once.3 .
No , just this once .
Ask me again next time.4 .
No , and never allow cookies from this site or domain again , and never ask me again.Actually , you owe it to yourself to turn this feature on , if only for a short time before the popup warnings drive you insane .
It 's a real eye-opener as to how much cookies are used on the Web today.Ideally , all browsers would come with this set on in the beginning , with a large prominent button that said " never ask me this again - by pressing this I give my browser permission to gobble down all the delicious delicacies it wants " .
EU happy , users happy , trackers happy .
And for those who really , REALLY care about tracking cookies , well , do n't push the button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What browser do you use?
IE, Firefox, and Opera all have a very simple user setting that you can turn on.
It's off by default, but is really easy to turn on.The instant you do, you'll be asked every time a site wants to set or use a cookie.
With most of them you can even differentiate between first- and third-party cookies (so cookies that originate from the site you are visiting can be tracked differently from cookies that originate from other sites).
Once a site has been asked about, most browsers allow you to choose between four functional options (they are presented differently in each browser):1.
Yes, and always allow cookies from this site or domain without asking.2.
Yes, just this once.3.
No, just this once.
Ask me again next time.4.
No, and never allow cookies from this site or domain again, and never ask me again.Actually, you owe it to yourself to turn this feature on, if only for a short time before the popup warnings drive you insane.
It's a real eye-opener as to how much cookies are used on the Web today.Ideally, all browsers would come with this set on in the beginning, with a large prominent button that said "never ask me this again - by pressing this I give my browser permission to gobble down all the delicious delicacies it wants".
EU happy, users happy, trackers happy.
And for those who really, REALLY care about tracking cookies, well, don't push the button.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>whencanistop</author>
	<datestamp>1258129140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've seen examples where third parties require cookies to analyze the usage patterns of users on client sites but I don't require logs to understand usage trends on sites where I have easy access to log files.  In fact, I think usability testing would reveal more than analysis of usage data.</p></div><p>So how are you going to do this usability testing?  Are you going to assume that everyone arrives at the home page and then navigates through your site?  This is 2009, wake up to the real world. Most sites have 60\%+ visits coming from Google in the middle of the site, to do any usability testing they need to know where they arrived to focus that usability.  To get this information you need to have cookies.  If you don't, you'll end up with a really nice home page, pointing to your good bits of content and you'll ignore most of your user base.


This is the attitude that makes Murdoch think he can get away with putting all his content behind pay walls.  It'll fail.  If all EU content has to follow the new cookies rule, it will fail too and the only option you'll have in an EU country is to access non-EU content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've seen examples where third parties require cookies to analyze the usage patterns of users on client sites but I do n't require logs to understand usage trends on sites where I have easy access to log files .
In fact , I think usability testing would reveal more than analysis of usage data.So how are you going to do this usability testing ?
Are you going to assume that everyone arrives at the home page and then navigates through your site ?
This is 2009 , wake up to the real world .
Most sites have 60 \ % + visits coming from Google in the middle of the site , to do any usability testing they need to know where they arrived to focus that usability .
To get this information you need to have cookies .
If you do n't , you 'll end up with a really nice home page , pointing to your good bits of content and you 'll ignore most of your user base .
This is the attitude that makes Murdoch think he can get away with putting all his content behind pay walls .
It 'll fail .
If all EU content has to follow the new cookies rule , it will fail too and the only option you 'll have in an EU country is to access non-EU content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've seen examples where third parties require cookies to analyze the usage patterns of users on client sites but I don't require logs to understand usage trends on sites where I have easy access to log files.
In fact, I think usability testing would reveal more than analysis of usage data.So how are you going to do this usability testing?
Are you going to assume that everyone arrives at the home page and then navigates through your site?
This is 2009, wake up to the real world.
Most sites have 60\%+ visits coming from Google in the middle of the site, to do any usability testing they need to know where they arrived to focus that usability.
To get this information you need to have cookies.
If you don't, you'll end up with a really nice home page, pointing to your good bits of content and you'll ignore most of your user base.
This is the attitude that makes Murdoch think he can get away with putting all his content behind pay walls.
It'll fail.
If all EU content has to follow the new cookies rule, it will fail too and the only option you'll have in an EU country is to access non-EU content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086946</id>
	<title>Cookies to store user variables</title>
	<author>justfred</author>
	<datestamp>1258128600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cookies are often used to store user variables when they go from one page to another - patching holes the stateless web protocol forces on the user experience.  Session or server-side variables may also be used for this, but that's more work for the web designer, who usually is up to his neck trying to support different versions of IE misbehavior.</p><p>Sites I've worked on have never used cookies to send back personal information, but they have used them to improve the user experience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cookies are often used to store user variables when they go from one page to another - patching holes the stateless web protocol forces on the user experience .
Session or server-side variables may also be used for this , but that 's more work for the web designer , who usually is up to his neck trying to support different versions of IE misbehavior.Sites I 've worked on have never used cookies to send back personal information , but they have used them to improve the user experience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cookies are often used to store user variables when they go from one page to another - patching holes the stateless web protocol forces on the user experience.
Session or server-side variables may also be used for this, but that's more work for the web designer, who usually is up to his neck trying to support different versions of IE misbehavior.Sites I've worked on have never used cookies to send back personal information, but they have used them to improve the user experience.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088490</id>
	<title>Re:A few bad uses = all bad?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258136340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have an "off" button on your cookies. If you don't like them, then use it.</p></div><p>One of the problems with that is that there are a lot of websites out there that won't work if you turn cookies off (and the website insists that you enable them in order to use the site) and some of them are sites that people need to use.  Those sites may be using them for a legitimate purpose.  But then, the next site you go to may use them for nosy purposes.  What do you do, then?  I really don't like the idea of trying to remember to turn cookies on and off every time I switch sites.</p><p>I also tried turning on the "prompt for cookies" option, and then I go to a website that I've never visited (thus don't entirely trust), and I get bombarded with 20-30 dialogue boxes asking me if I want to allow cookies.</p><p>I think it's worth repeating that the new law does not ban cookies, but rather requires websites to disclose the fact that they're using them, and for what.</p><p>Another thing that has cropped up in an earlier post is that sites that already break the law aren't going to pay attention to this law either.</p><p>On the other hand, I think it's more effective to legislate the behaviour, not the tools.  To paraphrase another post, people shoot each other.  We outlaw guns, so they bludgeon each other.  We outlaw baseball bats and hammers, so they stab each other.  We outlaw knives and screwdrivers. Et cetera.</p><p>Meanwhile, the hunting industry, baseball, carpentry, and butcher shops all go down the tubes in the name of a safer world.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have an " off " button on your cookies .
If you do n't like them , then use it.One of the problems with that is that there are a lot of websites out there that wo n't work if you turn cookies off ( and the website insists that you enable them in order to use the site ) and some of them are sites that people need to use .
Those sites may be using them for a legitimate purpose .
But then , the next site you go to may use them for nosy purposes .
What do you do , then ?
I really do n't like the idea of trying to remember to turn cookies on and off every time I switch sites.I also tried turning on the " prompt for cookies " option , and then I go to a website that I 've never visited ( thus do n't entirely trust ) , and I get bombarded with 20-30 dialogue boxes asking me if I want to allow cookies.I think it 's worth repeating that the new law does not ban cookies , but rather requires websites to disclose the fact that they 're using them , and for what.Another thing that has cropped up in an earlier post is that sites that already break the law are n't going to pay attention to this law either.On the other hand , I think it 's more effective to legislate the behaviour , not the tools .
To paraphrase another post , people shoot each other .
We outlaw guns , so they bludgeon each other .
We outlaw baseball bats and hammers , so they stab each other .
We outlaw knives and screwdrivers .
Et cetera.Meanwhile , the hunting industry , baseball , carpentry , and butcher shops all go down the tubes in the name of a safer world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have an "off" button on your cookies.
If you don't like them, then use it.One of the problems with that is that there are a lot of websites out there that won't work if you turn cookies off (and the website insists that you enable them in order to use the site) and some of them are sites that people need to use.
Those sites may be using them for a legitimate purpose.
But then, the next site you go to may use them for nosy purposes.
What do you do, then?
I really don't like the idea of trying to remember to turn cookies on and off every time I switch sites.I also tried turning on the "prompt for cookies" option, and then I go to a website that I've never visited (thus don't entirely trust), and I get bombarded with 20-30 dialogue boxes asking me if I want to allow cookies.I think it's worth repeating that the new law does not ban cookies, but rather requires websites to disclose the fact that they're using them, and for what.Another thing that has cropped up in an earlier post is that sites that already break the law aren't going to pay attention to this law either.On the other hand, I think it's more effective to legislate the behaviour, not the tools.
To paraphrase another post, people shoot each other.
We outlaw guns, so they bludgeon each other.
We outlaw baseball bats and hammers, so they stab each other.
We outlaw knives and screwdrivers.
Et cetera.Meanwhile, the hunting industry, baseball, carpentry, and butcher shops all go down the tubes in the name of a safer world.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086806</id>
	<title>Michael</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258127940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may make common folk like me think about the extent that our personal information is collected and used, information that is a valuable commodity in current society and it's bought and sold with very little compensation to the rightful owner - the individual.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may make common folk like me think about the extent that our personal information is collected and used , information that is a valuable commodity in current society and it 's bought and sold with very little compensation to the rightful owner - the individual .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may make common folk like me think about the extent that our personal information is collected and used, information that is a valuable commodity in current society and it's bought and sold with very little compensation to the rightful owner - the individual.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30100648</id>
	<title>Re:This is pointless</title>
	<author>Alsee</author>
	<datestamp>1258192200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>expect a lot of free content sites to go belly up. No cookie, no revenue.</i></p><p>This is exactly why Newspapers and TV have been going belly up, ever since the EU passed passed that "Breathtakingly Stupid" law prohibiting shows from storing cookies in my TV and preventing newspapers from storing cookies in my.... ummm.... kitchen.</p><p>No cookie, no revenue.</p><p>-</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>expect a lot of free content sites to go belly up .
No cookie , no revenue.This is exactly why Newspapers and TV have been going belly up , ever since the EU passed passed that " Breathtakingly Stupid " law prohibiting shows from storing cookies in my TV and preventing newspapers from storing cookies in my.... ummm.... kitchen.No cookie , no revenue.-</tokentext>
<sentencetext>expect a lot of free content sites to go belly up.
No cookie, no revenue.This is exactly why Newspapers and TV have been going belly up, ever since the EU passed passed that "Breathtakingly Stupid" law prohibiting shows from storing cookies in my TV and preventing newspapers from storing cookies in my.... ummm.... kitchen.No cookie, no revenue.-</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088132</id>
	<title>Re:Hey Government: LAWS ARE NOT FOR FIXING TECH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258134300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's that old guns don't kill people, people kill people thing.</p></div><p>Guns don't kill people . . . I DO!!! HA HA HA!!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's that old guns do n't kill people , people kill people thing.Guns do n't kill people .
. .
I DO ! ! !
HA HA HA ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's that old guns don't kill people, people kill people thing.Guns don't kill people .
. .
I DO!!!
HA HA HA!!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091112</id>
	<title>Breaking the Web</title>
	<author>psydeshow</author>
	<datestamp>1258103400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how is a website supposed to track whether you gave it permission to use cookies, anyway? I mean, normally you'd store that kind of preference in a cookie, or in a session record identified by a cookie.</p><p>So what if the user says "No, I don't want you to send me cookies"? You can't store their no-cookie preference anywhere for use on subsequent requests.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how is a website supposed to track whether you gave it permission to use cookies , anyway ?
I mean , normally you 'd store that kind of preference in a cookie , or in a session record identified by a cookie.So what if the user says " No , I do n't want you to send me cookies " ?
You ca n't store their no-cookie preference anywhere for use on subsequent requests .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how is a website supposed to track whether you gave it permission to use cookies, anyway?
I mean, normally you'd store that kind of preference in a cookie, or in a session record identified by a cookie.So what if the user says "No, I don't want you to send me cookies"?
You can't store their no-cookie preference anywhere for use on subsequent requests.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087794</id>
	<title>Re:Cookies to store user variables</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
First, the <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2965" title="ietf.org">cookie spec</a> [ietf.org] is in complete agreement with the European law:</p><blockquote><div><p> <b>6. PRIVACY</b>
<br>
   Informed consent should guide the design of systems that use cookies.
<br>
   A user should be able to find out how a web site plans to use
<br>
   information in a cookie and should be able to choose whether or not
<br>
   those policies are acceptable.  <b>Both the user agent and the origin
<br>
   server must assist informed consent.</b></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Now as for your:</p><blockquote><div><p>Session or server-side variables may also be used for this, but that's more work for the web designer, who usually is <b>up to his neck trying to support different versions of IE misbehavior.</b></p></div>
</blockquote><p>
So the real problem, like always, is Microsoft<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)
</p><p>
The real problem is that cookies have really been abused by "web designers."  Real programmers don't like them for several reasons:
</p><ol>
<li>We're mostly privacy nuts.  We know how data can be misused because we've seen it happen up close and dirty too many times;</li>
<li>The <a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2965" title="ietf.org">spec</a> [ietf.org] makes it clear that there is a very low bound as to the number of cookies that conforming browsers need to support - see section 5.3 - 300 cookies total, 4k per cookie, 20 cookies per site.<blockquote><div><p> Applications should use as few and as small cookies as possible, and
<br>
   they should cope gracefully with the loss of a cookie.
</p><p>

   5.3.1  Denial of Service Attacks  User agents MAY choose to set an
<br>
   upper bound on the number of cookies to be stored from a given host
<br>
   or domain name or on the size of the cookie information.  Otherwise a
<br>
   malicious server could attempt to flood a user agent with many
<br>
   cookies, or large cookies, on successive responses, which would force
<br>
   out cookies the user agent had received from other servers.  However,
<br>
   the minima specified above SHOULD still be supported.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
But as I note at the bottom, it's not just a security issue - it's also a performance issue.  (and this ignores the fact that certain versions of IE fail to meet the minimum of 4k per cookie, failing at 2083 bytes, while some other browsers stupidly allow over 100k per cookie as a "feature".</p></li>

<li>Cookies leak information</li>
<li>Cookies can be turned off, so depending on them is, by definition bad programming</li>
<li>Poor performance over time. We're seeing slowdowns in browsers because of the enormous number of cookies that are stored.  Like your browser cache, your cookie cache takes time to read in, parse out, and search, so your browser does slow down over its' lifetime, in part, because of scads of cookies.</li>
</ol></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , the cookie spec [ ietf.org ] is in complete agreement with the European law : 6 .
PRIVACY Informed consent should guide the design of systems that use cookies .
A user should be able to find out how a web site plans to use information in a cookie and should be able to choose whether or not those policies are acceptable .
Both the user agent and the origin server must assist informed consent .
Now as for your : Session or server-side variables may also be used for this , but that 's more work for the web designer , who usually is up to his neck trying to support different versions of IE misbehavior .
So the real problem , like always , is Microsoft : - ) The real problem is that cookies have really been abused by " web designers .
" Real programmers do n't like them for several reasons : We 're mostly privacy nuts .
We know how data can be misused because we 've seen it happen up close and dirty too many times ; The spec [ ietf.org ] makes it clear that there is a very low bound as to the number of cookies that conforming browsers need to support - see section 5.3 - 300 cookies total , 4k per cookie , 20 cookies per site .
Applications should use as few and as small cookies as possible , and they should cope gracefully with the loss of a cookie .
5.3.1 Denial of Service Attacks User agents MAY choose to set an upper bound on the number of cookies to be stored from a given host or domain name or on the size of the cookie information .
Otherwise a malicious server could attempt to flood a user agent with many cookies , or large cookies , on successive responses , which would force out cookies the user agent had received from other servers .
However , the minima specified above SHOULD still be supported .
But as I note at the bottom , it 's not just a security issue - it 's also a performance issue .
( and this ignores the fact that certain versions of IE fail to meet the minimum of 4k per cookie , failing at 2083 bytes , while some other browsers stupidly allow over 100k per cookie as a " feature " .
Cookies leak information Cookies can be turned off , so depending on them is , by definition bad programming Poor performance over time .
We 're seeing slowdowns in browsers because of the enormous number of cookies that are stored .
Like your browser cache , your cookie cache takes time to read in , parse out , and search , so your browser does slow down over its ' lifetime , in part , because of scads of cookies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
First, the cookie spec [ietf.org] is in complete agreement with the European law: 6.
PRIVACY

   Informed consent should guide the design of systems that use cookies.
A user should be able to find out how a web site plans to use

   information in a cookie and should be able to choose whether or not

   those policies are acceptable.
Both the user agent and the origin

   server must assist informed consent.
Now as for your:Session or server-side variables may also be used for this, but that's more work for the web designer, who usually is up to his neck trying to support different versions of IE misbehavior.
So the real problem, like always, is Microsoft :-)

The real problem is that cookies have really been abused by "web designers.
"  Real programmers don't like them for several reasons:

We're mostly privacy nuts.
We know how data can be misused because we've seen it happen up close and dirty too many times;
The spec [ietf.org] makes it clear that there is a very low bound as to the number of cookies that conforming browsers need to support - see section 5.3 - 300 cookies total, 4k per cookie, 20 cookies per site.
Applications should use as few and as small cookies as possible, and

   they should cope gracefully with the loss of a cookie.
5.3.1  Denial of Service Attacks  User agents MAY choose to set an

   upper bound on the number of cookies to be stored from a given host

   or domain name or on the size of the cookie information.
Otherwise a

   malicious server could attempt to flood a user agent with many

   cookies, or large cookies, on successive responses, which would force

   out cookies the user agent had received from other servers.
However,

   the minima specified above SHOULD still be supported.
But as I note at the bottom, it's not just a security issue - it's also a performance issue.
(and this ignores the fact that certain versions of IE fail to meet the minimum of 4k per cookie, failing at 2083 bytes, while some other browsers stupidly allow over 100k per cookie as a "feature".
Cookies leak information
Cookies can be turned off, so depending on them is, by definition bad programming
Poor performance over time.
We're seeing slowdowns in browsers because of the enormous number of cookies that are stored.
Like your browser cache, your cookie cache takes time to read in, parse out, and search, so your browser does slow down over its' lifetime, in part, because of scads of cookies.

	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086946</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087440</id>
	<title>it's about annoying people...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think here's a lot of misunderstanding about what this "\"Breathtakingly Stupid\" EU Cookie Law" is all about.</p><p>It does not BAN anything. It requires Website operators to prompt the user on first visit to agree to their cookies. So basically \_it is\_ damn stupid: nothing is done about cookies, another nuisance is created. Set your Firefox to prompt you every time a site wants to set a cookie and see if you will enjoy it.</p><p>The EU completely ignores that most browsers already have prompting/blocking mechanisms for cookies and it's just up to the user to turn it on, and instead they reinvent the wheel and force the Website-owner to bug everyone in the world visiting EU located sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think here 's a lot of misunderstanding about what this " \ " Breathtakingly Stupid \ " EU Cookie Law " is all about.It does not BAN anything .
It requires Website operators to prompt the user on first visit to agree to their cookies .
So basically \ _it is \ _ damn stupid : nothing is done about cookies , another nuisance is created .
Set your Firefox to prompt you every time a site wants to set a cookie and see if you will enjoy it.The EU completely ignores that most browsers already have prompting/blocking mechanisms for cookies and it 's just up to the user to turn it on , and instead they reinvent the wheel and force the Website-owner to bug everyone in the world visiting EU located sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think here's a lot of misunderstanding about what this "\"Breathtakingly Stupid\" EU Cookie Law" is all about.It does not BAN anything.
It requires Website operators to prompt the user on first visit to agree to their cookies.
So basically \_it is\_ damn stupid: nothing is done about cookies, another nuisance is created.
Set your Firefox to prompt you every time a site wants to set a cookie and see if you will enjoy it.The EU completely ignores that most browsers already have prompting/blocking mechanisms for cookies and it's just up to the user to turn it on, and instead they reinvent the wheel and force the Website-owner to bug everyone in the world visiting EU located sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088532</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258136520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MS installs IE as the default web browser with cookies enabled from the outset.  Where is the consent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MS installs IE as the default web browser with cookies enabled from the outset .
Where is the consent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MS installs IE as the default web browser with cookies enabled from the outset.
Where is the consent?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087290</id>
	<title>Load Balancing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258130340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cookies are used to keep track of a user's session, especially when it crosses a load balancer and gets sprayed to any number of identical servers. Without the cookies, there is no way to keep your session on a consistent web server throughout a session. Remember things like "www3.netscape.com"? Cookie-based load balancers are what fixed that situation.</p><p>Yes, cookies are abused by advertisers, but quite frankly, I don't give a damn if a site wants to use them to follow me on their site. They DO use them to see which products are popular, what items are considered together - valid data that lets them make business decisions. I know from working with web design firms that they can be used to track flows through a site and tell what parts of navigation are difficult, and if users are missing the "intended" way of using a site.</p><p>There are lots of valid technical uses for cookies. I've never understood why they're vilified. It's a tiny chunk of usually random/hash data that's put on your computer by the remote site. Why should you care if they then retrieve it? The only objectionable use is cross-site cookies used by advertisers, and most decent browsers let you disable that class of usage, but not the rest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cookies are used to keep track of a user 's session , especially when it crosses a load balancer and gets sprayed to any number of identical servers .
Without the cookies , there is no way to keep your session on a consistent web server throughout a session .
Remember things like " www3.netscape.com " ?
Cookie-based load balancers are what fixed that situation.Yes , cookies are abused by advertisers , but quite frankly , I do n't give a damn if a site wants to use them to follow me on their site .
They DO use them to see which products are popular , what items are considered together - valid data that lets them make business decisions .
I know from working with web design firms that they can be used to track flows through a site and tell what parts of navigation are difficult , and if users are missing the " intended " way of using a site.There are lots of valid technical uses for cookies .
I 've never understood why they 're vilified .
It 's a tiny chunk of usually random/hash data that 's put on your computer by the remote site .
Why should you care if they then retrieve it ?
The only objectionable use is cross-site cookies used by advertisers , and most decent browsers let you disable that class of usage , but not the rest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cookies are used to keep track of a user's session, especially when it crosses a load balancer and gets sprayed to any number of identical servers.
Without the cookies, there is no way to keep your session on a consistent web server throughout a session.
Remember things like "www3.netscape.com"?
Cookie-based load balancers are what fixed that situation.Yes, cookies are abused by advertisers, but quite frankly, I don't give a damn if a site wants to use them to follow me on their site.
They DO use them to see which products are popular, what items are considered together - valid data that lets them make business decisions.
I know from working with web design firms that they can be used to track flows through a site and tell what parts of navigation are difficult, and if users are missing the "intended" way of using a site.There are lots of valid technical uses for cookies.
I've never understood why they're vilified.
It's a tiny chunk of usually random/hash data that's put on your computer by the remote site.
Why should you care if they then retrieve it?
The only objectionable use is cross-site cookies used by advertisers, and most decent browsers let you disable that class of usage, but not the rest.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30095604</id>
	<title>INCOMPETENT BUREOUCRATIC SHEEP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258229460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>this again is a demonstration of the extremely bureaucratic, brain dead mass of overpaid parasites we europeans have to pay  for - very dearly- to implement banana bending laws...
please do boycott any of these "geniuses" and let the eu know how much we are pissed off</htmltext>
<tokenext>this again is a demonstration of the extremely bureaucratic , brain dead mass of overpaid parasites we europeans have to pay for - very dearly- to implement banana bending laws.. . please do boycott any of these " geniuses " and let the eu know how much we are pissed off</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this again is a demonstration of the extremely bureaucratic, brain dead mass of overpaid parasites we europeans have to pay  for - very dearly- to implement banana bending laws...
please do boycott any of these "geniuses" and let the eu know how much we are pissed off</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091770</id>
	<title>SWITCH YOUR COOKIES OFF !</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1258106580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>SWITCH YOUR COOKIES OFF ! The web will not break. Most sites work PERFECTLY without cookies, those that don't I refuse to use unless it's important (bank, email etc..)</htmltext>
<tokenext>SWITCH YOUR COOKIES OFF !
The web will not break .
Most sites work PERFECTLY without cookies , those that do n't I refuse to use unless it 's important ( bank , email etc.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SWITCH YOUR COOKIES OFF !
The web will not break.
Most sites work PERFECTLY without cookies, those that don't I refuse to use unless it's important (bank, email etc..)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087324</id>
	<title>Re:Do We Really Need Cookies?</title>
	<author>Enleth</author>
	<datestamp>1258130460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do I implement sessions without mangling all the local URLs in the output (which is seriously non-trivial and poses its own problems, also with security and privacy), yet  without the use of cookies?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do I implement sessions without mangling all the local URLs in the output ( which is seriously non-trivial and poses its own problems , also with security and privacy ) , yet without the use of cookies ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do I implement sessions without mangling all the local URLs in the output (which is seriously non-trivial and poses its own problems, also with security and privacy), yet  without the use of cookies?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087540</id>
	<title>Re:Do We Really Need Cookies?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258131420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ask yourself; what can be accomplished with a cookie that can't be accomplished using alternative mechanisms.</p></div><p>Let's use URL rewriting. My friend shares a photo from their private album with me, I post a link to it on Twitter and the next thing I know half the world has my session id.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask yourself ; what can be accomplished with a cookie that ca n't be accomplished using alternative mechanisms.Let 's use URL rewriting .
My friend shares a photo from their private album with me , I post a link to it on Twitter and the next thing I know half the world has my session id .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask yourself; what can be accomplished with a cookie that can't be accomplished using alternative mechanisms.Let's use URL rewriting.
My friend shares a photo from their private album with me, I post a link to it on Twitter and the next thing I know half the world has my session id.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087564</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>ZaphDingbat</author>
	<datestamp>1258131540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This is 2009, wake up to the real world.</p></div><p>This sentence adds zero value to your reply.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is 2009 , wake up to the real world.This sentence adds zero value to your reply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is 2009, wake up to the real world.This sentence adds zero value to your reply.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092376</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>tha\_mink</author>
	<datestamp>1258109820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok.  So you have your server log.  How many times has person a visited your site before he's purchased the widget you are pushing to him.  Check your logs and get back to me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok. So you have your server log .
How many times has person a visited your site before he 's purchased the widget you are pushing to him .
Check your logs and get back to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok.  So you have your server log.
How many times has person a visited your site before he's purchased the widget you are pushing to him.
Check your logs and get back to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090736</id>
	<title>This is so simple...</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1258144920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.</p></div><p>You can improve my experience by giving me whatever it is I want at this moment, doing it instantly, and doing it at no cost to me! <br>Hey! Where you going? <br>I'm not done improving my experience yet!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know most of you guys hate cookies in general , but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.You can improve my experience by giving me whatever it is I want at this moment , doing it instantly , and doing it at no cost to me !
Hey ! Where you going ?
I 'm not done improving my experience yet !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know most of you guys hate cookies in general, but they are vital for websites to know how people are accessing the sites so they can work out how to improve the experience for the user.You can improve my experience by giving me whatever it is I want at this moment, doing it instantly, and doing it at no cost to me!
Hey! Where you going?
I'm not done improving my experience yet!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087848</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>MikeBabcock</author>
	<datestamp>1258132980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use a couple text browsers that have always done this.</p><p>Konqueror has always done this to my knowledge.</p><p>Firefox can be easily configured to do this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a couple text browsers that have always done this.Konqueror has always done this to my knowledge.Firefox can be easily configured to do this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use a couple text browsers that have always done this.Konqueror has always done this to my knowledge.Firefox can be easily configured to do this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089462</id>
	<title>Accessing from the EU</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258139880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, most advertising networks and third-party analytics services will state: ``Cookies are Copyright (C) 5000 bC - ever COMPANY. These cookies may NOT be used by anyone in the EU. Such an use is strictly prohibited and users residing in the EU found to have stored them will be prosecuted to the extent permitted by applicable law due to copyright infringement. It is the users' duty to take the corresponding procedures that may be needed in order to configure their user agents to comply with this clause. The users shall waive, in a non-exhaustive manner, any right to initiate legal and/or administrative procedures that may arise from, out of, or in connection with the use of cookies they receive that is in any way in violation of this policy, or any applicable law. Additionaly, Users shall indemify COMPANY for the misuse that cookies this Site asks to store should receive, including but not limited to storing the cookies in a not-authorised location. IN PARTICULAR, YOU AGREE TO (A) REJECT EVERY COOKIE THIS SERVER HAPPENED TO SEND, IF IN THE EU; (B) HOLD COMPANY, ITS EMPLOYEES, SUBSIDIARES,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..., OR OTHERIWISE ITS ASSETS HARMLESS FOR HAVING VIOLATED THIS CLAUSE. IN ADDITION, YOU HEREBY STATE, IN AN IRREVOKABLE MANNER, THAT (A) YOU HAVE READ CAREFULLY AND UNDERSTOOD THIS CLAUSE, AND THAT (B) YOU ARE AWARE OF HOW COOKIES MAY BE USED WHEN UNIEQUIVOCALLY REFERRING TO A SINGLE USER.''</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , most advertising networks and third-party analytics services will state : ` ` Cookies are Copyright ( C ) 5000 bC - ever COMPANY .
These cookies may NOT be used by anyone in the EU .
Such an use is strictly prohibited and users residing in the EU found to have stored them will be prosecuted to the extent permitted by applicable law due to copyright infringement .
It is the users ' duty to take the corresponding procedures that may be needed in order to configure their user agents to comply with this clause .
The users shall waive , in a non-exhaustive manner , any right to initiate legal and/or administrative procedures that may arise from , out of , or in connection with the use of cookies they receive that is in any way in violation of this policy , or any applicable law .
Additionaly , Users shall indemify COMPANY for the misuse that cookies this Site asks to store should receive , including but not limited to storing the cookies in a not-authorised location .
IN PARTICULAR , YOU AGREE TO ( A ) REJECT EVERY COOKIE THIS SERVER HAPPENED TO SEND , IF IN THE EU ; ( B ) HOLD COMPANY , ITS EMPLOYEES , SUBSIDIARES , ... , OR OTHERIWISE ITS ASSETS HARMLESS FOR HAVING VIOLATED THIS CLAUSE .
IN ADDITION , YOU HEREBY STATE , IN AN IRREVOKABLE MANNER , THAT ( A ) YOU HAVE READ CAREFULLY AND UNDERSTOOD THIS CLAUSE , AND THAT ( B ) YOU ARE AWARE OF HOW COOKIES MAY BE USED WHEN UNIEQUIVOCALLY REFERRING TO A SINGLE USER .
''</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, most advertising networks and third-party analytics services will state: ``Cookies are Copyright (C) 5000 bC - ever COMPANY.
These cookies may NOT be used by anyone in the EU.
Such an use is strictly prohibited and users residing in the EU found to have stored them will be prosecuted to the extent permitted by applicable law due to copyright infringement.
It is the users' duty to take the corresponding procedures that may be needed in order to configure their user agents to comply with this clause.
The users shall waive, in a non-exhaustive manner, any right to initiate legal and/or administrative procedures that may arise from, out of, or in connection with the use of cookies they receive that is in any way in violation of this policy, or any applicable law.
Additionaly, Users shall indemify COMPANY for the misuse that cookies this Site asks to store should receive, including but not limited to storing the cookies in a not-authorised location.
IN PARTICULAR, YOU AGREE TO (A) REJECT EVERY COOKIE THIS SERVER HAPPENED TO SEND, IF IN THE EU; (B) HOLD COMPANY, ITS EMPLOYEES, SUBSIDIARES, ..., OR OTHERIWISE ITS ASSETS HARMLESS FOR HAVING VIOLATED THIS CLAUSE.
IN ADDITION, YOU HEREBY STATE, IN AN IRREVOKABLE MANNER, THAT (A) YOU HAVE READ CAREFULLY AND UNDERSTOOD THIS CLAUSE, AND THAT (B) YOU ARE AWARE OF HOW COOKIES MAY BE USED WHEN UNIEQUIVOCALLY REFERRING TO A SINGLE USER.
''</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086774</id>
	<title>First Post</title>
	<author>ScytheLegion</author>
	<datestamp>1258127820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm going to toss my cookies...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to toss my cookies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to toss my cookies...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Skapare</author>
	<datestamp>1258130700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Affiliate marketing... There are a lot of other sites with good information (a book review site comes to mind) that I enjoy.  They all keep the site running by giving affiliate links to the products, say to a book on amazon.  Kill that for them, and you kill their revenue.</p></div><p>Maybe you can explain why you think cookies is the only way to do this.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So, would you propose that the people running these sites force the customer to consent before they allow them to use their services?? No, that won't work because they can only make them accept to their cookie, not the one downstream they actually get paid on.  People have been so scared from cookie FUD that they will deny \%90 of the time, and STILL kill many sites because their revenue has dried up.</p></div><p>Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means, such as embedding a code in the URL, are available.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I think this law, if they have to make one, should be more specific and say what you CAN'T use cookies for.</p></div><p>Why?  So you can make up new ways to abuse cookies?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>AND btw, affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer, we do not need to identify the individual.</p></div><p>That can actually be dangerous.  The next person to come along might link to the same site, and they figure it must be the same person, and re-use their identifying info that first person voluntarily provided.  I don't see how knowing that it is the same computer, but not the same individual, helps in marketing, when marketing is targeted to people.  Computers don't (yet) make buying decisions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
Affiliate marketing... There are a lot of other sites with good information ( a book review site comes to mind ) that I enjoy .
They all keep the site running by giving affiliate links to the products , say to a book on amazon .
Kill that for them , and you kill their revenue.Maybe you can explain why you think cookies is the only way to do this.So , would you propose that the people running these sites force the customer to consent before they allow them to use their services ? ?
No , that wo n't work because they can only make them accept to their cookie , not the one downstream they actually get paid on .
People have been so scared from cookie FUD that they will deny \ % 90 of the time , and STILL kill many sites because their revenue has dried up.Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means , such as embedding a code in the URL , are available.I think this law , if they have to make one , should be more specific and say what you CA N'T use cookies for.Why ?
So you can make up new ways to abuse cookies ? AND btw , affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer , we do not need to identify the individual.That can actually be dangerous .
The next person to come along might link to the same site , and they figure it must be the same person , and re-use their identifying info that first person voluntarily provided .
I do n't see how knowing that it is the same computer , but not the same individual , helps in marketing , when marketing is targeted to people .
Computers do n't ( yet ) make buying decisions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
Affiliate marketing... There are a lot of other sites with good information (a book review site comes to mind) that I enjoy.
They all keep the site running by giving affiliate links to the products, say to a book on amazon.
Kill that for them, and you kill their revenue.Maybe you can explain why you think cookies is the only way to do this.So, would you propose that the people running these sites force the customer to consent before they allow them to use their services??
No, that won't work because they can only make them accept to their cookie, not the one downstream they actually get paid on.
People have been so scared from cookie FUD that they will deny \%90 of the time, and STILL kill many sites because their revenue has dried up.Maybe you can explain why the downstream site needs a cookie to accomplish affiliate marketing when other means, such as embedding a code in the URL, are available.I think this law, if they have to make one, should be more specific and say what you CAN'T use cookies for.Why?
So you can make up new ways to abuse cookies?AND btw, affiliate links would be fine if we could JUST identify the computer, we do not need to identify the individual.That can actually be dangerous.
The next person to come along might link to the same site, and they figure it must be the same person, and re-use their identifying info that first person voluntarily provided.
I don't see how knowing that it is the same computer, but not the same individual, helps in marketing, when marketing is targeted to people.
Computers don't (yet) make buying decisions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087856</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258132980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But, um, well... oh, my.  Excellent point.  Harrumph.</p><p>It's an interesting argument, and parallels the "open WiFi access point" issue - if someone "steals" your WiFi because you were too lazy to at least hide the SSID and left it in unencrypted broadcast mode, then some (myself included) would be inclined to regard it as usage of something openly offered and not theft.</p><p>It even parallels the WiFi argument in that most browsers are set to accept all cookies (first and third party) without prompting but that it is a trivial matter to set your browser to ask you (in the same way that it's trivial to at least hide the SSID or enable some useless encryption like WEP to at least make it clear that your wireless access point is NOT for public use).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But , um , well... oh , my .
Excellent point .
Harrumph.It 's an interesting argument , and parallels the " open WiFi access point " issue - if someone " steals " your WiFi because you were too lazy to at least hide the SSID and left it in unencrypted broadcast mode , then some ( myself included ) would be inclined to regard it as usage of something openly offered and not theft.It even parallels the WiFi argument in that most browsers are set to accept all cookies ( first and third party ) without prompting but that it is a trivial matter to set your browser to ask you ( in the same way that it 's trivial to at least hide the SSID or enable some useless encryption like WEP to at least make it clear that your wireless access point is NOT for public use ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But, um, well... oh, my.
Excellent point.
Harrumph.It's an interesting argument, and parallels the "open WiFi access point" issue - if someone "steals" your WiFi because you were too lazy to at least hide the SSID and left it in unencrypted broadcast mode, then some (myself included) would be inclined to regard it as usage of something openly offered and not theft.It even parallels the WiFi argument in that most browsers are set to accept all cookies (first and third party) without prompting but that it is a trivial matter to set your browser to ask you (in the same way that it's trivial to at least hide the SSID or enable some useless encryption like WEP to at least make it clear that your wireless access point is NOT for public use).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087958</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>alta</author>
	<datestamp>1258133580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Forgive me lake of quoting prowess, I'm not as dedicated as you.</p><p>2. I'm not proposing it's the only one just one that right now seems to work very well without jumping through hoops.  Developers (me) have been jumping through hoops, dealing with browser hacks, and the stateless connection issue since the beginning of HTTP.  If a customer follows the link, and buys in THAT session, fine.  The affiliate gets paid.  If they don't, the only way to attribute the sale is IF the customer logs into an account so the link between affiliate and store can be retained in the database.</p><p>If you know of a way to store an affiliate/store relation between distinct sessions PLEASE let me know.</p><p>Additionally, if this becomes worldwide, so much development time is going to be spent on fixing a problem we don't yet have.  I think with our GLOBAL economic problems we'd be better served doing something more productive.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"maybe you can explain why the downstream"</p></div><p>maybe that'll work...<br>See above.  Again, give me a way to store between sessions that does NOT involve having the customer log into a database.  Seriously, even if I could get a Unique code just for the damn computer, I could store what I need on my side.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why? So you can make up new ways to abuse cookies?</p></div><p>I have no need to abuse cookies.  I'm just trying to do business, in a legitimate way.  I'm not storing terabytes of data on customers.  I'm just trying to attribute a sale, so I can write an employee (affiliate) a weekly check.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> dangerous</p> </div><p>Yeah, spoke to soon, I'm still thinking of single user computers...   I don't need to know crap about WHO the person is. Or the computer.  I just need to REASONABLY be able to link a person between browsing sessions.  We did some stats on our own company, and on higher end purchases, 75\% of the sales were done AFTER the first visit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forgive me lake of quoting prowess , I 'm not as dedicated as you.2 .
I 'm not proposing it 's the only one just one that right now seems to work very well without jumping through hoops .
Developers ( me ) have been jumping through hoops , dealing with browser hacks , and the stateless connection issue since the beginning of HTTP .
If a customer follows the link , and buys in THAT session , fine .
The affiliate gets paid .
If they do n't , the only way to attribute the sale is IF the customer logs into an account so the link between affiliate and store can be retained in the database.If you know of a way to store an affiliate/store relation between distinct sessions PLEASE let me know.Additionally , if this becomes worldwide , so much development time is going to be spent on fixing a problem we do n't yet have .
I think with our GLOBAL economic problems we 'd be better served doing something more productive .
" maybe you can explain why the downstream " maybe that 'll work...See above .
Again , give me a way to store between sessions that does NOT involve having the customer log into a database .
Seriously , even if I could get a Unique code just for the damn computer , I could store what I need on my side.Why ?
So you can make up new ways to abuse cookies ? I have no need to abuse cookies .
I 'm just trying to do business , in a legitimate way .
I 'm not storing terabytes of data on customers .
I 'm just trying to attribute a sale , so I can write an employee ( affiliate ) a weekly check .
dangerous Yeah , spoke to soon , I 'm still thinking of single user computers... I do n't need to know crap about WHO the person is .
Or the computer .
I just need to REASONABLY be able to link a person between browsing sessions .
We did some stats on our own company , and on higher end purchases , 75 \ % of the sales were done AFTER the first visit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forgive me lake of quoting prowess, I'm not as dedicated as you.2.
I'm not proposing it's the only one just one that right now seems to work very well without jumping through hoops.
Developers (me) have been jumping through hoops, dealing with browser hacks, and the stateless connection issue since the beginning of HTTP.
If a customer follows the link, and buys in THAT session, fine.
The affiliate gets paid.
If they don't, the only way to attribute the sale is IF the customer logs into an account so the link between affiliate and store can be retained in the database.If you know of a way to store an affiliate/store relation between distinct sessions PLEASE let me know.Additionally, if this becomes worldwide, so much development time is going to be spent on fixing a problem we don't yet have.
I think with our GLOBAL economic problems we'd be better served doing something more productive.
"maybe you can explain why the downstream"maybe that'll work...See above.
Again, give me a way to store between sessions that does NOT involve having the customer log into a database.
Seriously, even if I could get a Unique code just for the damn computer, I could store what I need on my side.Why?
So you can make up new ways to abuse cookies?I have no need to abuse cookies.
I'm just trying to do business, in a legitimate way.
I'm not storing terabytes of data on customers.
I'm just trying to attribute a sale, so I can write an employee (affiliate) a weekly check.
dangerous Yeah, spoke to soon, I'm still thinking of single user computers...   I don't need to know crap about WHO the person is.
Or the computer.
I just need to REASONABLY be able to link a person between browsing sessions.
We did some stats on our own company, and on higher end purchases, 75\% of the sales were done AFTER the first visit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087306</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>tomhudson</author>
	<datestamp>1258130400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
You don't need cookies to do usability testing - you can track mouse movements and keypresses in real time with javascript and log them to the server.  Most of us would rightfully consider that level of intrusiveness as spyware.
</p><p>
You don't need cookies to make a fully functioning web site.
</p><p>
You don't even need cookies for affiliate marketing (unfortunately - the sooner "affiliate marketing" dies, the better).
</p><p>
Everything cookies do today, you can do without cookies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't need cookies to do usability testing - you can track mouse movements and keypresses in real time with javascript and log them to the server .
Most of us would rightfully consider that level of intrusiveness as spyware .
You do n't need cookies to make a fully functioning web site .
You do n't even need cookies for affiliate marketing ( unfortunately - the sooner " affiliate marketing " dies , the better ) .
Everything cookies do today , you can do without cookies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You don't need cookies to do usability testing - you can track mouse movements and keypresses in real time with javascript and log them to the server.
Most of us would rightfully consider that level of intrusiveness as spyware.
You don't need cookies to make a fully functioning web site.
You don't even need cookies for affiliate marketing (unfortunately - the sooner "affiliate marketing" dies, the better).
Everything cookies do today, you can do without cookies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087522</id>
	<title>Re:Do We Really Need Cookies?</title>
	<author>OzRoy</author>
	<datestamp>1258131360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In what way are they being abused? Cookies are not some magical tracking device that can be accessed by anyone and everyone. They are a packet of data that is sent back to the originating domain. They are not cross-domain and can only be accessed by the domain that first created it. In other words a site can only track a customer that passes through their site.</p><p>This is no different to your credit card. Recently I went a made a purchase from an Apple store. I was incredibly surprised to recieve an email 5 minutes later with a pdf copy of my receipt. The only way they could have done this is by matching my credit card number to the one attached to my itunes account.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In what way are they being abused ?
Cookies are not some magical tracking device that can be accessed by anyone and everyone .
They are a packet of data that is sent back to the originating domain .
They are not cross-domain and can only be accessed by the domain that first created it .
In other words a site can only track a customer that passes through their site.This is no different to your credit card .
Recently I went a made a purchase from an Apple store .
I was incredibly surprised to recieve an email 5 minutes later with a pdf copy of my receipt .
The only way they could have done this is by matching my credit card number to the one attached to my itunes account .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In what way are they being abused?
Cookies are not some magical tracking device that can be accessed by anyone and everyone.
They are a packet of data that is sent back to the originating domain.
They are not cross-domain and can only be accessed by the domain that first created it.
In other words a site can only track a customer that passes through their site.This is no different to your credit card.
Recently I went a made a purchase from an Apple store.
I was incredibly surprised to recieve an email 5 minutes later with a pdf copy of my receipt.
The only way they could have done this is by matching my credit card number to the one attached to my itunes account.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088594</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258136700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So true!</p><p>100 hours of Google analytics data  1hour watching you mom try to use the website</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So true ! 100 hours of Google analytics data 1hour watching you mom try to use the website</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So true!100 hours of Google analytics data  1hour watching you mom try to use the website</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088396</id>
	<title>Re:All cookies are always used with consent.</title>
	<author>tcampb01</author>
	<datestamp>1258135800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not so fast.  By your logic, all users also consented to having malware on their computers, and all actions performed by that malware would have happened with user consent.  After all.... new computers don't just un-box themselves, plug themselves into power and go find a network connection... the <em>user</em> had to do that.</p><p>Just because <em>you</em> know what a cookie is and are aware that you can configure your browser to block some or all of them, doesn't mean everybody else does.  Nor does it imply it's their own fault for being ignorant.  I use the "80 year old grandma" test.  There are numerous people who barely manage to use a computer, but feel compelled to (even though they are extremely uncomfortable with them) because more and more companies and services expect that users will have a computer.</p><p>Examples:  (1) In many cities and towns, daily-editions of the newspaper are no longer available for home delivery.  If you want the news you'll need a computer so you can read it online.   (2) Wireless phone providers generally do not have printed copies of your contract agreements, terms &amp; services, etc.  If you want to view those, you'll have to go online.  I've even asked some carriers if they can mail me a copy... the answer is "no, it is only available online."  </p><p>Anymore, a computer is becoming something households are required to have and use, whether they like it or not, and whether they know how to use, manage, or configure their software or not.  Browsers passively accept cookies and respond to cookie requests all day long; having no idea what the cookie is used for. In no way does this imply user consent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not so fast .
By your logic , all users also consented to having malware on their computers , and all actions performed by that malware would have happened with user consent .
After all.... new computers do n't just un-box themselves , plug themselves into power and go find a network connection... the user had to do that.Just because you know what a cookie is and are aware that you can configure your browser to block some or all of them , does n't mean everybody else does .
Nor does it imply it 's their own fault for being ignorant .
I use the " 80 year old grandma " test .
There are numerous people who barely manage to use a computer , but feel compelled to ( even though they are extremely uncomfortable with them ) because more and more companies and services expect that users will have a computer.Examples : ( 1 ) In many cities and towns , daily-editions of the newspaper are no longer available for home delivery .
If you want the news you 'll need a computer so you can read it online .
( 2 ) Wireless phone providers generally do not have printed copies of your contract agreements , terms &amp; services , etc .
If you want to view those , you 'll have to go online .
I 've even asked some carriers if they can mail me a copy... the answer is " no , it is only available online .
" Anymore , a computer is becoming something households are required to have and use , whether they like it or not , and whether they know how to use , manage , or configure their software or not .
Browsers passively accept cookies and respond to cookie requests all day long ; having no idea what the cookie is used for .
In no way does this imply user consent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not so fast.
By your logic, all users also consented to having malware on their computers, and all actions performed by that malware would have happened with user consent.
After all.... new computers don't just un-box themselves, plug themselves into power and go find a network connection... the user had to do that.Just because you know what a cookie is and are aware that you can configure your browser to block some or all of them, doesn't mean everybody else does.
Nor does it imply it's their own fault for being ignorant.
I use the "80 year old grandma" test.
There are numerous people who barely manage to use a computer, but feel compelled to (even though they are extremely uncomfortable with them) because more and more companies and services expect that users will have a computer.Examples:  (1) In many cities and towns, daily-editions of the newspaper are no longer available for home delivery.
If you want the news you'll need a computer so you can read it online.
(2) Wireless phone providers generally do not have printed copies of your contract agreements, terms &amp; services, etc.
If you want to view those, you'll have to go online.
I've even asked some carriers if they can mail me a copy... the answer is "no, it is only available online.
"  Anymore, a computer is becoming something households are required to have and use, whether they like it or not, and whether they know how to use, manage, or configure their software or not.
Browsers passively accept cookies and respond to cookie requests all day long; having no idea what the cookie is used for.
In no way does this imply user consent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093644</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1258118580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is obviously true for all companies and completely invalidates the GP's points.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is obviously true for all companies and completely invalidates the GP 's points .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is obviously true for all companies and completely invalidates the GP's points.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087694</id>
	<title>This is breathtakingly stupid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258132260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our load balancers use cookies to keep sessions sticky<br>Our catalogs use cookies to track INTERNAL efforts to advertise our products<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; for example, link from google products, set cookie for 90 days, book referrer with every SALE for those 90 days, rinse repeat.<br>Our sites use cookies to keep users from seeing gawdawful long GET strings in their browsers, oh wait...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; The EU should regulate the GET string too, it's insidious and can be used to do stuff that does things</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our load balancers use cookies to keep sessions stickyOur catalogs use cookies to track INTERNAL efforts to advertise our products     for example , link from google products , set cookie for 90 days , book referrer with every SALE for those 90 days , rinse repeat.Our sites use cookies to keep users from seeing gawdawful long GET strings in their browsers , oh wait.. .     The EU should regulate the GET string too , it 's insidious and can be used to do stuff that does things</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our load balancers use cookies to keep sessions stickyOur catalogs use cookies to track INTERNAL efforts to advertise our products
    for example, link from google products, set cookie for 90 days, book referrer with every SALE for those 90 days, rinse repeat.Our sites use cookies to keep users from seeing gawdawful long GET strings in their browsers, oh wait...
    The EU should regulate the GET string too, it's insidious and can be used to do stuff that does things</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087238</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1258130040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Usability testing doesn't tell you how customers are actually using your site under normal conditions as part of their daily workflow; it tells you how testers hypothetically could use your site under laboratory conditions.  You can certainly get useful feedback from usability testing, but to borrow a phrase, people do breathtakingly stupid things in the wild that nobody would have dreamed of during testing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Usability testing does n't tell you how customers are actually using your site under normal conditions as part of their daily workflow ; it tells you how testers hypothetically could use your site under laboratory conditions .
You can certainly get useful feedback from usability testing , but to borrow a phrase , people do breathtakingly stupid things in the wild that nobody would have dreamed of during testing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Usability testing doesn't tell you how customers are actually using your site under normal conditions as part of their daily workflow; it tells you how testers hypothetically could use your site under laboratory conditions.
You can certainly get useful feedback from usability testing, but to borrow a phrase, people do breathtakingly stupid things in the wild that nobody would have dreamed of during testing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087702</id>
	<title>This is for THIRD party cookies only</title>
	<author>american\_standard</author>
	<datestamp>1258132320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you're site is using cookies, no problem - this directive isn't going to affect you. If you're site loads third party cookies then this is what this law is addressing. There are legitimate uses for third party cookies, and your users will have no problem recognising and understanding those uses and probably consenting to the cookie. I'm guessing you're only going to be concerned if you're loading some advertising, affiliate stuff that you'd rather the user didn't know about.

And check your logs - all those none IE visitors can already disable third party cookies easily in the browser preferences. If you're site, or revenue relies on using technology from the 90's then the EU is the least of your problems...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're site is using cookies , no problem - this directive is n't going to affect you .
If you 're site loads third party cookies then this is what this law is addressing .
There are legitimate uses for third party cookies , and your users will have no problem recognising and understanding those uses and probably consenting to the cookie .
I 'm guessing you 're only going to be concerned if you 're loading some advertising , affiliate stuff that you 'd rather the user did n't know about .
And check your logs - all those none IE visitors can already disable third party cookies easily in the browser preferences .
If you 're site , or revenue relies on using technology from the 90 's then the EU is the least of your problems.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're site is using cookies, no problem - this directive isn't going to affect you.
If you're site loads third party cookies then this is what this law is addressing.
There are legitimate uses for third party cookies, and your users will have no problem recognising and understanding those uses and probably consenting to the cookie.
I'm guessing you're only going to be concerned if you're loading some advertising, affiliate stuff that you'd rather the user didn't know about.
And check your logs - all those none IE visitors can already disable third party cookies easily in the browser preferences.
If you're site, or revenue relies on using technology from the 90's then the EU is the least of your problems...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088320</id>
	<title>Re:Vital under what conditions?</title>
	<author>harmonise</author>
	<datestamp>1258135320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Most sites have 60\%+ visits coming from Google in the middle of the site, to do any usability testing they need to know where they arrived to focus that usability. To get this information you need to have cookies.</p></div></blockquote><p>You don't need cookies for that. All that information, including where they come from and what search terms they used, are stored in the web server log files.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most sites have 60 \ % + visits coming from Google in the middle of the site , to do any usability testing they need to know where they arrived to focus that usability .
To get this information you need to have cookies.You do n't need cookies for that .
All that information , including where they come from and what search terms they used , are stored in the web server log files .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most sites have 60\%+ visits coming from Google in the middle of the site, to do any usability testing they need to know where they arrived to focus that usability.
To get this information you need to have cookies.You don't need cookies for that.
All that information, including where they come from and what search terms they used, are stored in the web server log files.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090612</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see the stupidity here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258144260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, offtopic, but where did you learn that Kroger sells personal data?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , offtopic , but where did you learn that Kroger sells personal data ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, offtopic, but where did you learn that Kroger sells personal data?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087292</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30100648
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087540
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088490
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096062
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087216
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087406
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087700
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092376
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091122
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087210
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089898
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30097826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090830
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090050
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086916
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089900
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092516
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30129800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089354
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30094134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30095326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087084
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091242
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30178602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30107016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093362
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087212
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087020
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30101560
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_13_1348222_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088420
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087876
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089898
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087210
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087794
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088490
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30097826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093264
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086832
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088532
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087658
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089352
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087856
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087396
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087638
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087848
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087968
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30094134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087014
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30178602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090424
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093362
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087460
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087284
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092634
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088082
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090830
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087390
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089094
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087792
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090050
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096038
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087292
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096510
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30093644
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089354
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087366
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30101560
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087828
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087958
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096062
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30096278
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087020
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087254
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087084
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086948
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30107016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087244
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089286
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30100648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091112
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087036
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087326
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087306
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30090812
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091122
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087564
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30089904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088320
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087238
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087216
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087406
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086806
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086930
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087290
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30088132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30092516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30129800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_13_1348222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30086942
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30095326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087324
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091242
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30091924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087522
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_13_1348222.30087540
</commentlist>
</conversation>
