Joshua Rodman writes:
> One of the growing list of reasons to disable javascript by default.
>
> Which of course exposes the growing list of websites which can't produce
> static content without javascript. Bu
Well, you know, is just too complicated.
Matthew
--
I must take issue
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 10:42:26AM +, Peter Corlett wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2009, at 09:44, Joshua Juran wrote:
> [...]
>> "Just delete the YouTube cookies," I said. But no, it's never that
>> simple, is it? Because in Firefox, deleting a site's cookie
On 13 Mar 2009, at 09:44, Joshua Juran wrote:
[...]
"Just delete the YouTube cookies," I said. But no, it's never that
simple, is it? Because in Firefox, deleting a site's cookies also
means to block that site's cookies from now on. It wasn't until I
also d
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 04:44, Joshua Juran wrote:
"Just delete the YouTube cookies," I said. But no, it's never that simple,
is it? Because in Firefox, deleting a site's cookies also means to block
that site's cookies from now on. It wasn't until I also delete
On Mar 13, 2009, at 1:33 AM, Joshua Juran wrote:
I was browsing YouTube videos when I suddenly got:
400 Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Size of a request header field exceeds server limit.
Cookie: ...; watched_video_id_list_USER=[stuff in
I was browsing YouTube videos when I suddenly got:
400 Bad Request
Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand.
Size of a request header field exceeds server limit.
Cookie: ...; watched_video_id_list_USER=[stuff in base64, but
really a whole freakin' lot of it,
