> Anyone who objects to the use of cookies shouldn't be allowed on
> the web.

        Wow, well you've got a problem then, because many people object.

> There is nothing in a cookie that wasn't PUT THERE by the site that wrote
> it.  It's not like it contains your top-secret banking history - it's
> usually nothing more than a unique identifier used to tell a web site that
> 'this' request is related to 'that' request you made 5 seconds ago.

        Correct. So, you are "ok" with an advertising company putting a cookie on
your system to track which websites you are visiting? Now, a step further,
are you "ok" with Microsoft dropping a cookie on your system that'll let it
know which websites you are visiting.

        Cookies, along with most web technologies of today, were designed for a
MUCH more trusting environment (look at SMTP). Used properly they are great.
Unfortunately using them for less desirable reasons is just as easy.

> Imagine a 'wizard' web application where on successive pages you
> (a) select
> products, (b) enter shipping information, and (3) make payment.  Without
> cookies it is difficult for the web server to know that the information
> entered on each page is related.

        True, and in that case I am not opposed to cookies. What I AM opposed to is
"regular" websites (like a news site) that WON'T EVEN WORK without cookies
enabled. Tell me why reading the classified section of a news site REQUIRES
the use of cookies?

> Thankfully, as a result of all the whining and bitching by people
> that think
> they have a clue, there are now pretty elegant ways of dealing with state
> without using cookies.  Of course, these workarounds pass back
> precisely the
> same information; it's just not called a 'cookie'.

        That sort of language is NOT appropriate for the PICLIST. There is no
reason to become that emotional over this issue.

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList
mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu