Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #3793 > unrolled thread

motherfuckingwebsite.com

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  motherfuckingwebsite.com RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-23 12:26 +0000
    Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-06-23 10:11 -0500
      Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-23 16:13 +0000
        Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-06-23 19:34 +0100
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-23 22:09 +0000
      Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-06-23 19:49 +0100
        Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-23 19:38 +0000
        Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-06-24 03:23 -0500
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-06-24 21:08 +0100
      Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2014-06-23 20:00 +0100
        Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com "Andy K." <andy.k466@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 21:35 +0200
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2014-06-24 21:46 +0100
            Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-24 22:06 +0000
              Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2014-06-24 23:24 +0100
                Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-24 23:58 +0000
                  Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> - 2014-06-25 12:03 +0200
                    Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-25 10:19 +0000
                      Buzzfeed Cookie Monster (was Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com) RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-25 15:16 +0000
        Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-06-25 06:17 -0500
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-25 14:38 +0300
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> - 2014-06-25 21:03 +0100
    Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2014-06-23 17:21 -0300
    Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-23 22:22 +0200
      Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-06-24 08:22 +1000
        Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-27 13:44 +0200
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2014-06-28 09:58 +1000
      Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2014-06-23 23:03 +0000
        Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2014-06-24 09:59 -0400
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-24 15:12 +0000
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2014-06-24 17:50 +0000
            Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2014-06-24 22:52 -0400
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com "Andy K." <andy.k466@gmail.com> - 2014-06-24 21:37 +0200
            Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> - 2014-06-24 16:08 -0500
              Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-27 13:47 +0200
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-25 05:37 +0000
            Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2014-06-25 08:05 -0400
              Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-25 12:24 +0000
                Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2014-06-25 09:27 -0400
                  Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-06-25 16:53 +0300
                  Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-25 15:36 +0000
                Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-06-27 13:59 +0200
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Ed Mullen <ejEVOMER@edmullen.net> - 2014-06-25 10:49 -0400
      Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Ed Mullen <ejEVOMER@edmullen.net> - 2014-06-23 21:03 -0400
    Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Peter Percival <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2014-06-24 16:12 +0100
      Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Rhino <no_offline_contact_please@example.com> - 2014-06-24 11:23 -0400
    Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Johny B Good <johnny-b-good@invalid.ntlworld.com> - 2014-06-25 14:28 +0100
    Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-25 15:42 +0000
      Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-06-25 12:06 -0400
        Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-26 23:44 +0000
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-26 20:01 -0700
          Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2014-06-27 12:07 -0400
            Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2014-06-27 23:07 +0000
              Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Ed Mullen <ejEVOMER@edmullen.net> - 2014-06-28 19:14 -0400
                Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Adrienne Boswell <arbpen@yahoo.com> - 2014-07-01 20:43 +0000
                  Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-07-15 14:45 +0100
            Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com Bob Eager <news0002@eager.cx> - 2014-06-28 20:44 +0000
      Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-06-26 07:14 +0000

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#3793 — motherfuckingwebsite.com

There was a discussion on Soylentnews.com about web app design with a 40
+ year life expectancy.  That discussion wasn't overly interesting, but
someone linked to this website, which I find pretty funny and well-done:

http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

As the guy who posted something about gopher on this newsgroup, I'm all
for simple websites and content before flash.  Whoever did
motherfuckingwebsite.com seems to be in perfect agreement.  Point of
that site and the discussion at Soy is: you'd better focus on the least
common denominator and allow intermediary systems to be replaced or
modified as the system ages.



-- 
RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com>

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#3794

Funny and true. It's inspired me to add a poll to my site [1]: What's the  
most annoying feature of the modern web?

 * "this site uses cookies."
 * Floating <div>s
 * No Facebook, Google etc login
 * Facebook, Google etc logins
 * 'Share this', and 'Like' buttons
 * Something else

This post uses cookies. To accept use of cookies click this button, or why  
not share this post using the buttons below?


[1] squte.com
-- 
<p>regards ~tdk</p>
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/6348#comment-30935

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3795

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:11:25 -0500
"tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> wrote:

> Funny and true. It's inspired me to add a poll to my site [1]: What's the  
> most annoying feature of the modern web?
> 
>  * "this site uses cookies."
>  * Floating <div>s
>  * No Facebook, Google etc login
>  * Facebook, Google etc logins
>  * 'Share this', and 'Like' buttons
>  * Something else

Ha ha - good one.  I just took your poll.  For me, if I have to log-in
with a Facebook/Google account, I am not going to log in at all.  No
idea of how that data is getting shared.

Many hundreds of KB of junk just to get 8KB of text is a pretty big
annoyance for me too.  On some sites (like LinuxToday) I only visit
with Lynx, to strip out all the garbage that otherwise makes the site
load slowly.  Shouldn't have to be like that, but it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3797

On 2014-06-23 17:13, RS Wood wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 10:11:25 -0500
> "tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com> wrote:
> 
>> Funny and true. It's inspired me to add a poll to my site [1]: What's the  
>> most annoying feature of the modern web?
>>
>>  * "this site uses cookies."
>>  * Floating <div>s
>>  * No Facebook, Google etc login
>>  * Facebook, Google etc logins
>>  * 'Share this', and 'Like' buttons
>>  * Something else
> 
> Ha ha - good one.  I just took your poll.  For me, if I have to log-in
> with a Facebook/Google account, I am not going to log in at all.  No
> idea of how that data is getting shared.

A slight detour: last year I heard of a "march against Monsanto" event
in the next county. The details of time and place were on a Facebook
page which required logging in. Let's hear it for anti-corporatism...

> Many hundreds of KB of junk just to get 8KB of text is a pretty big
> annoyance for me too.  On some sites (like LinuxToday) I only visit
> with Lynx, to strip out all the garbage that otherwise makes the site
> load slowly.  Shouldn't have to be like that, but it is.
Some years ago NASA's site changed almost overnight from being fairly
lean and content-rich to being monstrously bloated with scripts,
graphics and embedded formatting. How the mighty can fall.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3805

Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:

> A slight detour: last year I heard of a "march against Monsanto"
> event in the next county. The details of time and place were on a
> Facebook page which required logging in. Let's hear it for
> anti-corporatism...

This is likely more a symptom of the organizers myopia than anything
else.  I'm sure they thought: "everyone's on facebook, so....."

facebook: the new AOL of the internet

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3798

On 23/06/2014 16:11, tdk wrote:
> Funny and true. It's inspired me to add a poll to my site [1]: What's
> the most annoying feature of the modern web?
>
> * "this site uses cookies."
> * Floating <div>s
> * No Facebook, Google etc login
> * Facebook, Google etc logins
> * 'Share this', and 'Like' buttons
> * Something else
>
> This post uses cookies. To accept use of cookies click this button, or
> why not share this post using the buttons below?
>
>
> [1] squte.com

Every flaming site has a poll... I don't want no flaming poll.

(Mind, it's the ones which ask you about your experience of the site 
before you even get in to be able to see it that really get me.)

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3801

>Every flaming site has a poll... I don't want no flaming poll.
>
>(Mind, it's the ones which ask you about your experience of the site 
>before you even get in to be able to see it that really get me.)
>
>-- 
>Rod


I'm usually pleased when sites care enough about what I think of them to ask
 my opinion.  But yes, it needs to be done right and often is not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3810

polygonum wrote:

>Every flaming site has a poll... I don't want no flaming poll
You do know it's optional, right?

Anyway, I've added an option "Polls on websites" to the poll on the website.


-- 
regards ~tdk
View this thread at http://squte.com/node/6348#comment-31088

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3829

On 24/06/2014 09:23, tdk wrote:
> polygonum wrote:
>
>> Every flaming site has a poll... I don't want no flaming poll
> You do know it's optional, right?
>
> Anyway, I've added an option "Polls on websites" to the poll on the
> website.
>
>
Yes - of course I do. :-)  Was meant to be a somewhat tongue in cheek 
response. And yours an an excellent rejoinder...

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3800

In message <6348#30935@usenet.squte.com>, tdk <forum.tdk@squte.com> 
writes
>Funny and true. It's inspired me to add a poll to my site [1]: What's 
>the most annoying feature of the modern web?
>
>* "this site uses cookies."

Not directed at the OP.

Why does "this site use cookies" ?  Many of the sites I visit want to 
set cookies, but if they are "read only" sites why does it need them ? 
Telling me that they improve my browsing experience (but not how) 
doesn't make it OK.


Adrian
-- 
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3827

On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:00:43 +0100
Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:

> In message <6348#30935@usenet.squte.com>, tdk <forum.tdk@squte.com> 
> writes
> >Funny and true. It's inspired me to add a poll to my site [1]: What's 
> >the most annoying feature of the modern web?
> >
> >* "this site uses cookies."
> 
> Not directed at the OP.
> 
> Why does "this site use cookies" ?  Many of the sites I visit want to 
> set cookies, but if they are "read only" sites why does it need them ? 
> Telling me that they improve my browsing experience (but not how) 
> doesn't make it OK.

Just hit "allow for session". Cookie gets set, site is happy, therefore site
works as intended, and when you visit it next time, the cookie will be gone.

IMHO, much better approach than refusing all cookies. Only downside is that
you need to restart the browser every now and then, but that's a small price
to pay.

-- 
A.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3831

In message <20140624213537.2d258cad.andy.k466@gmail.com>, Andy K. 
<andy.k466@gmail.com> writes
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:00:43 +0100
>Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
>
>> In message <6348#30935@usenet.squte.com>, tdk <forum.tdk@squte.com>
>> writes
>> >Funny and true. It's inspired me to add a poll to my site [1]: What's
>> >the most annoying feature of the modern web?
>> >
>> >* "this site uses cookies."
>>
>> Not directed at the OP.
>>
>> Why does "this site use cookies" ?  Many of the sites I visit want to
>> set cookies, but if they are "read only" sites why does it need them ?
>> Telling me that they improve my browsing experience (but not how)
>> doesn't make it OK.
>
>Just hit "allow for session". Cookie gets set, site is happy, therefore site
>works as intended, and when you visit it next time, the cookie will be gone.
>

Which I sometimes do, more likely I hit refuse.  However, whether I 
accept cookies or not, doesn't explain why the site authors think that I 
need them.

>IMHO, much better approach than refusing all cookies. Only downside is that
>you need to restart the browser every now and then, but that's a small price
>to pay.
>

It usually gets restarted at least once a day anyway.


Adrian
-- 
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3837

Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
> In message <20140624213537.2d258cad.andy.k466@gmail.com>, Andy K. 
> <andy.k466@gmail.com> writes
> >On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:00:43 +0100
> >Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
> >
> >Just hit "allow for session". Cookie gets set, site is happy,
> >therefore site works as intended, and when you visit it next time,
> >the cookie will be gone.

> Which I sometimes do, more likely I hit refuse.  However, whether I
> accept cookies or not, doesn't explain why the site authors think
> that I need them.

Unless you are logging in, and cookies are used as the login tracking
mechanism, then you as a site viewer never need cookies at all.

The site authors think you need them because they use them to sell you
to their advertisers.  Remember, like with broadcast TV, you are not
the customer, you are the product.  The customers are the advertisers,
and cookies give the advertisers something to build their statistics
upon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3840

In message <locsps$7lr$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> 
writes
>Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
>> In message <20140624213537.2d258cad.andy.k466@gmail.com>, Andy K.
>> <andy.k466@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Mon, 23 Jun 2014 20:00:43 +0100
>> >Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
>> >
>> >Just hit "allow for session". Cookie gets set, site is happy,
>> >therefore site works as intended, and when you visit it next time,
>> >the cookie will be gone.
>
>> Which I sometimes do, more likely I hit refuse.  However, whether I
>> accept cookies or not, doesn't explain why the site authors think
>> that I need them.
>
>Unless you are logging in, and cookies are used as the login tracking
>mechanism, then you as a site viewer never need cookies at all.
>

Which is what I suspected.


>The site authors think you need them because they use them to sell you
>to their advertisers.  Remember, like with broadcast TV, you are not
>the customer, you are the product.  The customers are the advertisers,
>and cookies give the advertisers something to build their statistics
>upon.

And I love to disappoint them.


Adrian
-- 
To Reply :
replace "bulleid" with "adrian" - all mail to bulleid is rejected
Sorry for the rigmarole, If I want spam, I'll go to the shops
Every time someone says "I don't believe in trolls", another one dies.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3841

Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
> In message <locsps$7lr$1@dont-email.me>, Rich <rich@example.invalid> 
> writes
> >Adrian <bulleid@ku.gro.lioff> wrote:
> >> Which I sometimes do, more likely I hit refuse.  However, whether
> >> I accept cookies or not, doesn't explain why the site authors
> >> think that I need them.
> >
> >Unless you are logging in, and cookies are used as the login
> >tracking mechanism, then you as a site viewer never need cookies at
> >all.

> Which is what I suspected.

> >The site authors think you need them because they use them to sell
> >you to their advertisers.  Remember, like with broadcast TV, you are
> >not the customer, you are the product.  The customers are the
> >advertisers, and cookies give the advertisers something to build
> >their statistics upon.

> And I love to disappoint them.

Which is why I install "Cookie Monster"
(https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/?src=api)
into firefox.

I can whitelist the few sites I allow to set cookies, and the rest stay
set to "no cookies allowed" mode.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3845

Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> Which is why I install "Cookie Monster"
> (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/?src=api)
> into firefox.
>
> I can whitelist the few sites I allow to set cookies, and the rest stay
> set to "no cookies allowed" mode.

Firefox can do that out of the box:
(Preferences -> Privacy -> Exceptions...).

No extension needed.

-- 
> cat /etc/slackware-version && uname -mprs
Slackware 14.0
Linux 3.12.0-dn i686 AMD Turion(tm) 64 Mobile Technology MK-36

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3846

Dario Niedermann <dnied@tiscali.it> wrote:
> Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> > Which is why I install "Cookie Monster"
> > (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cookie-monster/?src=api)
> > into firefox.
> >
> > I can whitelist the few sites I allow to set cookies, and the rest stay
> > set to "no cookies allowed" mode.

> Firefox can do that out of the box:
> (Preferences -> Privacy -> Exceptions...).

> No extension needed.

Very true.  What the extension provides is a tool-bar icon to allow one
to tweak the settings within firefox without having to dig all the way
down into Preferences -> Privacy -> Exceptions... every single time.

Plus the extension lists the domains the cookies are attempting to be
set for, whereas using Preferences -> Privacy -> Exceptions... one has
no idea what third part cookies are being requested.  And for some
sites (banks are a big culprit here) there are sometimes a few "third
party" cookies that need to also be set to successfully log in.

The "third party" is usually some other bank domain, rather than a true
"third party", but it is the same difference to the browser.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3861 — Buzzfeed Cookie Monster (was Re: motherfuckingwebsite.com)

On Wed, 25 Jun 2014 10:19:24 +0000 (UTC)
Rich <rich@example.invalid> wrote:

> Plus the extension lists the domains the cookies are attempting to be
> set for, whereas using Preferences -> Privacy -> Exceptions... one has
> no idea what third part cookies are being requested.  And for some
> sites (banks are a big culprit here) there are sometimes a few "third
> party" cookies that need to also be set to successfully log in.
> 
> The "third party" is usually some other bank domain, rather than a true
> "third party", but it is the same difference to the browser.  


This seems like a reasonable segue into a related topic.  The Reg is
reporting on just how much data BuzzFeed slurps up each time you load
one of its pages.  You mean it wasn't just providing me with a steady
supply of inanity, it was actually characterizing me for sale?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/06/25/buzzfeed_aggregated_data_slurp/

//-- clip
"When you visit BuzzFeed, they record lots of information about you,"
he warned. "Most websites record some information. BuzzFeed record a
whole tonne."

Barker also took the following screenshot, which he says shows the info
Buzzfeed collects via Google Analytics and its own internal stats.
//-- clip

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3849

>Many of the sites I visit want to set cookies, but if they are "read only"  
>sites why does it need them ?
HTTP is completely stateless.

A server may get 1000s of requests for pages a second, and because of proxies  
and firewalls different people may use the same IP address. So if you view  
page A then a second later page B, the server has no idea these are from the  
same person. So cookies are used to remember any setting.
e.g. if you go to this page: http://squte.com/usenet/motherfuckingwebsite.com  
, you'll see a check box at the bottom: 'Plain text' that toggles whether to  
see quotes plain or colour-coded according to poster. Checking this sets a  
cookie 'cbOrig', then, when you go to another page, the checkbox is already  
checked for you.

Without the cookie, you would have to check it again on every page.
So to answer your question, if they are genuinely completely static sites,  
they don't need to set cookies, but sites like that are rare nowadays.

-- 
regards

/~tdk/
View this thread at http://squte.com/usenet/motherfuckingwebsite.com?src=u#comment-31208

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#3850

"tdk" <forum.tdk@squte.com>:

> Without the cookie, you would have to check it again on every page. So
> to answer your question, if they are genuinely completely static
> sites, they don't need to set cookies, but sites like that are rare
> nowadays.

The web site wouldn't need cookies to represent the client/session
state. However, cookies make it possible to not store session
information on the server. On the other hand, marketing data is
collected left and right anyway, so the space-saving issue is probably
moot in the days of Big Data.

The crucial benefit of cookies is that you can maintain an
authentication context. That way, you don't have to keep logging in
every time you access a page or site. The web server first authenticates
itself with a TLS certificate and then the client authenticates itself
with a cookie.

There are ways to handle the authentication context without cookies as
well (hidden fields), but then you'd have to log in again every time you
open the web site in a tab, or the server would have to embed your
authentication ticket in the URL, which gets stored in plain text.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web