BBC not keeping me signed in.

[Phi]

There seems to be a problem with the BBC holding my log-in details. It asks
every time I call up iPlayer.

[UnsteadyKen]

In article <ogjvmf$5e3$1...@dont-email.me>, phi...@inbox.com says...

> There seems to be a problem with the BBC holding my log-in details. It asks
> every time I call up iPlayer.
>

Something is removing the BBC cookie.
Do you have your browser set to clear user data at shutdown?

[Scott]

I had that with the bank. The answer was to set CCleaner to retain a
couple of cookies bearing the name of a major clearing bank.

[Brian Gaff]

Its total rubbish its lost my post code three times so far and asks if I
have a licence when I thought the whole point of it was to look to see if I
had one. what is the bleedin point otherwise, its rubbisish. Account
management should be a simple thing after all all maner of web sites manage
it, why can't the bbc?
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Phi" <phi...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:ogjvmf$5e3$1...@dont-email.me...

[Brian Gaff]

Its not that it will spasmodically do it when you are still on and just
select another part of Iplayer. its crap.

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"Chris Hogg" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:jv2ricln88ns16nko...@4ax.com...

> Do you switch off your computer in between iPlayer use, i.e. not
> running it 24/7? If so, is there a 'remember me' box on iPlayer you
> didn't tick? Or have you got your browser or AV prog set to delete
> saved logins or whatever when you close the browser?
>
> --
>
> Chris

[Brian Gaff]

The thing is though that according to ccleaner there are no cookies in
firefox, yet there are as sites other than the bbc will allow auto log in
with just hitting enter.
I guess better privacy might be doing it, but why would it when it obeys
all other remember my log in cookies? Seems pointless unless the bbc are not
sending the correct sort of cokie to allow the software to realise its a
proper log in perhaps?

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!

"Scott" <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eobricpv3p80aeh85...@4ax.com...

[Phi]

"UnsteadyKen" <unsteadyk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.3397b77d1...@news.individual.net...

I have a MAC address, they can read.

[Robin]

I use Firefox. I have over 20 BBC cookies. The BBC make clear you will
need to sign in again if cookies are deleted.

On 30/05/2017 19:54, Brian Gaff wrote:
> The thing is though that according to ccleaner there are no cookies in
> firefox, yet there are as sites other than the bbc will allow auto log in
> with just hitting enter.
> I guess better privacy might be doing it, but why would it when it obeys
> all other remember my log in cookies? Seems pointless unless the bbc are not
> sending the correct sort of cokie to allow the software to realise its a
> proper log in perhaps?
> Brian
>


--

Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Tim+]

Are you accessing iPlayer via an app or a web browser? If the later, have
you accidentally selected a "private browsing" mode?

Tim

--
Please don't feed the trolls

[tim...]

"Scott" <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eobricpv3p80aeh85...@4ax.com...

TBH, I'm surprised that you thought otherwise

tim

[Adrian Caspersz]

On Windows, a lot of security related software (including that supplied
in the OS) is installed on recommended settings and forgotten about or
settings simply misunderstood.

When it comes to the user coming across something blocked by the above,
the reaction is that there is a fault in the security system or OS, and
any resolution found is a fix that should be sung from the rooftops.

I have lost count how many folks have asked me 'what is a cookie', even
when the description is in front of them as plain as day. I certainly
know most folks don't know how to decode a URL that names it.

My last attempt at dumbing this down - "a cookie is something a bit like
a visited country's immigration entry stamp on your passport" wasn't
understood that well. Needs work...

--
Adrian C

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 31 May 2017 12:36:42 +0100, Adrian Caspersz
<em...@here.invalid> wrote:

>I have lost count how many folks have asked me 'what is a cookie', even
>when the description is in front of them as plain as day. I certainly
>know most folks don't know how to decode a URL that names it.

Most folks don't seem to know how to read an error message, because
they can never tell you what the message said, though they still
expect you to be able to advise them what the problem was and what to
do about it.

Rod.

[Mark Carver]

They don't understand the fundamental principle of a computer's human
interface, when it reaches a 'junction', it needs to be told what to do,
usually in the form of a simple yes or no response.

However, I just receive a phone call saying, 'Help, there's a grey box
on the screen, what do I do ?'


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

[Indy Jess John]

On 01/06/2017 07:32, Mark Carver wrote:

> However, I just receive a phone call saying, 'Help, there's a grey box
> on the screen, what do I do ?'

Take a highlight marker and colour it yellow?

I remember when I managed a technical support team, one of them got a
phone call complaining that their screen was fuzzy and difficult to
read. This seemed an unlikely fault - those screens either worked OK
and gave a clear picture of it was distorted or gave no picture at all.
"Fuzzy" wasn't a likely fault.

The person who phoned was within walking distance, so the person who
took the call decided to go and have a look.

The screen wasn't actually fuzzy it was filthy, and the display was
being observed through a layer of dirt. The tech support guy pointed
out that the screen wasn't faulty, it just needed cleaning, and was told
in no uncertain terms that that was the cleaner's job, not his. So the
tech went away and came back with a screen cleaning wipe, and cleaned a
diagonal strip across the screen to show what a difference a clean
screen would make, left some unopened wipes in sachets with the user and
went away, leaving the user looking at a third of the screen sparkling
clean and two thirds fuzzy. Someone checked daily (after hours when the
users had gone home) and he lasted three days with a part-clean screen
before giving in and cleaning the rest.

Jim

[Max Demian]

On 31/05/2017 22:35, Roderick Stewart wrote:

They may read it, but not understand it, and so not be able to remember it.

--
Max Demian

[Roderick Stewart]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 07:32:56 +0100, Mark Carver
<invalid...@gmx.net> wrote:

>>> I have lost count how many folks have asked me 'what is a cookie', even
>>> when the description is in front of them as plain as day. I certainly
>>> know most folks don't know how to decode a URL that names it.
>>
>> Most folks don't seem to know how to read an error message, because
>> they can never tell you what the message said, though they still
>> expect you to be able to advise them what the problem was and what to
>> do about it.
>
>
>They don't understand the fundamental principle of a computer's human
>interface, when it reaches a 'junction', it needs to be told what to do,
>usually in the form of a simple yes or no response.
>
>However, I just receive a phone call saying, 'Help, there's a grey box
>on the screen, what do I do ?'

You don't need to know anything about computer interfaces to realise
that words are used to convey meaning. This is surely just everyday
common knowledge. Words are used everywhere else on notices and
screens and bits of paper, and people seem to have no trouble with the
concept that the words are there in order to say something, but for
some reason this simple bit of understanding escapes them when it's
anything to do with computers.

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

>The ones who create the messages often don't take into account that readers are
>users without specialist knowledge.

It doesn't take specialist knowledge to be able to read. We're all
taught how to do this at school. If you don't understand what you have
just read, and plan to ask somebody else for help, then it isn't
rocket science to think of making a note of it. We're all taught how
to write at school too. If it looks too complicated to write down,
surely everybody has a smartphone nowadays, and if it's too difficult
to take a picture with a smartphone, ask an eight year old.

Despite all this, I can't remember the last time I got a meaningful
answer to a request for more detail when somebody told me about a
warning light on a car dashboard, washing machine, modem, central
heating boiler etc (Which light was it?) or a message with actual
words on something with a screen (What did the words say?).

This is not the same thing as lack of specialist technical knowledge.
It's more like lack of basic logical thought.

Rod.

[Max Demian]

On 02/06/2017 12:07, Huge wrote:

> Most people who can read can also write.

It's hard to copy something that might as well be in a foreign language.

--
Max Demian

[Roderick Stewart]

On Fri, 2 Jun 2017 19:29:42 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

>>> They may read it, but not understand it, and so not be able to remember it.
>>
>> Most people who can read can also write.
>
>It's hard to copy something that might as well be in a foreign language.

It's not hard to push a button on a smartphone.

Rod.

[Max Demian]

Which button? The "translate from incomprehensible technical jargon to
language that people with no interest in the technicalities of how
computer equipment works" button? There isn't one.

--
Max Demian

[Max Demian]

On 03/06/2017 14:05, Huge wrote:

> Given that you are too stupid to transcribe an error message you do not
> understand (which appears to be all of them), or create a screen grab,
> perhaps you should go back to your room and let someone else in the care
> home use the computer.

I wasn't referring to myself. And few regular users know how to do a
screen grab on Windows or Android. And what do you do with the image
when you get it? Attach it to the post of a text only newsgroup post?

--
Max Demian

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 13:54:03 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>

wrote:

>>>>> They may read it, but not understand it, and so not be able to remember it.
>>>>
>>>> Most people who can read can also write.
>>>
>>> It's hard to copy something that might as well be in a foreign language.
>>
>> It's not hard to push a button on a smartphone.
>
>Which button? The "translate from incomprehensible technical jargon to
>language that people with no interest in the technicalities of how
>computer equipment works" button? There isn't one.

The shutter button.

If you don't understand something yourself but know somebody who does,
you should at least have sufficient knowledge of the modern world and
sufficient basic intelligence to realise that however clever they are,
they won't be able to diagnose the problem by clairvoyance. If you
can't remember any details to tell them, the camera in your phone can.

Rod.

[Max Demian]

On 04/06/2017 09:19, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 13:54:03 +0100, Max Demian <max_d...@bigfoot.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>>>> They may read it, but not understand it, and so not be able to remember it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people who can read can also write.
>>>>
>>>> It's hard to copy something that might as well be in a foreign language.
>>>
>>> It's not hard to push a button on a smartphone.
>>
>> Which button? The "translate from incomprehensible technical jargon to
>> language that people with no interest in the technicalities of how
>> computer equipment works" button? There isn't one.
>
> The shutter button.

It might be the smartphone that has put up the incomprehensible dialog.

--
Max Demian

[Roderick Stewart]

>Assuming everybody has a phone with the camera.

Nowadays that's a fairly safe assumption. Nearly everybody seems to
have them. If the circumstances are different, you deal with them
differently. If all else fails, there's nothing to beat pencil and
paper, and if you can't manage that, a very common ploy used by people
who ring up tech support call centres - more common than you might
realise - is to call tech support and then hand the phone to a child.
A colleague of mine once managed to set up a wireless router and
connect a laptop to it with the assistance, on the phone, of a four
and a half year old. There's always a way. I can understand people who
don't know; what I can't understand is people who won't even try.

Rod.

[Max Demian]

On 04/06/2017 13:12, Roderick Stewart wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 13:51:01 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> They may read it, but not understand it, and so not be able to remember it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people who can read can also write.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's hard to copy something that might as well be in a foreign language.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not hard to push a button on a smartphone.
>>>>
>>>> Which button? The "translate from incomprehensible technical jargon to
>>>> language that people with no interest in the technicalities of how
>>>> computer equipment works" button? There isn't one.
>>>
>>> The shutter button.
>>>
>>> If you don't understand something yourself but know somebody who does,
>>> you should at least have sufficient knowledge of the modern world and
>>> sufficient basic intelligence to realise that however clever they are,
>>> they won't be able to diagnose the problem by clairvoyance. If you
>>> can't remember any details to tell them, the camera in your phone can.
>>
>> Assuming everybody has a phone with the camera.
>
> Nowadays that's a fairly safe assumption. Nearly everybody seems to
> have them.

Some phone based cameras can't do close-ups as they don't have auto
focus. Even some of the cheaper 'smart' (i.e. touch) phones.

--
Max Demian

[Roderick Stewart]

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 14:29:23 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>>>If you don't understand something yourself but know somebody who does,
>>>>you should at least have sufficient knowledge of the modern world and
>>>>sufficient basic intelligence to realise that however clever they are,
>>>>they won't be able to diagnose the problem by clairvoyance. If you
>>>>can't remember any details to tell them, the camera in your phone can.
>>>
>>>Assuming everybody has a phone with the camera.
>>
>>Nowadays that's a fairly safe assumption. Nearly everybody seems to
>>have them.
>

>I think you will find that many of the older members of the population don't
>even have a mobile phone never mind a mobile phone with a camera.

I *am* one of the older members of the population, and I have both. Of
course there are still people without them, but with mobile phone use
becoming so common that we now have to have laws about it, I think
it's reasonable to say that it's more likely that any randomly chosen
person will have one than not.

And if somebody doesn't have a mobile phone, doesn't have a camera, or
if they have one they don't know how to take a picture with it, or
they don't know how to read and write well enough to make a note of
something on the screen of their computer, if they're not reasonably
au fait with the moden world or the basic language skills they were
taught at school, what on earth are they doing with a computer in the
first place?

Rod.

[Roderick Stewart]

>My wife has a PhD in physics is trilingual and not senile. She also has
>considerable software experience. She is totally disinterested in having a
>mobile phone for anything except phone calls and SMS. She wants a phone that
>will fit into a pocket and has a reasonable battery life between charges.

Good for her. I hope she's found one that suits her. Meanwhile, if an
error message should present itself on her computer screen, being
trilingual and with a PhD in physics, she's probably clever enough to
make notes to tell someone else, if she can't fix it herself.

Rod.

[Chris Green]

Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >And if somebody doesn't have a mobile phone, doesn't have a camera, or
> >if they have one they don't know how to take a picture with it, or
> >they don't know how to read and write well enough to make a note of
> >something on the screen of their computer, if they're not reasonably
> >au fait with the moden world or the basic language skills they were
> >taught at school, what on earth are they doing with a computer in the
> >first place?
>

> My wife has a PhD in physics is trilingual and not senile. She also has
> considerable software experience. She is totally disinterested in having a
> mobile phone for anything except phone calls and SMS. She wants a phone that
> will fit into a pocket and has a reasonable battery life between charges.

She sounds rather similar to me then, I too just want a mobile phone
to make phone calls and send SMS. For anything else I use a proper
computer... Maybe I am getting senile (70+) but I do have a degree
and am a proper (i.e. chartered, BCS member) software engineer.

For taking pictures I do have a camera though.

--
Chris Green
·

[Roderick Stewart]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 11:44:33 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>Meanwhile, if an
>>error message should present itself on her computer screen, being
>>trilingual and with a PhD in physics, she's probably clever enough to
>>make notes to tell someone else, if she can't fix it herself.
>

>Have you tried asking MS for help with interpreting their error messages? :-)

Not all error messages are from MS, and MS are not the only online
source of help with solving them.

I *have* tried googling error messages, or looking for Youtube
tutorials about them, or forum threads where the problem has been
discussed, or anywhere else I think I might find relevant information,
but in every case I've found it essential to have noted *what the
message says*. Whatever the problem, and whoever you hope might be
able to solve it for you, this is the *first* thing to do. It doesn't
matter how you note the details of a problem, but it's pointless
asking anybody for help if you don't. Whether you copy and paste the
text, or screengrab it or photograph it, or recite it to a talking
parrot or carve it on tablets of stone, nobody will be able to help
you with any problem if you can't tell them what it is.

Rod.

[Java Jive]

On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:04:12 +0100, Roderick Stewart
<rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:27:59 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >My wife has a PhD in physics is trilingual and not senile. She also has
> >considerable software experience. She is totally disinterested in having a
> >mobile phone for anything except phone calls and SMS. She wants a phone that
> >will fit into a pocket and has a reasonable battery life between charges.

Actually, many smart phones with cameras will fit into a pocket and,
because of their relatively small screen size will last a day or more
between charges. The OpenReach engineer who spent all of Friday
afternoon diagnosing and finally fixing my noisy phone line had one
like that, I didn't think to note the make & model but it was about
half the size of my fairly large Galaxy S2. He was using it to view
the reports coming in from somewhere, presumably the local exchange,
of the tests he'd set up on my line.

Of course, it depends what you want from the camera. If you just want
to take a few landscapes, party shots, and selfies, so macro,
telephoto, or zoom is not important to you, then the inbuilt phone
cameras are perfectly adequate, but obviously they're not much good
for wildlife or other advanced styles of photography.

And they can be surprisingly useful. I use mine to photo notices in
local shops about upcoming events, obscure light bulbs within the
house that I wish to replace with low energy replacements, the labels
on things like lawn mowers to ensure I get the right parts, the
Windows authentication codes on laptops so that I'm not having to peer
awkwardly at the base of it to enter the code when reinstalling, etc,
etc. Also, see below ...

> Good for her. I hope she's found one that suits her. Meanwhile, if an
> error message should present itself on her computer screen, being
> trilingual and with a PhD in physics, she's probably clever enough to
> make notes to tell someone else, if she can't fix it herself.

If she's given the chance ... One of the most brainless of the many
brainless 'improvements' to Windows over the years was the default
setting of having a PC reboot automatically if it fails to boot the
first time. This auto reboot setting is just about the first thing I
change on any new installation, because it means that if the PC ever
BSODs, then the unfortunate user never gets a chance to read the BSOD
message, and the machine will just endlessly reboot until it's
switched off.

While I was staying at a lodge in between houses, this happened on a
PC owned by the lodge. I video-ed the boot using my phone, then
copied the video to my PC and played it at half speed so that I could
freeze it on the BSOD, and thus was able to report to them that their
disk was corrupted. The owner of the PC was impressed by my
'ingenuity', saying that she 'would never have thought of doing that'.
Whether it was ingenious or not is not for me to say, but I can say
that my thoughts at the time were more centred in anger at the moronic
stupidity of the auto-reboot setting, which required such a convoluted
process just to read an error message!

And I don't think I could have done that with my Canon S40 digital
camera, because the battery would have run out before I'd finished
setting everything up - it uses a bespoke battery which now lasts
only a minute or two, and is too expensive to be worth replacing -
moral: as far as possible only buy equipment that accepts standard
battery sizes.
--
========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

[phil m]

On 05/06/2017 13:59, Java Jive wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:04:12 +0100, Roderick Stewart
> <rj...@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 05 Jun 2017 10:27:59 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> My wife has a PhD in physics is trilingual and not senile. She also has
>>> considerable software experience. She is totally disinterested in having a
>>> mobile phone for anything except phone calls and SMS. She wants a phone that
>>> will fit into a pocket and has a reasonable battery life between charges.
>
> Actually, many smart phones with cameras will fit into a pocket and,
> because of their relatively small screen size will last a day or more
> between charges.

My phone fits easily into a pocket and usually I charge it every two or
three weeks, though it is only switched on for a few hours a week.
Standby is up to a week. A phone that needs charging every day seems to
be rather inadequate in the battery department.

Phil M

[Tim+]

Depends what it offers you in exchange for that poorer battery life. Most
smartphone users consider the exchange worthwhile.

[Java Jive]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 19:39:15 +0100, phil m <not...@freeserve.com>
wrote:

>
> My phone fits easily into a pocket and usually I charge it every two or
> three weeks, though it is only switched on for a few hours a week.
> Standby is up to a week. A phone that needs charging every day seems to
> be rather inadequate in the battery department.

I can't really see why - given that it is a simple matter to put a
phone to charge overnight, all that's really required of one is that
it can last at least, preferably rather more, than a day, including
making the requisite number of calls for its owner's pattern of usage.

To me, if a phone can last between overnight charges, it makes no
difference at all if it last three weeks or three days - two days
will cover nearly all eventualities including forgetting to put it on
charge overnight, and even my S2 with its rather large screen will
still just about do that, despite it being several years old now, with
a battery correspondingly reduced in effectiveness.

[Andy Burns]

phil m wrote:

> My phone fits easily into a pocket and usually I charge it every two or
> three weeks, though it is only switched on for a few hours a week.
> Standby is up to a week. A phone that needs charging every day seems to
> be rather inadequate in the battery department.

If I put my smartphone in airplane mode it will last for over two weeks
on a charge ... it wouldn't be much use as a phone, but then neither is
yours except for the few hours you turn it on ...

[charles]

In article <n3mf0e-...@esprimo.zbmc.eu>, Chris Green <c...@isbd.net>
wrote:

I too have a camera and a proper computer ( about 5 of those) and a degree,
but ther are times (away from home) when the phone's camera is useful. The
phon is a lot easier to carry around than a camera, too.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[charles]

In article <Yt-dnWb2odbtLK_E...@brightview.co.uk>, Max Demian

I bought a stick-on "Any" button - very useful in the days of WinXP.

[Vir Campestris]

On 12/06/2017 17:15, Martin wrote:
> Unless the phone is very expensive, it can't take the same resolution images as
> a camera costing around a third of the price

Depends what you mean, and the conditions.

Some 'phone cameras are amazingly good, and they have plastic aspherical
lenses. They also have _loads_ of pixels.

The down side is that the sensor cells are _tiny_ and so is the lens.
You're up against the diffraction limits. Size really is everything :)

Especially at long range, or low light.

Andy

[Chris Green]

I rarely have just one or the other, most of the time I have neither.
If I can carry the phone then I can carry the camera, not much
difference, the camera is thicker but smaller.

--
Chris Green
·