Firefox temp internet files, cookies, & history folders.

[lithiumdeuterid]

For the last time, I KNOW parents have the right to control the lives of their kids in any way they see fit. I'm just saying it's not a good idea, because kids will become that which they are treated as.

The internet is only dangerous if you don't know how to use it.

"Porn is a really bad thing", you say. Why is it bad? If you don't offer any kind of logic or reasoning behind a blanket statement like that, it doesn't mean much.

 

[spartanslayer]

well for starters

Ok, I realize this statement wont help much, but I'm a Christian. I believe that porn is bad because the Bible says so. I know you guys probably don't care and won't agree. Porn and sex-related activities have made this country much worse than it was 100 years ago. Porn helps pre-marriage sex to happen. I'm a firm believer in abstaining from sex before marriage. You can criticize that all you want, but that is just what I believe.

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

You're right. That didn't help much.

Organized religion (which was invented as a way to justify kleptocracy) is full of worthless, stupid, and outdated morals. "No sex before marriage" is one of these. The bible doesn't mention pornographic images anywhere. Porn didn't even exist until the printing press was invented in 1450 A.D. Nice try, though. Thanks for playing.

And, for future reference, Onan was killed for committing the sin of coitus interruptus, not masturbation.

icantwinn seems to be living up to his name.

 

[spartanslayer]

You can think that organized religion is outdated, but only 2% of all the people in America are atheists. The Bible may not meantion porn specifically, but it does say that Homosexuality is evil, and that people should not think lustfull thoughts. It also says the pre-marriage sex is bad. You may not believe what it says, but I do, so please respect my opinion.

 

[Nodsu]

Organized religion (which was invented as a way to justify kleptocracy) is full of worthless, stupid, and outdated morals. "No sex before marriage" is one of these.

Care to name the inventor? Or maybe some links to places supporting your claims about organised religion?

The bible doesn't mention pornographic images anywhere.

Actually the Bible forbids all kinds of images IIRC.

Porn didn't even exist until the printing press was invented in 1450 A.D.

What about the ancient images depicting sex acts dating to thousands of years BC? And if you are going to say they were for religious purposes then please read one of your statements above.

 

[spartanslayer]

Thanks Nodsu. That's brilliant about the old carvings and stuff. But you could also have pornographic paintings too.

 

[Samstoned]

wow ,lithiumdeuterid ,do you have children ?
if not, get some first, then raise them ,feed them, protect them and let them do what they want, see how long that lasts

I've seen just about all there is in parenting.
and let them do want they want does not come close do reality.
now as to the original poster.
who got bored and left ,please do google, look for key loggers
to check on what the little angel is up to.
mean while don't let them get administrative privileges

Good Luck

 

[daniel022]

Please let us get back to the subject... Children monitoring aside...

In what folder does Firefox stores the internet files?

Here is my reason:

I like to look at tutorials online, and some of them are in macromedia flash... I cannot save them through the browser so I used to copy them from the internet explorer temp files...

Thanks in advance,

- Daniel.

 

[mailpup]

In the location bar/address bar type about:cache.
You can use Ctrl + F to search for .swf extensions.

 

[TS | Thomas]

Firefox doesn't store files as it downloads them (Like IE), they'll have garbage names like [bBC8EF547d01[/b] for security purposes. The Cache folder will be indicated when you enter about:cache in the address bar & press Enter.
For clearing the cache you don't need a third party utility though, Firefox 1.5 features a Clear Private Data utility built-in to do all that for you. When you have Firefox 1.5 loaded press Ctrl+Shift+Delete (You can set it to run automatically in the Options menu); this is all covered in our Firefox 1.5 guide of course

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

Nodsu: Sorry about the wait. I'll answer your questions now.

1)
I'm sure the idea evolved gradually. There wasn't one guy who sat down and decided to invent a religion to secure his chiefdom. There were, however, tribal chiefs that demanded tribute from the people under their protection. Naturally, some people resisted paying tribute, so the chiefs gradually came up with ways to persuade these people. There are four main ways that kleptocrats (rulers who subsist on tributes given by the population) keep their rulership:

a) Disarm the populace and arm the elite
b) Redistribute some of the tribute into public works
c) Use a monopoly of force (police or soldiers) to curb public violence, thus keeping citizens safe and therefore happy
d) Construct an ideology or religion that justifies kleptocracy.

This is from Chapter 14 of the book "Guns, Germs, and Steel". I know that book is rather controversial, but the controversy is over other things in the book. There is agreement in anthropological circles about the origins of religion.

2)
In Exodus 20:4, the bible says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth". I'm not at all sorry to say that written language is made of images that developed from people making likenesses of things on earth (sun, moon, animals, etc.). Therefore, the bible's very existence is a violation of its own ethics. I just can't take that kind of book seriously.

3)
Ancient images depicting sex acts is not the same thing as pornography. Those images had religious significance, and weren't mass produced just to try to make a profit. Also, try to remember that the United States is extremely repressed when it comes to sex. The ancient world was not. Depicted sex acts were not nearly as taboo as they are today, and thus wouldn't have much economic value (except as religious symbols).

pWn3d!

Samstoned:
I hope you aren't the one teaching grammar to your children. And really, violent images are far more harmful to a child than pornographic ones. Violent images teach kids to be violent. Pornographic images just teach them about the human body. It does not turn them into sex maniacs, despite your fears. If anything, you should be checking for violent images in your browser history, not pornographic ones (barring ones that could get you into legal trouble).

 

[Nodsu]

I'm sure the idea evolved gradually. There wasn't one guy who sat down and decided to invent a religion to secure his chiefdom.

Organized religion (which was invented as a way to justify kleptocracy) is full of worthless, stupid, and outdated morals.

Nice to see that you have grown up a bit during our little intermission. Also, very brave of you to actually show that your previous claims were BS.

In Exodus 20:4, the bible says, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth". I'm not at all sorry to say that written language is made of images that developed from people making likenesses of things on earth (sun, moon, animals, etc.). Therefore, the bible's very existence is a violation of its own ethics. I just can't take that kind of book seriously.

The old languages Bible was originally written in (Hebrew, Greek, Latin) are alphabetical languages and not hieroglyphical. And claiming that drawing a circle is depicting a sun and you have performed a mortal sin is rather far-fetched.

Ancient images depicting sex acts is not the same thing as pornography. Those images had religious significance, and weren't mass produced just to try to make a profit. Also, try to remember that the United States is extremely repressed when it comes to sex. The ancient world was not. Depicted sex acts were not nearly as taboo as they are today, and thus wouldn't have much economic value (except as religious symbols).

Aren't we smart! When I google "pornography history" I get links to back my claims. You obviously didn't bother to check anything. Please do not reply to threads if you don't know what you are talking about.

pWn3d!

This attitude will get you banned soon.

And really, violent images are far more harmful to a child than pornographic ones. Violent images teach kids to be violent. Pornographic images just teach them about the human body. It does not turn them into sex maniacs, despite your fears. If anything, you should be checking for violent images in your browser history, not pornographic ones (barring ones that could get you into legal trouble).

You obviously don't think pornography is violence. What do you think will be the image of things your kid gets when he spends his time "learning" about what can be done to all the orifices of human body and how you should treat the person you are intimate with.

 

[patio]

FireFox 1.5 is out ! !

patio.

 

[TS | Thomas]

FireFox 1.5 is out ! !

I think you mean;
Proverbs 10:3 - And God said, let there be Firefox 1.5

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

Nodsu:

Of course I grew up. I aged about sixteen days, in fact, and I'm pretty sure you did the same. That is, unless you're moving at relativistic speed.

You're right, of course. I was using the term "invented" too loosely. I should have said that the idea evolved from the start. However, the idea still came from kleptocrats' desire to accumulate wealth.

All language is derived from pictures, including Hebrew. I didn't say all languages use pictures, but if you go back far enough, you'll find an ancestor language that did.

I Googled the phrase as well. I found plenty of references to pornography from around 1650 AD to the present day. There were plenty of images of sex from ancient times, but I didn't find anything that looked like porn. Mostly it was tasteful and stylized depictions of sex. I wouldn't call that "porn", which has such bad connotations, due to the aforementioned sexual repression many industrialized countries seem to have. It's sex imagery, but it's not porn. What most of the websites classified as porn began around 1650 with some explicit literature.

"Aren't we smart!" Even rhetorical questions need question marks.

I wasn't aware people could be banned for having an attitude (otherwise known as a state of mind or disposition). However, since it seems they can, I will try to refrain from having attitudes.

Pornography is not automatically violent. It certainly CAN be violent, but violence is not something that is inherent to it. Porn can also be degrading (to both women and men), but it does not have to be, and not all of it is. If my kid is watching some horrible violent porn, you can bet I'd step in. However, rather than punishing him, I'd just suggest some of the more tasteful variety. If my kid is watching tasteful porn, he'll learn what can be done with human orifices, yes. And he'll learn the right way to do it. Better to have a good example to follow than no example at all, I say.

If someone is afraid of what their child may be learning from porn, they should give them better porn that will teach them to respect the human body. It's just a mistake to try to ban it completely. Kids will download porn. It's just a fact. You can either make your computer a maximum-security prison (which tells the kid that you don't trust them any further than you can throw them), or you can teach them a healthy way of expressing their sexuality. I choose the second option. You may choose the first.

 

[spartanslayer]

Lithiumdeuterid.

Kid's don't always download porn. I know because I'm a teenager. I don't download porn, and the thought of it disgusts me. Religion was invented by God, not by some nuts. And you don't believe in God, you are one of the 2% in America who thinks that way.

 

[Nodsu]

All language is derived from pictures, including Hebrew. I didn't say all languages use pictures, but if you go back far enough, you'll find an ancestor language that did.

Of course. But how does this make the Bible contradict itself? Have we all performaed a mortal sin on not being aware that the symbols we user are stylised pictures of God's creation?

I Googled the phrase as well. I found plenty of references to pornography from around 1650 AD to the present day. There were plenty of images of sex from ancient times, but I didn't find anything that looked like porn. Mostly it was tasteful and stylized depictions of sex. I wouldn't call that "porn", which has such bad connotations, due to the aforementioned sexual repression many industrialized countries seem to have. It's sex imagery, but it's not porn. What most of the websites classified as porn began around 1650 with some explicit literature.

Tasteful indeed.. http://www.rotten.com/library/culture/pornography/ (I'm terribly sorry for this, not supposed to post such links)

"Aren't we smart!" Even rhetorical questions need question marks.

Please go ask your English teacher. I would tell you to find it out yourself, but you consistently fail at that.

I wasn't aware people could be banned for having an attitude (otherwise known as a state of mind or disposition). However, since it seems they can, I will try to refrain from having attitudes.

Conveniently ignoring half of my sentence?

The point is, these are PC tech forums. Virtually all your posts here are hostile and demeaning towards other members, not to mention they have nothing to do with computers. You are free to have your attitude - just like we are entitled to have a negative attutude towards impolite self-centered troll wannabes.

Pornography is not automatically violent. It certainly CAN be violent, but violence is not something that is inherent to it. Porn can also be degrading (to both women and men), but it does not have to be, and not all of it is. If my kid is watching some horrible violent porn, you can bet I'd step in. However, rather than punishing him, I'd just suggest some of the more tasteful variety. If my kid is watching tasteful porn, he'll learn what can be done with human orifices, yes. And he'll learn the right way to do it. Better to have a good example to follow than no example at all, I say.

If someone is afraid of what their child may be learning from porn, they should give them better porn that will teach them to respect the human body. It's just a mistake to try to ban it completely. Kids will download porn. It's just a fact. You can either make your computer a maximum-security prison (which tells the kid that you don't trust them any further than you can throw them), or you can teach them a healthy way of expressing their sexuality. I choose the second option. You may choose the first.

I agree.. Too bad it took you weeks of bad attempts to finally manage a coherent and sensible statement.

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

All I'm saying about the bible is that it's full of contradictions. If you take it literally, then bible condemns itself as a "graven image". What kind of set of laws declares itself unjust? It only goes to show that the bible was made by fallible humans who didn't notice all the contradictions they were writing. And by extension, some parts of the bible are outdated because humans have changed over time.

You are correct in that not all rhetorical questions need question marks. However, this is not a polite imperative (such as "Would you look at that."), so I think it still needs a question mark.

I don't find the images on that page you linked to offensive at all. It's just art (excluding the pixellated stick figures) from ancient civilizations that happened to be more open and comfortable with sex than we are. If you're going to condemn sex, you may as well condemn all life on earth.

How could I possibly have ignored half of your sentence? The entire sentence was "This attitude will get you banned soon." It's a very short sentence. I'm pretty sure I understood what it meant. It means I will get banned for having "this attitude", which I assume is an argumentative one. Of course I'm argumentative. Argument is the only way to find out which ideas are good and which aren't. Are you advocating that everyone stop arguing?

So I ask: Will my attitudes actually get me banned, or were you just threatening me to get me to shut up?

"Too bad it took you weeks of bad attempts to finally manage a coherent and sensible statement." Now who's being demeaning? And really, you can't expect instantaneous agreement. My posts are coherent, and so are yours. The fact that we happen to disagree does not preclude the possibility of at least understanding the other guy's point of view. If you aren't comfortable with arguments longer than 3 posts, you shouldn't argue at all.

 

[meatologist]

Hammer Time !

Porn is good. It keeps us from attacking women in the street

 

[Nodsu]

All I'm saying about the bible is that it's full of contradictions. If you take it literally, then bible condemns itself as a "graven image".

No, you were saying the latter and that what I was disputing.

So "pWn3d!" is an argumentative expression? And I, im my ultimate sillyness thought it was something little arrogant boys say when they think they have accomplished something (usually not) or have succeeded (in their opinion) in proving their "superiority" (AKA l33tness).. My sincere apologies. I am always looking for ways to improve my English and I thank you for this insight.

You want to know where your teenage son has been on the internet? Why not just ask him? Of course, he won't tell you about the porn sites - it's none of your ****ing business! What if the FBI asked permission to look at your household's entire internet viewing record (yes, such a record does exist at your ISP)? What would you tell them? Probably something like "it's none of your business", and then you'd refuse permission.

Yes, I see now.. It is all polite, well thought out, coherent and definitely not offensive to anyone.

So I ask: Will my attitudes actually get me banned, or were you just threatening me to get me to shut up?

So it's the old "Abuse! Abuse!" trick to gain immunity?
First: I sincerely hope you understand that I just could not impose any sanctions against you unless you did something that was a serious violation of the forum rules. The reasons are obvious, look up things like "morals" and "ethics" and "integrity".
Second: I couldn't do anything because I am not the moderator MS&U part of TS forums.
Third: I couldn't ban you because, frankly, I don't even have sufficient privileges to ban people.

 

[lithiumdeuterid]

You're saying the bible is not a graven image, despite being composed of symbols evolved from pictures? I think the bible-writers were just confused humans trying to make sense of the world while securing their place in the social hierarchy.

It's true that "pwn3d" was an immature thing to say. But it was only one word out of hundreds. The rest of the post wasn't like that.

I don't see anything impolite about that phrase. I used some asterisks in place of a supposedly "bad" word, and the rest of it was just an explanation of what would happen if the parent was in a parallel situation.

Which brings me to another point: You can't get rid of bad words without getting rid of bad thoughts. If you eliminated the words, new words would spring up with the same meaning. Getting rid of bad thoughts is impossible, so why try to get rid of bad words? I think all words are useful, even the "bad" ones. One more example of how repressed we are.

I'm only trying to gain immunity insofar as being allowed to make my point, even if you find it offensive. Anyway, I don't see what's so offensive. Is it because I've acted in a genuinely mean-spirited way? Or is it because I've challenge your "morals, ethics, and integrity"?

 

[patio]

I found a new extension for FireFox called Quick Note...it's really quite handy.

 

[Nodsu]

Something like the Notes feature that has been built into Opera since 2003?

 

[patio]

I like Opera as well. It was on my test bench machine for years...but i have FireFox on the other 3 machines.

 

[newmy51]

Observer

I have read every post in this thread and apologize in advance that my comments are not more directed to technical issues... seeing as this site is techspot.com. This is an interesting discussion and I would like to continue the discourse if it could be further permitted.

This all began with a father who wanted to keep tabs on his son's internet use. We don't know how old he (the son) is, nor do we have any history on this particular family situation. Therefore, everything we discuss is applicable only as a generalized and unspecific approach to the graphic content of the internet, specifically pornography. In other words, let's leave the Bible out of it please.

I've seen beheadings at ogrish.com. I have clicked on more porn sites before the age of 18 than after. My perceptions on violence and women are not unhealthy or innappropriate in the least; they were necessary exposures to what is in no short supply in the rest of the sick and f**ked up world. Parents (and really everyone with a computer,) should understand that the internet is not going away any time soon. It is a new drug, the new gross fixation of our country and the world. It is full of as much potential and as much poision as the society from which is was birthed. Yea, you may want to monitor your son's whack-off habits. But if you know your children -- like a decent, intelligent, respectible parent should -- then the internet is not going to come between you. Take it from someone who had some controling parents. A kid will end up making the decisions that he finds to be the best ones, whether you monitor your temp files for titty shots or staple an RFID to his earlobe. Whatever "evil" a parent places outside the accepted circle of behavoir, usually becomes more and more sought after by the kid anyway. What YOU as the PARENT should be concerned about is what kind of role model YOU are for your KID, not how much porn he watches. Being a good human being, and in turn a good parent, far outweighs how tightly you tie your punitive noose around your kids neck.

To bring this back to focus, concerning the internet and site monitoring, should the original poster -- the father who got bored and left -- decide to throw all the good advice out the window and keep regular tabs on how many chicken-chokes his son manages per minute, try to be discrete. Chances are that the average sexually curious teenager is not incorporating a fixation with violence with his online sexual curiosity. Assuming a parent has not seriously f**ked up at this point, a well-rounded, sane person will not find any satisfaction or interest in these things to begin with. Meddling in the sexual development of an adolescent or pubescent boy by confronting him about his porn habits (which already bears a substantial amount of guilt for a young teen) should be kept to the necessary minimum, that is unless you'd like to see him on one of those kiddy-porn rape sites one day.

Good luck, Pops, wherever you are...