Slashdot Mirror

Between the coffee and the masturbation, my prostate is safe as houses. I've just read that my heart loves booze, too. Everything's amazing now!

Many people are forced to upgrade because old Linux won't with new hardware easily. This is because APIs change too often.

A good discussion thread on this topic started with a comment from bmastenbroo here:

Unity in Ubuntu 11.04 User Comments#Sandy Bridge

Unrelated to your question, but related to Unity, which is the main topic on the site, let me quote JEDIDIAH from the same user comment area. He summarized Unity in one single sentence:

It isn't quite like Windows 7 and it isn't quite like Snow Leopard but it steals just enough bad ideas from both to look like an incompetently executed clone with no identity (or value) of it's own.

Many people are forced to upgrade because old Linux won't with new hardware easily. This is because APIs change too often.

A good discussion thread on this topic started with a comment from bmastenbroo here:

Unity in Ubuntu 11.04 User Comments#Sandy Bridge

Unrelated to your question, but related to Unity, which is the main topic on the site, let me quote JEDIDIAH from the same user comment area. He summarized Unity in one single sentence:

It isn't quite like Windows 7 and it isn't quite like Snow Leopard but it steals just enough bad ideas from both to look like an incompetently executed clone with no identity (or value) of it's own.

lets be honest about the fact that historically Linux has had serious problems with its filesystems and one has to be kind of wonky to trust it with any important data.

Google would disagree with you.

What I don't understand is why Netflix doesn't go to a BitTorrent style P2P swarm type streaming.

An ISP can use your traditional tv-cable easily to send you stuff, however uploading is rather difficult in many implementations. P2P/Bit-torrent-style distribution relies on uploading from the end-user. Instead, using a content delivery network through Level 3 communications, Netflix is able to almost have the "common" content "pre-delivered" to a more nearby location. This is good for the cable companies and users like me that still want a functioning internet when the nation logs onto Netflix in the evenings...
This recent Ars Technica article explains some of this upload limitations and I found it to be a rather enjoyable read. Perhaps when the internet is ready and moved beyond the cable era, uploading will not be as much of a concern.
Disclaimer: This is not to say there isn't room for P2P like implementations or various improvements in current algorithms and models...just your traditional P2P / Bittorrent distribution might not be the best implementation (sadly) here. Also I am no expert, I just stayed at a Holiday Inn Express...

cheers

See also: recent video in a recent Slashdot article.

Yes, just like their archiving of your location data keeps you more secure... Apple is totally perfect, right? They wouldn't EVER let anything unknown or an app that did more than it said into the app store, right?

This is simply an implementation flaw. Shit like that happens on ANY system. It's just that with open systems you actually learn about it. Are you SURE that you know all the security weaknesses in your iProduct? Are you sure Apple is telling you everything? How can you be?

One internship I did developed highly efficient wireless power specifically for this purpose... 4 years ago.. not sure why this is news. Similar to SplashPad but for biomedical devices, its quite easily done. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2005/10/1401.ars

First sale rights no longer exist if the product was made outside of the US, as far as the US is concerned: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/12/supreme-court-lets-ban-on-gray-market-imports-stand.ars

That summary is wrong, check http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/europe-haeurope-smacks-indiscriminate-copyright-levies-on-blank-cds-dvdslts-indiscriminate-copyright-levies-on-blank-cds-dvds.ars or http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6550.

That case was brought in by companies, that don't have right to make and were forced to pay regardless. Copyright levy for broad variety of goods bought for personal use is in place in almost all EU and this judgement will hardly change it.

Hey, guys, for a good time, have a look at On Command Video Corp. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, 777 F. Supp. 787 (N.D. Cal. 1991).

On Command was doing literally this exact thing, but 20 years ago and (1) with VCRs instead of DVD players; (2) with the VCRs at the hotel front desk and you in your hotel room, instead of with the DVD players in California and you anywhere on the Internet.

Things did not work out well for On Command. However, the legal landscape has changed somewhat in more recent years -- a more relevant ruling might be the 2008 Cablevision DVR case (see discussion e.g. at http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2008/08/cablevision-wins-on-appeal-remote-dvr-lawful-after-all.ars.

AFAIK you need to have the accessory approved by Apple to connect via the docking port and there is a NDA/Licensing agreement that requires you pay Apple a certain amount for each accessory sold. You also have to purchase a chip from them to integrate your hardware. And they require you to submit your financial records/bookeping so that their auditors can be sure you are paying them the fee for every unit of your hardware you sell. This doesnt seem to apply to all accessories, but it does seem to be a real problem for a lot of them. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/gadgets/news/4272628 Also, if you dont, Apple will sue you: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/04/apple-gets-go-ahead-to-move-against-unauthorized-accessor-makers.ars

So, yeah, this could have real impact. Going out and grabbing an Arduino board vs all that draconian stuff is gonna be interesting.

Obviously I have a bias here being an Android app dev, but I believe the two approaches to accessory development are vastly different. And just because Apple has a huge lead out of the gate does not mean they will retain it.

As I understand it, most ISPs don't have (and for various reasons) don't want common carrier status as it already stands.

I stand corrected ... ISPs don't have Common Carrier status, but some people think they should to prevent them from being able to pull stuff like this.

Right now they get the protections of saying "we're not responsible for what goes over the network" while at the same time saying "it's our network, and we'll filter it as we choose".

Kind of like how Pay Pal isn't a 'bank', merely someone people entrust their money to but can't expect the same legal protections as a bank when they decide to keep your money.

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/04/department-of-justices-long-oversight-of-microsoft-to-end.ars

I think your right. This brings the historically not so easy to tap telco system http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/01/bavarian-government-caught-looking-for-skype-backdoor.ars
back into the US crypto fold.
The simultaneous online connections count "typically 20-30 million online at any one moment" will get the NSA ip/voice print mirror.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/05/wsj-microsoft-to-buy-skype-for-7bn-rest-of-world-for-real.ars
Whats in this for MS? Next gen lcd top HD sofa chat? Text/video to a cell? The codec? The huge user base? The brand? To stop cross platform/web 2.0 brand drift?
For that price? MS has the hardware, software, a community (both social and corporate) using its products. A small effort to rebrand existing products as one would have done it.

I think your right. This brings the historically not so easy to tap telco system http://arstechnica.com/software/news/2008/01/bavarian-government-caught-looking-for-skype-backdoor.ars
back into the US crypto fold.
The simultaneous online connections count "typically 20-30 million online at any one moment" will get the NSA ip/voice print mirror.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2011/05/wsj-microsoft-to-buy-skype-for-7bn-rest-of-world-for-real.ars
Whats in this for MS? Next gen lcd top HD sofa chat? Text/video to a cell? The codec? The huge user base? The brand? To stop cross platform/web 2.0 brand drift?
For that price? MS has the hardware, software, a community (both social and corporate) using its products. A small effort to rebrand existing products as one would have done it.

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

8.) AdBlock does

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes of your fav sites (you should verify against the TLD that does nothing but cache IPAddress-to-domainname/hostname resolutions via NSLOOKUP, PINGS, &/or WHOIS though, regularly, so you have the correct IP & it's current)).

6.) HOSTS files protect you vs. DNS-poisoning &/or the Kaminsky flaw in DNS servers, and allow you to get to sites reliably vs. things like the Chinese are doing to DNS -> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/11/29/1755230/Chinese-DNS-Tampering-a-Real-Threat-To-Outsiders

7.) HOSTS files will allow you to get to sites you like, via hardcoding your favs into a HOSTS file, FAR faster than DNS servers can by FAR (by saving the roundtrip inquiry time to a DNS server & back to you).

8.) AdBlock does

This Ars Technica article has Apple at 10% market share in the US

which - translated to worldwide - is roughly Microsoft's smartphone marketshare. And i thought they were doing badly...you sure proved me and a lot of others wrong.

That's a lot of macs.

and the titanic was pretty big...until you compare it to the size of the moon.

I don't buy your explanation that it's not economically viable. 120 million of these devices have been sold, mostly to reasonably well off people. That's a huge "market" for exploits.

again, it might look big, but it's comparatively tiny next to the alternatives.

That's a pretty good security record, as good as any device or OS out there.

come on, how is a bug that allowed remote code to change the core OS just by visiting a webpage part of a 'good security record'? what other mobile OS has had a bug that bad?

What I said was that people have been predicting a deluge of viruses and malware for mac for a decade now and it hasn't happened.

people are predicting it will happen once they gain more than a pithy share of the market.

Apple's have only gotten out of the 2% of computers in the last 2 or 3 years. Even now they struggle to get 5% worldwide.

This Ars Technica article has Apple at 10% market share in the US, this one has it at 14%. That's a lot of macs. Apple is one of the few companies that have consistently seen their market share grow the last few years in a floundering market.

Then there's Apple's strength in certain niches, like on college campuses :

"According to the Office of Information Technology (OIT), 45 percent of computers purchased this year were Macs, more than in any previous year. In 2003, when this year's seniors arrived on campus, just 15 percent of them chose Macs. The next year, a quarter of incoming freshmen did, and the year after that, 38 percent."

That's a 2006 article and personally I have seen no reversal of that trend, quite the opposite actually. And you'd expect colleges to be hotspots of all kinds of mischief like hacking and exploits.

Take note of the last one. IOS drops that cost a lot, making malware on phones economically viable. Further more, IOS has proven itself to be quite vulnerable in the past, you do know that jailbreaking is done by exploiting a vulnerability dont you. Feel free to use the "jailbreak me" PDF vulnerability as an example. The only reason it hasn't been exploited is because there's more profit in Windows malware.

iOS has had a few exploits and yet we've had only 1 or 2 actual (and amateurish) attacks out in the wild impacting very few people (only jailbreakers with default passwords.) Only twice has there been a remote exploit and both were promptly patched by Apple, the rest have been pretty complicated hacks that require reinstalling the device or putting it in recovery mode. That's a pretty good security record, as good as any device or OS out there.

I don't buy your explanation that it's not economically viable. 120 million of these devices have been sold, mostly to reasonably well off people. That's a huge "market" for exploits.

Claiming you are automagically protected when you've never even been attacked is naive at best. It's like Lisa's (Simpson) tiger repelling rock, you cant use the fact that there are no tigers around the rock as proof of it's tiger repelling abilities.

That's not what I said, no-one claims macs are "magically immune". What I said was that people have been predicting a deluge of viruses and malware for mac for a decade now and it hasn't happened. Sooner or later they might be right, just like the people who say "repent, the end is nigh" might be right someday. In the mean time rehashing old arguments that haven't actually been proven to be true in reality is a waste of time. Reality is the ultimate test of the theory.

From just a few days ago... http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/05/02/2120203/OS-X-Crimeware-Kit-Emerges

See also: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/10/new-java-trojan-attacks-mac-os-x-via-social-networking-sites.ars

It now makes much more sense that Apple is having Intel manufacture the next generation IOS chips. Based on information from Ars, the finFET shines at lower voltages. So Apple is going to be using Intel not just because they can manufacture smaller than everyone else, but also because the resulting chips will be faster or take less power than anyone else.

Bulldozer is looking increasingly underpowered compared to Sandy Bridge, with some benchmarks indicating potentially worse performance per cycle than the existing K10.5 core.

This thread has some interesting information on possible BD performance.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars It isn't true that "all" the people taking up the banner do not have methods more advanced than DDoS.

So much for One Chance.

Except for when they do.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/02/anonymous-speaks-the-inside-story-of-the-hbgary-hack.ars

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/02/07/1424213/HBGary-Federal-Hacked-By-Anonymous

These stupid companies think they can treat their customers like children and in the process shoot themselves in the foot.

Correction: they didn't treat them like children: Harrington High School did. Still, I'm surprised how they think they can get away with these kinds of things. Could you imagine the charges that would be brought upon them if, say, a 15 yo girl had the laptop on while, say, undressing? It's appalling and seriously makes me wonder what's going on in their heads.

In the mean time, i expect an "oops, my bad" apology in a futile attempt to save face and not get sued out of existence.

How so? These 20 points (which I welcome you to disprove & good luck - you'll NEED it vs. YOUR "raving", minus a PHD in Psychiatry on YOUR PART no less, & yet YOU SEE FIT to dispense YOUR "amateur" wannabe '/.-SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk' b.s. quoted next):

"Get AdBlock or Privoxy and learn RegExp instead of listening to amateur advice from raving lunatics." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03, @06:04AM (#36008540)

Sure, sure... (yea, right (not)): People are just going to instantly "learn regular expressions & javascript" to manage Adblock's code + rules themselves (lol, yea, right)!

vs.

Editing a HOSTS file!

(Which is something people on PC's most definitely ALREADY KNOW HOW TO DO & USE EASILY vs. what YOU stupidly suggest)!

And - again: Disprove these 20 points in favor of HOSTS files!

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes

How so? These 20 points (which I welcome you to disprove & good luck - you'll NEED it vs. YOUR "raving", minus a PHD in Psychiatry on YOUR PART no less, & yet YOU SEE FIT to dispense YOUR "amateur" wannabe '/.-SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk' b.s. quoted next):

"Get AdBlock or Privoxy and learn RegExp instead of listening to amateur advice from raving lunatics." - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 03, @06:04AM (#36008540)

Sure, sure... (yea, right (not)): People are just going to instantly "learn regular expressions & javascript" to manage Adblock's code + rules themselves (lol, yea, right)!

vs.

Editing a HOSTS file!

(Which is something people on PC's most definitely ALREADY KNOW HOW TO DO & USE EASILY vs. what YOU stupidly suggest)!

And - again: Disprove these 20 points in favor of HOSTS files!

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw -> http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/082908-kaminsky-flaw-prompts-dns-server.html for years now). Hosts protect against those problems via hardcodes

CPU hardware security tied to end-user software is already on the way. See Why Intel bought McAfee.

Intel has waited for ages for its ecosystem partners to come up with ways to give consumers access to vPro's security benefits, and little has really panned out so now they're just going to take vPro (and any newer security technologies) directly to consumers via McAfee.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/guides/2010/01/video-editing-in-linux-a-look-at-pitivi-and-kdenlive.ars

Conclusion

Demand for video editing tools is only going to increase. This is an area where Linux desperately needs to be competitive if there's hope for the Linux desktop going mainstream anytime soon.

PiViTi and Kdenlive show promise, but neither application is fully "there" just yet. PiTiVi is stable and intuitive, but lacks features. Kdenlive is very feature-rich, but needs to be stabilized just a bit; and some work could be done to make it more user-friendly. My first recommendation for doing video editing on Linux is definitely Kdenlive at this stage, though. It may not be as capable as a tool like, say, Final Cut Pro, but it does have most if not all of what many users need from a video editing application.

Progress is being made, but some work is needed to take these applications the "last mile" to be entirely suitable for mainstream use.

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also b

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now - which not only gets you more SPEED & BANDWIDTH PER MONTH, but also better online "layered security":

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also b

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now:

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw ->

If you wish to get some of that bandwidth back, especially as an "end user" who is paying a monthly billing to ISP/BSP's like AT&T instituting this? You can... easily & here is how + why:

Use a custom HOSTS file!

It can gain you added online "layered security" (the best thing we have really to date), better speed, and even better "anonymity" (vs. DNS request logs, &/or DNSBL), but perhaps MOST IMPORTANTLY is, it gets you more "bang for your buck" for your monthly bill... and folks? IT IS NOTICEABLE SPEED, and yes, NOTICEABLY BETTER SECURITY, period, if done right!

On this issue of "bandwidth caps" by ISP/BSP's, specifically however:

It can help you in 2 capacities vs. this, for:

---

1.) Conserving bandwidth YOU PAY FOR (after all folks - IT IS YOUR MONEY)

AND

2.) GAINING BACK SPEED YOU PAY FOR THAT YOU ARE WASTING LOADING ADBANNERS!

---

In fact, I'll post the ENTIRE "gamut" of WHY A HOSTS FILE IS SUPERIOR TO BOTH AdBlock &/or DNS servers alone, right now:

---

20++ ADVANTAGES OF HOSTS FILES OVER DNS SERVERS &/or ADBLOCK ALONE for added layered security:

1.) HOSTS files are useable for all these purposes because they are present on all Operating Systems that have a BSD based IP stack (even ANDROID) and do adblocking for ANY webbrowser, email program, etc. (any webbound program).

2.) Bad news: ADBLOCK CAN BE DETECTED FOR: See here on that note -> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

HOSTS files are NOT BLOCKABLE by websites, as was tried on users by ARSTECHNICA (and it worked, proving HOSTS files are a better solution for this because they cannot be blocked & detected for, in that manner), to that websites' users' dismay:

PERTINENT QUOTE/EXCERPT FROM ARSTECHNICA THEMSELVES:

----

An experiment gone wrong - By Ken Fisher | Last updated March 6, 2010 11:11 AM

http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2010/03/why-ad-blocking-is-devastating-to-the-sites-you-love.ars

"Starting late Friday afternoon we conducted a 12 hour experiment to see if it would be possible to simply make content disappear for visitors who were using a very popular ad blocking tool. Technologically, it was a success in that it worked. Ad blockers, and only ad blockers, couldn't see our content."

and

"Our experiment is over, and we're glad we did it because it led to us learning that we needed to communicate our point of view every once in a while. Sure, some people told us we deserved to die in a fire. But that's the Internet!"

Thus, as you can see? Well - THAT all "went over like a lead balloon" with their users in other words, because Arstechnica was forced to change it back to the old way where ADBLOCK still could work to do its job (REDDIT however, has not, for example). However/Again - this is proof that HOSTS files can still do the job, blocking potentially malscripted ads (or ads in general because they slow you down) vs. adblockers like ADBLOCK!

----

3.) Adblock doesn't protect email programs external to FF, Hosts files do. THIS IS GOOD VS. SPAM MAIL or MAILS THAT BEAR MALICIOUS SCRIPT, or, THAT POINT TO MALICIOUS SCRIPT VIA URLS etc.

4.) Adblock won't get you to your favorite sites if a DNS server goes down or is DNS-poisoned, hosts will (this leads to points 4-7 next below).

5.) Adblock doesn't allow you to hardcode in your favorite websites into it so you don't make DNS server calls and so you can avoid tracking by DNS request logs, hosts do (DNS servers are also being abused by the Chinese lately and by the Kaminsky flaw ->

this story

Yeah, I read the arstechnica article a few days ago, and the comments there were much better than the ones here. Among the sentiments I enjoyed:

• The media coverage of these handfuls of SWAT raids are mostly to scare everyone into securing their access points, because then it makes it easier for the feds to convict you when someone breaks into your wireless access point and downloads CP or something else they don't like. If you have an open access point, they can't really "prove" it was you. But if you have some kind of encryption going, then as far as the court is concerned it just *had* to be you doing the nasty, since you're the only one with the secret keys and there's no wai anyone could possibly break into it, as trivial as we know it is to do.
• The police don't apologize for anything that might happen during a raid. As far as they're concerned, they can do no wrong. But they will get reprimanded by the courts for issuing too many "dynamic entry" warrants prematurely.
• For my part, I think that if enough of us continue running open APs, the police will eventually have to find better ways to cooperate with us in their investigations. I don't really want to live in a world with no open and shared wifi (even though I have a cell phone with tethering and pretty fast HSDPA service, so I don't even need open wifi most of the time)

To actually respond to the OP...

• Set up a separate wifi router. Maybe look into something that can support OLSRd or something so you can get some kind of community mesh network going... this will particularly become important to have lots of people with OLSRd nodes if the government ever decides to use their internet kill switch for some silly reason.
• Run that wifi through a spare wired computer with two NICs, so you can use wondershaper or something to limit the bandwidth going through it.
• Some other good monitoring tools: NTOP (the web-based thing, though the other console ntop is also nice), to log and display traffic type and endpoints SNORT, to help alert if bad things are happening iftop is a good console thingy for showing you what is taking up bandwidth right now. Wireshark, for the times you feel evil and want to do some packet inspection / logging, though you probably don't want to run this all the time.

Good luck and have fun, don't let the man keep you down! :P

Forget being a nice guy, and in this case, the EFF's recommendations. Aside from the issues you raise yourself, this story should be all it takes to convince you of the foolishness of such a policy these days.

To answer your question directly, yes, some consumer AP / Routers can shape traffic like you're asking. You will need to divide your network into multiple VLANs, I would suggest three: One wireless and wide open, one wireless and secure for your use, and one for the wired side. Then, bandwidth limit the free wireless, route appropriately, and apply a security policy to protect yourself. You might also consider logging all that "free" traffic so when the Feds show up with a warrant, you have some kind of audit trail to get yourself out of jail.

I'm not aware of any consumer grade equipment that will do this out of the box. On the other hand, there are several free / open firmware projects that replace the factory firmware that are linux based, and may be able to meet your needs. A couple (by no means all) of these projects are http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index> dd-wrt and https://openwrt.org/> Open-wrt .

Beware though, that not all of the consumer hardware is created equally internally. Research carefully the hardware / replacement firmware combinations to make sure you can get where you want to be before spending money. You'll also be stressing the hardware far beyond it's original design, so opt for more RAM and a faster embedded processor.

Gee, this sounds like a PITA.....

Hope this helps, and that you don't get arrested.

--Red

Ars story about neighbor using open AP to get his neighbor fingered

This log file has been a known issue for at least 6 months. I'll give Apple credit and say that never purging the contents of the file is a bug, but they have know about the problem and did nothing to correct it.

On top of that, there are professional phone forensic applications that use this exploit to gather the location data off the phone. Police and private investigators have been exploiting this issue long before the recent announcement.

Here are a few articles with more detailed info on it.

Story at Ars: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/04/sony-admits-utter-psn-failure-your-personal-data-has-been-stolen.ars

Microsoft has no on-device location tracking but sends the location to MS together with the Unique Device ID.

Great, just great.

But the fact that its there on your phone at all allows a traffic stop phone search to track your every movement for months in the past.

Since it doesn't track every move - no.

Only if it's expensive. if it's cheap then they'll spy on you if it's a slow day and they're bored.

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/12/sprint-fed-customer-gps-data-to-leos-over-8-million-times.ars

and your comment is also proof that brain is not essential part for some people to function.

most (99.999999%) of software patents are just observing the life and written in code, thus not invented. and when 99.99% of process is consisting bogus obvious claims where people claim they invented something... how can this be essential? i will go so far and admit the rest could be treated as valid inventions, but how to separate them from bogus claims when people granting patent have no clue about what they are granting patent for. if your method has too many false positives, you have to wonder if your method is actually doing its job or it just creates more work for you and others.

imagine this. even showing of sorted item list is patented, ffs. now wonder, just how did people organize records before computers? by your claim, the patent from 197x played vital role in correcting that mistake (or having sorted books in bookcase and sorted items on screen falls into completely different categories, if you plan on disputing with mechanism that sorts, you can always also imagine you could as well hire someone to sort records for you and thus employ same mechanism). or this example... http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12006 (microsoft patenting virtual desktops in 2004, by your claims... if there would not be this research i would still be imagining i used them in 90s)

i'm all for patents in other areas. with my lack of understanding those they seem quite logical, but someone with understanding those areas might dispute my claims just i dispute yours.

You don't know that.

First, its backed up onto your computer when itunes does a phone backup.
Second, some claim it is sent to mobile me if you have an account and set it up for backup of your iphone.

But the fact that its there on your phone at all allows a traffic stop phone search to track your every movement for months in the past.