doubleclick.net · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

A funny thing.... by Penguin2212 · 2003-08-26 04:08 · Score: 1 · on Windows Is 'Insecure By Design,' Says Washington Post

When I clicked on the article, this advertisement popped up in the article.

http://m2.doubleclick.net/790463/mrs02112_itdm_rad _336x280_23k.gif

Re:OMG fp Lol ! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-29 08:35 · Score: -1, Troll · on Citizens' Protection in Federal Databases Act Introduced

ACs made it again advertisment

hahah by autopr0n · 2003-07-23 09:22 · Score: -1, Troll · on Skeptical Reactions To SCO From Around The Globe

Check out this add on ARnet.com.au. for a netgear 802.11g hub. They are calling it the "G-Spot".

Its easy doing that! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-10 12:22 · Score: 0 · on Repel Bugs With Your Cell Phone

Look the URL for example.

.

Re:I've said it before.. by NanoGator · 2003-04-17 10:22 · Score: 1, Interesting · on Spiderman, Sony vs Marvel

"Yeah, they don't oppose and even encourage Linux on the PS2. That's important around here. "

You mean the $200 Linux kit that doesn't allow you to burn your apps to disc for others to play with? I guess I can give them credit for kissing Slashdot's ass. It's not so interesting when you read the FAQ and realize it's not near as interesting as it could be. Sega had it right with their Dreamcast.

"Also, they sell (sold? haven't seen one recently) CD-RW drives, DVD-RW drives, MP3 players, etc. even though they are into producing content in a BIG way. "

CD and DVD products were made by so many companies that Sony really had no choice but to compete. The market wouldn't support their mischief. However, their MP3 players are evil. Not only do they only take Memory Stick or Minidisc, but they also are pushing a proprietary copy protection format known as MagicGate.

"... without regard to some grand lockin strategy. Unlike certain Massive Software vendors I can think of. "

Oh really? Okay, find me a Sony brand Digital Camera that supports anything besides Memory Stick. Find me an MP3 player that uses Compact Flash or Smart Media. I could probably keep poking around here, but the reason that you don't percieve their lock-in scheme is that they compete in areas that have a little too much competition. Sony can't make a Sony-only DVD-R because nobody'd buy it.

You can turn a blind eye to it if ya like, but sooner or later you're going to buy a Sony product and figure out just how proprietary they are, especially when they're the only one providing a product like that.

Re:Oye, more tech != good? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-02-21 13:47 · Score: 0 · on 10 Techno-Cool Cars

This is the link, I think

The real problem with advertising by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-12 07:14 · Score: 0 · on IAB Recommends Larger Web Advertising

I'm sick of all the bad press online advertising gets, especially on sites like Slashdot. I have made quite a lot of money from online advertising, and I don't really see what's wrong with it. Yes, there have been privacy scares (e.g. Doubleclick), but of course that applies to a specific company, not the entire industry. I would have thought most /. users could distinguish the two :-) Yes, there are more intrusive pop-ups etc, but read on...

Back at the start of online advertising, it was just a banner. But immediately, people got furious at these ads "eating up bandwidth". Of course, an ad is more data to download, so yes, it does use some of your bandwidth. But, especially in those days, this was absolutely dwarfed by the huge volume of largely unnecessary images on sites. I once did an informal study of web sites such as Yahoo, Excite UK, and the total size of the images was usually twice as big as the size of the banner ad.

Smaller sites such as my own survived solely on advertising revenues. I had no pop-ups, just one banner on each page. It hardly took up "90% of screen space" like one poster suggests.

Now, because people have got a very negative view of ad banners (with virtually no justification), the industry has virtually declined to nothing, and sites like mine are in serious financial difficulty. It is no wonder that companies are then increasingly trying desperate measures like pop-ups. Personally I have decided not to display pop-ups though. As for people pointing to the success of Google's text ads as an example, it's just not applicable to most sites. Google can display relevant ads, and as a person is using Google to find something, ads are more appropriate anyway. It simply wouldn't be economical for sites with more modest traffic to set up their own "AdWords" system.

Now I'm not sure if my site will survive. I'm sure many people will be thinking "Well, if it's good enough, people will pay!". That's true: but the site isn't really good enough. I know that sounds like a strange admission, but in other forms of media it's an acceptable business model. For instance, look at the free UK newspaper Metro (distributed on trains and buses usually). Would you pay for that? No. But you read it because it's free, and it's paid for by advertisers.

Before /.-ers condemn the entire online advertising industry so harshly, they should realise the implications--if the downturn in the market continues, a significant proportion of the web will vanish. You might not be bothered, but some people will be!

(Thanks for reading this massive post!)

Most in secure os? Yep its linux! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 04:39 · Score: -1, Offtopic · on UN Advised on Wireless Insecurity

According to a new Aberdeen Group report, open-source solution Linux has surpassed Windows as the most vulnerable OS, contrary to the high-profile press Microsoft's security woes receive. Furthermore, the Aberdeen Group reports that more than 50 percent of all security advisories that CERT issued in the first 10 months of 2002 were for Linux and other open-source software solutions. The report muddles the argument that proprietary software such as Windows is inherently less secure than open solutions. And here's another blow to the status quo: Proprietary UNIX solutions were responsible for just as many security advisories as Linux in the same time period. Could Windows be the most secure mainstream OS available today?

Advertisement:

if ((!document.images && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mozilla/2.') >= 0) || navigator.userAgent.indexOf("WebTV")>= 0) {
document.write('');
document.write('')
}

"Open-source software, commonly used in many versions of Linux, UNIX, and network routing equipment, is now the major source of elevated security vulnerabilities for IT buyers," the report reads. "Security advisories for open-source and Linux software accounted for 16 out of the 29 security advisories--about one of every two advisories--published for the first 10 months of 2002. During this same time, vulnerabilities affecting Microsoft products numbered seven, or about one in four of all advisories."

The stunning report makes several claims that seem to fly in the face of widely accepted beliefs. First, the Aberdeen Group says that Windows-based Trojan horse attacks peaked in 2001, when CERT released six such advisories, then bottomed out this year, when CERT didn't issue any alerts. However, Trojan horse-based attacks on Linux, UNIX, and open-source projects jumped from one in 2001 to two in 2002. The Aberdeen Group says this information proves that Linux and UNIX are just as prone to Trojan horse attacks as any other OS, despite press reports to the contrary, and that Mac OS X, which is based on UNIX, is also vulnerable to such attacks. Even more troubling, perhaps, is the use of open-source software in routers, Web servers, firewalls, and other Internet-connected solutions. The Aberdeen Group says that this situation sets up these devices and software products to be "infectious carriers" that intruders can easily usurp.

According to the Aberdeen Group, the open-source community's claim that it can fix security vulnerabilities more quickly than proprietary developers can means little. The group says that the open-source software and hardware solutions need more rigorous security testing before they're released to customers. This statement is particularly problematic because many Linux distributions lack the sophisticated automatic-update technologies modern Windows versions contain.

We can rail against Microsoft and its security policies, but far more people and systems use Microsoft's software than the competition's software. I believe that we'll never know how secure Linux is, compared with Windows, until a comparable number of people and systems use Linux. But despite the fact that Linux isn't as prevalent as Windows, we're still seeing a dramatic increase in Linux security advisories today. I think the conclusion is obvious.

anti-leach FAQ has banner add for an ad-blocker! by dcd · 2002-11-27 13:42 · Score: 1 · on Slashback: Panama, Leeches, Comeuppance

I went the the FAQ and I got a very appropriate
banner add at the bottom of the screen - sometimes they get it right :-)

Eliminate Pop-ups and triple your surfing speed! ZeroAds tm

that links to zeroadds.com via doubleclick.net

anti-leach FAQ has banner add for an ad-blocker! by dcd · 2002-11-27 13:42 · Score: 1 · on Slashback: Panama, Leeches, Comeuppance

I went the the FAQ and I got a very appropriate
banner add at the bottom of the screen - sometimes they get it right :-)

Eliminate Pop-ups and triple your surfing speed! ZeroAds tm

that links to zeroadds.com via doubleclick.net

Re:A question. by Zaffle · 2002-11-19 15:35 · Score: 5, Insightful · on Browsers Which Protect Your Privacy?

Maybe I am being naive, but...

How is the process of blocking Ads protecting my privacy?

Advertising companies (especially DoubleClick) serve up ads for a lot of websites, they also note down what sites you goto, and build up a profile. (Note: this can be stopped using DoubleClicks opt-out feature, however not all advertising sites have this option, and then, they are all opt-out, not opt-in)

This might not seem like such a bad thing, (eg hey, now I'm only getting ads for games and linux stuff, not tampons and other crap (appoligies to woman and everyone else I offended with that remark)), however they also try their hardest to link this profile with your real name, address, etc.

This all comes back to a case awhile ago, where a woman sued a supermarket because she slipped on a large patch of water in one of the aisles. The supermarket then, using her "discount" card, produced logs in court showing she would regularly purchase large ammounts of alcohol.

In the end, do you really want companies you don't know, knowing a lot about what you do on the web, and where you go?

True, your ISP knows almost everything (if they bother), unless you use FreeNet or something, and Visa/Mastercard/Amex know a lot about your spending habits, but just how much are you willing to put up with?