Slashdot Mirror
Domain: techcrunch.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to techcrunch.com.
Comments · 2,707
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
Re:Microphone access.
-
Fake Review #8 by epyT-R
"The adblock plus lists are... more efficient than having the system parse 500kB+ host files every time there's a dns lookup"- by epyT-R (613989) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @11:11PM (#49788007)
Tell us how 'efficient' almost all ads blocked is using 4++gb of RAM & 100% CPU -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
OK? You FAIL...
APK
P.S.=> Some 'efficiency' that, along with the fact Deny this too AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
... apk
-
Fake Review #6 by andymadigan
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
Fake Review #8 by epyT-R
"The adblock plus lists are... more efficient than having the system parse 500kB+ host files every time there's a dns lookup"- by epyT-R (613989) on Wednesday May 27, 2015 @11:11PM (#49788007)
Tell us how 'efficient' almost all ads blocked is using 4++gb of RAM & 100% CPU -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
OK? You FAIL...
APK
P.S.=> Some 'efficiency' that, along with the fact Deny this too AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
... apk
-
Fake Review #6 by andymadigan
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
YT will also remove videos that don't play ballA better headline (and interestingly missing from
YouTube made its top video creators an offer they literally couldn't refuse, or they'd have their content disappear. Today YouTube confirmed that any "partner" creator who earns a cut of ad revenue but doesn't agree to sign its revenue share deal for its new YouTube Red $9.99 ad-free subscription will have their videos hidden from public view on both the ad-supported and ad-free tiers. That includes videos by popular comedians, musicians, game commentators, and DIY instructors.
It's a tough pill to swallow that makes YouTube look like a bully. Though turning existing fans into paid subscribers instead of free viewers could earn creators more than the ad revenue, forcing them into the deal seems heavy-handed.
Google says the goal is to offer consistency, so people thinking about subscribing to Red don't have to worry about their favorite content not being available in the ad-free service. But there's no explanation why it couldn't just flag videos of those who don't sign the deal as "Not On Red", and instead had to go with a sign-or-disappear strategy.
According to Chief Business Officer Robert Kyncl at today's YouTube Red launch event, 99% of content consumed on YouTube will be still available, noting that the vast majority of creators signed the deal. But they didn't have much choice, otherwise they'd lose out on both the previous ad revenue, the new subscription revenue, and the connection with fans. -
Bwaaahahaha, you're deluded #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #2/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
Re:Just
And when the federal ITC expires in January (should Congress do nothing, which is what they do best) it will still be break-even (or better) with grid power in 25 of 50 states. And with a huge manufacturing plant opening in New York next year that is mass-producing modular panels with 22% efficiency, the cost will dive further.
Sure, it's not the absolute most efficient panel out there, but the design is ready to manufacture, doesn't use stupidly expensive materials (GaAs), and isn't subject to stiff import tariffs.
-
Not so fast!
Google disagrees with the article.
http://techcrunch.com/2015/10/...
Google’s official statement:
"Steering this story straight – we take privacy very seriously and do not collect the data the Motor Trend article claims such as throttle position, oil temp and coolant temp. Users opt in to share information with Android Auto that improves their experience, so the system can be hands-free when in Drive, and provide more accurate navigation through the car’s GPS." -
The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
Re:apple pay and paypal versus samsung pay
Yep, CurrentC. Which is basically a usability and security/privacy disaster. It'll probably fail (and some retailers such as Best Buy already have abandoned it), but there will still be holdouts.
-
Re: That's just... dishonest
$25 or $100 is negligible even if you value your time well below minimum wage.
If I wanted to develop an IOS app, I'd have to buy another computer and another phone. This is a $2000 minimum outlay as well as the $99 per year needed to remain a developer. Given that most apps dont even make $99 per year chances are I'd never make back the original outlay.
What do you think it costs to develop for Android? Heck, you need to build an house extension just to store the test devices.
-
Come back DPR, all is forgiven
What is needed / what will result, is a marketplace on the dark web, allowing frictionless free enterprise as our Founding Fathers intended, using units of exchange which have real intrinsic value.
-
Re:Apple can fill a pretty big pit.
Apple's cash on hand figures are mind boggling. Over 200 Billion.
Yes. 0.2 Terabucks. More than most governments.
So they could probably fill a gigantic pit with money if they wanted to.
Unfortunately I doubt they could actually fill a pit with money. Most of the 'money' is only 'on paper' (or rather based on agreements, stocks, shares, bonds etc) and not literally actual money.
90% of the 'money' probably couldn't even be converted into actual cash even if Apple wanted to.
-
Apple can fill a pretty big pit.
Apple's cash on hand figures are mind boggling. Over 200 Billion.
Yes. 0.2 Terabucks. More than most governments.
So they could probably fill a gigantic pit with money if they wanted to.
-
Re: Serious to get into developer path
-
Re:Hard to defend against you say?
What would you consider evidence?
That’s why the news from Bitdefender researchers is so alarming. They discovered sophisticated CAPTCHA-bypassing Android malware in Google Play apps.
-
Re: Far too late in the game...pun intended
In terms of device unit sales, you're right that Android sells more, because these days there are lots of cheap Android phones sold as "feature phones", meaning that they're used to make calls and perhaps take photo's, but not as "smart phones" - no web browsing or apps. So not relevant as a market for games.
In terms of app sales, iOS wins. The result is that app sales for iOS are much more than Android, and growing. http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/... .
So if you're picking a platform to sell games on, you're going to start with iOS, because that's where the sales are.
-
... are keeping Customers Aboard
A few months ago, Tim Cook gave a passionate speech about Apple's stance on customer data privacy: http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/...
Apple's higher prices, closed-source designs and proprietary stances on software have given me reasons to choose Android and Amazon products over Apple in the past, but as the issues he raises in his speech become more severe, it gives me good reasons to switch back. I can afford to pay more for my hardware, but I can little afford to have my privacy seriously compromised. The success of Facebook and Android and other advertising-funded services makes it clear that a great many people care very little about data privacy and are downright eager to get free services in return for allowing themselves to become a data product, but most people have no idea at all about how commercially valuable that data product has become. Yes, I like to get a bargain as much as anyone else, but knowing that my net worth is a few sigma above the mean, ultimately, having sellers know more about me can only reduce the possibility that exchanging my personal data gets me lower prices on my purchases.
-
Re:HYPE
Still, you could have a lot of fun with someone... this is the sort of thing that happens when you google "dental robot vomit":
http://www.nissin-dental.net/p...
http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/...
------
"The 600 series had rubber skin. We spotted them easy, but these are new. They look human... sweat, bad breath, everything. Very hard to spot." -Kyle Reese -
Re:Ironic
First, no. I think "responded to at least one message" is FAR more telling.
You think it's more likely that a fake account will pay to delete their information than sending messages? I don't agree with that. Why would a fake account pay to delete anything? It's fake. Only a real account would bother to pay to have their information deleted.
but the fact that it is SO RIDICULOUSLY LOW tells us that they weren't
No, the number doesn't reveal anything like that.
and it tells us that however many women joined only an insigifcant number deleted.
Although that number is more significant than the number sending messages.
I think women may have been significantly more inclined to use the paid delete option then men for a variety of reasons.
The percent of female accounts that paid to delete is a little less than half of the male accounts who paid to delete, whatever that means. And it doesn't really matter what you think, I'm looking for what the data can point to instead of opinions.
Further it evidently counts women who created an account only to lurk or see if their husband joined. Even if you want to count them as "members", the fact that they weren't responding to any messages at all is material evidence that even though they joined they simply weren't engaging in the site.
That is not even relevant. It also doesn't factor the number of men who signed up only to look for their wife, so what? We can't even guess what those numbers are. Maybe it's 100%. Who the hell knows? Neither of us, and the data doesn't provide any evidence either way. I'm specifically trying to determine the number of actual women on the site as opposed to fake accounts. I'm not interested in, and cannot guess, their motivations for being there. The data does not provide a way to estimate that and, again, I'm less interested in opinions than statistical evidence.
Look at "responded to at least one message" and "checked inbox".
Look at "sent a message". Wait, you can't, because that's not in the data set. What about someone sending messages to other users telling them to respond via email or phone? That user would never need to check their inbox or respond to any unsolicited messages. That could very well be a large number of people (especially women), and we have no way to know that. We do know the number of people who paid to have their information deleted though.
You can't tell me there 2 million women on the site, when fewer than 10k ever responded to a single message or checked their inbox or enaged in chat.
Actually it's not that difficult, here let me try: There very well might have been 2 million women on that site, actively sending messages to men telling them to respond via email. There, that wasn't that hard. You cannot point to a single piece of evidence which would definitively and unambiguously refute that claim, either.
I admit I'm speculating here.
You are speculating with virtually all of your conclusions. So am I, which is why my range of 12,000 to 2.1 million women is so broad. Here's a question - if Ashley Madison can get men to sign up by operating 10,000 accounts to chat with the men, then why are there 5.5 million accounts marked as female? They don't need 5.5 million accounts, they need 10,000, so where did those other 99.998% of accounts come from? Are you trying to suggest that the database for female accounts contains 10,000 accounts either operated by Ashley Madison or actual women, with millions of women just trying to check on their husband? Now they are claiming that hundreds of thousands of new accounts have been created, including (at least) 87,596 female ac
-
Shock
Business offers convenience at a slightly higher price point, makes it easy for customers to spend money.
This is news to ANYONE? It's a fucking business, they're trying to make money (and AFAIK Amazon doesn't really make any). Would we be surprised that grocery stores are laid out to make the most money? Car dealerships?
Oh, and they're startlingly easy to hack
http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/...The summary reads like the grossest sort of hit-piece. Not sure why Fast Company backed such a naked assassination attempt, but whatever.
-
Re:And who decides?
Good point! Adblock Plus reached a deal with Google to let their ads through http://www.businessinsider.com... http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... http://blog.pagefair.com/2015/...
-
Re:I said it before...
Wrong.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/...They're getting pressed on all sides. Their once unique features can be obtained from other suppliers.
We had an article on here not long ago with the United Kingdom dumping Oracle for a competitor. I think I remember the Australians and the Canadians doing the same thing.
Business as usual is just going to lead to managed decline.
-
Re:Win10 is worse than Win8
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit: http://start64.com/index.php?o... [start64.com] FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues: --- A.) Hosts do more than: 1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... [techcrunch.com] ) 2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... [wikipedia.org] 3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... [slashdot.org] B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g.
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
Non-experts are concerned about the update's costs
As much as people want to believe, in the age of unattended Windows updates and package managers, that updating is painless and causes no problems, there are many famous examples of times people installed updates that proceeded to destroy or seriously disrupt operation of production environments.
-
Re:MOAH POPCORN
It's almost like free speech is more of a social justice value than a meathead one.
*snort*
http://thoughtcatalog.com/andr...
God help us if we have to rely on conservatives to defend free speech.
A list of such censorship is basically endless, so I will have to suffice with a not-so-brief list of some of the more egregious examples:
- A student at Purdue was found guilty of "racial harassment" for reading a book called Notre Dame Vs the Klan. (The Klan is the bad guy in the book.)
- A candidate in the European elections was arrested in Britain for quoting a passage from Winston Churchill about Islam.
- Gert Wilders, a politician in the Netherlands, was tried on five counts including "criminally insulting Muslims because of their religion."
- Both Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant were dragged in front of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for being Islamophobic.
- Conservative radio host Michael Savage was banned in Britain.
- The group Women, Action and Media convinced Twitter to allow them help report and censor harassment and hate speech. Twitter subsequently suspended the accounts of the anti-feminist Youtubers Thunderfoot and Mykeru (they were later reinstated). Both of them are liberals, by the way.
- Adam Weinstein at Gawker wants to "Arrest Climate-Change Deniers."
- Brendan Eich was forced to resign as CEO of Mozilla for opposing gay marriage. Another guy was fired because someone eaves dropped on his joke about dongles.
- A group called Color of Change was able to get Patrick Buchanan fired from MSNBC for expressing his incorrect opinions (that have been pretty consistent for the last 50 years) in his book Suicide of a Superpower.
- Allegedly, a man was banned from an Oregon college campus for "resembling a rapist."
- The "Pickup Artist" Julien Blanc was barred from entering the UK for making sexist comments.
- The mayor of Massachusetts banned the word "illegal" when referring to, umm, immigrants who came into the United States without going through the proper, legal channels. The Associated Press did
-
The self-destruction of andymadigan #1/2
"uBlock is using 33MB of RAM" - by andymadigan (792996) on Friday June 12, 2015 @10:31PM (#49902053)
Inefficient: Hosts @ 3-11mb w/ current data & does things adblock variants can't & U RAN FROM IT http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... ).
UBlock uses 63++ MB & AdBlock = 128mb++ -> http://www.ghacks.net/2014/06/...
SCREENSHOT -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
BEST UBlock's done = 38mb/ABP = 64mb -> http://www.extremetech.com/wp-... From http://www.extremetech.com/wp-...
* See 'p.s.' below - Says all (& I didn't do the saying!)
---
"which blocks more ads? Answer: uBlock/Adblock" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
WRONG - "Almost ALL Ads Blocked"'s PAID NOT TO by default-> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
&
ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
UBlock/Adblock = far less efficient on CPU & RAM (added messagepassing, SLOW usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & NEITHER does a fraction of what hosts do in more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity.
---
"your system blocks fewer ads" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
See above: + hosts do MORE w/ less via 1st link above!
---
"I'm more than happy to spend an extra 1% of my computer's power to block far more ads than your shitty idea" by andymadigan (792996) on Sunday June 14, 2015 @12:04AM (#49907001)
You're 'happy' being illogical & stupid?
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU use inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
+
ClarityRay defeats it & NOT hosts (clarityray BLOCKS addons via native browser methods).
---
YOU started it -> http://apple.slashdot.org/comm... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
I finished YOU WITH IT all above!
APK
P.S.=> Howard Stark in "Capt. America" - hosts (Cap's Shield) vs. AdBlock & variants (steel):
"It's stronger than steel & 1/3rd the weight"
So
"Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" & "eat your words"
... apk
-
AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out'
Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!
APK
P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
For the BEST hosts file?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
... apk
-
AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out'
Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!
APK
P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
For the BEST hosts file?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
... apk
-
AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out'
Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!
APK
P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
For the BEST hosts file?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
... apk
-
AdBlock = slower, inferior + 'souled-out'
Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phishing
10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!
APK
P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
AdBlock's SLOWER than hosts: http://superuser.com/questions...
For the BEST hosts file?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
... apk
-
More about Mozilla Foundation management.
See the May 12, 2015 Mozilla Foundation article, Update on Digital Rights Management and Firefox Quoting: "... the Adobe Content Decryption Module (CDM) to play back DRM-wrapped content
Adobe has a long history of being invasive and abusive and releasing buggy software, in my opinion. Basically, installing new versions of Firefox now appears to give Adobe complete control, even though it is "sandboxed". Mozilla Foundation apparently does not disclose if it was paid by Adobe.
A huge problem, apparently, is that technically knowledgeable users will complain intensely. So, Mozilla Launches A New Firefox Version Without DRM Support. (See the U.S. English version 39.0, for example.)
Apparently the idea is that the technically knowledgeable users will get what they want, but most users will be sneakily manipulated, and the technically knowledgeable users will accept that.
See also this May 12, 2015 article: That DRM support in Firefox you never asked for? It's here. Quoting: " The first version of Adobe's CDM for Firefox is only available on Windows Vista and later and then only for 32-bit versions of the browser. Windows XP, OS X, Linux, and 64-bit versions of Firefox are not yet supported, and there's no word yet on when they might be."
Weird. -
Re:LOL
This might be helpful. A lot of it is anti-gentrification, rent control, NIMBY-ism, and other things that legally block people from building more. I don't think the landlords are really responsible for this.
