Slashdot Mirror
IE8 Will Contain an Accidental Ad Blocker
JagsLive sends in a Washington Post blog post reflecting on one privacy-enhancing feature of the upcoming Internet Explorer 8, the so-called "InPrivate Blocking" that has privacy advocates quietly cheering, and advertisers seriously worrying. Here is Microsoft's description of the feature. From the Post: "The advertising industry is bracing for trouble from the next version of Microsoft's Internet Explorer, details of which were announced today, because it will offer a feature that blocks some ads and other content from third-parties that shows up on Web pages. A Microsoft spokesman said that the feature, to be known as 'InPrivate Blocking,' was never designed to be an ad blocker, though 'there may be ads that get blocked.' Instead, it was designed to stop tracking 'pixels' or pieces of code that could allow third-party sites to track users as they move around the Web."
The two are one and the same.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Anybody that really wants ad blocking can do it now. Most of the people that do want it don't use IE.
All that this changes is control of the ads that are shown in IE. Instead of some 3rd party ad, you will get an ad that is 'blessed' by microsoft (after the advertiser pays a fee to M$).
From Microsoft's decription:
"Have you ever wanted to take your web browsing "off the record"? Perhaps you're using someone else's computer and you don't want them to know which sites you visited. Maybe you need to buy a gift for a loved one without ruining the surprise. Maybe you're at an Internet kiosk and don't want the next person using it to know at which website you bank."
IE8 is supposed to solve all of that? Bullshit.
Who the hell is drinking this cool-aid?
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
A third party like... Google?
Get your own accidental ad blocker right now! We will block some of the ads (Google) but our own stay!
Install Firefox, whack in AdBlock , NoScript, and FlashBlock and you have more privacy and security than with IE.
Enjoy Every Sandwich
http://www.privoxy.org/
Then again, it might just "accedently" dissapear from the final build...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
back in the early days of the web, if a website was 500k in TOTAL is was large. now days chewing 10 megs on a single site is nothing, most of it is ads and very little content. all of this is paid for by us, without our permission. so what if a website is offering free content in exchange for banner hits, they don't ask me if i'd like to be tracked and bombarded with ads for the pleasure of it first do they, in fact i'm pretty sure if websites started placing a front page stating you had to unblock ads and allow 50 doubleclick cookies to be placed not many people would visit them. So cry me a fucking river if they go broke from all the ad blocking.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Opera is the only one at the moment that has an ad blocker built in.
Opera has had Right-Click>Block Ad for quite some time. Admitidly, it doesn't have built-in support for adblocking lists, like IE8 and FF plugins do.
This has far reaching implications for all browsers. If you can't track a huge portion of the pie using google/yahoo analytics then it makes no since using 3rd party tracking software. The user in me cheers, the site administrator in me cringes.
This program won't block all ads. It will just block those ads that are geared towards non-Microsoft products! Furthermore, this browser will be smart enough to actually rewrite ads on the fly. So an ad for a Linux cluster will appear as an ad for a cluster running 10,000 licensed copies of Windows Vista Enterprise. I think everyone will be happy about this.
McCain/Palin '08. Now THAT's hope and change!
If IE8 either accidentally or purposefully blocks the intrusive pop-over ads that float over a website's content (what scatter brained nut actually looks at a finished product with such an ad and goes, 'yep, our reader base won't be utterly pissed when this happens') then I think I might just be a full convert to IE8's camp. Now I realize that other web browsers may have that functionality now, but super-mainstream-government-institutions (like this here Air Force) will never allow any browser but Internet Explorer on their computers, so I have to silently hope...
...there will be lots of comments along the lines of "Hey, I use Adblock Plus, it's good!".
I'll admit that I more or less forgot about advertising on the 'net, and was quite horrified when I saw somebody browsing without an ad blocker. The screen was crammed with idiotic messages, stupid images, blathering animations. The net actually looks completely messed-up, swamped in advertisements (most of them obviously created by waaaay-below-average-IQ people).
Sheesh, am I glad I found an ad blocker. Blocking some data actually makes the net more useful (as long as it isn't the state defining what is to be blocked).
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
It's almost as bad as going to the bathroom during commercials when you're watching tv!
words?
The giveaway is the word "subscription" - Apple got itself a slice to mobile phone revenue by means of the iPhone, MS is trying it again with ad revenue now the Yahoo deal fell through (who do you think will feel ad blocking most? (OK, "selective" ad blocking, I'm willing to bet it won't take long before the "trusted partner" scam will show up)*.
I suspect that that "possibility" will become mandatory to "maintain browsing security". You're welcome to it. Just a quick reminder: Automatic Updates led to the WGA disaster, so I wouldn't invest *too* much trust in it.
And remember: these are just tools - they are not an excuse to avoid using your brain.
*: I may be harsh here, but it's not like we're talking about a sterling track record here. I believe it when I see it.
Insert
Not just the new IE8 blocking, but all forms of ad blocking? Seems unfair to destroy the business models of so many websites. Maybe it's just me, but ads on sites like Digg or Slashdot don't even remotely bother me. Who am I to block their ads when I'm receiving free content?
I admit I do run a site myself and this sort of thing worries me. I have just two ads per page, both google ads, one leaderboard and a wide skyscraper. They aren't even remotely intrusive, and are there just to pay the bandwidth bills. For those complaining about bloated sites, my biggest page is just 10k without the ads. I'm currently a long way away from being affected by this, as 90% of my users are still using IE6, but it does concern me that I might have to shut down a free service because people can't handle two ads.
I know things like adblock are designed for really intrusive ads like those obnoxious animated overlays, but the problem is reasonable ads get blocked as well.
I wonder if there is any legal recourse for sites like Digg or companies like Google who are hurt by this sort of thing. Especially Google, as I highly doubt this whole thing is an "accident".
Name...That...Autocomplete!
Amen to that.If Microsoft want to help me keep the ever encroaching tentacles of Google at bay for a little longer, then more power to them. Yes, it's Microsoft, but Microsoft is a huge entity. I'm sure it has capacity within its big fat employee base for acts that are both beneficial and detrimental to the community. I'm happy to cheer them on when they do something I approve of (so far, that's just Windows XP, Excel (pre-2007) and this, but I'm sure there must be other things).
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
sorry i havent used opera for years but how is block ad different from Right-Click>Block images from *
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Ads are theft too, with all their flash, sound and graphics, it costs more to watch the ads than the content if you're on a pay per byte subscription.
So it's fair to place all kinds of heavy and annoying ads, if people are just free to block those that gets too expensive or annoying. Action equals reaction, it's up to the ad-funded to find a profitable business model, including a sensible advertising policy that does not encourage visitors to block. If visitors block your ads, your product was not worth paying for anyway.
Alright I do know that blockers like ABP simply blocks everything and I gotta admit that may be unfair, but on the other hand, the majority of ads online are excessive, so the ones i feel sorry for are the minority who actually have a sane advertising policy.
If I was as pragmatic and objective as I claim to be, would I be commenting?
Follow the link to MSDN. Check the images it serves you:
http://c.microsoft.com/trans_pixel.aspx?TYPE=PV&r=http%3a%2f%2fslashdot.org%2f
Yes, it's a transparent 1x1 pixel GIF.
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
But when you read an article about it, it seems perfectly reasonably stuff; 'sandbox' your session against cookie- and form-storage, block annoying trackers - all part of the standard browser ! There's no pretense of 'total security and/or anonymity' here, people, so stop whining.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
Your ISP doesn't charge you? Where do you live, and what do I have to go through to sign up with them?
(Yes, I understand that the ISP and content makers are different people - but pay TV only charges me once, I'm only charged once for groceries and I sure as hell don't pay twice for petrol. Besides, if ads weren't so obtrusive these days, maybe AdBlockers wouldn't be so popular. Users didn't fire the first salvo, so website operators shouldn't come crying when they're losing.)
I can barely contain the mixed feelings I have over this issue and some of the juvenile responses. Right now I more annoyed with the Linux/Open Source/EFF advocates that can't give a simple acknowledgment to a step forward of the end-users' protection and privacy IE8 may.
One thing I can say before going back to replaying Halo 2 on my now decommissioned Beowulf cluster is, "Good job Microsoft for trying to protect 75+% of the worlds Internet users".
I am personally grateful that the users of our 1000+ Linux, Solaris, BSD server farm are better protected.
Let's remember there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some where, some how, the bill must be paid. Until socialism or communism govern the Internet some level of commercial advertising will need to be tolerated in order to pay the bill in order to keep the "lights and water" running.
--magus
(not to be confused with magu$)
Whatever the reason for doing this, IT IS what consumers wants, more privacy. Gives the consumer what he wants, screws your comp, totally legal - nice!
/LabMonkey09
*cough* http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/
http://www.fanboy.co.nz/adblock/
No, it's not. They have the right to advertise, but they don't have the right to force me to look at their ads. I'm still free to ignore them all I want.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
Maybe it's just me, but ads on sites like Digg or Slashdot don't even remotely bother me. Who am I to block their ads when I'm receiving free content?
Considering that I'm also -providing- content, I don't feel too bad.
Slashdot would be nothing special without the comments...
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
Typical Microsoft. IE8's webpage (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/ie8/default.mspx) has two versions of its banner, just to underline one piece of text. If this is how the product itself works, then this will be one hefty download
Favorite username: admin'--
A Microsoft Ad Blocker that only works by accident.
Not everyone wishes to pointblank block adverts but few people want the shady and legally quesitonable tracking techniques some ads used gathering their details, especially those that get around strict cookie rules/settings.
However I find it amusing that people still find ways to bash Microsoft over this. It's a sensible privacy feature. If you want to block ads completely, fine, we all know that firefox can do that amazingly (at least until it's widespread enough for ad providers to start making their clients use an impossible to block local caching system) but this a smart feature for those who don't wish to block ads completely.
There is difference between ad blocking and tracking blocking.
This identifies 3rd party code that keeps track of users browsing habits, and allows the user to reject being tracked.
Google would be hurt by this, as Google is NOT just about displaying ads, but displaying 'contextual' ads that it gets from not only the site content but the user viewing the site, based on the user's browsing history stored at Google.
Check out the Channel9 interview for more information and the intent of this.
http://channel9.msdn.com/posts/Charles/IE-8-Beta-2-Privacy-is-about-more-than-cookies/
It would be 'easy' to paint MS as being evil, but in reality, this is a feature that 'exposes' the evil that exists all over the web, from pixel tracking systems to full ad user tracking systems like Google uses.
If Google or other online advertisers wants to display Ads, and not be affected by this, then display Ads and STOP TRACKING USERS along with the Ads.
I pay for my bandwidth, as does much ofthe world outside of the US.
I am not going to PAY to download ADVERTISING.
Namely a "private session" tab, and history/cookie that preserves selected sites. Is there a FF plug-in that knows how to do any of this? Usually I'd be the first to bash M$, but it looks like they're actually in the right direction with this feature.
why else would they turn the volume up?
You pay for every ad you see on the web. That's something no-one told you about.
Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
You don't even need AdBlock if you have NoScript, and using NoScript is much fairer on individual sites.
With scripts disabled totally for a domain, you don't see any ads. If you enable javscript for the domain of the site you're visiting, then you still don't get pop-over ads because they always come from an another domain. This way you get the functionality of the site to work and actually help them out by preventing a third party from messing up the user experience of their site (only for you, but it's a start).
Still, I've no idea why they don't just make static images and count the requests for specific referers, and also count the times that they've been linked through. I still saw ads when they did this kind of thing, though I would've used adblock to kill that damn monkey and anything that made a noise. Nowadays we should have things like per-tab muting and a visual indication of which tab is making sound.
Bravo for Microsoft! The feature doesn't affect honest advertising at all.
Anyone who wants to put up a straightforward ad, presenting information about a product and letting me decide whether I'm interesting in learning more and buying it, can still do so.
This only affects companies who are doing more than just advertising.
The fact that this is being described as an "ad" blocker just shows that advertising practices on the Web have become so debased that writers about the Web simply take it for granted that anything under the guise of advertising is likely to be invested with snooper gadgets that gather information about us without our knowledge.
That's not advertising. That's spying. "Advertising" is just the cover story.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Internet Explorer's blocking capabilities have still been trailing behind Firefox, even with I.E. 7. They've spent more time on gimmicks (Phishing Filter) than actual protection. "Here - this website might be suspicious, but enjoy! Oh, and here are the 5 pop-ups and -unders that the site is serving in the hopes you'll install some malware and join their dark dominion." Firefox - "NO. Just no pop-ups. NO. Bad dog."
One of the 187.
That's what I've always heard called those 1x1 transparent gif files they use to count hits and track users with. I'm surprised that's not what they're calling them here.
They're also used to track email.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Looks like we may have yet another twitter sockpuppet.
try "Distrust"
This might be the final straw that ruins the internet.
When Tivo users started skipping past ads, the industry responded by putting pop-up ads in place during the show. It's intrusive and annoying as hell, but there's no way to block it.
When every browser has an ad-block, the industry is going to spend the time and money to find a work-around that will shove ads into every nook and cranny, and there will be no escape.
Couple that with a nanny state that's spending more and more time blocking more and more content, and I'm afraid that in five years we will have an internet that's about as interesting and informative as broadcast TV and AM radio.
look guys...ms will cave and remove this if advertisers complain loudly enough. there is a reason why many sites are run out of the marketing department. sites are mostly for marketing and the metrics that marketers can get from users are the primary reasons why they run sites.
it's this simple...if Stalin, Hitler, or Pol Pot had a tool that would allow them to see every book their citizens read, every item their citizens bought, or everything that was done, they would have retained absolute power over their populaces.
this is what marketers are attempting to do. create a dominance over you that television, newspaper, or any other medium has never been able to do before.
Is it 5:30 yet?
I've got this sinking feeling that they won't block ads from advertisers that pay them. This would be very in character from Microsoft.
Now everytime you want to advertise on a site, you pay a 'small fee' to Microsoft.
*yawn* Ridiculous.
Theft is theft. Advertising is advertising. Adblocking is adblocking. Blocking ads is not theft, advertising is not theft (as a responder to you tried to claim), and asking you if have the time is not theft.
If I don't want your ads sent down my line, I'm perfectly free to block them. If you don't like the fact that ads can be blocked, you're perfectly free to charge for your content, or take it down.
While working Internet support years ago I had numerous people call asking how to remove websites from a history and use the "I was shopping for a gift" excuse. Uh huh, suuuure. Amazing how it was always married males who called asking how to remove the history...
... unless you pay micro$oft some money.
mysql> SELECT * FROM `places` WHERE `place` LIKE 'home`; Empty set (0.00 sec)
the 600lb gorilla dancing in the middle of the advertising office?
anyone using an ad blocker is not a potential viewer generating revenue. the more adblockers there are, the less internet revenue from ads there will be
because less eyes will see the ads (unless im missing something)
I fail to see why everyone hasnt adopted ad blockers and the entire model of
internet advertising hasnt collapsed overnight.
you pay for the internet so you can be online, surf the web, and have most of the bandwidth youre charged for wicked away by dancing home loan girls and ironkey ads.
Good people go to bed earlier.
This is just a Microsoft sales plug for IE. I seriously doubt that advertisers are worried, and I am sure there is nothing 'accidental' about this feature.
This "feature" will somehow be annoying as hell with constant prompts and popups of its own. "Are you sure you want to block this advertisement? Yes/No/Maybe/Ok/Cancel"
Yes, ads are the business model that many websites rely on, but consider how ads work.
Every time you buy a product, you're paying a little extra fee to be advertised to. Ads aren't free money that appears out of the air, they don't make things cheaper, they are just a different way of distributing wealth. You are still paying to fund these websites, they are not free, the cost of the ads is paid by YOU every time you buy something.
Personally, if I am going to pay the same regardless, I'd prefer not to have ads. Maybe the wealth isn't being distributed fairly, but honestly I think my eyeball-hours are worth more than that. To use a wee bit of economist speak: the market will adjust.
There are tons of free web hosts, and it's easy to set up a website yourself or have your techno-savvy friend do it. (Broadband + $15/mo for static IP + Old PC + LAMP + $6/yr Domain Name). If you're getting enough web traffic that you need more bandwidth than that, consider commercializing your user base in more than one way. (T-shirts, events, subscription benefits, surveys, etc...)
http://www.ie7pro.com/
The way my software on my own computer renders document markup, for myself, that was freely given to me by its author is outside the scope of ethics.
so this is a good thing, but it comes from Microsoft. Let the irrational, biased, double standard inspired bashing begin!!!!
"'It has the potential to undermine the economies of the Internet,' said Mike Zaneis, vice president of the Interactive Advertising Bureau."
Go kill yourself, you worthless festering sore on society's anus.
The advertising industry could have been responsible from the start, but they chose to incur a backlash of end users who got sick of sneaky tactics like popups and pop-unders. Advertisers who whine that end users no longer tolerate ads make me laugh.
Seriously, choke on your failure and die. You fuck.
It is getting horrid. ah shoot, it is already beyond horrid. I am on dialup, this is all I can get, and it is rapidly approaching the point that the bulk of the internet is just unusable due to page bloat, sheer size and scripts going nuts all over the page. If you turn javascript and images off to try and speed things up, most/ a lot/ some large number websites now are just too obnoxious to look at, horribly broken, nothing renders correctly, no graceful degrading, many, many sites are just blobs, you won't see any text at all, or you get sheets overlapping each other, meaning you can't read anything there anyway. Just terribly wroing. Some still work well, slashdot is perfectly fine on dialup if you adjust your preferences correctly, but tons aren't. And forget anything like watching videos. And the strange part is, I used to be able to watch videos even on "terrible" real player or quicktime on a 19.2 connection, which I had for years, now even at close to my max 56k (I get high 40s usually), videos are out. Now flash, totally useless (and why do people use flash for static images??? Just because they can?) and will lock the machine down if more than a couple of flash ads are playing. I'd like to kick the dude who invented it in the balls I hate that stuff so much. And this isn't way out in the country, just sort of extreme suburbia, there is an office depot in one direction from me at around 15 minutes driving time, in another direction another office depot store at 20 minutes. This isn't some wild ass wilderness in other words. Absolutely zero broadband of any kind I guess outside of satellite, and I am not paying 700 dollars for an install then like near 100 dollars a month for that, although it certainly starts to get there cost wise when you have to have a dialup landline account then get an ISP, it is over 60 bucks a month for that, much higher than a lot of people pay for some decent broadband.
Anyway, page bloat. Just terrible. And I don't believe 90% broadband penetration in the US, I think that was debunked earlier because these various providers were claiming they had broadband available if they had one instance in a zipcode, they claimed the whole area was covered then.
I would have put it more, um, diplomatic but you may be right - it seems that any other consumer messages simply don't get through.
Sow, reap, etc..
Insert
This is going to be a major PITA for companies competing against Microsoft's Live CashBack search business.
MS can now kill off third-party tracking through IE8, making other sites like FatWallet.com and SlickDeals.net lose their tracking info when you make purchases through certain web sites.
Some people want privacy/security, which is fine. Others may not find these "features" inline with they way they are used to shopping around on different sites. IE8 is going to break a lot of sites.
I'll echo the AC in case you browse at anything other than -1. "Distrust" is the extension you're looking for. I've been using it for a while. Seems to work well.
So Microsoft is actually listening to it's customers right?
But I still think we will have plenty of MS bashing here...
I for one and glad that they are "attempting" to provide what people want.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
How about neither Microsoft or the 'Interactive Advertising Bureau' deciding what I see on my screen. If they didn't make the advertisments so intrusive, I wouldn't have to go to the trouble of blocking them. Who ever invented the talking advert should have his hands nailed to a car fender and driven up and down a motorway.
Allow me to explain: I'm trying to read the text on the screen and a f*****g audio jingle pops up, highly compressed over-emphasised audio -- it grates, don't you realize that adverts that grate don't sell ..
davecb5620@gmail.com
This is a shot at Google Adwords! Marketing agencies put their customers' ads on Adwords, and use tracking pixels to capture ad performance. No tracking pixel means no ad, which means no revenue for Google! Again, Microsoft using its technology position in one area to gain an unfair advantage in another area, and in the end only hurting its customers (yes, small business owners that advertise on Google are probably Microsoft users, too!)
Microsoft ought to just go ahead and add a Google Blocker into Internet Explorer. We all know it's what they really want to do, so there's no sense in beating around the bush. :)
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
"Doesn't it read a bit more like they're trying to block google analytics"
.:)
.. where's the INNOVA~1 in that :)
.. :)
I block Google Analytics because the page seems to hang on it, same with most third party advert sites. The main site seems to hang while downloading from some advert site, waiting on DoubleClick etc. Now if they incorporated this 'stuff' into a static page it would most probably improve my viewing experience and I would haven't to go to the trouble of blocking the adverts
Downloading thirty elements just to view a 6x4 inch square of text
No, I'm not going to click on that advert on the top of the page
davecb5620@gmail.com
The tracker detection (as opposed to just a blacklist of known trackers) is a good idea, and doesn't seem too difficult to implement. Is there a Firefox extension that does this?
Who cares.. who is using IE8 anyway?
It does seem like a pretty good feature. Given Microsoft's fairly aggressive philosophy towards its competitors though, it's reasonable to be suspicious of their motives however and also suspicious they will misuse it. Yeah sure, it's a bit of damned if you and damned it you don't, but that's their reputation.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
This post is clearly just as Funny/Insightful/Redundant as its ancestors.
Safari can block ads using the Safari AdBlock addon. It uses AdBlock+ subscriptions. The only major flaw at this point is the lack of a simple way to disable it on a site you're visiting temporarily. You can put in an ignore list by hand though.
Jeremy http://alucinari.net
I've been wanting to block this sort of behavior in Firefox for years, and haven't found any settings or plugins that can do so. You can either turn on the full-blown ad-blocking, or are stuck with manually creating whitelists/blacklists for cookies and ads.
There are several sites that I visit which are entirely ad-supported but restrict their advertisers to using unobtrusive ads. I don't want to block these. On the other hand, I'm not able to manually keep track of all the advertisers (and their myriad of servers) that have shady tracking practices.
Microsoft has identified a useful metric for automatically limiting this sort of behavior, and they should commended for it. If I didn't use linux, this feature would definitely give me reason to try out IE8 and possibly switch.
Just wait until Microsoft starts selling the ability to have your add not blocked.
Congratulations, MS, 10 more years and you'll be at current levels of technology. But then again, in 10 years it will still be obsolete and irrelevant. Why dodn't they just give up and start doing something useful? Like getting familiar with recognized W3C standards...
Given the choise between Hitler and RIAA/MPAA I'd go for the first one - at least he knew when to shoot himself.
*yawn*...we've had adblock plus for years over here in Firefox land. My favorite FF addon, no question. I don't click on the crap anyway, so they're hardly losing anything from me. My time and bandwith is reason #1 why I run it, but as a side effect, it's gotta reduce the use of theirs a bit too, since ABP blocks the ad downloads at the source form what I understand. I swear, I've noticed a decline in malware since I started using ABP...ABP must also be hitting some of the ads that drop crap on your computer.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Actually, adblockers such as AdBlock Plus have never really been a problem for advertisers. After all, most ad blockers are manually installed by people making a concerted effort to avoid any kind of advertising and who would have otherwise refused to click on the ad. Most major advertising agreements these days do not focus on a number of clicks (Google Ads excepting) rather the amount of revenue derived from a purchase where the referring site can be identified. All Adblockers do is save the advertiser a bandwidth (culminatively speaking) as the image/sound/flash data is not downloaded.
If this puts a hurt on Google, then it's Google's own fault for going with a flawed business model. Isn't that the argument OSS advocates put forward when OSS products put commercial software makers out of business? Then that goes for Google as well.
Now, if Microsoft would just release patch to block all the freeloading internet users who think websites magically pay for themselves with fairy gold dust, we'd be in great shape. Not.
Honestly, who are you people who think that any mainstream website can exist without those ads you are blocking? Why don't you just unplug your computer now and stare at a blank screen because that's the internet without ads.
You fools are blocking the only source of revenue for many sites you enjoy.
This will end up just wasting man hours for legitimate companies who provide web site owners ways to monetize their content by showing ads, and cost websites money for legitimate use (because they can't record "impressions"). People who do illegitimate things will just find a way around it.
Microsoft needs to remove this useless junk and stick to things that actually help people instead of marketing hype.
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
Whenever you need to present to senior levels you may want to return the favor:
- for the MPAA (& RIAA), at least 5 minutes will be a lecture with a megaphone and the doors locked about your presentation being copyrighted and all possible legal consequences if anyone even thinks about copying it, iterating through every possible law they have bent to their liking. I'd find out if there are other nationalities in the audience so I could repeat the same again on screen in a different language, scrolling VERY slowly (you could use Vista, as the DRM saturation in that makes it run slow already).
- for companies sending junkmail with "opt-out" where you have never opted in in the first place, marketing slides about totally irrelevant products, or the competition. You could probably make money selling slide space to the competition - they'd pay for the sheer entertainment. Incidentally, I make it a habit to report any UK company spam to the Information Commissioner as its illegal. If enough people do it there may eventually be proper legislation.
- for those being careless with my private data, an edge-to-edge exposee of their most senior executives of everything I can possibly find that is embarrassing, from playground bullying onwards. And I mean EVERYTHING that I can get legally get my hands on.
The only problem is that you may not be able to repeat the performance :-)
How is this going to affect the likes of GA or Omniture, or any other company providing analytics for the purpose of enhancing site design? This is information gathered for constructive purposes, not to "spy on you". I suspect we'd be hearing a huge outcry from all of the Site Analysts, not to mention Google and Omniture, as well as Yahoo now that they're jumping into the Analytics arena.
Once again, the scum of the web are influencing a change that could have a hugely negative affect on a Web Analytics.
At the very least, even if it is a monopolistic abuse of it's power, I hope that MS offers a validation program to those who have sane Privacy Policies so they can continue providing a very needed and beneficial service without interruption or a lapse of accuracy.
And yes, I am a Web Developer/Site Analyst, and this scares me... a lot.
Silverlight has a pretty good start even on Linux, and on OS X and Windows is darn solid, light and fast compared to Flash.
Especially Video streaming, and HD streaming is not only faster but demands less bandwidth and less server and client resources. If you are doing HD, silverlight VC1 even from a Linux server works well, without the Flash licensing.
Windows and OS X users will note Silverlight handles multimonitor fullscreen modes and other features that Flash often fails with, let alone the video quality in comparison is considerable.
Linux users, check it out, you can view Silverlight content now and even though it is a 'side' project from the Mono team, it is supported by Microsoft. (Microsoft did not want to develop it internally so they wouldn't compete with the Mono project and they also don't have to jump through and OSS licensing that might require them to expose non-related code they consider private.
(Even if you don't agree with MS on this, you can respect their issues with the various licensing models that would force them to provide more than a 'working' version of Silverlight.)
http://www.go-mono.com/moonlight/
(As for the DNC site Silverlight in previous posts, note that it is not Silverlight that is forcing users to use Windows, but a third party media control plugin.
I think the third party control plugin is stupid, really stupid as it is not needed if they took 10min to design the features as native Silverlight .NET code.)
Before we went to Google Analytics we tried using referrer in the logs to track paths through our site. Something like 40% of browser visits (i.e. excluding known robots) did not report referrer properly. It was random and therefore totally useless.
If there is no referer then I set a cookie to track session.
We thought about that, but at that point we were doing the exact same thing Google Analytics does anyway. We figured why not just use them, which is way easier and more powerful.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
The classic geek "blah-blah-Lassie-blah-blah" just spooks them.
To be honest if Lassie is blocking your ads for you I'd be a bit spooked. Do you find that mostly dog-food ads get through?
Lassie: Woof-woof, wooof, wroofff
You: What's that Lassie you've altered my squid-proxy to block the latest MSN ads, attaway Lassie.
---
Perhaps you were thinking of "laissez" as in "to let [go of something|something happen]"?
So let me get this straight:
Microsoft IE8 will be able to block the ads my ISP has injected in place of the original site ads?
That's got a nice touch of irony.
On the other hand, maybe the ISP's will see such a huge drop in revenue they'll drop their ad-injectors outright.
Not that I'd notice, I've got my ISP's ad sources set to reject at my router. ya ya I could drop them but it's more fun to let them hammer their own ad server and my bandwidth isn't metered.
Anything that doesn't get hijacked by my ISP gets blocked by a few simple packet filters on my network, and I run noscript in Firefox. Honestly I've never bothered with Adblocker since the 1% that still make it through really don't bother me.
I'm so not saying it's right. However if you want to see their content they have a total right to demand that in return you view their ads, they could even have a site use contract that says you agree to read every advert (it may impact use stats a little!!).
There is an implicit contract in viewing a website that you agree to receive the whole content for viewing in your browser - thus in a very real sense you are not free to ignore the ads.
Yes, yes I know they open their website up and you read it by piping wget through a ring-buffer - that's fine, you'll get text-ads (or possibly nothing depending what sniffing / mod_security rules they have in place).
>>Who am I to block their ads when I'm receiving free content?
You the user create over 99% of the content found at slashdot, submit almost all of the stories, and do almost all the work of editing and story selection. I'd say /. is getting a pretty good deal even without ads. Since you posted, you are no longer receiving free goods. To you, this is a discussion; to the site owners, your post was content that draws readers.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
So, in a serious question, would anybody like to explain why this (InPrivate) is "bullshit"? The concept of storing all browsing history, cookies, and other temp. Internet files in a temporary storage that is lost forever when the browser closes sounds both perfectly reasonable and technologically sound. It's not like the concept of files which are deleted when their last handles are closed is new, and "treat all cookies as session cookies" is pretty easy too. Avoid writing browsing history and such into the standard storage for such things, and you've got a browsing session that, once it ends, leaves no traces recoverable without forensic tools.
From a software development standpoint, this neither sounds difficult nor unreasonable. The user starts IE with a command-line switch (normally via the Start menu). Said switch sets a global flag in the browser. All CreateFile calls that can actually create files (for the POSIX-only types out there, CreateFile is the Win32 equivalent of open(2)) now create the file as temporary only. Similarly, the browsing histroy, auto-complete, and so forth also go into temporary files. When the browser closes, those files are all deleted. It'd take some work - for example, what if two InPrivate sessions were started at the same time? - but does not sound particularly challenging, technologically.
Note that I'm only referring to the private browsing session feature, here - the one that *somebody* felt the need to call bullshit upon. Unless you claim that such a feature cannot, in fact, provide the protections suggested above (which is a valid position, should you choose to take it), you need to explain why the feature itself would not work.
The concept of blocking advertiser tricks which are silently impinging on user privacy is something else, and arguably quite cool - but not relevant to this post.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
adblocking with a browser? sure! install w3m/lynx or turn fucking javascript off. if you don't like text, it's always possible to have a proxy cache or a host file (oldschool!) or to learn writing proper iptables. oh, wait a minute...just forgot we talk about IE here. hmm...so it seems like this IS a feature!