Slashdot Mirror


Why Your Pop-Up Blocker Doesn't Work Anymore

An anonymous reader writes "If you've noticed that pop-up ad windows seem to have made an unwelcome return into your life, it's because they're not using the same easily blockable technology as before. The Adimpact system uses DHTML to annoy you, and there's no immediate prospect of a solution."

61 of 653 comments (clear)

  1. Great article by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Almost completely devoid of content.

    1. Re:Great article by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The simplest, and most reasonable content would be:

      If people are blocking popups, and you try to force upon them a popup advertisement, you are probably being counterproductive to your cause, and are a complete RETARD.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    2. Re:Great article by orclevegam · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI, I've yet to find one of these which I suspect is because in addition to running AdBlock Plus, I also regularly use NoScript. The combination of the two swats 99% of ads of all kinds, and completely kills any popups unless I specifically enable them on a site.

      --
      Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
    3. Re:Great article by Skye16 · · Score: 5, Funny

      And likewise if your content is residing on my harddrive then you are squatting on my property and must pay me rent.

      (I wonder how much more surreal we can make this? ;D)

    4. Re:Great article by BrokenHalo · · Score: 5, Informative

      FYI, I've yet to find one of these which I suspect is because in addition to running AdBlock Plus, I also regularly use NoScript.

      Adblock is great for fine-grained filtering of sites. I use it fairly sparingly, since I maintain a large hosts file to kill traffic with any server I find to be suspect. NoScript works, but I just find it too intrusive to be my weapon of choice. But my combo kills nearly all traffic I don't want to see...

    5. Re:Great article by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 4, Funny

      and are a complete RETARD.

      Or maybe you're just working in marketing

      I thought the second was a subset of the first.

      --
      Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    6. Re:Great article by computational+super · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't tell if you're trying to be sarcastic or not, but if not, I sort of agree with the sentiment as in - I don't see what the big deal is. I don't think you're "stealing" anything if you block or ignore the ad any more than you're stealing if you mute the commercials or get up to go to the bathroom when you're watching TV.

      Since there's absolutely no content whatsoever in the linked "article", I can't figure out for sure what they're talking about, but I think they're referring to those floating "window within a window" advertisements that show up entirely within a page's browser frame. If so, I'm not even sure calling them "pop-ups" is fair, since the page author is still respecting my "space". Pop-up windows were legitimately evil, because those windows would pop up more windows when you tried to close them and you would end up spending 10 minutes trying to shut the damned things off. If some website wants to pop up a "window" inside its own window and run an ad for a couple of seconds, I really don't see the problem; I sit through the things as a courtesy to whoever provided the content. If I don't like the ad, I can close the browser (or even just the tab), and it all goes away.

      --
      Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
    7. Re:Great article by samkass · · Score: 4, Funny

      Then how do you pay for the content? Do you send the site owner checks directly?

      --
      E pluribus unum
    8. Re:Great article by Deagol · · Score: 5, Informative

      How is NoScript instrusive? You set it to block by default, and if you hit a site that doesn't work correctly, test it with the "Temporarily allow..." option for all the relevant parts of the site, then you can whitelist it permanently if you wish. Kudos to your hosts file -- different strokes for different folks, and all that jazz. However, I just can't see how NoScript can be called intrusive by anyone.

    9. Re:Great article by Bearhouse · · Score: 5, Informative

      To make NoScript less intrusive, try configuration options. For example, 'temp allow top-level sites by default' is good for seeing most of what you want, without seeing what you don't (ad content from another site). Of course, more risky for users blindly following pr0n links to sites where even the top level is dangerous.

      But then again, I'm sure you don't do that, eh?

      While we're on the subject, Redirect Remover is worth a look too...

    10. Re:Great article by Fross · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because they've chosen a flawed business model, doesn't mean they are entitled to protection to ensure it works.

    11. Re:Great article by xorsyst · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How is it not intrusive? I browse to a website I haven't been to before - something I do several times daily - and it doesn't work right unless I click that little S and allow it permission to run javascript.

      That pretty much defines intruding on my experience.

      I still use it though because I'm paranoid, but I wouldn't install it on my parents' computer.

      --
      Get free bitcoins: http://freebitco.in
    12. Re:Great article by fprintf · · Score: 5, Interesting

      50's and 60's? As 4th graders in 1977 we collected cans by the side of the road to be melted down from all over town. I even found a set of baskets to bolt onto my bike - we had a magnet and on one side we would put the old steel cans and on the other side we'd put the new aluminum cans. Inevitably there'd be more aluminium cans as the summer wore on and we'd be upset because steel cans were worth a whole lot more than aluminum ones back then. You could also sometimes tell just by looking at the pull tab - this was before the pop top - they had different shapes. I earned a ton of money picking up cans to supplement my paper route.

      Kids these days have no idea - my kids want an allowance for emptying the friggin' dishwasher and walking the dog. Sheesh. I know as parents we don't make it easy for them, hell I was roaming a 10 mile radius of suburbia at that time, and I hardly ever lose sight of my kids today.

      Sorry. Can you please get off my lawn now?

      --
      This post brought to you by your friendly neighborhood MBA.
    13. Re:Great article by RabidMoose · · Score: 4, Funny

      Excuse me, but we disagree with you. Thanks, US Auto Industry US Airline Industry US Banking Industry

    14. Re:Great article by Galactic+Dominator · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You have to Cancel or Allow on every site...?

      I do realize that it learns what you tell it learn, but it's big internet out there.

      I suppose it's fairly good if you don't visit a large number of sites, but if you do RTFA consistently it's a real PITA.

      --
      brandelf -t FreeBSD /brain
    15. Re:Great article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think what you meant to say was "Many web designers count on Javascript for BASIC functionality such as layout, menus, and following links these days. Turning off Javascript neuters almost every site you browse."

      Don't blame NoScript for that problem. Blame sloppy developers that use JavaScript for duties that they shouldn't.

    16. Re:Great article by ewhac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is it not intrusive? I browse to a website I haven't been to before - something I do several times daily - and it doesn't work right unless I click that little S and allow it permission to run javascript.

      That pretty much defines intruding on my experience.

      Uh, no. You have it backwards.

      If I browse to a Web site I haven't seen before and suddenly find my desktop (and other programs) covered by a barrage of pop-up ads, that is intruding on my experience. Injecting code into my browser in an attempt to get it to reject right-mouse clicks -- that is intruding on my experience.

      The computer is mine, not yours. It obeys my commands, not yours. If you want it to run some of your code, then you're first going to have to convince me to let you. And you do that by earning my trust and not treating my browser and desktop like your own private playground. NoScript lets me enforce this policy, and it clearly exposes the children who won't play by the rules. Google.com has earned my trust (Google-analytics.com, however, has not.)

      If your site doesn't work with JavaScript turned off, your site is broken. Period, end of chapter. This is not a secret, and it is not something new. This has always been the case. (AJAX-heavy sites complicate this only slightly -- you should clearly explain what's not working and why (I'm looking at you, OKCupid...).)

      And while we're about it -- Have you ever clicked on that little "S" in the corner to reveal a skyscraper of 15 different domains trying to execute JavaScript on your machine? Does this bother you even slightly? Why or why not?

      Schwab

    17. Re:Great article by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Javascript IS basic functionality. Welcome to 1990.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    18. Re:Great article by LordSnooty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      test it with the "Temporarily allow..." option for all the relevant parts of the site,

      This is the problem I found - if I have to test it, what is the point of blocking it in the first place? OK, it can stop cross-site attacks in their tracks, but if the bad code is hosted on the server I chose to visit, it's game over anyway. I suppose there is more protection offered by NoScript around what can be run but ultimately if I can't sandbox the code that is about to fire, why am I bothering at all? I can take care by other means - most malware is still of the "Would you like to install this virus?" ilk. It's useful in specific situations like going to visit some known dodgy sites (but maybe do that in a VM anyway...) For everyday usage it quickly becomes tiresome.

    19. Re:Great article by Deagol · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, you must only "allow" for sites that don't work sufficiently with JavaScript disabled. There are plenty that render just fine w/o JavaScript. Then again, there are plenty of stinkers out there that use JavaScript to send you the page's CSS, which while horribly lame, is probably done to send a hacked page for IE and compliant CSS for most everyone else.

    20. Re:Great article by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>How is NoScript instrusive? You set it to block by default, and if you hit a site that doesn't work correctly, test it with the "Temporarily allow..." option

      I call that intrusive, or at the very least, a pain in the ass. I'm constantly having to select "allow" for sites I visit, and I've grown tired of it. NoScript is now disabled on my browser, except for when I'm visiting porn sites which are often dangerous.

      As for pop-up ads, the alternative is that I'd have to pay $5 or $10 a month for accessing ad-free websites, and I can't afford ~$200/month worth of website subscriptions. I'd rather take the ads, and get my entertainment for free.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    21. Re:Great article by tftp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So you never spend money? Nor talk to anyone else about any product, ever?

      I don't quite see how it relates to allowing hordes of salesmen into your house and listening to their endless pitches (if we equate your desktop with your house.) I personally spend money, of course, and talk about products, but I do that when I want it, not when someone else decides that for me.

      I suspect you really have no idea how many times a day some brand is imprinting itself on you.

      I suspect the GP does have an idea, and that's why he blocks everything that deserves it. My mind belongs to me, not to advertisers, and I decide what I allow to imprint on it. In my browsers everything ad-related is blocked by default; it's a favor to advertisers too because my browsers don't download stuff that is useless to me.

      Besides, "brand imprinting" is harmful to your purchasing choices because you often decide not because the product is good but because it is made by a company that you recognize. This is unreasonable. Compare technical specs, read reviews - that's what you need to do, not to look for a brand name.

    22. Re:Great article by CodeArtisan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then how do you pay for the content? Do you send the site owner checks directly?

      About as often as I send checks to the TV networks when I skip their commercials.

  2. I tried to make a first post... by Kuroji · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but I got so distracted with those shiny X10 pop-up ads.

  3. That's why Adblock plus exists ! by menegator · · Score: 4, Informative

    Adblock plus, problem solved!

    1. Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ubuntu, NoScript and ABP. I went to the Adimpact website, no pop-up visible.

      "Unblockable"...like the Titanic was unsinkable.

    2. Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! by gfxguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Been using always... one of the first things I do when I install a new Firefox is get Adblock Plus and NoScript (which is really annoying in and of itself, but that's another story).

      So when I saw this thread I was like "I didn't notice anything lately."

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    3. Re:That's why Adblock plus exists ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
  4. Popups? by ppz003 · · Score: 5, Informative

    What popups?

    This mostly popup free browsing experience brought to you by the makers of Firefox and NoScript.

    1. Re:Popups? by FredFredrickson · · Score: 5, Informative

      I use opera and I haven't gotten a popup in years. No need for "no script." Just plainly no popups.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
    2. Re:Popups? by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know you're trolling, but just to help remove the FUD, opera works fine with gmail, doesn't crash, and was one of the first browsers to pass the acid test.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  5. There is no problem. by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    DHTML popups are no big deal at all. They don't open a new window. They don't "pop under". They don't re-open when you try to close them...

    The solution to them is simple and already implemented. Close the tab, and never return to that site again. Ever.

    Problem solved.

    1. Re:There is no problem. by berend+botje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would be useful if, instead of just closing the tab, there was a button that increments a counter at the site for the marketers to see, blocks the site completely and irrevocably for all eternity and thencloses the tab.

      That way there is a running total of customers lost due to stupid marketing.

    2. Re:There is no problem. by FredFredrickson · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with this one. If you're so insensitive to your customer/reader base that you don't mind putting offensive ads into your content (Time.com I'm looking at you), then you don't get my business at all.

      Why companies think they can do whatever they want with no consequences.. I have no idea.

      --
      Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
  6. "Unblockable" by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The Dynamic Popup Generator can create pressure pop-ups, unblockable DHTML pop-ups, PictoPop-ups, conditional popups, instant opt-in pop-ups, and rotating pop-ups"."

    Wait, I have the answer...keep Javascript disabled for websites that do not really need it! Right now, I have Javascript enabled for...3 websites, all of which are trusted sites from either my job or my school. Popup free browsing, and incidentally, pages use less CPU time.

    Seriously, why do we need Javascript to read articles or blogs? If your web apps are abusing Javascript to display ads, maybe it is time to consider not using web apps, or finding "friendlier" companies.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:"Unblockable" by Skye16 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't need Javascript. I want to provide a more feature rich interface than HTML by itself provides. If you're not interested, then I am not angry with you. You can ignore what I have to offer, and I can accept that you're just not interested. I really don't care whether you look at it or not; in the long run, you're such an infinitesimal minority who is part of the unique overlap of a: having the technical knowledge to be able to equate the misuse of DHTML on other sites to the usage of JavaScript within browsers in general and b: having the personal distaste for such misuse to such a degree that you would eschew the primary building block (JS) altogether except for a few very specific instances.

      To whit: I'm not going to cry about 0.00001% lost traffic, and more surprisingly, neither are my customers when I explain to them the pitfalls of making "web applications" with JavaScript. When I tell them they may lose a few geeks who are ideologically opposed to the use of JS in their "webapp", they basically just laugh and call you a retard.

      (Note: I don't feel you're a retard; I get fired up over stuff like this too, usually. For me, this isn't a hot button issue, but I have other ones and I'm sure people call me a retard for feeling that way also).

      Long story short: people want an application delivery mechanism that doesn't require a software install, update management, etc, and they're trying to make browsers be that mechanism. If you are really that against it, find a way of distributing that mechanism to every computer currently using the web, and then I can try convincing people that they should use that rather than fitting it into a browser. But until your mechanism reaches every computer a browser currently reaches, they aren't going to bite. And at the end of the day, I'm working to support my family, so if the customer really wants a "rich, dynamic Web Application Experience", then I'm going to give that to them.

      Sorry :(

    2. Re:"Unblockable" by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sorry, I didn't realize that in your world JavaScript, CSS2, and XHTML Strict were "ignoring standards".

      Web Application does not necessarily require ActiveX, you know.

      The smart phone platform presents some very interesting problems of its own. In my opinion, your web application as a whole should not be tailored to the phone; the cost of making your entire application readable and usable for a touch screen phone would cost more than just reproducing the front-end for a smart-phone-only audience.

      A significant problem with smart phones are the differences between touch screen and non-touch-screen user interfaces, and trying to take advantage of the ways each works. The advent of the iPhone really brought a different (from traditional web/desktop) way of looking at UI development for smart phones, and people have been doing some very impressive things as a result. I don't think you try to have your "rich, dynamic Web Application Experience" (whatever that means) work the same on both a smart phone and a PC. This seems to be too diverse of UI domains to use the same View code for each without falling into the "jack of all trades, master of none" situation.

      I'm not entirely sure about the rest of your post, as it doesn't seem like you understand in the slightest what a "web application" currently means. It's simply a web page that offers application-like functionality to its users. If you can add UI enhancements with JavaScript and DHTML, you can make a better usability experience for the vast majority of people. If your a significant portion of your target audience would be accessing it via a Smart Phone, you need to write two sets of presentation logic and associated views while maintaining the core business logic as being the same for either. But this diatribe about IE is simply you not having a fucking clue about what I am even talking about. You apparently hear "web application" and think an ActiveX nightmare, eschewing all standards at every moment.

      I validate each and every page, thanks. I test in 5 different browsers; Safari, Firefox 2, Firefox 3, IE 7, and IE6. I will soon be adding IE 8 to the mix. I have to write my own share of IE hax, and I, too, am fucking sick of it. I wouldn't piss on the developers of IE 6 (and 7) if they were on fire, though I'd uncork on the IE 8 development team. They still have a long fucking way to go before I don't despise their very existence, too.

      But none of that changes a single bit of what I said.

      In conclusion, you don't know what you're talking about, you threw up a strawman and shot it down, and I dub thee Lord High Asshat of Douchebaggia.

      (It's a rockin' title. Wear it with pride.)

  7. Re:Won't be long by kabloom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or just block adimpact.com in your /etc/hosts file (if you're smart enough). They want to sell it as a "hosted web application" and therein lies its vulnerability.

  8. Blocking it by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I found it much less intrusive once every host in the adimpact.com domain started serving up 404 Not Found for all pages.

    DNS is your friend, especially when your nameserver is declared a master for that domain and the zonefile contains a wildcard record pointing all names to the IP address of your own dedicated nothing-there Web server.

  9. Articles like this ... by utnapistim · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... are like free endorsements for Firefox + adblock plus + NoScript + ... some other extensions.

    The more they keep annoying users, the more popular the solution becomes.

    --
    Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
  10. What's the big deal ? by baomike · · Score: 4, Informative

    Use flash blocker.
    Also Opera has a facility to easily block a feed. Right click, click on the offending item, click done. you're done.
    How many sources does this company have? Unless they have a lot, their adds are gone.

    I don't know if FF has this or not ...

  11. News Flash by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Funny

    It has subtracts too!

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  12. Re:Annoying but expected by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Flash is indeed evil, but it's also necessary to get anything out of an increasing number of sites. The choice is basically live with the occasional Flash abuse or cut yourself off from an ever-growing amount of content on the web. Whether that additional content is worth the annoyance of the occasional Flash ad is a personal decision.

  13. I tried Google Chrome last week... by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Bloody hell", I thought, is that what the web looks like?

    Then I went back to Firefox with AdBlock/NoScript.

    Do not want.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:I tried Google Chrome last week... by Ark+Ku+Mon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Blackjack and hookers.

  14. Basics of DHTML popups by Spyder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out http://dhtmlpopups.webarticles.org/ for a quick set of examples of these.

    It looks like a bit of experimentation could yeild a reasonably reliable greasemonkey script to kill these when not click initated.

    --
    Spyder
  15. HOSTS file FTW! by cyberjock1980 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've been using a hosts file since around 2003. It blocks out all those ads, popups, spyware,adware, stops alot of virii from calling home, you name it. I scan my computer about once a month, and I haven't had any of the 'serious outbreaks' of adware like all my friends. They all swear by their software programs to block it(ultimately, they always end up reformatting when they cant quite get rid of them all) but my solution uses no resources and doesn't require 'scanning' for them regularly.

    I use it on my parent's computer and only update it once a year at Christmas. Even with only updating once a year they haven't gotten any adware/spyware yet, and it's been 3 years.

    I highly recommend it. Give it a try, there's nothing to lose but the crapware.

    http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

  16. to those who don't use javascript or flash: by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    this "solution" to the return of pop ups is of course akin to curing your hangnail by cutting off your foot

    are you familiar with the phenomenon of the guy who doesn't own a television, and must remind every stranger he meets of this fact, constantly? if you look at the comments here, this article seems to have brought out the similarly quirky "look at me! i don't use javascript! i don't use flash!" brigade

    ok, so you are proud of your bare html existence. good for you

    but you might have noticed that the internet has evolved since 1994, and technologies, such as AJAX, are transforming the web browsing experience in GOOD ways, such as google maps. javascript is not merely cruft to make your anchor links animate. likewise, can you argue with the success and value of a site like youtube? which, by the way, works in flash?

    javascript and flash are not in any way absolute negatives for the internet experience. they are merely useful tools whose usage is evolving, in good and bad ways. to disavow that obvious observation and just flat out block them does not make you wiser, it makes you an odd appendix of history. trumpeting your monklike ascetic internet existence doesn't add anything of value to the conversation, because, no, blocking javascript and flash is most definitely not the solution, really

    when you announce that you don't use these technologies, all you show us is that you are indulging in some sort of odd attention-seeking disorder with a strange misplaced pride

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:to those who don't use javascript or flash: by whyloginwhysubscribe · · Score: 5, Informative

      The firefox noscript extension doesn't permanently block javascript - it informs you when a site is trying to use javascript and gives you the choice to allow it temporarily or trust it completely.

      It is actually quite interesting to see the number of cross site scripts that are called in lots of websites. So you have complete control over that. It is not flat blocking it out...

    2. Re:to those who don't use javascript or flash: by zoney_ie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, for some of us it's not a case of not using Flash or Javascript, but rather *us* deciding when and where we choose to allow it. I'll happily put up with the occasional ill-loaded page requiring Javascript/Flash enabling and reload (click on noscript icon in the status area and click on the servers I wish to allow, or allow all temporarily), rather than have to put up with the hideous clutter and tracking all over the web.

      I have Javascript whitelisted for a quite a number of sites I regularly visit who put it to good use. I can also put up with letting certain semi-trusted organisations have information on what I'm doing on the site as well.

      Having NoScript is perfectly sensible - particularly when performing a search on Google for example, and visiting random websites who could not only have malicious Javascript code, but could indeed just have slow-loading broken code.

      Most websites load a lot faster (no matter how fast your system/net connection) without having to wait for scripts to load from random third-party ad sites.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
  17. Re:Annoying but expected by Ender_Stonebender · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or install Firefox and the Flashblock extension, which blocks ALL Flash content until explicitly allowed (which can either be once or always for a particular site). Which is better than AdBlock's version, that lets you block Flash but makes you explicitly block rather than blanket-block. (Blanket-block is better because 90% or more of Flash content encountered is ads.)

    --
    Loose things are easy to lose. You're getting your hair cut. They're going there to see their aunt.
  18. Re:NoScript makes the web useless. by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Why was he moderated "FlameBait?"

    I think we need more meta-moderation, and people that get unmodded ought to get fewer mod privileges (if that's not already how it works). Unbelievable.

    Anyway, I don't disable it... what annoys me is every few days there's an "update" whose sole purpose, IMO, is to keep NoScript at the top of the popularity list, and then when you do upgrade, it automatically loads the NoScript page in Firefox when it finally starts up. I often just click to skip installing the upgrade, but that gets tedious, too.

    I very rarely encounter pages where it's not obvious which script I need to allow, although it certainly does happen.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  19. Re:Annoying but expected by smooth+wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but it's also necessary to get anything out of an increasing number of sites.

    If a site relies on Flash to convey its message, I don't go to it. I was looking for a car repair shop after the latest moron hit me and one site was nearly unreachable because the front page was entirely Flash-based. Had it not been for a site map link, I would not have been able to see anything.

    Nor is this the first time this has happened. I have come across several sites, including restaurants, who have an entirely Flash-based site. I don't bother going to them either online or offline because of this nonsense.

    The ONLY exception I can see for using Flash is if you have a product which you want people to see all sides of and you have a short display of the product rotating.

    I have said it before and will continue to say it: There is no reason to have an entirely Flash-based site. None. If people want to come back to your site for a specific reason, they can no longer bookmark a page to do so. If someone has eyesight issues and uses a screen-reader, you've locked them out.

    As I said in my journal, Flash is the new blink tag.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  20. Re:Annoying but expected by default+luser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Absolutely. Flashblock is a no-nonsense tool that is dead-simple to configure. I had everyone I know install it after a number of flash vulnerabilities started cropping up, and I've heard no complaints.

    I consider Flashblock + Firefox my "compromise" with the advertisers: I will submit to viewing ads to help them pay for content, so long as they are not Flash, and so long as they are not pop-up/under. Really, I do not find static images and text annoying at all, and if an advertiser makes an animated GIF that is too annoying, I can just press ESC.

    But if the advertisers insist on using this crap evervwhere and pushing an arms race, I won't hesitate to upgrade to noscript (and everyone I know) and shut the door entirely. I hope they won't force me to do that, because then they would get zero money from my page views.

    --

    Man is the animal that laughs.
    And occasionally whores for Karma.

  21. Re:NoScript makes the web useless. by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Scripts are just too ubiquitous to block.

    Here's a little parable. When I was a child, I lived in the country and my family never locked the front door of our house. Now I live in a multi-family home in the city and every time I go out, I lock both the door to my home and the door to the building. Man, I tell you, it is a pain in the neck to have to fumble for my keys every time I want to go inside my home. I still think it beats leaving the door open.

    It boils down to whether you think anything bad will happen if you leave your door open. I consider a popup ad to be "something bad," and I am well aware there are also far worse things a script can do to you.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
  22. Re:Annoying but expected by SQLGuru · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why not just telnet to port 80 and read the page as it streams across?

  23. Re:Won't be long by ericspinder · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wouldn't it be better to use 0.0.0.0 instead of 127.0.0.1? The latter attempts to connect while the former doesn't bother.

    No:

    0.0.0.0/8 - Addresses in this block refer to source hosts on "this" network. Address 0.0.0.0/32 may be used as a source address for this host on this network; other addresses within 0.0.0.0/8 may be used to refer to specified hosts on this network [RFC1700, page 4].

    While you are correct that using localhost for 'ad diversion' would hit a locally running web server, but at least you'd could have a log of your results. Just thinking of it, but wouldn't it be cool to see your own personal pictures/content instead of ads?

    --
    The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
  24. Re:Annoying but expected by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Informative

    I can attest personally to the power and convenience of Flashblock. It's simply a great system.

    Upon installation (and a restart), Flashblock will replace all, ALL, flash components on every page with an empty, but clearly outlined box where the flash applet would have been. In this way, over all page layout is unaffected during the block.

    At the center of this empty block, Flashblock puts a recognizable stylized "F" icon, which when hovered over, turns into a standard "Play" symbol. Personally, I think it should always be a play symbol, but that's just nit picking. After this icon is clicked, the flash applet, and only THAT applet, loads and begins just as it would have insisted on doing when, or even before the page was finished loading.

    No more crazy ads. No more loud and obnoxious audio content. No more flash-bomb pages, slowing the system to a crawl, and/or crashing firefox. Admittedly, the crash problem still exists, but now you risk it only at your own behest. Normal use of flash, e.g. Youtube, is almost completely unaffected, and IMHO even improved by flashblock. The web page is cleanly and gracefully separated from the flash content, as it always should have been.

    Flashblock is the first extension I download on any new firefox install. I highly recommend it.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  25. Re:Annoying but expected by Nerull · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Websites done in flash are useless. I have never seen an exception. I can't bookmark anything. I can't link to a specific page. I can't copy any text. I can't search. Navigation buttons don't work.

    All so some idiot can have spiffy transition effects between pages.

  26. Vigliante justice by Thaelon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sounds like someone is in need of a few extra visitors.

    Perhaps in the form of a distributed set of requests - that really shouldn't be denied - for service, but we surely shouldn't attack them.

    --

    Question everything

  27. Re:NoScript makes the web useless. by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the case of your house, the hassle of locking up every day is small compared to the hassle of having everything you own stolen.

    In the case of ads vs Noscript, many people feel the cure is almost as much of a hassle as the disease.