Slashdot Mirror
FSF Suggests That Google Free Gmail Javascript
Phoe6 writes "Apparently, FSF is calling it a 'JavaScript Trap' and wants 'useful websites' such as Gmail and others such as Twitter, Facebook to release their JavaScript code under Free Software License so that users can trust their service."
FSF wants Windows, Office, Photoshop, and everything else to be free. That's their job. People need to be able to make money on software, or large corporations won't invest in it. That's why FOSS-friendly companies like Sun are going under and being snapped up by profit-hungry pricks like Larry Ellison. Film at 11.
Just use Gmail over IMAP and SSL, and Twitter via API. If you don't trust the web site that's your own problem.
Coz they're going to want to let that happen? How long before people reverse-engineer that source code so they can hack in easier and steal whatever personal data they want to?
I was going to be all snarky about some blog post probably not being the voice of FSF, but then, http://www.gnu.org/people/speakers.html and he's on there.
So I guess I disagree with the FSF, and not just him!
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
It's not like you can't inspect it if you're paranoid and that would erode a competitive advantage if it were freed. There is no sane reason to do this.
The FSF wants all software released under a free software license. So it really isn't news that they want Javascript software released under a free software license.
i'm all for the FSF, but in my opinion, this is a little over the top. this kind of complaint from the FSF just borders on whining.
Releasing the client-side code isn't a big deal (it's right there in the page source!) I'd be more interested in the server-side code.
Just use Gmail over IMAP and SSL, and Twitter via API. If you don't trust the web site that's your own problem.
That's one of the suggestions made by the FSF.
Releasing the javascript of gmail would not help; google asks for copyright assignment (as does the FSF for the GNU project). Google could release a clean javascript source and add a nasty patch to their server.
If you do not trust google (and I don't), just do not whitelist their services for javascript in your navigator.
Most Facebook users have no clue how to read javascript, so releasing code will not help them. They would in turn simply have to trust another potentially untrustworthy source for information about whether Facebook's code is harmful.
Can I get the source code to my car's ECU too so I can trust that the brakes work?
Can I get the source code to my alarm system so I know that no one will break in?
Can I get the source code to DVR so that I can make sure it records the channel right?
99.9999% of people don't care, you either trust the vendor or you don't, if you trust them the source code is un-needed and if you don't trust them, how do you know that the source code they give you is right.
Nobody complained when WebKit, an open source product, had a vulnerability in it that allowed for remote code execution. Sure, it was eventually found, but having it open source didn't make it instantly safe. I don't see why we should force companies to publish all of their javascript. It is plenty open as plain text, no need for a free license. Open sourcing the code would encourage modification, which could easily lead to the attacks that we are all afraid of.
You should be able too. You can always replace the code on your devices to be sure.
Most people might not care, but that does not mean anything. Most of those people would be ok without freedom of speech or freedom of thought either.
God, again FSF hippy commune wants business to give away their IP. I'm getting tired of hearing from these loones, between gplv3 driving apple away to their incessant hounding of linux to join their fold its getting old. I for one value both the software i make and use, So if I want to live off of it I will.
Headline : "FSF suggests That Google opensource its Search Engine"
that this would be a BAD thing?
Whistle away with the prejudice accrued towards the messenger and ignore the message it conveys.
Why does this always have to happen, puuh.
Sorry, but this it stupid. The real brains that we'd need to trust is in the SERVER code. And all of Google's procedures. Knowing what the client is up might make some feel good, but this all very centralized.
-- Home is where you eat your heart out.
Wow, that is one really good troll.
They already give you a copy of this code numbnuts, the FSF just wants them to change the license on it. Confiscation is done against your will. the FSF does not have the force of law they just are asking.
The FSF is never demeaned when they try to have software come under a free software license, that is their goal at all times.
The popular Greasemonkey Firefox extension (Which I believe is built-in on Google Chrome) lets the end user modify the javascript/css running on the site to the user's desires. There's a huge database on UserScripts.org that lets you browse site-specific mods to Twitter, Facebook and yes, Gmail.
Another very popular extension is "Better GMail 2", which basically packages some greasemonkey scripts into a single extension.
Check out Unsealed: Whispers of Wisdom! http://unsealed.k3rnel.net It's an action-RPG about Open Sourcerers.
And a space unicorn! And free candy!
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
You may not know it, but the website you're reading RIGHT NOW is a festering hotbed of evil. EVIL. Evil code that will steal your information, kill your wife and children, and damage the transmission on your car.
The ONLY way around that is to use our new FSF GnuWebScript, which is Totally Open and Free. Not only is it a Force for Good, it whitens your teeth and makes your toes smell nicer. It will never do those evil and nasty things that the Javascript does, because it's not Javascript - it's GnuWebScript!
GnuWebScript is a free side-set* of ECMAscript, a tragically unfree industry standard. GnuWebScript implements everything in ECMAscript slightly differently using free, non-proprietary language extensions.
GnuWebScript - to be free you must chain yourself to it!
* side set is not a superset or a subset - it's a sideset.
That someone at the FSF has been using Gmail and started feeling guilty about using "non-free" software and instead of switching to something else is trying to get Google to change?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Should? Why?
..." or "It is the FSF's position that ..."
I understand it's RMS's and FSF's belief, but why must it be everyone's? What's clearly missing is the qualifier, "We believe that
FWIW, that's a rhetorical question. I know why he believes what he does. I also know that his is an extreme position that not many people share. That he wants some corporation to open up their code for others to use/share/modify is Not News ®. <yawn>
I at least want the circuit diagrams and all images of the (E)EPROMs so I can fix the device when it breaks. It was like this in the past (circuit diagrams were in the manuals or in some magazines, at least in the USSR). I can find service manuals for some devices, but I want them included with the device and also have images of the chips that need to be programmed before they can be used.
Speaking of obfuscation, the article by the FSF drags Node.js and V8 into the discussion, even though they have nothing at all to do with the client-side javascript that the ostensible topic of the article.
Also, as the author mentions, it is possible via greasemonkey to do essentially what is wanted--modify the client-side javascript--so it seems like an ideological point rather than a practical one. The "obfuscation" of the javascript source is as much about reducing the bandwidth consumed by javascript as is it about hiding the source code from the People's Republic of GMail Users, so it would be silly to transmit the original source.
Of course, linking to the original source would help people write better GreaseMonkey scripts. Since I live in Michigan, which is being turned into a banana republic by its governor, you will pardon me if I throw up a little when you conflate freedom and convenience.
Thank you for sharing it ! Very nice
http://colorfashion.co.cc
Greetings from 2163! Patents were sooo last century...can't imagine how you got any collaboration done with that crappy system. Patent law encouraging innovation...hah! (spoilers) World War IV pretty much put an end to that silly "intellectual property" idea. But for you "free software" geeks, I suggest you go into hiding before the Sharer's Inquisition a few years after WW III.
Works fine, if a little clunky (try doing that in any anything MS sends through a browser!)
I do, because I don't allow js anywhere on my machine, for security.
The thing is, JavaScript is inherently source visible. Since it is a script, and it runs on the client system, you can always see the source. For trusting an app, you don't need the source to be open, as in free to redistribute. You just need it available. The US Government trusts MS software because they have the source (many people have the source to Windows, governments, universities, etc). You can audit it, compile it yourself (or interpret it yourself which is automatic in JS) and so on.
Thus there is no trust reason AT ALL for Google to open source their stuff. You can argue other reasons, but not trust. That the FSF is using that means they are just building a straw man, perhaps because they don't feel a real argument would stand up.
"Free as in freedom" does not mean that you are expected to make your software "free as in cost". There are several GPL3 packages that have pre-compiled commercial releases, but still offer the same program as un-compiled source through their website for those who know how/why/etc to work it.
Does anyone listen to what this Botanophobe says anymore? Seriously?
Since when is someone who cares about the pitfalls of the JavaScript Trap on Gmail use the data miners email client, Gmail.
Well I see your point but I disagree. It's not confiscation because Google would still own the copyright and this would be their choice to open source it.
I think the FSF approach is this - imagine a world where instead of hiding information and ideas, which is what source code is, we share those ideas and move forward so much faster. It's not in the name of security you see, it's in the name of freedom and moving humanity forward that much faster. You don't have to agree with it. It's idealistic, but some of us are.
Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
# apt-get install wordpress
Hurting corporations by taking intellectual rights by opening their source code forcefully or through other means is a common tactic of communism. As much as I despise Google for their lack of respect to individual privacy, I hold their right to private property above the interests of FSF's license challenge. This debate is as simple as freedom in the market place. Open source has its place in the world but there's for profit corporate property and their rights to protect RND and their ability to invest in future technologies through past successes. If you don't like that, attempt to reverse engineer your own brand, if you're smart enough to do so.
Isn't Gmail using Google Web Toolkit? If that is the case the application code is actually Java and is compiled to HTML+Javascript+Server side Java. So it wouldn't make much sense to release the Javascript code.
If this actually resulted in anything, it'd be pretty awesome.
I'm pretty skeptical that this will have much effect, however.
If the javascript was generated by GWT, and it probably was, I don't want it. Its only a few steps up from whitespace or brainf*ck.
If I release software and I say "You can do whatever you want with this software. You can modify it and redistribute it as you wish. It costs $50 per copy." Well all that has to happen in one person buys one copy and then redistributes it for free. That is allowed, I said they could redistribute it. People won't pay for my copy, since they can get the same thing for free legally.
That is why you find that when companies make money using free software, it is a service model or the like. You can't just charge for the software because people can just redistribute it legally. Fine, some things work in a service model, but not everything.
I think the real issue with the Javascript being 'opaque' on GMail and other Google sites is that the javascript is not the original code the software is written in. The original code is written in Java and 'compiled' into Javascript with GWT. In order to be truly useful and readable, Google would need to release the Java source code. The javascript that is delivered to your browser will even differ depending on what browser you're using.
Can we finally just admit that the FSF is irrelevant and move forward?
FSF -- Free as in Not
I don't quite see the point. Sure it would be nice to have the Javascript under a Free Software license, but that would be very far down my list of priorities, as with Javascript and the Web in general there is one very fundamental difference to regular software: You neither own that stuff nor control it, they do and that is the problem that needs attacking. It doesn't make a difference if they stick a GPL header on top of their code or not, I as I would still be forced to use whatever version they ship me, keeping around an older copy with features they might have changed/removed/whatever doesn't help me when the API to their servers has changes, that old GPL copy might either break or become unusable. The real solution would be to provide standard data driven APIs for webservices, so that I wouldn't depend on their Javascript and HTML code, but could roll my own.
The whole problem with the Web today is that I don't have direct access to my data, but instead can only access it via a whole swoop of HTML and Javascript stuff, that makes it frequently hard or even impossible to actually do certain operation. A very basic example would be backup. Yeah, I can download mail from GMail via POP or IMAP and that will give me some of my mails, but what about chat logs, mail I send, tags, contacts, etc. and a bunch of other meta data that isn't just the mail? Can I backup all that? And even more importantly: Can I actually restore it? If GMail decides to delete my account tomorrow, can I open a new one and restore my backup into the new account? Can I do that when I change mail providers? Will meta data survive the transfer? That is the problem that needs fixing, as almost all webpages suffer from it, even the glorious 100% Free Software ones generally don't give you full import and export capabilities of your data and even when they do the interfaces are often limited and cumbersome.
Right click > View source
No one is taking about using force and you know it. Everyone has the right to use their free speech to try convince people to do what they want.
-1 troll.
or
-5 too fucking stupid.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
give me a fleepin' break
WTF is the matter with you, FSF.
Ok I haven't read through all the comments here so someone may have already said this.
JavaScript is client-side. That means it has to be downloaded by your browser, so the code has to be world-readable. It's not very difficult to just go download a copy of the JS code yourself. And some browsers (chrome native and firefox via firebug) allow you to view the javascript on any page without even having to separately download it yourself. This is basically like saying "we want all your HTML code to be available for anyone to see!"
It already is "open source", you just have to look for it a bit.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
If you don't trust it, don't use it.
Stop demanding they make special concessions and comply with your desires so you will condescend to use their products. Don't use it, you stupid fucks, because they don't need you. You are not special and no one is forcing you to use their services. The arrogance of your "request" is appalling.
I know the FSF's mission is an ideal or a puritanical vision, but there are real important and pragmatic issues they address. I really have to agree with this idea of a "Javascript Trap". We've gotten very comfortable with free and open web services that it's easy to forget, the code that handles your sensitive data isn't open to review.
It's simple really, in the spirit of free and open software, code hiding in any form should ALWAYS be a red flag. There just shouldn't be a point where people say "...and, for the rest of the application, trust us, it just works somehow."
If Google wished to do something untrustworthy with Gmail, Java is the least of your worries.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Freedom is great isn't it, people are free to write code then choose what they do with it and how it is licensed.
Seriously, if you don't like not being able to see, audit, or use Facebook's code, don't use Facebook.
And while your at it, stop loaning RMS your phones! If he doesn't want to pay the money, or own a device with unacceptable software on it, let him do without.
And people who don't wish to agree with a license are also free to do without.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Early April Fools' joke?
That's ONE.
Yup. And you could also add, IBM, HP and countless of others smaller companies.
FL/OSS *is* economically viable.
Bottom line is it's hard to make a lot of money in open source. Great for consumers, bad for investors.
Given the data, it's not impossible to make money in opensource.
It's bad for rent-seeking companies, it's good for everyone else.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The issue is that without the essential freedoms to study
study is already possible. the javascript code is already in your browser.
So even if it's not Free/Libre, GMail is already gratis and open, at-least.
The only limitation would be obfuscation and luckily GMail isn't doing that.
modify
As the source code is available, you're free to modify it.
In fact there are already lots of possiblity to do this.
User scripting extensions, for example, like GreaseMonkey and UserScripts let you improve websites.
In fact, I use a couple of such to "patch" some functionnality of Facebook in FireFox.
Lots of other possibility exists to modify functionnality at the client level.
And there are countless of precedent, mainly in the realm of video games and game-genie cheating device, which confirms that this is not creating an unlicensed deivated work, it's just the consumer doing whatever he wants with code which was legally distributed to him/her.
distribute
although the original GMail code isn't GPLed and thus user can't distribute patched copies, the patches *themselves* can be distributed under whatever license the patch author choose.
several software project have started that way (Apache has started as a serie of patch of httpd, LAME as a serie of patch to the MP3 reference code, OpenDivX/Xvid as a sries of patch to the MPEG 4 reference code, etc...) and became autonomous FL/OSS only once so much was patched that nothing is left from the non-free/libre software.
It would have been problematic if users didn't get access to the code (like the server side of the code).
But with the current solution, users can get the benefit of open source, and even with faster distribution. (Currently once a nice patch is created, it can be uploaded to some user scripting site or whatever - it doesn't need to go through the whole Google validation procedure and wait until Google decides to incorporate it into its next version).
Now the FSF is perhaps seeking to create a precedent whith which they could pressure other to follow the freedom trend, including website for which this isn't possible due to javascript obfuscation.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Except that, based on the pro-FSF posts in this story, they want google to give up a significant portion of their copyright so that others can modify and distribute it. In exchange, they will give google nothing. They are trying to pressure google to give up their freedom to release the software they wrote in the way they choose.
Well not directly, but the only NAIP approved Linux distro is.... RedHat, the exception is OpenSUSE.
So... if you want to run Linux on a classified system... Redhat is basically it.
Similar to the virtual monopoly Sun used to enjoy wrt to US government computing.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
It is a huge deal. It is right there in the page source, and you do not have the right to do a thing with it according to the current license on that code.
And that part of the license isn't enforceable.
There are precedents from the realm of video games & cheating software and devices, confirming that an end user *can* modify a copy of software which was legally distributed to him/her.
Copyright law only kicks in when distribution is taking place (when buying software in a shop, or downloading the software from the net).
Not when using said software.
What wouldn't be possible is to modify a non copy-lefted javascript, and publish the modified version on your website. (Because that would be distributing, and according to copyright law, would require you to have a license to do it).
On the other hand you can make a patch out of your modifications, put *the patch itself* under GPL, and distribute that one freely on the web (say, as an user script). Other user could use the patch to gain the same functionnality or fix the same bugs.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
No one can legally place it on their site and write their own version AFAIK.
So you won't be able to re-use the code *BUT* you can patch it and release the *patches themselves* under LGPL if you want and publish them.
So no way to reuse Gmail on your site, but plenty of opportunity to add features or fix bugs.
There are lots of software which started their life as such patch sets.
Apache started as patches against httpd, LAME and OpenDivX/Xvid started against MP3 and MPEG-4 reference code, etc.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Two notes for headline writers:
Be careful about using "that". That that is is that that is not is not that that is that that is is not true is not true.
Don't use words that can be both verbs and adjectives, like "free", when there are less ambiguous words available, such as "release".
Really, fucking read it already. And stop posting nonsense like "but javascript is already opensource" and "FSF are lunatics".
Yes, your browser does download JS. And yes, you can view it. But you cannot legitimately re-use it. What FSF suggests is that some major web sites would release their JS code under free license, thus allowing code modifications and re-usage. What worries them is that a lot of Greasemonkey scripts for gmail are published under free licenses, but the original javascript remains copyrighted.
I don't see what's wrong with distributing a copy of OpenOffice.org/LibreOffice binary+source for a fee. One way to add value and make it worth the $50+shipping is to include non-free clip art. (The data that a GPL program uses doesn't become GPL.)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
(Hairyfeet's SUCH a dumbass, he doesn't know the diff. between STATICALLY ADDRESS IP BASED banners & DYNAMICALLY ADDRESSED ONES using host/domain names!)
LOL, I mean, ok - listen to his b.s. ALL YOU WANT, but only AFTER you read the URL from this website above, lol!
(He sure is a "big talker" though, isn't he? Ripping others' work but he can't show he's done better... & he CERTAINLY SHOWED he is a fuckup in his "tech know-how" above!)
Another instance of his "big talking b.s." is here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2029850&cid=35450222
He says "automating McDonalds would be 'easy'" but he's NEVER DONE THAT... I have (one of the programmers for them, Boston Market, & Burger King's "bump bar" system).
APK
P.S.=> Just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", but then again? "Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" is only an "ITT Tech Boy" techie... lol! apk
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
(Hairyfeet's SUCH a dumbass, he doesn't know the diff. between STATICALLY ADDRESS IP BASED banners & DYNAMICALLY ADDRESSED ONES using host/domain names!)
LOL, I mean, ok - listen to his b.s. ALL YOU WANT, but only AFTER you read the URL from this website above, lol!
(He sure is a "big talker" though, isn't he? Ripping others' work but he can't show he's done better... & he CERTAINLY SHOWED he is a fuckup in his "tech know-how" above!)
Another instance of his "big talking b.s." is here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2029850&cid=35450222
He says "automating McDonalds would be 'easy'" but he's NEVER DONE THAT... I have (one of the programmers for them, Boston Market, & Burger King's "bump bar" system).
APK
P.S.=> Just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'", but then again? "Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" is only an "ITT Tech Boy" techie... lol! apk
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2062904&cid=35684474
Nuff said, & just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"
APK
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2062904&cid=35684474
Nuff said, & that? That was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'"
APK
What trap? Like you can't check email with noscript?
If you care about privacy, force them to disclose urchin javascript and server side code.
"OMG! My FREE browser can abuse me by quietly running NON-FREE PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE without telling me! It's a TRAP! I need everyone who writes JavaScript to tell me in no uncertain terms whether they are FREE and kosher for me to use, or PROPRIETARY and should be blocked by my FREE browser so that no taint of proprietary evilness defiles me!"
Yeah, the FSF wants the code licensed under a non-free communist license.
Copyleft is not freedom.
By its very nature all javascript source code is visible. It's probably been minified but you can still trace through and see exactly what it's doing.
It makes total sense to provide user an option to view un obfuscated javascript in their clients . probably companies should standardize on some kind of url parameter which serves, un obfuscated, un compressed , readable javascript.
http://www.google.com?obfuscate=false
Most browsers will lock down cross domain requests.
The assumption in this philosophy is that all the URLs below a particular domain are all owned by the same party.
If geocities.com/~userfoo/*html sources geocities.com/~userbar/*js, should the js files be trusted?
The other side of the assumption, that each party is limited to one domain, causes inefficiency: if I own foo.com and bar.com and I want foo.com/baz.html to source qux.js, I can't have that be bar.com/qux.js --- it must be foo.com/**/qux.js. But if bar.com/*html wants qux.js, I must put qux.js on bar.com also. (I guess virtual hosting and sym/hardlinking comes to the rescue here, and I can stop whining about my tiny, tiny js files being stored twice OH TEH NOESES...)
there are more than a few people that manage to crack applications or even reverse engineer video encryption algorithms or DRM algorithms by stepping through much worse code either through a simple debugger or a possibly more advanced debugger such as IDA Pro which makes C style snippets.
Fact is, it's not about the code being written IN javascript. It's about the code being written in Java and then compiled to javascript. The compressed javascript in question is not typically even javascript to begin with and nor is it compressed, but instead is simply the result of compiling java to javascript.
How about the real pros who can take a microscope photograph of a microchip and reverse engineer the the resulting 3d image of lines and boxes into an encryption algorithm?
You're making the comment "is next to impossible even with" applies to you and many others, but there are those among us who can approach the problem differently. For example, instead of starting from the beginning and tracing forward, start with a point of context. I'll speculate at this point having never really cared about gmail other than reading my mail, but I'd imagine there's some algorithm in use which provides the gmail servers with a query for messages. These queries are more than likely meaningful. So, if you're looking up your friend Jim Bob, locate where the post to the server happens and find the reference to Jim Bob. It probably has the field name for which it applies connected to it such as "SearchText='Jim Bob'". At this point, you can be pretty sure the function which transmited that is a transmission function. It should be possible to decipher variable names in that function and work backward from there.
Reverse engineering is typically starting with what you know and working backward, annotating as you go along. Use a damn good editor with a "change symbol name" feature and each time you identify a new symbol change it.
The code in question probably has an extremely high level of complexity as I'm quite sure it's machine generated from another language. If it's hand coded and compressed, it might be equally bad.
But Impossible, certainly not by any means. Just time consuming.
#1 - YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE DIFF. BETWEEN "static" and "dynamic" addressed adbanners, shown here (which even BestBuy techies know):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
AND?
---
#2 - LMAO - YOU BLEW IT AGAIN, & on something ELSE even "Best Buy Techies" know, in DNS local client caches needing to be turned off in Windows with relatively "largish" HOSTS files:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
Yes children - this is what "ITT Tech does for you", where "Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" here got his "FINE education" (LOL - NOT! (You're proof, living proof, it makes you a FUCKUP))!
OR, do the above links NOT show that much?
EVEN Funnier still??
---
#3 - You've trolled ME before in the past on HOSTS files, and made THAT same "blunder" before in the past:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686474
And, tons more... like your "math" one!
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35667576
From there downwards, you blew it totally, & with someone you stalk, troll, & libel in myself on HOSTS files posts, constantly!
APK
P.S.=> So - DO YOU STILL WANT TO KEEP STALKING, TROLLING, and yes, EVEN LIBELLING ME (as you tried here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35667932 and I shot you down cold, with facts here on that note -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740 )?
IF so, well - "it's YOUR funeral"... that's also FAR from the 1st time, & you blew it on the SAME damn points as before AND MANY MORE...
The "infamous they" & iirc, EINSTEIN even said:
"Repeating the same thing over & over & expecting different results is insanity" ...
Funniest part is, in that thread above and others you called ME, 'batshit-insane' (and you're no PHD in Psych):
"But if you weren't completely batshit insane" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday March 31, @05:09AM (#35675892)
TELL You what, when you get these items to YOUR name/credit:
---
1.) PHD in Psychiatry
2.) Years-to-decades of professional experience
3.) A license to practice
4.) A formal examination of myself in a profesional psychiatric environs
---
Then, maybe? You'd be credible, & not libelling me like you like to do, which is against the law.
AND?
Keep repeating from your mistakes shown above then some more, & tell us another good one + refer to EINSTEIN above... lol! apk
#1 - YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE DIFF. BETWEEN "static" and "dynamic" addressed adbanners, shown here (which even BestBuy techies know):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
AND?
---
#2 - LMAO - YOU BLEW IT AGAIN, & on something ELSE even "Best Buy Techies" know, in DNS local client caches needing to be turned off in Windows with relatively "largish" HOSTS files:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
Yes children - this is what "ITT Tech does for you", where "Pwuffesuh HaiwyPheet" here got his "FINE education" (LOL - NOT! (You're proof, living proof, it makes you a FUCKUP))!
OR, do the above links NOT show that much?
EVEN Funnier still??
---
#3 - You've trolled ME before in the past on HOSTS files, and made THAT same "blunder" before in the past:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686474
And, tons more... like your "math" one!
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35667576
From there downwards, you blew it totally, & with someone you stalk, troll, & libel in myself on HOSTS files posts, constantly!
APK
P.S.=> So - DO YOU STILL WANT TO KEEP STALKING, TROLLING, and yes, EVEN LIBELLING ME (as you tried here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35667932 and I shot you down cold, with facts here on that note -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740 )?
IF so, well - "it's YOUR funeral"... that's also FAR from the 1st time, & you blew it on the SAME damn points as before AND MANY MORE...
The "infamous they" & iirc, EINSTEIN even said:
"Repeating the same thing over & over & expecting different results is insanity" ...
Funniest part is, in that thread above and others you called ME, 'batshit-insane' (and you're no PHD in Psych):
"But if you weren't completely batshit insane" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday March 31, @05:09AM (#35675892)
TELL You what, when you get these items to YOUR name/credit:
---
1.) PHD in Psychiatry
2.) Years-to-decades of professional experience
3.) A license to practice
4.) A formal examination of myself in a profesional psychiatric environs
---
Then, maybe? You'd be credible, & not libelling me like you like to do, which is against the law.
AND?
Keep repeating from your mistakes shown above then some more, & tell us another good one + refer to EINSTEIN above... lol! apk
See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):
---
Static vs. Dynamic (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690188
---
Only thing constantly changing's your "math":
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl? sid=2064694&cid=35690076
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources vs. mine (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690372
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK videos:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted!
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' benefits to the end-user: Why? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you, he's out money...apk