Slashdot Mirror


AdTrap Aims To Block All Internet Advertising In Hardware

cylonlover writes "AdTrap is a new low-power, zero configuration device which promises to banish adverts from computers, tablets, and anything else connected to the local network. AdTrap's creators point out that their device works not only with full-sized PCs, but everything else connected to your home internet, such as Apple devices running iOS 6 – and without the need of third-party apps or jailbreaking. In addition to blocking web browser ads, AdTrap is also reported to remove ads from streaming devices like Apple TV and Google TV. A configurable 'whitelist' is offered too, so that users can allow adverts on websites of their choice."

295 comments

  1. Countermeasures Deployed by Sentrion · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is why I place ads on the main page of my websites and you can only view content from the popups.

    1. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and that's why when i find sites like yours, i add them to my blacklist forever. fuck your ads.

    2. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      That sounds like zero websites I visit more than once.

    3. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Blacklist this, click next google result for my query.

      Slightly off topic, is there any search engine that lets you blacklist sites so they don't show up in results? It's kinda tedious to copy/paste that endless tail of "-site:..."

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Google lets you block entire sites from search results. You'll never see them.

      The feature is kind of hidden at....

      http://www.google.com/reviews/t

      (its amazing what blocking facebook here does. amazing and nice.)

    5. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sounds like you need the new Whoosh-Detector-Matic 5000. Only $29.95!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    6. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Could you make a custom Google search query and append the sites to that query string? (I'm assuming Firefox)

    7. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Heh, I'm very surprised that isn't standard practice by now.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    8. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Why? We already have various governments and businesses (??AA) doing that for us, so we don't need to. I would rather have a way of circumventing their filters.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    9. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easily done in Opera. I assume the other browsers that let you configure the search box can do this easily, too.

    10. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey! My AdTrap missed this one! I want a refund!!!

    11. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by ZiakII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Screw blocking Facebook, if you work in IT/Programing block experts-exchange.com god I hate that site.

    12. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Sentrion · · Score: 1

      Nobody else can do it. I've already patented it.

    13. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have a pulse, you should probably block experts-exchange.com.

    14. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      If you find the site via Google, scroll down to the bottom and you can read all the answers.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    15. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do it in Firefox via keyword searches, and there's probably a way to do it in other ways, but I'm too ignorant and keywords work well enough.

    16. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nowadays there are better alternatives (e.g. stackexchange.com). EE answers often used to be unreliable, now they're meaningless.

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    17. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by partyguerrilla · · Score: 1

      Blocking facebook? What are you, a sociopath?

    18. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Stack Exchange is the most reliable. Often comes with working examples by the posters to *show* their work, and links to external sites that specifically speak about the question at hand.

    19. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Dan+East · · Score: 1

      Serious question: What exactly does blocking Facebook from Google search results accomplish? I cannot remember ever, not one single time, seeing Facebook in a list of search results from Google. Never. Ever. The rest of your post was quite informative though.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    20. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      As an offtopic: does anybody know is there any reason people set $X.95 price sometime instead of "usual" $X.99?

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    21. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Program your own HTML/Javascript doc and it'll work on any browser.

    22. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I think that would be wooshable if there weren't people out there who would think that would be a good idea. Cutting an article up into ten pieces to get more ad clicks is about as fun as what Sentrion was suggesting.

      And actually, there is one website I know of, geared at adults, that does exactly that. And yet I keep visiting it. Hmm... stupid brain...

    23. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by mozumder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then that just means you've never visited a fashion website, where all the articles are actually lightweight ads, and the actual ads are often more desirable than the articles.

      Protip (that will likely blow your mind): people buy fashion magazines BECAUSE OF THE ADS.

      They don't fill 800 pages of Vogue's September issue with articles. It's pretty much all ads.

      The reason internet dorks hate ads is because they're fed terrible, terrible ads because of your undesirable last-place demographic. If you were fed good ads, perhaps with a naked Kate Moss, you would have absolutely no problem with ads, and in fact, would go out of your way to seek them. It is why fashion photographs often sell for thousands of dollars on their own.

      Again, the fact that you hate ads just means you aren't receiving the good ones, because marketers have deemed you undesirable and unworthy of the good stuff, probably because you aren't a rich, young, beautiful woman that spends on wants instead of needs. (the worst ads are the ones that market to your needs)

    24. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by t4ng* · · Score: 2

      Google lets you block entire sites from search results. You'll never see them.

      The feature is kind of hidden at....

      http://www.google.com/reviews/t

      It appears that this only works if:

      a. you have a google account.
      b. you are logged in to that google account while you are doing searches.

    25. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      What's wrong with expertsexchange.com? If I was in the market for a sex change, I'd want an expert, not some noob.

    26. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by danomac · · Score: 2

      Unless they've fixed it (doubtful), if you are redirected to the experts-exchange site through Google, you can scroll to the bottom and see the replies.

      If they do fix it, I'm pretty sure it's against Google's policies and they would be removed from the results.

    27. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure; price comparison websites, and any webstore that can list in price order. Dropping a couple of cents off the price can bring you from the bottom of the page to the top.

      Since there are so many twits out there that will spend an extra 50 cents on gas to save 10 cents at the till, and so many others that don't factor in shipping costs, reducing your base price by a few cents can bring in much more trade than you might imagine.

      That's why the 'last digit' has been dropping regularly since the early 2ks. 99, then 97, then 95, seen some 93's and 91s now as well. not sure why they're always odd numbers though.

    28. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the same goes for hobby/gaming magazines. im buying those publications specifically for their ads. and even on websites i dont mind ads, as long as they are non-obtrusive.

    29. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by simcop2387 · · Score: 1

      Walmarts in the south (GA mostly) have been doing 88s lately.

    30. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      > does anybody know is there any reason people set $X.95 price sometime instead of "usual" $X.99?

      Because people are getting wise to the fact that $X.99 is near enough $X+1, whereas $X.95 is closer to $X ? Not !

    31. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by jkflying · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How else do you expect them to know whose blacklist to use?

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    32. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your website is designed bad and you should feel bad

    33. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Quirkz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I subscribe to a magazine called 'Imbibe' which is focused mostly on alcoholic drinks, with a little coffee and other such things thrown in. All the ads are of course for various forms of booze, many of them interesting. A lot of times I actually have to force myself to stop and look at the potentially good ads, because it's such an ingrained habit to try to tune them out.

    34. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could just use evil tracking cookies or tap into my system's webcam to identify me?

    35. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by uberdilligaff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, many brick-and-mortar merchants encode whether a price has been marked down or not in the final digit. X.99 may represent a normal price, and X.98 or X.97 may represent a temporary sale price or a final markdown, usually to clue the register operator that other coupons or discounts may not apply. Most shoppers don't even notice, but the staff can tell.

      --
      Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain. --Friederich Schiller
    36. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      What are you talking about? Most of the websites I go to have ads with naked women in them.

    37. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by willaien · · Score: 1

      Not really applicable if you browse on the SSL version of google, since your browser won't send the referrer over.

    38. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, the fact that you hate ads just means you aren't receiving the good ones

      That's a beautiful piece of self rationalization. As usual, the advertising industry is dishonestly conflating solicited and unsolicited advertising and pretending they're the same. They're not even close.

    39. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can block their site, but not their spam results from google searches...

    40. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Thank you - this is now my new fact to impress chicks. Nerdy chicks, anyway. Which are the best kind.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    41. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by pepty · · Score: 1

      Cutting an article up into ten pieces to get more ad clicks is about as fun as what Sentrion was suggesting.

      On the other hand, once I see that something is formatted as a "listicle" I can be almost certain that I'm not missing anything by skipping it. These days I think of it as the editor kindly flagging the article as being too low in interesting content to be bothered with and sparing me the wasted time.

      Thanks!

    42. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by pepty · · Score: 2
      Or as Banksy would put it:

      “The thing I hate the most about advertising is that it attracts all the bright, creative and ambitious young people, leaving us mainly with the slow and self-obsessed to become our artists

    43. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by FirephoxRising · · Score: 1

      I'm more interested in whether this could be used by governments or others to control what you see?

    44. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      No, no, he needs a block box for $49.95, and if he mentions this post he gets a 10% discount!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    45. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed! I don't care if there are ads still.... if this can block experts-exchange.com, I'm buying two.

    46. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      experts-exchange.com

      I am happy they put the "-" in that url... If they didnt it would read like www.penisland.net !

    47. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uhm,... do people still use Google? I thought everyone was on duckduckgo.
      https://duckduckgo.com/about.html

    48. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Again, the fact that you hate ads just means you aren't receiving the good ones

      No, I hate even the good ones(*), after I've seen them once. Even though I FF or 30 second skip (depending on show, since some shows like Jeopardy once in a while put an extra show bit in the commercial break so I might miss it 30 second skipping), I still end up seeing most ads once⦠but then I skip them from then on.

      (*) Jack in the Box ads, many Apple ads, and others. Heck, I record the Super Bowl *for* the ads, and FF through the boring "game". Then I record basically everything else through the year to avoid the ads.

    49. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...

      Protip (that will likely blow your mind): people buy fashion magazines BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN INSECURITIES.

      FTFY

      PS: Marketers are obnoxious and I think you're delusional.

    50. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      ExpertsExchhange is a wonderful source of free information. And the great thing is, due to their shenanigans-- wanting to be relevant in google search results-- they HAVE to keep the answer visible when you are referred from Google. If they display different results for the google spider and for your browser, theyll be delisted.

      Its even better once you figure out that their entire site is indexed, and you can view any result for free: just google the exact question, and theyll be the first result.

    51. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      dude, create a dummy google account and stop complaining.

    52. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This is why I place ads on the main page of my websites and you can only view content from the popups.

      There is another strategy too... render your site and all its ads using a single keepalive connection over SSL; so this device cannot intercept and remove page elements.

      Also, don't provide an obvious pattern that can be used to programmatically detect what page elements are ads.

      Vary your page coding frequently, so man-made filters will break frequently

    53. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like the old Computer Shopper. Mostly ads with a few articles sprinkled about.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    54. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately you have to have a Google account to use that feature.

    55. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Protip (that will likely blow your mind): people buy fashion magazines BECAUSE

      ITS SOFT PORN.

      Actually take some time to read a fashion magazine. Many of the articles are badly written erotic fiction interspersed with ads for make up and fashion products. If not soft porn, it's celebrity gossip (mostly about who's screwing who, so it's like a news report on soft porn).

      And yes, your brain will hate you for reading it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    56. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Unless they've fixed it (doubtful), if you are redirected to the experts-exchange site through Google, you can scroll to the bottom and see the replies.

      Yes, but how often has this result been correct or even remotely helpful?

      Ergo, I block or ignore Experts Exchange.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    57. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about http://www.dba-oracle.com/ ?

    58. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which could also be caused by sale prices usually being defined as a percentage, rather than in dollars and cents.

    59. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can block that too in Google's "don't show me results from" section.

    60. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by jackbird · · Score: 2

      Target in particular decrements the $0.01 digit each time an item is marked down.

    61. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by toddestan · · Score: 1

      How about the tracking cookies they plant on your computer?

    62. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      At work, the content filter takes care of that.

      Yes, that hyphen doesn't protect them from it. :)

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    63. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes. Screw you.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    64. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Would be lovely if we could use "public" blacklists.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    65. Re:Countermeasures Deployed by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Try Baidu.

      Odd... a communist country serving our liberty needs...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. Embed ads into directly into HTML by Zandamesh · · Score: 2

    Make them indistinguishable from a normal .png or a piece of text. Or is there some technical reason why this can't be done?

    --
    Lo and behold, for I am a sig!
    1. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because these days ads are not served from the same source as the content. They used to be in the past and likely will again in the future if this sort of thing catches on.

    2. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Almost all ads are hosted by an outside company like Google. If it is displayed, Google knows because someone from your ip requested that image. If you click it, they know. If you turn them to images and put them on the site's server, then Google must trust you to report how many visitors you had, which will kind of be a pain.

    3. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most ads are served up from identifiable ad networks - you could do it your way, but it's not convenient for the advertisers.
      I like using ipcop with the urlfilter addon - subscribe to a block list, check the ads box, and enable transparent proxy. Done. Only for ipcop 1.4.x I think, but that even runs well in a virtual machine...

    4. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by MarcoAtWork · · Score: 2

      which would be great so it'd be a lot more unlikely for drive-by malware install ads to run, and if they ran the website owners wouldn't have the typical excuse of "oh sorry, one of our ad networks was compromised, we apologize"

      --
      -- the cake is a lie
    5. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That gets complicated. If you're not serving the ads from your server you have to trust the people who run the website. All the fancy click counting will go away, which the advertisers will hate. And if the advertisers hate it, I'm for it.

    6. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by nschubach · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'll bet Ad Proxies will become common before they host the files locally... it will look like it's coming from the server you are getting the content from, but the server is just relaying the ad from their ad host.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    7. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Canazza · · Score: 4, Informative

      As a web developer that thought makes me physically ill...
      I begrudge doing that with sites I set up myself and *trust* the content on, let alone random-ass third parties.

      That way lies security nightmares.

      There are three reasons why remote-hosting adverts (and user-generated content) on a seperate domain is a good thing:
      1) Shares the bandwidth load between two servers
      2) An extra seperation between Content and Application makes for simpler updates
      3) Malicious Injected content can't pretend to be from my own domain and is sandboxed by modern browsers.

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    8. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Those are easily filtered as well. 99% of ad's are a specific size. Look for that and SMOOSH!

      Privoxy as looked for and filtered specific sized image files for nearly a decade to scrub site hosted adverts.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by patchouly · · Score: 1

      No reason at all. Make a jpg with your ad in it. Want it to move? Use an animated gif. You'll lose the full effect of Flash ads, but it will get past all the ad blocks.

    10. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Make them indistinguishable from a normal .png or a piece of text. Or is there some technical reason why this can't be done?

      Did you not read the slashvertisment here on slashdot , I think it was about some anti-spam device that hid an ad inside editorial text on the front page...

    11. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by DragonWriter · · Score: 2

      which would be great so it'd be a lot more unlikely for drive-by malware install ads to run, and if they ran the website owners wouldn't have the typical excuse of "oh sorry, one of our ad networks was compromised, we apologize"

      Why wouldn't they? Just because the request from your browser goes to their server doesn't mean their server is the root source of the content; it is not at all impossible to have the website server, in handling a request for an ad with a "local" URL, make a request to the ad network server, and just relay the response to that request back to the client requesting the ad URL. (There are similar options that avoid the latency inherent in that approach that involve making requests to the ad network out-of-band.) This kind of approach deals with domain-based ad blocking, but still makes ad network compromise just as real as it is when the request go directly to the ad network (and is potentially attractive because it still offloads the work of actually managing the ads to someone other than the website owner.) But it will probably take a lot to get back to locally-hosted ads, even if there is some incentive to do so in terms of blocking, because ad networks -- and advertisers -- want to know that clicks are real, and its going to be harder to detect click fraud when all the requests to the ad network are expected to be directly created by the site hosting (and getting paid for) the ads, rather than by the clients.

    12. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by franciscohs · · Score: 1

      To add to everything that was said, and supposing that things like click counting, trust, etc get resolved, you'll also have to pay for add serving with your own bandwidth.

    13. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Shares the bandwidth load between two servers

      I just hope your layout does not depend on the ads them because those servers are going to be overloaded and dog slow, delaying the rendering of your page.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    14. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually I think the main reason is advertisers can't trust websites to accurately report impressions. If we ever went to routing ads through the site's own server the entire ad payment model would have to drop pay-per-click entirely and instead rely on referral fees.

      Either that or you'd shift to some kind of third-party escrow server that both parties could trust providing content and ads.

    15. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by SolitaryMan · · Score: 1

      This will definitely be back. Mostly because eventually both content and ads will be served from the "cloud".

      --
      May Peace Prevail On Earth
    16. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      I just hope your layout does not depend on the ads

      This is a solved problem and illustrates why it's good practice to specify dimensions.

      those servers are going to be overloaded and dog slow, delaying the rendering of your page.

      The whole point of putting something onto another domain is to speed things up. Many sites separate assets on to subdomains; ads, assets, and site content. On top of that I'd wager a vast majority of sites are on shared hosting, something which is grossly oversold to be profitable. Even AWS, which scales, you'll need to pay a premium for any decent IO performance for something like processing images or anything having to do with reading/writing to disk. Beyond that, how many people access stuff from WIFI? I don't think latency is the main concern, quantity downloaded (are these giant PNG graphics, video etc.) or more JS which personalizes your experience after communicating with the mothership? These matters are compounded over wireless links.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    17. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Just because the request from your browser goes to their server doesn't mean their server is the root source of the content; it is not at all impossible to have the website server, in handling a request for an ad with a "local" URL, make a request to the ad network server, and just relay the response to that request back to the client requesting the ad URL.

      Excellent point, for a real world example of this look no further than Blizzard's properties. For example if you look at how their rich websites display content (usually a mixture of Flash Video) the SWF pull data behind the scenes from another non public/restricted source.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    18. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So make it exactly like every non-Flash-based ad that's ever existed?

    19. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      No, I'm not an AC, and I have high karma, so I have the checkbox enabled to disable ads.

      (Actually, it was unchecked a second ago, but I still wasn't seeing ads.. Just turned the ads off.)

    20. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Rossman · · Score: 1

      Not really, at that point the cost of serving will be built into the advertising contract.

      Not only that, but we already do this for clients who want to serve ads that are larger/heavier than our standard ad units. It's a pretty standard business practice - you'll get x impressions of your ad unit, which can be no larger than y KB, etc.

    21. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most ad companies only have a limited number of ad campaigns they manage themselves.
      The major part is just a redirect to some other party. So if not all companies join such an integrated system, it is pretty hard to realize it.
      Some mobile websites use such systems but the reason for that is mainly that some older devices didn't support javascript or javascript based redirects.

      Technically your idea is possible but the online advertisement industry is just a big web of companies between you and the advertiser.
      You never know what will be shown from whom.

    22. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by mysidia · · Score: 1

      That gets complicated. If you're not serving the ads from your server you have to trust the people who run the website. All the fancy click counting will go away, which the advertisers will hate.

      The Ad networks will supply backend code; e.g. a compiled java bean; an IonCube encoded .PHP file, etc. To be included into the site to serve the ad and to process clicks.

      The magic fancy click counting will be stuffed into code supplied by the advertiser, and consist of a local script that ultimately packages up the data and ships it back to the ad network.

    23. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      To do that effectively means that the urls used for requesting adverts and providing tracking links need to be make in such a way that it's not reasonable* to match it as an advert without also blocking significant legitimate content.

      That doesn't fit too well with the current model of ad agencies who run their own servers to select the ads and track the clicks and want it to be as easy as possible for websites to drop the ads in. Sure they could provide scripts for the website owners to run on their own servers but it would make setup harder and click-fraud easier. Unless done carefully it can also increase the vulnerability to xss attacks (one way round this would be to put advert related images on the same hostname as user submitted images which you want to xss-isolate from your main site anyway)

      Is it possible? sure. Is is worth it? probablly not unless a lot more users start using ad blockers.

      * Like with captcha's the definition of reasonable depends a lot on the size of the site. Small sites just need to avoid using generic schemes that generic blockers know about. Larger sites have to assume an ad-blocker will be designed with specific rules targetting their site.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    24. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Because these days ads are not served from the same source as the content. They used to be in the past and likely will again in the future if this sort of thing catches on.

      Rather, ad's will be served by proxy from remote location so FlashingAd.png served from ad.doucheclick.net looks like it's kitten.png being served from cutekittys.com to the browser.

      Of course we'll find a way to block that too.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    25. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, they are normally from servers that have more bandwidth than mine, the advertisers pay that their adds are accessible and fast from anywhere, from one CDN or another.

    26. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Ask the game companies who used to do MMORPGs with validation and anti-cheating in the client how well that works.

    27. Re:Embed ads into directly into HTML by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Ask the game companies who used to do MMORPGs with validation and anti-cheating in the client how well that works.

      The difference between MMORPG cheating and content provider fraud; is the recourse against MMORPG cheaters is banning them from the game, which they can evade later by purchasing a new copy of the game.

      And the recourse against content provider cheaters is they lose their ad partnership, and possibly go to jail for fraud.

  3. Pixelserv on DD-WRT by Metabolife · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Too bad development on DD-WRT has stalled. No updates for my fairly popular router for two years now, not even security updates.

    2. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      I just installed a few weeks ago DD-WRT on my Buffalo ADSL-modem/router. The web GUI is quite buggy, but otherwise it's great, totally worth the time and effort. Buffalo's own firmware was totally, completely broken and even the web GUI was developed to work only with Internet Explorer :S Now it chugs along happily without nary a hickup, and I've even got uMurmurd (voice chat server) running on it 24/7 :)

      That said, yeah, it would be nice if DD-WRT's development picked up again. I would like to see the remaining bugs ironed out.

    3. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by jittles · · Score: 1

      I don't know which Buffalo router you have but the one I have was terrible with DD-WRT. I had to TFTP it back to the Buffalo customized DD-WRT because the community stuff had unreliable WiFi, reboot issues, and other problems. Turns out that the WiFi on the router is terrible, stopped working after 6 months and I ended up getting a more expensive router just to use for WiFi. I used to love Buffalo, and now the only thing I like about them is the ability to get the power of DD-WRT without having to go thru TFTP hassles.

    4. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      It wont. He is making money off of taking it commercial and is ignoring the public DD-WRT. Pick up OpenWRT, it's far more advanced now than DD-WRT

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by danomac · · Score: 2

      I would if they'd actually support my router.

      It's not new, it's been around for a while. ddwrt is the only version I found when I bought it years ago that would actually work on it.

    6. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by WRD-EasyTomato · · Score: 1

      Or even easier.... EasyTomato beta does this out of the box, no need to setup scripts. Just tick the box and ads are blocked network wide. http://www.easytomato.org/how-to-guides/block-online-ads-with-easytomato/

    7. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      My router isn't supported by OpenWRT.

    8. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      I don't know which Buffalo router you have but the one I have was terrible with DD-WRT. I had to TFTP it back to the Buffalo customized DD-WRT because the community stuff had unreliable WiFi, reboot issues, and other problems. Turns out that the WiFi on the router is terrible, stopped working after 6 months and I ended up getting a more expensive router just to use for WiFi. I used to love Buffalo, and now the only thing I like about them is the ability to get the power of DD-WRT without having to go thru TFTP hassles.

      There is no Buffalo-customized DD-WRT for my router, and Buffalo has never released a single firmware-update for it at all. The firmware it ships with reboots every now and then without a reason, sometimes crashes completely, WIFI wouldn't agree to work at anything higher than 802.11g no matter what I did, and as said, the GUI only worked with IE! DD-WRT, on the other hand, has been totally stable, WIFI 802.11n works fine, no crashes or reboots at all, and it seems to even be slightly faster, too. The only problem with DD-WRT is that the web-server that handles the GUI crashes sometimes, but since it doesn't crash anything else it's not really a problem.

      In the future I'll avoid Buffalo.

    9. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by jittles · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you have one of their older routers, or is one of the newer N capable routers? I had one of the old school G routers and it was wonderful for the longest time (with DD-WRT). I use a Buffalo router to handle my wired network and my network /firewall settings that most routers don't expose. Hopefully it will last a long time. Like I said, the WiFi on it is terrible.

    10. Re:Pixelserv on DD-WRT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mind you, "for free" is only correct if your time is worth nothing to you.

  4. I'll take... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...things that won't work for $1,000, Alex.

  5. blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I already have a 50 thousand+ line hosts file. It effectively does the same thing.
    Along with adblock, noscript, and flashblock.. I don't see anything i don't want.

    I don't see how people use the web without adblocking anymore.
    The few times i've tried to use a public machine lately it was so bad i gave up.

    so. many. crap. ads.

    1. Re:blocked already by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Why not just setup a proxy on one machine instead of bother to do this to every machine in your home? Or just do it on the router.

    2. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apk??

    3. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is apk?

    4. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's an Android app that takes any input text and randomly capitalizes and bolds fragments, inserts random punctuation, and then adds large lists of /. internal links to the end.

    5. Re:blocked already by davewoods · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I work for an IT contracting company, and my co-workers do not have Adblock of any type. They go around on the web, VIEWING ADS. I do not understand it, they know a lot about IT, yet do not sterilize their browsers? Who would do that willingly? One of them even uses IE, ON PURPOSE.

      I do not think I will ever understand their logic as to why they do not use Adblock, which, when questioned, results in a shrug.

    6. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The post was short and to the point for a potential use of a hosts file. It wasn't a pages long post that made only a single on-topic point while spending 90+% of the space acting like there is some anti-hosts file cabal, or rambling on about how much he's proved other posters wrong (who are actually all a single, prolific troll), or talking about how his handful of on topic posts got rated up or how his neighbors like him should be proof there is no reason he should be modded down. Plus he didn't sign his name several times.

    7. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Copying a single text file across networked computers is hard?
      Never seen a router with a blacklist that will hold 50k entries. Most consumer stuff will only get you a few hundred.
      A proxy is a good solution. But less than ideal to add new machines to. Copying a single text file is the easiest it gets.

      And that hosts file is older than any of the current hardware i own by at least 10 years. It evolved to meet the need.

    8. Re:blocked already by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Harder than doing nothing, yes.
      I can't imagine a real router having trouble with that. A proxy is easier in that you don't have to copy the file over and over to each machine as it updates.

    9. Re:blocked already by bws111 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. They understand that the web sites and services they want need money to operate, and that money comes from ads. When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist. You know why newwpapers are dying - because they are losing their major source of revenue, ads. The same thing will happen with the web. How long do you think Google, for instance, would last without advertising revenue?

      2. They don't have a pathological fear of ads

      3. They may find some ads actually useful

    10. Re:blocked already by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Privoxy runs on OpenWRT and does everything you need.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:blocked already by davewoods · · Score: 2

      I know these guys, and none of those are a part of their reasoning. As far as my implied "Pathological fear" of ads, I have none. I simply dislike clutter, and I really hate having to watch an ad before I can watch a video on Youtube.

      In a similar vein, on sites I visit the most I use Adblock Element hider to get rid of extra unwanted elements that are meaningless to me. For example, share buttons. I will never share content except maybe on Youtube, thus if I commonly use a website, I will hide the "Sharing pane". It is pointless for me, so I would rather have extra reading space, than have something else drawing my attention away from the main purpose of the site.

      And if you are really worried about your point #1, the vast majority of web browsing I do is spent on Google-owned websites, and Slashdot. Google does not need the revenue generated by my adviews, and I contribute often enough on Slashdot that I am "Eligible to disable ads". So I am not worried about preventing the sites I visit from much-needed ad revenue.

    12. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the ads were just sitting there it would be fine. But they don't, annoying video ads play, pop ups intrude on what you're doing, they slow the internet experience to a crawl, and worst of all, most ads are tracking you.

      If you want to put some ads on your website that's fine, but if you want to use the google model and serve me 50 ads on one page from 30 different servers, then you don't deserve to make any money off your website.

      And please don't give me that tired "personalized internet experience" garbage. If I'm on a website for model trains, post an ad for model trains, you don't need to track me to figure out I have a train set city in the basement and no life.

    13. Re:blocked already by pla · · Score: 2

      When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist.

      The free web predates the commercial web.


      You know why newwpapers are dying

      Because dead trees have no relevance to the modern world, and what little non-local coverage most of them carry, they buy from a syndication service anyway?


      How long do you think Google, for instance, would last without advertising revenue?

      Google predates ad-sponsored Google.


      They don't have a pathological fear of ads

      "Loathing" does not equal "Fear", even if both can happen concurrently while having a bad trip in Las Vegas.


      They may find some ads actually useful

      Okay, now I know you either count as a troll or work as a PR weenie. Useful ads... Heh... Excuse me, I need to go clean the spewed soda out out of me keyboard now. :)

    14. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree 100%

      Adds are mildly annoying, and sometimes very welcome if they are for things you are interested in.

      Lack of interesting web sites because they have lost revenue from adds is very annoying.

      Clever idea, but a bad one.

    15. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regarding (1) - Not my fucking problem. They've literally had over a DECADE to not be retardedly obnonxious with ads. They COULD have made ads more reasonable, not noisy, and not flashy. I'm looking at you Slashdot... those retarded animated ads that I swear must be 10 meg files given how badly they slow down the site at work. Makes me unbelievably glad I can block the ads at home, fuck your 'ad revenue', if you want ad revenue, don't have shaking, moving, bright-coloured pictures all over the goddamn place.

      But all of that is irrelevant. Advertisers had their chance. Hell, they've had thousands of chances. A decade of chances. Far more than any other medium on earth has ever had to try to fit in. But you just kept on spitting in our faces, so fuck you all. I don't give even the slightest of two shits if a site shuts down due to lack of ad revenue. If your entire business model is based on ads, then you deserve nothing less than elimination.

      The internet existed before ads, and it's still capable of existing without them. Some content creators, such as myself, make content because they want to, not because it's a paycheque. I refuse to host ads on my site, or post ads for my site anywhere else. I pay my domain and server costs myself, and continue the site because I enjoy it. Others will do the same. The internet will not vanish.

      So ad companies can go screw themselves, because they're not seeing one thin dime from me. In fact... whenever I see an ad that actually interests me, I actively avoid clicking on it, and instead just searching for the product manually, PURELY to deny ad revenue to the site.

    16. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am running a caching proxy on my router. From my experience there are may be 1-2% of the (misconfigured ?) website out there that won't connect if you are on a proxy and certain popular "file lockers" won't let you download as they think you are cheating with your own IP.

    17. Re:blocked already by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      I generally only block ads that are incredible intrusive (in which case I probably stop visiting that site), or from sources that push dishonest bullshit adverts, like: the "[insert name of nearest city] mom is hated by aerospace engineers for discovering a [Insert local currency] tip for decreasing the fuel requirements of a rocket capable of achieving escape velocity".

      Aside from that, adverts don't bother me. Some are interesting, and sites have to pay the bills.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    18. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes and of course Slashdot never links to other sites that would benefit from you seeing their ads.

      Face it, you are just an anti-ad elitist. I will admit that I hate the invasion of privacy some ad delivery methods represent, but to dismiss the entire advertising industry is wrong unless you want to go back to a model of paid news and information.

    19. Re:blocked already by VortexCortex · · Score: 1
      For instance:

      Disable Advertising [ ]
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable advertising.

      Note: That box is unchecked... I'm willing to allow slashdot to extract whatever meager ad revenue they can from my presence, in exchange for them allowing me to consume their bandwidth & storage space with my positive and negative contributions.

    20. Re:blocked already by Hatta · · Score: 2

      When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist

      Nonsense. When ads no longer pay the bills, people will pay for the services they find useful directly. If they don't, and the service goes away, it must not have been that useful.

      This will actually be cheaper than ad funding, because ad funding has to make people buy things they wouldn't, and the ad accounts for a very small proportion of those purchases. Suppose I see an ad on slashdot, buy a widget I don't really need for $100, and $1 comes back to slashdot. Wouldn't I be better off economically if I had just paid $10 to slashdot directly and avoided the ad?

      Ad funded websites are not free by any stretch of the imagination.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    21. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Squid on a pfsense box. Configurable with a GUI, minimal troubleshooting, optional whitelisting, passthrough, etc. I have a few machines now blocked entirely from the Web on my home LAN. They have to go through the proxy. This works well, netflix gave me issues though as it is co-located on a bizillion domains.

    22. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has ads? I have yet to see one, other than the summaries that are themselves advertisements.

    23. Re:blocked already by davewoods · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The number of times I read the article are astoundingly slim. I mean, this is Slashdot, after all.

      but to dismiss the entire advertising industry is wrong

      I dismissed the entire ad industry as soon as I got background popup videos that were playing sound, and an ad somewhere near the bottom of a long page that was also playing sound at the same time. At that point, it just became a battle of who could make me hate the internet more, so I decided to surrender and make a blanket statement of "I never want to see another ad again, lest I destroy my computer out of sheer rage".

      It is not my fault that sound-based advertisements ruined the entire game for everyone.

    24. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is NOT insightful, it's the same old drivel. Ads are simple, easy, manipulative and usually obnoxious but not necessary.

      Sites with value don't 'need' advertizing revenue, but their operator's want as much as they can get, just the same. Wall Street Urinal and the New Yorker are subscription only and have been for some time. They do just fine because they provide real value to their customers. Value that people are willing to pay for up front.

      Sites that can't make it without ad revenue should take the big dump.

    25. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anti-ad elitist

      That's rich. So I assume you actually click on ads and buy the things they're marketing, right? Because if you don't do that then the advertising budgets will shrink and sites will stop being paid to host ads and we'll all go back to those horrible times when news and information weren't free and cluttered with tacky ads.

    26. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has ads? Wow, never knew that. My ad blocking hosts file must be doing it's job.

    27. Re:blocked already by citylivin · · Score: 1

      Advertising causes mental problems. Advertising is evil and must be stopped. Would you like it if while walking down the street, every 10 feet or so someone spit in your face?

      I dont give a cows lick if people that rely on spitting in my face for their revenue have to find another business model. All free content will never dissapear. Perhaps you remember the mid 90s? I can assure you that the internet before advertising did exist.

      Advertising causes need, therapy, therapy, advertising causes need. Every minute, every second, buy, buy, buy, buy, buy.

      --
      As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
    28. Re:blocked already by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you're not naive enough to beleive that money saved by not advertising would be reflected in lower costs to the consumer. Any money saved by not advertising would go directly to profit, not in savings to you. So in addition to paying the SAME price for goods as you already do, you would also be paying to support previously ad-supported websites. That is a net economic loss to you, not a gain.

      So I stand by my statement: current free services would no longer exist. If you are 'directly paying' for something it can not possibly be considered free, no matter how you try to twist words around.

    29. Re:blocked already by davewoods · · Score: 1

      I have no idea if it does or not, I have them blocked either way.

    30. Re:blocked already by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Another idiot AC (surprise, surprise) who can not read. I did not say sites need ADVERTISING revenue, I said they need revenue. Today, for many, many sites, that revenue comes in the form of advertising. Does it have to be that way? No, of course not. People can directly pay for access to services. At which point they are NO LONGER FREE. Which is exactly what I said.

    31. Re:blocked already by dev.null.matt · · Score: 1

      You forgot to work the phrase "one weird old trick" into your example, or is that a trademarked phrase or something? Interestingly, that advertiser is (apparently) in hot water with the FTC http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-22/news/ct-met-online-ad-crackdown-20120322_1_ftc-cracks-news-sites-acai-berries.

    32. Re:blocked already by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you're not naive enough to beleive that money saved by not advertising would be reflected in lower costs to the consumer

      Of course not. I'm talking about the money saved by the consumer who makes fewer purchases when not manipulated by advertising.

      So I stand by my statement: current free services would no longer exist. If you are 'directly paying' for something it can not possibly be considered free, no matter how you try to twist words around.

      Current services are only free to that subset of users who is not manipulated into making excessive purchases by advertising. They're not free, the costs are hidden and unevenly distributed. The people who buy the ads have to make a profit, so that's a large chunk of money that's not going to improving content on the web. Eliminate the advertising and that money can go directly towards content. This is clearly a more efficient allocation of funds.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    33. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may find some ads actually useful

      Okay, now I know you either count as a troll or work as a PR weenie.

      Says the guy who probably jizzed his pants the first time he saw an ad for Black Ops 2.

    34. Re:blocked already by bws111 · · Score: 2

      Try reading and understanding what someone said before firing off an idiotic response.

      The free web predates the commercial web.
      Yep, didn't say otherwise. What I said was a particular web site/service that a particular user wants to use, and which is currently ad-supported, will no longer exist for free if advertising can't pay the bills. The fact that other, different, free sites and services may exist does not change that fact. The fact that road-kill skunks are freely available does not negate people's desire for a nice juicy steak.

      Because dead trees have no relevance to the modern world, and what little non-local coverage most of them carry, they buy from a syndication service anyway?
      And how are the syndication services going to exist when there is no-one to buy their services?

      Google predates ad-sponsored Google.
      Not as a viable long-term entity it didn't. Google only existed ad-free (and losing money) long enough to build market share so the could convince advertisers that is was worth their money to advertise there. P&G also give away free samples of detergent, but that does not mean that just giving away free detergent is a viable long-term strategy.

      You are truly an idiot if you think there is no such thing as a useful ad. Either that, or you have no clue what advertising actually is.

    35. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Im an anti-ad sociopath... I believe all marketers, advertisers, spammers, and other assorted scumbags like that...

      Should be ground up for biofuel. THEN you would be adding something positive to the world.

      Because you sure as fuck don't right now.

      You are scum. You have somehow convinced yourself you are not... but the fact still remains. You are scum. You contribute nothing positive to the world

      You will now get even more defensive about this. because you know deep down it's true. you are walking talking human shit the world could do just fine without.

      And for all those sites who NEED ads.... so... you only do what you do because of money? the world won't miss you. if what you do is important and anyone gives a fuck about it. Someone will step up and do it for free. Just like bbses, just like the early days of the net before you marketing scumbags found it. Just like everything else in the history of the world that marketing and advertising have turned to shit.

      ----
      Quality, value, style, service, selection, convenience
      Economy, savings, performance, experience, hospitality
      Low rates, friendly service, name brands, easy terms
      Affordable prices, money-back guarantee.

      Free installation, free admission, free appraisal, free alterations,
      Free delivery, free estimates, free home trial, and free parking.

      No cash? No problem! No kidding! No fuss, no muss,
      No risk, no obligation, no red tape, no down payment,
      No entry fee, no hidden charges, no purchase necessary,
      No one will call on you, no payments or interest till September.

      Limited time only, though, so act now, order today, send no money,
      Offer good while supplies last, two to a customer, each item sold separately,
      Batteries not included, mileage may vary, all sales are final,
      Allow six weeks for delivery, some items not available,
      Some assembly required, some restrictions may apply.

      So come on in for a free demonstration and a free consultation
      with our friendly, professional staff. Our experienced and
      knowledgeable sales representatives will help you make a
      selection that's just right for you and just right for your budget.

      And say, don't forget to pick up your free gift: a classic deluxe
      custom designer luxury prestige high-quality premium select
      gourmet pocket pencil sharpener. Yours for the asking,
      no purchase necessary. It's our way of saying thank you.

      And if you act now, we'll include an extra added free complimentary
      bonus gift at no cost to you: a classic deluxe custom designer
      luxury prestige high-quality premium select gourmet combination
      key ring, magnifying glass, and garden hose, in a genuine
      imitation leather-style carrying case with authentic vinyl trim.
      Yours for the asking, no purchase necessary. It's our way of
      saying thank you.

      Actually, it's our way of saying 'Bend over just a little farther
      so we can stick this big advertising dick up your ass a little bit
      deeper, a little bit deeper, a little bit DEEPER, you miserable
      no-good dumbass fucking consumer!'
      --- george carlin---

      He knew what you are too.
      Advertisers and marketers ARE shit. Your entire life is LYING to people. You are scum. And everything you touch turns to shit.

    36. Re:blocked already by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      ... and when web sites require membership, the newspaper industry will bounce back. The public is not obligated to support anyone's business model.

      This isn't "oh no, you're going to kill the Internet", this is about both sides having some level of power and letting the web mature to a point where everyone is happy. That won't happen if consumers don't voice their opinion. There's no social contract here, just a bunch of people that discovered that they can make money by putting ad supported content on the web. When that becomes a poor way to make money, some will do something else and some will become really good at getting ads through the filters. The world will move on.

    37. Re:blocked already by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Current services are only free to that subset of users who is not manipulated into making excessive purchases by advertising.

      Well, if your entire premise is that advertising is only effective if it 'manipulates people into making excessive purchases', then I understand where you are coming from. Of course, I think that is an extremely faulty premise. Advertising does not have to make people make excessive purchases to be effective, it only has to persuade someone to choose their product instead of a competitor's. An ad that makes me think 'lets go to xyz for dinner tonight' is not making me make an excessive purchase, because I was going to buy dinner anyway, but is an effective ad nevertheless. And if I go to xyz and find I really like it and make it a regular stop then it was a very effective ad.

      I would venture that far more excessive purchases are caused by peer pressure and direct interaction with people then happen because of ads on web pages.

    38. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either that, or you have no clue what advertising actually is.

      3/10, made me stop...

    39. Re:blocked already by EdIII · · Score: 1

      1. They understand that the web sites and services they want need money to operate, and that money comes from ads. When ads no longer pay the bills (because everyone uses some method to avoid them) those 'free' services will no longer exist. You know why newwpapers are dying - because they are losing their major source of revenue, ads. The same thing will happen with the web. How long do you think Google, for instance, would last without advertising revenue?

      So? Business models need to adapt. 99% of people don't want ads. That 1% is represented by people who have a vested interest in the ads (some sort of participation in the revenue stream), or some sort of interest of them, which is difficult to explain.

      It is inarguable that 9/10 people on the street would choose an advertisement free platform, over an advertisement filled platform. You *might* save 1 or 2 people out of that group by promising actual rewards. Those being revenue sharing, enticing membership bonuses of some kind, etc. Don't underestimate just how hard you would need to work to get those people on board.

      You want to spread FUD about an advertisement free Internet with your implied prophecies of doom. It's a vapid argument wholly based on fear.

      2. They don't have a pathological fear of ads

      I love this. Pathological is the word you went with here huh? So I am exhibiting an inappropriate adjustment, possibly derived from mental disorders, by taking control of my web browser and removing objectionable content I don't want to see?

      It's telling that you use the word fear, when just before that, you use fear to compel people to allow advertisements.

      I don't fear advertisements. Although, I do see them as a security risk. Websites don't often vet every single advertisement, and the code that runs them. 3rd party advertisement networks are a vector for malware, and do represent a concern for security at the very least.

      3. They may find some ads actually useful

      Desperation is a stinky cologne.

      So you went with aggressive FUD to start with, and the very end softened it with, "Yeah, most of them suck. However, just one, may be of interest to you out of the thousands, and that makes it useful and worth the hassle of all the rest".

    40. Re:blocked already by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Advertising does not have to make people make excessive purchases to be effective, it only has to persuade someone to choose their product instead of a competitor's.

      If it's the right product for me, I would have purchased it after researching non-biased sources. In that case the advertisment serves no purpose at all. So advertising can only be effective in getting me to purchase inferior products, either more expensive or lower quality. This is still a cost to the users of a website.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    41. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's the right product for me, I would have purchased it after researching non-biased sources.

      You purchase products every single day without exhaustively researching them first, and you're lying if you claim otherwise. So there is absolutely a purpose in advertising to you, and not a single day goes by in which you do not personally cause that advertising to bear fruit.

    42. Re:blocked already by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Nobody made the claim that most people want ads. Nice strawman.

      What I said (and apparently alot of people can't grasp) is that IF people want stuff FOR FREE, then ads are a part of that equation.

      So instead of asking if people would chose an advertisement free platform (what a stupid question), ask them the REAL questsion.

      You are currently visiting website xyz, which is provided for free, supported by ads. Which of these options is true:
      a) I prefer xyz to remain free, even if it means advertising is displayed
      b) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, and would pay to access the website
      c) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, but would not visit the site if I had to pay

      You don't seriously beleive 9/10 people would chose options b or c, do you?

    43. Re:blocked already by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You're right, I don't exhaustively research my purchases. But I will make better decisions in the absence of information than I will in the presence of biased information. So my point that advertising imposes a cost on users still stands.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    44. Re:blocked already by bws111 · · Score: 1

      This is getting stupider and stupider. You make BETTER decisions in the absense of information? How the hell do you know that? And where, exactly, are you getting your 'unbiased' information? There is no such thing. How do you even know what products are available if you are totally immune to advertising? And don't say 'from other people', because THEY had to find out about the product from somewhere.

      Yes, making any sort of major purchase based solely on advertising is stupid. No, going to a restaurant for dinner based on advertising is not stupid. And in either case, advertising at least serves as a trigger for you to know where to start your 'research'.

    45. Re:blocked already by Hatta · · Score: 1

      You make BETTER decisions in the absense of information? How the hell do you know that?

      Yes, that's what biased information sources do. Biased information is of negative utility. It makes you more likely to choose the wrong option. This is by definition, if it were unbiased it would make you more likely to choose the correct option.

      How do you even know what products are available if you are totally immune to advertising?

      Where did I say I was immune to advertising? I mean first you thought I was talking about vendors lowering prices when they don't have to pay for advertising instead of saving money by not purchasing anything in the first place, and now you think I said I was immune to advertising? And you think I'm stupid? Try reading and comprehending.

      This is all besides the point anyway, how and whether ads work is irrelevant. Just look at the overall economics of the situation. The money coming from the ad ultimately comes from the users of the site. But those funds have had a big chunk of profit removed. Direct the same amount of money directly towards the website without that profit being removed and the site gets more money per user. Simple math.

      This situation is better for everyone, except the purchaser of the ad. But we don't care about him anyway. The best case scenario is that he's encouraging you to spend money with him, instead of a competitor. That's a zero sum game. Either the ad buyer loses, or the competitor loses, there's no reason we should care which happens.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    46. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Advertising causes mental problems.

      You want this to be true, but it isn't, and you know it.

    47. Re:blocked already by bws111 · · Score: 1

      I guess it all depends on what you value. For me, I find the ability to go to MSNBC, FOXNEWS, and CNN without paying any one of them very appealing. If seeing ads is the price of that, then so be it. But I sure as hell would not buy any kind of subscription to either one, much less all three. Similarly, I like being able to read all the articles that slashdot summarizes. But would I PAY to be able to access all those articles? No way. Ad-supported web sites are giving me access to a MUCH wider array of information (including all those sites were you can get supposedly unbiased information) than I would otherwise be able (or willing) to afford. It costs me nothing at all to click on some article, even if just to see if it is spouting as much bullshit as claimed. Would I PAY for the opportunity to do that? No.

    48. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice ass-kicking you delivered to that moron. Thanks :-).

    49. Re:blocked already by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I would love to be able to go to MSNBC, Fox, or CNN and get news for free. But what I actually get is propaganda. The quality of reporting is better all around on donation funded media like NPR or Democracy Now! If ads disappeared from the web, I'd expect donation funded sites to pop up that far exceed the quality of ad funded websites for a lower total cost. This is a good thing, even if it personally costs you more.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    50. Re:blocked already by Hatta · · Score: 1

      To summarize, it seems like your argument boils down to you preferring the current inefficient system--that produces worse content at a higher cost--because it allows you to freeload. I can see how you'd prefer that, but I don't see how you can argue that it's actually a better system overall.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    51. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how some people equate ad blocking to stealing. When I was a fundamentalist, I never felt guilty about it because it's not a sin. Can't imagine God or any deity getting angry for blocking ads.

    52. Re:blocked already by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Google does not need the revenue generated by my adviews

      i like your thinking. you know what? apple doesn't "need" the revenue from my ipad purchase either. have you seen their profits? that's why i stole 30 of them from the back of a truck the other day.

      rationalizing is fun.

    53. Re:blocked already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too long; watched it on YouTube

    54. Re:blocked already by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Nobody made the claim that most people want ads. Nice strawman.

      Nevertheless, it is quite relevant to the discussion at hand. If we are to talk about advertisements, and people choosing to remove them for whatever reason, than it is not irrelevant to bring up the statistics, or claims of statistics.

      Look up the definition for a strawman argument - "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man")"

      Nowhere have I replaced your argument, and at all times, I refuted your arguments one-by-one.

      What I said (and apparently alot of people can't grasp) is that IF people want stuff FOR FREE, then ads are a part of that equation.

      Not necessarily. The revenue must come from someplace else, and there are other options. I never actually disagreed with this statement, it just happens to be irrelevant because it fails to address human behavior.

      One of your arguments is that a possible explanation for the people viewing ads is a gestalt understanding of the entire process which leads them to engage in a behavior they don't find desirable, but do find necessary.

      Your other argument is that they actually like advertisements, and are willing to sift through two tons of shit to find a pearl. We both know that is highly unusual, certainly represents less than 5% of all people.

      So instead of asking if people would chose an advertisement free platform (what a stupid question), ask them the REAL questsion.

      It's hardly a stupid question, as it gets right to the heart of the matter in the most direct way. The vast majority of people don't want advertisements .

      If this was an untrue statement, you would not see legislation and lawsuits attempting to prevent the use of technologies to skip advertisements. There has even been legislation, discussed on the floor of Congress, to make skipping the trailers on DVDs illegal. Why work that hard to prevent something that most people are not doing?

      Since it is clearly true, then to have any reasonable discussion about advertisements you must consider this fact.

      You are currently visiting website xyz, which is provided for free, supported by ads. Which of these options is true:
      a) I prefer xyz to remain free, even if it means advertising is displayed
      b) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, and would pay to access the website
      c) I prefer xyz to remove advertising, but would not visit the site if I had to pay

      You don't seriously beleive 9/10 people would chose options b or c, do you?

      I seriously believe that most people would choose option C. You asked if they would prefer it.

      Perhaps better questions would be, which don't really need to be asked, are:

      If xyz were to become a pay site, would you still visit it?
      if you were paying for xyz, and they still showed ads, would you continue to pay?
      In the absence of all other choices, would you continue to put up with advertisements in order to enjoy the site?
      If you would put up with advertisements, would you consent to technologies being used to make sure you were not bypassing them? What if these technologies were invasive and were detrimental to your privacy?

      Where you went nuts, and became quite irrational and unreasonable was in two statements:

      1) It is exhibiting pathological behavior to be against advertisements and use tools to remove them - Clearly bullshit.
      2) Some people find ads useful, and said in such a way as to imply they don't have a vested financial interest in them.

      You can scream all you want. It is stupid to continually fight human behavior. People don't want ads, and when presented with choices, will choose an ad-free experience. This will occur even if it is a Tragedy of the Commons.

      The same goes for piracy, and the War on Drugs.

      Instead of fighting it, which is impossible, it is far better to adapt to it.

  6. SSL ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when the ads are sent encrypted?

    1. Re:SSL ads? by h4rr4r · · Score: 2

      Why would that matter? Do you really think it is inspecting the packets to do this?

      I am betting it is just dropping traffic from known advertising domains.

    2. Re:SSL ads? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Presumably even encrypted communication has to come from a url, which is how most adblockers identify ads.

    3. Re:SSL ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something that sits in line cannot look at the URL requested from a server - that information is inside the SSL payload. It can only look at source and destination IP addresses, unless it acts as a proxy that intercepts all SSL and decrypts it on the box. That would also mean it could look at your online banking session. So either you trust it with ALL your encrypted traffic, or it cannot intercept ads that are served encrypted. It could improve on only dealing with source and destination IP addresses by also snooping DNS traffic and correlating recent queries for known ad network domain names and their answers to later encrypted traffic, but this could still cause problems - what if an IP hosts both a domain for an ad network as well as legitimate content?

    4. Re:SSL ads? by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      Nope, there's still host resolution step. Device sits between you and DNS.

    5. Re:SSL ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Nope, there's still host resolution step. Device sits between you and DNS.

      Right. Hence this portion of my post:

      > It could improve on only dealing with source and destination IP addresses by also snooping DNS traffic and correlating recent queries for known ad network domain names and their answers to later encrypted traffic, but this could still cause problems - what if an IP hosts both a domain for an ad network as well as legitimate content?

    6. Re:SSL ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Even without adblock, if you just have your DNS point 20-30 of the largest advertising domains at local web server, most ads disappear. And page-load times drop noticably, with no more "Waiting on servedby.com..."

    7. Re:SSL ads? by NewWorldDan · · Score: 1

      The IP isn't the issue, it's the domain name. I use a hosts file to do my ad blocking (works great). If the domain name for the ads and the content is the same, you're out of luck, but nothing is ever 100% effective anyway.

      The real problem is that all we're doing now is getting into an arms race. Without ads, we've got to pay for content. Alternatively, ads will go back to being embedded in websites instead of comming from an outside source. In which case, we'll see more latency in loading web pages.

      I don't object to ads. I object to ads that take over my screen and attempt to infect my computer with malware. Quite simply, the ad netowrks can not be trusted right now. Honestly, I don't see that changing anytime in the forseeable future. This is why we can't have nice things.

    8. Re:SSL ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so trivial to handle there's no words.

      1) Block by domain/subdomain/hostname entirely.
      1.5) Block via DNS RBL
      2) Block via remote injected and loaded javascript that inspects, modifies, and removes elements from DOM itself.
      3) Block via content filtering proxy
      4) Block via on-the-wire-decryption of SSL.

      (Yes, it's really possible. Yes, it's really freaking trivial on any computer you have access too).

      If you don't know how to do this on a network you own, you aren't competent to admin the network.

  7. no by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If they hardwired the blocking in to it the ad sites could simply play a name game and get away with serving adds so it is obviously software just on another box, second this won't stop ads that are encrypted traveling over ssl if embeded in the site correctly. It is more convenient for me to block ads at my own device using no script and adblock plus, as for my mobile devices I could simply blacklist IP addresses and domains at my own router and do everything this box claims to do already. Fail fail and more fail. All this will do is give people a false since of security.

    --
    ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    1. Re:no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Even if the ads are encrypted, if the IP of the ad server is blocked, the ads are not getting across.

      My concern about a device like this is that it ups the arms race. Right now, I use Adblock, NoScript, and Ghostery on FF, and "click to play" and Adblock on Chrome without issues. With devices like this, websites will start denying content, similar to an old EQ2 wiki site where I had to use greasemonkey to get around the JavaScript.

      Ads are less of a concern for me. The fact that ad servers are a very large source for malware is.

      What I don't get is the difference between this device and a transparant proxy. Perhaps it might be good to have the device add a squid cache so it not just blocks IP addresses, but generally speeds up browsing.

      From the TFA, I'm guessing this is a BlueCoat-lite device.

    2. You can do all that. 250 million non tech sophisticateds can't.

      I could write my own browser if I wanted to. You're missng the point.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    3. Re:no by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "as for my mobile devices I could simply blacklist IP addresses and domains at my own router and do everything this box claims to do already"

      Now pull yourself out of the Slashdot groupthink and pretend you don't know the difference between a router and a modem (and don't care). This is a box you plug in and it gets rid of a lot of ads. No need to install stuff on every computer, no need to fiddle with black-thingies and I-pee addresses (these Internet people think of such such stupid names).

  8. Next Two Steps: by X!0mbarg · · Score: 2

    First, someone is going to Sue them for some asinine reason, based on loss of revenue, or some such nonsense.

    Second, Product Placement will become the advertisement of choice, since it's a lot more difficult to remove or block. On websites, it'll be background wallpaper, or in the motif. You want placement? Better pay what it's worth to a site, series or production!

    After all, the Ad companies, "need" to bombard us with their dreck, or we won't feel the need to rush out and buy it.

    You know, like Cigarettes.

    Oh, wait. Those ads were all banned ages ago, and Look at how that worked.

    Just sayin'

    1. Re:Next Two Steps: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, someone is going to Sue them for some asinine reason, based on loss of revenue, or some such nonsense.

      I'll send horribly overpriced bills for using my network/memory/processing/electricity resources to the advertisers.

      After all... they'd have to pay for billboards too, so why should they get my screen space for free ?

    2. Re:Next Two Steps: by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Product Placement will become the advertisement of choice, since it's a lot more difficult to remove or block.

      Yep. But if you'll be able to donate whatever you like to remove the ads. For sites that are built around a product I'm selling, you won't ever see ads. Hosting isn't that expensive unless you're dumb. Even multi-gig software updates cost me nothing thanks to decentralized distribution and public key encryption / signing.

      Protip: People are Decentralized. The Internet is Decentralized. Decentralized services are the future (for my products anyway). OOH! The Internet can survive nuclear attacks and route around censorship of the highest degrees! Let's make a CENTRALIZED content delivery system so we have to worry about HUGE scaling issues, DATA SILO privacy & control issues, and single points of failure instead of utilizing the distributed nature of the web itself!

      We gave you an amazingly resilient Internet, and you made the fucking web centralized. Brilliant.

    3. Re:Next Two Steps: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very interesting. I thought hosting wasn't cheap enough to warrant being ad-free. Guess it really is all about easy money.

    4. Re:Next Two Steps: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cigarettes have peer pressure built into the users, and addiction built into the product, so yours is a false equivalency.

    5. Re:Next Two Steps: by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I'm wondering when, or perhaps if we've reached that tipping point where the ONLY thing we produce is advertising...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  9. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if it'll remove thinly-veiled Apple ads from Slashdot summaries.

  10. my ISP allready has that! by fredan · · Score: 1

    it is called:

    Block sites directly via their DNS server which gives back a NXDOMAIN for where it is propitiate.

    Easy solution this f*ck advertise problem.

    1. Re:my ISP allready has that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who is your ISP? I'm surprised this hasn't garnered some scorn.

    2. Re:my ISP allready has that! by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      You're lucky. I can't even use my ISPs DNS servers anymore, since they won't even return NXDOMAIN for domains that actually DON'T EXIST.

    3. Re:my ISP allready has that! by fredan · · Score: 1

      my own, http://fredan.se/. I made this solution myself. And it is out there, somewhere....

  11. Ads aren't really the problem any longer by edawstwin · · Score: 2

    For me, the ads aren't really the problem on webpages any longer. It's the awful cluttered formatting. Every article I read lately has several breaks in the text for unrelated videos or headlines for other articles, and 1/4 to 1/3 of the right side of the page is just a mess of other crap I'm not interested in. Plus, multi-page articles that are only six or eight paragraphs to begin with, just to get more page impressions. That is a sure way to get me to never visit your site again. I'd really like a browser that just gives me the text that I want to read - I'll even take an old-school banner ad at the top if it gets rid of all of the other crap.

    --
    I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it by not dying. - Woody Allen
    1. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by PIBM · · Score: 0

      Lynx ?

    2. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1

      Here's another vote for Lynx. It makes sites like Linuxtoday actually readable. Safari's Reader Mode does a good job of not presenting all the sidebar stuff, too. I find it very useful.

      Seriously, if we stop looking at ads, will Western Civilization's already precarious economy suddenly implode and combust? Because if so, ... that would be cool.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    3. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      Those side banners and having to resize every singly page are largely why I paid $3-$5 for a manga reader on my phone (that basically strips the images from the host sites). I no longer have any ads to deal with while getting my manga fix.

    4. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by wjousts · · Score: 2

      I do wonder about how badly it will screw up the layout of a website to pull whole chunks of it out. At work, our corporate overlords block Facebook, but I often find that without Facebook, the space that it should have been place it grows to accommodate the scolding message from our IT department about how Facebook is blocked, covering part of the content of the damn page! I even added Facebook to my hosts file, but now I just have a giant 404 iframe that again covers part of the content.

      The Huffington Post, in particular, is REALLY bad for this. I actually have to start up Firebug and delete the offending iframe so I can actually read some of the stories.

    5. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by Pope · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm sure you hand-carved this post on an ethically-harvested piece of wood and hand-delivered it to the local Slashdot office.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    6. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by Hatta · · Score: 1

      For me, the ads aren't really the problem on webpages any longer.

      Ads aren't the problem for me either. I use Adblock Plus and NoScript.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    7. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Try the RequestPolicy add on for firefox. It gives you find grained control over cross-site content embedding and it doesn't replace the blocked content with an ugly error message - just a small icon of a flag in the case of a blocked image, if you tell it to.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the worst part. The pages of the internet today rarely if ever cover the entire screen. At 1680x1050, roughly half (usually more) of the width is left unused. It's like the fact that you can use percentage sizes in websites has become forgotten.

    9. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just download the extension 'Clearly' for Firefox/Chrome.

    10. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I tried it, but it didn't really seem to work for me. By default it chews up webpages. Even as I systematically re-enabled each request, it still never got back to being readable.

    11. Re:Ads aren't really the problem any longer by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I agree that ads aren't the problem, but also don't think it's formatting. It's rather simple for me: everyone runs off of an ad network. That means every ad I let through amounts to somebody, somewhere profiling my browsing habits.

      Return to the days of ads that are hosted with the content provider, that don't run javascript and don't run flash - and I'll return to allowing them in my browser.

  12. I am opposed to this. by Chardansearavitriol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem isnt advertising. The problem is F***ing obnoxious advertising! FLASHFLASHFLASH HEY THING ITS HEY THING! Or, adservers that lag and wont let the site load. And when they do load, see above. So many flash adds that they crash a browser, or make it unworkable. obnoxious, grating, irritating ads. Id happily unblock adds..Its just when I do, I get ALL THAT again. No matter how long its been. Its like its 2000 still.

    1. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the security issues of Flash.

      This is why I tell people to either use the "click to activate" feature in Chrome or grab the FlashBlock addon for FF. That way, the useful Flash content can be played or at least whitelisted, while the dubious stuff fresh off an ad-serving site does not have to be shown.

      Sort of ironic that I've never had malware issues just because add-ons are blocked unless explicitly clicked on, while a VM I have that allows anything will get infected just accessing normal websites.

    2. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you only visit porn sites? Or you're a major drama queen/cry baby. Stop taking money out of everyone pockets you free loader. It costs sites money to let you use them. And guess what! not everyone is google or facebook. The majority of sites cost more to run then they make.

    3. Re:I am opposed to this. by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Informative

      The problem isnt advertising. The problem is F***ing obnoxious advertising! FLASHFLASHFLASH HEY THING ITS HEY THING!
      Or, adservers that lag and wont let the site load. And when they do load, see above. So many flash adds that they crash a browser, or make it unworkable. obnoxious, grating, irritating ads.

      Id happily unblock adds..Its just when I do, I get ALL THAT again. No matter how long its been. Its like its 2000 still.

      Most content managers will counter with "well if you want free content you can come and get it" but at this point people (consumers and content providers) should be able to figure out what it is that readers really want, instead of taking anything that MIGHT generate a stream of eyeballs and ad the crap out of it (and instead of users following links to read the same information over and over). Here is a hint: taking a news article that you swiped from somewhere else (or worse, poorly re-authored with no thought and no English skill) and putting a timed popup ad that smacks me after about 15 seconds is a really good way to make sure I never pay attention to anything from your site ever again.

    4. Re:I am opposed to this. by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Funny

      adservers that lag and wont let the site load. And when they do load, see above. So many flash adds that they crash a browser, or make it unworkable. obnoxious, grating, irritating ads.

      Come now, let's not bash Slashdot too badly.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    5. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you ever consider that the sites you are visiting benefit from those ads? Don't want ads? Start paying for content.

    6. Re:I am opposed to this. by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      The advertisers know if they keep up the flashy stuff it becomes the norm.

      You know that bug they put on television? You know, that thing in the corner identifying the station - years ago I was with a bunch of people that complained about it - but it never went away, I finally gave up watching broadcast, satellite amd OTA TV.

      Now people not only don't care about that bug, but also don't give a crap while all the adverts are blasting across the bottom of the screen when you are watching the show.

      So that leaves us trying to work around a system that's not going away because too many stupid people can't be motivated to pick up pitchforks and storm the castle.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    7. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't block googles ads.... We block yours.

      Think about that for awhile... What do your ads do that googles does not...
      Why would we block yours but not the ads from the largest adspace on the net?

      hint: FUCKING ANNOYING!

    8. Re:I am opposed to this. by nschubach · · Score: 2

      Or... find someone who's willing to give it away cheaper/free.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    9. Re:I am opposed to this. by Dunge · · Score: 1

      Ads are a outdated concept that shouldn't exist anymore, period.

    10. Re:I am opposed to this. by Jeng · · Score: 1

      The major reason Google got popular was that they did simple to the point text based ads and those ads were far more effective than OMG PUNCH YOUR SCREEN TO MAKE IT STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! advertisements.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    11. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Did you ever consider a lot better content was here before ads.

    12. Re:I am opposed to this. by Pope · · Score: 2

      Just block Flash, and 99% of the irritants go away. Sites have to be paid for somehow.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    13. Re:I am opposed to this. by JohnFen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem isnt advertising. The problem is F***ing obnoxious advertising! FLASHFLASHFLASH HEY THING ITS HEY THING!

      For me, the bigger problem is the tracking that goes along with the ads. If no advertising did tracking, I probably wouldn't bother to block them.

    14. Re:I am opposed to this. by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      And I counter that I don't want free content if the cost is advertising as it exists today.

    15. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Will it stop the extremely annoying pop-up ads I get while trying to read slashdot on my ipad?

      You know, the ones with the little 'X' that usually opens the ad in a new window rather than closing the pop-up, because the majority of us have thumbs that are larger than that of an average two-year-old?

    16. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unblock ads on Slashdot, and you'll see exactly what Chardandon'tfeelliketypingthatallout is talking about, and why I feel identical to him.

      Let's just scroll on back up to the top of this page when I'm at work and can't block ads. ...

      Oh hey look, an IBM ad with a pile of flickering numbers with brightly coloured giant text, then boldly stating "DON'T LET BIG DATA PASS YOU BY!!!!!", never mind the ads on the right side of the screen on Slashdot's main page. Taking up a full 1/3rd of the page. Multiple ads for Nike? Is that even slightly relevant? In giant, high-quality, big-filesize images. I just thank god they're not moving. When Slashdot had a pile of ads that had some shit animated gif of a wife yelling at his husband for... email downtime or some shit, I outright stopped coming to Slashdot at work for a few weeks.

      So no, go fuck yourself until ads are less obnoxious. Now that we're capable of NOT seeing that obnoxious shit, ad companies are crying. Well tough luck, you spit in our faces for a decade on the internet, and long before that on any other media, what the fuck do you expect? Of COURSE we're going to disable you as fast as is humanly possible! This isn't rocket science! You assholes made this bed, now shut the fuck up and sleep in it.

    17. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Then only go to pay sites. Problem solved. Noone is forcing you to browse the internet and noone is forcing you to click on links that may go to pages that have ads. Not sure what your argument is here

    18. Re:I am opposed to this. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      My point is that the argument that people should love ads because they want free services is not universally true.

      By the way, just going to pay sites (when there exists such an alternative) doesn't solve the "problem," as most of those sites have ads as well. What would solve the problem is if sites offered a real way to opt out of advertising entirely with a pay option -- so long as the opt-out is complete (in other words, not just that I don't see the ads, but that the ad servers are not even notified of my presence). Some do, and I love them for it.

    19. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of, if not the primary, reason DVR's exist is because folks are tired of all the f*cking commercials. I don't mind a few but damn. I laugh when I see the " This film has been formatted to fit your screen and to run in the time allotted " message. Translation: We cut time from the show so we could show you genitalia deodorant wash commercials every ten minutes ! Towards the end of the show, we'll start showing em every five :D

      When content providers finally cry enough to disable commercial skipping on DVR's, I will simply cease watching television at all. Certainly won't miss much.

      Same holds true for online ads and even magazines. I don't buy magazines anymore. When you actually sit down and look at the percentage of content you wanted to see vs advertising, you realize buying them is a total waste of time.

      I block all online ads because they get in the way of what I'm trying to do. Folks who do it right get my stamp of approval and get whitelisted. Do it wrong and well. . . you know what happens :D

      Circumvent my blocks and I blacklist your entire site. If your page fails to load due to adblocking, or your adserver holds up the page until it finally loads, yup blacklisted. I'll find my information elsewhere. It's really that simple. Don't think you're an exclusive content provider. You're far from it.

      Done correctly, ads are transparent to the end user. They're intelligently placed to appeal to those who are attracted to your site to begin with. They're not annoying at all. Done correctly, you'll ensure traffic to your site over the guy who is doing it wrong.

    20. Re:I am opposed to this. by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      For me, the bigger problem is the tracking that goes along with the ads. If no advertising did tracking, I probably wouldn't bother to block them.

      I've actually been pretty happy with ad-block for Opera, in that I can block tracking cookies and such without actually blocking ad serving. That I feel is a fair compromise.

      How do I know it works? Well, as a single, male,virgin, Christian with a buck or two to his name (not much more though), getting an ad for safeabortions.com is about the furthest possible thing from a targeted advertisement I could think of. No seriously, I actually got an ad for that today.

    21. Re:I am opposed to this. by Ka+D'Argo · · Score: 1

      1. Install Firefox (or GoogleChrome but later steps only apply for FF)
      2. Install Ad Block Plus
      3. Install NoScript
      4. Install FlashBlock
      5. ???
      6. Profit!

      With APB, NS and FB I rarely almost if ever get any ad's on a webpage, and thanks to FB Flash only loads when I want it to, even on popular flash based sites like Youtube. NoScript will stop a lot of spyware and java based popups that get around Firefox's built in popup blocker. Chrome has it's own version of ABP but you may have to search around for variants of NoScript and Flashblock.

      --
      Aw Frell this
    22. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      <blink bgmusic="popcorn.mid">ARE YOU SURE?</blink>

    23. Re:I am opposed to this. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      For me, the bigger problem is the tracking that goes along with the ads.

      For me, the bigger problem is scripting. I do not bother blocking ads. Blocking scripts is a huge deal though. It is scripting that allows all of the shenanigans to occur. As a side effect of blocking scripts, I do not see ads.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    24. Re:I am opposed to this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently discovered that I fit descriptions of ADD surprisingly well, so that may explain why I'm affected stronger than many others.

      My problem is this: if there is one flashy ad on a web page I already have trouble reading the content I came for, if there are two or more it's practically impossible for me. When obnoxious ads became so common that a majority of websites I found through search results or by following links were unreadable for me I decided I wouldn't accept advertisers to block me from using the web and I started using ad blockers.

      I've responded to web site owners who complained about people using ad blockers. They thought people shouldn't visit their site if they aren't willing to contribute to the cost by viewing ads. My counter argument was that they shouldn't serve ads that effectively block their content. I'm not there just to look at ads, and I don't like being lured in with content that I don't get to read. My suggestion was they complain to the advertisers, not to the visitors. I don't have the impression a single web site owner I responded to took me seriously, they simply don't seem to accept that what I tell them is real.

      I don't mind seeing ads on a web page if they don't distract me too much. I would prefer static images, but animated gifs are not much of a problem because I can halt them by pressing ESC. I'm really much more likely to be interested in what an advertiser tries to sell if he doesn't annoy me than when he does. Piss me off and I don't want to do business with you, that shouldn't be hard to understand. What pisses me off are ads demanding more attention than the content I visit a web page for. What also pisses me off is advertisers tracking and profiling me and selling what they collect to third parties, to me that comes very close to cyberstalking. Another reason to dislike ads is the malware that's spread through them far too often.

      So please, if you ask people who block ads to consider the income of website owners, then in turn take their reasons for blocking ads just as seriously, and solve the issues they bring up. Blocking ads is how they solve issues the advertisers don't solve themselves.

    25. Re:I am opposed to this. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, I block scripting as well. But that's a different issue (with a large overlap in the Venn diagram). Blocking scripting does nothing against web bugs, for instance.

    26. Re:I am opposed to this. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The most annoying I've seen to date, I just tripped over today... it's an overlay on all the user-uploaded pictures on the forums at ford-trucks.com

      To add insult to injury, the ad (same ad on all the pics) was for some Dodge crap!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  13. What will this ultimately accomplish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what will happen when all these free sites and services can no longer function because everyone and their mom are using devices like this or other methods of removing blocking ads.

    If you ask me this would be one of those "come back and bite you in the ass" scenarios as either

    a) These entities would no longer be able to function and therefore close down
    b) They are forced to make money other ways (probably selling information about users that connect to them)

    Blocking ads seriously seems like stealing to me. If you don't want the ad don't use the site/service. If you don't want the ad because "they are targeted advertising me :( ;(" like a lot of slashdotters seem to justify adblockers with. DON'T USE THE SERVICE. Undermining companies like this will only end badly.

    1. Re:What will this ultimately accomplish by Dunge · · Score: 0

      Ads shouldn't exist, period.

    2. Re:What will this ultimately accomplish by Jeng · · Score: 2

      I'm not going to purchase the product so I am saving them the bandwidth of trying to sell me something I have no interest in.

      Besides ads have become one of the major ways virus and malware are spread these days.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    3. Re:What will this ultimately accomplish by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Blocking ads seriously seems like stealing to me.

      As is going to the bathroom during commercial breaks, showing up late to the theatre to miss previews, failing to read every single ad in the free weekly, etc...

      If you don't want the ad don't use the site/service.

      If you don't want me to use the service without viewing ads, don't send me the data until I've viewed the ads.

      Undermining companies like this will only end badly.

      Moving away from the inefficient and perversely incentivized ad supported model and towards a user supported model can only end well.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:What will this ultimately accomplish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People act like the internet was some vast wasteland before ads. It wasn't. Was the content different? Yes. But how much of that is due to the differences in technology or to the infusion of advertising dollars is unclear. The only clear thing is that some sites' revenue models will have to change if these devices become mainstream. Presumably the people opting for these devices aren't a good target market anyway for funding websites. They may still be subtly affected by seeing ads, were they to see them, but they don't click them and therefor making very little for the websites that present the ads to them.

    5. Re:What will this ultimately accomplish by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Blocking ads seriously seems like stealing to me. If you don't want the ad don't use the site/service.

      Most ads are pay-per click. There's no revenue from seeing the ad, only if you click. Thus, not clicking on ads is stealing! You MUST click on every ad, or you're robbing the web site blind! I'm sure as a good little citizen you agree wholeheartedly and make sure you click on each and every ad on each and every page to ensure you're not stealing, don't you?

    6. Re:What will this ultimately accomplish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it considered click fraud if it is your users who voluntarily run the click bot?

    7. Re:What will this ultimately accomplish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every ad should have an FBI warning label. Not viewing ads is flat out piracy and should be against the law.
      Anyone caught not viewing them should be rounded up, stripped of their rights and forced to work in ad rehabilitation camps.

  14. Finally! by Soluzar · · Score: 1

    I've wanted this for a while. It would be more ideal if it were something that could be incorporated into a router, so that I don't need another device, but I'm sick of seeing adverts on my tablet.

    1. Re:Finally! by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      You could try using opendns to block a large number of ads, though I'm sure it's not as effective as this device.

    2. Re:Finally! by Soluzar · · Score: 1

      I hadn't considered this - it would be more practical than the previous suggestion, since my current router doesn't have a custom firmware available for it.

  15. nice, but... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    ...does it work with Windows Media Center or XBMC to cut streaming ads without killing content streams?

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  16. Hopefully will teach advertisers a lesson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I use computers without adblock installed or without a hosts file blocking ads, I get annoyed at the amount of obnoxious ads on each site. For 2 paragraphs of content on some news sites, you have a sidebar of 2 video ads loading at the highest possible bitrate they can achieve, banner ads everywhere, and ads that somehow know which sites you've visited before. Not everyone has a decent enough internet connection that can handle all the "Rich multimedia advertisements" that most sites put out. Most of the time you have to wait for all the ads to load, and after a minute or two you can then finally read the actual content, however then there's usually some type of advertisement that covers half the story and makes you have to click for a next page, where you have to deal with the same stuff again. Seeing that ISPs are starting to put bandwidth caps on their users, I believe that most caps would be exceeded just due to the massive amounts of these "rich multimedia" ads that websites shove down people's throats... and people wonder why devices and software that block ads exist. Most people don't care for the simple google ad frame with text based ads that are based on the content of that page and that page only, like what google did when they first introduced them, I don't mind them either. But when you start pulling out bullshit like that, all it does is piss people off.

  17. tinahc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is no anti-hosts cabal

    1. Re:tinahc by geminidomino · · Score: 2

      And it's not a wholly owned subsidiary of The Lumber Cartel, which also does not exist, either.

  18. It's a waste of money and site will fight back. by sziring · · Score: 1

    If you try using hardware/software on a large scale to block ads it will fail. Sites can easily counter this by running some of the code critical to the page load through their ad server. Blocking the ads will also block this critical piece of code and cause the page load to fail, thus no content. Don't waste your money..

    --
    www.moonnext.com
    1. Re:It's a waste of money and site will fight back. by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Yeah. They would need to have a subscription model so that they can afford to constantly create updates to the software. Eventually, the cat and mouse game would become so sophisticated that you would have to buy a more powerful box so that the software can run. At some point, either users are going to decide it is not worth the cost to block ads or the websites are going to decide it is not worth the cost to unblock the ads.

  19. I block scripts.... by djsmiley · · Score: 1

    but not ad's.

    They really don't bother me as long as they aren't all flashing in my face style.

    Have people really become so useless at ignoring shiny flashing things that they MUST look at the adverts, and then click them?... If a site so is bad the adverts are offputting I stop using it.

    On slashdot I rarely see ad's as they let me turn them off :D

    --
    - http://www.milkme.co.uk
    1. Re:I block scripts.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of those flashy ads are seizure inducing in some people.

  20. Cool by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

    All I can say is how much does it cost and can it be circumvented?

    1. Re:Cool by nschubach · · Score: 1

      According to the Kickstarter page, it currently starts at $115 (which I find WAAAAY too expensive for a single purpose firewall.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:Cool by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah that's too much.

  21. Not really an issue for me. by Infernal+Device · · Score: 1

    I don't even see ads anymore, thanks to ad blindness. They're easy enough to mentally block (except for the auto-expanders), that whatever they're selling doesn't really register.

    --
    "My God...it's full of trolls!"
    1. Re:Not really an issue for me. by wjousts · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I have that too. Are they really that hard to mentally block out? Only if they the cause the page to lag, or auto start some obnoxious video is it really a problem for me.

  22. Adnix by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

    It's Adnix. And by the look of it, we might soon need Preachnix. It's all for a good cause though, giving your money to Hadden so he can build the second machine.

  23. adblock whitelist that doesn't display ads by what+the+dumple+is · · Score: 2

    It would be grand if there was an adblocker where you could whitelist sites _AND_ it still doesn't display the ads. I am fine with a select few sites seeing that I received their ads but they don't have to know that my browser isn't displaying them. The ads can go straight to /dev/null

  24. Let's recreate the wheel! Oh, and sell it. by neurosine · · Score: 1

    I intuit that this is simply a SQUID server with a custom downloaded blacklist. If not...it could be...and you wouldn't have to pay for it. But yeah, hook this up and I'm sure it will have no negative effects or collate data then sell it to retailers. That's not intuition though...it's sardonicism...I think. Maybe just sarcasm. Certainly cynicism.

  25. Huh? by Krneki · · Score: 1

    What is this ADVERTHOSIMENET you are talking about?

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  26. Performance by Dunge · · Score: 0

    This capture all traffic and does more processing operation than a router who simply relay packets. I guess it comes with a slowdown of networking performance?

  27. I've been thinking of something similar by erroneus · · Score: 1

    We see adblocking software all over. Firefox addons, things for rooted androids and the like. Most often, they rely on some sort of hosts file or other host identification. (Thanks APK, no one could have thought of that before you did... oh wait... they did... it was too obvious.) But that sort of functionality really needs to live somewhere on the network. I haven't started googling yet, but I'm willing to bet there is some version of DD-WRT out there which will do that for me. But the idea of building a small VM which serves the purpose doesn't seem like a bad idea either.

    A handy little box like this is a cute idea, but I wonder about keeping it updated.

    I see a future for these boxes though. Up the price and sell it as a security and monitoring device. The various law enforcement entities out there could require the use of the box for convicts. Concerned parents could also drop one of these in somewhere on the network at home. Of course, an encrypted service out there could easily thwart this in the sense that it it wouldn't be able to monitor what goes on within the session, but it could certainly report that such a session exists.

    I don't want it as an additional link in the chain and potential point of failure. I definitely don't want some commercial device controlling the flow of my network while sniffing all the traffic. Selling me blank hardware and showing me how to set it up and even compile from source which I can examine might be acceptible.

    Ad companies? You will just have to start TRUSTING the people who host your ads. It'd be impossible to block ads if they originate from the same source as the content. You're an idiot for doing things the way you do now, but keep it up... it enables me to extend my time online before caps kick in.

    1. Re:I've been thinking of something similar by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Up the price and sell it as a security and monitoring device...

      If the Kickstarter page is anything to go by, it will already cost you over $100 for the box and there's open wording on if they will have a service to keep it up to date. I don't know about you, but that's pretty expensive for what amounts to a selectively forwarding router. Most routers can be bought for much less than that and are fully programmable.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    2. Re:I've been thinking of something similar by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Ad companies? You will just have to start TRUSTING the people who host your ads. It'd be impossible to block ads if they originate from the same source as the content.

      AdBlock is actually much more versatile than that. If I want to block the /ads/ path on a remote website, I can do that.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    3. Re:I've been thinking of something similar by sexconker · · Score: 1

      shittysite.com typically serves ads via shitty.ad.farm.google.com .

      If you go to shittysite.com and request shittysite.com/content and that page includes 62fG283.jpg and 7820dh3.jpg you don't know which one is the ad and which is the content you want until you look at it. Adblock can't help you there. You could blacklist 62fG283.jpg if you look at it and determine it's an ad, but on your nexdt visit you'll be dealing with 93d57w2.jpg instead.

      Furthermore, it's much easier for shittysite.com to first try to serve the ad and, upon detecting you blocking the download, block the actual content. A lot of sites already do this with 3rd party ads, but it's not foolproof and it's not trivial to implement. If you wanted ABP to get you around this you'd have to download the ad. ABP could hide it for you, sure, but you're still downloading it, wasting your time, eating your data cap, and exposing you to shitty vulnerabilities.

    4. Re:I've been thinking of something similar by Animats · · Score: 1

      I see a future for these boxes though. Up the price and sell it as a security and monitoring device.

      That's been tried at the ISP level. There are a few Christian ISPs that filter out stuff they don't like. There are Jewish ISPs which filter out stuff they don't like. There's an ultra-Orthodox Jewish ISP which filters everything except a very short list of approved sites. (Here's such a list.)

      They're all very small operations. Self-censorship is a tiny business. Most of the people clamoring for web censorship want to censor the Internet for other people.

    5. Re:I've been thinking of something similar by Githaron · · Score: 1

      They should consider just turning their device into a router.

  28. Here is my money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just take it.

  29. Originally designed as a censorship device by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the government.

    Or what do you think paid the venture capital? It's not like anyone except form banks and the military still has any money.

  30. Why do people expect something for nothing? by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 2

    I know the day that free web content and services dry up because there are no more ad revenue streams, the same people complaining stupidly against ads will want to complain about how the web is now hidden behind pay walls. The irony is that most of you won't be able to voice your opinion because you will refuse to pay to access Slashdot.

    Actually, I think many of us might value when that day arrives.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
    1. Re:Why do people expect something for nothing? by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Most likely sites will just shift their business models to where they have free features and sell additional features through subscription.

  31. How does it stop product-placement ads? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    How can it tell the difference between a can of Slurm(TM) that's there because the director wanted it there vs. a can of Slurm(TM) that's there because it's a paid product-placement?

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:How does it stop product-placement ads? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a can of Slurm(TM) that's there because the director wanted it there

      No such thing. Anytime a real live brand is visible on-screen, it's a paid product placement.
      Everything else is either a made-up brand or strategically covered up/turned away from the camera.

    2. Re:How does it stop product-placement ads? by davidwr · · Score: 1

      Anytime a real live brand is visible on-screen, it's a paid product placement.

      As much as the cynic in me would like to believe it, this simply isn't always true, particularly for older movies and TV shows.

      If a classic-movie channel or its online equivalent plays a movie from the 1950s that has "background" ads, they will probably air the film un-altered rather than face hate mail from their "purist" audience.

      If a different outlet plays the same movie, they may sell ads to digitally replace the brands that were in the original movie.

      Unless the ad-detection software has specific knowledge of this film or the inserted ads are "modern" rather than "era-appropriate" for the film, or (*gasp*) the ad was inserted in a less-than-technically-perfect manner, I don't see how software can tell the inserted ad from the original.

      Another place you see brands in the background:
      News and documentaries.

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  32. Who gets to define what is an ad? by taustin · · Score: 1

    Or is this going to be like the parental control software that blocks porn, with the definition of "porn" including "any web site that expresses a political opinion we disagree with"?

    It's always a matter of trust. And has has been pointed out, in this case, you're trusting a company that has built it's business model on denying other companies income they rely on to say in business.

  33. Sounds cool. by DieByWire · · Score: 1

    Sounds cool, but I still have some questions. Can't wait to see the ads for it.

    --
    Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
  34. Does anyone else find it funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the page this product write up/article is on has 6 ads on it its self?

  35. Untangle by Daryen · · Score: 1

    Sorry if someone has already posted this, I didn't see it in any of the popular comments while browsing.

    I'm a sysadmin and I use something similar for my networks that's free. It's a Linux based firewall for complete idiots called Untangle. (I don't work for them or contribute to the project.) They have an "app" (also one of the free ones) that runs adblock on everything that passes through the device.

    Take any old crappy PC, buy a NIC ($10-$20 investment), burn Untangle to a CD. It's a typical Next->Next->Next->Finish sort of installation, it will overwrite the OS though, so make sure your old crappy pc doesn't have any files you need. There are a bunch of apps, but for this project you just want the free version of their adblocker.

    It runs in passthrough mode, so it is super-simple. You can tack on other firewall apps if you feel like it, and the interface is really idiot-proof. Actual Linux nerds are probably pulling their hair out at the waste of resources, but even a crappy old PC isn't going to suffer under this UI.

  36. In-app ads should be able to detect this by bmearns · · Score: 1

    It seems like app designers and ad networks should be able to come up with a fairly simple scheme to detect when this is happening and (for instance), refuse to work until the ads are restored. App sends a UID along with the ad request, ad-network sends back a signature of the add content + UID using a public key, app can validate the signature to ensure their "ad" really came from the network. Not that I want them to do this, I'm just surprised I've never heard of it.

    --
    Slashdot is not a game, Slashdot is not a game. Crap, I just lost points.
    1. Re:In-app ads should be able to detect this by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Unless the browser starts enforcing these mechanisms, why couldn't the blocking software simply go ahead and download the ad, send back the signed checksum, collect the content, and only send the user the content?

  37. Will it eliminate ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... Gizmag popups in the linked article?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  38. They will get sued their asses off ... by YoungManKlaus · · Score: 1

    After all, advertisement providers are also companies who want to make a business. If you actively block someone else from his/her business then you got trouble. For the same reason Opera calls it's blocking functionality "Content blocker" instead of adblocker and does not supply predefined lists / ability for RSS providers by default.

  39. hosts by whitroth · · Score: 1

    First hit for googling host file ad block:
    http(colon)//winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm

    Works well.

                    mark

  40. Blocking domains won't work forever by subanark · · Score: 1

    If enough people use tools like Ad block, then websites will respond by having their server contact the Ad servers and check if the Ad was served to the user browsing the site. If it wasn't, then the site will refuse to let you view their content. Ad agencies don't mind Ad block too much, as they don't get charged if a website doesn't serve the ad, its the websites generating income from the ads in exchange for content that care the most.

    Once this event happens, the Ad blockers will be reprogrammed to fetch the Ad and either not display it, or display it in an invisible window. This will result in Ad companies (now that they are being hurt by it), trying to devise tricks using "rich content" like Flash that tries to detect if it is being hidden away from the user. Since control on how Flash operates is currently limited (and probably will remain so as long as Adobe is making it), I foresee Adobe playing nice with the Ad agencies and giving them a way to detect if the Ad is being seen by the user. This will then lead to creating a virtualization sandbox for the browser that has all the ads intact, the real browser only taking the non-ad content and showing it to the user.

    What I don't foresee the ad agencies doing is (in any large scale): hosting the ads on the content providers servers, as this puts trust into their hands that they are properly reporting what ads are being severed, and it also increases the communication between the Ad website and the content providers website (since you want relevant ads shown on the site based on the user visiting them). However, this might be worth dong for larger content sites (like say Hulu) where the level of trust is higher and the companies can work more closely together. Once this is done, it will be difficult for the ad blocking software to detect the difference between ads and content.

  41. Trap is full by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when the trap is full? Can users empty it? Or do you need to send it back to the factory?

    1. Re:Trap is full by imadoofus · · Score: 1

      The light is green, the trap is clean.

      --
      "pr0n": An anagram of "porn," possibly indicating the use of pornography. - www.microsoft.com
  42. Re:I'm already doing it @ the IP stack level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woah, apk's on-topic for once.

  43. Looks phony - typical Kickstarter "Spare Change" by Animats · · Score: 2

    Watched the video. It's all about their little hardware box (which is some ARM machine), and says nothing about how it blocks ads. At the wire level, you can certainly apply a domain blocklist, for which there are already many free software tools. That gets rid of many ads, but not all of them.

    Some (not yet many) sites resist ad blocking. Some Flash-driven videos won't play if you block their ad server. Some get the ads and the video from the same place. Some ad services have each site create a subdomain (like "ads.example.com") for ad serving, so blocking by second level domain doesn't work. Look at the constantly changing blocklists for AdBlock. The problem is almost as bad as signature-based virus detection. The people with this little box say nothing about this.

    The one big advantage this device offers is the ability to block ads on closed systems like Apple products. A big disadvantage is that the device has a backdoor into your data stream and could be an attack vector for eavesdropping.

  44. Arhh: the irony !! by Zoxed · · Score: 1

    You are selling an Ad-blocker, so you circumvent ad-blockers (including your own !) by posting a Slashvertisement !! Sweet !!

  45. Re:I'm already doing it @ the IP stack level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's modded up for it too to +1 Interesting

  46. Magazines of ads by coyote_oww · · Score: 1

    Magazines that are mostly/all ads in not exclusive to the fashion world. This has happened in the nerd world too. Back in the day, before the web took off, we nerds often obtained the ad-e-est magazine of all, solely because of ads, the inimitable Computer Shopper.

    But, in the long run, we cared more about features and prices than we did about the glossy pictures, and Computer Shopper was killed by the web. RIP Computer Shopper! we would miss you if the web weren't so much better!

  47. Bewildered by skelly33 · · Score: 1

    I may not be the oldest cat in the alley here, but I have been cruising the commercialized web since 1995. I've seen a LOT of stuff come and go in web advertising and I must say that I feel like, with very few exceptions, web advertisements don't offend me. I honestly don't understand this foaming at the mouth over ads. Back in the day when they would generate relentless popup windows for which there was no prevention, yeah: seriously annoying. Like, hang it up and go read a book instead annoying. Today, the default browser pop-up blocker is almost completely effective at eliminating the lame stragglers that still haven't gotten the clue on this annoyance.

    That aside, ads are worked into the site content, they are tucked off to the side and clearly marked as an advertisement, they are simple graphics without any blinking text. They are quite often relevant to the content I am reading and are a great way to accidentally discover something I didn't even know that I was missing out on. Let's take it back to the 1950's here - I am a consumer, and consumerism is freedom...! But seriously... these things do not bother me at all. If I want to pay attention to them I do. If I don't, I don't. What kind of mental breakdown causes people to have a strong, negative, emotional reaction to this?

    Here's the short list of things that still irritate me:
    * Advertisements that purport to be content along with a primarily content site. This is deceptive, uninformative, and in my opinion is a departure from journalistic integrity.
    * Inline-ads that link specific keywords/phrases in the content that I am reading to some pop-up balloon that opens on mouseover. I want to be able to surf the site and reposition the mouse without being accosted.
    * Flash/video content that starts playing (especially with audio) on page load. This is a waste of my limited bandwidth. If I'm waiting for something else to download, the last thing I need is a video stream that I did not request to slow everything down.

    That's pretty much it. I'm even ok with the interstitial pages that show an ad before you get to the requested page so long as they have a "skip ad" link to be able to move past it immediately. It just doesn't bother me. Ultimately, as others have mentioned previously, I believe in advertising revenue supported services - it brought us newspapers, then magazines, then radio, television and now the Internet. If you take away that source of revenue then *everything* will either be a paid content model for corporate content (or some puke's blog that I don't care about) and that will be the end of the useful life of the Internet for me.

  48. This instead of Proxomitron or privoxy? by macraig · · Score: 1

    So... an expensive little dedicated device that does little more than Proxomitron and privoxy have been doing for free for a decade? Do you really want yet another little plastic box taking up space, and with yet another wall wart demanding space at an outlet? Do you even have an outlet remaining to plug it into?

  49. Good luck on that working. by yusing · · Score: 1

    Good luck on that working. Take BoingBoing for example, now writing half of its "articles" about products. No hardware's that smart.

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  50. Users would rather block YOU, troll... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I resent your FLAWED attempt at parody, TROLL. Why does your kind ALWAYS go off-topic?

    APK

    P.S.=>Trolls, when you've got them "on the ropes", they always revert to the same behaviors...

    ...apk

  51. screaming tv commercials wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the ad bypass feature on mythtv is all and good, but the ads are still present on the recording which presents a problem when viewing the recording in ways not expected by mythtv. However...for my television, or an alternative dvr to FIOS or the CableCos., my wish is for a developer(s) to write the software it would take to be able to fingerprint an ad so that it can be completely blocked from view, or I would even settle with automatic volume lowering/muting: Two ways, one would be a distributable list like a custom hosts lists to block ads on a computer which can be edited/added to, and the second way/additional way, would be to see/hear the ad for the first time, hit a button, the ad or the first seconds of the ad is "fingerprinted", and then for every future ad presentation, the software automatically blocks it, switches channels, plays a video clip of length equal to the commercial that's sitting on your dvr, lowers the volume or mutes it only for the length of the commercial, or does something equally impressive.

    Getting rid of Rachael and card services (which is still calling btw) may have been priority one for the FTC., but getting rid of the screaming/laughing flying witch commercial (of which I've never seen the end of to know who is advertising it because I change the channel everytime, but then end up missing part of the program I was watching many times), the jackass comedian who runs and hammers something with a big hammer while yelling, the dumbass pizza commercial that yells some seconds into it, the jackass who drinks something then "whoooos", "clucks", "coooos" and whatever other loud sounds he makes, and basically just about every commercial coming out today that lacks cleverness like a few rare ones that I enjoy, and where an advertising industry has died from lost creativity and who have convinced program executives that the only way to get the attention of viewers and keep them on channel and away from the kitchen or bathroom is to find a subject matter for the commercial where screaming or loud noises can be incorporated into the commercial under the guise of the subject matter.

    Rant ended.

  52. Privoxy by Herve5 · · Score: 1

    Indeed I didn't understand what else than Privoxy is this 'adtrap' we're discussing. What else than a Privoxy within a hardware enclosure?

    --
    Herve S.
  53. Re:I'm already doing it @ the IP stack level by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not.