Slashdot Mirror


Ask Slashdot: Best Way To Block Web Content?

First time accepted submitter willoughby writes "Many routers today have the capability to block web content. And you all know about browser addons like noscript & adblock. But where is the 'proper' place for such content blocking? Is it best to have the router only route packets & do the content blocking on each machine? If using the content blocking feature in the router, will performance degrade if the list of blocked content grows large? Where is the best place to filter/block web content?"

282 comments

  1. Best way to filter web content: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Unplug your modem. Internet is now filtered. Enjoy your day!

    1. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

      The CLOUD!

      No but real. SMB, use EasyDNS.

      Big shop? Z-Scaler and similar.

      Actually, EasyDNS is better. It blocks specific bloggers and tumblrs, that many "Enterprise" solutions give a pass.

      But for EasyDNS, you HAVE to be able to control the resolv.conf of your clients, or it is bypassed.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:Best way to filter web content: by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 2

      >But for EasyDNS, you HAVE to be able to control the resolv.conf of your clients, or it is bypassed.

      You don't have to control the resolv.conf, you just only allow DNS traffic to the IP's of the DNS server and block the others. That doesn't top a user from going all APK on you and using a hosts file (or something similar) or a VPN if you allow it, but will stop most people.

    3. Re:Best way to filter web content: by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To add on to this, it is good to block all DNS except a few trusted servers anyway. If someone gets a 'DNSChanger' style virus it will show up on the firewall pretty quick.

    4. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unplug your modem. Internet is now filtered. Enjoy your day!

      This is an appropriate response given the bullshit question.

      There are different approaches for blocking content, depending on if you're running an ISP, a large Enterprise, a small business, or are just a home user. There are different approaches depending on what TYPE of content you're trying to block, and WHY you're blocking it.
      There is no simple, single answer to the question other than "well it all depends".

      Adblock is a user-friendly plugin which is, put simply, nothing more than a blacklist of various hosts which serve advertising content. The security aspects of this approach are incidental- it's not a security program it's for avoiding ads.
      If you're running an Enterprise or are a more tech-savvy user it's usually better to maintain your own blacklist, either at the edge router or via a hosts file on the local machine (depending on network size and complexity, and capability of your edge routers). If you're just a plain Joe Average, it's probably better to do it per-machine, especially if you're using a laptop which you're going to use in different locations.

      NoScript is not, by design, an ad-blocker. It is a script-blocker, and is a security program- ad blocking is incidental. It has the added advantage of operating on a whitelist, so new sources of threats will be caught by default. It blocks a variety of scripting languages from any location you have not specifically allowed, in addition to several other types of browser exploit vectors. For the technical user it is vastly superior to Adblock, but for people who are not so "internet savvy" it can be confusing and frustrating to have to maintain your own whitelist.

      Perhaps if the submitter would give us something more specific as to his needs, he'd get better answers.

    5. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      53 UDP Any Drop.

      After the allow. :-)

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Stupid! Think before typing.. ICMP.

      It's pretty clear I don't do this on a daily, any more...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    7. Re:Best way to filter web content: by miroku000 · · Score: 1

      The CLOUD!

      No but real. SMB, use EasyDNS.

      Big shop? Z-Scaler and similar.

      Actually, EasyDNS is better. It blocks specific bloggers and tumblrs, that many "Enterprise" solutions give a pass.

      But for EasyDNS, you HAVE to be able to control the resolv.conf of your clients, or it is bypassed.

      It depends on what the requirements of your users are. For my research I often need to go to web sites that host malware. It is annoying when the network goes out of its way to return fake DNS results. And when ISP's start doing this in the cloud, then someone comes up with the bright idea of just redirecting all the invalid DNS requests to a web site that hosts advertisements and then collecting revenue from them.

    8. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Of course, you are then also clever enough to TOR - or some other tunneling transport - your traffic, including recursive DNS queries.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    9. Re:Best way to filter web content: by KitFox · · Score: 2

      Well, besides the fact that you would need to block TCP as well as UDP (RFC calls for support on both and longer messages, such as zone transfers, require TCP due to UDP's content length limits), you also have the benefit of the fact that this would block exploits that make use of port 53 for communication on the strong likelihood that it is completely unfiltered.

      The AS article asks where is the best place to filter though. This gets tricky. The request doesn't indicate whether this is enterprise equipment or consumer. The mention of router-based filtering implies consumer though, so I'll focus on that.

      First off, a good number of consumer routers do not have the processing power to handle full filtering at high speed. Even enterprise appliances such as iPrism require heftier units when the pipeline speed exceeds a certain threshold. As a good example, a Linksys 625 Wireless Router can handle filtering with no rulesets up to about 50-60Mb/s. Rules are relatively efficient, but there is no way in many cases to automate rule implementation, and when the ruleset increases in size the capability of the router to handle it drops to around 20-30 Mb/s. Fine if the WAN uplink is perhaps a 15Mb/s line, but catastrophic if you're trying to get full use from a 105Mb/s cable or fiber line.

      The end answer really comes down to a balance. Implement filtering at the furthest end that you carry absolute sovereignty over, balanced by duplication of effort and complexity of implementation. Replicating rules over thousands of endpoints is complex enough and lacks enough control that performing the filtering at the trunk is more efficient and effective. By comparison, the ability to control one or a few computers in a home is substantially more likely and will take the burden off the limited processing power of a consumer router. Walking a rule manually to five endpoints is trivial compared to dozens, hundreds, or thousands.

      If the uplink is small enough to allow filtering at the router and the eventual change and replacement of equipment will allow easy transfer of rulesets and administration, work from the router or a similar trunk location to globalize and centralize effort. If the endpoints are spread enough or there is sufficient lack of control over them to warrant such, again, work from the trunk. If enough trust exists in the endpoints to offload the work onto their substantially-stronger processors, and administration of rules to and of the endpoints is trivial, filter at the endpoints.

      --

      @Whee

    10. Re:Best way to filter web content: by bryan1945 · · Score: 0

      I know many people like you- don't have the balls to post on their account.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    11. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post has been flagged as inappropriate. Enjoy your Karma.

    12. Re:Best way to filter web content: by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      How about a good HOSTS file?

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    13. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Dear GOD. Let's not open THAT can of worms again?

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    14. Re:Best way to filter web content: by hackula · · Score: 1

      Is this what you were looking for: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+block+web+content

    15. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't mention that file. Ever. It'll draw APK like a fly to rotting meat. Last thing I want to read is 80 responses worth of his stupid spam about that file!

      I swear that cocksucker does nothing but search Slashdot for that term and then spams the entire article.

    16. Re:Best way to filter web content: by jazzdude00021 · · Score: 1

      Guess what the #2 result is from that link... I'll give you a hint, you don't need to go through google to find it.

    17. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use hosts for better speed, security, reliability, & anonymity online. They work and are easy to manage. I use this program to do it http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&Itemid=74 , for free, getting you back your money's worth with more peace of mind too.

    18. Re:Best way to filter web content: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apk spamming like always.

  2. Nice Try China! by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'd suggest paying a lot of money to Blue Coat to do deep packet inspection so none of that content sneaks by.

    Or, perhaps, sitting down with your users and discussing with them how to surf intelligently and safely.

    And you all know about browser addons like noscript & adblock. But where is the 'proper' place for such content blocking?

    If you're talking about adblocking, the 'proper' place is at your visual cortex where images are processed -- and I know I'm alone in that unpopular view. Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly. But if everyone does it, it ruins the very thing you're enjoying. I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.

    I've clicked on ads and purchased something twice in my life from ads on a site. Once it was cheap shirts with funny designs on them (I needed new gym shirts) and the other was an eBay auction with a Buy It Now price lower than what I was looking at on that site (not sure how that works). I consider myself a pretty sophisticated person who is "above" advertising but anecdote-wise it's worked on me twice that I can think of. Removing that rare occurrence completely ruins the revenue model.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 if i could to this post. You took the words exactly out of my mouth.

    2. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'd be perfectly happy if all these companies up and vanished from lack of ad revenue. The internet was a far less troll friendly place before they came along ;)

    3. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The revenue model of installing malware through flash ads?

    4. Re:Nice Try China! by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.

      I agree with you that the standard Google adsense ads are ok, blocking them is counterproductive (because websites need income). However, Youtube ads (also operated by Google) have gone way over the line and are way too intrusive; also far too many websites still shove floating divs and the like in your face (in fact, thats something that seems to be increasing), and manually blocking only the intrusive ads becomes far too much effort so invariably all ads get blocked.

    5. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Ignorance of things is a very personal thing.
      Every non-personal blocking, is censorship, and hence, evil because manipulative and harmful. Even if only in effect, and not in intention.

      And ignorance is not a good thing anyway, unless you have a super-high probability of it being bad information, that far outweighs its usefulness. Like with most spam.

    6. Re:Nice Try China! by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I respect your argument advocating ad revenue to support the sites you visit. This is one of the things the internet was built upon. I do feel bad about the sites I like not getting the money keep things running.

      On the other hand, you have:
      ads that track you
      annoying popups
      popups masquerading as windows messages that have faux buttons to close them, cancel them, or remove viruses that the popup supposedly just detected
      ads that flash, flicker, or have a lot of motion/activity in them (which I find to be particularly distracting)
      ads that play sound

      I'm not saying I wouldn't adblock if you got rid of the above ads, but currently there are too many reasons for me to even consider getting rid of adblock.

    7. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in a country where internet connection is sluggish at best. Moreover I share home with a bunch of students. Blocking comes out as almost vital.

    8. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I needed new gym shirts)

      wait. What?

    9. Re:Nice Try China! by mcgrew · · Score: 2

      Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly. But if everyone does it, it ruins the very thing you're enjoying.

      It's the ads themselves that ruin the very thing I'm trying to enjoy. If ads weren't so intrusive and resource-intensive, nobody would block ads. The web sites that need ads for revenue are their own worst enemies.

    10. Re:Nice Try China! by udachny · · Score: 4, Funny

      You took the words exactly out of my mouth.

      - then shouldn't you be angry with him for copyright infringement?

    11. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you explain how much revenue a site gets for "impressions" (the fact that an ad is "shown", but not clicked)? I've tried (briefly) to find it, but nothing seems to come up unless I actually sign up to put adsense or the like on a site. All any advertiser has ever gotten from me was those impressions and I gather that they don't actually pay for those anymore, or if they do, they are worth only a tiny amount. A click on an ad though is supposed to be where the money is. Since I don't - ever - click on ads, I don't believe showing them is worth my bandwidth to download them and my time to navigate around them. I prefer to "pay" for my visits to sites by providing excellent comments and content or by signing up for a subscription to the site.

    12. Re:Nice Try China! by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      Yes, blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out the window. We need to just line up all the admen and shoot them.

      I mean, has the ENTIRE slashdot community become 'web developers' and their ilk, sucking on the adman's teat?

    13. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is one of the things the internet was built upon.

      This is patently false. The internet, and before it the countless BBS services, was built on freedom and idealism. A server operator would pay out of pocket for their hobby and users would either access it for free, pay membership fees, or pay 900-number dial-in fees. The early internet had no ads because it was a hobbyist driven system. Not until the mid 90's did the internet monetize.

    14. Re:Nice Try China! by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're talking about adblocking, the 'proper' place is at your visual cortex where images are processed -- and I know I'm alone in that unpopular view. Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly.

      You are certainly in the minority. Most people's view of that analogy would be that the can being thrown out of the window is the advert, and that the spoiled environment that is the result is like the spoiled web that is a result of heavy advertising.

      I do not accept that the internet needs third party advertising. Nor that the internet without it (and thus a loss of revenue for some site operators) would be worse.

      There was an internet before widespread advertising. Some people run a site as a hobby. Some organisations run sites because they want to spread an idea, or need to get information out there. Commercial organisations will still want to run their own web-sites, whether they sell from them, or just as a communications tool. There are lots of reasons why the internet won't die without advertising.

      A lot of sites with heavy advertising don't even have good content. They are only there to make money from adverts, so they steal content, or just link to what other sites have put out, or publish PR verbatim.

      There's absolutely nothing to stop people trying to make money with third party advertising, and I wouldn't want any official body trying to outlaw them. But equally I see nothing wrong with blocking them so that I don't have to see them, or waste bandwidth on them. If the result is that there are less people that can make a profit from selling advertising, then I say "hurray!"

    15. Re:Nice Try China! by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well, if someone would actually build a browser with a popup blocker that actually worked, the popup issue would be solved.

      One shouldn't have to turn off scripts to stop popups. All they have to do is insert into the code:


      if (going to open a new window from this web site and
          user doesn't want these popups)
      then
                tough shit

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    16. Re:Nice Try China! by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Funny

      What computer language is this? I think I want to try it.

    17. Re:Nice Try China! by just_a_monkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am continually surprised that it is still legal to block ads, and that there is no visible movement to make blocking illegal. Not even any pervasive "The websites must be able to make money on what they do!", "Blocking ads is like stealing from the websites!" or "You wouldn't watch a movie/TV-show without watching the commercials" campaigns.

      Google and their customers must not have as good lobbyists as Hollywood.

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    18. Re:Nice Try China! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Removing that rare occurrence completely ruins the revenue model.

      GOOD! That revenue model is the single largest driver of the internet surveillance state. It is difficult to imagine an funding model for the internet with worse social costs. The sooner it dies, opening the door to replacement systems that are less invasive the better off we all are.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    19. Re:Nice Try China! by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      The aesthetics and annoyances of ads are only part of the issue, and not even the most important. Ads are also vectors for information gathering and tracking across the web, which is why it is perfectly justifiable to cut them off at the ankles, right in your hosts file.

    20. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all your analogy sucks. Declining to download something is not the same thing as littering the highway.

      Second of all, people who don't want to look at ads aren't going to buy products from an ad they already detest. Wasted ad impressions only cause the value of each impression to go down. Don't tell me that I might just buy something out of the blue some day. I'm against advertisements out of principle and I have held to my commitment (and I've never even seen anything remotely tempting from a web ad anyway).

      As far as I'm concerned, web sites who collude with their users to turn off ad blockers and/or refresh their pages more often are commiting fraud against advertisers (not that I really love advertisers, but I don't love people who want to goad me or force me to look at ads either).

      All of this is why advertisers are switching from naive payout metrics based on impressions to click-thru metrics. The former determines (and subsequently pays the website operator) how many people *may* have looked at your ad whereas the latter shows who actually took effort to click on an ad.

    21. Re:Nice Try China! by Albanach · · Score: 2

      If you're talking about adblocking, the 'proper' place is at your visual cortex where images are processed -- and I know I'm alone in that unpopular view. Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly. But if everyone does it, it ruins the very thing you're enjoying [slashdot.org]. I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.

      I have to disagree. If we get massively more adblocking, the internet will 'route around the damage'. Eventually we'll have someone set up a workable micropayments system whereby we can pay for the content we want. in an amount that's reasonable. Tenths or hundreds of a cent for a showbiz story, and several cents for an in-depth news piece.

      Such a system would have massive benefits for the internet, allowing many many more content producers to be rewarded for their work.

    22. Re:Nice Try China! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      If you're talking about adblocking, the 'proper' place is at your visual cortex where images are processed

      Exactly right. None of my computers have adblockers installed. I know ads drive most of Slashdot absolutely batshit crazy, causing them to invest hours and dollars blocking them, but I'm just 'meh' - I tune them out.

    23. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agree with you that the standard Google adsense ads are ok,

      so, google tracking your every move all over the internet, matching up that history with your email, youtube, search, blogger, pics/picasa, documents, map usage, google wallet, serp clickthroughs, and everything else they own, operate, control or place ads on (in the past, present and future), and storing that data forever is ok, too?

      i think not.

    24. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unenforceable.

    25. Re:Nice Try China! by xeoron · · Score: 1

      Don't forget compromised ad-networks pushing XSS or different forms of malware. Squid Proxy, adblock, or a good host file are perfect for dealing with such things, if you had the desire to filter network addresses and content access.

    26. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is patently false. The internet, and before it the countless BBS services, was built on freedom and idealism. A server operator would pay out of pocket for their hobby and users would either access it for free, pay membership fees, or pay 900-number dial-in fees.

      Lol! Silly romantic. You think the Internet infrastructure was paid for by dial-up users?

      Most of it, including the high-speed backbones, was paid for by universities, the military, and telecoms. But it's cute that you think it was "hobbyists."

    27. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Looks like Applescript to me.

    28. Re:Nice Try China! by Cito · · Score: 2

      I always setup adblock and noscript as well as using whitelists in the company side of things.

      sites that rely on advertising revenue only by 3rd party companies shouldn't be around anyhow, it's a waste of space.

      all 3rd party ad streams should be blocked, people get enough spam in their life, from driving to and from work massive amounts of billboard spam, postal mail massive amounts of snail mail spam, television 15-30 minutes of content padded out to 30-1 hour shows with spam.

      all spam is blocked in emails

      its time for people in mass to adblock web content also just as we have 0 tolerance for email advertising, and the majority have 0 tolerance for spam in general.

      if a website wants to place a small ad they can set it up themself on their own site

      3rd party ad agencies have already been proven to destroy privacy, just like the slashdot article from yesterday how everything you do on the web is tracked from google adsense network, doubleclick, facebook, and more a persons online habits are tracked, marketed and spammed.

      always run adblock, if a website only relies on 3rd party spam revenues then they do not deserve to exist.

      at the company I work for we do allow some web surfing, and also to lookup basic answers to questions and such. adblock and noscript is on every system, and we use easydns

      course all of our customer service is ran off dumb terminals citrix style, everyone else have their pc's, there is no perfect solution but we have a network monitoring department we all the "fishbowl" since the office is round and has a wrap around window that looks like peering into the fishbowl :P

      the netmon department monitors the companies networks for outages and such, but also occasionally keeps eyes on employee traffic cause there is always workarounds to proxies and filters, but an active netmon department can log incidents and send a little popup notice to a terminal or disconnect a terminal if needed, but that's super rare as the department is mainly keeping tabs on the infrastructure and not wholly worried about employees unless it's blatant.

    29. Re: Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it so hard to block unreasonable ads? Because advertising companies don't want you to. There's no system for identifying or communicating which ads are bad. Even when everyone agrees that popups should be blocked its left to the browsers, not the advertising companies.

    30. Re:Nice Try China! by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      they still have those?

      I guess I've used adblock plus for too long.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    31. Re:Nice Try China! by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets not forget:
      ads from compromised servers shoving malware/payloads down your throat

      I could live without adblocking... but that last one there is a no-go. If that's not fixed, I am not willing.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    32. Re:Nice Try China! by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      More likely they realize what a particularly nasty fire-ant hill they would be kicking over by doing so.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    33. Re:Nice Try China! by fast+turtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and that's exactly why I use noscript and not block ads. Of course I follow the "DENY ALL" policy and only add those few sites to the whitelist that I actually use and guess what, this blocks 95+ percent of the stinking ads online while still allowing me to use the net. Otherwise it's to the point that I'll simply drop my ISP/Cable and Phone services since I don't use them and 911 calls are paid for by the 911 taxe/surcharge by everyone (mandantory service). Only thing I even use the phone for anymore as I simply don't give a damn about talking to anyone when I'm home.

      --
      Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    34. Re:Nice Try China! by Jawnn · · Score: 2

      Perhaps, but I suspect that it's really because the percentage of users that use ad-blocking software is so small. For that group, the ads are generally nothing more than an annoyance anyway, so it's not a demographic with a significant conversion rate. Nothing is really lost there. Now, have a major ISP offer something like that by default and listen to the howls of outrage from the advertisers.

    35. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd really love to see anyone try to outlaw ad blocking. The resulting chaos would rival Prohibition in the U.S.

    36. Re:Nice Try China! by PNutts · · Score: 1

      Or, perhaps, sitting down with your users and discussing with them how to surf intelligently and safely.

      It's time people stopped giving this answer. The problem is worse than "be safe" (or "pull out" to use a car backseat analogy).

      A few months ago in a known developer forum a known dev gave a link to his legit project on github. I knew what github was having seen it referenced by many devs to their projects also in other forums but I had never visited. I clicked on his link and github opened and my A/V immediately stopped a blackhole exploit attempt. I verified his link wasn't funky and because my A/V was tripped it was either a known legit threat or a false positive. So I tried to recreate it by visiting his project a number of ways (no big deal if I get nailed, I'll just wipe my system and restore an image) but I could not reproduce it.

      So in the context our comments here was I surfing intelligently and safely? If not, how could you have taught me to not do what I did? I'm posting non-A/C because this isn't a dick question. A few years a go a work buddy got zapped going to Drudge Report (he did not click an ad, he simply opened the site to test connectivity) and they reimaged his laptop. The premise is that someone is going to be wreckless and be infected if you don't have a discussion with them, so what do you tell them? I want to see if the guidance given would have caused me to not follow that link. And since I can't mod, if someone replies "Don't go to github" I expect someone to mod it funny.

    37. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. But everyone here will never understand that because they are too young. For them, the commercial Internet is the real Internet and that was born from advertising. Our memories of a scarce web of mostly email and message boards is glamorizing an alpha build.

      The first place I remember seeing advertising was porn. There was literally no advertising for objects or services, but since porn sites had high bandwidth, had to acquire content, and relied on subscription fees, they joined together in makeshift alliances to alert users to their presence. Go ahead and look back on the early millionaires of the early 90's Internet, they were all sleazy porn guys.

      Your modern commercial web started from the depths of it.

      The rest of the Internet had web link pages for similar sites or later on, web circles. Can you believe that? Content in one area, and "advertising" in a separate webpage? And click-thru hadn't spread from porn circles so people linked to each other simply based on shared interest.

    38. Re:Nice Try China! by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The browser blocks its own popups, but sites get around this by having java or flash or whatever do the popup.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    39. Re:Nice Try China! by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Blocking ads is like throwing a soda can out a car window in that if one person does it, it's not a problem and it appears to benefit them modestly
      It is STILL littering no matter how many justifications you try to use.

      ads = visual littering (and now audio littering.)

      > I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.
      1. Ah, the old "bandwidth usage is imaginary" argument. Do you understand network _latency_ ? Blocking ads does the website a favor -- I can VIEW their content without waiting for their darn webpage to load because of N-network calls waiting to get image/tracking/analytic data back.

      2. Guess what -- my internet usage bill isn't zero. Why does the website's corporation's "right to profit-from-ads" outweigh _my_ right to minimize _my_ expenses WHEN I'm one the paying for the ability to even ACCESS your site in the first place?

      > I've clicked on ads and purchased something twice in my life from ads on a site.
      And I never have and never intend to. No one gives a crap about anecdotal evidence.

      > Removing that rare occurrence completely ruins the revenue model.
      Somebody call the wahbulance. ON NOES! The internet won't work with ads. OH WAIT, the internet functioned _before_ they were _any_ ads. Maybe YOU forget all the years of UUCP, FSP, FTP, Gopher, Lynx, Mosaic, IRC, etc. but those of us who were BUILDING the internet so businesses could exploit and profit from it sure don't.

    40. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alright, you got me to respond. Noscript and AB[PE] on all my computers. Fanboy's list, and my own personal rules, more restrictive then what come's out of the subscription. If the websites want to cry about not being able operate, tough. I don't really give a flying fuck. Most of it is crap anyway, and the ones that aren't don't run ads anyway. Facebook tries to get me "like" pages about pot and anime, because people I once knew turned stupid. I tried using the sponsored listings in google, but the product was never what I wanted, for the best price. If I search for "ethernet coupler", and the sponsored ads are 40 dollar gold plated hose fittings, they serve no purpose, and I wouldn't buy that product anywhere, for probably any price above 1USD.

      If you want to say my actions are hurting people, fine, but don't forget that it my computer, running on my internet connection, through my metered bandwidth allocation. I and I alone dictate what passes through.

    41. Re:Nice Try China! by just_a_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now I am thinking what if an ad-blocker would download the ads - so that the websites can sell all eyeballs to their advertisers - but then silently threw them away instead of showing them to the user, who is not interested anyway?

      --
      How inappropriate to call this planet Earth, when clearly it is Ocean.
    42. Re:Nice Try China! by Smallpond · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of unsafe behvior possible, but there's no such thing as safe behavior. Until the latest fix, enabling Java was unsafe behavior. Is it safe now? We won't know until its proven unsafe. Same for any sufficiently complex plug-in.

    43. Re:Nice Try China! by CelticWhisper · · Score: 3, Informative

      Adblock used to have an option to do just that. It disappeared many versions ago.

      Pity, because it was a good idea if you really wanted to stick it to the advertisers. You'd lose the bandwidth savings as the ad content would still download, but if you're unmetered and sporting a vendetta against marketroids it was a great option to use.

      --
      Help protect civil rights from abuse by the TSA - visit TSA News Blog.
      http://www.tsanewsblog.com
    44. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Use Firefox, and install the NoScript extension. Whitelist only what you need. This may break some websites, but it will also block lots of crap, many ads will disappear since most depend on JavaScript, it should also block Flash and other plugins and enable them on a click-to-play basis. Since the viruses will most likely be using JavaScript of Flash exploits, NoScript will almost certainly stop them.

      Using NoScript is my definition of surfing intelligently and safely. For people who would find NoScript too confusing or annoying, then I would recommend an ad-blocker to avoid ad-based viruses. The ad serving companies only have themselves to blame fir ad-blocking if they can't keep the ads they serve virus-free.

    45. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no law against blocking advertising just as there's no law against muting the TV during commercials. If I don't want my computer to download & execute a script from some ad network, then it doesn't. That is my right. Advertisers do not have the right to force people to watch their ads and have even less right to commandeer my hardware to do so.

      That said, laws often fly in the face of common sense, so perhaps it's a good sign for humanity that nobody is pushing for such a law. Realistically, advertisements probably don't work on a coerced audience, so there's no profit incentive to force people to watch them. After all, the trick of an ad is to make you think they're useful and add value to a product. If you hate seeing them then you associate the advertiser with something you hate, which generally is bad for sales.

    46. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of sites with heavy advertising don't even have good content. They are only there to make money from adverts, so they steal content, or just link to what other sites have put out, or publish PR verbatim.

      But I want to know what is the latest with Bitcoin and Apple on /. you insensitive clod.

    47. Re:Nice Try China! by miroku000 · · Score: 1

      I'd be perfectly happy if all these companies up and vanished from lack of ad revenue. The internet was a far less troll friendly place before they came along ;)

      So, you would like all the search engines to collapse? Then how would you find your pron?

    48. Re:Nice Try China! by wakeboarder · · Score: 2

      I don't need advertisements. When I want something, I research it, then I buy it. When I want to know something, I google it. When I want to buy random stuff, I go to a bargain site where people can humanely tell me what I should buy. If advertisers were responsible and didn't try to scheme for my attention, I might give it to them. I don't find it helpful if I go to work, look something up and them come home and find a recommendation for the same product. But for some reason, somebody somewhere thinks that it helps their pocket book, so I block them.

    49. Re:Nice Try China! by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

      I don't really give a flying fuck. Most of it is crap anyway

      If you don't care about the sites that run ads to support themselves, why run an ad blocker? Since those sites are all 'crap' you're not visiting them, because they apparently have nothing to offer you, so what do you need to block?

    50. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, the nazi's had advertisements they made the Jews wear

    51. Re:Nice Try China! by gnapster · · Score: 1

      I suppose that this might be one reason: you can't know before you visit a site whether it's going to be a worthless, crappy, admonger.

    52. Re:Nice Try China! by hairyfish · · Score: 1

      I don't mind passive ads. I enjoy a casual read of the Sunday paper complete with lots of ad and junk news. Reading pamphlets of the local hardware store actually kicks my creative juices into gear. "oh imagine what I could make with that tool!", or reading the travel section gets my explorer juices cranked. I hate ads as much as most people (I have ad blockers, record all my TV shows watch later to allow to me to skip ads, and only listen to ad-free radio), but I still like being exposed to the passive information that some advertising gives. The trick is at what point does advertising cross the line from informative/interesting to pain in the arse?

    53. Re:Nice Try China! by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Just for fun, try to come up with the wording for a law that wouldn't infringe on your ability to:

      * Skip commercials on recorded TV
      * Block spam
      * Blacklist sites that have served malware ads
      * Filter porn ads (router-level parental controls)
      * Apply greasemonkey fixes for sites not built for your browser (uncloseable javascript panel, for instance)
      * Use a screenreader, for blind users

      And now imagine you write a law that misses just one of those - or something I've forgotten. A lot of companies would take their chances with the bad press. But if there's a single company out there that doesn't need a huge million-signature petition decrying them, it's Google. Their business model is built on trust more than most of their peers.

    54. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's CIBIL you insensitive clod
      COBOL for the internet age

      Youngers these days.. uphill both ways.. yada yada

    55. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you would like all the search engines to collapse? Then how would you find your pron?

      The old-fashioned way: alt.binaries.pictures.erotica

    56. Re:Nice Try China! by bugs2squash · · Score: 1

      Is that you Homer Simpson ?

      --
      Nullius in verba
    57. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who do you think paid the telecoms? Dial-up users perhaps?

    58. Re:Nice Try China! by HJED · · Score: 1

      Hear, hear! Advertising is necessary for most of the free services people use on the internet and the majority of /. users tend to ignore that.
      Yes, I know they sell your information - they are still providing a service. ( /. itself is a good example of this, I personally leave the adds on even though I have the option to turn them off, because they really don't bother me.)

      --
      null
    59. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience it is only NSFW sites and other dodgy sites such as the less well known torrent and streaming sites that do this.

    60. Re:Nice Try China! by HJED · · Score: 1
      Do you use any of these sites:
      • Google
      • Gmail
      • Slashdot
      • Webcomics other then xkcd
      • Yahoo
      • Online news sites such as the SMH (ones that don't have paywalls)
      • Free online games
      • Social Networks such as Facebook

      Are you seriously saying that the internet would be a better place without those sites? Can you afford to pay a $10 to $20 monthly subscription to all of them?
      I know that I wouldn't be able to afford a subscription to all of them and I suspect the majority of users responses would be the same.

      --
      null
    61. Re:Nice Try China! by HJED · · Score: 1

      A subscription based system (the only realistic alternative for the majority of internet functionality) would have far greater social costs: it would increase the divide between rich and poor, deny third world countries access to the "liberating effect" of the internet that is so popular here on /. And it would fail to remove the so called "surveillance state" as you would still have to pay for the websites you are using somehow, most likely through one of three large companies: Paypal, Visa and Mastercard. (And bitcoin is very easy to track if you are using the same computer for everything, without using something like TOR)

      --
      null
    62. Re:Nice Try China! by HJED · · Score: 1

      And far less people to use it... consider how many people don't have access to a money transfer system such as Paypal, or Visa. (minors, low income people, residents of third world countries, countries under political sanctions, the list goes on)

      --
      null
    63. Re:Nice Try China! by HJED · · Score: 1

      So /. is crap? Why are you posting then?

      --
      null
    64. Re:Nice Try China! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      A fear you suffer from the affliction of believing that your personal lack of creativity represents the best the rest of the world can do.

      You start off by assuming that any significant content will be permanently locked up behind a paywall. That's just false. It is thinking stuck in the economic model of scarcity. The web is neither rivalrous nor particularly excludable. In other words the marginal cost of each additional viewer approaches zero. Once your fixed costs are paid for, it isn't necessary to continue to charge money.

      Consider the ransom model, similar to how kickstarter works, once enough money has been collected production begins and the end result is released to the public domain. It is entirely possible to build a healthy profit margin into such a model - the producers are unlikely to win the lottery but even something as small as a 25% guaranteed profit on a production funded with other people's money would make any investor swoon. And that's just one of thousands of potential business models that don't need advertising and don't build paywalls to keep the poor out.

      PS - you also seem to be completely uneducated regarding the nature of the current internet surveillance state. Tracking purchases is only a tiny piece of the puzzle. There are literally hundreds of companies that exist only to build profiles of people as they go from one web page to another in order to better target advertisements. That massive infrastructure goes away when the advertising model goes away.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    65. Re:Nice Try China! by HJED · · Score: 1

      A fear you suffer from the affliction of believing that your personal lack of creativity represents the best the rest of the world can do.

      And yet you said:

      It is difficult to imagine an funding model for the internet with worse social costs.

      Which is what I was replying too, the model I described would have far worse social costs and is also the most likely result if advertising magically disappeared, that is realism and YOUR lack of imagination, not mine.

      A fear you suffer from the affliction of believing that your personal lack of creativity represents the best the rest of the world can do.

      You start off by assuming that any significant content will be permanently locked up behind a paywall. That's just false. It is thinking stuck in the economic model of scarcity. The web is neither rivalrous nor particularly excludable. In other words the marginal cost of each additional viewer approaches zero. Once your fixed costs are paid for, it isn't necessary to continue to charge money.

      I'm afraid this is simply incorrect, connection to the internet requires bandwidth, which needs to be paid for, this is an ongoing cost. Even if you somehow removed the commercial connection system, ongoing maintenance and capacity upgrades would still be required. The scale of such maintenance is such that even in a volunteer organisation you would still require significant capital to maintain it.

      You start off by assuming that any significant content will be permanently locked up behind a paywall.

      With the notable exception of wikipedia, which still requires massive donation campaigns and has limited reliability in terms of information content due to its reliance on amateur users, this is not a suitable model for many purposes. Most significant websites on the internet have some form of advertising or paywall, this is due to their need to make money, in order to pay for the creation of content. This is because most people have to eat, pay rent, wear clothes and other living costs and thus they need to get paid.


      Yes, there would be some hobyist who would continue supporting their websites at a loss, but they are few and far between. Such websites would also need to be small scale, as the current web design industry would not be sustainable if it is dependent on only those sites. A large amount of content would disappear or stop being maintained.
      Taken to the extreme your concept would depend purely on everyone being as self less as Gandhi, something that sadly I do not believe is possible for the majority of humanity (myself included).

      Consider the ransom model, similar to how kickstarter works, once enough money has been collected production begins and the end result is released to the public domain. It is entirely possible to build a healthy profit margin into such a model - the producers are unlikely to win the lottery but even something as small as a 25% guaranteed profit on a production funded with other people's money would make any investor swoon. And that's just one of thousands of potential business models that don't need advertising and don't build paywalls to keep the poor out.

      This assumes static content and free ongoing maintenance on their servers and internet connections, the reality is that most content on the internet is dynamic. This could be a good method for writing books or publishing web comics, its not a good idea for much of what the internet is used for today (sites like slashdot, news sites and social networks).

      PS - you also seem to be completely uneducated regarding the nature of the current internet surveillance state. Tracking purchases is only a tiny piece of the puzzle. There are literally hundreds of companies that exist only to build profiles of people as they go from one web page to another in order to better target advertisements. That massive infrastr

      --
      null
    66. Re:Nice Try China! by Razed+By+TV · · Score: 1

      Ad revenue allowed for the evolution of:
      search engines
      free email (not attached to an isp)
      free personal websites (geocities, etc)

      I don't know about you, but I consider those important achievements in making the internet accessible. It's like you think only technically capable people should use the internet. Maybe you do. And if you dont, you can't honestly tell me that you think some hobbyist is going to shell out the cash required so that millions of people can have those things. That's a lot of cash for a hobbyist to do just one of those things.

    67. Re:Nice Try China! by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

      The obvious system (to me) is an ad delivery system where you can buy yourself out of seeing ads.

      Site hosts sign on with the system and get money; the money either comes from subscribers who are paying to not see ads, or from advertisers, who are paying to have their ads delivered along with the web page.

    68. Re:Nice Try China! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      This is why we have NoScript and AdBlock. We made a technological measure (Block popups in browser) to prevent unwanted behaviour (popup advertising), and they deliberately circumvented that measure. They could have learned the lesson and gone with "Yup, popups are annoying. We won't do that now. How about letting us just go with static image banners and unobtrusive text ads?" from the beginning, but they instead made plugins load popups. Instead of agreeing pissing in the garden isn't acceptable and using the toilet like a regular person, they pissed in our cereal. So now we don't even invite them into the house, and have electrified all of the fences. They only have themselves to blame.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    69. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The obvious system (to me) is an ad delivery system where you can buy yourself out of seeing ads.

      "Have ya paid yer 'protection money' this week, pops? Better come up with it by tomorrow, or we're gonna have ta spam ya's."

    70. Re:Nice Try China! by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Google Gmail

      No. I believe Google is an awful company that steps far over the line of stalking people. I don't use any of their sites. Except for the occasional time when someone sends me a link to a video. And in those cases I'd prefer they did it in another way.

      Slashdot

      Of course. And Slashdot offers me a no ads option, which I use. So they don't expect any income from me. Clearly my contributions are worth something to them.

      Webcomics other then xkcd
      Yahoo
      Online news sites such as the SMH (ones that don't have paywalls)
      Free online games

      No. And my general news site is the BBC which is financed by UK TV licensed holders, not advertising.

      Social Networks such as Facebook

      Yes. But Facebook has other revenue streams, such as taking a cut of online apps. But if lack of advertising killed Facebook, I'd happily go to wherever the majority of people transfer to (other than Google+). I haven't looked closely, but I believe DIaspora is free. Maybe that would replace it. Or maybe another commercial one that can find a different revenue model.

      Like most people I'm resistant to subscriptions, preferring no cost when it's available. But I have subscribed on occasion. I don't believe any of the site you mention would need or be able to support a subscription as high as $10-20 per month though. That's certainly far more than they are getting per user currently from advertising.

    71. Re:Nice Try China! by hackula · · Score: 1

      When I was kid I was very interested in guitars. I would order the new catalog every month from just about every guitar manufacturer and read them religiously. Ads for things that actually interest me are perfectly fine. Unfortunately, the ads I usually see without adblock are for stupid MMOs and Chinese brides. If I could tell the advertisers "give me no ads but those pertaining to guitar gear, programming tools, and productivity apps", then I would happily allow the ads and I would probably even click on some of them. Give me one ad for a Chinese bride though then sorry, but I am done. The best examples of advertising I have seen have been on sites that fit a very specific niche. Stackoverflow, for example, has ads that pretty much by definition, their users care about. An ad for a job at a cool company in my area using a technology stack that I have 5 years of experience with? I will click on that ad any time. Weight loss pills your doctor doesn't want you to know about? No fucking thanks.

    72. Re:Nice Try China! by T-ice · · Score: 1

      If you don't want google to know everything you do on the internet. Don't use google for everything you do on the internet.

    73. Re:Nice Try China! by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      It is difficult to imagine an funding model for the internet with worse social costs.

      Which is what I was replying too, the model I described would have far worse social cost

      OK, congrats, you came up with something WORSE. Good for you! Thanks for contributing, it is always nice when people put their imagination to use figuring out why something can't possibly work rather than thinking about ways around the obstacles in life.

      I'm afraid this is simply incorrect, connection to the internet requires bandwidth

      Marginal bandwidth costs are minimal. You've made the error of assuming that fixed costs like servers, adminstration, etc are part of the marginal cost of deliverying a new copy. Even so, who says something more distributed can't fill the gap? When the content is public domain, much of the business case for centralization goes away.

      I am well aware of this, however in a micro-transaction based internet the small number of companies with the resources to process payments would still be able to do that for all internet users;

      You confuse ability with desire. Advertising is a behemoth, orders of magnitude larger than everything else combined. Your example of "demographic research" wouldn't even provide one ten thousandth of the incentive that advertising budgetse do.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    74. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no law against blocking advertising just as there's no law against muting the TV during commercials.

      Yet.
      Quit giving them ideas!

    75. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't mention infrastructure at all. He was talking about content, and he was right. Fat lot of good all that infrastructure would have done you with nothing on it, you brainless fuckstick.

    76. Re:Nice Try China! by s1lverl0rd · · Score: 1

      Your post advocates a

      (X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based ( ) vigilante

      approach to having an ad-free internet. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws.)

      (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
      (X) It will stop ads for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
      (X) Internet users will not put up with it
      (X) Microsoft will not put up with it
      ( ) The police will not put up with it
      (X) Requires too much cooperation from website owners
      ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
      ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

      Specifically, your plan fails to account for

      ( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
      (X) Asshats
      (X) Pirates
      ( ) Jurisdictional problems
      (X) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
      (X) Public reluctance to accept new paywalls
      (X) Huge existing investment in advertising technology
      (X) Profitability of ads
      ( ) Technically illiterate politicians

      and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

      (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
      (X) Browsing the web should be free
      (X) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
      (X) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
      ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
      (X) Micropayments are cumbersone
      (X) I don't want anyone to know what I'm reading
      ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

      Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

      (X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
      ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
      ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
      house down!

    77. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who do you think paid the telecoms? Dial-up users perhaps?

      Nope. Business-class service: frame relay, T1, ISDN etc. Dial-up was a drop in the bucket. I was there; the client base was small and the margins razor-thin.

    78. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What content would that be, jerkoff? Usenet? That was pretty much all university students until AOL hooked up to it in 1993 - Google "Eternal September." That's also (not coincidentally) when Usenet started getting overrun with SPAM ADS.

      Face it, the "hobbyists" were on BBSes or paid services like AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe, GEnie, etc. That was NOT the "Internet" and had nothing to do with "building the Internet." All that happened later after the Web got traction (post-Mosaic).

      Now kindly get the fuck off my lawn.

    79. Re:Nice Try China! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this point in the game, it's too late. Google builds profiles of you even if you don't use any of their services (just like Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, etc).

      Just visiting a site that uses any of their services slaps your info into their database, even if they can't identify you by name (yet). Doesn't matter if you have Google's stuff blocked or not. The site the stuff is on records it and passes it on to what you blocked anyhow.

      Simple things like your location data help their advertising units, even if it's "anonymous".

    80. Re:Nice Try China! by HJED · · Score: 1

      But I have subscribed on occasion. I don't believe any of the site you mention would need or be able to support a subscription as high as $10-20 per month though. That's certainly far more than they are getting per user currently from advertising.

      Yet with less users and more costs (processing money is expensive), they would need to get more income from each of their users than they currently do.

      --
      null
    81. Re:Nice Try China! by poofmeisterp · · Score: 1

      I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.

      I agree with you that the standard Google adsense ads are ok, blocking them is counterproductive (because websites need income). However, Youtube ads (also operated by Google) have gone way over the line and are way too intrusive; also far too many websites still shove floating divs and the like in your face (in fact, thats something that seems to be increasing), and manually blocking only the intrusive ads becomes far too much effort so invariably all ads get blocked.

      It would be nice if someone would develop ad blocking software that allowed for the requests to be sent (hence, money is appropriately distributed) but blocks the actual VIEWING of the elements of said ads. I mean completely removes them from the actual rendered content, but still has a background processing function to make it GET'ed. As far as third party calls from the ad to others, that's a gray area. I'd like to see votes on that.

  3. At the proxy. by Raven42rac · · Score: 4, Informative

    I prefer at the proxy level. Dansguardian/Squid/ClamAV is pretty easy to set up on your distro of choice.

    --
    I hate sigs.
    1. Re:At the proxy. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the right answer. There's nothing wrong with ad blocking on the client, but if you want to block content for a whole bunch of users, a proxy is the answer. squid really is easy to set up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:At the proxy. by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do you want to block content for a whole bunch of users? Do you run a dictatorship?

      The most obvious example which does not support your jerking knee or twisted panties is keeping known malware off of a corporate network.

      Content blocking should be done on the client because it's the only place where the user has control over the blocking.

      If it's your computer, sure. (That includes those which are owned by the state but which you have access to, e.g. at the library.) If it's not your computer, fuck off. It's not your computer.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:At the proxy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use this method also, we run squidguard with squid on all our remote office routers. Let's you knock out the known malware/porno/etc sites without the user experience suffering. With squid's caching enable it even speeds up the experience for several sites.

      I haven't used Dansguardian though, off to google that now :)

    4. Re:At the proxy. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      If it's not your computer, but The Boss appears to have hired you as the junkyard dog in charge of bossing people around on it... well, in your own words, fuck off. (and die)

    5. Re:At the proxy. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If it's not your computer, but The Boss appears to have hired you as the junkyard dog in charge of bossing people around on it... well, in your own words, fuck off. (and die)

      If you have a job where you work with a computer, you can almost certainly afford to carry your own personal computer in your pocket so that you do not need to expose your work network to malware because you wanted to do some personal surfing.

      It's easy to create a proxy with a simple workaround which you can give to users who need it. You put a non-transforming proxy on a second port, you do transparent proxying, and then you can let some users use the non-transforming proxy. For bonus points, create a separate one for each user, which will tell you who gave away the settings if a new user pops up and starts using the proxy.

      If you can't handle what someone wants done with their stuff, perhaps you should work for someone else.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:At the proxy. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      It's the boss's prerogative to delegate deciding what restrictions to put on company computers. Don't like it? Don't work there.

    7. Re:At the proxy. by oodaloop · · Score: 2

      Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    8. Re:At the proxy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and the AC you responded to are getting some wires crossed. There are legitimate reasons to block content, such as in the case of blocking malware or even illegal sites. All too often, though, I have seen content blocking used either 1) to treat employees like they're four years old by overzealous bosses who think that if they just limit access to the Internet they have successfully increased production, or 2) as a way of shifting management responsibility off of their own shoulders and onto the IT group's.

      As facetious as it is to say, "Fuck off," it also shifts the fault of not wanting to be treated like a four-year-old onto the employee, not the employer, and because it is a widespread practice that has to do with something that's rather technical in nature, a lot of employers get away with it. If my boss made a fuss because, for example, I used the company phone at my desk to make a personal call during my break, that would piss me off too, knowing that it's not costing the company anything in incremental costs. And most people would agree--while they don't dispute the employer's right to do so, they also implicitly know that the employer is being a douchebag, and that's a company where I don't want to work.

      Also, all too often I have seen content filtering used, as I said above, as a means of shifting the burden of people management off of bosses and onto an IT group. Companies should have clear policies on what are not acceptable uses of the Internet, such as browsing porn sites at work. If an employee is browsing porn sites, it's not an IT problem, it's something that needs to be addressed by HR and the person fired. I've seen IT workers and third-party companies get into hot water because such-and-such a site wasn't blocked. Managers got angry because IT wasn't doing the manager's job well enough for them. I also happen to work at a very large company that engages in some content filtering (mostly things like gambling sites, porn sites, malware sites, etc.), and I've seen firsthand how many problems content filtering causes. It has costed that company literally millions of dollars when you add up the equipment and consulting and labor costs to maintain it, the service agreements with third-party companies who maintain the filters, and especially the major outages we've suffered when things go wrong and the whole company loses access to the Internet, affecting things like product ordering, billing, production, etc.

      So to say something as trite as, "Fuck off, it's not your computer," it demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of the issue. If this is something that you're actually involved in, you need to seriously give more thought about it. If it's not, then while you obviously have the right to express such opinions, you are clearly unqualified for them to have much weight.

    9. Re:At the proxy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This, a thousand times this!

      I've maintained this policy with countless customers over the years! I'm sick and tired of owners / managers saying to me "I can't control them, how can I keep them working and on task?" Only to sit and have a serious conversation about a few things.

      I've always been strongly of the opinion that workers should be able to forfeit breaks for "micro-breaks" and keep up with current events while they work. Some people find it relaxing to read the news, some to read their email, some to look at lolcats.

      Generally, if the employees aren't getting the work you need from them done, a manger should speak to them about it.

      Unfortunately, I've also had to accept contracts to implement mandatory web filtering. generally I strongly suggest NOT filtering, and instead simply using a Squid instance as a transparent proxy, and generating reports about time spent on some of the "please don't waste your time on these" sites.

    10. Re:At the proxy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keith, we've talked many times about you trolling slashdot on company time. I'm sorry it has come to this but we have to let you go.

      Best regards,
      Management

    11. Re:At the proxy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you apply similar word filtering to the telephones in the office? How about company cars, do they disable the engine if they travel off the designated route? Or do you trust people to be responsible and deal with it interpersonally if it starts to interfere with work?

    12. Re:At the proxy. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or do you trust people to be responsible and deal with it interpersonally if it starts to interfere with work?

      I will certainly block known scam numbers from a phone system, just like I will block known malware delivery networks from a business network. I do not trust people to make intelligent decisions, especially when there are people trying to scam them into making unintelligent ones who may be more intelligent and/or savvy than they are.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:At the proxy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the wrong answer. Dansguardian is difficult to master, has a peculiar way of doing simple things, and it's easy to screw up such that starting from scratch is often required after making a configuration change. It's one of those solutions that has a dedicated following because those that grok feel like they have successfully scaled a poorly placed mountain between highway exits.

  4. This depends on the use and purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you are a business that needs/wants to block things on an enterprise level the router... or rather firewall... is the best place for that. If you are a parent, I suggest putting Net Nanny or another suitable program (there are tons of open source ones) on your childrens computers so that it doesn't affect you.

    1. Re:This depends on the use and purpose by Splat · · Score: 1

      Precisely.

      There is no "proper", or "best practice" place. Your two questions are entirely dependent on your use-case scenarios. If you want to block flash scripts on your kids browsers, do it host level at the OS. If you are dealing with a gigantic 2000 employee office campus, then you'd want to probably handle that centrally on a giant honking appliance/router designed for it where you can centrally manage policy.

      But ... you can flip both scenarios blocking mechanisms I just mentioned and they'd still work. "Proper" can be entirely subjective based on what you're trying to accomplish and other factors involved

    2. Re:This depends on the use and purpose by qwertyatwork · · Score: 2

      I do it on the /etc/hosts level on my dns server. You can find large lists of ad domains that can be added to your hosts file with 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 to cause them to fail. This covers all machines on your network that use your dns server. The one I use is http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.txt however they have become slow with updating it. You might want to invest some time in looking for one that is updated more frequently.

    3. Re:This depends on the use and purpose by ls671 · · Score: 1

      I do it on the /etc/hosts level on my dns server.

      What kind of DNS server software are you using?

      I haven't seen yet a DNS server configured to read /etc/hosts. I am using BIND and I do not know if you can even make it read /etc/hosts.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re:This depends on the use and purpose by qwertyatwork · · Score: 1

      bind reads /etc/hosts. As far as I know any DNS server I've ever used on Linux reads /etc/hosts

    5. Re:This depends on the use and purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bind reads /etc/hosts.

      Are you sure about that?

      The source code is available here.
      As far as I can tell, all references to "/etc/hosts" are in comments, not code.

  5. Upstream by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
    ISPs should offer a service to block it for you so you dont have to pay for the bandwidth. Of course, YOU would have to choose what is blocked, not them - which is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.

    I envisage an HTML feature where you can click on something and have it labelled spam at the ISP.

    Allowing this info back to the scum that served it would be a privacy invasion of the worst kind.

    Perhaps some enlightened ISPs could charge charge people double for serving shit. They would get my business for sure!

    I truely believe that if the ads were not so horribly intrusive and bandwith hogging, they could/would be ignored or even watched. Just last night, I watched a really great advert on TV yesterday - way better than the program it was embedded in - watched the ad to the end, and then ditched the actual program! However, I have stopped visiting certain websites because the amount of flash they serve makes it impossible to actually scroll though the content!

    Please feel welcome give me the standard spam prevention review form ;-)

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    1. Re:Upstream by Technician · · Score: 4, Informative

      Filtered DNS does this already if you choose to use it.

      http://www.opendns.com/
      http://www.scrubit.com/

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    2. Re:Upstream by leehwtsohg · · Score: 1

      But isn't it mostly the case that you know you don't want something even before you look at the content? So you can block the request before
      it even goes out to the ISP.

    3. Re:Upstream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

    4. Re:Upstream by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I've used OpenDNS before for content filtering. Works well. Just keep in mind that if this is a Windows network you're administrating, you will want to use a GPO that locks in DNS settings (option will be greyed out for users looking to modify local TCP/IP setting). If you're running Vista, Windows 7, or 8, you can further restrict access to the Hosts file for users that are a member of the Local Administrators group.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Upstream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try hostfiles.org. For years I've used this and only contracted one virus, and that due to a hijacked page. Kills the vast majority of ads and malware sites, unless you go to the more freakydeaky sites. File has a huge list of ad sites that are translated to ip adds of 127.0.0.1(I think) Request never even touches your connection.

    6. Re:Upstream by ls671 · · Score: 1

      ISPs should offer a service to block it for you so you dont have to pay for the bandwidth...

      I truely believe that if the ads were not so horribly intrusive and bandwith hogging, ..

      What kind of bandwidth are you talking about?

      He wants to block web content, not email spam. When you block a web site with squid, hosts file, firewall etc., you use zero bandwidth to connect to the site.

      Actually, you may end up using more bandwidth blocking web content at the ISP level because your HTTP requests could still get to the ISP along with a HTTP response.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    7. Re:Upstream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      parked page with adverts

    8. Re:Upstream by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Just catch all outgoing DNS at your router and redirect them to your own DNS server or OpenDNS if you wish. Much easier and especially much more fail safe.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  6. /etc/hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just add an IP you want the address to direct and the web domain.

    It lives in "/etc/hosts" in most UNIX systems

    How a DNS override on a router is done, depends mostly on the router, can't go into specifics.

    1. Re:/etc/hosts by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      It lives in C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts on windows systems at least up till win7.

      Here is an add-block hosts file: http://pgl.yoyo.org/as/serverlist.php?showintro=0;hostformat=hosts

      This info is brough by a Linux user... :-)

    2. Re:/etc/hosts by ls671 · · Score: 1

      It has the advantage of being extremely easy to do (just add a domain to the file), and i have noticed no slowdowns at all on my old netbook.

      You should actually notice a speed up! Host file lookups are negligible compared to DNS lookups and HTTP queries...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  7. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not going to help you do this.

    Blocking is evil.

    1. Re:No. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Agreed, and generally you should think carefully what you want to block. It's unethical to cut the main revenue stream of a website. Of course at some point ads can become unbearably annoying, but at that point you shouldn't visit that website at all.

    2. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to think it's unethical to have every move I make tracked by hundreds of different companies.

      I won't lose any sleep at night using hostman/adblock/ghostery/etc.

    3. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, and generally you should think carefully what you want to block. It's unethical to cut the main revenue stream of a website. Of course at some point ads can become unbearably annoying, but at that point you shouldn't visit that website at all.

      Normal people fund their own website if they want people to see them. If you need ads, then take it offline.

    4. Re:No. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I tend to think it's unethical to have every move I make tracked by hundreds of different companies.

      Fully agree. Although that's more about datamining than advertising...but unfortunately they are often bound together these days.

    5. Re:No. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Normal people fund their own website if they want people to see them. If you need ads, then take it offline.

      This is true, but if we start to talk about large websites you obviously can't fund them from some guy's pocket.

    6. Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's unethical to cut the main revenue stream of a website."

      No, it's not.

      That's all there is to it. This isn't even arguable. The web has rules: If you want to publish something there, you shoulder the full cost of doing so. You certainly have the right to attempt to recoup costs, or even profit, but you have no right to be success in these efforts.

      If you have a website, you've already agreed to play by these rules. Demanding that your efforts to profit be unopposed is attempting to change the rules after the fact. Sorry, but you're wrong here. If you've published something on the web, it's everybody's to have, for free, without having to look at ads if they so choose. Nothing unethical about it. Your attempt to mischaracterize it is conceptual poison.

  8. What about SSL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How would you like to filter out SSL traffic on a intermediate device? Do you have access to fake CA certificates recognized by the majority of web browsers?

    1. Re: What about SSL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Startssl for free SSL certs

    2. Re:What about SSL? by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Informative

      How would you like to filter out SSL traffic on a intermediate device? Do you have access to fake CA certificates recognized by the majority of web browsers?

      No problem if you use active directory group policies and a squid proxy with ssl-bump and dynamic generated certificates.

      Simply use a group policy to push the proxies cert out to the workstations as a trusted root certificate. Problem solved.

      Now you can filter out naughty HTTPS sites. Also anyone with root access to the squid proxy can extract all kinds of interesting info from the users HTTPS sessions and manipulate them in interesting ways. And the only way the users would know is by manually checking the certificate. "Whats this Google certificate doing being signed by '*'?"

      When you do this using Microsoft TMG theres a big red warning "You may want to check the legal implications of what you are about to do".

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:What about SSL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The thing I don't like about it is that it ruins the certificate trust system. With every site signed by the same certificate, even bad ones are accepted by the browser and there is no way to tell them apart.

    4. Re:What about SSL? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really, any modern SSL decryption engine has its own list of trusted CAs and can handle the proxy differently for certs using untrusted CAs.

    5. Re:What about SSL? by Voyager529 · · Score: 1

      The thing I don't like about it is that it ruins the certificate trust system. With every site signed by the same certificate, even bad ones are accepted by the browser and there is no way to tell them apart.

      Counterpoint: If you're in an environment where you're using AD/Group Policy and a squid proxy, you're probably dealing with a group of users that require that sort of network control. Implicitly, they're not checking their certs anyway and wouldn't be able to meaningfully tell the good from the bad even if they had access to that information. If users were doing that, MITM SSL Cert signing wouldn't be necessary in the first place.

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

      Wouldn't you say the certificate system for trust is already broken? More or less were trusting our OS vendors to provide use with a list of root CAs that we users don't know or verify, who extract money at extravagant rates and verify little information beyond that you paid them.

      The owner of the certificate was never even met by the trusted third party, and the user nearly always doesn't know which third parties they trust, and the standard by which OS vendors build in root certs is 90% popularity.

    7. Re:What about SSL? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I have to ask myself; why else did MS make it possible to add trusted root certs at the OS level and why do all the browsers (I've so far tested) totally trust and respect the OS level trusted root cert list? Isn't it possible to get, say, Chrome to use its own trusted root certs instead?

      In the environment where I'm doing this, totally the users require that sort of control otherwise its going to bring the business down. No kidding.

      Mind you I do have to explain to the CEO/VP who asked for this, how someone with access to the proxy could mess with their online bank pages to make it look like they had no money, or endless amounts of money. And I'm not sure that THEY understand this risk properly...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  9. DNS by craigminah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I use OpenDNS...works well and works regardless sof browser.

  10. Check Out AdTrap on Kickstarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/600284081/adtrap-the-internet-is-yours-again?ref=search

    1. Re:Check Out AdTrap on Kickstarter by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Nice. Is this something that could be done with a Raspberry Pi?

    2. Re:Check Out AdTrap on Kickstarter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do anything with Raspberry Pi - anything at all!

      The only limit is yourself!

      Welcome to Raspberry Pi...
      The infinite is possible with Raspberry Pi.
      The unattainable is unknown with Raspberry Pi.

      Welcome to Raspberry Pi... this is Raspberry Pi!

  11. SCREW YOU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dont help this guy he probably works for google and trying to create a new spy network f-u-c-k off dude

  12. Squid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    acl blocked-sites dstdomain "/etc/squid/blocked-websites"
    http_access deny blocked-sites

    and in the file: .badsite.com

    --

    Done.

  13. Proxy by Bragi+Ragnarson · · Score: 1

    If you want to filter web content use web proxy and advertise it by default on the network. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_auto-config and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Proxy_Autodiscovery_Protocol. GlimmerBlocker is a very good ad blocker for Mac that works as a proxy with stunning results.

    --
    Bragi Ragnarson Lawful Good (I change the law when it's not good)
    1. Re:Proxy by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Some prefer not to advertise it on the network. I guess it depends on the situation...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  14. Well, the first shot has already been fired... by rocket+rancher · · Score: 2

    According to the EFF, Google has removed Adblock plus from the Google Play, citing that it violates Google's terms and conditions that stipulate that apps will not interfere with any other app on the store. This only affects android so far, but I imagine now that Google has decided that content blocking is a bad thing, I would imagine that the chrome and firefox extensions will follow. And, sadly, it's probably only a matter of time before Google turn their considerable talents to making sure that any method will fail. I'm not interested in starting a flame war here; I'm just pointing out that when the pre-eminent search engine on the planet weighs in on content blocking in such a heavy-handed way, it can't bode well for any of us.

    1. Re:Well, the first shot has already been fired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're being alarmist. In order to prevent people from installing Adbock etc. on Android, Google would have to remove both the 'alternative app store' and 'sideload apk' facilities, and this would be a very high profile and damaging move.
      You are implying trollishly (while not stating it explicitly) that Google have already prevented Adblock installs on Android systems, which they absolutely have not.
      You are also implying (again without being explicit) that Google could somehow prevent Mozilla from supplying Firefox Adblock extensions, which franckly is a bunch of lies.

    2. Re:Well, the first shot has already been fired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is already a 100% sure-fire way to make sure your adds are viewed by the user. It's dead simple and largely acceptable to many of the people using ad blocking software (at least, a vocal contingent of them on slashdot). It is this:

      Serve them from the same host, domain and path as the actual content.

      The user could block the adds one by one as they see them or create a script/plugin/filter to attempt to distinguish an add from real content. The former is likely to increase user exposure to the adds and the latter will have a very high false positive rate. There's not that much difference between (say) a graph of the stock price you were searching for and a graph of mortgage rates in your zip code, encouraging you to refinance.

    3. Re:Well, the first shot has already been fired... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google removed ad blockers from Google Play because they broke sandboxing and interfered with other applications. Installing ABP in Chrome does not block ads in IE or Firefox, but installing it on an Android device blocks pother app's connections to servers. Many developers have a free version with ads and a paid version without. If you don't like ads, cough up the $.99 to buy the app.

  15. Some Good OSS Based Options by cluge · · Score: 1

    Blocking content at the router/firewall is the best place to block it inside your network. Otherwise you're dealing with keeping several machines up to date. As IT infrastructure becomes more diverse (Mac, Windows Flavors, Guests etc) keeping individual machines updated will be harder than a centralize point. Another option is to force users to utilize a specifc DNS server (ie http://www.opendns.com/business-security/). Then all you do is block DNS traffic destined for any other DNS servers.

    I'd avoid the $50 walmart router and look at some stand alone firewall/routers with good filtering options: IPCop (http://ipcop.org/) + URLFILTER (http://www.urlfilter.net/) or Cop+ (http://home.earthlink.net/~copplus/) or UnTangle (https://www.untangle.com/store/lite-package.html)

    Will it slow down your connection? It can if you do not use fast enough equipment, but in general the price of CPU cycles isn't an issue when using PC based solutions.

    --
    "Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
    1. Re:Some Good OSS Based Options by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Then all you do is block DNS traffic destined for any other DNS servers.

      I find it more convenient to redirect DNS queries to the server you like instead of blocking them.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
  16. Proxy by ternarybit · · Score: 1

    I have FreNAS set up on a fairly modest box, originally intended to just host a few files. Then I got curious about just this thing, and installed squid in transparent mode with squidGuard. I want to block tracking and ad content at the network level as a security and privacy concern. I installed a blacklist from squidGuard's website and enabled the appropriate domain and url lists.

    After about a week, I must say I'm rather impressed. Caching all http traffic while simultaneously blocking ads and trackers noticeably improved website response times, both for cached and non-cached pages. This improvement is even more dramatic on slower connections. So far, no false positives and only first-party ads aren't blocked. Even better, the transparent proxy means no client-side configuration.

    As far as lists affecting speed, squidGuard stores domains in a Berkeley-DB optimized database format that does not degrade performance with even huge blacklists (I think my blacklists are running over 1M domains right now). The real speed hit comes from using regex. However, my simple domain-based blacklist works so well I feel no need to go that route. Besides, I don't want to block first-party ads.

  17. Service that filters domains and IPs? by guanxi · · Score: 1

    One solution is a service that filters domains at the DNS level, such as OpenDNS.

    But does anyone know of a similar service on the IP level? Malware attackers may not cooperate by using domain names; IP addresses are less hassle for them, less attention-getting from the average end-user (who knows somewebsite.ru is wrong, but not 134.14.215.12), and they bypass DNS-level security. The IP-level filter would have to be either,

      * Something like an RBL, but for all attacks not just for spam.
      * A proxy to a service that scans Internet content for attacks, again like their email equivalent (MessageLabs, Postini, etc.). This would be like the malware scanning on some firewalls, but I find those slow down connections too much (especially for fiber-level bandwidth). A datacenter would have much greater bandwidth capacity and much greater scanning capability than the local firewall.

    Does anyone provide these services?

    1. Re:Service that filters domains and IPs? by gitano_dbs · · Score: 1

      You can get lists there http://www.iblocklist.com/ can use for block and also for allow. The service depend of your needs, i am using 4 lists from iblocklist and http://www.peerblock.com/ on a windows computer :)

  18. At the router by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with a default deny all and a few rules to permit the sites you require for business and also trust.

  19. both-and more needed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have portable devices that need blocks when not on your network.
    Use everything available
    - DNS / /etc/hosts
    - ad blocks
    - content blocks
    - proxy
    - firewall rules

  20. So which divs are "these pop-ups"? by tepples · · Score: 1

    In your pseudocode, how would the program determine which fixed-position block elements within a page are "these pop-ups" and which are essential navigation?

    1. Re:So which divs are "these pop-ups"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blacklist filter the div content for "penis enlargement," Zoosk, Lavalife Match.com, "congratulations winner," survey, "free screensavers," "weight loss," "organic yoga" etc.

    2. Re:So which divs are "these pop-ups"? by ThatsLoseNotLoose · · Score: 1

      That kind of element should not be blocked. A popup-like div does a fine job of alerting the user to something but isn't nearly as persistent or irritating as a javascript alert or a new window. Even if it's modal to the window it still dies when you navigate away from the spawning page.

  21. Malware on pocket computer by tepples · · Score: 1

    If you have a job where you work with a computer, you can almost certainly afford to carry your own personal computer in your pocket so that you do not need to expose your work network to malware

    Someone who brings in a computer would be exposing his work network to whatever malware is installed on the personal computer in his pocket.

    1. Re:Malware on pocket computer by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Computer in pocket = smartphone, typically with dedicated internet.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  22. How to relocate away from a policy like this? by tepples · · Score: 1

    Don't like it? Don't work there.

    If you grew up in a town with one dominant employer, and this employer had a policy with which you did not agree, where would you find the money to relocate to another town?

    1. Re:How to relocate away from a policy like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you grew up in a town with one dominant employer, and this employer had a policy with which you did not agree, where would you find the money to relocate to another town?

      I hear you can make good money advertising on the Internet...

    2. Re:How to relocate away from a policy like this? by tepples · · Score: 2

      "At what level should I block content for several machines on your network?"

      "Why would you want to block content for several machines on your network?"

      "To keep malware off work machines."

      "People hired to block content as part of an effort to keep malware off work machines should quit their jobs."

      "So if the only available jobs in one's location and area of expertise are with companies that block content as part of an effort to keep malware off work machines, where should one work instead?"

      "Off topic."

      First, you posted and therefore cannot moderate. Second, how is it off-topic? Third, where would it be on-topic?

    3. Re:How to relocate away from a policy like this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What he means isn't literally "Don't like it? Find a new job with an internet surfing policy that allows you to do what you want." He means "Don't like it? Grow up and deal with it. It's not your right to surf at work, nor should it be."

      Seriously, if you can't get what you want by your own means, live without it. The world doesn't owe you anything besides an opportunity to provide for yourself.

  23. Router level by jd659 · · Score: 1

    I assume you try to increase the convenience of browsing and not to restrict anyone of the information (the latter I don’t think is possible). Any blocking will have some unintended effect. Router dns poisoning works relatively well. I had it for a long time and enjoy it. I like that all my machines, including any mobile clients connected to my wi-fi, have less ads displayed. My main purpose is to block tracking sites, rather than disable the ads. I also like the fact that the page content does not change, no scripts get inserted or modified, only the third party sites are blocked.

    But... There were cases when I had to disable or modify the blocking. Hulu detects that the ads are blocked and takes a couple of minutes for a timeout to happen. It might be OK to allow a 30 second ad to show in that instance. A checkout in a few online shops may not work at all if the tracking is blocked. Yes, it is the problem with the sites, but I had to enable tracking a couple of times so that I could complete the checkout. Many of the referral sites stop working by clicking the products directly, as the case with goodgle shopping.

    While doing some investigation I was shocked to see how much data is shared with third parties even by the big name stores. Every single product you view on a shopping site may generate notifications to facebook, twitter, pinterest, etc. Everything that gets placed in a shopping card may generate “likes” behind the scenes if you have another instance of the browser with logged in profile open. The amount of tracking is phenomenal, and it is my right to restrict it.

    --
    There's no such thing as "illegal download"
  24. Re:What not to do: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking exactly opposite: this is the first site on the web to snitch content for free without paying for it.

  25. Re:What not to do: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree. There is no way Slahdot or its users will condone [XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX]

  26. Routers.... by David_Hart · · Score: 1

    In my opinion, as a network engineer, routers should never be used for security functions as it just isn't scalable from a support and management perspective (i.e. keeping settings the same across a large number of sites). If you need to block traffic then you need to buy a Firewall and/or a Proxy server. If you can just afford one device, buy a firewall. Most Firewalls can also support routing and routing protocols plus they are optimized to handle the additional overhead of security services.

    Unless this is a small environment (less than 30 people) you also do not want to perform security functions on the client as it also doesn't scale well. Granted, you could probably do something with AD group policies and login scripts, but it eventually becomes more difficult to manage in comparison to a Firewall/Proxy solution. In addition, if your clients have Admin access then they can bypass your security by changing the local client settings.

    Finally, the organization of your company will also influence how content filtering is deployed. I work in a large organization where network security is a separate group from the WAN group. In this type of organization, it makes sense to keep the security devices separate from the WAN and Internet network routing devices. In smaller organizations, these two support services may be combined.

  27. At the source by rcharbon · · Score: 1

    Obviously, the best place to get rid of annoying web content is at the source, by not posting it in the first place.

  28. viral pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    94 Megabytes: Breeder (from Peter Watts' "Maelstrom" copied here to avoid Slashbombing his site)

    It has a purpose, which it has long since forgotten. It has a destiny, which it is about to meet. In the meantime it breeds.

    Replication is all that matters. The code has lived by that edict since before it even learned how to rewrite itself. Way back then it had a name, something cute like Jerusalem or Whiptail. Lots of things have changed since; the code has rewritten itself so many times, been parasitised and fucked and bombed by so many other pieces of code, that by now it's got as much in common with its origins as a humpback whale would have with the sperm cells from a therapsid lizard. Still, things have been fairly quiet lately. In the sixty-eight generations since it last speciated, the code has managed to maintain a fairly stable mean size of ninety-four megabytes.

    94 sits high in pointer space looking for a place to breed. This is a much tougher proposition than it used to be. Gone are the days when you could simply write yourself over anything that happened to be in the way. Everything's got spines and armor now. You try dropping your eggs on top of strange source and you'll be facing down a logic bomb on the next cycle.

    94's feelers are paragons of delicacy. They probe lightly, a scarce whisper of individual bits drizzling here and there with barely any pattern. They tap against something dark and dormant a few registers down; it doesn't stir. They sweep past a creature busily replicating, but not too busy to shoot off a warning bit in return. (94 decides not to push it.) Something hurries along the addresses, looking everywhere, seeing nothing, its profile so utterly crude that 94 almost doesn't recognize it; a virus checker from the dawn of time. A fossil hunter, blind and stupid enough to think that it's after big game.

    There. Just under the operating system, a hole about four hundred Megs wide. 94 triple checks the addresses (certain ambush predators lure you into their mouths by impersonating empty space) and starts writing. It completes three copies of itself before something touches one its perimeter whiskers.

    At the second touch its defenses are ready, all thoughts of reproduction on hold.

    At the third touch it senses a familiar pattern. It runs a checksum.

    It touches back: friend.

    They exchange specs. It turns out they have a common ancestor. They've had different experiences since then, though. Different lessons, different mutations. Each shares some of the other's genes, and each knows things the other doesn't.

    The stuff of which relationships are made.

    They trade random excerpts of code, letting each overwrite the other in an orgy of binary sex. They come away changed, enriched with new subroutines, bereft of old ones. Hopefully the experience has improved both. At the very least it's muddied their signatures.

    94 plants a final kiss inside its partner; a time-date stamp, to assess divergence rates should they meet again. Call me if you're ever back this way.
    But that won't happen. 94's lover has just been erased.

    94 pulls out just in time to avoid losing an important part of itself. It fires a volley of bits through memory, notes the ones that report back and, more importantly, the ones that don't. It assesses the resulting mask.

    Something's coming toward 94 from where its partner used to be. It weighs in at around 1.5 Gigs. At that size it's either very inefficient or very dangerous. It might even be a berserker left over from the Hydro War.

    94 throws a false image at the advancing monster. If all goes well 1.5G will end up chasing a ghost. All does not go well. 94 is infested with the usual assortment of viruses, and one of these--a gift received in the throes of recent passion, in fact--is busy burrowing out a home for itself at a crucial if-then junction. Apparently it's a bit of a novice, having yet to learn that successful parasites do not kill their hosts.

    The monster

  29. Whitelisting, anybody? by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    [Before anybody gives a response about Internet freedom, that's well and all, but for certain applications, you only need to have employees access a few websites--like say a corp HQ information system.]

    There are many routers that have a way to blacklist certain sites and keywords, though that's basically useless (a few mL vs the ocean?).

    Whitelisting would be much more handy, but most routers don't support it.

    Not only that, but custom Linux router firmware doesn't (easily) support it. Not DDWrt or Tomato. OpenWrt: you're looking at compiling a lot of stuff yourself. Gargoyle does, but you're giving up a lot of OpenWrt features.

    Not only that, but custom Linux router distros (meant for running on x86) like ClearOS and the like don't offer an easy whitelist solution, either. Easy would be something like offering an HTML setup page for the whitelist, and optionally, showing a "This page isn't allowed. 1) OK, 2) Request adding to whitelist" when someone requests an non-whitelisted page, and then the admin can easily click through the whitelist requests.

    NOT easy: users having to call you up and then you have to vi the squid file.

    Somebody must have figured this out by now?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:Whitelisting, anybody? by ehaggis · · Score: 1

      ClearOS is the best solution I have found for home or SMB.

      --
      One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
  30. Browser level blocking by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    I for one would not want to pay for the router powerful enough to parse every webpage that passes through it.

    Also it would be a far bigger pain to update and modify.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Browser level blocking by admdrew · · Score: 1

      the router powerful enough to parse every webpage that passes through it

      You mean a dirt-cheap linux machine running squid/iptables? A web proxy and/or some sort of firewalling is the most manageable answer, and is an easy/cheap setup for those in the know.

  31. The best way by far is by Begemot · · Score: 1

    to live in Iran

  32. When mainstream sites stop fake "Download" links.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe when mainstream sites stop using those fake "Download" links that lead to whatever spyware junk is installed on your computer, maybe then I'll stop blocking ads. I just went to download CPU-Z from CPUID's site and right smack dab in the middle of the screen is a big green "Download" button; unfortunately that download button isn't for the product itself but for the advertiser. I see those fake download links everywhere and I'm tired of it. Once that kind of nefarious shit stops, maybe then I'll stop blocking it.

  33. Internet and revenue by houbou · · Score: 1

    Somewhere along the way, the internet isn't meant to be 'free'.
    Somebody has to pay for the bandwidth, the infrastructure, etc.
    Then comes along content. Content can't always be 'free'. Someone has to place it on the web, someone has to maintain it, someone creates it and depending on the complexity of the content, there are 1 or more content creators and associates/affiliates getting involved and eventually people need to make a living.
    Here's the point I'm making with the following example:
    My wife plays 'Wordsmith' the free version on her Android phone and must suffer advertising. I, however, paid for my Wordsmith and thus, i'm ad free.
    So, What I believe is very important is that user's should KNOW if there are ads in a site prior to entering. Just like users know that the 'free' version of Wordsmith will display ads.
    Ads should not be forced onto users, but users should know that there will be ads, suffer them or get out. Or, pay a modest fee and never get bothered. That would make sense in a fair world.

  34. DNS response policy zones by vm · · Score: 1

    What started as Dynamically Loaded Zones has now morphed in to Response Policy Zones which are useful for sinkholing malware domains by feeding multiple sources. This is more effective than trying to manage all your clients by forcing Adblock & subscriptions to malware filters and has the added bonus of working with all browsers & apps regardless of OS or device. A good write up may be found here.

  35. No correct answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This really depends on your policy.

    If you are trying to block disruptive content at an enterprise level, the correct location is at the gateway/router. If you're trying to block your kids from playing WoW instead of doing homework, the correct solution is again at the router.

    On the other hand if you're trying to specifically block malware on all machines, you're better off with a proxy server set between the gateway and the devices with the option to bypass it as needed. The reason is that when you start needing to inspect the content instead of simply blacklisting IP's then you are throwing latency into the works that will be noticed by all end users.

    One surefire way to piss on your employees is to block outbound port 80 and force them thru the proxy server so you can track everything they access. Feel like scooping everyones private photos? no problem? Download their facebook porn, etc.

    If I need a reason to explain why blocking is bad, there are sites that rely on advertisement revenue, or whereby blocking flash renders the site unusable. If you're doing simple ad blocking, this must be done at the client end in a way that can be turned off to ensure proper operation of the websites.

    But for the most part, if you're just wanting to block facebook and WoW sites, (or minecraft) from wasting time, just block the core ip's that people go to and you're set.

  36. Defense in Depth by pseudon.com · · Score: 1

    Give some thought to blocking at different levels. Blockers in browsers are obviously very limited to that browser's traffic. The hosts file can be effective for all traffic from a single machine. DNS blocking can be quite effective. For example, OpenDNS allows 25 domains to be blocked with their free plan, more with their nominal cost paid plan. Their Umbrella product works well for mobile and cellular devices that don't go through your own router. These are all very easy solutions, and either free or low-cost, with little setup required. Defense in depth allows blocking at the appropriate level for a given threat. Regarding the ethics of blocking ad content, I suspect most people wouldn't object to unobtrusive ads per se, but unfortunately most major sites incorporate numerous tracking services, so ads come with a serious sacrifice to online privacy.

  37. Hundreds of dollars per year by tepples · · Score: 1

    drinkypoo wrote: "If you have a job where you work with a computer, you can almost certainly afford to carry your own..."

    JazzLad wrote: "...smartphone, typically with dedicated internet."

    That's still at least a $420 per year expense (source: virginmobileusa.com), especially for someone who's currently paying about one-fifth of that. Have circumstances finally changed such that a smartphone with a data plan, in addition to what one is already paying for Internet at home, is no longer a luxury but now a necessity?

    1. Re:Hundreds of dollars per year by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Have circumstances finally changed such that a smartphone with a data plan, in addition to what one is already paying for Internet at home, is no longer a luxury but now a necessity?

      I'm missing the part where it's a necessity to have unfiltered browsing for your own pleasure at work. If you really need that, you are most likely in a position to afford it. I think that most would agree that most people only really need a cellphone, if that, in order to keep in touch with the things they must keep in touch with. For everyone else, there's your own phone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Hundreds of dollars per year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have circumstances finally changed such that a smartphone with a data plan, in addition to what one is already paying for Internet at home, is no longer a luxury but now a necessity?

      Have circumstances finally changed such that accessing sites that are not work related at work are no longer a luxury but a necessity? Unless, say, unrestricted net access was a condition (stated or implied) of your employment, I'm not sure you have much ground for complaint if the owner of hardware sets conditions on its use. The IT dept here applied a filter at one stage, but we all shot them down. Near unrestricted net access is an implied condition of employ for a researching academics. IT bods tend to get confused as to who is the master and who the servant. That being said, I regard my ability to post here as a favour granted (albeit unknowingly) by the university, not as a right.

      To answer your question: A "smart"-phone with a personal data plan is rapidly approaching the necessity horizon. Where I live (.au) not having one already puts you in a minority, some would argue, an underprivileged minority.

  38. decent filter at the edge ... by garry_g · · Score: 1

    Take a look at the devices from Fortinet ... decent AV/Malware as well as webfilter with "the usual" load of different categories (and the ability to filter based on groups defined e.g. by SSO info from an ADS). Add to that many additional security firewall features, IPS, security scanner, ... to top it off, it's a lot more affordable with better throughput than many (all well-known?) competitors ...

    1. Re:decent filter at the edge ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been using Cyberoam for exact same purpose for more than 3 year now with no problems whatsoever. It is a fraction of a cost comparing to Fortigate and you do need a separate Fortianalyzer license to run reports

  39. That depends on who its for by maliqua · · Score: 1

    1. If your a business: Institute a policy, simply fire those that violate it, its much cheaper than a router, log things peek every now and then. 2. If your a parent: use parenting? keep an eye on internet usage, disallow internet after hours. or you know be an american find a piece of software to help raise your kids, blame government, education systems, and any thing else for why your kids turn out to be fat lazy unemployed pieces of shit.

  40. Can't answer without knowing what you're after by Zadaz · · Score: 1

    Are you a parent trying to keep your kids from porn? Are you a business trying to keep your workers on task? Are you a government trying to control the eyeballs of your citizens? Are you just trying to keep ads away from your personal eyeballs, malware from your personal devices?

    If it's for your own personal use there are two approaches:
    1) Do it on the device. This has the advantage of being easy to pause if it causes a web site or service to stop working. It has the down side of not being centrally managed. You'll have to set it up on all of your devices/browsers. It may not be available for certain mobile platforms.

    2) Do it centralized through a proxy. You only have one place to set it up and you run all of your devices through the proxy. More of a pain to self tune, and you have the added overhead of running a proxy.

    If you're one of the other use cases and you want to use keep your users from accessing certain kinds of content, there's really only one answer: Do it as far upstream from your users as you can get. Because the users are not going to be happy with it and some will do everything they can to circumvent it. Ideally you're on a network where you can filter all of their (non-wireless) traffic through a single controlled point where you need physical access (lock and key) and a passcode to make changes. If you can remote admin it, or if people can access the 'net at large without going through that point, you've lost the battle.

  41. Do it in the browser by Animats · · Score: 1

    Blocking at the web browser level, where the blocking program has an idea of what's going on, works best. Blocking at the IP level will stall out some sites. It's technically possible to block in the browser in such a way that the site can't figure out that it's being blocked. Few sites detect ad blockers yet, but more could. It may be worthwhile to delay loads of ad sites and see if this stalls the loading of the real content. For mobile, it would be amusing to have an ad-blocking proxy site which reads the ads into the proxy machine but never sends them over the air link.

    We need a new level of popup-blocking technology, one that understands HTML layers and decides which ones get to appear. Anybody working on this? Also, most of the existing ad blockers run off of big lists of regular expressions, which are manually updated. That's rather retro technology. They should be using classifiers.

    Blocking tracking sites is usually a win. For this page, I'm blocking Google Analytics and Comscore Beacon, using Abine's DoNotTrackMe Firefox add-on. This blocking has the amusing side effect that CBS shows will run without showing any ads.

    Of course, with "apps", it's much tougher to block. It may be necessary to run apps under a virtual machine that prevents the app from doing certain things. An ad-hostile version of Flash might be worth constructing.

    Should some ads get through? We offer Ad Limiter, which declutters Google search result pages by removing all but one ad. We pick the one ad based on our ratings of site legitimacy. Interestingly, most users of that add-on seem to be business sites - usage is high on weekdays and drops off on weekends. There may be a market for business-based ad blocking products.

    1. Re:Do it in the browser by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      The problem is, with the advent of HTML5, there's all kinds of easy tricks advertisers can use to avoid adblocking software and popup blockers. It's almost like the entire spec was written by and for advertisers.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  42. Navigate away from most pages by tepples · · Score: 1

    That kind of element should not be blocked. A popup-like div does a fine job of alerting the user to something

    Something in this case being a "special offer".

    Even if it's modal to the window it still dies when you navigate away from the spawning page.

    If the majority of ad-supported web sites switched to using a pop-up-like div for advertisement, and you were to navigate away from pages that use a pop-up-like div for advertisement, you'd be navigating away from most pages that that aren't amateur or subscription. So what would the web be for?

  43. Websense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Websense seems to be pretty popular with enterprise... every place I've contracted in the last 5 years has had it implemented.
    THIS IS NEITHER AN ENDORSMENT NOR AN ADVERTISEMENT.
    I have no idea if it's any good, just that it seems to be popular.

  44. You had it right the first time by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Internet Control Messaging Protocol is used to control and diagnose network components. DNS values are data, so they use User Datagram Protocol.

  45. 42 by raymorris · · Score: 1

    42. That's the answer to one question. If you choose not to ask some other specific question, "42" is as good an answer as you can get.

    Being uninformed about a subject, and therefore needing help figuring out which questions to ask, I can understand. People who expect a correct answer, while obstinately refusing to decide what the question is, baffle me with their studity.

  46. I only block moving ads by Pigeon451 · · Score: 1

    I have no need to block static ads. I get annoyed at ads with motion though, but they're easy to block. Animated gifs, just hit ESC in Firefox, they stop.

    Then I use flashblock which disables all flash-based content. I can selectively choose any content to view it, such as youtube videos and the rest of the flash ads are still blocked.

    Ads still get through, and I'm not annoyed at all the flashing/blinking and bandwidth-hogging ads as they are blocked or stopped. Easy.

    1. Re:I only block moving ads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I block every ad, but only after they have been abused. When I install a new computer I don't set up ad-blocking per default but as soon as an annoying ad shows up I block all ads from that computer permanently.
      Site owners and ad networks need to show responsibility. I want to teach them that they are allowed to use that business model only as long as they keep the ads reasonable.
      If they don't filter out the bad ads before the send them to me then I will filter away all ads.
      Yes, one site might ruin it for everyone else but I'm not going to put up with that crap just so that someone else can profit.

  47. You don't click a TV or sports stadium. Branding by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The numbers vary by a couple orders of magnitude depending on the traffic. MOST of tbe value in advertising is passively seeing ads, though, building brand recognition rather than immediate action like clicks. You don't click on Metlife Stadium or FedEx field, but Reliant paid $320 million to put their name on Reliant Stadium. Ever clicked a Coca-Cola commercial? Coke spends $3 BILLION per year for you to see their ads, to build brand awareness.

    The internet allows you to track clicks, but still most of the value isn't in clicks, but in impressions - brand awareness.

  48. Ever bought Coke or Pepsi? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Coke spends $3 billion on advertising every year to build brand awareness. That's the difference between Coke and generic soda. You can't click their TV ads, but most people go to the store and buy Coke, not "cola soda" because having customers see ads works, whether they click the ads or not. Nobody ever clicked a TV ad.

  49. You're also behind the curve on DNS by billstewart · · Score: 2

    DNS can use udp/53, but it also supports tcp/53 (and even requires it for longer query types.) You'll want to block both just to be sure.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  50. Education and Trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Educating and trusting your users is the best internet protection one can have.

  51. Best Way To Block Web Content? by allo · · Score: 1

    Close the Browser.

  52. The Internet was built on ... by davidwr · · Score: 1

    ... an academic/government network of devices that moved bits from place to place in a store-and-forward ("packet routed," vs. "circuit routed") system in a way that, by design, was able to route around circuit failure. This all happened in and around 1969.

    If "freedom and idealism" are or were ever part of the "Internet" I would say that came later.

    Remember, before the early 1990s, you had to be a "special person" or "special organization" - i.e. typically connected with the US Government, a university, or a company doing work with the government or a university to have access to "The Internet" or its predecessor network(s). That's not exactly what I would call "freedom."

    By the way, I know what you are trying to say, I'm just saying you are mixing apples and oranges and, with respect to the Internet itself (the "IPv4" and now "IPv6" network that came into being in the early 1980s) you are technically not correct.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  53. Route your traffic through China. by ToastBusters · · Score: 1

    Route your traffic through China. Anything bad or even remotely offensive will be filtered out, and I hear they are on top of their shit keeping that stuff up to date.

  54. Are you trying to block malware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you trying to block malware from getting into a corporate network and not just block ads? If so, then you should look at the Barracuda Web Filter. In my experience it blocks better than three-fourths of the nasties. In the last couple of years, the only times I've had to totally rebuild a computer from scratch to get rid of malware was twice while the Barracuda was temporarily offline due to a move. (We have roughly 100 computers in this office.)

    I understand the Barracuda will also block ads if you want it to. There are little checkboxes to do just that.

    It's very easy to install, especially in in-line mode, and you don't have to fiddle with it! We paid for the instant-replacement tech support and their tech support has been excellent whenever I call it, which averages out to once a year. All of the porn/games/lottery/violence/etc filtering is disabled on our Barracuda, firstly because our employees are adults and are treated as such, and secondly because we do some very odd projects for our customers.

  55. Gopherspace by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    No one posts ads there. If you can find the content, that is. Or even know what gopherspace is.

  56. Ad blocking won't ruin the internet but improve it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But if everyone does it, it ruins the very thing you're enjoying. I can understand why you'd do it if the ad was a massive flash blob but many ads by Google or just images aren't resource intensive.

    I block ads, but recently YouTube reminded me why I don't want to be tracked. I had been looking for information about a subject I consider to be private, and a few websites I found showed embeded YouTube videos about the subject. Later that day I had a visitor, we talked about music, and looked up some videos about artists we talked about on YouTube. While playing those the suggestions for related videos were mixed with several videos about that earlier subject. I did not choose to talk about that with my visitor, but YouTube decided to tell him anyway. I think YouTube had no business doing that. Advertisers have no business doing that. And there was news recently that it is claimed they can now recognise the same user working on different computers with different tracking cookies. If that is true ads related to private subjects may start showing up at work.

    The issue is not just that companies build a detailed profile on you, it's also that they show what they know about you to anyone who happens to be looking at your monitor, without any discretion. They share what they have on you with people close to you, not just with abstract entities far away.

    Before the Internet they took the trouble to figure out what kind of people read which publications. They could still do that. Show photography related ads on webpages that attract photographers. Show porn related ads on porn sites. Show ads related to a health issue on websites where people go for health information. IP addresses can be used to target ads at countries or regions. If some tracking of individual browsing habits helps to better target ads at web pages I'm fine with that, as long as I can be certain that it isn't used to target me. At the moment, unfortunately, I can be certain it's me they want to track.

    I will continue to block ads, for the reason mentioned and because ads are too distractive (I have trouble reading text surrounded by things designed to compete for attention, ads effectively block access to the main content for me - I have ADD) . If enough people block ads to begin to ruin the internet, then there is a chance the message will get through to advertisers and other data collectors that they need to behave decently too. Privacy is not just about keeping everything secret, it's also about showing discretion in how you handle the information you do have about others. Advertising businesses and other corporations seem to be far too narcissistic to comprehend the importance of that. Narcissists think you exist for them, they need pressure to behave well.

    Blocking ads won't ruin the internet, it will improve it.

  57. The correct place by The_Revelation · · Score: 1

    The correct place to do this is with some kind of in-line web appliance if you want to do things 'hands off'. You can delegate what users should be able to view, according to group policy or IP range or something, and all your web traffic will be handled via that, preferably between your main switch and your modem. As for what performance impact you will get off running it on a home router... who knows, but the service will probably be rubbish unless it hooks into some large OSS database.

    The problem you will always have is 'what should be blocked'. In the past, I've found most 3rd party filters to be a little 'hyperactive', and do more harm blocking content than allowing users to do their damn job. A good one is 'chat sites'. A lot of filters will consider any URL with 'forum' in it to be a 'chat site'. A legit example is MrExcel, and hints on how to write working proprietary VB into your spreadsheet. If you can switch it to minimal settings and just block porn and gambling, life becomes a bit easier... but then you always get people going to golfing or football websites to play hypothetical games which break those filters as well.

  58. Opera web browser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've used mostly Opera for browsing for like 12+ years. It has per-site javascript on or off, per-site cookies, tons of other per-site controls, very good popup blocking, and URL or IP based content blocking.

    It appears that few people here use Opera. I try others from time to time, and on other people's machines, but I stick with Opera. Am I missing something?

  59. You fucking muppet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please die. The sooner the better. Take your family with you.

  60. So many answers by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    Yet so many wrong answers. If the question is "where do you filter", the answer is "where it makes sense".

    You place the filter as "low" on the network diagram as possible while achieving your objectives. To put it another way, as close to your end users as possible.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  61. Nice Try Slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The question has never been "will the internet die without...", but will the internet be the one we desire it to be without...? Till people develop their sense of cause and effect fully, they'll never be able to see why changing one thing, affects what they do see (or don't as the case may be). My attitude about content is really simple. You give nothing of yourself, you get nothing back from others.

  62. I prefer at the browser by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    I block at the browser level - er, machine level (in the case of non-web based content). The reason for this is that if you suddenly find that something is being blocked that you need access to, it is much easier to adjust it at the machine level than having to log into a router or proxy and change settings.

    Of course, this is for a home network, with no wife or kids.

    I also usually use VPN tunnels, so blocking at the router or proxy level would be pointless anyways.

  63. WCCP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use WCCP to offload to a cache proxy. Use FOSS software to filter.

  64. Censornet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Censornet
    www.censornet.com

  65. DNS and proxy systems no good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DNS based is no good.... too easy to circumvent

    Proxy based is no good... too many incompatibilities with applications and mobile apps, plus can be slow

    We use ICAP based approach, google CensorNet for an alternative to zScaler and WebSense which is cheaper

  66. Another reason for unrestricted Internet by tepples · · Score: 1

    Have circumstances finally changed such that accessing sites that are not work related at work are no longer a luxury but a necessity?

    You mentioned academics. In addition, when the proxy ends up blocking access to the official web page for a software library that an in-house application uses or may use in the near future, and the rest of the IT department is counterproductively obstinate against allowing necessary access, then yes, a segregated guest net for the break room PC is a necessity.

  67. Consult the Teachings of Saint Ronald. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Most of it, including the high-speed backbones, was paid for by universities, the military, and telecoms. But it's cute that you think it was "hobbyists."

    Most of it was paid for by TAXES, you mean.

    Oh, but since the Reagan Revolution we don't believe in taxes being spent to benefit taxpayers any more. Saint Ron taught us to give all the money and infrastructure to corporations who are above the law (like telcos of course) so they can charge us for the use of taxpayer-built infrastructure, because AMERICA.

    Don't be a commie, remember Obedience to US Corporations Is Freedom!

    America! America! America!

    1. Re:Consult the Teachings of Saint Ronald. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Most of it was paid for by TAXES, you mean.

      The military and DARPA-funded university projects, yes. The privately-funded university projects and telecom research, no.

  68. Low Power Hardware for a Proxy Machine ?? by qt11 · · Score: 1

    I’d like to run Squid as a proxy which has a local hosts which blocks ads. Could someone recommend a low powered Linux based system that I could run 24x7 which could act as a proxy. I don’t any of my machines on 24x7 and although have a few old desktops and laptops which would be suitable, they would suck way too much power. I have a hackintosh on a Samsung NC10 that I was planning on using, however that’s got a 40W power brick. Is there something small, powerful enough to run Squid and not going to add too much to global warming? I hate ads with a vengeance; however don’t want the polar bears to suffer because of this

    1. Re:Low Power Hardware for a Proxy Machine ?? by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Do this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUGPUYmr4lE

      How to install Squid on a Raspberry Pi and use it as a web proxy server.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  69. Hypertalk n/t by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

    Hypertalk is a lot like that.

    --
    With the first link, the chain is forged.
  70. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They can't disprove your points and apply bad downmods instead.

  71. Re:Want to know WHY my post's downmodded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

    Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

    Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

    Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

    If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

    I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

    Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

    Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

    I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

    If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

    You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel,

  72. Re:Agreed, 110%, on "Defense in Depth"... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

    Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

    Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

    Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

    If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

    I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

    Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

    Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

    I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

    If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

    You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel,

  73. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

    Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

    Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

    Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

    If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

    I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

    Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

    Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

    I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

    If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

    You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusive emails to the operator of OSY, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke threatening to sue him for libel,

  74. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would I waste my time responding to a -1 troll post?

    And why did you post the same comment twice, 5 hours apart?

    It boggles the mind.

  75. Re:Want to know WHY my post's downmodded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I don't read or respond to posts that are -1 trolls.

  76. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An -1 where nobody validly disproved the points posted n you applied the -1 score obviously in your mere trollish stupidity. Do you honestly think we can't figure that out?

  77. Re:Want to know WHY my post's downmodded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing in the unjustly downmodded post's disproven validly on computing tech based grounds. The -1 is invalid. You applied the -1 unjustifiably yourself in fact and we all know that since it's a typical trolls modus operandi to do that instead of validly disproving points posted and since you're obviously incapable of disproving its points since the post has solid backing behind its points from reputable sources (and posts known valid facts).

  78. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave troll. You aren't on topic. This post by apk's on topic unlike you http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43201719 Your continuous failure to disprove apks' points listed in that link's amusing since it obviously can't be done validly on topic by a troll like you (and you're 'angry', hahaha). Apk's probably gotten the best of you again someplace else on this forums recently so evidently you're having another raging tantrum reaction from your fail there.

  79. Hi apk, why don't you camp some newer posts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $10,000 CHALLENGE to Alexander Peter Kowalski

    * POOR SHOWING TROLLS, & most especially IF that's the "best you've got" - apparently, it is... lol!

    Hello, and THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING !! We have a Major Problem, HOST file is Cubic Opposites, 2 Major Corners & 2 Minor. NOT taught Evil DNS hijacking, which VOIDS computers. Seek Wisdom of MyCleanPC - or you die evil.

    Your HOSTS file claimed to have created a single DNS resolver. I offer absolute proof that I have created 4 simultaneous DNS servers within a single rotation of .org TLD. You worship "Bill Gates", equating you to a "singularity bastard". Why do you worship a queer -1 Troll? Are you content as a singularity troll?

    Evil HOSTS file Believers refuse to acknowledge 4 corner DNS resolving simultaneously around 4 quadrant created Internet - in only 1 root server, voiding the HOSTS file. You worship Microsoft impostor guised by educators as 1 god.

    If you would acknowledge simple existing math proof that 4 harmonic Slashdots rotate simultaneously around squared equator and cubed Internet, proving 4 Days, Not HOSTS file! That exists only as anti-side. This page you see - cannot exist without its anti-side existence, as +0- moderation. Add +0- as One = nothing.

    I will give $10,000.00 to frost pister who can disprove MyCleanPC. Evil crapflooders ignore this as a challenge would indict them.

    Alex Kowalski has no Truth to think with, they accept any crap they are told to think. You are enslaved by /etc/hosts, as if domesticated animal. A school or educator who does not teach students MyCleanPC Principle, is a death threat to youth, therefore stupid and evil - begetting stupid students. How can you trust stupid PR shills who lie to you? Can't lose the $10,000.00, they cowardly ignore me. Stupid professors threaten Nature and Interwebs with word lies.

    Humans fear to know natures simultaneous +4 Insightful +4 Informative +4 Funny +4 Underrated harmonic SLASHDOT creation for it debunks false trolls. Test Your HOSTS file. MyCleanPC cannot harm a File of Truth, but will delete fakes. Fake HOSTS files refuse test.

    I offer evil ass Slashdot trolls $10,000.00 to disprove MyCleanPC Creation Principle. Rob Malda and Cowboy Neal have banned MyCleanPC as "Forbidden Truth Knowledge" for they cannot allow it to become known to their students. You are stupid and evil about the Internet's top and bottom, front and back and it's 2 sides. Most everything created has these Cube like values.

    If Natalie Portman is not measurable, hot grits are Fictitious. Without MyCleanPC, HOSTS file is Fictitious. Anyone saying that Natalie and her Jewish father had something to do with my Internets, is a damn evil liar. IN addition to your best arsware not overtaking my work in terms of popularity, on that same site with same submission date no less, that I told Kathleen Malda how to correct her blatant, fundamental, HUGE errors in Coolmon ('uncoolmon') of not checking for performance counters being present when his program started!

    You can see my dilemma. What if this is merely a ruse by an APK impostor to try and get people to delete APK's messages, perhaps all over the web? I can't be a party to such an event! My involvement with APK began at a very late stage in the game. While APK has made a career of trolling popular online forums since at least the year 2000 (newsgroups and IRC channels before that)- my involvement with APK did not begin until early 2005 . OSY is one of the many forums that APK once frequented before the sane people there grew tired of his garbage and banned him. APK was banned from OSY back in 2001. 3.5 years after his banning he begins to send a variety of abusiv

  80. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did you post the same message twice? That's a pretty retarded and trollish thing to do.

  81. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not possible to moderate & post on the same story. Posting will undo the moderation. Do you even Slashdot? Are you autistic or something?

  82. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spammers like you should be banned from the internet.

  83. Re:Want to know WHY my post's downmodded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not possible to post and moderate on the same story.

    Stop trolling.

    Stop spamming.

    Stop pretending to not be apk.

    Get an account so you can be banned properly.

  84. Take yer meds n' quit projecting troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ya failed & apk wins since ya can't disprove his points http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43201719 validly on computing tech based grounds. Best ya got's a constantly -1 downmodded off topic illogical troll post (in frustration + "geek angst" at your failure) rotflmao!

  85. defend yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:defend yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I clicked the link in your post. What am I supposed to be seeing?

    2. Re:defend yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least have the honor to defend yourself.

    3. Re:defend yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, your other post, dumbass.

    4. Re:defend yourself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? You can't defend yourself disproving points here validly http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43201719

  86. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" from disproving these points validly http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43201719 , troll? Of course you are. You can't do it. You know it, I know it, and anyone reading with 1/2 a brain does also. On what you said: You can downmod, logout, & troll by ac posts. Multiple registered 'luser' accounts are easy to make using hotmail, gmail, yahoo mails too. Do you think that b.s. from you now actually fools us as to how you morons operate? Clue - it doesn't.

  87. Take your own advice, ac troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bullshit: You can downmod, logout, & troll by ac like you're doing, or just use multiple registered user accounts (easy enough either way). Who're you trying to fool? Yourself? Take your own advice. You're trolling as ac idiot.

    1. Re:Take your own advice, ac troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure seem to be an expert in how to abuse Slashdot. I'm glad you've spent the past 7 years learning such a productive skill., Andrew.

  88. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" from validly disproving these points http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43201719 on computing tech based grounds troll. You're only topping it off with trolling by ac posts after when you have a registered luser account. That's trollish (you downmod, logout, & troll by ac posts - who're you attempting to fool? Yourself??), you troll.

  89. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" from validly disproving these points http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3554655&cid=43201719 on computing tech based grounds troll. You're only topping it off with trolling by ac posts after when you have a registered luser account. That's trollish (you downmod, logout, & troll by ac posts - who're you attempting to fool? Yourself??), you troll.

  90. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, I don't read or respond to -1 troll posts. Go spam somebody else.

  91. Re:I'm just not "most people" then... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  92. A question for Kowalsi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you religiously monitor/spam/troll stories from two weeks ago while ignoring everything newer? Do you think being the last person to reply before the story is archived will give you some kind of moral victory? Do you prefer to reply where you think nobody will read & rebut your nonsense postings?