When Opting Out of Ad Tracking Doesn't Opt You Out

Do no evil? by __aasehi2499 · 2013-10-18 08:11 · Score: 1

Do no evil?

Re:Do no evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:26 · Score: 0

Do no evil?
You really believed that?
Re:Do no evil? by g0bshiTe · 2013-10-18 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's only evil when you get caught.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Re:Do no evil? by NatasRevol · 2013-10-18 09:08 · Score: 1

Lots of people still do.

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Do no evil? by Valdrax · 2013-10-18 09:14 · Score: 1

It's only evil when you get caught.
Yeah, and then the blame belongs to the person who tattled on you.

--
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Re:Do no evil? by ahabswhale · 2013-10-18 10:04 · Score: 1

How is Google evil when they're not the one serving up the ad? The ad is sourced from another company that has (hopefully) it's own opt-out options.

--
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Re:Do no evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 10:51 · Score: 0

Facilitating evil isn't really doing evil. Semantics? Yes, but Google's stock price closed over $1,000 today so they don't really give a fuck.
Re:Do no evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 11:56 · Score: 0

Google never said "do no evil." Not once.
They had an unofficial corporate motto of "don't be evil."
It's different, since a non-evil company can still accidentally do a little evil now and then.
Re:Do no evil? by rsborg · 2013-10-18 12:07 · Score: 1

It's only evil when you get caught.
According to my little league soccer coach (and likely Republican motto) "If you're not cheating you're not trying".

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:Do no evil? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 12:25 · Score: 0

How is Google evil when they're not the one serving up the ad? The ad is sourced from another company that has (hopefully) it's own opt-out options.
Since Google's DoubleClick is "the intermediary", how is it Google not responsible for serving up the ad?
Re:Do no evil? by davester666 · 2013-10-18 16:45 · Score: 1

So this is who came up with the NSA's game plan?

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Do no evil? by davester666 · 2013-10-18 16:49 · Score: 1

FTFS, it seems like the ad comes from a ad vendor that buys bulk spots in doubleclick, then resells them.
So yes, it sure seems like these ads should follow google's rules, because they are going through google's system. If they don't want to follow these rules, then set up a separate ad service with the rules you want.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:Do no evil? by Rossman · 2013-10-19 02:05 · Score: 1

Not only that, but given enough time and PR work, they can effectively redefine the publics perception of what evil is.
Re:Do no evil? by cristiroma · 2013-10-19 08:33 · Score: 1

Yeah, "poor" good guys Google - how can you blame the drug dealer? He's only handling the stuff...
I love when no one can be blamed. How about shooting first, as questions later - That way, Google would be much more "careful" about the stuff is handling. Then you wouldn't have this scenario in the first place.

Ads are anti-capitalist by i+kan+reed · 2013-10-18 08:11 · Score: 1

I still haven't come up with a way to describe advertisement other than rent-seeking within the confines of a capitalist interpretation.

Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Fwipp · 2013-10-18 08:15 · Score: 1

Capitalism relies on people trying to make the best decision for themselves they can, based on what information they have.
How is trying to control the information people receive about your product anything but a logical and necessary outcome of capitalism?
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by i+kan+reed · 2013-10-18 08:24 · Score: 1

Because the way you phrased it, the second sentence sounds like it's an attempt to dismantle the first. Capitalism relies on a thing that actors in the market try to limit and control?
How is that not a serious problem to you?
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:27 · Score: 0

Capitalism relies on people trying to make the best decision for themselves they can, based on what information they have.
That's not "capitalism" you're describing, that's the "free market".
Capitalism is the accumulation of wealth.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Opportunist · 2013-10-18 08:30 · Score: 1

Controlling the information people may receive is not really evoking memories of capitalism in me, ya know?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Fwipp · 2013-10-18 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

It is a serious problem to me. My point is that, in any capitalist society, you can expect advertisements to be present, and they will be as sleazy and manipulative as companies can get away with.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by i+kan+reed · 2013-10-18 08:34 · Score: 1

Come on. Free-market capitalism is the de facto way to refer to the economic system of allowing capital to be privately owned within the confines of a market for open exchange of goods and services, and is often shortened to "capitalism".
Even though "free market" and "capitalism" are distinct concepts, their practical applications have become so integrated your point is almost meaningless.
And your second definition is just incorrect.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by g0bshiTe · 2013-10-18 08:35 · Score: 0

Socialism has advertisements as well, but I think they call it propaganda.

--
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by i+kan+reed · 2013-10-18 08:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

So far in this discussion, hat we're seeking, I think, isn't the wholesale replacement of capitalism, but finding a way to limit one of the more socially damaging behaviors it encourages.
It's possible to find free-market capitalism based on imperfect ideas, believe it to contain flaws, and still not find any of the alternatives inherently superior.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by i+kan+reed · 2013-10-18 08:43 · Score: 1

Yes, what you can expect might be that. No contest, I'd just wish we had a bit more of a cultural impetus to resist allowing it.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by intermodal · 2013-10-18 08:46 · Score: 2

I'm not sure you understand that your argument fundamentally ignores that the advertisers' attempts to circumvent people's wishes to not be tracked is fundamentally no less valid (and certainly on a morally higher ground) than their desire to target people for advertising.
Let's use an analogy. If the Jehovah's Witnesses followed everyone around and amassed records about everything we were doing to decide which doors to knock on, that would be equivalent to what we're seeing with today's targeted adverts.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by WillAffleckUW · 2013-10-18 08:49 · Score: 1

Capitalism relies on people trying to make the best decision for themselves they can, based on what information they have.
How is trying to control the information people receive about your product anything but a logical and necessary outcome of capitalism?
Incorrect. Read all of Adam Smith's 7 books.
Capitalism is based on the concept that all market participants, including consumers have perfect information on all aspects of all trades.
Ignoring Do Not Track provides an advantage to only one market participant.
This is not Capitalism, it is Mercantalism, and Adam Smith was opposed to it.

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by vux984 · 2013-10-18 08:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

How is trying to control the information people receive about your product anything but a logical and necessary outcome of capitalism?
Capitalism relies on people trying to make the best decision for themselves they can, based on what information they have.
The validity of that hypothesis rests on several assumptions:
That people are not coerced.
That people act under rational self interest.
That the competitive market itself will facilitate consumers getting the information they need to make decisions.
Advertising has achieved a level of sophistication that this is no longer entirely true. The information available is not reliable, and I cannot make informed buying decisions.
All that's left working in the customers favor is direct word of mouth, reputation systems (wherein I might trust a particular reviewer who has steered me well in the past), and government regulation (truth in advertising, labelling laws, etc... which some beleive are anti-capitalist, and everyone knows are largely co-opted and corrupted or just outright violated by the regulated industries).
Compared what the industries are prepared to expend "controlling" information; with what I have at my disposal to research something? I am at such a substantial disadvantage that I am frequently operating against my own self interest. And I'm in the minority just being truly aware of it.
For example, if I want to buy an X and I don't know much about X, and its not something my friends or family use then I'm pretty much helpless.
Word of mouth doesn't work if I don't know people I trust with an X.
I can't rely on a reviewer of X if I don't have any experience with that reviewer (and I know that many reviewers are shills, or just plain idiots)
I can't rely on review sites and such, I know in many cases the reviews are paid, the 'likes' and 'followers' and '+1' are corrupt or paid for, and full of idiots. And in the worst cases, the entire review site is 'fake' and hosted by the vendor.
I've learned to try and filter out what i need from newegg and amazon.com and other review sites -- but its cat and mouse, and the advertisers get cleverer, and my resources to combat them are not increasing proportionally. And for some products... I don't really know where to even start, and again I like to think I'm 'above average' at this 'game'.
It's sick really.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:51 · Score: 0

Capitalism is the free market. People (the market) are free to accumulate wealth or not as they wish. Accumulation and or creation of wealth is a merely consequence of capitalism.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Fwipp · 2013-10-18 08:58 · Score: 1

I would totally be on board with that. It's hard to mount cultural opposition to advertisments as they're so ubiquitous, even if they are misleading/wrong/awful. I also wouldn't mind seeing additional regulations on advertisements (especially regarding intentionally misleading statements), but I know the majority of slashdot is pretty opposed to "Free Speech" limitations like this.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Fwipp · 2013-10-18 09:09 · Score: 1

Sorry, I didn't set my tone right in my original post. I meant to indicate that capitalism, by nature, incentivizes actors to erode the foundation that it relies upon to work. False (or fake) advertisements or reviews are simply one way that people with capital game the system against those without. They will actively seek to coerce you, feed you misinformation, and distort your perception of your own self-interest.
When you go shopping, each item that you look at, you are pitting (at most) a few minutes of your own time against months of work done by a marketing team. The idea that this scenario allows you to be a perfectly rational, informed, self-interested actor is laughable.
tl;dr I agree with practically every word you said up there.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by lister+king+of+smeg · 2013-10-18 09:22 · Score: 1

Capitalism relies on people trying to make the best decision for themselves they can, based on what information they have.
How is trying to control the information people receive about your product anything but a logical and necessary outcome of capitalism?
Incorrect. Read all of Adam Smith's 7 books.
Capitalism is based on the concept that all market participants, including consumers have perfect information on all aspects of all trades.
Ignoring Do Not Track provides an advantage to only one market participant.
This is not Capitalism, it is Mercantalism, and Adam Smith was opposed to it.
and ad-blocking/spam filtering software is the counter to this employed in favor of the consumer that levels the field. they (the advertisers) can target those ads as much as they want but it won't matter if you can not see them.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by diamondmagic · 2013-10-18 09:37 · Score: 1

Economics makes no such claim that people act under "rational self interest" or that people are well informed. It's not even covered in an econ class one way or the other, you'll just never hear it. The laws of economics apply regardless.
What is covered is that they're making the best decision for themselves (decisions are subjective, so that goes by definition), and that there's no coercion. The side effects of coercion (including taxes) is a whole field of study.

--
Wonder what the public key field is for?
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Archangel+Michael · 2013-10-18 09:55 · Score: 3, Interesting

You mean like requiring restaurants to provide calorie and other nutritional information for their menus? And warning labels on products, warning against idiots using them in idiotic ways? And any other sort of regulation that actually doesn't do anything other than make people feel good about protecting the idiots out there that don't actually (or can't actually) read the various things that are now regulated?
We are now at a point where there are so many regulations, that many times they are contradictory or duplicated or otherwise have become meaningless noise that people filter out anyway. AND removing these over regulations is impossible, so instead of solving any problems we are just building more of them into the system.
Too many times people say "There ought to be a law" and not enough people saying "why?"

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by mlts · 2013-10-18 10:08 · Score: 1

There is a lot of stuff that we an fix with technological solutions, and not with laws.
The ad intrusion problem is fairly easily dealt with by sandboxing and adblocking, and in worst case getting alternative sites up. When the lawmakers are called in, they are not going to represent the people. They are going to represent their customers (i.e. lobbyists who donate big at the campaign fundraisers.)
If we saw any laws about ads, it would be more laws like CETA making it an arrestible offense to view a website with adblocking.
Instead, a company can always run a clearinghouse. Pay a subscription fee to the clearinghouse, and websites get paid per user viewing. Since the clearinghouse's data and the website user data is separate [1], a user can be known to the clearinghouse, but anonymous to the client website, and the client website gets their microtransaction.
Maybe I'm naiive, but laws should be few, and mainly for mala in se type of stuff. Too much mala prohibitia and we end up with everyone being a lawbreaker, and nothing but contempt for all laws. There is a lot technology can do and do effectively that lawmaking will try and fail at.
[1]: The clearinghouse has a SLA, and also is inspected by third parties (the EU perhaps) to ensure that keeping data protected is actually done, not just lip service rendered.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Jane+Q.+Public · 2013-10-18 11:08 · Score: 1

"How is trying to control the information people receive about your product anything but a logical and necessary outcome of capitalism?"
The answer to that one is easy: trying to control someone's information is a "monopolistic" practice, which means it's not capitalism.

It does not necessarily take a monopoly to engage in "monopolistic" or "anti-competitive" practices. And this is such an example. And before you argue about it being anti-competitive, consider: a CAPITALIST market depends on people making voluntary, informed choices. To the extent that information is "controlled", their consent is not informed and cannot therefore be said to be completely voluntary.

Even Adam Smith recognized that antritrust laws would be necessary to keep a capitalist market free, and prevent anti-competitive practices. You can look at them as meta-rules which keep everybody playing within the rules.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Requiem18th · 2013-10-18 12:37 · Score: 1

I still like propaganda more.
By my own definitions. If you are writing/producing/pushing a message to promote something you like for yourself and want to share with others, it's propaganda. If you are promoting it because you are getting paid for doing so, it's not something you necessarily want for yourself and don't really care if it hurts other people, it's advertising.

--
But... the future refused to change.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by currently_awake · 2013-10-18 14:26 · Score: 1

Capitalism is the practice of tricking/convincing or forcing people to give you their money. All other aspects are implementation issues.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by 10101001+10101001 · 2013-10-18 16:03 · Score: 1

You mean like requiring restaurants to provide calorie and other nutritional information for their menus?
Yeah! How dare the government require restaurants to label their products for their content! It's not like you're ingesting it or anything. And we all know people don't have allergies to certain foods. While we're at it, let's lift the prohibition on cocaine. I think cocaine would make a great additive to fast food. Best of all, no need to label it as included.

And warning labels on products, warning against idiots using them in idiotic ways?
Um, that almost always has more to do with lawsuits or fear of lawsuits. There's only a handful of government regulations that involve warning labels and they're predominantly related to things like hazardous materials. But, yea, it's crazy to requiring a big warning on an otherwise unlabeled drum of some random chemical.

And any other sort of regulation that actually doesn't do anything other than make people feel good about protecting the idiots out there that don't actually (or can't actually) read the various things that are now regulated?
Congratulations. You've moved from "the free market best functions by having an informed consumer" to "why bother informing people because they're all idiots". I guess we can then just move straight to communism, then. Or, you know, we could acknowledge that you can't make people not be stupid but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who do actually use the information. But, yea, let's harp on the outliers that make for great news stories. Or we can focus on epidemic problems (obesity) and just pretend that somehow regulation is causing it (or the free market is) instead, of oh, figuring out it's probably something to do with human nature and the best that can be done is to give people information and try to encourage them to use it.

We are now at a point where there are so many regulations, that many times they are contradictory or duplicated or otherwise have become meaningless noise that people filter out anyway.
Mind giving me a list of these contradictory, duplicated, etc regulations? Mind giving them to your local, state, or federal representative? Mind making it an election issue? Or is this all vague hand waving?

AND removing these over regulations is impossible, so instead of solving any problems we are just building more of them into the system.
Perhaps because (1) you aren't making concrete points on what regulations should be removed, (2) your representative might be running on removing regulations but he's just as hand waving as you are, and (3) you don't actually hold your representative to task for failing to accomplish anything because he can use the excuse that "removing these over regulations is impossible" (a great reason to vote the person out, when they state they can't do what they promised to do) while knowing that because nothing specific was brought up that even token removal of regulations might placate you and others of his constituency without really meaning much of anything.
Seriously, are you or is *anyone* doing the legwork to track down all these over regulations? Because, yeah, it's near impossible to remove a list of regulations when you don't have a list of regulations to remove. And politicians aren't ones who actually know the good and the bad of regulation as a general point--they rely upon experts and think tanks for that. Meanwhile, think tanks don't want to make a succinct list of corrections because if they actually worked, they'd be out of a job if a few years*. So it really does fall upon you to, you know, work at it.
*Okay, this isn't really fair. The same sort of charge is thrown at climate scientists as an excuse for them pushing for climate change to get grant money. But in both cases, I think the truth is the people

--
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by ohnocitizen · 2013-10-18 16:30 · Score: 1

Not all laws are equal. A law limiting how much toxic waste a company can dump near your drinking water is different than one stopping companies from selling you an extra super size soda.

Some of the laws you really hate come from people saying "there ought to be a law", corporations saying "we'll pay you to make it weak", and politicians saying "deal".
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by vux984 · 2013-10-18 18:12 · Score: 1

Economics makes no such claim that people act under "rational self interest" or that people are well informed. It's not even covered in an econ class one way or the other, you'll just never hear it. The laws of economics apply regardless.
It starts to come up when you discuss philosophical issues pertaining to economics. For example, the idea that capitalism allocates resources efficiently per-supposes the parties are acting with rational self interest. I think we would agree that if the parties are acting irrationally, or against their own interests that the resultant resource allocations will not be efficient.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by vux984 · 2013-10-18 21:52 · Score: 2

What is covered is that they're making the best decision for themselves
What does that even mean semantically, if the utility buyers assign to things is projected onto them by the suppliers?
Lets imagine ants. As a colony they gather the closest richest food source they can find.
Suppose a supplier puts out some food. The ants discover it and start harvesting it.
Then a competitor 'opens shop'; he's a bit closer, and his foods a bit richer. The ants discover it, and gradually they shift to the new source of food.
That's "capitalism" in the sense that the ants are collectively making the best decision for themselves. They've preferred the new source because its better utility. They harvest more energy and spend less energy doing it.
So far so good.
Then the first supplier wants to get the ants back. He could move even closer, or make his food even richer. He could clear route to his cache of predators... he could do any number of things to compete, to become the ants 'preferred choice'.
But he doesn't. He just goes and paints a strong pheromone trail to his cache. This literally overrides the ants decision making process, and they follow the new strong trail.
Are they making the best decision for themselves?
That's what sophisticated advertising is... it literally short circuits and reprograms our decision making processes to change how we value something.
Its a continuum of course... every external stimulus impacts us in some way, and I'm not suggesting we must block everything that influences us, so don't throw that straw man up.
But modern adverting is reaching levels of sophistication that are a whole different ballgame from more mundane examples of things that influence us.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by alexgieg · 2013-10-19 00:15 · Score: 1

Capitalism is based on the concept that all market participants, including consumers have perfect information on all aspects of all trades.
That's a very old 19th century notion abandoned by modern theorists for the simple fact that it's an impossibility, and basing real stuff on impossible notions has a tendency of not working. The fact that no market participant, not even producers, has or can have perfect information or even enough information is central to contemporaneous free-market theory as the problem Economy must deal with. Friedrich Hayek, for instance, demonstrated that the problem affects all economic models, and is worst in central planning due to way information flows and gets destructively compressed up the chain until reaching the central planners (it it reaches them at all, as much of it is just lost in the way), and the least worse in free markets since individual actors can react almost instantly to changes in the amount, quality and time-variability of information.
The key then isn't to expect perfect information, but to make people aware that they have imperfect information and thus that they must continuously seek information, not trusting any information received unless confirmed by other sources, to use the raw fact that information is imperfect as the shield with which to protect themselves from manipulation. One concrete solution of this type would be people subscribing to well reputed consumer review / safety / etc. publications that economically depended on them, the consumers, not on advertising and actively using those to filter out misleading information spread by producers.
As for the government regulating such information, it's perhaps advantageous to people who like to believe they aren't spending on becoming well informed, but in the end they still are, as producers just pass on the cost of reduced "idiot sales" into the price of whatever they sell, and on top of that they're also paying the taxes required to sustain the bureaucracy required to enforce the rules. The government doing it is just a more expensive way to achieve the same result, as is the case whenever the government does anything the market itself could be doing instead.

--
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-19 03:40 · Score: 0

"Over-regulation" is just a talking point, and without specifics is meaningless. Regulations cant be considered as a whole because each serves different purpose. If one industry has too many regulations for how to produce widget X, it doesn't mean lead in your water is a good idea. More worrying is the concept of regulatory capture, not over-regulation.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-19 04:36 · Score: 0

Ads aren't information
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Neil+Boekend · 2013-10-22 01:32 · Score: 1

It is against absolute free market, but highly pro capitalism.
Free market works best when the people have all the information available and make their choices based on that information. Sadly this is never really the case, as not all information is available. Capitalism is causing the people to choose your product. This can be done by controlling the information available, through advertising, or making your product the best choice when much information is available.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Archangel+Michael · 2013-10-22 04:44 · Score: 1

I'm going to address only ONE point you made, because it is the crux of the issue.

How dare the government require restaurants to label their products for their content!
You have it wrong. The ingredients of food in restaurants is not dependent upon requiring product labels. Labels do NOTHING for most people because like most government regulations the average person doesn't give a flying fuck what is in a Big Mac. And in fact, adding labels doesn't change anyone's behavior or buying patterns. IT is meaningless noise.
The only thing such a "regulation" does, is allow people feel good in an elitist way. You go on to "prove" my point with a great Strawman argument

I think cocaine would make a great additive to fast food. Best of all, no need to label it as included.
Do you really believe that labeling restaurant food keeps cocaine out of it? I didn't realize that Big Macs contained cocaine before the government required restaurant labels. Because this is exactly my point. YOU believe YOU are doing the public good by supporting Labels when labels didn't actually change anything.
And as a person who does have dietary restrictions, I generally don't eat in restaurants, because there is such poor quality control, that even if the ingredients are listed, it doesn't include cross contamination that happens in restaurants. Labels do nothing to prevent this, which is really more of an issue than Calorie Counts on Big Macs.
And yes, HOW dare the government "REQUIRE" labeling of ingredients and nutritional information on restaurants. It doesn't solve any real problem while making do-gooders like yourself feel better for their own inadequacies. But hey, if you like the ingredients list of a Big Mac, Large Fries and a Diet Coke(because you don't want to get fat) by all means buy it. But I rather doubt the food label changed your mind on that choice.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Re:Ads are anti-capitalist by Archangel+Michael · 2013-10-22 05:40 · Score: 1

Actually, laws against causing harm are already on the books. Both Civil and Criminal complaints. And if you're talking about Corporations, I'm all for holding both the officers (CxO) and the Board of directors personally responsible for corporate malfeasance in criminal court, as well as the Corporate death penalty for gross violations. If you want ethical behavior from Corporations you must hold those that run them ethically responsible. Creating more laws won't solve the problem of ethics in amoral corporations. Only people can have ethics, collectives cannot have ethics except in the form of the people that lead them.

--
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.

Shocking... O_o by SeaFox · 2013-10-18 08:11 · Score: 1

An advertiser not respecting the wishes of a consumer to not be advertised to?
I'm very perplexed what type of individuals these are who run this business.

Re:Shocking... O_o by Opportunist · 2013-10-18 08:28 · Score: 1

The type that you should cleanse with fire. And then shoot, just to be sure.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Shocking... O_o by intermodal · 2013-10-18 08:48 · Score: 1

They're basically like telemarketers, except you only get to hang up when they figuratively call if you already have your ad-blockers installed and the proper filters set up.
And the awesome thing is, when people advertise at me, they actually reduce if not eliminate the chance that I will even consider their product.

--
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Re:Shocking... O_o by geminidomino · 2013-10-18 09:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

And this is why I figuratively (and literally) flip off any ass hat who comes in bitching about adblockers whenever they come up.
Malware, black-hats, etc.. are actively hostile to us, our privacy, and our systems' security, and we take steps to mitigate the threat they pose.
Advertisers have proven, time and again, that they belong in the same category, and do so overtly (they don't even try to pretend otherwise). IMNSHO, to not mitigate them borders on negligence.
Re:Shocking... O_o by Linsaran · 2013-10-19 07:11 · Score: 1

I don't think all advertisers are inherently malicious. There are some sure, but then there are some crooked cops, some sleazy salesmen, corrupt politicians etc. The problem comes in that most of the time we see advertisements on the internet its because there really is no other way for the company to provide the services they provide unless someone is footing the bill. Would you use Google search if you had to pay for it? Some people might, but I'd be willing to bet that most people wouldn't. Using AD blockers is the digital equivalent of saying "I want to use your service but I don't think it's good enough to to pay for it".
Now I might sound a little hypocritical, since I do have an ad blocker installed myself, but when I regularly visit a website that I know makes it's money off of ads I'll usually disable it. And I have been known to spring for 'premium' accounts occasionally (which usually ditch the ads) for services I use a lot, so maybe I am a bit of a hypocrite for not wanting to pay for the hosting of 'Joe and Jim's Spam blog' that I happened to visit once when just surfing around the net, but for sites that I visit Daily, I usually have no problem with a couple tasteful ads that don't significantly detract from the content of the page.

--
In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
Re:Shocking... O_o by geminidomino · 2013-10-20 07:29 · Score: 1

So you don't think advertisers are inherently malicious, and then you spend two paragraphs explaining why the sites, rather than the ad networks themselves, aren't bad? Did you completely miss the point, or are you one of the aforementioned and you felt it necessary to make sure you got the bird you were entitled to?

Professionalism... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

I have difficulty seeing the author as a professional when he uses words like "porcine" to describe an overweight woman. Is that really necessary in a professional publication?

Re:Professionalism... by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2013-10-18 09:57 · Score: 1

He could have called her an "urban whore".
Nothing bad ever came from doing something like that.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Professionalism... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 11:01 · Score: 0

I have difficulty seeing the author as a professional when he uses words like "porcine" to describe an overweight woman. Is that really necessary in a professional publication?
Perhaps you would have preferred 'rotund', 'Rubenesque', 'venti' (or is it 'trenta' now?), 'boulder like', 'unnecessarily large', 'gravitationally impaired'?

opt-outs by girlintraining · 2013-10-18 08:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Opt-outs are a scam. They have been since the late 90s. Opting out just tells spammers that they hit a real e-mail address, and thus its value goes up. It also tells them one other important piece of information: You're willing to click on links that send you to random websites.

Anyone who tries to 'opt out' is an idiot, and anyone who suggests them as a solution to spam and advertising should be dragged into the street and stoned to death. There is only one solution: Get rid of all of it. The end. Stop your monetization of the web 2.0 synergizing cluster fuck of the internet... it survived just fine before you vultures descended on it. It will survive your demise as well.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie

Re:opt-outs by guytoronto · 2013-10-18 08:18 · Score: 3, Informative

You are overgeneralizing. Marketing emails from legitimate companies are often stopped by opting-out. The legitimate companies have more to lose by not following the rules.
Re:opt-outs by girlintraining · 2013-10-18 08:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

You are overgeneralizing. Marketing emails from legitimate companies are often stopped by opting-out.
"Legitimate" companies like Google, who then sell your information to third parties? Because that's what this guy is talking about, and that's what they're doing. I don't know how much more "legitimate" of an example I can make.

The legitimate companies have more to lose by not following the rules.
Once you've opted out, they have no further reason to follow your imaginary rules. It's just data now; Data should be monetized. If you aren't interested in our products, then we will have to make money some other way... by selling your information to our competitors, maybe... hey, at least it's turning a frown upside-down, right?

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Re:opt-outs by Opportunist · 2013-10-18 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem is that really reputable companies that actually care about their reputation are not really the ones that clog your inbox with ad crap. You might get a news letter or two every other month or a few select offers that actually apply to you instead of blanket carpet bombing of their entire customer base with whatever piddly crap they're hawking this time.
The companies that WOULD actually heed your opt-out are also the ones where you don't NEED an opt-out.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:opt-outs by poetmatt · 2013-10-18 08:28 · Score: 2

no. Opt out is a complete scam. You should be required to have express consent of opting in, before any tracking is done. any and all tracking is simply unauthorized and that is why I strongly recommend adblock or any other version of adblocking for every tech site (especially techreport), and basically the web itself.
Re:opt-outs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:37 · Score: 0

marketing mails from legitimate companies are opt-in.
Consider yesterdays spam mail:
5 copies of "Keep your lady happy every night" from taiwan
12 copies of X.W32.Sasfis.pak from various countries
0 emails from legitimate companies
Overgeneralizing? I think not. Most 'marketing' email is not legitimate.
Re:opt-outs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:02 · Score: 0

With font order, "supercookies", and other stuff, it is trivial to keep track of a person across websites, no matter how many "browser cleaner" utilities they run. Opt-outs just move the person across other analytic sites. They might opt out of site "A", but "B", "C", and "D", have just now opted the person in.
As an aside, The web 2.0 advertisers are pretty successful.
And they likely drive better cars than you have ever been in.
Re:opt-outs by Mashdar · 2013-10-18 09:17 · Score: 1

Yes? Opting out works when you are dealing with a real company. I have opted out of a number of advertisment newsletters (Newegg, Amazon, etc.) and I don't get any of them... As GP said, real companies care about their image and don't spam the shit out of you.
Re:opt-outs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:37 · Score: 0

Opt out schemes are only valid (or legally enforced) in the country in question. Therefore, US companies farm out the ads to chingchongland as a separate service selling US products and services. This is completely legal but obviously illegal when looking at the high level picture. The UK has a similar issue with don't fucking call me lists, that actually have severe penalties for infringers. What happened? All the UK tosser directors farmed out tele-spam overseas so the incoming number wasn't UK STD codes and circumvented the law of the land. The sicking thing is, the people calling are often not foreign but local and employed via the foreign shell company.
The only way to fix these issues is to not moan about the companies doing it, but to find out who runs them and persistently name them in every single fucking complaint letter, email and fax. Their public profiles will be rotten to the core, and incoming replacements might (probably not) think twice before being complete douche bags.
Re:opt-outs by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-10-18 09:46 · Score: 2

You're right - opting out of web based tracking is largely pointless. It works better in email, and only where it's a legitimate company. Email has been tamed through a combination of technological measures and laws. For example, the spam I receive to my 10 year old email address is way different to what I saw back in the day. I saw porn stuff, Viagra and companies selling more mainstream items. Bizarrely enough, Chinese construction companies cropped up a bit. These days it's mostly phishing attempts and Asian companies offering knock-offs. There are laws that come down heavily on legitimate companies who spam. I've worked in companies that manage customer data, and the rules are very strict. No unsolicited promotional contact, excepting customers who opt-in. No such luck for tracking on the web. Presumably they evade European data laws by not personally identifying the real person - just their browsing habits and approximate location. That's all advertisers need.
We need better legal protections and for browsers to help users anonymise themselves. The latter is difficult while the most common browsers are tied to the very people who benefit the most from tracking. It also doesn't help that people are so blasÃ© when it comes to ejaculating personal data in exchange for the Bonzi Buddy or Facebook of the day.

--
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Re:opt-outs by Mitreya · 2013-10-18 09:58 · Score: 3

The companies that WOULD actually heed your opt-out are also the ones where you don't NEED an opt-out.
That's not at all true
Nowdays, EVERY business I ever did anything with decides that I really want to know about their promotions. A hotel in Spain and another one in NY (each of which I have visited once, years ago) tried to send me regular notes about their "specials"
I guess doing business once with them allows them to do so (no one asked me to opt-in), but opt-out really helped here.
Re:opt-outs by phorm · 2013-10-18 10:05 · Score: 1

I've worked at places that did "forums" etc that did mail-outs. They would actually be fairly respectful of opt-outs, one of the main reasons being that if they didn't they end up being greylisted/blacklisted with gmail, hotmail, etc and then suddenly a bunch of mail doesn't get out at all.
Obviously not going to work for viagra-spammers, but I don't see many of those with opt-outs. Then again I don't see much spam at all in my gmail etc (except, in the spam bin, but I almost never need to look there).
Re:opt-outs by ahabswhale · 2013-10-18 10:07 · Score: 1

1) They can get your email address very easily regardless, and
2) what do you think pays for all this free shit on the internet? unicorn farts?

--
Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
Re:opt-outs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 10:43 · Score: 0

Your inbox is still clogged with crap? Spam's a problem for hosting providers and the guys operating fat pipes. Sifting through crap in my inbox hasn't happened for a very very very very long time.
Re:opt-outs by poetmatt · 2013-10-18 11:23 · Score: 1

you're relying on honor. Newegg, amazon etc might work. However, the scammers that decided you "opted in"? Which one do you think is more prevalent?
Re:opt-outs by hurfy · 2013-10-18 11:48 · Score: 1

ok, then give your email address to Staples. I dare you not to use an opt-out link ;)
or GNC, tho no idea who gave them my email. Actually it was whoever had the hotmail addy before me. Seems to take them 5 years to realize it not theirs now.
The problem i have right now. I can't get a broadband provider in the UK (from US) to stop sending statement notifications to me there. It's not an ad/newletter so no opt-out....a no-reply addy.... only link is to a login page. There is no way to tell em it's the wrong address!
Re:opt-outs by Darinbob · 2013-10-18 13:52 · Score: 1

What is an example of a "legitimate" company that would send me unsolicited advertisements that suck away at my bandwidth?
Re:opt-outs by Darinbob · 2013-10-18 13:59 · Score: 1

I regularly get some spam from Brazil, in Portugese, which I don't speak and I have never been to South America. Even if I wanted to opt-out I'm not sure how I'd figure out the directions to do so.
I also get some odd far right wing stuff. One even claimed had a page where I could go to see my opt-in choice, and it indeed showed that someone opted me in on a certain date and time. I have a vague suspicion that my mother secretly signs me up for this stuff.
I almost always have adblock on, so I rarely see anything much less anything that's targeted.
Re:opt-outs by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-19 04:03 · Score: 0

Google is not selling your information, it is not how ad targeting works. They sell targeting, not information.
Re:opt-outs by Reziac · 2013-10-19 09:34 · Score: 1

The very first spam I ever got was from beard.com (this was back in 1995) -- it was just a text description of whatever the guy was doing at the time. After that they came 3 or 4 times a year (finally seem to have petered out a couple years ago) and I actually kinda looked forward to 'em, because they were halfway interesting AND they were unobtrusive.
Same for a couple of Chinese companies looking for legit business (one makes those outdoor kiddie gyms you see at Walmart). I don't mind their very occasional, non-annoying emails.
Neither has anything I want to buy, but they don't flood me with shit, either.
But they're *looking* for customers. Conversely, the blast-your-face advertisers of today's internet are not. Rather, WE are the product they sell -- the eyeballs they collect and sell TO the companies that buy ad space.
There's the difference. I don't mind someone asking, "Hey, maybe you want to buy this?" I *do* mind being SOLD as if I'm a commodity.

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:opt-outs by IamTheRealMike · 2013-10-19 10:53 · Score: 1

"Legitimate" companies like Google, who then sell your information to third parties?
I am a Google user. My email address is in my Slashdot profile. Please go buy my personal data from Google and then show it to me. I'll be waiting when you get back.

Just use adBlock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:14 · Score: 5, Informative

And solve the problem.

Re:Just use adBlock by i+kan+reed · 2013-10-18 08:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yep, lots of people on the internet say "but what about the revenue of the sites you use." It ignores that there's never going to be a mutual respect there, no matter how much you respect the source.
Re:Just use adBlock by linebackn · 2013-10-18 09:00 · Score: 1

Yep, lots of people on the internet say "but what about the revenue of the sites you use."
If a site can't get by on its own merits then FUCK IT TO HELL.
Real good sites with real content can find some way to make money (such as selling t-shirts, subscriptions, or the occasional equivalent of a paid slashvertisment.). And if not, then just too freaking bad.
Do people realize that even in the real world, advertisers can't just do whatever they want? They can't throw branded rocks at your car while you are driving. They aren't allowed to put up billboard that may induce seizures. They can't tack sticky notes to you to see what branded rock you were interested in last.
Many communities have rules about what can be displayed where, and when. If the advertisers find some new way to be obnoxious then the community can fight back with new rules. Just the other day there was something on the local news about an area that was planning to prohibit stores from displaying large signs in their storefront windows.
So why should "cyberspace" be any different? If a browser has rules about what kind of content is allowed and where from, then who are advertisers to say differently?
Re:Just use adBlock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:47 · Score: 0

I don't care about the ad revenue. I want them to offer a product worth paying for. If they cannot do that I want them to go broke.
Re:Just use adBlock by paulatz · 2013-10-18 09:48 · Score: 1

I've been using adblock since ever, but it is not always available everywhere. I.e. on mobile devices it takes a minimum of technical expertise to set up ad blocking, either by rooting+app or changing browser. Furthermore, and even if I have not seen an ad in years, I've still checked the do not track box wherever I can; if it goes go up in the statistics maybe someone will get the message.

--
this post contain no useful information, no need to mod it down
Re:Just use adBlock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 11:04 · Score: 0

Ahh ... there's that 'respect' again.
Re:Just use adBlock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 14:11 · Score: 0

This particular user rejects ads wholeheartedly because he recalls the glory days of the Web when there was an intellectual and financial barrier to entry and websites were hosted either as a community service (or a loss-leader for paid hosting) or from your own pocket because you loved what you did. Get bent, they're my eyeballs. If you view a site as a business instead of a gift to a community of fellow devotees then fuck you, you're part of the problem. That's exactly where the respect was lost, and it's not coming back for a vast, vast majority of sites out there.
Re:Just use adBlock by MrL0G1C · 2013-10-18 20:31 · Score: 1

I agree, and that's why I use ghostery, it blocks tracking and allows any ad's that don't track.... Which seems to be none of them, but that's their problem to sort out isn't it.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.

You mean to tell me you couldn't opt out of Google by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:15 · Score: 0

You mean to tell me you couldn't opt out of Google ads?? This is surprising behaviour and we should all file complaints about it.

Adblock? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:15 · Score: 0

It's 2013, why isn't he using adblock?

Adblock is your friend by MarcAuslander · 2013-10-18 08:16 · Score: 1

The cynic in me says that any request you make about your email address just makes that a more valuable address!

Ablock, on the other hand, seems to do the trick pretty well for many people. Adblock plus actually right now - but there is a growing controversy about it.

Re:Adblock is your friend by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 21:15 · Score: 0

Ablock, on the other hand, seems to do the trick pretty well for many people. Adblock plus actually right now - but there is a growing controversy about it.
Which is why it was forked into Adblock Edge. AFAIK, there aren't any bad rumors about Edge (yet).

Jumping through hoops? by DogDude · 2013-10-18 08:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

I don't understand why the person writing this article would choose to jump through the advertiser's hoops to deal with this problem. Install Adblock and Ghostery or something similar and forget about it.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Seriously, did anyone expect this to work? by icebike · 2013-10-18 08:17 · Score: 1

Simply saying don't track me, while as the same time handing over enough identifying information to do precisely that is a silly expectation.

At best you might suppress some innocuous tracking by people who were already probably on the up and up, but big merchants
and big ad agencies are going to track everything they can find out about you from your browser and your location. Even if they have only a tiny ad on a site that you visit, you can rest assured that since that site wasn't the site you contacted, its not necessarily going to even see, or pay attention to do-not-track.

--
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.

Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashdot. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

I've seen beta.slashdot.org and was horrified. Once the "old" slashdot goes away, so will this nearly two-decade user.

Seems to need an ad blocker. by linebackn · 2013-10-18 08:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Seriously, there are STILL people out there using browsers without ad blockers?! Are they also still using IE 6?

Hint: If you are using Windows 95 or NT 3.51 then SeaMonkey 1.1.19 and Adblock 0.5 or Adblock Plus 1.0.2 do a great job.

There is just no excuse.

Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:37 · Score: 1

Amusing anecdote: Slashdot is the reason I use an ad blocker. Ten years ago Slashdot ran an ad that used 100% of my CPU, so I downloaded Firefox and installed an ad blocker, and I haven't seen an ad here since.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:38 · Score: 0

What if you use 3.1 still? My PC doesn't support 95.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by guises · 2013-10-18 08:44 · Score: 2

There is just no excuse.
Well... I can think of one excuse. Many websites that I like rely on advertising revenue. Some, like Slashdot, have an option to pay a bit of money instead of seeing ads, and that's nice enough when it's available, but I don't particularly want to keep track of a zillion subscriptions and not every site is large enough to have that sort of thing.

Given that the way this whole internet deal works is for me to send a request to some remote server and for them to send me what I ask for (at their expense), it certainly feels pretty unethical for me to block the only way they have to recoup that money.

I do use NoScript, which winds up blocking a good portion of ads, and I don't feel bad about that one, but fundamentally the problem with a visitor using AdBlock is the same as a spammer sending spam - not only are you doing something that may not be desired, but you're pushing all of the costs for this action onto the other person.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by s.petry · 2013-10-18 08:44 · Score: 2

I'll see your Adblock and raise you a NoScript and block all cookies. Still imperfect, but it seems to work very well.
That said, there is something rather disturbing to point out. Why do people buy things from these people? If people did not purchase from shitty telemarketers, they would simply vanish (and I hope they eventually do). But enough people buy the trash to keep the shitty business practices in business. The same is true with targeted ads on web pages.
I honestly have no clue why anyone would purchase something based on an advertisement. I won't buy pants because they are in a magazine or displayed on a sign, I buy them because I go to the store and have a tangible moment with the pants. I can inspect quality, fit, colors. I do the same with nearly everything (music is an exception, but generally I can sample music ahead of time).
Some people out there have a very different way of thinking. Enough people to support the advertisers obviously.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:53 · Score: 1

You don't need to worry. You'll only see ads for Geocities and AOL.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:57 · Score: 5, Informative

Well... I can think of one excuse. Many websites that I like rely on advertising revenue.
And that's why adblock has a whitelist option so that you can whitelist the sites that don't display intrusive/abusive advertising. It even has a checkbox for "allow unobtrusive advertising" when selecting filters, which lets through things such as the google text based ads.
Now where's you're excuse?
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:07 · Score: 1

It even has a checkbox for "allow unobtrusive advertising" when selecting filters
You mean the unobtrusive advertising whitelist that they sell? "Nice website you have there, would be sad if something would happen to it, wanna buy some insurance"...?
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:14 · Score: 0

I just installed an ad blocker to my wlan router. Works great at blocking stuff on mobile too, both in browser and in-app advertisements. I can only recommend this.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Kozz · 2013-10-18 09:20 · Score: 1

Seriously, there are STILL people out there using browsers without ad blockers?! Are they also still using IE 6?
Yes, there are. And no, using IE8 is still sufficient ...

--
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by linebackn · 2013-10-18 09:22 · Score: 1

it certainly feels pretty unethical for me to block the only way they have to recoup that money.
Does it also feel unethical to have rules about companies not putting up billboards that can induce seizures? Or about where they can put them? Would you just sit there and take it if you woke up one morning and found 100 small advertising sign posts stuck in your yard?
Since there is no regulation on the internet, an adblocker is, in my opinion, a perfectly acceptable thing to for people to use.
If a sites like Slashdot can not get by with just the kinds of things that adblockers block, then that is to damn bad. They do not have a RIGHT to make money off of my visits. I would hope they would try other ways to make money first. But if it is in an annoying or intrusive way then I am out of here. (And if they go to that crappy beta design as-is then I am out of here anyway)
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by PhxBlue · 2013-10-18 09:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

I do use NoScript, which winds up blocking a good portion of ads, and I don't feel bad about that one, but fundamentally the problem with a visitor using AdBlock is the same as a spammer sending spam - not only are you doing something that may not be desired, but you're pushing all of the costs for this action onto the other person.
Then I guess it might behoove them to spend a bit less money by serving simpler ads. Say, something text-only? The reason AdBlock became so popular was because the advertisers got so obnoxious.

--
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:40 · Score: 0

I ended up going two notches more:
Adblock, click-to-play on Chrome, NoScript on Firefox, and both in a SandboxIE VM.
At work, I didn't even want to bother with that, so on went CentOS in a VM and I use the Linux VM for my Web browsing.
Neither way is 100%, but from what I know, the main course for malware is drive-by downloads and browser exploits. Until the ad "services", and there are a lot of them actually zip their fly, I will always assume they are serving up dangerous stuff and block them, preferably at the router, but at least at the browser level.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-10-18 09:40 · Score: 3

it certainly feels pretty unethical for me to block the only way they have to recoup that money.
Except it is not the only way they have to recoup that money. It is just the way they have chosen to try. There are other ways. Penny Arcade raised half a million on kickstarter to go ad-free for a year. They also sell merchandise. Linux Weekly News embargoes some articles for a week so that they are only available to subscribers. Phoronix has subscriptions for ad-free and single-page articles.
Bigger picture, advertisement based funding killed the development of micro-payment functionality. If advertising becomes less lucrative, we will see alternatives come about. By letting those ads through you aren't just helping to fund your favorite websites, you are also enabling an industry that has the potential to do real harm to society through misuse of all the profiling information they collect.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:43 · Score: 0

What about the fact that our data individual doesn't have too much worth to a corporation, but in large groups of data helps them make millions if not billions. That's a pretty damn unbalanced trade if all we get from it is access to owner-user content. I'm fine with just seeing (not hearing) ads, what I'm not fine with is all the data mining they do as they pass through my PC or interrupting video when I watch it (play them at beginning and ending for immersion sake).
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-10-18 09:47 · Score: 1

I'll see your Adblock and raise you a NoScript and block all cookies. Still imperfect, but it seems to work very well.
Go all in with RequestPolicy.
It is like NoScript for all cross-site requests, not just javascript.
Install the beta of 1.0 direct from the website. It is stable and the GUI is better, I've been running it for months, just make sure you change the default from black-listing to white-listing.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by mlts · 2013-10-18 09:53 · Score: 1

I use different browsers for different tasks, as well as Sandboxie for additional separation (the sandboxes are stored on a different volume, so all writes are redirected there. I'm glad I did this since I have had some malware tried to do a "mkdir foo, cd foo" loop and getting rid of it was trivial compared to it happening on a needed disk volume -- a quick diskpart clean and reformat did the trick.
Nothing is certain security, but keeping the bank stuff stays in one browser, while my general stuff stays in another browser/sandbox has seemed to have done a good job for security. I might see about going another notch and browsing in a VM, but sandboxing is almost as secure and it doesn't slow things down as much.
Browser security still seems to be the weakest link these days, but it seems to be getting better. However, it would be nice if functionality to redirect all writes was in the OS, so one could use a disposable volume to protect against stuff trying to use all inodes or using hidden browser cookie-like functionality to continue to identify a user.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by pspahn · 2013-10-18 10:23 · Score: 1

I think it's interesting that you're not willing to use Adblock but you're willing to use Noscript.

...it certainly feels pretty unethical for me to block the only way they have to recoup that money.
In my case, the website I run for our family's small business generally relies on users having javascript enabled. I don't do anything nasty with it... I use it for AJAX content updates for a slick search feature that allows you to browse the entire catalog without endless page reloads. I use it for the checkout process so that you can login or create a new account from there without having to go to some other page and fill out forms to create an account. I use it to allow you to modify your cart from the checkout page without having to go back to the cart page.
I do all these things as a convenience to the user, and as the only developer our business has, the time it takes me is not trivial, so forgive me if I am a bit annoyed when someone describes their unwillingness to use Adblock due to ethical reasons and at the same time say they use Noscript.
Yes, the problem for me is the advertisers and other asshole out there using Javascript for annoying purposes on sites that generally don't serve any real purpose other than to make their owners advertising money. I am totally fine with you wanting your browsing experience not to be corrupted by these people, just keep in mind that there are in fact sites out there that may also be using these tools *for your benefit*.
...and for the record, our site does not serve any advertisements other than our own (and never will).

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by marcosdumay · 2013-10-18 14:21 · Score: 1

Of course, there are lots of sites serving javascript for the user's benefit. That's why NoScript makes it easy to whitelist a site.
Personaly, I don't like ad-blocking (it messes with the pages, no ethical concerns), and use NoScript. I probably wouldn't even have to change anything for your site, since you are probably serving javascript from the same place as you serve your pages, and I whitelisted local scripts in general. Non-local scripts are bad more often than good, and even when the intention of the developer was to improve the user's life, lots of times that's not really what happens; so I block it by default. It makes the web safer, makes tracking me a lot harder (but I allow tracking by some sites), and makes lots of pages more useable (just before comming to /., I realised NoScript was off because I couldn't use a site).
And, anyway, even if you accept javascript from anywhere you'll still beefit from the other NoScript features, like click to play plugins, xss protection, or audio blocking.

--
Rethinking email
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 14:28 · Score: 0

I'm not using an ad-blocker, I'm just disabling Javascript and that's it.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 14:30 · Score: 0

I'd rather have ads than paywalls.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by marcosdumay · 2013-10-18 14:31 · Score: 1

Well, as I've more than once brought things from ads, I can probably explain why....

I won't buy pants because they are in a magazine or displayed on a sign
Well, me neither. But that's a bad example. I know that pants exist, there isn't a huge variation in their price, and know that I should physicaly try them. Those conditions are not always true, and I really appreciate ads about things that I don't know that exist, or that have a very low price and don't require physical inspection.
Anyway, I dislike anoying ads just like everybody else, and also use NoScript, not really because of the ads, but they are a nice extra. Thus, when I get to see an ad, it's normaly well behaved.

--
Rethinking email
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 18:19 · Score: 0

but you're pushing all of the costs for this action onto the other person.
Trivial for the web site to block you if you're blocking the ad's. The fact that most choose not to do so is telling.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-19 04:18 · Score: 0

Nothing got killed, the users chose what they wanted.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · 2013-10-19 08:44 · Score: 1

> I'd rather have ads than paywalls.
The end result of all this ad targeting is the same thing, maybe even worse than, paywalls.
If they could, advertisers would only pay for ads that hit their target market. RIght now some kid living on the street in Manila can get a hotmail account because hotmail doesn't really know if that kid has any money to spend or not. But if we ever achieve advertising nirvana that kid's access will be snuffed out like the light of a candle.

--
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Re:Seems to need an ad blocker. by s.petry · 2013-10-20 04:47 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info here, I had not known of the product until you pointed it out. I'll do some investigating and see how it works.

--
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

There is only one thing an opt-out accomplishes by Opportunist · 2013-10-18 08:23 · Score: 1

Verifying that you're actually reading whatever crap they throw at you. In other words, you only make it more valuable for ad spammers.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

All your privacy are belong to NSA or corporation by WillAffleckUW · 2013-10-18 08:26 · Score: 1

All your privacy is belong to either the NSA or the Corporations, neither of which are ever mentioned in the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

By reading this, you have agreed to me running all your information through Facebook Stalker and writing a book about it, which I will sell to all your potential girlfriends and wives.

Thank you, Serf! ... oh, wait, I meant "Citizen".

--
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --

Does this surprise anybody ? by aepervius · 2013-10-18 08:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

No , really ? I am not surprised. The ad industry torpedoed every instance of normal regulation and do not track, they are handling self regulation like robber barron, laughing all the way. There is only one option : the nuclear option, and it is adblocking. All of it. And if a web site does not want to show me anything because I block ads , well I can most probably live without that web site.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

The big question is still unanswered. by steelfood · 2013-10-18 08:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

All this, and the big question still goes unanswered: Why is he getting targetted for plus-sized women's clothing? I mean, the behaviorial information causing him to be an ideal candidate for purchasing plus-sized women's clothing is coming from somewhere, no?

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Re:The big question is still unanswered. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:31 · Score: 0

All this, and the big question still goes unanswered: Why is he getting targetted for plus-sized women's clothing?
Because, why not! They know he need to sit back, relax, go crossdressing, its good clean fun! Everyone should do it! :)
Re:The big question is still unanswered. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:48 · Score: 0

I mean, the behaviorial information causing him to be an ideal candidate for purchasing plus-sized women's clothing is coming from somewhere, no?
There is no reason to assume that whatever is funneling these ads to the author is working or even worth a damn if it is working. Advertisers don't necessarily know squat, and the people selling ad slots to them are not necessarily reputable or competent.
This is one of the annoying things about ad targeting: they invade your privacy and don't even give you useful advertising in return.
Re:The big question is still unanswered. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 10:13 · Score: 0

All this, and the big question still goes unanswered: Why is he getting targetted for plus-sized women's clothing?
Because he opted out, so he's content profile #0. It was supposed to be NULL, but someone got sloppy and treated that as a zero.
And by an amazing coincidence, the combination on Bruce Schnieir's luggage (which contains several xxxl womens' dresses, if you must know) happens to be cfcd208495d565ef66e7dff9f98764da right now.
Re:The big question is still unanswered. by pspahn · 2013-10-18 10:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

An interesting thing happened to me the other day.
I do use Facebook on occasion, generally as a way to aggregate a few of my interests into one place I can go for articles and such.
So the other day I go on and all of a sudden there are several "Suggested Posts" promoting engagement rings. Eh? Really? I have not been looking for engagement rings online or anywhere else, so I found it odd these ads (again, not just one, there were several from different jewelers) were targeting me.
I go ask my girlfriend, "hey, were you looking at engagement rings on my computer?" She had an awkward look about her and went on to say that she wasn't, *but*, she was looking at them on her computer at work.
Interesting.
We are not labeled on FB as "In a relationship", and any posts between us are usually because we were at the same housewarming party or something (along with a bunch of other people). Despite the fact that we aren't obviously in a relationship, FB still knows that I need to be seeing ads for engagement rings. While I don't intend on proposing to her anytime soon, the idea is still there, so it's not like the targeted ad was innaccurate.
Maybe this guy in TFA has a mother who is plus-sized and her birthday is in two weeks? These types of inferences are happening more and more, so don't be surprised when you see an ad for a product that you would never buy *for yourself* because maybe their goal is to get you to buy for that person close to you that they know you would want to buy something for.

--
Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
Re:The big question is still unanswered. by hurfy · 2013-10-18 12:08 · Score: 1

Good one and on the 1 Friday I don't have mod points.
I usually get mod points on Fridays, since i view it Mon-Fri. is it really trying to entice me here for the weekend too or just stupid?
Re:The big question is still unanswered. by Reziac · 2013-10-19 09:23 · Score: 1

Maybe he's visiting fat-admirer sites on the sly. ;)

--
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Re:The big question is still unanswered. by IamTheRealMike · 2013-10-19 10:57 · Score: 1

Who knows? Perhaps his DHCP lease expired and he got reassigned to an IP previously used by a curvy woman?
A lot of these ad systems are based on somewhat black box machine learning models or statistical correlation engines. Even the people who run them can't always explain why a certain choice was made, just that overall it seems to do the right thing.

Re:Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashd by i+kan+reed · 2013-10-18 08:38 · Score: 1

Unfortunately for you, users of all kinds of sites express disdain for new layouts, which never end up killing the site like dissatisfied users claim. In this case the new design is extremely impractical, and slashdot has been on track for a collapse for a while now.

But it will go ahead, because of e-precedent for ignoring the naysayers regarding site-design.

opting out just attracts attention by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:45 · Score: 0

Opting out of anything just attracts further attention, because people generally are irredeemable scum. The very best way to avoid spam is not to email people. Ever.

If you successfully block tracking... by Animats · 2013-10-18 08:45 · Score: 1

I have Abine's Do Not Track, and have local Flash storage disabled. The major TV networks now send me the same commercial over and over while viewing the same show.

At least I know the block is working.

Re: OMG Ponies by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 08:48 · Score: 1

They'll figure it out when traffic drops by 90% over the next two weeks.

I still hope that the "beta" is an elaborate October-19th-fools joke.

Ad tracking is fundamentally flawed by Dusthead+Jr. · 2013-10-18 08:49 · Score: 2

Ad tracking a little flawed because it seems to be based on the idea you might want to purchase some that you type in a search bar. Going by my own search history 5%, maybe less, of my searches has anything to do with trying to buy something. Most of the time I'm just farting around doing what amounts mindless channel surfing. I imaging most people are generally the same, spending a small about of time researching products, and most of the time looking for everything else.

Re:Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashd by wisnoskij · 2013-10-18 08:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Why would anyone think it was a good idea to turn a good looking, well working site, into something that looks like a blogspot blog?

--
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.

Use AdBlock by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:09 · Score: 0

Block them for real without having to have the ad agency (Google) promising to do so.

Ad servers often used to distribute malware by dutchwhizzman · 2013-10-18 09:10 · Score: 1

Really, companies that in this day and age don't block all ads with a filtering proxy, are running serious security risks. Not only do their employees risk getting viruses and malware through malicious ads, but their surfing behaviour whilst working is being recorded and sold to the highest bidder. It will be trivial for their competition to buy up their surfing stats and see what the competition is doing inside their offices.

Any web site relying on ads for a revenue will find the ads blocked at every possible location, especially when BYOD will start mandating the blocks to be put on home and portable devices as well. Either you run the ads from your own content platform, or they will get blocked. Serving ads for other websites as a business, or logging user data, will lose it's value in the coming years. Companies will figure out they will get shafted and infected if they don't block the traffic of these for their employees, both in the office and at home. It's back to selling ads on your own platform and running your own stats program if you want reliable statistics and income from banners in a few years from now.

--
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?

Re:Ad servers often used to distribute malware by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:44 · Score: 0

No they don't. The main players merely do context sensitve scans of the served page and return a div containing keyword / location based search matches.
You are talking complete and utter shit, unless you are openly claiming to surf illegal content sites.
Most sane sites generate plenty of page impression to draw nice income that covers costs. That's why there are placeholder pages on all the big boy sites for things that don't have content.

Don't trust them by Dunge · 2013-10-18 09:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Don't trust marketers to honor the "do not track", they never will. The solution is simple: Install AdBlock, Ghostery, Disconnect.me AND PeerBlock. Death to online tracking.

Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:25 · Score: 0

So you like the freeloading thing, don't you? Websites don't magically run themselves, they need a revenue stream.
At least W3C has seen the light on this with DRM in HTML. No ad viewing, no content viewing. Got it? Good.
Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:53 · Score: 1

As with all DRM, it will be circumvented. No dice.
Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 10:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Websites don't magically run themselves, they need a revenue stream.
Cool.
So where's my check from Slashdot for all the content I've provided for them in the manner of comments over the years?
Talk about freeloading.
Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 11:46 · Score: 0

I do targeted Google ads , and I opted out so my own ads aren't all I see, and I can honestly say I have not seen my ad since.
Re:Don't trust them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 13:47 · Score: 1

I'm still waiting for a site that gives me a message: "we have detected that you use an ad blocker. Click here to authorize a 1c charge per ad-free page for the next 100 pages of this site." That would bring in more revenue than ads currently do.
Re:Don't trust them by justthinkit · 2013-10-19 03:49 · Score: 1

Ads, just ads, would be an improvement. All I know is when the Ghostery pop-up window is long enough to hit the bottom of my x1200 display, I'm logging off the Internet for good.

--
I come here for the love

Just deleted cookies? by Lucky75 · 2013-10-18 09:19 · Score: 1

Isn't it possible that this guy just deleted his cookies? My browser is blocking 3rd party cookies, so I can't "opt out".

--
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association

Re:Just deleted cookies? by Lucky75 · 2013-10-18 09:21 · Score: 1

And didn't firefox recently change the default to "block 3rd party cookies"?

--
DNA -- National Dyslexic Association

Europe almost had it right by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:41 · Score: 0

But they went for cookies instead of evil trackers.

Sorry Europe, but your princess is in another castle..

Basic misunderstanding by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 09:54 · Score: 0

When I see things like this:

And even if you have opted out, these ads may still be dropping the same cookies on your hard drive to collect data about you for other reasons, like analyzing ad performance or determining your location.

it makes me think people simply don't understand computers. No ad or web page has ever "dropped cookies" on anyone's hard drive. Browsers do that.

In this case, it sounds like the guy has a browser that saves Just Whatever cookies are ever offered to it, and apparently long-term. How quaint. I didn't know anyone still used those kinds of browsers.

Multiple levels of finger-pointing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 10:33 · Score: 0

This is by design, much like spam - there are multiple levels of finger-pointing and blame shifting, and you can never get to the bottom.

I don't want to be tracked don't work either... by Trax3001BBS · 2013-10-18 10:41 · Score: 1

Please! If people won't take a clue and use a HOSTS file they deserve all the ads they get.

The system the author uses is a cookie type, so the must keep their cookies, someone posted
that there are Firefox programs to keep certain cookies after I posted this before. I just scanned
the article but seems like http://www.networkadvertising.org/choices/

Just use a HOSTS file mines 144292 lines, I don't get many ads.

And know that you can't opt-out of on-line or mobile ads - Google tossed me a loop searching for a PDF,
I put in TRAX it searches for TRACKS; - I say that then say you need to opt out of Flurry.com at the router level.

I've also found an easy way to "block" Web Beacons; in your browser set it to download "GIF" files,
I download them to C:\temp. I then goto NewEgg.com search around a bit then check C:\temp and there
are a couple 1K gif files (web beacons). but doesn't affect any normal gif files say avatars.

Opting out via Cookie is a waste. by Stan92057 · 2013-10-18 10:48 · Score: 0

Opting out via Cookie is a waste and a lie to those who don't know. Every time you opt-out then click clean browser cookies you are no longer opted out you are opted back in because the cookie that tells them you opted out is gone. Cookie opt out is a great thing to advertiser. Its got to change you jug head programmers. The Browser must tell whoever that its opted out and it cant be something that can be cleaned away like a cookie.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none

Re:Opting out via Cookie is a waste. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 11:42 · Score: 0

Its got to change you jug head programmers. The Browser must tell whoever that its opted out and it cant be something that can be cleaned away like a cookie.
As if "jug head programmers" are responsible for this behavior. The advertisers want you opted in. Making opting out convenient or effective is not in their interests.
Re:Opting out via Cookie is a waste. by fatphil · 2013-10-19 08:50 · Score: 1

I also find that a token you pass to them on every single transaction seems to be an illogical way of having them not connect your transactions.

--
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863

Re:Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashd by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 11:08 · Score: 0

I'm pretty sure the shit-ton of ads the new layout has will be just as repelling as the horrible spacing and other readability casualties of some designer's lack of inspiration.

It gets worse by shadowofwind · 2013-10-18 12:19 · Score: 1

I received a spam e-mail from ADT a few hours after mentioning home security in an e-mail from a google account to a yahoo account.

Re:Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashd by eddeye · 2013-10-18 12:51 · Score: 1

I've seen beta.slashdot.org and was horrified. Once the "old" slashdot goes away, so will this nearly two-decade user.
by Anonymous Coward on Fri Oct 18, '13 04:18 PM (#45169199)

Finally! That anonymous coward guy has been filling the forums with spam for years. I thought we'd never get rid of him.

--
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.

What about the ones you signed up for? by antdude · 2013-10-18 13:40 · Score: 1

Like mailing lists. Still don't do it? :(

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).

Re:Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashd by marcosdumay · 2013-10-18 14:05 · Score: 1

Ok, I just had to see it.

If you increase your zoom so much that the site thinks you are using a phone, the layout gets sane. It'll probably be better on a phone than the current site, too bad it only works for phones. Is /. taking desing classes at Microsoft?

--
Rethinking email

My own experiment by Silent+Node · 2013-10-18 14:50 · Score: 2

I did something like this a couple years ago. I "married" an obviously fake girl I created on Facebook. My ads internet wide quickly switched from "singles" ads to mortgages and retirement ads (with a smattering of child education savings thrown in). A couple months later I "divorced". That brought on the lawyer ads, and a fresh onslaught of singles.

I've been Facebook free for a while now, but the screen captures I grabbed and posted while doing this provided a lot of amusement for my friends.

--
"You can't win. You can't break even. You can't quit." -A. Ginsberg

Adblock = inferior & "souled-out" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 15:23 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashd by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 17:09 · Score: 0

Oh dear god, I just took a peek - fucking horrible layout.

Why do companies/groups decide that the "web 2.0" look is the way forward? Ah yes, it's called "progress", if by "progress" you mean fucking things up and pissing off a lot of regular visitors.

The Feinstein electronic warfare example: (mxp.fe by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 17:11 · Score: 0

The Feinstein electronic warfare example:
(mxp.feinstein.senate.gov [156.33.111.140])

As a result of the Government shutdown, my office is currently unable
to respond to your email. I will respond to your concerns as soon as
possible.

(The SERVER RESPONSE is evidence of a LIE!!)

There's a special cell at Ft Leavenworth Kansas waiting for you Feinstein. You Oath Breaking piece of SHIT ISRAELI Mosad Spy! what the fuck are you even in the UNITED STATES FOR? ACCESSING OUR VAULTS, OUR NETWORKS, OUR SECRETS, WHILE FUCKING THE PEOPLE?!

GO FUCKING HOME. You shouldn't have more access to our government secrets than I DO, and I WAS FUCKING BORN HERE BITCH, NOT ONLY THAT I SERVED AS WELL.

You stupid fucking /. people are going to have a nasty wake-up call.

Re:Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashd by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 18:14 · Score: 0

Yeah, I have the reverse problem on CNN. Whenever I use my Kindle on CNN, it assumes that it is a phone with a tiny screen and switches to idiot mode, making the site almost unusable and annoying and no matter what I do, i cannot convince the system to use the normal mode. It looks like this going to be more and more of a problem on web sites in general.

Turn off cookies. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 18:43 · Score: 0

That is all.

Adblock = Inferior to custom hosts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 22:26 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashd by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-18 23:34 · Score: 1

The new tagline:

Eye-candy for fanbois, stuff that's scrolled out of sight.

Where's APK - Turn in your geek cards by fast+turtle · 2013-10-19 02:02 · Score: 1

Although APK's post are annoying, he at least does push a valid point about using a host file. The problem I've recently found is that the newest one online that I've found was updated in 2010-2011 while all of the others are from 2003-2008, thus pretty much useless. Seems that the American Apathy has reached epic porportions and this site is not for geeks anymore so everyone claiming to be a geek can burn their now useless Geek Card because "You Are Not a Geek If Not Using a Host File" and don't forget to share the information with others and keep it updated.

--
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown

Sigh. by BrokenHalo · 2013-10-19 02:27 · Score: 1

Doubleclick offers no service whatsoever that benefits the web user. Its only purpose is as a facilitator for advertisers. There is absolutely no reason to accept any traffic from their servers, and the most sane option is to block them entirely at the hosts file level.

AdBlock = inferior (NO mere excuse) by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-19 03:12 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

weasel post by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-19 04:11 · Score: 0

"Economics" doesn't make claims at all, it's an area of study. By claiming it does, you are using it as a weasel word.

Adam Smith, (one of the most well known **Economists**), claimed "rational self-interest" is one of the foundations for how capitalism succeeds.

This is new? by TheRealDevTrash · 2013-10-19 04:43 · Score: 1

Advertisers have been doing this since spam email became a thing.

--
I used to be /dev/trash but Slashdot no longer allows slashes for usernames.

Re:The Feinstein electronic warfare example: (mxp. by TheRealDevTrash · 2013-10-19 04:44 · Score: 1

Served where? Leavenworth?

--
I used to be /dev/trash but Slashdot no longer allows slashes for usernames.

Adblock & Ghostery = "souled out" + inferior by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-19 05:03 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons =make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Re:Not sure. But I am opting out of the new slashd by Bill+Dimm · 2013-10-19 05:58 · Score: 1

which never end up killing the site like dissatisfied users claim

Ahem, Digg.com. Admittedly, the v4 update was more than just a new layout, but the rate of collapse was amazing. It was a social news site (sound familiar?) where the number of comments on the articles dropped by an order of magnitude in days.

There are countries where it is the law by Herve5 · 2013-10-19 06:29 · Score: 1

Opt-out indeed is a scam in 99% of the case (and most of the time, an extra spammer confirmation indeed), but in some countries there are laws about that --in France for instance, just any ad *must* provide an opt-out link that does work, not only for mails but even for SMS for instance (for SMS you reply "stop" and sometimes receive a confirmation your address has been erased)
H.

--
Herve S.

Adblock & Ghostery = "souled out" + inferior by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-19 09:04 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

hope, change by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-19 18:05 · Score: 0

The big boys need to discover a more efficient, less creepy way to enable advertisers for any meaningful shift.

Right now Goog, FB, etc. are continuing to soak their ad customers as The Law of Shitty Clickthroughs takes an ever stronger hold, which will continue no matter how targeted user dossiers become.

Adblock = "souled-out" & inferior by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 01:52 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

You *might* like this then, Trax3001BBS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 06:16 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Adblock = inferior & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 09:58 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Adblock = inferior & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 15:02 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Adblock = inferior + 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-20 23:45 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Adblock = inferior & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 04:07 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Adblock = inferior & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 08:03 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* "Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself).

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Adblock = inferior & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-21 12:06 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Adblock/Ghostery/RequestPolicy = inferior by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 02:13 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Adblock = inferior & 'souled-out' by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-22 06:12 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Ghostery = inferior & fox guards a henhouse by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-23 05:09 · Score: 0

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, 1st net request resolver queried, w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74

(Benefits of hosts are enumerated in link)

---

* "A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein

(Addons make it more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see))

---

A.) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Foxes guard a henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775

B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed DNS & protect vs redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C.) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed DNS or vs. Kaminsky vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

"Less is more" = GOOD engineering!

(Vs. slowing down SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE in addons which slow them down more: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts - A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself)

APK

P.S.=> "The premise is, quite simple: Take something designed by nature & reprogram it to make it work FOR the body, rather than against it..." - Dr. Alice Krippen "I AM LEGEND"

...apk

Slashdot Mirror

When Opting Out of Ad Tracking Doesn't Opt You Out

193 comments