Slashdot Mirror
Dealing With 'Advertising Pollution'
theodp writes: "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it," writes longtime ad guy Ken Segall in The Relentless (and annoying) Pursuit of Eyeballs. "Unfortunately, for some this is simply license to abuse. Let's call it what it is: advertising pollution." CNN's in-your-face, your-video-will-play-in-00:25-seconds approach, once unthinkable, has become the norm. "Google," Segall adds, "is a leader in advertising pollution, with YouTube being a showcase for intrusive advertising. Many YouTube videos start with a mandatory ad, others start with an ad that can be dismissed only after the first 10 seconds. Even more annoying are the ad overlays that actually appear on top of the video you're trying to watch. It won't go away until you click the X. If you want to see the entire video unobstructed, you must drag the playhead back to start over. Annoying. And disrespectful." Google proposed using cap and trade penalties to penalize traditional polluters — how about for those who pollute the Internet?
Most of Youtube is professionally produced videos where youtube shares the ad revenue with the creator. That's how people make money to be able to produce more videos.
you either get rid of advertising and pay to watch each video, or you put up with advertising. My account is enabled for revenue sharing, but i rarely upload anything and don't rely on it. but if took and produced videos and relied on ad revenue, i would stop very fast if i didn't get paid.
I sat down to watch Paddington Bear with my 19 month old son.
The advert that I couldn't skip was for a horror movie.
Thanks, youtube. That was *fantastic*.
I never watch forced ads. I've yet to see content that's worth it. Pages get reloaded to pass the ads a couple times, failing that I'm off to something else. Oh, and adblockers and outright hostname and IP blocking still works. I'm sure they'll figure out a way to be even more abusive, they're google after all. But even they need to learn that trying too hard easily causes a loss of those precious "eyeballs".
No Advertising does not power the Internet. Bogus assertion to begin the article. The internet ran fine before the ads. It would run fine without them. Advertising is one aspect of the internet. It does not power the internet in any way, shape or form.
I once was serenaded by infomercials (45 minutes long) when I tried to view some videos on their site. Yes, there's a skip buttion.
I installed addblock because videos and streams I watched had add volume loudness so loud that it was a real problem. I often watch videos during the night and when the loudness jumps up for the adds it becomes annoying really fast. And that was the only reason.
I don't really mind adds and I know they run the content creators, but just that one small issue was enough for me.
> "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it,"
No not everyone. This one gets that advertising has filled the niche that micro-payments would have filled if the technology had been advanced enough at the time. None of what exists on the net today requires advertising, except for the ad companies.
Some people will say advertising is what lets poor people use the net. To that I say, not for long. The Big Data trend will enable ad-networks to determine the value of showing you an advertisement. If you aren't the right demographic (the kind with disposable income) they'll know you aren't worth it. Today we have paywalls, pretty soon we'll have ad-walls where sites simply won't let people in unless their ad-network thinks they money can be made from them.
When people say "internet", they mean content showing their favorite celebrities, mainstream news, and the same special-interest articles that used to appear in print manages. They don't mean a bunch of bearded, pasty-faced nerds discussing filk music and making obscure UNIX jokes on Usenet like the "internet that ran fine before the ads" that you are thinking of.
No. The internet was implemented by the federal government, funded by citizen taxes, and later extended as part of the communications infrastructure. The internet was not invented to serve businesses, it was invented to serve the citizens.
For those who voluntarily go to ad laden websites, you can't regulate self harm.
And what of the obnoxious auto play ads on Slashdot where multiple instances play when I have multiple tabs going?
If they are gathering the kind of info on me I think they are, why can't they show me ads I'd like to see? If I go directly to buy something because I just saw an advertisement, I'm grateful for the information. Instead it's all Nissan and teen movies.
s/manages/magazines/.
This is because most or all website revenue comes from advertising. CBS has ads, but Netflix doesn't. Books don't, and newspapers and magazines have a limited amount, because part of their revenue comes from selling their publications to consumers. (Without ads, a copy of something like National Geographic or Playboy would cost $20 or more.)
The problem is that we don't have a good way of buying small amounts of content online. You can subscribe to some sites by the month or year, or perhaps buy limited access via PayPal, but the cost tends to be $ or $$ or $$$, and nobody wants to subscribe to CNN or YouTube. They want to see that video now, with no registration and commitment. The answer is the great lost Internet opportunity of 15 years ago: micropayments. If there was an easy and universal system for paying (say) a few cents to watch a video, why not? It'd be trivial for viewers, but could add up to real money for sites.
If I were a huge content provider, I'd figure out a way to make it happen, perhaps through ISPs. Subsidize them to give every user maybe $10/month credit. Offer content providers a great deal to install a one-click "Read/Watch Now for 1 cent" buttons. Get people used to paying tiny amounts of money to view content. If something like this could get going, it'd benefit content providers of all sizes. E.g. a comedian who writes one joke a day could make a living with 10,000 readers paying 1 cent per day ($100/day = $36,500/year).
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
CNN's in-your-face, your-video-will-play-in-00:25-seconds approach, once unthinkable, has become the norm.
Why unthinkable? Why should free video be so very different from free TV?
I used the Internet, quite happily and successfully, for more than a decade, before HTTP (curse you, Tim Berners-Lee) began to intrude on the experience. I would be very happy to go back to those days. Throw in an IRC/FTP/RTP+RTSP "subscription" for content, and there's nothing I would miss.
The old adage about TV ("99 channels and nothing on") applies to the web, but with several orders more magnitude of noise to signal.
Ads are spam. Does spam power email? Do pirates power seafaring?
The Internet was vastly better then by any measure. It wasn't used to commit financial crimes, to dupe people, to invade privacy, or to spy on whole populations. It especially didn't destroy more jobs than it's created and eliminate whole industries, and cause the vast amounts of unemployment and underemployment that have resulted from its going mainstream.
What has made the Internet the cesspool it is today is advertising, corporatism, and the kind of control and attempted control that goes with the undereducated being turned loose on something shiny.
The opinion of the kind of shitheads who watch reality TV is of no import. The internet is powered by communications companies, period. Content providing servers and the companies that run them can come and go.
Mute the sound and go to another tab for however many seconds. You don't have to watch it or listen to it. Use ad blocker for the rest. You don't have to be bothered with ads if you don't choose to be bothered. There are some serious annoyances in this world, but internet ads aren't a big deal.
I'm hoping one day corporations will finally understand that these massive ad campaigns just mean everyone will ignore them even more. Once that happens most ad companies will collapse and eventually the Internet will be readable once again.
This process may take a while though as intelligence is not one of the requirements for getting an MBA degree.
I disagree with ads on a very fundamental level. they're manipulative and serve to change and circumvent logic and the decision making process. I don't appreciate anything or anyone that is intentionally trying to manipulate me.
I am still going to go to all the same web sites as I always have but you can bet I'm going to adblock as many ads as tectonically possible. The industry brought it upon themselves by pushing the intrusiveness way to far. I don't feel guilty in the slightest.
Do you remember the Internet before advertising? I do. It was mostly educational, and technical. It was also low bandwidth. The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content. That money has to come from somewhere, and Universities are not financing it all like they used to.
I just repeat "fuck you, fuck you, fuck you", while the ad plays. If it is especially annoying, I make a note to never buy from the cretins responsible.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
There is a fuckton more content on the internet today than in 1998, so what worked before doesn't necessarily work today and vice versa. To take the YouTube example of the story author, we have two sides to it - those who post the content without having to worry about being hit by a massive bandwidth bill, and those who view the content without having to whip out a credit card to pay for it. In between those sides, we have Google who is paying the infrastructure bill and funding the means to pay that bill by showing ads.
People on here and other open forums regularly bitch about paywalls, so there are only really two other alternatives - find another way to pay the bill, or offer the content completely for free. Offering the content completely for free doesn't work for a lot of companies, because they are there to make money....
And how does that annoying floating "Like us On FaceBook! Please! Someone! Anyone!" pay for servers?
When I buy something I like to research it on the internet. Usually I end up buying what I am researching. Many times I will be relentlessly attacked for 1 to 3 months by ads for the item I researched then bought.
The goofballs behind this should be embarrased about this but I don't think they have figured it out yet. The amount of money wasted in this way must be staggering.
The internet does not run on ads. It ran fine before ads and it would run fine afterwards.
Besides would it be that bad to pay for YouTube? I can't imagine they get more than a penny or two per view. If I had to pay around that much per view it'd probably be between a half and one dollar a day. Pay that for no ads AND support the content creators I enjoy? Heck yes!
See also the success of many popular youtubers with patreon and subbable and the like.
Yeah, just imagine. A micropayment system that worked. 25 cents for a video? 10 cents? 2 cents? I'd go for that in a heartbeat. Sure, have a choice - look at the ads or pay up. I suppose that some smart marketing folks have actually looked at this and decided it 's not worth it, but I for one would welcome our new micropayment overlords.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Youtube has ads? When did this happen?
I've noticed a really annoying trend, where you're on a site for a 10-20 seconds reading their content, when this (presumably JavaScript) box pops in front of the content soliciting for your email address. This is really annoying, since it totally breaks the concentration on what you're reading. Since this apparently done with JavaScript provided by the hosting site, pop-up window blockers and cross-script blockers don't prevent it.
So here's a hint for web designers: THIS IS F***KING ANNOYING! STOP IT!
Thank you.
Ads and marketing in general have evolved from simple, respectful "hey, try this! It's good" into manipulative nonsense. Few people can see through it and the result has been devastating to them. It has shaped and certainly harmed the culture of the US and even results in violence in some extreme cases where people want things so badly they hurt and kill each other to get it. Though most will disagree exactly when things have gone "too far" few will disagree that they have.
The ones that get me are where you go to an ordinary (text) web page, probably news, and there is a flash add on the right side that starts playing instantly, video and sound. OK, bad enough. But to trying to turn it off I move my mouse over it, and the D*** thing expands to half the screen, blocking what I went there to read. And it won't go back to being small!
It is for this reason that I do not have Flash installed on my new notebook computer. Adobe Flash should give the user more power. How about a global option that says "Don't run anything until I click on it." That would be decent. Even door-to-door salesmen are required to knock on your door; they can't use bullhorns from out on the sidewalk, which is what Flash is used for.
If it takes 10 seconds of your time, then you're paying with your time.
If you're a professional making $50/hour, then 10 seconds of your time is worth $0.14. If you're a laborer making $10, then 10 seconds of your time is worth $0.03. That's just the time wasted, mind, not counting the fact that watching ads is essentially subjecting yourself to black magic, attempted mind control, and trying to put a value on your neurological integrity..
And since the Internet as we know it has become, thanks to scum-sucking advertizers, a hive of scum and villainy, little would be lost, and we could go about cleaning out the cruft and building something better. Fuck the online advertising industry with a rusty dildo.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
FTFA :- "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it"
Wrong. My favourite web sites are my own ones, and they have no advertising.
People seem to forget, the internet RUNS on advertising money. It's what pay's the "real" bills for servers, staff & redbull's.
People used to have their own web sites about their hobbies and interests.. they used to actually participate until mass media came along and turned the network into a TV set. It was standard practice to offer users personal home pages when they signed up for Internet service.
IMO, if ads stopped across all internet sites, or the online advertising industry completely collapsed. The internet as we know it, would be gone.
Good riddance.
Case in point, from a customer last week. Legit local radio, click steaming button. Stream controls in pop up from 3rd party. Stream is broken, stars then stops. Ad in same window, from ad choices, plain white misleading ad, "you need to update your windows media player 11". What do people do? Oh I need to update. Boom adware or worse. There need to be laws and real penalties for this, it does real damag.
Silence is a state of mime.
... I remember the ads I don't like/irritate me in some way, and then I NEVER buy the product featured and only buy the competition. I think if this is (a) widely adopted (b) understood by advertisers to be common, then more care would be taken as to how intrusive/irritating ads can be.
Adblock
NoScript
CookieMonster
And Flashstop
Adblock removes most of the ads. I turn off for sites I want to support or that don't annoy me with obnoxious ads.
NoScript is on for any site I can use without javascript. Java slows a lot of sites down without providing me any useful functionality in most cases. Also most of the annoying things a site can do like throw pop ups at you is done in javascript. So I just keep it off for most things.
CookieMonster blocks cookies which I do anywhere the site I'm interacting with doesn't need me to have a cookie. If I'm not doing anything complicated on a site and there are no logins then there's no need for cookies.
Flashstop stops all those annoying flash animations and videos and audio files that otherwise would auto play when you load a site. Its even good with youtube because you can load up five or six different pages at once without them all auto playing.
This is how I interact with the web now. Come at me.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Imagine you had to pay every time you wanted to watch a YouTube video? Like when you goto a movie, or order cable TV, I'll gladly wait 10sec & click skip, vs shelling out money every time.
I dunno, average payment for video is 2.4 cents. Regular web pages it is 0.19 cents (thats nearly one-fifth of one cent). With an automated micropayment system I think a lot of people would be OK with direct payments rather than wasting their time. The people who would rather watch advertisements are probably low-value anyway since they most likely don't have much money to spend on the products being advertised.
We might even see a general increase in the quality of content since the consumers would be directly paying for it. It would probably mean the end of clickbait since that would pretty quickly piss people off for wasting their money.
captcha: sedition
The internet back then was much smaller, a LOT slower and was paid for by governments/universities/research institutes.
Most stuff was done by telnet, gopher and Archie/Veronica were the best search engines
Ads are good for lying to us. How would companies lie about products to us if they didn't have ads?
...except, of course, for the ad companies selling it to companies who try to get sales. I'm not in marketing, but I got some insider information from people who are, and they all say that about 50% of all the money put into advertisement has basically the same effect on sales as burning it would have. The only reason it is wasted this way is that a) many customers don't know it and - more importantly - b) they don't know which 50%.
But, as in so many things, when something stops being effective, the first answer to the problem is to do more of it. The enemy has built bunkers against our bombs? Drop more bombs! The virus is becoming immune to our medicine? Raise the dosage. People have begun to ignore or block advertisement? Throw more ads their way.
Yes, it is pollution, the term is spot on.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Exactly you nailed it. For those that say that the ads have become manipulative, sorry but how are they different than old TV? Sure we have Tivo like apps but the reality is that commercials have always been in your face. It is just that on the Internet we have become used to non-invasive free Internet (as in free beer). The fact that this has changed does not surprise me in the least. Don't like it, do like the parent poster said, don't vist the site. Or better yet fork over money so that sites don't need ads.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
> It was also low bandwidth. The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content.
Bandwidth costs have dropped exponentially since then.
We are looking at a 2000x drop in pricing from 1998 to the end of this year.
In 1998 it was $1200.00/Mbps by 2015 it will be $0.63/Mbps
First of all, you're wrong: it was still used to commit crimes, invade privacy, dupe people, etc.* Second of all, if you increase the population of anything by several orders of magnitude, you're probably going to see an increase in crime and bad behavior by several orders of magnitude. Finally, there is simply so, so, so much more quality content now than there was back then. Even in the mid-2000s, there were plenty of subjects were the internet was a near worthless resource.
*I'll give you that it wasn't used to spy on whole populations, but the only reasons are because internet access wasn't nearly as widespread, and storage and processing power would have been prohibitively expensive.
What's even worse is when some insurance company publishes a scare article to Forbes' advertisement program, which publishes stories under the Forbes umbrella while vaguely disassociating themselves from the content. The content looks like it's Forbes. It's really sick. Here's an example.
Online commerce - a significant fraction of the internet - works just fine without advertisements. The sites are paid for with a tiny fraction of the profits from selling actual physical products.
Can we put those celebrities, mainstream news, and special-interest articles on their own internet, and have our own, advertising-free one back?
For those that say that the ads have become manipulative, sorry but how are they different than old TV?
Well for one thing on old TV ads didn't pretend to be part of the show you were watching. Viewing them didn't turn your computer into a botnet, track your every move or adorn your sets control knobs and television cabinet with vendor advertising. TV ads also lack self awareness.
Malware through ads is common, sites won't take responsibility for the damage, but act offended when ads are blocked. If your site doesn't offer profession level service, don't expect professional level income.
And they continued to do so until well after the explosion of advertising. Blogging through convenient, easy-to-use platforms only became a thing in the early to mid years of the first decade of the new millennium.
At least in some special-interest niches, blogging is now on the wane, with people moving to Twitter or simply falling silent. There are shortening attention spans, plus the fact that sites like StackExchange and Wikipedia are better centralized places to send the content that one creates instead of keeping it on an obscure personal website.
Many bloggers give up because they are unable to monetize their blogging, leaving them wondering what was the point of expending such effort on creating content when they get nothing in return. In fact, deft use of advertising actually helps ordinary people continue to stay focused on a personal website.
Take the vow: don't buy anything __from__ any source that pushes crap in your face.
They promised a search engine would be a wonderful help. They didn't mention the plan is to help the crap merchants find __me__.
There's no reason to cooperate with them.
If I don't __have__ to see your ads, I may buy your product. If you push the crap in my face -- never.
Exactly! Ads power big corporations on the Internet. They do not power the Internet.
Then you're an idiot.
For $20/month you'd more than pay for all the bandwidth you and everyone you know spends on YouTube at the rates YouTube pays for it. Do you have any idea how ridiculously little ads pay the ones who show them?
The Internet 'RUNS on advertising' because they can make more money that way, not because it has to.
You may be too young to remember it, but it wasn't always that way. There was a time before Google turned it into an ad platform. There was content then as well.
Netflix doesn't run on ads. AppleTV doesn't run on ads. My Internet doesn't involve ads, and not because I use adblock, because I pay up front for the services that are worth paying for and ONLY if they allow me to avoid ads by paying for service.
Ignorant people like you are the ones who think its Okay that you get ads on cable TV and Hulu Plus.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
"Also, you don't have to go to the CNN site if you don't like their ads. No one actually forced you to read CNN. It is their media property, they can do what they wish."
Sure, just as it's our right to render on our screens only what we wish.
And we do that.
The internet isn't powered by advertising (but it is slowly being rendered useless by it). I don't care if CNN disappears tomorrow because something BETTER would come along in its absence.
Exactly: advertising instead powers russian business networks and nsa backdoors via driveby downloads that run on your machine with more rights than you have yourself as an administrator. If the ads were "safe" I wouldn't be blocking them with noscript.
Really, I don't know what I'd do without them. Probably stop using the Internet as much as I do now, find some alternatives, or do a hell of a lot more bitching.
When running a fresh new installation of a web browser, the first ad I see immediately causes me to halt everything I'm doing and install those three plugins. Annoyingly, I usually don't even hit two consecutive websites before that happens--the wretched fucking things are literally everywhere. Video ads really fucking piss me off, and even more on Android, because the god damn things are *designed* to reduce your access to the system, which effectively prevents installing ad blocking software without gaining root.
I have actually in the past, when confronted with an ad while trying to watch a video, cranked the volume all the way down and turned the phone upside down. If I did happen to see what brand was advertising, I add them to my mental blacklist of products and services to AVOID. Yes, I am so against advertising, it has the exact *opposite* effect on me when it comes to buying things. I'm sorry, but I can think for myself, I can do my own research and come up with an educated conclusion as to what I want or need. I don't fucking need someone spewing bullshit, trying to force me to buy their junk.
These days? When I even come across ONE ad when attempting to watch YouTube, I have zero tolerance. I close it. It is not worth the hassle. If I want to watch something bad enough, it will be on a proper computer with the necessary extensions. Android is one of the worst platforms to visit web pages or watch videos on.
Advertising is also why the Internet has evolved far past Usenet discussions. Ads bring us current TV episodes and today's news. I'll take that over alt.whine.virginity any time.
Not everyone "gets" that advertising is needed. In fact, click-through revenue is so miniscule that it would be more cost-effective to not saturate the Internet with ads, or indeed have ads on the Internet at all. The Internet had no advertising at all until two Utah lawyers invented spam and made a fortune promoting their book on Internet advertising. That was around 5 years after the Internet was privatized.
Almost no site I give a damn about relies on advertising. As advertising on a site goes up, the time I spend there goes down. When in England, I watch BBC almost exclusively, ITV stuff is relegated to whenever it comes out on DVD. That has been the case for much of my life. When moving to the US, I abandoned television entirely simply because of the adverts.
Linux is one of the top Operating Systems and gained almost all of that reputation and awesomeness before IBM started their TV ads.
So if products don't need advertising, the Internet doesn't need advertising and users hate advertising, then who the hell is this "everyone" who "understands" the need?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I'm sick of all that advertising on Wikpedia. Oh wait
If these annoying ads did not work better than alternatives, they would not exist. "Working" means they have an effect on some portion of the target audience. Everyone does not hate and ignore ads (although I do not understand this mentality personally).
But, what you are seeing is desperation. Advertising rates are still too high. It is not nearly as effective as advertisers once thought, which is why you have seen rates plummet. And that's why you have seen ads become increasing annoying and obtrusive. The advertising industry is going through a process where they are slowly realizing the true value of internet advertising, and pricing is continuing to adjust accordingly. That said, think of how many sites you use have one business model, which is to rely almost entirely on advertising to cover costs and make a profit. Many of these sites and web applications are not viable and will go away. And people will bitch about that, too.
I haven't seen anything in the last 14 years to make me doubt any assertions in this article, which gives MANY reasons that micropayments won't work. Here's just one short section, but it's one of the key points.
micropayments create a double-standard. One cannot tell users that they need to place a monetary value on something while also suggesting that the fee charged is functionally zero. This creates confusion - if the message to the user is that paying a penny for something makes it effectively free, then why isn't it actually free? Alternatively, if the user is being forced to assent to a debit, how can they behave as if they are not spending money?... Users will be persistently puzzled over the conflicting messages of "This is worth so much you have to decide whether to buy it or not" and "This is worth so little that it has virtually no cost to you."
http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
And since the Internet as we know it has become, thanks to scum-sucking advertizers, a hive of scum and villainy,
Headquartered at Mos Eisley, I presume?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
You mean things like internet access and cable tv? those are expensive services and they're full of ads. It's gotten so bad that ads are displayed around the edges of content on tv shows, and sites want internet customers to use their limited bandwidth allocations to download fat flash ads and wait for them to play....on so called 'premium' services. Fuck that.
I have no sympathy for advertisers at this point.
Does it also pay for all of those spurious apostrophes?
Youtube Center. I run that with Adblock and it automatically makes videos play in the larger window and always sets the volume to 10%. That is just a few things you can fix. The addon has tons of tweaks.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Correction: The Internet as you know it would be gone. The actual Internet would be just fine. Universities, stores, hobby sites, government, and people generally interested in communicating with each other would pay their ISP bills and continue without interruption.
The Internet was vastly better then by any measure. It wasn't used to commit financial crimes, to dupe people, to invade privacy, or to spy on whole populations. It especially didn't destroy more jobs than it's created and eliminate whole industries
AOL introduced flat-rate monthly billing in the mid nineties - coincidental with flat-rate regional calling plans.
Going on-line had become affordable.
The typical Internet suite of that era had its arcane clients for e-mail, IRC chat, USENET, FTP, Gopher, Archie, Veronica, and maybe a primitive web browser, along with zip file compression and a graphics editor.
The AOL client pushed all the geek's beloved tech far into the background, and put an easy to use GUI up-front.
At that point, the only way the geek could have kept the" old Internet" as his private playground would have been by crippling the evolution of the "open" web browse - and praying there wouldn't be too many defections to the commercial online services.
Cable television (paid for monthly by the consumer) has been absolutely raped by advertisers, thus diminishing its value. It's even worse online where it can (and does) affect user's PCs with (at least) reduced battery life and (at worst) tracking mechanisms and malware.
Putting two words together does an argument make.
Pollution is an externality, whereby bystanders are harmed. Technically, it's a form of trespass on those people's property. But advertisement on the internet is no such thing.
YouTube does not belong to you, it belongs to Google. If you choose to use that service, then you don't get to call the costs or downsides "pollution". Similarly, if you don't like the music that is played in a restaurant, or you don't like their drink minimum rule, you do not get to call those parts of the deal "pollution". Either you go there or you don't.
"When words lose their meaning, people lose their freedom." -- Confucius
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
Your entire post is wrong based simply on the fact that soap operas are a thing. Look up the history.
You don't even need Adblock. Two things stop all annoying ads on Slashdot: Flashblock and an account with Excellent karma.
First, when you publicly recommend a brand on an online social network using a Like or +1 control, that brand gets plastered across all of your friends' views of that social network. Second, if one of your friends clicks through to the recommended, he sees the pile of ads. A business often has fixed operating costs that must be recovered with advertising revenue that scales with viewership. Thus increasing viewership can help recover those costs.
mock the corporate shills who tell you to feel bad about it
Notice that the guy who said it is an advertising guy. That's his whole worldview. That's the way he thinks it is and the way he thinks it should be. Meanwhile for the rest of us, we have lots of alternatives. Paid sites, community-supported sites, ad-blocked sites, sites run by people who love what they are running a site about.
Basically this is a little advertiser wanting us to support clubbing a big advertiser, Google. He'd like us to get mad at his competition. What he wouldn't like is for us to start noticing just how much what he is advocating is in his self-interest.
I recommend we all switch to ad-block and screw them all. If some sites die or have to switch funding models, works great for me.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Buy from stores, unless literally impossible, and place 'phone orders, otherwise, so no ecommerce.
"Literally impossible" is a strong phrase. Using a web browser to buy something not sold in any store near you can be a lot cheaper than paying a buck a minute on hold internationally. Besides, how do you go about learning about the existence, features, and caveats of the product in the first place?
An ad like that has an expected return of about $10 per 1000 views, so it ought to cost you about $0.01 to skip it. Are you sure you would rather watch the ad than pay $0.01 and save 10 seconds? If you watch 10 videos a day that adds up to a mere $37 a year to never have to wait for the ad to end.
There is of course no payment system that would let you pay $0.01, but theoretically speaking, if such a system existed I think a lot of people would press the $0.01 skip button.
If it is especially annoying, I make a note to never buy from the cretins responsible.
Unless all providers of a particular necessary good or service also happen to advertise in such a manner. What if the power company or the water company were to put annoying ads on your screen?
and democrats want expression contrary to their image and ideology censored and punished. We'll probably have both by 2050.
The sites that restart my autoplay preferences constantly. ESPN does this, and others.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
You don't get to decide things you don't pay for. The people that pay for things gets to decide them.
If you ever feel the need to install an ad blocker, you're doing it wrong.
Hence why CNN doesn't get to decide whether their ads display on the computer I paid for or not.
"People seem to forget, the internet RUNS on advertising money."
Only people who have been successfully brainwashed believe this Big Lie. In olden times businesses had budgets for marketing and promotion which included advertising. Selling yourself and your services was an overhead cost.
Along comes the Internet. Personal interest, hobbyist and fan sites then come along, and tech sites that share their knowledge and expertise altruistically, for the common good. Then we hear the magic word 'monetize', and all hell is let loose.
Next is born that spawn of the devil, the notion that businesses have a God-given right to force us to watch advertisements, and fight tooth and nail to stop ad-skipping, ad-blocking, and the like. So don't feed me any crap that 'the Internet runs on advertising money'.
You may be too young to remember it, but it wasn't always that way. There was a time before Google turned it into an ad platform.
Ah, yes, I remember those days well. Those were the days when DoubleClick had tracking cookies on most of the major media sites, and the major sites that hadn't partnered with DoubleClick usually had their own advertising departments, so often their banners were placeholders advertising their advertising ability.
Of course, with decentralized management, all of those major players thought it was a new and innovative idea when X10 started their pop-under ad campaign using the new-fangled Flash thing, so it could be animated, too! Surely that would catch the eye, and they could finally make some steady income from those ads, right?
Then Google came along with its ad program. Simple text ads, tailored to the viewer, and all managed by an upstart company who seemed to be pretty good at managing such things. They didn't do pop-ups (or -unders), and they didn't do sound or video. They did volume. Sure, there are now ads everywhere, but they're not as bad as what we had before. I call it a net improvement.
There was content then as well.
Ah, yes, there was the content of the adolescent World Wide Web, hosted in large part by ad-supported GeoCities (and the like) and grant-supported universities, and consisting of low-bandwidth servers run as an afterthought to a business whose primary business wasn't dependent on having five-nines availability through DDoS attacks and peering disputes. I guess most of those "service unavailable" messages counted as some form of content.
...because I pay up front for the services that are worth paying for and ONLY if they allow me to avoid ads by paying for service.
...Like Slashdot, which offers a subscription that you don't appear to have?
Ignorant people like you are the ones who think its Okay that you get ads on cable TV and Hulu Plus.
Not quite. Ignorant people like me know that different companies are free to pick whatever business model they like, and I am free to use their service if and only if I agree with it. I find that Hulu Plus still offers me more value than they charge (including my time watching ads), so I'm inclined to subscribe to their service.
If only we were all as enlightened as you are, knowing that advertising is all Google's fault, and that all business must be conducted in the BitZtream-approved way.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
IMO, if ads stopped across all internet sites, or the online advertising industry completely collapsed. The internet as we know it, would be gone
Then everyone would be trying SEO, even more than they are now.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Also, you don't have to go to the CNN site if you don't like their ads. No one actually forced you to read CNN. It is their media property, they can do what they wish.
See... that was what we like to call "an example." As in just one of many things which prove the point. CNN is not the only website doing it. It's an arms race for eyeballs. When everyone starts doing it, then the internet as a whole is harmed.
Advertising, whether it's on TV, in magazines, the web, on billboards in public places or anywhere else is offensive to everyone. The idea is to create demand for things we don't need by making us feel bad about not having it. The whole advertising industry's main purpose is to make us feel bad.
Banksy put it best, and Gavin Aung Than did a good job of illustrating it: http://zenpencils.com/comic/15...
There were many people producing their own content on the Internet before big business saw a profit in it. To frame them all as pasty-faced nerds is disingenuous and obviously false. These were ordinary people exchanging ideas and sharing whatever they felt was worth sharing. This was, and still is, the crux of the Internet's greatness. The kind of content you mention is the kind of content that does not utilize the unique interpersonal capabilities of the Internet. That stuff is ordinary mass media content that has moved to the Internet only because the corporations producing it were losing their readership and revenue to the Internet (see previous paragraph.) They came here to fight for our eyeballs and our opinions because we chose to ignore them in favor of communicating with each other. Advertising, as irritating as it can be, can help us to distinguish between content motivated by money (probably distributed by a giant corporation with an ulterior motive of keeping you suckling at their teat while feeding you politically slanted pseudo-news) and content motivated by some other impetus. For me, content that is laden with irritating advertisements practically screams "don't listen to me! I'm a scumbag!" I'd much rather hear from ordinary people who have enough respect for me to tell their story without trying to monetize me. Lucky for us, plenty of those people still exist on the Internet.
There were many people producing their own content on the Internet before big business saw a profit in it. To frame them all as pasty-faced nerds is disingenuous and obviously false. These were ordinary people exchanging ideas and sharing whatever they felt was worth sharing. This was, and still is, the crux of the Internet's greatness.
The kind of content you mention is the kind of content that does not utilize the unique interpersonal capabilities of the Internet. That stuff is ordinary mass media content that has moved to the Internet only because the corporations producing it were losing their readership and revenue to the Internet (see previous paragraph.) They came here to fight for our eyeballs and our opinions because we chose to ignore them in favor of communicating with each other.
Advertising, as irritating as it can be, can help us to distinguish between content motivated by money (probably distributed by a giant corporation with an ulterior motive of keeping you suckling at their teat while feeding you politically slanted pseudo-news) and content motivated by some other impetus. For me, content that is laden with irritating advertisements practically screams "don't listen to me! I'm a scumbag!"
I'd much rather hear from ordinary people who have enough respect for me to tell their story without trying to monetize me. Lucky for us, plenty of those people still exist on the Internet.
(properly formatted this time)
I guess I've expereinced something like that: "Your video will play in--psych! We don't support your browser!"
Slashdot! I'm not posting as Anonymous Coward! Stop it!
I know that slashdot has windows popping all over with full streaming video sucking away all my bandwidth.
I know that I can't "window" the damn browser because it's busy floating on top of the article.
I know that it doesn't work on firefox on ubuntu.
I not know I will never ever buy a Duralast tire.
So yeah, they're manipulating and screwing up the content. I don't mind a static banner, or sidebar, and have in fact used advertising before. I don't mind supporting sites I frequent.
But this is bullshit. The experience is crap. How can HTML be this fucked up that you don't even test it with the latest, say, top 4 browsers?
I'm a satanic clam.
We pissed and moaned and we still do and what do we do? nothing. using adblock isn't enough, they're always going to find new ways of forcing their ads on us, and there are sites that are starting to block the viewer if they detect adblockers. People shat bricks when they tried that back in the late 00s so how come nobody's giving a crap now? You guys are all like us quebecois, we piss and moan and then proceed to take it up the ass anyway.
I wonder how long before they invent a DRM-based browser that requires a ToS to access restricted web content.
Have you ever read about product placement? Its a pretty big thing.
There is a serious bipartisian proposal in Congress to reduce the tax deduction for advertising. Call your Congressional representative and tell them you support the elimination of tax deductions for advertising.
Because the US savings rate is so low (most people are spending almost all they earn), advertising does not increase demand. It just moves it around a bit. All advertising does is increase prices. There are many products, from movies to medications, where the advertising cost exceeds the cost of production. Let's put the brakes on advertising.
I don't think you know what the phrase "by any measure" means.
There was no Skype, no Netflix or YouTube, no Wikipedia (which doesn't have ads, but without all the popularity from this "new" internet probably wouldn't exist). Fewer educational resources, fewer entertainment resources, and generally lower quality than today. My family and extended family wouldn't be on the internet, making it much harder to stay in touch while living far away. Although without the new internet I wouldn't have met my wife long distance and may not have moved far away to begin with.
And the "old" internet was most certainly used to commit financial crimes and dupe people, and the only reason whole populations weren't spied on is just because there weren't whole populations using it. It would have been far FAR easier to spy back then, because there was very little in the way of security or encryption. It was essentially a network that trusted everyone else on the network.
You realise that we have to pay to watch the ads, right? That's what our internet connection fees and bandwidth is for. I'm not paying to watch something that someone else is getting paid to show me.
The internet does not run on ads. It ran fine before ads and it would run fine afterwards.
Besides would it be that bad to pay for YouTube? I can't imagine they get more than a penny or two per view. If I had to pay around that much per view it'd probably be between a half and one dollar a day. Pay that for no ads AND support the content creators I enjoy? Heck yes!
See also the success of many popular youtubers with patreon and subbable and the like.
You would still get ads.
See, you get ads because most people are willing to put up with ads, not because content would be impossible without them. Remember when you just had ABC/CBS/NBC (and maybe FOX) and then cable came around? Oh, we were do dizzy with the promise.. we would subscribe to cable, that would pay for the content, and we could do without advertising, like those Brits and PBS watchers did!
Except that's not what happened. We paid for cable AND we got the ads. Because we were willing to.
> It was also low bandwidth. The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content.
Bandwidth costs have dropped exponentially since then.
We are looking at a 2000x drop in pricing from 1998 to the end of this year.
In 1998 it was $1200.00/Mbps by 2015 it will be $0.63/Mbps
Oh, did we forget that there was little to serve back then and few who watched? If content prices changed linearly... expectations, eyeballs, wasteage and content *weight* probably escalated exponentially. I would like to know the numbers for total MB served on media content-heavy sites. Bandwidth potentials are not the whole picture. Volume adds to it because text, standards for bitrates and general consumption hunger where probably orders of magnitude against the 2000x improvements. now you have JS taking half of your homepage loads. A single image straight off a camera can clock in 5MB when even jpegs over 0.5MB are wasteful.
I recall when 60MB for one single 20-min anime episode in low quality RM files was max goal for a night (100+MB for avi, wmv). That is all one could download per diem / night due to modem-call-vs-talk-time exclusivity logistics. Binge watching was not the problem it is with instantly-gratifying FLASH videos today.
And laws where put in place about product placement - even if i can fully agree that it is still beyond acceptable what you see in Hollywood movies. But advertising crap have been done since we first started to barter. None of this makes it "right" to manipulate anyone via ads though. Advertisters will continue to infect anything they can and be as deceptive as they can get away with.
Advertising is also why the Internet has evolved far past Usenet discussions.
No, improvements in software (web browsers) and hardware (fat pipes) have. Paid for by ISP subscribers. All that advertising has paid for is is intellectual pollution by social parasites.
Ads bring us current TV episodes and today's news.
Nope, current TV episodes on the net are usually paid for e.g. Netflix. . Today's news is usually tax supported e.g. BBC. Advertising usually only supports junk. That's not surprising because advertising doesn't really pay for anything; it's just a way to double-pay parasitic middlemen, once in time and attention when being targeted by the ad and a second time with the increased price of the product to pay for the ad.
I'll take that over alt.whine.virginity any time.
Facebook et. al. are just news groups done wrong (technologically extremely inefficient) but with masses of unsolicited advertising. I'd take an web page style news group any day.
Exactly you nailed it. For those that say that the ads have become manipulative, sorry but how are they different than old TV?
You seem to think that makes it okay. Why? They're both largely fraudulent. It'd be a wonderful world if "truth in advertising" laws were actually enforced.
Unfortunately, the 90% of the advertising industry that are parasites give the other 10% a bad name. And judging by your attitude you're one of the 90%
Also doctors,engineers , lawyers, etc didn't watch TV while working in office or in home , now you need to see all sorts of crap while working.
In fact, deft use of advertising actually helps ordinary people continue to stay focused on a personal website.
In fact, 99% of such sites are junk sites. If advertising is needed to bring in eyeballs, in other words if it can't compete on it's own merits, then it's probably junk or at the very least a me-too product.
And as you have already accepted that you have to pay for not getting(!) stuff you do not want you have little choice to pay more when they tell you to.
Hmmm... Reading what I wrote here I cannot get rid of the feeling that the "pay me what I want or else ..." would be equal to a simple protection style racketeering.
You misunderstand my post. I don't mean that bloggers advertise their own site to "bring in eyeballs", I mean that bloggers can get something in return for their hard work by including advertising from other businesses within their blog.
For example, I blog on an academic field and so in virtually every post I mention books. By linking said books to Amazon with a referrer account, I get a decent amount of money each month.
Your entire post is wrong based simply on the fact that soap operas are a thing
That's in the USA. Adverts are confined to their own time slot in the UK, and when that comes around it is generally clearly recognisable. It is the point at which I flip through some other channels and watch the BBC news for a few minutes, or even cat videos (anything is better than ads, and there is a channel that's mostly pets doing funny things).
Funny, but in the UK soap operas are still called soap operas, but most people don't realise how the term originated.
You could just pay for the service.
There is a fuckton more content on the internet today than in 1998, so what worked before doesn't necessarily work today and vice versa.
Er, "content"?
You have a funny way of spelling "shit".
And I used to send content around all the time before YouTube, including videos. It was called an FTP server, that I connected to via my Internet Service Provider, which I notified the people I wanted to distribute it via e-mail, also provided by my Internet Service Provider.
But you see, the one large fundamental difference back then is I used to pay for all that, in real dollars. If you would suggest people pull out their wallets today to start paying for things like email and websites, they would be so offended you would likely receive a lawsuit. "Cheap" doesn't even begin to describe that mentality when people upload videos for free expecting to be paid for their Jackass amateur hour productions.
... watching videos, when you could read the same information in 1/10 of the time?
Actually, AOL capitulated to the Mom'n'Pops that were already doing flat rate billing. Those 'arcane' clients were fully GUI in the Windows world. This was in the era when you used Trumpet Winsock to dial the internet because Bill Gates was sure it was a passing fad when Win95 was put together.
Only problem: This doesn't create an incentive to not put ads on a site. More like the opposite.
All that advertising has paid for is is intellectual pollution by social parasites.
I've never seen Google Search, GMail, Maps, Docs and other services described quite that way before.
I mean, it's cute, but doesn't really make sense here.
If some sites die or have to switch funding models, works great for me.
It would be great if that would actually happen. Most of what's online is no better than an 11 year old pissing around with a geocities account. It has no value, even commercial sites. The fact "news" sites deliberately twist titles to bait clicks and pollute pages with shit like disqus and other garbage forums tells us all we need to know about them. As soon as they're gone, people can get on with something else. It'll never happen, of course. The oligarchs are controlling what we see already, thus conditioning us on what to think.
Do you seriously think that it's worse for CNN that you browse their site withtout ads rather than not doing it at all?
Tsk. Your eyeballs and mindshare are worth much more than the marginal increase in bandwidth costs, ads or no ads.
And how does that annoying floating "Like us On FaceBook! Please! Someone! Anyone!" pay for servers?
By enabling corporations to spend money on infrastructure that would have normally been paid in taxes.
Why is it that everyone seems to be overlooking one of the most obvious benefits to corporations when they blow millions on advertising? Those tax write offs aren't insignificant when you are a multi-billion dollar corporation.
You may be too young to remember it, but it wasn't always that way. There was a time before Google turned it into an ad platform. There was content then as well.
Not to discount reducing online advertising, but this was also the time where performing catalog searches cost $/search and required hefty subscription fees. Or the HTML tag. I'm sure that the problem could have been resolved with plugins, but the first problem would resume again if online advertising vanished. Don't forget that Joe Sixpack is incredibly cheap - start charging $5/mo to perform unlimited web searches (with highly-relevant results and low STN ratios) and he will either go somewhere else, whether it's a 'free' search engine or God forbid do something offline such as play football. Once all of the Joe Sixpacks leave, it's the rest of us left with the bill to hold the infrastructure together.
Correction: The Internet as you know it would be gone. The actual Internet would be just fine. Universities, stores, hobby sites, government, and people generally interested in communicating with each other would pay their ISP bills and continue without interruption.
Did you just suggest I pay for something online? Damn, I've never been more offended in my entire life. I use Facebook for my corporate website, Gmail for my inbox, and YouTube to distribute my advertising. Why the hell would I pay for anything?!?
Sincerely,
(The reason we're here today)
I'd gladly throw TV and professional news coverage under the bus to bring back a healthy usenet. :(
*sniff*
Instead of holding the people who commit crimes responsible for their crimes, you blame advertising for making them want to commit crimes. Typical liberal bullshit.
The modern Internet is a lot of expensive to produce and deliver content.
So much! So much expensive.
It is no more expensive to produce the same kinds of content we were producing at the dawn of the web, and people are still consuming it. Indeed, it is less expensive, because if all you want is to share some information you can do it on a free blog. People still read blogs.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet"
No I don't. I'm on the internet since 1996 and there was virtually no advertising back then.
Conversation is manipulative and serves to change and circumvent logic in the decision making process. One of the primary points of communication is to convince others to feel similar to the way that you want them to. Do you disagree with communication on a very fundamental level?
You say that, yet nowhere near any of those websites and services even remotely exist any more.
You want the whole internet to be funded directly at a pay-per-use or donation system?
Enjoy your favorite little community sites having a 2-5 year lifespan. And maybe larger ones having an 8 year at best.
Ad-free websites die SO HARD, this is a blatant fact.
You think people will HONESTLY pay for everything on the internet? NOPE. Will never happen. EVER. Not even an opinion. Nobody will agree to it.
Premium services still get used, but at a considerably smaller marketshare to ad-funded users.
Said ad-funded users will flat-out not use a site if it started charging. (also, see all the hilarious '[social network] is going to charge money to use it?! Deleting my account if they do!' outbursts that happen every so often)
p.s. word of mouth, web rings and other such things are and were STILL ADVERTISING.
I lived in Taiwan for year. I loved not understanding the advertisements! It was so relaxing to stroll down a street without being assaulted by a million words struggling to get my attention.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
FTA: "Everyone gets that advertising is what powers the internet, and that our favorite sites wouldn't exist without it,"
And all this time I thought that my paying an access provider, paying for web hosting, paying for email services (in the past), paying people for products through their web-stores, and donating to Wikipedia — I stupidly thought that was what powered the internet.
I will now dutifully watch all banner and video ads to avoid breaking the sacred "social contract" that enables the internet's existence.
Maybe wanna pick a better quote? It doesn't make sense that paying a penny makes something effectively free. It makes sense that paying a penny gets a penny worth of stuff.
People are willing to pay for things they want or can use. Ads (i.e. attention) are one way to make that payment, but they're not very efficient - 60 seconds of my time is worth more to me than the advertiser is paying to the content provider. It's probably worth more to me than the advertising company is charging for it, even, so the prospect of an ad with a button to pay 25c to see no ads for the next 15 minutes could very well be quite profitable to a content distribution channel that handles both.
Instead of holding the people who commit crimes responsible for their crimes, you blame advertising for making them want to commit crimes. Typical liberal bullshit.
There is such a concept as aiding and abetting, or being an accessory to, a crime. Many people have been tried and convicted who themselves did not directly commit a crime.
If you don't believe that concept is applicable here, I'd like to know why. If someone else believes it does apply, I'd like to know their reasoning as well. I don't see how "liberal" or "conservative" has anything to do with it. It's a question of ethical responsibility, not political ideology. By failing to understand that, you're handwaving and dismissing a valid and worthy question about the nature of pervasive advertising and its effect on the population.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Imagine you are reading a book in the park and I come by and jam a flier in your face telling you your too ugly, your dick is too small, and/or your kids are stupid. This is the state of web advertising today.
I have over 500 items in my google promotional folder, that has save me from 500 stupid interruptions when my phone beeps that an email has arrived. That is priceless too me. Those are advertisers who are convinced they are legitimate, don't even talk about my spam folder.
Cheap storage VM.
Publishers get to allow or block particular types of adverts for their site/app. The degree of control they have is huge, if you're getting intrusive adverts complain to the publisher, not the advertising industry.
I should pay for sex? I should pay so the cops do not beat me? Why are you complaining about complainers on slash. If you are a premium subscriber maybe you should talk to admin.
As a non-TV watcher, I find ads more intrusive than most people. For some reason I find certain things very offensive:
1) I have a paid account on LinkedIn but still have to see ads.
2) When transfering flights in Seattle there are even ads in the bottom of the bins I HAD to use to put stuff through the xray scanner.
I would be happy to pay for an ad-free internet but that is not yet available.
...not to put ads on during Downton Abbey.
By owning your own DVR you save on monthly equipment rentals
Which customer-owned DVRs work with satellite?
Even TIVO offers a lifetime subscription service which pays for itself over first 2-3 years.
The lifetime sub is for one device. Cable subscribers end up having to replace their devices when the cable company changes technology, such as analog to digital, clear QAM to CableCARD, and CableCARD to SDV. Each such upgrade would require a new box with a new lifetime sub, as I understand it.
None of which can be relied upon by a humble user like myself. I've got the addons. There is no where else I can turn.
And they work.
Between adblock, noscript, cookiemonster, and flashblock I am almost never annoyed by anything on the web. Sites are kept simple by noscript. Adblock blocks out about 99 percent of ads I would see, cookie monster prevents sites from putting tracking cookies on my browser, and flashblock stops autoplaying flash animations, movies, sounds files...
What else is left for me to worry about?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Windows 95? You kids and your new technology...
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
May your fixie be run over by a bus.
Ads and marketing in general have evolved from simple, respectful "hey, try this! It's good" into manipulative nonsense. Few people can see through it and the result has been devastating to them. It has shaped and certainly harmed the culture of the US and even results in violence in some extreme cases where people want things so badly they hurt and kill each other to get it. Though most will disagree exactly when things have gone "too far" few will disagree that they have.
I have always subscribed to yahoo.com @ 20/yr. This last renewal, they rejected my visa payment because they were not equipped to have Visa transfer my payment directly to my provider for approval. And there is no way for anyone to contact yahoo.com. No way, I discovered, and no ombudsman, I could not get my payment processed. SHAME
So now I am getting the same repetitive annoying add from a dating service. I will try the following... Edit my profile and change my age to 12 or 13. Just to stop that repetitious dating stuff. I am of the belief that we need a free from adverts NET NEUTRAL internet. If I pay my ISP for a connection, I expect him to not count the adverts in my download allotment. Fortunately, using Thunderbird, I got rid of most of the stupid adverts.
Set your age to 12 for youtube, twitter, gmail, hotmail, and whatever, and see what happens.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Easy Fix. Buy the DVD instead of expecting to watch it for free on Youtube.
Fuck off, spammer.
You are a piece of shit and your 'hosts' file solution is an even bigger piece of shit. FOAD!
First... your grammatical structure is bizarre... possibly I'm not one to complain but seriously its odd.
Second, I use fast machines so the efficiency is personally irrelevant.
Third, I value customization. I like being able to use odds and ends. Opera is a nice browser but it doesn't do everything I want the way I want.
Forth, I use host file blocking as well which I update through Spybot Search and Destroy which has an "immunization" feature which is little more then a host file redirection of known malicious sites.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Why is this a Troll? I mean, he's perfectly right.
I do use addblocker because I can, and don't fee lthe moral obligation to practise what I preach. If addblock wasn't an option I just wouldn't use pages that have too many annoying adds. Just like I don't go around the paywalls of several newspapers (even when the said paywalls are VERY simple to go around). If the fuckers want to have paywalls I just let them have it. Same goes for youtube add videos. I usually just close them before I get to the content. The option to skip the commercial has to appear pretty quickly. For addvertisers I fully recommend putting your logo up for the first 2 seconds of the video, otherwise I won't even know who they were or what they were trying to sell. I wouldn't pay any amount of money to see the funny cat video, 30 seconds commercial is too high a cost for me.
Spybot S&D doesn't cover a FRACTION of what's out there in known bad sites/servers (never mind adblocking - Spybot S&D lacks that in its TINY list) - my program, by way of comparison? Does.
THUS, again - you are "shorting yourself" that way, bigtime, vs. my app's 12 data sources in the security community, first of all.
Secondly - See subject-line: You are harming efficiency, as well as speed potential.
Thirdly - Opera just does what others using the message passing slowup, memory + cpu hogging addons model, better & it works with hosts files for added speed, security, reliability, + anonymity perfectly (which no single browser addon or even combinations of them, slowing you down in excess message passing when you do that mind you even more, can do more than hosts do on those very grounds).
APK
P.S.=> Lastly, this isn't english class either (yet you managed to understand me anyhow - poor "comeback" that, being completely off-topic & what-not)... apk
Truth & facts != spam & I'm not selling anything (it's free & works better than browser addon, + more efficiently, with less moving parts chance for breakdown due to complexity using what you have already - for more added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity).
* Period...
(Which, of course, you KNOW & all you are left with is off-topic trolling b.s., nothing more... especially since I suspect you are either a malware-maker/botnet-herder, inferior competitor, advertiser, or webmaster pissed he's losing ad revenues (which get in your face & steal your bandwith YOU PAID FOR mind you)).
APK
P.S.=> You're also MORE THAN WELCOME to validly technically disprove my points listed in the post you replied to completely off topic as well (nobody can or has, ever - Good luck: You'd NEED it (more like a miracle)) -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
... apk
Ads bring us current TV episodes and today's news. I'll take that over alt.whine.virginity any time.
Actually, the only worthwhile TV in a long time has been supported by donations (PBS), subscription (HBO), or taxes (BBC). The rest is dreck.
-- QED
Recommended as "best of breed" by the security community itself (Malwarebytes' hpHosts @ the TOP of their pages for hosts data) -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl...
With details of what it can do for you of great value, for free + NO STRINGS ATTACHED (ala tracking like Ghostery or Crippled by default 'souled-out' to Google like AdBlock - which it does FAR more than either does for good benefit to you, mind you) by "yours truly", gratis...
* :)
(I wrote that all in my intial post you replied to initially here:
http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
Did you NOT see it? It's quite plainly visible, easily understood with decent detail as to how it gives you more speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity - FAR more efficiently than any single browser addon there is, with far more ubiquity as well!)
APK
P.S.=> Perhaps you need remedial reading tools since your reading comprehension is poor? See?? I can "play those games too"... & I find that your comments, again, are rather difficult to believe since you seem to easily understand everything I've written (& I found that comment COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC as would anyone + unnecessary considering you understood me also)... apk
Hosts stop this & add speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (FAR more efficiently vs. addons + even shore up DNS' weakness) - especially vs. "Almost ALL ads blocked":
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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 obviously cannot validly technically disprove anything I note in challenge to you here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... that YOU cannot meet - so, obviously? YOU FAIL, troll!
APK
P.S.=> Now, you just KNOW that I've just GOTTA SAY IT (as is per my usual "inimitable style" of course), now don't you? Ah, but of COURSE you do:
THIS? This was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'"!
It always is vs. weak trolls who are obviously inferior competitors, advertisers, malware makers/botnet herders, & even webmasters losing adbanner revenues!
(The latter bunch? Hey - quit allowing infected ads boys along with your advertiser pals - it's negligent, & WHY I finally released my program which was done in late 2003 & I held off for YOU GUYS only up to 2012 until adbanners showed tons of malicious code in them... I did so, for free & it works BETTER THAN ANY SINGLE BROWSER ADDON for more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity, bar-none on those very grounds just noted - period!)...
... apk
Hosts stop this & add speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (FAR more efficiently vs. addons + even shore up DNS' weakness) - especially vs. "Almost ALL ads blocked":
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
Hosts stop this & add speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (FAR more efficiently vs. addons + even shore up DNS' weakness) - especially vs. "Almost ALL ads blocked":
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
Hosts stop this & add speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (FAR more efficiently vs. addons + even shore up DNS' weakness) - especially vs. "Almost ALL ads blocked":
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
For us "ac" posters @ least (javascript gets in the way for you "registered 'lusers'" though, with your state saving cookie) - & here's how in this very link -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... in detail... enjoy!
* :)
( I "beat you to the punch...", already - long ago!)
APK
P.S.=> Bottom-Line: It works (for a LOT of things above & beyond /. beta blocking, ALL listed here in GREAT detail) -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... ) & for MORE added speed, security, reliability, + anonymity doing it far more efficiently than any 1 browser addon by FAR as well, + doing far more of good value for end users of it...
... apk
Take your own advice off topic troll. You can't prove him wrong here http://news.slashdot.org/comme... and you know it. We reading certainly do. All you have is off topic illogical failing ad hominem attack trolling after issuing rotten downmods with nothing valid behind them. You lose.
Hosts stop this & add speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (FAR more efficiently vs. addons + even shore up DNS' weakness) - especially vs. "Almost ALL ads blocked":
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
Hosts stop this & add speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity (FAR more efficiently vs. addons + even shore up DNS' weakness) - especially vs. "Almost ALL ads blocked":
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
People have been talking about micropayments pretty much since the web was created and enough of the net got off US government noncommercial sites that it was reasonable to put commercial stuff on it. I still don't know of any micropayment systems, which suggests that they aren't all that popular. It isn't that nobody's thought of them, or thought they'd be a good idea, it's that nobody has managed to put one together and gotten it popular.
I'll believe in micropayment systems when I see them being fairly common. Not before.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Is that you again? Sounds it: You wrote me 1st stating "hosts are a shitty solution" & when I challenged you in return mail, from 2 diff. email accounts of mine to you no less, that YOU show anyone this:
"Prove your addon does more than hosts do for speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity than custom hosts files do AND more efficiently then..."
* You RAN - & you HAD to: There IS no valid way to defeat truth, & facts... period.
(Fact...)
APK
P.S.=> You're going to have a "tough time" facing that challenge vs. these points here (you're reduced to *trying* to hide effetely via technically invalid & unjustifiable downmods as you've done thru this entire article where I posted about my program vs. your inefficient, limited, resource-hogging addon that does LESS and has more room for breakdown "moving parts' no less, lol) -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... (impossible for you to do despite you saying by email to me, literally, "hosts are a shitty solution" & YET you are unable to backup your bullshit, clearly, vs. truth + facts I utilize vs. your reprehensible tactics & bullshit... lol!).
Especially after this about "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" & it's massively GROSS inefficiencies too -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...
Hosts stop this & add speed, security, reliability, + anonymity (FAR more efficiently vs. addons + even fix DNS' weakness) - especially vs. "Almost ALL ads blocked":
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
Hosts stop this & add speed, security, reliability, + anonymity (FAR more efficiently vs. addons + even fix DNS' weakness) - especially vs. "Almost ALL ads blocked":
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
During the "save" phase the program issues a warning - did you follow it? I'd have to say no...
APK
P.S.=> I've seen that happen to users before - which is WHY that portion of the program warns you & how to fix that, as well as the installation directions too during SFX installer & the ReadMeInstallHowTo.txt file as well (hosts file = too large for DNS clientside cache in Windows, it's built on a limited FIXED-SIZE datastructure is why - follow the warning's message & save it - it'll work right then)... apk
Validly technically disprove my points on hosts adding speed, security, reliability, & anonymity -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* :)
Ok? Good luck - you'll need it (lol, more like a MIRACLE!).
APK
P.S.=> Of course, you'll EVADE that simple challenge to NO END, as always, trolling by ac posts etc. & downmodding my posts before doing so via your "registered 'luser'" account... apk
You didn't follow directions for Windows users in its ReadMeInstallHowTo.txt regarding dns clientside cache, or apparently follow the directions during the SAVE tab's phase (which instructs you HOW to overcome that, it's a fault in Windows itself with LARGE-ish hosts files) as noted here in my other reply to you & the issue you are seeing -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> That will set you straight... it should've anyhow, provided you DID follow its warnings & the install directions... apk
As with any other medium, Sturgeon's Law applies to TV. THere's a flood of dreck out there, but the best TV is better than ever. Has your PBS affiliate ever carried "The Wire," "Six Feet Under," "The SImpsons," "Breaking Bad" or "Halt and Catch Fire" ?
It's even documented on Malwarebytes' hpHosts page on large hosts files http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... (& again - ALSO in my program too when you go to SAVE the file, warning you to turn off the dns clientside cache slow + faulty with large hosts files usermode service)... Thus, I must ask:
Did you actually USE MY PROGRAM, or just install hpHosts' file only?
As to your comment it's blocking "correct" stuff??
My program has known & RESPECTED site checkers section in its menus, built in!
Thus - IF you can show me some that are NOT coming up in those? I'll add to its filtering... taking THOSE OUT as "false positives".
(& I'll take that up with my 12 sources I use in the security community as well to correct for it (in the meantime, like I said - it's easy to control any you DO NOT AGREE WITH yourself, either in my program's rightclick menus, or via notepad (which I summon from that same menu to edit the results files))).
You're going to find that hosts are everything I said they are - especially vs. their "so-called 'competition'"...
APK
P.S.=> You sound relatively "new" to hosts "ins & outs" though, & that's ok - we all start somewhere on everything & get better/stronger as we go - as to MY being "abrasive"? Hey, look man - YOU started off cutting down my writing here -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & I took offense to it (especially considering YOU understood everything I said no less - looked like what trolls often do, completely off topic, as this is NOT "english class")... apk
Agreed. And advertising has been with us before the Internet too and will probably be with us following a global thermonuclear war.
The problem today is not just internet (mainly web) advertising - it's fucking everywhere. I cannot rest my tired eyeballs or ears a moment without some fuckwit offering to sell me something. Silence and two-dimensional surface real estate is considered fair game by this industry - and this marketing pimp is sucking the life out of the creative industry. If I were all powerful, it would be the first thing I'd ban, globally. We don't need it. Fucked up economists need it in order to prop up a consumer-led "economy" where it doesn't matter what PoS is being produced or sold, as long as people spend their money and buy it.
I didn't cut down your writing style. I pointed out it was bizarre.
1.biÂzarre
adjective \bÉ(TM)-ËzÃr\
: very unusual or strange
Full Definition of BIZARRE
: strikingly out of the ordinary: as
a : odd, extravagant, or eccentric in style or mode
b : involving sensational contrasts or incongruities
â" biÂzarreÂly adverb
â" biÂzarreÂness noun
Your grammatical structure is bizarre and difficult to read which is my subjective opinion of it and frankly I doubt many would disagree.
That said, I've stuck with it and have not insulted you for it. I have done my best to translate it into intelligible script.
Again, I thank you for your help with this matter and will deal with it later when I have the attention span to go changing system settings.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Actually, the only worthwhile TV in a long time has been supported by donations (PBS), subscription (HBO), or taxes (BBC). The rest is dreck.
Has your PBS affiliate ever carried
"The Wire," HBO, paid for by subscription
"Six Feet Under," HBO, paid for by subscription
"The SImpsons," dreck after about the 6th season.
"Breaking Bad" HBO, paid for by subscription
"Halt and Catch Fire" ? haven't heard of it. Oh well.
-- QED
I just close everything and skip going to the content.
I just don't buy into that ecosystem.
It's a problem I (& doubtless others) pointed out to Microsoft (even here on /. to a then VP there who posted here) - nothing was done about it, so the workaround, IS turning off that service which let's big hosts files run just fine, cached by the local kernelmode diskcaching subsystem instead of usermode & a faulty with large hosts files dns clientside cache service.
Using the diskcache is also great in 1 respect - it too, works in kernelmode, & what uses the hosts file in kernelmode also? The IP stack...
Thus, no "context-switch" overheads possible, or cross in ring of privelege boundaries @ all (whereas that local dns clientside cache that's faulty with large hosts files IS in usermode, another ring of privelege).
That'll set your issue straight in cutting that service as my program instructs you to do on its "SAVE" procedure, guaranteed, & should you elect to try my program again? Be SURE to run it as adminstrator class user (by checking the shortcut's properties you make for it, or just right-click on it, & you can do it that way also) so you CAN actually overwrite your hosts file with this newer, larger, BETTER one my program generates.
You'll find it is everything I said it is, guaranteed (or rather, the custom hosts file it outputs is)...
APK
P.S.=> Fact: Hosts files do FAR more of great value to end users than any single browser addon & far more efficiently + it shores up DNS redirect poisoning issues in security, and yields more speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity to an extent (vs. dns request logs or blowing by DNSBL's you *may* not like)... So, that said?
Well - why not get the "most bang for your buck", the best way then?
Especially when it's SO easy to do, less complex, & just way, Way, WAY overall better... apk
That I never said: On Spybot? I don't question their integrity - I've spoken to them by email a few times: They're competent coders!
(Same language I used, Object-Pascal/Delphi in fact is used in Spybot S&D as I used in APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... as a matter of fact!)
E.G. - They rightly & correctly knew, for example from our conversations, enough to scan the registry for those who *may* alter the std. location of the hosts file via the database parameter, here -> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\services\Tcpip\Parameters for instance... & I am ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE who do that in fact (acts almost like a *NIX 'shadow password' decoy & I load mine from a location on an SSD - less latency on file seek/access, open/read-write/close I-O sequence is why).
It's just that they DEFINITELY cannot find as many legit valid entries for hosts as my dozen sources in the security community do is all - they're just "outnumbered" is all on that account (one man, can't do it all, in other words).
My program is just FAR MORE COMPREHENSIVE in that area is all... & thus, better, stopping threats BEFORE they can even get into you as a matter of fact (proactive, rather than reactive).
APK
P.S.-> Any questions? Continued on firewalls & layered security/defense in depth in my next 2 replies (slashdot won't let me fit it all in, the price of being ac I guess)... apk
That I never said (continued) - I also never said "hosts are a panacea", & I also use a firewall rules table to compliment it & even vs. tracking (on /. & other sites too -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... ) since hosts can't stop IP address based threats (which are, by FAR & AWAY, the least used since they are FAR SIMPLER to shutdown & you'd have to be silly to click a link that uses an IP address in it vs. a hostname - it's a potential clue to threats in fact...).
Hosts are, however, more effective vs. malware serving botnets: How so?
FastFlux & DynDNS using types use hostnames (changing many hostnames vs. 1 single IP address dynamically as needed on the IP addy, which blows past firewalls by doing it) - they are the MOST dangerous & advanced type: Hosts are HIGHLY EFFECTIVE vs. them, for security. Firewalls, are not, & neither are antivirus programs (symantec admitted recently they are "dead tech" & only 55% effective since the threats now are delivered via scripts & hosts ARE highly effective there vs. that type of threat stopping it BEFORE you can get it, proactively, by blocking access to the cause -> http://it.slashdot.org/story/1...
I use Opera's "by site preferences" as I noted, vs. FlashBlock (no addon messagepassing & resource hogging overheads required) setting it GLOBALLY for all sites to play "only on demand" - this stops flashbanners, cold, easily, & natively. Same with cookies, iframes, scripts, etc. - et al, in Opera (no addons overheads needed).
APK
P.S.=> Any questions? Continued next on "layered security"/"defense-in-depth"... apk
That I never said: Lastly - I practically "wrote the book" on "layered-security"/"defense-in-depth" (1st guides for it) -> http://www.bing.com/search?q=%...
(Take a look there, they are ALL mine, from 2008 building on the originals that I wrote, the VERY FIRST SECURITY GUIDES for Windows NT based OS online @ NTCompatible.com, which you are free to verify with the owner there Philip or "the wayback machine" if you like, from 1997 onwards as well "APK Speed & Security Guides for Windows" OR if this link still exists http://www.speed-up-computer.c... ).
APK
P.S.=> It's up to you, but what I produced IS recommended as "best of breed" by the security community (top of page @ MalwareBytes' hpHosts site http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl..., & for a reason: It is, clearly, the best courtesy of "yours truly" & yes, it works + is HIGHLY EFFECTIVE vs. the worst threats out there now that there is (antivirus/antispyware reactive tech is not, symantec admitting they are dead tech even lately that's only 55% effective @ best/most) in FastFlux + Dynamic DNS utilizing botnets - period/fact - I can only point a horse to water - I can't make them drink though... apk
Currently available in layered-security/defense-in-depth: You're "on the right track" - & my app?
Consider it a "push in the RIGHT direction"!
One that disassembler of the Morris Worm in Eugene Spafford is currently recommending of "work with what you have, strengthen it vs. exploits" using less moving parts that are ineffective (antivirus = CLASSIC on the latter per the article from Norton/Symantec I pointed you to from this very site's news) + more "moving parts complexity" w/ more room for breakdown & exploit!
Hosts = avenue to this & an effective + PROACTIVE measure you have natively already that I help you populate for better:
1. Security (online threats)
2.) Speed (hardcoded fav sites & avoiding adbanners (security too, they've been infested with malicious code MANY times)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed DNS or redirect poisoned ones (security))
4.) Anonymity (vs. DNSBL's or dns request logs).
Hosts = a nigh ubiquitous "shotgun approach" using what you already have natively, that is MASSIVELY effective for ALL of the above - guaranteed.
You can't be infected provided YOU don't leave any other "doors" open or open them, yourself - provided my hosts blocks the sources & it has currently KNOWN ones, daily/hourly even, & mine uses ALL sources (just about).
You stop them BEFORE they can start to even get in, in the 1st place (You use hosts too & saw their value: I am merely "turning you on" to a BETTER source for a better hosts file: My program, best of its kind, bar-none).
You note "multifaceted" - GOOD! The RIGHT idea for breakthrus: NOT a 1 focus only "genius" but rather a POLYMATH (relating disparate fields & disciplines joining them for progress!)
APK
P.S.=> Tiny programs = BEST but need work so they are "ready for the masses"! Keep @ it. Been pro coding since 94 + freeware since 95 (code bought by companies that used it to win MS-TechEd 2000-2002 as finalist in SQLServer Performance Enhancement)): YOU CAN TOO! apk
"Thank you" (for what Lois said) "For believing in me" (didn't make much of a difference, she said) "It did to me.."
So I must THANK you in kind actually... it does make ALL the difference. If/when I can reach 1 person? They in turn will reach others & the progression begins, geometrically... for the good of all.
It's OUR DUTY, imo @ least, to "pay it forward" to make a better world. As human beings, it's OUR duty. It's WHY I built this app - for all the reasons I noted now, and earlier, in that it aids speed you paid for, security of all types vs. the WORST threat out there now (online types), reliability (vs. DNS faults in redirects & downage), & even anonymity... gratis, courtesy of yours truly.
The world today (especially today, look @ it out there for Pete's sake)? NEEDS it. Change, starts with you (& me) as individuals & IS CONTAGIOUS... make it happen, starting with yourself, being of service to others. It works.
It's doing the RIGHT thing, being of service to others (& yes, per my other reply to you? It has LITERALLY paid off for me, getting my tiny apps bought out even (good pay for it too), & I was even PAID on 1 of those security guides I pointed you to I wrote (the Lord works in mysterious ways... lol, for me: "The LORD of Hosts" (not really, but nice turn of a phrase here, lol)).
And IF I am 'wrong'? Then, I don't *WANT* to be "right" (as it is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly SICK society).
APK
P.S.=> "Onwards & UPWARDS" - & Good luck to you - keep @ your apps, follow your dreams - See, I say that, since IF I can make it happen (did a dozen times since 1996 on just shareware/freeware)? SO CAN YOU... don't give up.... apk
Ads bring us current TV episodes legally
Fixed it for you.
"hey, try this! It's good"
When was that? Like 1578 AD?
There's a whole show called Mad Men that 'documents' just how twisted advertising was way back when, and before that, say in the 1920's, I recall hearing things like 'snake oil salesmen'.
In a commercial / capitalistic market, advertising has always been an arms race to manipulative the most people into customers.
For another thing, the TV doesn't display an ad for 30 seconds when I try to change the channel.
The implementation of advertising on the internet is bad. Not the concept of advertising for free content itself.
1.) See subject - I KNOW that about it, for starters - hosts secure you vs. it via hardcodes (working to HELP dns vs. its own issues) which speed you up too (double-bonus).
FACT: 99.999% of ISP's DNS aren't patched vs. it even though a patch has been out for nearly 10 yrs. now too (not widely implemented due to MX records difficulties iirc).
2.) I also KNOW it has more "moving parts" complexity + room for breakdown as well!
Do I have to tell ANYONE about the dns DOWNTIME they experience? No. Hosts beat that too.
Heck - DNS admins ought to LOVE ME for lightening their load by allowing users to hardcode in their favorite sites - which, of course, allows for FASTER ip address resolution from host-domain names, by a longshot LOCALLY in your own RAM!
(Once hosts is cached 1 of 2 ways depending on the size of your hosts file as we talked of here already)
3.) I also know DNS uses MORE ELECTRICAL POWER than running a hosts file - especially *IF* setup as an entirely independent system/machine!
However - I don't even *begin* to attempt to every site with their IP address into hosts: Only my favs. which I spend a good 95% of my time online at, getting to them faster via local IP address resolution!
(Which I already proved that hosts are by default, the 1st resolution engine queried as well in Windows vs. remote DNS servers too, so faster again on lookup due to prioritizations also there in the registry too)
Rest here are blocked as malicious sites (so who CARES how fast I get to those? I never INTENDED to reach them & for DAMN good reasons - they're bogus).
The favs @ top of my hosts file equate to 2-3++ million indexed seeks in DNS caches or clients as well, & that IS where I spend my time (so do you, nobody surfs the entire web everyday & have favorite channels they go to like TV).
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work w/ dns too not against it unless you count dns request logs they skirt vs. tracking OR DNSBL you may not like... apk
Since you're about that? OK "tit for tat" - see subject line above: Hosts do "what you can't be exposed to can't make you sick"... how's that?
Of course, there's my FAV quote I use from the fictional character from a FAV film of mine in "I AM LEGEND" as well, that I close off my initial hosts post reply you responded to also... & here 'tis, again:
"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
You have hosts natively & "naturally", reprogram them to WORK FOR THE BODY, rather than against it (or as a useless vestigial organ like our tailbone or appendix).
APK
P.S.=> Whitelisting is cool, I am ALL for it (especially on CORPORATE SYSTEMS where the owners have EVERY RIGHT to decide what you run on THEIR systems since they own them & YOU merely use them as tools they allow you to use to do your job - only allow what they approve for apps, & sites too (hosts help here & yes, so does DNSBL))... apk
In combination WITH a custom hosts file (MS DNS server). You *can* use DNSBL's (DNS Block Lists) but DNS has issues I noted in security flaws, excessive power usage, & more moving parts room for breakdown + more resource usage (& the rest of what I noted in my last reply to you).
APK
P.S.=> For a personal computer, I simply combine my hosts file with OpenDNS (uses DNSSEC between it & its upstream servers too & is patched vs. the Kaminsky redirect flaw I noted) or Norton DNS, ScrubIT DNS, etc. in BOTH my OS TCP/IP stack settings AND my router/firewall...
... apk
Hosts do more better than "Almost All Ads Blocked" adding more speed, security, reliability, & anonymity (more efficiently than any 1 browser addon + fix DNS' weakness):
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
ClarityRay for instance uses native browser methods to dump addons you use (won't work vs. this):
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk/b
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
See subject-line: It's "togglable" via trayicon OR mainscreen rightclick menus options it has fpr turning hosts ON or OFF, easily)
Yes - it's THAT simple so... your "objection #1" has been easily overcome.
* Additionally - if it's left operating resident (up to you if you do, doesn't have to be since it applies read-only attributes to hosts & Windows File Protection does the rest), it constantly applies read-only attribs to hosts for PROTECTING hosts (& the program is literally traditional virus proof also, self-checking executable that IF it alters even by 1 byte, smallest unit possible mind you, it alerts you to that fact & shuts itself down - bonus).
On locking hosts - I opted NOT to "lock it exclusively" since I did *not* want to cut even the OS out of accessing it (However, iirc, that wouldn't stop the IP stack though - still, wasn't worth chancing, so I did it every 1/2 second via a high-resolution multimedia timer I registered with the system to do so - while it runs? Hosts IS 'bulletproof' vs. say, a virus like QHosts which attempt to alter it...).
IMPORTANT: You noted addons - big problem that: Ever heard of "ClarityRay"?
Know HOW it's killing Almost ALL Ads Blocked??
By dumping & detecting what Addons YOU USE, & either blocking you out of a site, or rotating in other ads the addons CAN'T STOP!
APK
P.S.=> OBJECTION #2 also easily overcome:
Apparently, you don't KNOW about batch or .cmd files - they can be set as automated chronjobs/scheduled tasks to send batches via a central server + admin level account to *ANY* node on your network, easily & yes, "automagically" (you NEED to 'brush-up' on your basic networking skills my man...).
All your "objections" have been overcome, easily... apk
My program for hosts file construction adds security, speed, reliability, + anonymity & does more, more efficiently by FAR vs. addons + fixes DNS' security issues:
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:
http://start64.com/index.php?o...
(Details of benefits in link)
Summary:
---
A.) Hosts do more than:
1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default)
2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse"
3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome redirects on sites, /. beta as an example).
C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less added "moving parts" complexity/room 4 breakdown,
D.) Hosts files yield more:
1.) Speed (adblock & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote dns)
2.) Security (vs. malicious domains serving malcontent + block spam/phish & trackers)
3.) Reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable dns, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ isp level + weak vs Fastflux + dynamic dns botnets)
4.) Anonymity (vs. dns request logs + dnsbl's).
---
* Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ faster levels (ring 0) vs redundant inefficient addons (slowing slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ os, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization).
* Addons = more complex + slow browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray is destroying Adblock.
* Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption too + hugely excessive cpu use (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)
Work w/ a native kernelmode part - hosts files (An integrated part of the ip stack)
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
Regarding AdBlock & Wladimir Palant its creator: He wrote me by email, 1st mind you, stating "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:
"Show us that adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts files can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts do"
Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency he was proven in research by others to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & Palant can't show adblock does more (especially crippled by default as it is, 'souled-out' to GOOGLE no less).
Additionally - I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement, & from 2 different email addresses I keep no less!
Result? This:
Still no answer from him to myself in regard to my challenge put to him to date MONTHS later (that tell you anything? It did me - he knows his addon is far inferior to hosts and certainly less efficient by far also) - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit...
I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock & any browser addon (or combo of them, from a SINGLE FILE you already natively possess no less - vs. "bolting on" more redundant & inefficient complexity + room for failure/breakdown) - funniest part is, Wladimir Palant (& his running) does as well!
APK
P.S.=> Clearly, Hosts are a superior multiplatform solution on many levels that even fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 single file that is part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization applied to it, & runs in a higher CPU serviced ring of privelege & operations in kernelmode vs. slower usermode layering over browsers slowing them more, & hosts = 1st resolver queried by default by the OS itself as well - MULTIPLE bonuses)... apk
Clarity Ray doesn't even run if you have noscript running. Or at least that has been my experience. I do not get ads on any site unless I want to get ads.
Any site. What. So. Ever.
Now, I am not running javascript on about 95 percent of the pages I visit. I find that most of the scripts serve no purpose for me. They're mostly tracking or ad related. So I just don't enable them.
While I'm sure they'll figure out how to inject ads into the sites eventually, you must also appreciate that they can opt to host the ads on the website itself or use the website as a proxy thus fooling your IP/DNS/Host file solution.
That poses a problem for advertisers in how to affirm that sites are not scamming them with false hits. But that really boils down to which problem is harder to deal with... countering adblock systems or countering fraudster sites that generate false hits.
As to batch files... I'm actually very good with them. I just don't understand why you're so adverse to the DNS server idea. It just seems so much more elegant.
And beyond that, you're missing the whole point about being cross compatible. Your idea doesn't work for ipads etc which are increasingly a part of the office community.
As a network administrator, I need to be able to effect all machines on my network at the same time across all platforms, across all versions of all operating systems... or I will have a disjunction between the way some machines are supposed to interact.
Also appreciate that someone could sit there downloading malware or infected apps to their android or ipad and then connecting to the network (assuming the admin hasn't isolated the wifi network into VLAN2 and not bridged it to VLAN1). I personally always isolate the wifi network from the wired network. It causes some problems when the fuzzy bunnies get a wireless printer and complain about it not working. But I just plug the stupid thing into the wired network and pat them on their silly heads.
I'm not incompetent, sir. Please stop suggesting I am... I hurts my feelings. :D
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That I never ONCE said: You need to brush-up on networking basics (batch/.cmd files & chronjobs/scheduled tasks) for moving hosts around a network from a central server that could be used to run (shameless plug) -> APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit: http://start64.com/index.php?o... exporting its resulting custom hosts file to all PC + Server endpoints on ANY lan/wan, period.
Agreed on ClarityRay not working when scripts aren't active, however & again: I use Opera 12.17 64-bit here, totally avoiding the inefficient RAM/CPU/Other forms of I-O/messagepassing overheads + "hogging" nature of them, by setting a GLOBAL default policy of no scripts, no cookies, no iframes, & no plugins (on demand only, no less, effectively defeating FLASH adbanners too) - same point, I noted it earlier to you here in this exchange, minus overheads (my point on hosts vs. plugins of any kind, that don't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity - with far less "moving parts" complexity + room for breakdown & bugs, as well as resources wasted).
Hosts also cut off getting malware in the FIRST place: Since "what you can't touch, can't infect you"... get it? Additionally & lastly: Even IF you are already infested, a custom hosts file cuts off the malware from "talking back to HQ" to its C&C servers as well (effectively nullifying them - DOUBLE bonus, for security).
APK
P.S.=> No matter WHAT they do to inject ads? Hosts are superior, since they can "cut off" access to the root cause (the servers used to serve said ads).
Ads that PAY aren't served up from the SAME site: Admen don't trust webmasters on counts, period. Do/would I blame them? Absolutely not on that account - after all - it wouldn't be out of the question for the site to say "We got 10 billion views per second per day - now, PAY US, on that humoungous count please... lol!"
Etc. - et al, human nature being what it is, or can be, when money's involved... or, don't ads themselves show you that much with "sockpuppet marketing" along with "Coffee is FREE (50 cent cup rental)" type of practices on the admen's part as well.
APK
P.S.=> Hosts work, because they're NOT:
#1.Detectable + blockable by native browser methods (such as ClarityRay does to Adblock, killing it) dumping which ones you use, & blocking you out based on that, or, merely rotating in ads that slower usermode FAR inferior browser addons (in terms of speed gains, security, reliability gains, & anonymity gains hosts offer FAR above & beyond any single addon or combination of them) with their additional inefficient memory/cpu + other forms of I/O used & message passing overheads & bloat are victim to (clarityray methods) - hosts AREN'T detectable thus + thus, NOT blockable that way either!
&
#2. Hosts work for security vs. the WORST most advanced threats that are dependent on host-domain names (in "fastflux", "dynamic dns", & "DGA" utilizing botnets)...
Bottom-line = Hosts truly are, a more versatile, useful, & efficient multiplatform method, by far! apk