Slashdot Mirror
BBC and FACT Shut Down Doctor Who Fansite
An anonymous reader writes with this report from Torrentfreak, excerpting: In just a few hours time the brand new season of Doctor Who will premiere, kicking off with the first episode 'Deep Breath'. There's been a huge build up in the media, but for fans who prefer to socialize and obtain news via a dedicated community, today brings bad news. Doctor Who Media (DWM) was a site created in 2010 and during the ensuing four and a half years it amassed around 25,000 dedicated members. A source close to the site told TF that since nothing like it existed officially, DWM's core focus was to provide a central location and community for everything in the 'Whoniverse,' from reconstructions of missing episodes to the latest episodes, and whatever lay between. But yesterday, following a visit by representatives from the BBC and Federation Against Copyright Theft, the site's operator took the decision to shut down the site for good.
Boo Who!
Title says it all.
Don't worry, I'm sure it will regenerate soon enough.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Now you can't even organize a group to talk about something that interests you, if you dont own the rights to the topic of discussion!?
But we'll have to see if he can pull this off. Wouldn't it be cool if Doctor Who teamed up with Sherlock on a future episode?
Hmm.. Sounded something like this?
EX-TER-MI-NATE!
FACT was involved, so my first guess was that they were hosting full episodes, or perhaps links to torrents, but according to TFA DWM had refused to carry any of the leaked episodes from the new series which seems unlikely for a site turning a blind eye to copyright, yet further up is the following quote: "Often times, having watched stuff there led to me purchasing the exact same content on iTunes as well as all the various other content available for Doctor Who", which implies they were hosting episodes, or at least extensive clips.
So, is this a case of major fansite being shutdown for using a more copyrighted material than the BBC was prepared to stomach (in which case where was the friendly letter asking them to "tone it down a bit, please"), a copyright infringement portal being shuttered for hosting/linking to aired episodes and other content, some kind of trademark issue, or just a domain grab by the BBC ("doctorwhomedia.co.uk" is a fairly nice domain name, afterall)?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
He should have held on to the domain name. He may have been obigated to shut the site down, but nothing requires him to give the name over to them. I am not familiar with trademark law in England, but in the US they probably would have no standing at all, since they didn't enforce it over the course of the last four years. Indeed, I would expect that he can sue for damages, as they allowed hi to build a community and continue to generate interest for their product, choosing to wait until they released new episodes, choosing then and only then to try (successfully it seems) to take over the site and its community.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I suspect those in charge of the Dr Who franchise will end up wishing they could go back in time and reverse this stupid decision.. Especially once they see that the extermination order was signed by "The Master"...
http://doctorwhomedia.co.uk/ -- however, the domain is being transferred so the content might not stay there for long. At the time of writing (23 Aug 16.45 BST) there is roughly the story above and some chats at http://doctorwhomedia.chatango.com/, and whois shows the domain still owned byJonathan Carlyle .
No real indication why it was taken down ... talking about Dr Who cannot be a problem. Was there copyrighted material hosted ?
So no loss. I know there is a telephone booth involved. A red one. That is all. Am I missing out?
Really, if he really wasn't doing anything illegal in the first place, I can't see any reason he should have caved in on this... and this is in the UK, where it's my understanding that if you try to bring someone to court and lose, then you have to pay their costs, which I imagine exists to discourage overly subjective, baseless, or slapp-like lawsuits.
The fact that he yielded on this suggests to me that he was aware that a search warrant would find something on his computer(s) that shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's unfortunate the site is gone, but we're not actually seeing the whole story here. Sadly, because of how things have already went, we probably never will.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You know, occasionally I start to feel a bit guilty about pirating TV shows. So it's great when the copyright owners come along and shoot themselves in the foot like this, and remind me why I really shouldn't give a fuck. I mean, that site's users are some of the most loyal fans of your fucking show. They are the people most likely to spend money on merchandise, and to buy box-sets, and to go to show-related events. That site was doing nothing except positives for the Doctor Who show. If they wanted to exercise more control over their brand, they could have at least tried to work with the site first, or even take it over and let the same people continue to run the site under their oversight. Fuckwits.
Over-reaching corporations are worse than the dreaded Daleks.
Now you can't even organize a group to talk about something that interests you, if you dont own the rights to the topic of discussion!?
From the summary:
DWM's core focus was to provide a central location and community for everything in the 'Whoniverse,' from reconstructions of missing episodes to the latest episodes, and whatever lay between.
The purpose of the site was not to let fans discuss their favourite episodes, it was to store and distribute copyrighted material without licence. This is precisely what copyright laws were designed to tackle. This isn't news, this isn't relevant to any serious discussion about copyright reform, this is the system working as intended.
That site was doing nothing except positives for the Doctor Who show. If they wanted to exercise more control over their brand, they could have at least tried to work with the site first, or even take it over and let the same people continue to run the site under their oversight. Fuckwits.
From the summary:
DWM's core focus was to provide a central location and community for everything in the 'Whoniverse,' from reconstructions of missing episodes to the latest episodes, and whatever lay between.
The purpose of the site was not to let fans discuss their favourite episodes, it was to store and distribute copyrighted material without licence. This is precisely what copyright laws were designed to tackle. This isn't news, this isn't relevant to any serious discussion about copyright reform, this is the system working as intended.
The fact that he yielded on this suggests to me that he was aware that a search warrant would find something on his computer(s) that shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's unfortunate the site is gone, but we're not actually seeing the whole story here. Sadly, because of how things have already went, we probably never will.
We are seeing the whole story here, /. is just choosing not to cover it adequately. The site was hosting full episodes, which was the main reason anyone visited it. This isn't the BBC using overreaching copyright laws to leverage control over its brand, it's the BBC using the reasonable end of copyright law to protect its right to control the distribution of content.
He's removing himself from history to get River released from prison.
there is no such thing as copyrigt theft. You might infringe on copyright, in that case you never had the right to copy, but how could you possibly steal the right to copy something.
I did a screensaver that had the "new series" (2005 on 'Rose' one) intro as an .avi that played back from RAM & had some pretty neat/unique tech in it by embedding that .avi into the .exe as a resource, extracting it directly to RAM & playing it back... was a HUGE hit, even with the site mod (who often gave me guff).
That "all said & aside": I offered it DIRECTLY to the BBC, no charge, & it's 'engine' was REPLACEABLE (meaning others series' of theirs could do it, since I offered the code & tech for free to them too), & FAR MORE EFFICIENT single moving part machinery done in a language that rivals & even exceeds MSVC++ in Borland Delphi 7.1 Object Pascal code.
They told me, after seeing it, I "violated their intellectual property"... I was like "WTF? I am offering it to you, for free, since it's TECHNICALLY FAR BETTER THAN THE CRAP FLASH ONES YOU USE NOW, & far, Far, FAR SAFER WITH LESS BUGS/SECURITY ISSUES!" & I was not 'selling it' either... it was 100% free.
They're fools.
APK
P.S.=> How stupid could they be? I'm a HUGE Dr. Who fan & have been since "Tom Baker" days (loved the series 2005 to present too, David Tenant rocks) - Well, They (iirc) also shut down the site it was on also like this article alludes to as well - dumbest thing you can do? ANGER YOUR FANS... you're NOTHING minus them!
... apk
Just to spite them i now have to download every Doctor Who episode and add to my collection. Thanks BBC! :D
I'd rather eat a shit sandwich than watch that crap.
Daleks have infiltrated the BBC.
Reading at -1 is like having your soul sucked out and replaced by liquid nitrogen.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The only episodes I ever got into were in the early 90's with the guy with orange curly hair. As a result, if I watch an episode with any of the approximately 1 billion other actors who played Dr. Who, my brain doesn't even register it as the same show.
(PS, the special effects suck. Sonic screwdriver? WTF? And kick that Dalek in the tookus so you can watch him tumble down the stairs.)
I guess you're still swooning over that $300 check George Bush sent you...
So, in other words, reading at -1 is both friendlier and warmer than my ex-wife,
So why doesn't the BBC and FACT take down google?
Oh that's right, Google is a direct arm of the CIA and NSA, that's why.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ente...
So, in other words, reading at -1 is both friendlier and warmer than my ex-wife,
or a tax auditor.
See subject-line: That's all it was + I offered it ALL to them (code & engine). Nothing for profit. Just "FAN ART", by a fan, that is technically speaking, WORLDS above the crap they have their now is all (especially FLASH - I mean WHEN are these studios going to realize flash has security issues? Probably never = the answer).
Heck: As I stated? Even the site admins (though he gave me guff initially & on other things) there loved it (literally told me that in email "I love it").
* Lesson learned was not what you're preaching (& I don't accept THAT from "non-peers"... are you one? Ever done similar work?? If not, well... lol, you know!)
Plus - I never was out to 'steal it', which should be apparent by what I did, which was only to give it back to them (and their fans) albeit in a manner they could've used it for themselves, due to technical superiority on MANY levels inherent in it... that is, after all, what ANY programmer *SHOULD* strive for, in results & their accuracy, + security as well, nowadays especially.
APK
P.S.=> Too bad: It's their loss @ the BBC since it was self-contained .scr single file Win32 PE code that had a pretty 'advanced technique' @ work in it - which is a LOT better than what they peddle there now in FLASH animated security-issue riddled crap, for sure (oh well, no biggie - it was a pet project for me, nothing more & I am SURE that others like it were probably done before by others (not for the same reasons though, just the 'tech' involved))... apk
I'm a UK citizen who pays taxes. I do not pay for a television license because I am not required to.
Per my subject-line: Resource storage, extract & execute from memory (directly).
As far as what I wrote on Delphi beating MSVC++ - Read this & feel free to verify it (what took me away from VB & MSVC++ as favorite tools as of the date of this article LONG ago, other than for work/day job projects of course (company dictates those), but rather for personal projects/freeware/shareware which I've had my hands in for decades above & beyond MIS work in db access reports & apps for companies (from small to enterprise class etc.)):
From "Visual Basic Programmer's Journal" Oct. 1997 issue "INSIDE THE VB 5 COMPILER" (Delphi, vs. VB, vs. MSVC++) where Delphi TORCHED MS' stuff in 4/6 total tests (in a competing trade rag no less, where they 'downplayed' that fact to ONLY 1 LINE (lame))?
Math Processing:
1.523 ms for Delphi
2.890 ms for MSVC++
7.871 ms for VB
String processing:
0.275 ms for Delphi
0.600 ms for MSVC++
4.091 ms for VB
ALL TESTS WERE THESE:
1.) String Processing Suite
2.) Math Suite
3.) DataBase Suite
4.) TextBox Form Load
5.) Graphics Methods (rotating bitmap)
6.) ActiveX Form loads
(Fairly LARGE "orders of magnitude" in those scores, & IN FAVOR OF DELPHI! In fact, everytime? IT LITERALLY WAS ENTIRE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (@ least double))
Delphi only lost in ActiveX form loads (even MSVC++ lost, hard to believe considering VB5's compiler was a watered down MSVC++ one, minus loop unrolling afaik), & Graphics Methods (lost by a TINY margin to MSVC++ - & I MEAN TINY).
APK
P.S.=> Every program under the sun does math & strings work... & FUNNIEST/IRONIC part is I found the link I posted on this very topic (my DrWho Screensaver) from 2008 where I "extolled its virtues" & COMPLETE architecture, + why I used Delphi to build it:
http://it.slashdot.org/comment...
"Will wonders NEVER cease..."
... apk
Hmmm? I didn't notice it was you here, troll, but herethis for you per my subject -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* :)
You like to talk behind my back? Ok - I am talking RIGHT AT YOU for that, & watching you "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" as usual.
(By the way, Ash-Fox: What have YOU ever created that was any good that I can see? I haven't seen it... show me: Prove you're @ least a PEER, since otherwise? You'll always just be a TROLL, to me (& anyone else reading)).
APK
P.S.=> Of course, I am *FAIRLY SURE* you're just another trolling "ne'er-do-well" as far as the art & science of computing is concerned... apk
He would have sorted them out fairly but justly.
Have seen the first episode with Caoaldi tonight twice...... and perfectly legally I must add via the iPleyer app in the UK.
This series is looking good - seriously good in fact after the lameness of the past few years, the new Doctor is so much better in every way than the last.
Next week - Daleks, looking scary and powerful again from the 20 second trailer at the end of the show!
Hope to god someone rams that fucking copyright shit up their stupid asses. Bloody hell it's a freakin' fan site, give it a fucking rest you dumb cunts.
That DNS has issues vs. custom hosts files on numerous points here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... on:
1.) DNS using excess power
2.) DNS using excess cpu cycles
3.) DNS using excess memory
4.) DNS using excess I/O
5.) DNS using excess "moving parts" complexity
(#1 - #5 above in comparison to custom hosts files)
6.) DNS having security vulnerabilities that hosts files fix, + that your "fix" against dns redirect poisoning DOUBLES your overheads (using TCP vs. UDP the default) creating yet MORE INEFFICIENCY in your doing so...
* :)
(Along with the fact you can't show ANYONE ANYTHING you've ever done in the art & science of computing... especially in comparison to myself)
APK
P.S.=> What was even more "priceless" was your "I was pretending" garbage here too -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... where I pointed out fastflux, & dynamic DNS utilizing botnets abusing DNS servers taking advantage of their VERY NATURE to do exploits on users - so the ONLY thing you are "pretending" on, is that you are PRETENDING to know a damn thing about computing, lol & that ALL proves it... apk
Who apparently is both friendly and warmer than MY ex-wife.
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
On DNS inferiority to hosts http://news.slashdot.org/comme... + YOU running from this http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
* :)
LMAO...
APK
P.S.=> You can *try* to "rib" on Delphi, but it allowed me to do all the things in that 1st link's termination, that the "trolling likes of YOU" (lowest of the LOW online) will never, EVER manage to do better than (since you couldn't produce more, better, & certainly not earlier there)... apk
I wish I waited until NOW then, vs. back in 2008 (when I spoke about it here on /. in detail) -> http://it.slashdot.org/comment... which even shows the site on Dr. Who that is "long gone" now...
APK
P.S.=> I don't *know* if the BBC cut that site off, or if they just "died" on their own, but it was a nice place... apk
Exterminate!
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Which are already greater than those of hosts as is using UDP (which you double using TCP). This is a "fix"?
Hosts do it WITHOUT that problem (stopping both redirect security issues AND aiding reliability when DNS goes crash & they do quite often).
---
You already conceded these points so why argue now? See here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... on dns using more:
1.) Electric Power (thus higher bills)
2.) CPU cycles
3.) Memory
4.) Other forms of I/O
5.) moving parts complexity is more than hosts
6.) Room for breakdown = greater than hosts
7.) Learning curve = greater than hosts
---
Hosts 'break' NO services (so cut the lies) & save you CPU cycles, RAM, + other forms of I/O used by them!
So, turning off the DNS clientside USERMODE slower cache (with large hosts files only, since MS doesn't fix this by creating a flexible datastructure vs. a limited sized queue type) can be offset by using a KERNELMODE faster service you use already - the diskcaching kernelmode subsystem (which yes, caches hosts off disk like any other file), making up for it! Index loss is offset by placing your fav. sites @ the TOP of custom hosts (in my case, with 3++ million hosts entries, that equates to 2-3 million indexed seeks with 24 favorites sites of mine @ the top of hosts).
---
You don't "run out of memory" with hosts either.
Compare them to AdBlock chewing up 4++ gb worth as shown in my original post, then talk. DNS uses more in its lists + combined with more parts it has in programs (hosts is just a file)?
You're wrong (again).
APK
P.S.=> I just point out facts in adblock + ghostery's inferiority vs. hosts (they do tons less for speed, security, reliability, & more is why + use more resources in a SLOWER mode of operations in usermode vs. hosts in kernelmode) & more facts (sold out or owned by advertisers & owned, respectively) http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... AND http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... (evidon = advertising agency http://www.manta.com/c/mr09wrx... )... apk
Kaminsky redirect flaw (which 99.999% of ISP dns' are NOT proofed against even though a patch has existed for 10++ yrs. due to MX record setup difficulties).
Clue: Hosts do NOT have security vulnerabilities when you use my program!
(Above & BEYOND Windows File Protection already doing so)
1st: I can't BE infected if I can't touch sources of infestation (hosts do that for me).
So, how am I vulnerable in the 1st place?
Answer = I'm not.
Also:
Even *IF* you're botnet infested, hosts stall their communcations back to their C&C Servers - nullifying them (bonus 2 way blockage).
Protecting hosts works (w/ Windows File Protection too) since I apply read-only attributes (vs. exclusive locking) @ program startup & ending plus every 1/2 second *IF* my program remains resident (optional) - nothing can get thru it to write hosts to 'bushwhack' them & anything that needs hosts can READ them, just fine, that way.
You failed to read (see link below, it leads to it) that I use hosts + external & secured DNS (saves wasting power & adding complexity with inefficiency + room for breakdown running dns here, as you see fit to do, illogically) in OpenDNS!
(Which IS patched vs. the Kaminsky flaw, and uses DNSSEC to communicate with its upstream updaters also)
I get the BEST of BOTH worlds that way, since I do *NOT* attempt to resolve the entire internet, only my 24 favs. @ the TOP of my hosts file (equates to 2-3 million indexed seeks, do the math, & my hosts has over 3++ million KNOWN BAD SITES + adbanner servers blocked in the rest - I never intend to get to them & it works for both speed & security, thus).
APK
P.S.=> Fact: You've already conceded numerous points on DNS to me on efficiencies & more http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and originally where I quote you doing so long ago also, here http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... & it appears you do things less efficiently with more complexity/learning curve + room for breakdown - illogical! apk
Can adblock/ghostery/requestpolicy do the these (hosts can):
1.) Secure you vs. known malicious sites/servers
2.) Secure you vs. downed DNS servers aiding reliability
3.) Secure you vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns servers
4.) Protect you vs. fastflux using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
5.) Protect you vs. dynamic dns using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
6.) Protect you vs. domain generation algorithm using botnet attacks and stop their communications back to their C&C servers
7.) Speed you up for websurfing not only by adblocking but also hardcoding favorite sites
8.) Get you past a dnsbl you may not agree with
9.) Keep you off dns request logs
10.) Do all of those things and block ads (better than adblock) more efficiently in cpu cycles and memory usage
11.) Work on ANY webbound application (think stand-alone email programs, for example).
12.) Give you direct, easily notepad/texteditor controlled data for all of the above
13.) Block out trackers
14.) Block spam mails sources
15.) Block phishing mails sources
"?"
* Simple YES or NO replies will do.
APK
P.S.=> This response's USUALLY specific to AdBlock but the ANSWER ="NO" to each enumerated item above
Vs. "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" (crippled by default & 'souled-out' defeating it's very base purpose) especially -> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/...
So *IF* you feel like doing things LESS efficiently as well -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... ontop of doing less than hosts do (by far) with more complexity + from a slower mode of operations (usermode with more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode, also starting up w/ the IP stack itself, before REDUNDANT inefficient addons even BEGIN to operate, & as the 1st resolver queried by the OS as well)
Plus Ghostery (evidon = advertiser owned) & RequestPolicy.
?
It's illogical to use them vs. hosts but up to you - I can lead horses to water but I can't make 'em drink!
... apk
With the MORE YOU USE, + your literally DOUBLING overheads using TCP over std. UDP makes it moreso, & You're use of a local dns (especially as a separate machine) assures that - period... That's just physics.
A local dns isn't more secure than a local hosts file that runs my program since it, along with Windows File Protection in combination with it, protects hosts.
What makes you think I can't protect subdomains in hosts? I can do google.com , www.google.com , test.google.com, etc.- et al, easily.
APK
P.S.=> How you could deny using more power (let alone CPU cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O as well by running a local DNS, especially as a separate system) using "more" boggles the mind... apk
I pointed out addon shortcomings vs. hosts & your DNS setup doubles overheads (tcp vs. udp) isn't anymore secure than a hosts file protected by WFP & my program in combination with it.
Your DNS setup eats more power, cpu cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O (especially when setup as a separate machine), & increases complexity + learning curve also vs. a simple text file in hosts.
Hosts can easily block domains/subdomains: Where you get the idea it doesn't boggles my mind (again, think google.com , www.google.com , test.google.com etc.)
APK
P.S.=> How you can say hosts can't block subdomains AND that using DNS (especially as a separate machine) doesn't consume more electric power, cpu cycles, RAM, + other forms of I/O boggles the mind - it's IMPOSSIBLE for it NOT TO DO SO, period... apk
1.) See subject-line (TCP usage literally doubles overheads using it over UDP too)
2.) You're no more secure than hosts protected by Windows File Protection + APK Hosts File Engine protecting hosts applying read-only attributes to hosts every 1/2 second.
3.) Now @ least you ADMIT I can block domains/subdomains (when you said I literally couldn't earlier), & I get them added as my 12 reputable sources in the security community add them (or, as I see fit to) completely automated & easy to do thus.
APK
P.S.=> Your "so-called 'points'" are overturned & you've admitted that YES I CAN BLOCK DOMAINS + SUBDOMAINS (& it's automated by my program to do so from reputable + reliable security community sources).
HOWEVER:
How you can say hosts aren't secured AND that you don't consume more resources in:
A.) cpu cycles
B.) RAM
C.) Over forms of I/O
(Especially since you've LITERALLY DOUBLED overheads using TCP vs. UDP default in DNS)
Boggles the mind... & yes - using DNS will consume more of those AND ELECTRICAL POWER since you're using "more" - needlessly (since hosts can do the job with less moving parts, complexity + room for breakdown OR EXPLOIT, & less learning curve)... apk
So 'WRONG', unfortunately for you, since I *can* block BOTH domains & subdomains, in hosts.
* :)
APK
P.S.=> Both easily & "automatically" using my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o... & right as they are provided by 12 reputable sources in the security community itself...
... apk
There's no shortcoming & it's done "automgically" via my APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
Reading hosts into RAM is LESS intensive than DNS lists (shorter by far, see your rulesets as an example) & so SIMPLE, a child can understand hosts entries + use notepad.exe (or *any* text editor) to do it.
The FACT you "layer on" MORE onto the IP stack using DNS servers CREATES FAR MORE cpu cycles, RAM, & other forms of I/O (which you DO concede, again) plus MORE complexity + room for breakdown due to more "moving parts", + a steeper learning curve.
Client systems with DNS have overheads on time (slower from remote DNS for resolutions) & yes, it costs CPU time fielding those requests, + RAM usage too & I/O... no way around it - EVERYTHING abstracts out to a file or file i/o in these things (i.e. even device contexts like your screen i/o is done thus, for example) - this goes for LOCAL dns even on same machine too, but it's less that way.
Either way, you fall short on ALL OF THE ABOVE, & greater ELECTRICAL POWER USAGE (nothing extra like dns, comes for 'free') since you're using MORE layered on moving parts & complexity (which leads to greater chance for breakdown too).
Lastly: Who cares how fast I get blocked ones? I never intend to GET TO THEM IN THE 1st PLACE!
APK
P.S.=> Face facts: I can do ALL YOU CAN DO, with less FOR LESS (resources used-wise) & updating network LAN/WAN endpoints like pc desktops? Cake... logon scripts &/or chronjobs-scheduled tasks in Windows can do the same, network-wide (with less moving parts in a DNS locally wasting more power, cpu, ram, & other types of I/O too)... apk
You're asking for something I don't do (I use Gmail) & you're still wrong http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...
* :)
(Fact IS fact, Truth IS truth - & yes: THAT is that... you fail ).
APK
P.S.=> You simply can't get the better of me, ever, or on anything technical - accept it! Hosts are the IMMOVABLE OBJECT (& the IRRESTIBLE FORCE behind them = me (this all bears it out in this exchange))
... apk
So *why* would I do illogical things you ask when you run from this challenge constantly http://news.slashdot.org/comme... ?
APK
P.S.=> You said I couldn't block BOTH domains & subdomains initially - NOW, you admit hosts can do that (lol), so... What's your point? That you fail vs. myself, constantly??
Good point (the evidences are here all throughout this exchange to that effect - fact IS fact, TRUTH is TRUTH)... apk
Illogical of YOU to ask ME to do something when you evade this challenge -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> You also erroneously said I couldn't block BOTH domains & subdomains initially - NOW, you admit hosts can do that (lol), so... What's your point?
That you fail vs. myself, constantly??
That you ask ME to do things, when you can't VALIDLY disprove my points on hosts giving users more speed, security, reliability, & far more vs. blatantly technically inferior browser addons + even fixing DNS redirect security issues, evading that challenge constantly?
Good point (the evidences are here all throughout this exchange to that effect - fact IS fact, TRUTH is TRUTH)... apk
See the title on that link? It's "You're welcome to disprove this Ash-Fox" (can't you read??).
APK
P.S.=> Evidently not... apk
They DO give users more speed, security, reliability, anonymity & more + more efficiently with less "moving parts" complexity AND room for breakdown (or exploit) than any SINGLE addon (& yes, the fix up DNS redirect security problems too) - period.
A-C = true, & you *can't* prove ANY of it wrong/off... again, period.
APK
P.S.=> On your "D" section:
You're measuring in ms (try ns instead, use a hi-res timer to do it, will take a program you write to do it).
Additionally - You *already* ADMITTED I can block BOTH entire DOMAINS + subdomains using hosts - so WHY would you state what you did, again?
You *claim* a "fix" with using TCP over UDP for DNS locally (which eats more power AND DOUBLES YOUR OVERHEADS) this is an INEFFICIENT "fix" & lends again to MY POINT that hosts can do what DNS can, using less cpu, ram, & other forms of I/O, less complexity (by hosts doing the same with less) & room for breakdown OR EXPLOIT!
Lastly - the anonymity portion of hosts ONLY extends to DNS request logs really but, it's a point that's there in FAVOR of hosts too nevertheless...
...apk
Why no problem? Hardcoded favorites in hosts files vs. TW DNS going "down" & this fixes it for users via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...
* :)
ALL FOR FAR LESS:
1.) RESOURCES CONSUMED THAN A LOCAL DNS SERVER
2.) LESS electrical power & higher bills
3.) LESS cpu
4.) LESS ram
5.) LESS other forms of I/O consumed too
That DNS uses more of (especially on a 2nd computer)!
AS WELL AS LESS:
6.) OF A LEARNING CURVE ... PERIOD.
7.) LESS MOVING PARTS COMPLEXITY
8.) LESS ROOM FOR BREAKDOWN
9.) LESS ROOM FOR EXPLOIT DNS HAS
APK
P.S.=> Source article from /. was this a couple days ago & my solution? Works (for less but doing far MORE) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/story...
... apk