Slashdot Mirror


Google Now Automatically Converts Flash Ads To HTML5

An anonymous reader writes "Google today began automatically converting Adobe Flash ads to HTML5. As a result, it's now even easier for advertisers to target users on the Google Display Network without a device or browser that supports Flash. Back in September, Google began offering interactive HTML5 backups when Flash wasn't supported. The Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools for the Google Display Network and DoubleClick Campaign Manager created an HTML5 version of Flash ads, showing an actual ad rather than a static image backup. Now, Google will automatically convert eligible Flash campaigns, both existing and new, to HTML5."

188 comments

  1. Time for an AdBlock patch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Go go go!

  2. No wonder. by roc97007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have flash turned off (who doesn't?) but lately I've noticed that ads have begun to autoplay again.

    So, how do you make html5 "always ask first"?

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:No wonder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't. Mozilla has replaced their HTML4 parser with a HTML5 parser. You can no longer disable the HTML5 support without reprogramming the browser.

      Your best bet is to disable scripts and images, although disabling images for particular sites is tricky (but still supported).

    2. Re:No wonder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I use block.

      It's like adblock, but much faster, much lighter, and makes it easy to manage a custom black/white list on top of the normal lists if you're into that.

    3. Re:No wonder. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, will look for that.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    4. Re:No wonder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Link?

    5. Re:No wonder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have flash turned off, though I manually block unwanted elements on various websites. Blocking flash entirely seems a little tinfoil-esque to me.

    6. Re:No wonder. by roc97007 · · Score: 3

      It's not through fear of some diabolical use of flash, it's entirely annoyance with animated ads. Ads should just sit there unless and until I click on them.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    7. Re:No wonder. by AFCArchvile · · Score: 1

      I agree; ads should portray a product or service in a tasteful, non-distracting manner. Unfortunately, those standards were thrown out the window entirely about 10 to 15 years ago, with an ever-escalating arms race:

      - Popup ads
      - Java ads (yes, remember those? The "Punch the monkey and win $20" banner ad from 2000 was one of the most notorious instances of this.)
      - Flash ads (vector-based)
      - Flash video ads (made more prevalent with the increasing consumer bandwidth)
      - And now, HTML5 ads.

      Most of these types of ads had some form of ultimate opt-out:

      - Popup ads: from 2001 onward, an increasing number of browsers received either plug-in or native support to screen or fully disable popup ads. This ultimately made the "window.open" Javascript method taboo in most legitimate website design (and rightfully so; it was abused ad nauseam by ads like X10).

      - Java ads: don't install Java. Unless you want to play Minecraft or use software which (unfortunately) requires Java, this is pretty easy. Alternatively, there are other ways to disable Java, including an Oracle-sanctioned method to disable it via the Java Control Panel: http://java.com/en/download/he...

      - Flash ads: you can set Flash to "click to activate", and never activate it. I'm still waiting for Firefox to natively support HTML 5 playback so I can finally dump Flash on my Windows gaming PC.

      - HTML5: .... .... *crickets chirping* ...yeah. Well, the ball is in your court, browser coders! I remember back in 2001, I switched over to Opera 5.11 (and purchased it!) mainly due to its tabbed browser functionality, and uncanny ability to block any and all unwanted popups. My ideal HTML5 control panel would be something similar to NoScript, which would block various levels of abuse of the audio, video, and canvas capabilities, on a per-domain or per-server basis. (Most canvas abuse is perpetrated via JavaScript, which makes NoScript an excellent tool for defusing annoying redraws, faux-paywalls, ad networks, and other cross-site shenanigans, but for the other HTML5 multimedia elements, I'd like stronger tools to prevent their abuse.)

      --
      "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
    8. Re:No wonder. by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Noscript.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    9. Re: No wonder. by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I use flash block, mostly for cpu reasons.

      It's easy enough to click and activate a specific applet.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re:No wonder. by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Link?

      ublock

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:No wonder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should check out Request Policy if you like NoScript. It blocks third party requests on a first party/third party pairing basis, which seems to work quite well for blocking out ads since the ad networks want to know when their ads are being served, so they almost always come as a third-party request from the site you are really trying to visit.

    12. Re:No wonder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ghostery is a pretty good solution to technology-agnostic ad blocking. It's original purpose is to block third-party tracking bugs, but since ads are often also third-party tracking bugs it blocks those too, at the network request level.

      Until sites start serving their own ads from their own domain (which seems unlikely since that would defeat third-party cookie tracking), blocking off-site JavaScript resources altogether, or using a whitelist as Ghostery does, remains a fine solution.

    13. Re: No wonder. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ghostery makes money by selling data to advertising companies. they are not benevolent.

      you should probably uninstall it.

  3. Google had Flash ads? by ugen · · Score: 1

    Great Scott! It appears I've been leading a sheltered life thanks to AdBlock, Ghostery and the like. I did not expect that level of douchebaggery from them, though. Well, hope AdBlock is ready for this.

    1. Re:Google had Flash ads? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      The assets are still loaded from the same place, so AdBlock should still catch most of them with no tweaking.

      I've been noticing less granular visibility in my HTML5 assets than I used to have in Flash though; Safari is the only browser that has shown me each individual asset being loaded. Adding this functionality into AdBlock/Ghostery/NoScript et al would be a great help.

    2. Re:Google had Flash ads? by afidel · · Score: 1

      In Chrome Menu -> More Tools -> Developer Tools -> click on Resources tab and you can get the individual URL for each image, script, or style sheet for each frame.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Google had Flash ads? by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

      Great Scott! It appears I've been leading a sheltered life thanks to AdBlock, Ghostery and the like. I did not expect that level of douchebaggery from them, though. Well, hope AdBlock is ready for this.

      Yeah, it's like the HORROR the web looks like when you are working on an end user's PC and they only have Internet Exploder.

      I guess there will be HTML5 blocker extensions soon.
      And I'll use them. Why? I hate ads. To me there is NO SUCH THING as an acceptable ad. I will never surf without ad blockers running. And if you don't like it, take your site offline.

      --
      Corporatism != Free Market
    4. Re:Google had Flash ads? by mjwx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Great Scott! It appears I've been leading a sheltered life thanks to AdBlock, Ghostery and the like. I did not expect that level of douchebaggery from them, though. Well, hope AdBlock is ready for this.

      Yeah, it's like the HORROR the web looks like when you are working on an end user's PC and they only have Internet Exploder.

      I guess there will be HTML5 blocker extensions soon.
      And I'll use them. Why? I hate ads. To me there is NO SUCH THING as an acceptable ad. I will never surf without ad blockers running. And if you don't like it, take your site offline.

      And now that its happened, I'm going to blow my own trumpet.

      For all the people who bashed Flash and said HTML5 is our lord Geezus and Saviour, I hope you enjoy it because now that you've more or less killed flash all the things flash was being used for (I.E. annoying the living shit out of you with ads) is now in HTML5. The problem is, Flash was a plugin, you cold block it completely at that level and easily select the bits you wanted to play. Now with HTML5 the ads and annoying videos are part of the code so in order to block them you need to parse the code. This means advertisers can get even trickier in hiding ads as part of the content and ad blockers are going to have to wrestle with a higher number of false positives.

      If you thought adwords was annoying, wait until you have adword videos in HTML5 (and if I've thought of it, you can bet that someone with less scruples has too). So you've killed flash and all the evil that was in flash is not moving to HTML 5 where it'll be easier to hide and harder to block. There's your victory, drink it in.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Oh great ... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Thanks, assholes, now we're going to have to figure out how to block this crap in HTML 5.

    Will someone please kick the Google CEO in the crotch?

    I'm tired of the internet being shat upon by asshole marketers.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Would you rather go to a pay model?

    2. Re:Oh great ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd rather go to a "Autoplay site owners should be beaten into comas" model, myself.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Oh great ... by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'd rather go back to having unpersonalized penis enhancement ads. They made me much more comfortable than the customized penis enlargement ads I get now. :(

    4. Re:Oh great ... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you rather go to a pay model?

      False dichotomy. "No ads" and "ads that pop-up or auto-play without permission" are not the only alternatives. I have no problem with text ads, and I don't mind non-flashing banner ads. Not all marketers are assholes.

    5. Re:Oh great ... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Would you rather go to a pay model?

      Tell you what.

      First, we'll kill all of the people who run analytics companies, and destroy all of their data.

      Then we'll pass sane consumer protection laws which limit what they can collect about you, and what they can do with it.

      Then we might start to talk about how to pay for the internet.

      Right now on Slashdot as I type this, Google, Ooyala, Rpxnow, Scorecard research, Janrain, Double Click, Comscore ... all of these entities would be tracking me if I wasn't blocking them.

      I'm not willing to accept their bullshit "by visiting this site you give us unlimited rights to track, monitor, collate, sell, and otherwise abuse your data". I have no relationship with those companies, and I get no compensation for being their "product". Which means I will block the hell out of anything which is going to help Slashdot profit from douchebags.

      I have no business relationship with these analytics and advertising companies.

      Take these assholes out of the equation, or don't even talk to me about how to fund the internet. I'm not funding someone's website with my personal information.

      Fuck that.

      The notion that some greedy corporation should feel entitled to my data is the problem. Finding ways to accommodate them is not the solution.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:Oh great ... by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that you have no vitriol for the people who run this site... they are the ones who make the decision to employ an ad network in the first place... why no hate for them?

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    7. Re:Oh great ... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Yes. I'm ready to subscribe to a paid website with good content but no ads. As a matter of fact I have subscribed to a couple and didn't regret it a bit.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    8. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't have to go to these sites. Promote a hobby-based internet like it used to be. Start a page for your fellow geeks. Encourage others to do the same. Support organizations like sdf that actively provide non-commercial internet services. There is no reason we have to take it.

    9. Re:Oh great ... by JustOK · · Score: 1, Troll

      A fool and his money are soon targeted for premium membership

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    10. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no problem with text ads, and I don't mind non-flashing banner ads. [Nevertheless], all marketers are assholes.

      FTFY

    11. Re:Oh great ... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Thanks, assholes, now we're going to have to figure out how to block this crap in HTML 5.

      did you seriously think that the decline of flash would equate to fewer ads? at least with flash you had a "click to run plugin" option.

    12. Re:Oh great ... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I'd rather go to a roll my own model for everyone. I do it now....

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    13. Re:Oh great ... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Would you rather go to a pay model?

      False dichotomy. "No ads" and "ads that pop-up or auto-play without permission" are not the only alternatives. I have no problem with text ads, and I don't mind non-flashing banner ads. Not all marketers are assholes.

      Yeah, the 99% give the other 1% a bad name.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    14. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is not one site on the Internet that has become worthwhile due to the extra revenue that comes in through advertising. Every decent Internet site has another source of revenue (sales, subscription, donation, academic, funded by contributors, &c.).

      Anyway, nobody has a right to profit. I'm not refusing ads - my browser simply isn't requesting them. If I stood on a soapbox in the street, holding a banner, I can't force you to turn your eyes to the banner just because you hear me speak when you pass. It's my problem for choosing to speak, not your problem for not turning your eyes. Stop being so fucking entitled.

    15. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People should be given the option for commercial sites. Free with adds, or paid with no adds.

      Of course, problem is you'd end up with pay TV mark II: free-to-air with adds, or paid up front... with adds. So I'm guessing we're stuck with the adds/addblock arms race.

    16. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...to reply to myself: actually I'd happily settle for adds, so long as they (a) are not targetted (so no tracking) and (b) don't pop over, pop under, pop in-front, follow the screen, scream on mouse over or generally act like dicks.

    17. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These two need to be said again loud and clear:

      ...nobody has a right to profit... Stop being so fucking entitled.

    18. Re:Oh great ... by aevan · · Score: 1

      So we should mark you down as approving the new beta?

    19. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People should be given the option for commercial sites. Free with adds, or paid with no adds.

      Of course, problem is you'd end up with pay TV mark II: free-to-air with adds, or paid up front... with adds. So I'm guessing we're stuck with the adds/addblock arms race.

      There really is no arms race. Ads have been trivially defeated for years now, and the same will go for HTML5 based ads.

    20. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes.

    21. Re:Oh great ... by vandelais · · Score: 2

      or the customized penis ensmallment ads I get.

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    22. Re:Oh great ... by RobertJ1729 · · Score: 1

      It's like you didn't even read his/her comment.

    23. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ads are going to all come from Google ad domains. Your ad-blocking software is already blocking them.

    24. Re:Oh great ... by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I'm not funding someone's website with my personal information.

      Exactly. Now just enter in your name, where you live, and a creditcard number.

    25. Re:Oh great ... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ditto. I miss the old days. Yes, what are some good HTML5 blockers?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    26. Re:Oh great ... by lgw · · Score: 1

      There's a world of difference between "serving ads" (which I don't mind if they're not animated), and "tracking me". The latter should carry the death penalty. People will still pay for online ads tailored to the content of the site instead of the browsing history of the user.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    27. Re:Oh great ... by vettemph · · Score: 1

      I've only seen penis reduction ads claming that I could get laid more often if my penis wasn't so scary huge. go figure. :)

      --
      The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
    28. Re:Oh great ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah? Well I get ads personalized by Chuck Norris.

    29. Re:Oh great ... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Example: There's one website which streams Senate and Lower Chamber political debates and meetings in my country. It's subscription-only. You gain access to full HD audio-video streaming plus a large archive stretching 10+ years back. No ads, no delays, available 24/7.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    30. Re:Oh great ... by Reziac · · Score: 1
      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  5. flash blockers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now I need an HTML5 blocker?

    1. Re:flash blockers by dysmal · · Score: 2

      Just use Lynx

    2. Re:flash blockers by ShaunC · · Score: 5, Informative

      The FlashBlock extension for Firefox has an option for "Block HTML5 video as well." Silverlight, too.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    3. Re:flash blockers by Chas · · Score: 1

      The FlashBlock extension for Firefox has an option for "Block HTML5 video as well." Silverlight, too.

      I actually didn't know that.

      Thanks for the info!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    4. Re:flash blockers by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work for me, not on Slashdot at least. I went to this link the other day and I got a black box with the usual flashblock symbol but the video still autoplays in a layer behind the black box. I double checked and I do have "Block HTML 5 video as well" checked. Maybe it literally only works for video, not audio?

    5. Re:flash blockers by Gort65 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try out Flash Control, which does block both Flash and HTML5 videos, and not just on YouTube.

    6. Re:flash blockers by rHBa · · Score: 2

      Yup, that works. Please mod parent +1 Informative...

  6. Free at last! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These ads just want to be free and express themselves! Now that we have standards based technologies to support them, they will no longer be censured by the masses!

    Huzzah!

  7. Thank you! by darkain · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While everyone else is bitching about ads being displayed (hey, adblock targets the CONTAINER, not the AD itself, so it is still blocked, just like static images were before!)...

    I'm extremely THANKFUL for this! Seriously, can we not count the number of end-user exploits that have been transmitted through Flash advertising on some of the worlds largest and most visited web sites!? Adobe and the Flash platform have a horrendously bad reputation in the security market. As someone who has to constantly fix other people's computers, this is a much MUCH welcomed change!!

    oh wait, shit, what am I saying... less broken computers = less paychecks for me... FUCK. NNNOOOO, BRING THE FLASH BACK!!! :-O

    1. Re:Thank you! by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      I hope you're joking, I've known enough IT guys who intentionally used bad software for job security. Or allowed things known to be broken to catastrophicly fail so they could swoop in and be the "hero".

      For those who seriously think that way....

      http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

      The same amount of $$ and work would be much better off making things better.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    2. Re:Thank you! by The1stImmortal · · Score: 1

      First up, breaking things in order to bill for fixing them is horribly unethical and unacceptable.
      That said, in the Parable of the Broken Window, the glazier still benefits. If you're the kind of person to try this you probably don't care about the opportunity cost to the rest of society or the one you're billing since you now have the money in your hot little hands...

  8. Flash was cool in the begining by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Originally, Flash was wonderful technology. Scalable vector graphics with sound and animation are still not available in the main stream interface market.

        Adobe completely blew it by trying to charge device makers for Flash Player installs on phones and devices. If they had given the player for free every device would have used Flash for their main interface.

        Additionally, feature creep, brought to us by the creeps at Adobe bloated the player and opened up huge security holes...

        Bottom line, Adobe is a bunch of a$$holes looking for a way to screw anyone dumb enough to buy their cruddy products.

       

    1. Re:Flash was cool in the begining by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      I love this rant, because it's so true, but it immediately struck me: Why is it that the same company that makes the darlings-of-the-industry Photoshop and Illustrator also makes the pariah-of-the-industry Flash? I vaguely remember that Adobe bought flash from Macromedia, but still, they reached a point where they said "Push forward on the stick and let's auger this baby in..."

      I love a good train wreck.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
  9. Just Remember by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I cannot even begin to count the number of commenters here who pushed HTML5 as the best way to end, once and for all, those incredibly invasive and annoying Flash ads.

    You got exactly what you were asking for.

    So long as business is on the web, there will never, ever, ever be a technological "solution" to online advertising. There's simply too much money at stake for that to happen.

    --

    Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    1. Re:Just Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long as business is on the web, there will never, ever, ever be a technological "solution" to online advertising./quote

      Why? Can't the businesses who have thrown away money on Internet ad campaigns figure out that it was money wasted?
      Can't we all just wake up to the fact that the victims of the Internet advertising scam are the dupes who pay for the advertising?

    2. Re:Just Remember by Lab+Rat+Jason · · Score: 1

      +1

      That is all.

      --
      Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
    3. Re:Just Remember by Lennie · · Score: 1

      The only other solution I can think of is some kind of micropayments system, like with a cryptocurrency.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    4. Re:Just Remember by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I cannot even begin to count the number of commenters here who pushed HTML5 as the best way to end, once and for all, those incredibly invasive and annoying Flash ads.

      I remember what they were doing is pushing HTML5 as a way to deliver rich content that oftentimes was not supported on $favoriteOSSplatform due to reliance on proprietary plugins. HTML was supposed to help maintain the (original) spirit of the Internet as a platform-agnostic information source.

      They forgot that once they get access to the content, those same companies now also have a way of delivering marketing content to the audience.

    5. Re:Just Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure there is a solution. Let carriers require advertisers to pay for the bandwidth they squander. Ach, but no, that wouldn't be "Net Neutral"

      Yeah, it's really those darned p2p'ers, using bandwidth they paid for, and spread over multiple pipes, that are really the problem.

    6. Re:Just Remember by sysrammer · · Score: 1

      The trouble is, when it works, it works.

      --
      His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
    7. Re:Just Remember by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I cannot even begin to count the number of commenters here who pushed HTML5 as the best way to end, once and for all, those incredibly invasive and annoying Flash ads.

      You got exactly what you were asking for.

      So long as business is on the web, there will never, ever, ever be a technological "solution" to online advertising. There's simply too much money at stake for that to happen.

      Except things are different now.

      With HTML5, you have a LOT more control over everything. With Flash, it was all or nothing. An HTML5 ad is still an ad, and it still can be blocked in the same way other ads are blocked.

      But your browser can do a lot of things you can't do if it was flash - e.g., your browser can easily block popups (something a lot harder to do on a flash ad). If a flash ad takes too many CPU cycles, you're SOL, but the browser can easily go and limit the CPU cycles an HTML5 ad uses.

    8. Re:Just Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, let users charge for the CPU cycles and mental focus advertisers squander. There ARE technical ways to implement something like this.

    9. Re:Just Remember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That last was sarcasm, for those so impaired. Never had the Big C, a telecom, or an ISP give me a hard time about p2p, and don't expect to. I've seen fatheads espouse that view on /. though.

    10. Re:Just Remember by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Well, I didn't want HTML5, because I didn't see any benefit (to me). Instead, it was obviously about ads and SaaS.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:Just Remember by zr · · Score: 1

      this isn't a solution against advertising, its a solution to forced flash which is a common attack vector for malware.

      kudos google.

    12. Re:Just Remember by rsborg · · Score: 1

      I cannot even begin to count the number of commenters here who pushed HTML5 as the best way to end, once and for all, those incredibly invasive and annoying Flash ads.

      You got exactly what you were asking for.

      So long as business is on the web, there will never, ever, ever be a technological "solution" to online advertising. There's simply too much money at stake for that to happen.

      Flashblock does to HTML5 and Silverlight what it does to Flash. It blocks it.

      The only difference between today and 2 years ago is that nowadays some browsers (Firefox, Safari for sure) block Flash by default (assuming you're not on the latest version plugin - which resembles 90% of people I know). This must be impacting the bottom line of online advertisers.

      We're back to not relying on the browser to auto block ads and to use plugins like block and Flashblock (I go one step further and use facebookblocker but that's just me) to keep ourselves from being spammed.

      The only problem is that mobile users are now going to use more bandwidth and get ads in return.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    13. Re:Just Remember by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1
      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    14. Re:Just Remember by Lennie · · Score: 1

      Yes, that is similar. Thanks, I had forgotten the name of it.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
  10. Tracking Protection by jader3rd · · Score: 1

    The way to block ads, is to black list certain third party sources for web pages. That way regardless of the technology used behind the ads, it's never requested for.

  11. Don't complain about 'the Intenet' by beanpoppa · · Score: 1

    Complain to the sites that you like that only have an ad-supported model. THEY choose to fund their sites through ads.

    1. Re:Don't complain about 'the Intenet' by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      It's not necessarily the ads, (hell, I've clicked on a small static ad once or twice) it's the way they're implemented.

      Let's take for example a company that will remain nameless but their initials are Seattle Post-Intelligencer. It's not that their website contains ads. It's that the pages take so long to load even with fiber to the house, and the ads autoplay, or pop over full page with hidden "dismiss" buttons, or pop under and autoplay (yes, I know I already said "autoplay") to an extent that it resembles a porn site.

      ...which makes me wonder, is there some balancing point where ads conflict with content to the extent that consumers start to get driven away until you've reached some maximum level of people dumb enough to continue to try to use the site? Because I have a feeling that they're way past that.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    2. Re:Don't complain about 'the Intenet' by itzly · · Score: 1

      How about I just don't come back to that site ?

    3. Re:Don't complain about 'the Intenet' by Misagon · · Score: 1

      It is not about having ads, but the nature of the ads. Ads that blink, flash, have lots of moving objects .. and worse of all: play sound.

      There is a reason why some browsers have had the feature to disable GIF animation for many years. Until recently, the majority of animated ads were made in Adobe Flash, which you could have configured as click-to-play.
      With HTML5 and the most popular browsers, there is no click-to-play.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
    4. Re:Don't complain about 'the Intenet' by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      That works too... However depending on the quality of their market research. They may just think that their content is driving people away. If you let them know that you like the site, except for the fact that they are too many add and you choose not to use them. Then you make sure they get the message.

      There was a site, that I was visiting for a long time. Then they had an audio add. I complained to the site owner, they quickly fixed the problem.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    5. Re:Don't complain about 'the Intenet' by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Don't complain about those sites, script and cookie block them and never return, also if you have a free moment, target the advertising agency and their scripts and cookie block them and if you have a moment more to spare, go to the product or service site and script and cookie block them. You know sending out a passive aggressive email to all in those in the firing line probably would not hurt either, the web site, the advertising agency and the seller, let them all know that you loathe them and will be doing everything reasonably possible to deny them any income not only coming from you but also those you associate with.

      So it their ads are pissing you off, let them know how much they are pissing you off and let them know you will be actively marketing against them from now on, not only in personal expenditure but in broader social exchanges with others and avoiding the out of control corporations in question.

      It is up to people to set limits upon abuses by basically economically abusing the abusers.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  12. Is this supposed to be good or bad news? by Chelloveck · · Score: 2

    On the one hand, I know flash is bad and HTML5 is good. And even though advertising is bad it follows that advertising in HTML5 must be less bad than advertising in flash.

    So, um... yay?

    --
    Chelloveck
    I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  13. Too CPU hungry by Blaskowicz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Single thread CPU performance stopped improving a good while ago - or more strictly speaking it goes up very slowly. Please.. these ads will only make everyone's life worse.
    End result, everyone will have to block ads. I'm not buying a new motherboard, CPU and RAM to have the PC not struggle under the load of ads.

    1. Re:Too CPU hungry by itzly · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe Intel can make a special core dedicated for ads ?

    2. Re:Too CPU hungry by afidel · · Score: 1

      Most rendering engines aren't single threaded, and most browsers use GPU acceleration. However, on mobile adding a bunch of animations will surely lower battery life, so I just switched from Chrome to Firefox on my Android device as animated and sound filled ads are evil and Chrome mobile lacks extension support.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Too CPU hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe Intel can make a special core dedicated for ads ?

      Good news! They've already added specialized hardware support for just such an occasion!

    4. Re:Too CPU hungry by hojo · · Score: 1

      I was getting so pissed with my Acer Aspire netbook I was going to buy a new ultrabook, mostly because I would hit rlslog and the browser (Chrome) would hang for about 3-4 seconds before I could start to scroll down the page. I assumed this was because the processor was underpowered. It's a 64 bit AMD chip running at 1.3 GHz, though, and I have it upgraded to its maximum capacity of 8 GB of RAM and I'm running with an SSD.

      This was making me crazy--no other pages were causing issues as routinely. I did some investigating and figured out the problem was some advertising javascript, and I could not find a good way to restrict Chrome from running it.

      But since switching to Pale Moon 64 bit and disallowing javascript on rlslog, the little machine is truly as fast as any other computer I've ever used. I run ublock and NoScript on Pale Moon 64 and this thing FLIES, even with 30 tabs open.

      This simple change of browsers has literally saved me $1000 in upgrade costs.

    5. Re:Too CPU hungry by phorm · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the HTML5 version be less CPU-hungry than the flash app-container-plugin version?

    6. Re:Too CPU hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It can be the adCORE! Best of all it should convert all instructions to NOPs and route all output to the Null device. Now throttle the clock all the way down to 0.00000000001 MHz with no access to cache. Oh, and the whole thing runs in a sandbox with no permitted access to mass storage, RAM or the OS.

    7. Re:Too CPU hungry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds feasible. Color. Colour.

  14. When will finance.google.com support html5? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be nice if all of google would update all of their own sites first.

  15. Macromedia was evil first by jlv · · Score: 1

    Bitching about Adobe only accounts for the last 10 years of Flash vulnerabilities. But, don't forget Flash was created by Macromedia, which was far more evil than Adobe. Macromedia used to not have an uninstaller for Flash, because they didn't want you to be able to uninstall it!

    1. Re:Macromedia was evil first by jlv · · Score: 1

      Oops... this reply was meant to be in response to "Thank you" above.

  16. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  17. Macromedia was evil first by jlv · · Score: 1

    Bitching about Adobe only accounts for the last 10 years of Flash vulnerabilities. But, don't forget Flash was created by Macromedia, which was far more evil than Adobe. Macromedia used to not have an uninstaller for Flash, because they didn't want you to be able to uninstall it!

    (this is where my reply meant to go, but I screwed it up and added it as a separate comment below)

  18. Re:Exactamundo & easiest/best way by rHBa · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately hosts file can't prevent me seeing your posts.

  19. Great news for Android, bad news for iOS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is great news for Android users who bought their device for Flash support, only to have Adobe drop it.
    This is horrible news for iOS users who bought their device to avoid the crap associated with Flash.
    Screw you, Google.

  20. Re:Flash was NOT cool in the begining by jlv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scalar vector graphics and sound are cool, but Flash was not wonderful technology. Adobe was not to blame; they just bought the existing monster.

    Flash was foremost a huge CPU waster. And an easy to use vector for all sorts of security exploits (because the original code from Macromedia was an abomination).

    And don't forget, Flash was so important you shouldn't even be able to uninstall it.

  21. Worst company on Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do so many so called geeks love this company so much? It's a fucking advertising company and it will do anything it can to put ads in front of you. If you told me 15 years ago that the most popular company on the web would be a company whose main business was selling web ads I'd've laughed in your face but here we are. Fuck google and fuck its advertising network and fuck its penchant for tracking web users so it can sell them more and more and more ads.

  22. Re:I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... ap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a lame reply on your part. Obvious weak trollery.

  23. Flurry.com by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 0

    I do read ToS's and Privacy Policies of programs and services (Samsung there's not enough time to claim what's wrong, you need to read on your own and there are many different ones).

    Angry Birds (Rovio.com) at the time had a very informative Privacy Policy, and where I came across Flurry.com the first time. Rovio collects your data, sells it to Flurry.com (Google) which in turn sells data to those who target ads as only Google can.

    I was able to block Flurry.com with a HOSTS file, they then moved the site to a different address a HOSTS file can't block, so entered Flurry as a key word in my router.

    You can and should Opt out of Flurry.com from your cell phone (mobile devices), it's permanent not a cookie.
    Requiring at one time a very hard to find number, now found in "about device", Sorry I don't have the link and Flurry blocked.

    If your one that doesn't have that number available, there is a program on Google play that's sole purpose is to show you that number (a developer tool),

  24. All I need to know: Faster or Slower? by eepok · · Score: 1

    So what does this mean for me?

    Ads and privacy concerns aside, does this mean that if I unblock ads for a site to help their revenue, will these HTML5 adds be less CPU-intensive than the Flash ads? Will they decrease in size (bandwidth concerns on smartphone)?

  25. Flash & JAVA exploits .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    What I want to know is, how all these technological innovators managed to make PDFs, Flash and JAVA allow security exploits on our 'computers'. I thought the 'sandbox' was supposed to provide protection.

  26. I was enjoying the web being quiet... by Benanov · · Score: 1

    Dammit. As a flash refusenick for years I've gotten used to the quietness of the modern flash-free web. Now I have to investigate ad-block technology again.

  27. Re:Flash was NOT cool in the begining by unrtst · · Score: 1

    Scalar vector graphics and sound are cool, but Flash was not wonderful technology.

    There was a lot of great stuff in it. ActionScript was WAY ahead of javascript for a long time, implementing fairly cutting edge ECMAScript.
    The old interface was very simple and very easy to use with keyframes and animation and sound syncing etc etc... if that's what you wanted to make, it was pretty great.

    Flash was foremost a huge CPU waster.

    It grew into that, and really only once it was abused in awful ways. Simple stuff used very little CPU, and by that I mean P133 level CPU could handle it just fine.

    IMO, the single biggest factor / thing that should have been done different : the plugin/player should have been open sourced. I'm not going to claim it would have solved all their problems, but things like dragging their feet on 64bit support for YEARS would have been solved, and I'm sure it would have got some assistance in other ways, and probably some forks for good measure, and wider platform support. DRM is a large part of why this didn't happen, and it's the second thing I would have change (they shouldn't have including that in it; let someone else implement that in actionscript and add some way to optimize actionscript better, for example).

    On the HTML5 side, we're re-living some of the same mistakes. Where's the easy to use controls for what a page can do, and what I can dynamically enable/disable?

    The only reason adblock (and similar) work is because ads are still counting impressions the same way they always have. It's be easy to change that technically by either:
    a) deliver the ads proxied through the site, so they are sourced from the same IP.
    b) deliver the site through the ad network. IE. treat the ad provider as a CDN and deliver the entire page content through it, and let them integrate the ads.

    "a" would make impressions difficult to track (no secure way to do so).
    "b" would require site operators to give up more control, but they'd also gain a CDN for free, and they could use that for caching as well to greatly reduce their own bandwidth. I don't know why this hasn't been tried.

    In any case, we need proper controls, not filters.

  28. Website is cost of doing business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having a Website is a cost of doing business these days. It is a service they offer. Just because some company has a website that costs them money doesn't mean they have carte blanch to collect my meta data. If they want my data, they can pay me for it, otherwise I will use ad blockers. They can pay-wall me if they want, so long as they delete my meta-data in return.

  29. Re:Exactamundo & easiest/best way by rHBa · · Score: 2

    Luckily greasmonkey userscripts are great for that sort of thing:

    // ==UserScript==
    // @name noAPK
    // @namespace noAPK
    // @description Attempts to hide posts by APK on Slashdot
    // @include http://slashdot.org/*
    // @include http://.slashdot.org/*
    // @version 1
    // @grant none
    // ==/UserScript==
    var posts = document.querySelectorAll('.commentBody');
    var pattern = /apk-hosts-file/im;
    Array.prototype.forEach.call(posts, function(el, i){
    if(pattern.test(el.innerHTML)==true) {
    el.style.display = 'none';
    }
    });

  30. Which is worse? by JRV31 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Flash or HTML5,if HTML5 is crapware and Digital Restrictions Malware rolled into one.

  31. I remember when Slashdot said they would *NEVER*.. by acoustix · · Score: 1

    ...have flash ads. That promise lasted less than a year. Now the site is full of crappy flash ads. I called the owners out on it and they tried to pass the blame onto the ad network. There was a very easy fix for that...

    Too many times crappy flash ads have crashed the flash plugin or spread malware/viruses.

    --
    "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
  32. Goodbye Flash! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even though HTML5 will circumvent a lot of ad block I really prefer HTML5 which will be kinder to page loading in the long run. The ads I don't mind, its the time it takes to load those pesky Flash ads that bother me most. I don't use AdBlock ever since they did a deal with Google ads. That to me is dealing with the very source of ads to begin with. Its like asking a car thief how to stop him from taking your car. The other week I actually tried using a browser with no plugins and was quite surprised at how many common web sites do default to HTML5 video if you eliminate the Flash plugin. The next plugin that needs to go in Silverlight and I personally believe Microsoft will make its death quick and painless as content providers like Amazon and Netflix who use Silverlight are already working on dropping it. I know a few stragglers using XP and older browsers will have issue still with a HTML5 format. But let them get into the next generation of OS and browsers already. After all Windows 10 will be free! Plus, all modern browsers are free to install and use. No excuse not to get with the program!

  33. Re:I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... ap by occasional_dabbler · · Score: 3, Funny

    These are all great opinions, but before I can take frequent contributor *apk* seriously, I need to know what opinion on 'hosts' is held by Frequent Contributor (TM) BENNET HASELTON!?!

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "we have a protractor"
  34. Re:AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows host file is a piece of shit Acrylic DNS supports RegEx and I could block the list on their site using a fraction of the space.

  35. DNS = full of security holes + tracking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Kaminsky redirect flaw + DNS Amplification attacks anyone? You waste more power using a local DNS and add complexity for users (regex isn't for regular users asshole, hosts are easier by far to understand) plus using more cpu cycles, ram, and other forms of I/O with the more moving parts DNS installs entail. There's also DNS request logs hosts get you around (and hosts lighten up DNS server loads by using hardcoded favorite sites, which DNS admins should love). You fail.

  36. Intrusive by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
    Google ads on Slashdot have become so intrusive on Android mobiles it is not actually possible to use the web site any more!

    Nothing to do with Flash, the popup covers most of the screen on my Note3, and there is no obvious way to get rid of it other than leave the site. I thought it was a varus, til I found I did not have the problem on other sites.

    This is a major achievement in the foot shooting league.

    Posted from my PDP8 using an ASR33.

    --
    Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    1. Re:Intrusive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ads?

  37. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    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, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS 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 messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (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

  38. DMCA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would make the assumption that a company that creates a flash ad owns that content. Isn't it a violation of the DMCA for Google to use their content in a way not approved by them?

  39. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  40. I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Result? W. Palant RAN after he wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google & Others Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in 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 the OS itself also)... apk

  41. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    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, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS 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 messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (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

  42. Ask yourselves these questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can adblock do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

    1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (beyond malicious ads: See 2-10 next)
    2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop communication to C&C servers
    5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
    6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
    7.) Protect vs. trackers
    8.) Protect vs. spam
    9.) Protect vs. phishing
    10.) Protect vs. bandwidth caps
    11.) Get you past a dnsbl
    12.) Keep you off dns request logs
    13.) Speed up websurfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
    14.) Work on ANY webbound app (think stand-alone email programs) multiplatform.
    15.) Give you easily texteditor controlled data for the above
    16.) Do all that & block ads (better than addons) more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

    * ANSWER ="NO" to each above on AdBlock doing it as well or at all!

    APK

    P.S.=> AdBlock does FAR less than hosts do & FAR less efficiently - hosts by way of comparison, do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

    AdBlock's 4++gb & 100% CPU usage flooring inefficiency -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... + ClarityRay defeats it + it 'souled-out' & is crippled by default paid off to not do its job http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    AdBlock adds complexity/room for breakdown/exploit + from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

    For the BEST hosts file?

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    ... apk

  43. I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Result? W. Palant RAN after he wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google & Others Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in 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 the OS itself also)... apk

  44. rHBa "hides" what he can't validly disprove by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this is what you FAIL on http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

    * I'm glad "little 'wallys'" like YOU are unable to prove my points on hosts wrong!

    ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU HAD TO *TRY* TO "HIDE" THE LAST 2 TIMES I POSTED THIS YOUR WAY, lmao http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... & HERE TOO http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... via bogus downmods... clearly, that's "the best you got" & it = ZERO, like you!

    (... & you "effetely hiding" my posts? GOOD - that way, I don't have to DEAL with YOUR LAME ASS, ever again!)

    APK

    P.S.=> LMAO @ you, boy - you can't validly + technically prove me wrong: & THAT, truly is, THAT... apk

  45. I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Result? W. Palant RAN after he wrote me by email 1st saying "hosts are a shitty solution" to which I replied:

    "Show us adblock can do more for added speed, security, reliability, & anonymity than hosts can, + that adblock does it more efficiently than hosts"

    Which on my latter 'point-in-challenge' on efficiency AdBlock's proven by research to be MASSIVELY inefficient -> https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth... & adblock does FAR less than hosts (especially crippled by default).

    I sent Wladimir Palant that challenge in response to his statement from 2 different email addresses I use!

    Result = Still no answer from him in regard to my challenge put to him to this very day MONTHS later - that tell you anything? It did me!

    He knows his addon is less efficient & features laden by FAR vs. hosts - Wladimir Palant RAN like a scared rabbit!

    ClarityRay's also DESTROYING AdBlock - via native browser methods to DUMP what addons you use (it can't DO THAT to hosts files).

    I only tell it how it is on hosts' superiority vs. AdBlock - Funny part is, Wladimir Palant running does too!

    Especially considering "Almost ALL Ads Blocked" has 'souled-out' -> Google & Others Pay Adblock Plus To Show You Ads Anyway: http://news.slashdot.org/comme... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...

    APK

    P.S.=> Bottom-Line: Hosts = a superior solution that also fixes DNS redirect security issues (vs. browser addons & their inefficiencies + messagepassing overheads as well as myriad lack of abilities hosts have from 1 file that's part of the IP stack itself - faster, more efficient, & less redundant as well, since TCP/IP has 45++ yrs. of refinement & optimization in 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 the OS itself also)... apk

  46. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    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, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS 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 messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (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

  47. Exactamundo & easiest/best way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    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, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS 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 messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (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

  48. Block ads/threats most efficient way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    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, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS 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 messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (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

  49. This stops Google's ass easily by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    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, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS 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 messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (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

  50. Firefox for Android FTW by Duckman5 · · Score: 1

    Amen to that. I finally had to make the switch, too. The ads and Javascript everywhere were just too much to bear on my tiny screen. There's even a version of NoScript for mobile Firefox .
    I tried AdBlock Plus but it broke updates for MedScape and a couple other apps that I need. The Firefox addon version works like a charm, though.

    1. Re:Firefox for Android FTW by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      Try AdFree, AdAway, or minminguard (an Xposed module).

      I believe the first two require full root, the module works with either temproot or full root.

      Minminguard blocks the API calls in apps directly, so they can't even call for the ad download (thus no ads get downloaded period).

      AdFree and AdAway work with the HOSTs file, so it is also recommended to have a HOSTs editor of some sort if you need to manually make adjustments.

      I use AdFree and see very minimal amount of adverts - on the mobile version of Slashdot for instance, I only get the static ads in between the post and the comments section, and none of the annoying, moving, flashy, sound-filled ads.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
  51. Awsome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my adsense account is going to go through the ROOOF. :)

  52. Re:I asked AdBlock's creator those questions... ap by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    These are all great opinions, but before I can take frequent contributor *apk* seriously, I need to know what opinion on 'hosts' is held by Frequent Contributor (TM) BENNET HASELTON!?!

    There are good contributors, there are bad contributors, there are plenty of truly horrendous contributors: but there can be only one Frequent Contributor.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  53. Flash almost done... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay! Flash is almost done!

  54. How I see it. by NotFamous · · Score: 1

    All you ad-base are belong to us!

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
  55. Re:Exactamundo & easiest/best way by JimMcc · · Score: 1

    Oh for mod points. That would be a +1 funny.

  56. AdBlock = Inferior + 'Souled-Out'... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-1 32/64-bit:

    http://start64.com/index.php?o...

    FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more with less, more efficiently vs. addons + fixes DNS' redirect security issues:

    ---

    A.) Hosts do more than:

    1.) AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/... & ABP too http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... )
    2.) Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
    3.) Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/commen...

    B.) Hosts add reliability vs. downed/redirected dns (& overcome site redirects e.g. /. beta).

    C.) Hosts secure vs. malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... w/ less "moving parts" complexity

    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, Kaminsky redirected (99% ISP DNS' = unpatched vs. it), DGA, Fastflux, & dynDNS 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 messagepassing (use a few concurrently & see) & are nullified by native browser methods - It's how Clarityray's destroying Adblock.

    * Addons slowup slower usermode browsers layering on more - & bloat RAM consumption + excessive cpu use too (4++gb extra in FireFox https://blog.mozilla.org/nneth...)

    (Instead, work w/ a more capable native kernelmode part you already have - hosts (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

  57. Re:Exactamundo & easiest/best way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's unfortunate you can't prove apk wrong on anything troll...

  58. Re:Exactamundo & easiest/best way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's funny is how off topic you are unable to prove apk wrong.